Are Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to blame for left-wing vulgarity from the likes of blogger Amanda "%$@#" Marcotte, late of John Edwards presidential campaign blog? That's the argument from Time senior writer and columnist Joe Klein, now writing at Time's Swampland blog.
"As a newcomer to this blogging business, I've been interested in the Edwards dust-up. As readers know, I've been critical of the tone of the left-wing blogosphere in the past. But I think that Yglesias raises an important point here and anyone reading the comments section of any Swampland post knows that troglyditic right-wing cavedwellers fester there, in a vomitously vile manner, too.
"And I'd add this: Radio. I was driving into Springfield, Ill last night for the Obama festivities and caught the ever-vile Sean Hannity 'interviewing' the even-more-vile Dick Morris about Hillary. Just disgraceful...and they were mild compared to the crap I've heard from Rush and others over the years.
Klein's February 10 post didn't blame the left for its own nasty behavior, portraying the inflammatory lashing out of lefty bloggers as some kind of battered-child syndrome caused by years of abuse from Big Daddy Limbaugh:
"It's obvious that the current level of vitriol on the left is a reaction to nearly twenty years of sewage emanating from Rush et al. It's also a product of the times: There's a whole generation of people who believe that serious political discourse consists of Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift screaming at each other. The intemperance on the left has three other sources (1) justifiable fury over the Bush administration (2) justifiable fury over the way the media treated Clinton and, to a certain extent, Bush and (3) ideologues of any sort tend to be obnoxious."
Clay Waters is director of Times Watch, where he keeps track of the liberal bias of the New York Times.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


















Comments Policy
Right
February 15, 2007 - 10:43 ET by iveseenitallKlein is sooo right. If guys like Limbaugh and Hannity would just "shut up", everything in the world would be back in balance. I have an idea. Why don't we just put them in jail for what they say? Or have the government fine them. Or have Hillary propose a bill banning "conservative" talk. It might pass.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
And we could have govenment s
February 15, 2007 - 11:17 ET by FastEdAnd we could have govenment sponsored radio and tv, with the "Best of the Left" as a theme - problem - radio would be air-check noise and tv would be color bars, but ya' know, would be better then listening or seeing them. ;>}
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
The more I hear or read Klein
February 15, 2007 - 10:55 ET by GalvanicThe more I hear or read Klein, the less I care for him.
Why Not Take Some Personal Responsibility For A Change?
February 15, 2007 - 11:01 ET by emjem24I just love how Klein whines how it's all the nasty Right's fault for why the far left bloggers are irresponsible and shrill. That's like saying it's the store's fault for why the shoplifter stole a pair of shoes. Give me a break. These people, as Michelle Malkin has often said, are "unhinged." That's it. They can't stand competition from either Rush or Hannity, perhaps what each man says rings true and stings a little but they'll deny it, and they're just plain hateful and anti-Americana themselves. Next, they'll demand the fairness doctrine for the net as well and try to block all right leaning bloggers seeking balanced and fair discourse.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Correct
February 15, 2007 - 11:11 ET by iveseenitallCorrect, emjem24. It's a shame that so many people still don't understand the liberal mentality the way you do. They cannot stand the truth if the truth contradicts their ideology. But the worst is that they are so hypocitical about it. Butter doesn't melt in their mouths, as long as you agree with them. If you don't, and you are right, they get vicious. Liberals have no soul.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
sewage in, sewage out
February 15, 2007 - 11:06 ET by acumen"There's a whole generation of people who believe that serious political discourse consists of Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift screaming at each other."
Joe - I think you have Buchanan and Clift confused with someone else that first issued the battle cry against civil discourse in January of 1998:
"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy" against President Bill Clinton."
"I do believe that this is a battle," the first lady said.
""Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," Mrs. Clinton said."
It's gone steadily downhill from there Joe. Primarily because of folks such as yourself, that blame the shortcomings of your party leaders on the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. Or as your soon to be anointed Presidential candidate labels "this vast right-wing conspiracy".
The difference between the two sides that you fail to acknoledge Joe, is that when conservative politicians act with indiscretion their base demand they resign. When liberal politicians act with the same lack of discretion their base demands a pep rally.
Unlike yourself Joe, I'm not an authority on what constitutes sewage but something certainly smells unpleasant with your application of the term.
Sen Clinton cannot blame th
February 15, 2007 - 11:49 ET by JDWSen Clinton cannot blame the vast right-wing conspiracy for him not having sex with her.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Clay, I found this to be a really funny statement by Klein.
February 15, 2007 - 11:07 ET by acaiguanaClay, I found this to be a really funny statement by Klein.
"The intemperance on the left has three other sources (1) justifiable fury over the Bush administration (2) justifiable fury over the way the media treated Clinton and, to a certain extent, Bush and (3) ideologues of any sort tend to be obnoxious."
I would respond to Mr. Klein as follows (responding to Mr. Klein is one reason I like the NB website).
The intemperance on the Left has even three other souces (1) a failure to express ideas that can capture an audience in the Radio market as exemplified by Air America (2) endemic anger and frustration that has to be expressed through the frame of victimhood due to a complete failure to stifle dissent (3) smug intellectual confidence that they are the smartest people in the room which frees them from being labeled the 'ideologues' that they truly are and continue to be regardless of their failures to convince.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
The left
February 15, 2007 - 11:34 ET by iveseenitallAbsolutely. Even without knowning them, I'd bet the I.Q.'s of the NB bloggers average at least 20 points higher than those on the left. The MSM's average has got to be just above 100. Couric, Lauer, Olbermann, Matthews, Russert, Scarborough, Cronkite, Mike Wallace, Rather, et.al. are far from bright people. And the politicians--Reid, Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, Hillary, Osama Hussein Obama, Gore,and the rest are below to average in their brain power, their maturity, and their mentality. Now, let's consider the Hollywood Einsteins---Alec, Barbra, Sean, Tim, Susan, et.al., with nothing but air between their ears. Yet the left thinks it can run the world and tell bright people to keep quiet. Bull S#%t!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Generous with the numbers ive
February 15, 2007 - 12:02 ET by FastEdGenerous with the numbers ive - I'm thinking they MIGHT add up to that 100 you give them. Proof - they still think they rule the roost, due to the fact that most people have followed their lead, so to speak, in listening to what they had to say in the last election cycle. However, as more and more people move their news gathering AWAY from the msm (Lsm), they will learn too late what agenda driven ideology does to their audience. Unfortunately, it is a slow process, so maybe we can allow them their little time in the sun.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
You are soooo right! Very hi
February 15, 2007 - 13:37 ET by blarsenYou are soooo right! Very high IQ's all over the place here. The NB intelligensia are overwhelming....I mean, very, very bright people and not only forward thinking but expressive of new ideas that leave most of us lefties simply agog, bobbing around in your mental wakes.
"You gotta catapult the propaganda".
"Money trumps peace". -George W. Bush
Blarsen, your statement is in
February 15, 2007 - 14:15 ET by MikeBBlarsen, your statement is in fact correct. If you wish to post on issues with your intellectual peers, I suggest you slink on over to DailyKos or HuffingtonPost. From what I've seen when I've checked on them, most of you lefties are simply agog whenever you have a new idea impinge on your consciousness. And, judging from the crankiness of your and other liberals posts, any thinking you do results in a huge headache.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Here's some help for your poo
February 15, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberHere's some help for your poor choice of using the word "intelligensia" in your feeble attempt to be clever.
I find it amusing that someone like you, who has been taken to the woodshed by dumbass Rednecks like me on more than one occasion, finds it necessary to wave their privates (poorly-endowed, of course) at everybody here. Humility, and more likely common sense, is definitely not your strong suit.
I said "intelligensia". You
February 15, 2007 - 14:58 ET by blarsenI said "intelligensia". You put the pseudo on, but I like that definition better. Much more appropriate.
From your linked definition: "People who talk a load of shit and think it is somehow profound."
Thanks shrub for helping me put a finer point on a poison pen!
Speaking of points, "arse", d
February 15, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Uncle JohnSpeaking of points, "arse", do you have one (other than the one on the top of your head)?
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Hey there Unca Toilet! Nice
February 15, 2007 - 15:15 ET by blarsenHey there Unca Toilet! Nice of you to chime in with your own inimitable brand of intellectual humor!
Since you don't know me from
February 15, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Uncle JohnSince you don't know me from Adam, you're obviously talking out of your arse. Here's a thought - grow the F up. And you obviously don't have a point because you didn't answer the question.
For my money, you have the intellectual firepower of a lobotomized gnat. But if you're cool with bringing a plastic spoon to a gun fight, knock yourself out. Ultimately, you being you is your own punishment for the candy-a$$ed BS you spew here. You're dismissed.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I guess my "point" eluded you
February 15, 2007 - 17:11 ET by blarsenI guess my "point" eluded you. Here it is in plain English: you're all a bunch of lemmings who rarely have an original thought, who do nothing but ditto whatever drivel somebody before you said and would be willing to jump off a cliff if George W. Bush told you to!
Do you understand that or do I need to spell it out even more?
I have yet to see you have an
February 15, 2007 - 17:17 ET by NL207I have yet to see you have an original thought posted here. Your stuff is just the same old warmed over lib talking points. You've ducked me like the plague and ACA handed you your ass. If we are such foolish lemmings, then surely such a brilliant mind as yourself should have no difficulty demolishing all of our arguments. But you haven't. In fact, you've been humiliated. That would suggest that it is YOU who is the lemming and it is your silly ass leftwing notions that are in error, wouldn't it.
Hey there NL207 (if that is y
February 15, 2007 - 17:43 ET by blarsenHey there NL207 (if that is your real name), I don't recall even responding to ANY of your posts let alone ducking you. Give one of your brilliant arguements on anything and I'll see what I can do. Here I'll help get you started. The Iraq War was started on faulty intelligence, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush declares : "Mission Accomplished", there was no yellowcake uranium in Niger, Valerie Plame was outed by someone in the Bush Whitehouse.....GO!!
Some folks think ignoring a r
February 15, 2007 - 18:30 ET by NL207Some folks think ignoring a responding post is about the same thing as 'ducking'. Care to put this idea to a vote here? You ducked.
The present Iraq war is just an extension of the unfinished Gulf War. It was re-started as part of the larger strategy to eliminate or constrain not just not Al Qaeda but all of the other Islamofascist terrorist groups as well, any one of whom are capable of an outrage such as 9-11 was.
It is clear from the administration's statements that it believes that the terrorists receive official support from several national governments, unofficial support from some publicly unidentified collection of states, and private support from numerous individuals numbering into the millions residing in many countries whose governments are "friendly", providing no support, official or unofficial, to these groups. We all know who the "axis of Evil" are. But there are other, covert suppliers.
The larger strategy for dealing with the Libya-Syria-Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan problem has developed as we have observed. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was a no brainer since they were directly harboring the closest thing Al Qaeda itself has to a headquarters. But the question is then what to do about the others?
Saddam was the answer. In 2002, there is not one free state in the Gulf. All were some form of despotism. But one of them was already in a technical statye of war with the United STates, Iraq. The first Gulf War never really ended. The cease fire's continuation was dependent on Saddam meeting a variety of terms and conditions which he never met. For example: Saddam was shooting at aircraft in the no-fly zones. Furthermore, Saddam was circumventing the arms embargo against him by engageing in massive fraud, bribery and corruption with officials of the UN, France Germany and Russia in the Oil for Food scandal.
Bush's strategy is to eliminate Saddam as a threat, and he most certainly was a threat. The notion that there were no terrorists in Iraq and Saddam had no links to terrorists is one of the big lies that has been foisted on the people by the left. There were plenty of terroists in Iraq and receiving funds from Iraq. In Saddam's place, Bush has theorized we can erect a free governmemnt that derives its power and authority from a mjority coalition of the Iraqi people. The strategy postulates that a free people in Iraq will both oust the terrorists from Iraq and keep them out as a matter of self preservation and the presence of a free state in the midst of all these despots will destabilize both Iran and Syria, who have restive, resentful populations, eventually causing the Baathist dictator, Bashar Assad, to be ousted and the fall of the Ayatollahs from power.
As things stand now ... The Taliban are ousted but not totally destroyed. Al Qaeda is doing more running and hiding than attacking US interests outside Iraq. Saddam has been hung. Muammar Qaddafi has renounced terrorism and WMD. That leaves just three of the original axis of evil: PRoK, Iran, and Syria plus their lackeys Hezbollah and Hamas. Not bad for the stragety of a President you call an idiot.
I just wrote a big long thoug
February 15, 2007 - 19:40 ET by blarsenI just wrote a big long thoughful post to answer your post and my access was denied and everything was lost.
I think you bring up some great points, although I happen to think things have become worse in Iraq not better.
I'll try to be more specific if I can later, but I want you to know I appreciate your arguement .
Just wanted to weigh back in.
February 16, 2007 - 01:13 ET by blarsenJust wanted to weigh back in. The first Gulf War was about Iraq invading Kuwaiit because Saddam claimed Kuwaiit was slant drilling under the border and stealing his country's oil. It was only an extention in that Bush wanted to supposedly finish something his father couldn't or wouldn't. I agree with you regarding Saddam's corruption and the oil for food fiasco. I hope we aren't setting up something like that currently in North Korea. Nobody was sorry to see Saddam go, but I think we should have got more information out of him before his hasty execution. Saddam wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. He despised them. There are other Sunni monarchies that may have supported them though. This is what happens when you have a government controlled by religious factions. Iraq may have an election, but that they are not yet what we would call a democracy. The problem is you have two factions that believe the other one needs to be totally annihilated. If you think it's okay for our military to be involved in their civil war that's fine. I just don't think we should be paying for it with American life. If the theory behind a free Iraq was that they would oust the terrorists then they should fight their own battles and so far they've been slow to take the lead. We've given them four years of training, how many more America lives are you willing to give them?
Blarsen, I'm not really inter
February 16, 2007 - 02:14 ET by mastersofdeceitBlarsen, I'm not really interested in getting involved in the exchange going on here. But just to clarify " finish something his father couldn't or wouldn't ". The decision not to take Bagdad was one of those diplomatic UN decisions that 41 agreed to.
In Colin Powells own words:
" I got criticized for 12 years for not going to Baghdad. No matter how many times you told them [lowers his voice to a whisper], "We were never going to Baghdad. The President didn't say go to Baghdad. The UN didn't say go to Baghdad." We had Egyptian and Syrian troops with us. We couldn't go to Baghdad. It was never the plan. The plan was to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Guess what? We kicked the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Clear mission, clear objective, we accomplished it, we finished it. "
Thanks for the insight and a
February 16, 2007 - 11:45 ET by blarsenThanks for the insight and a great Powell interview!
BTW, Here's a quote from 41:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
And seizing Paris in WWII cos
February 16, 2007 - 12:27 ET by BDAnd seizing Paris in WWII cost us similarly.
Should we bring the Germans back to power there?
Still A Troll Always A Troll
February 15, 2007 - 17:20 ET by emjem24Listen carefully, Blarsen (I wouldn't want to confuse that tiny little liberal mind of yours). You do nothing but inject the same old Bush hate speach that you have always done. You are insane of you think any of us will buy your spiel. Why don't you do all of us a favor (though we'll try really, really hard not to tear up) and go hang out at Daily K or Huff n' Puff? You know you want to. You're a terrible bore, I've reported you several times for objectionable things you say (hope you don't reproach your children with that impolite mouth), and I will continue to do so until you're gone. You're not HONEST and I don't deal with dishonest people who on a daily basis makes it their mission in life to spout the talking points of the looney far-left. You are just like hater except you're a little less vulgar and that's about it.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
It's great that you dems have
February 15, 2007 - 17:30 ET by FishFace222It's great that you dems have ideas but why are you so scared to let everyone know what they are ala John "I have a plan" Kerry in the '04 election. Is it because taxing more and socializing everything wouldn't go over very well?
There are no lemmings here. If you watch long enough, there are plenty of people that disagree with GWB on things i.e. the socialization of prescription drugs, not going after Sandy Burglar for stealing classified documents (copies and originals), not going after William Jefferson for accepting bribes ($10,000 in his freezer?).
Unlike libs that believed anything and everything that Clintoon said, at least until the stained dress showed up (a vast right wing conspiracy for sure).
Look fishface---If you have p
February 15, 2007 - 18:22 ET by blarsenLook fishface---If you have problems with Sandy Berger, or William Jefferson than blame your party's Department of Justice. These are your people that let Berger off with a misdemeanor so take it up with your republican brethern. The Jefferson case is still pending and it wasn't $10,000 it was $90,000. Do me a favor and get your ducks in a row before talking about something you no next to nothing about. As far as the socialization of prescription drugs goes, I hope you never have to go on blood thinners, h-blockers or anything else for that matter, on a regular basis and NOT have any insurance. Trust me, they are very expensive. My friend's son died of a rare blood disease called histiocytosis. They had no insurance and the treatments cost $1200 a month, and that was for the drug ONLY-- not the hospital stay when he was admitted.
Not Our Problem Blarsen
February 15, 2007 - 18:39 ET by emjem24Not to sound callous here, blarsen, but boo freakin' hoo! Why didn't your friend have insurance? Why? There are a couple of states that have public insurance programs, perhaps he could have gone on one of them? I'm sorry about your friend's kid but where was the research? Did the kid's parents do any research as to where to get perhaps experimental treatment, apply for medicaid/medicare, or apply for one of the pharmaceutical company-aided public drug programs. There are scientists out there still finding cures for these little-known diseases every day as well as geneticists doing research to find how these diseases originate. I watched my own grandfather die of heart disease and he was a dirt poor farmer. Blarsen, take your own advise and reveal all the sob story details before launching into said sob story. There are lots of people suffering from rare diseases as well as cancer but they do the best they can. They try to live out their lives with as much dignity as they can. Under military insurance, I don't even have a PCM. I don't know why I bother...when you don't get your way you launch out some sob story or about how terrific your kids are...what a guy.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
I hope you never have a devas
February 16, 2007 - 00:25 ET by blarsenI hope you never have a devastating illness with any of your children because it is truly hell on earth. Not everyone has employer provided health insurance and when you own your own business and are trying to live the American Dream, you have mortgage payments, mouths to feed, credit cards to pay off, let alone bank loans, sometimes you think you can make it without health insurance. Until you've lived through it, you really can't know.
I've had a wife with cancer and there isn't much new you can tell me about clinical trials or drug therapies. I doubt you have a wife or kids, just a guess. Most people that do are able to express empathy, something you lack. So stay bottled up in your own little world and watch wrestling on your crummy TV in your little apartment, you have no idea what life is really like.
My apologies on the typo for
February 15, 2007 - 21:28 ET by FishFace222My apologies on the typo for the amount he was caught with. It was irrelevant anyway. You were trying to say that all NBers are lemmings that agree with anything that Bush says. My point is that the Bush administration did nothing about Jefferson or Bergler--examples of where many NBers disagree. The socialization of prescription drugs was a no-win situation. No matter what GWB did, the dems were going to complain about it before the ink was dry after he signed it and after they agreed with the bill as written. My feeling is that he should never have signed it because it will eventually require more and more money and end up being another program that doesn't fix anything. There are other ways to pay for that and health care. The worst thing for all of us is for the government to be involved at all.
Next time, try to follow the point before you spout your ignorance.
As far as your friend's son, my sincerest apologies but again, a government solution is not the best way.
I didn't realize the entire justice department changed
February 15, 2007 - 22:12 ET by SportPoliticsI didn't realize the entire Justice Department changed every time a President was elected. Thanks for that update blarsen.
It's just as kooky as everyone saying the President spent all the money, but I've seen thousands claim that.
It's ok to be an idiot nowadays, the idiots have a majority.
Speaking of the justice Dept.
February 15, 2007 - 22:36 ET by bigtimerSpeaking of the justice Dept...
I heard this today...it is too bad this was not done when Pres. Bush first came in, we would have a lot more done with what really should of been long past...to start with the NYT's and WaPo's classified info. they released on the front pages during a time of war, leaks, Wilson/Plame crap, ...on and on......and I could go on and on...this should of been cleaned out immediately...this is a main reason we are in the mess we are in at the moment in a lot of regards in my opinion...
Better late than never....<sigh>...
I hope this works to those that are interested...
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/06/AR2007020600732.html>
blarsen
February 15, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Dave Rblarsen,
I'd be real careful if I were you. The tolerance level for trolls is in short supply around here today. You don't want this to happen to you:
Dave R. Says:
February 15, 2007 - 11:59
Let me be the first;
Welcome to HELL, Troll.
There.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
reply »
Matthew Sheffield Says:
February 15, 2007 - 12:03
And goodbye to troll.
reply | »
ww thumper Says:
February 15, 2007 - 12:11
matthew...Is it not PAST TIME to rid ourselvs of this stupid troll bngood 404 ??? we sure dont need to read alot of his bull please take "action" really soon....anyone else agree? ww v I AM PRO AMERICAN !=
PRO LIFE!= & PRO VICTORY ! v ww
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
What is the purpose of your p
February 15, 2007 - 18:29 ET by blarsenWhat is the purpose of your post? It looks like a bunch of incoherent gobbledygook. Put together a cohesive thought with a well-defined point and I'd be glad to respond.
You are hopeless blars if you
February 15, 2007 - 18:34 ET by bigtimerHopeless.
Wait am sec...you're a bloomin' leftists...so you think you get a pass in life for brains cells that do not engage ...
Wrong.
"incoherent gobbledygook
February 15, 2007 - 20:33 ET by Jack Bauer"incoherent gobbledygook"
Can gobbledegook ever be coherant?
Skeptical remain I.
blarson,
February 16, 2007 - 07:08 ET by Dave Rblarson,
Just trying to be my usuall helpfull self, 'cause that's just the kind of guy I am. :-)
Matthew had the Rich Text Editor turned off, so I realize the format was a little off, but if ya read it real slow, it makes perfect sense.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
wackoes always respond
February 16, 2007 - 12:44 ET by tumbler_2007If anybody ever tries to stop you from a response, you'd go the the Supreme Court, Beelar.
Glad to respond! Up yours; If you ever contribute anything other than that pus-filled BS you keep stored in your craw, nobody would feel this disgust for you. BTW: What's the purpose of your wanking off here? You're fixated on NewsBusters. We must be doing something right here, since you hover around like a moth.
Hey tumby! Well, I probabl
February 16, 2007 - 14:48 ET by blarsenHey tumby!
Well, I probably wouldn't go to the Supreme Court. I'd probably just invite all my pals from Huffington, KOS, Brad Blog and Wonkette to start posting over here, but I seriously doubt they'd waste their time.
I'm like Michelle Malkin. I'm a pugilist. I enjoy sparring with you guys. You're all my friends...aren't you? What fun is it posting where everyone agrees with everyone else. Someone's gotta bust up the circle jerk once and a while.
blarson, would all your Lib friends rolled up in a ball make 100
February 16, 2007 - 14:55 ET by acaiguanablarson, would all your Lib friends rolled up in a ball make 100 IQ points total?
These are questions I am forced to ask, 'cause that's just the kinda guy I am.
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I agree. It's a win-win: we e
February 16, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. It's a win-win: we end up with a willing, eager recipient of said circle-jerk, and you get your daily thrills being the receptacle of said circle jerk.
this guy a pugilist?
February 16, 2007 - 15:06 ET by tumbler_2007I see, a pugilist.
Canvasback Larsen, more than a legend in his own mind; got himself punched slap-happy and now thinks he's the champ?
Please, spell it out even mo
February 15, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberPlease, spell it out even more.
Spellbound
February 15, 2007 - 20:12 ET by acumenThat might spoil the schlockumentary Shrub......
Shhhhh, Ac.Wait...Damn. I alm
February 15, 2007 - 21:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberShhhhh, Ac.
Wait...
Damn. I almost had an original thought, but it passed.
Sigh.
Ha. Totally funny dude.But I
February 15, 2007 - 20:27 ET by Jack BauerHa. Totally funny dude.
But I think you broke the spell.
Actually George W. Bush tol
February 15, 2007 - 20:19 ET by Jack BauerActually George W. Bush told me to push you off a cliff.
So you'd better not let me find you standing on top of a cliff because I feel strangely compelled to follow orders -- I mean auto-suggestion.
No super life for you.
Ahhh, I was referring to you,
February 15, 2007 - 16:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberYour poison crayon is hardly damaging to anyone but the user.
blarson, you seem to understand IQs pretty good, huh?
February 15, 2007 - 15:23 ET by acaiguanablarson, you seem to understand IQs pretty good, huh?
So, you probably agree with my idea that all politicians and bureaucrats should have their IQs tattooed on their foreheads so we can know immediately what we are dealing with?
I dunno how to do that with bloggers unless we add biometrics to the process and make it a certifiable requirement through some heavy duty grovernment regulation that certifies IQ.
But I'm not overly impressed by the Liberals that come here and start spewing curse words and snide cheap Democrat Talking point Canards about the President or Conservatives.
I'd go on but then I'd be describing the MSM, wouldn't you agree?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Hey guano, I LOVE your tat
February 15, 2007 - 15:32 ET by blarsenHey guano,
I LOVE your tattoo idea...Let's start with Bush! And when did I ever use a curse word?
Too late for Bush, Why don't
February 15, 2007 - 15:35 ET by florida_chadblarson...you dont wanna do t
February 15, 2007 - 15:43 ET by bassndudeblarson...you dont wanna do that. It will only embarass Kerry and Clinton, not to mention Edwards and Pelosi and Kennedy and....inf...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I'm for tattoos for every one of them.
February 15, 2007 - 16:36 ET by acaiguanaI'm for tattoos for every one of them.
As far as your self identification with my comment about Liberals that come here with curse words...
I'd rework my self confidence and self-esteem image there big guy. Where did I accuse you of that behavior?
:^<
<Throwing an edit in here - I notice you typically butcher my handle into a sneer. But that's about what I'd expect from your IQ level. :-) - end edit>
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Hey guano, Get it right fo
February 15, 2007 - 17:18 ET by blarsenHey guano,
Get it right for once in your life. I butcher your handle into a "smear" not "sneer", as if no one here has ever done something like that to me.
If calling ACA names is the b
February 15, 2007 - 17:39 ET by NL207If calling ACA names is the best you can do, then we welcome you to continue since it is the truest representation of what leftwing ideology is actually about. The more people who see silly displays like this, the more will come to see the left for the phoilosphically bankrupt morass of hypocrisy and tyranny that it truly is.
Typical mentally ill drivel:
February 15, 2007 - 11:13 ET by NL207Typical mentally ill drivel: "My negative feelings are somebody else's fault." "You made me feel bad!" Liberals are demonstrating classic symptoms of psychological disorder with remarks like those quoted in this thread. Observing that people who exhibit symptoms of psychiological sickness are by definition, psychologically disturbed, and given that psychological disturbance is a form of mental illness, leads us to the inescapable conclusion that these liberals who behavee this way are mentally ill.
Someday these maladjusted twits will take responsibility for their own feelings and actions. Christians think this day is called 'white throne judgement'.
If Rush and Sean are indeed
February 15, 2007 - 11:28 ET by Dave RIf Rush and Sean are indeed spewing sewage, then the stuff printed in the publication that employs Mr. deKlein must be nuclear waste.
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
Sounds like Mr. Klein needs t
February 15, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Al CzervikSounds like Mr. Klein needs to go back to kindergarten. I think that's when my kids learned that you don't excuse bad behavior by pointing at the behavior of others.
Perhaps he could try this on for size:
"It's obvious that the current level of vitriol on the Right is a reaction to nearly twenty years of sewage emanating from Time magazine et al."
"As a newcomer to this here b
February 15, 2007 - 11:52 ET by old cro"As a newcomer to this here blogging bizness, I've done been amazed at the way you can type things out on a keyboard and totally disregard any responsibility whatsomever of bein involved. Scuse me a minute while I wipe this shit off my shoes."
NOTARS (no offence to any real shitkickers) out there;)
". . .(3) ideologues of
February 15, 2007 - 11:54 ET by FastEd". . .(3) ideologues of any sort tend to be obnoxious." and Klein is leading the pack. If he were REALLY upset with what was going on, then he would have stood up and complained about folks screaming at each other - so I guess he's only complaining now, now that he see's the trend AWAY from the propaganda of the left and is afraid. So Joe, be afraid, truth, for everyone is a scary thing.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
isn't joe klein the newsweek
February 15, 2007 - 12:11 ET by buddycisn't joe klein the newsweek guy who has bounced around and appears regularly on nbc/msnbc?
the postings of the two women who worked for edwards was vile. it is like porn. you know it when you see it. it serves no purpose but to insult someone closely held personal beliefs in the most offensive manner possible. it is like telling someone their mother is a whore for no real purpose except hate.
what hannity says about liberals is sometimes mean and never vile.
what rush says about liberals is either true or funny. it never comes close to vile.
what morris says about hillary is based on years of personal observation, right or wrong. how can it be "vile"?
klein is an idiot.
i urge you to read what these two women have written and compare it to ANYTHING than morris, hannity, rush etc have done. there is absolutely no comparison.