A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous liberal atta

[teapartysamurai]

Since it's a blog that would be opinion, thus taken with a grain of salt.

yes, and nile gardiner is a political commentator from the heritage foundation.

so all this bullshit about journalistic standards do apply to this political hack how?

you'll have to ask the spouter callybrat for that.

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

 

[California Girl]

Since it's a blog that would be opinion, thus taken with a grain of salt.

Except for the inconvenient fact that the Telegraph employs a standard for its bloggers. This is what separates them from the likes of the HuffPuff - who employ no ethical standards whatsoever for anyone.

The blog is factually accurate.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has been a hugely shameful week for sections of the American Left, who have exploited a horrific tragedy that claimed six lives, in order to advance political attacks upon some leading conservative politicians and media commentators, as well as an entire political movement in the form of the Tea Party. The vitriolic and hate-filled attacks have marked a low point for liberal media elites in America in the 21st century, even to the extent that President Obama himself, probably the most liberal US president of modern times, felt the need to rebuke this undignified and crass display of left-wing finger-pointing in his memorial speech in Tucson on Wednesday night.

And after all the accusations against an array of prominent public figures from Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, to Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, it emerged that the deranged shooter, Jared Loughner, was in no way influenced by political rhetoric, and indeed had no interest at all in politics. As Charles Krauthammer noted in The Washington Post, “rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence”.

I have compiled below a list of some of the most egregious examples of Leftist hysteria over the past week. It is by no means an exhaustive list – this list could easily be expanded to 20 or 30 further instances, especially crude statements from liberal politicians. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was among the very first to link the mass shooting to conservatives, and two of his hugely irresponsible pieces feature in the list below. The list also includes a major article from American Guardian writer Michael Tomasky, as an example of how the Left-wing vitriol of the last week emanated not only from the east and west coasts of the United States, but also in some cases from across the Atlantic.

So here is my top 10 list, which Telegraph readers will no doubt wish to add to in their comments.

Read the list here:

A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous left-wing attacks on US conservatives following the Arizona shootings – Telegraph Blogs

It pretty much fits the bill.

Can I also add to this list the hypocrisy that cross hairs on counties caused this, but somehow gun sights are okay?????

Wonder when those lying fucks will apologise for what they said?

If ever.

 

[G.T.]

But, can't comment on his competence.

Trying to have it both ways?

Stand behind the guy and yet not?

Are you serious right now?

There's no both ways.

Agreeing with a statement from someone, is not agreeing with their whole body of work........ and saner minds know that, you're just being a hack plain and simple.


By the way, there's nobody more ironic to be up on this "scoring cheap political points!" soap-box than YOU.

No1 on this site that I can rattle their name off the top is as big of a hack as you are. Sorry.

So you admit you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent.

Just saying!

No, I said I'm not judging whether or not he's "competent," at all, by agreeing with his statement. Why's that hard?

 

[rightwinger]

RealClearPolitics - Video - AZ Sheriff Blames "Vitriol" From Palin On Rep. Giffords Shooting



Pima County Sheriff now blames Rush | The Right Scoop

You were saying???

When you have people like Sharron Angle in Las Vegas running against [Harry] Reid making outrageous statements such as we may need to resort to taking the second amendment in certain cases, for people like Sarah Palin to say we have people like Gabby Giffords in our cross hairs, they are irresponsible not without consequences and we be seeing the fruit of it here," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said on FOX News.

Damn...the man is good

Spot on as usual

So now that you stop the lie that Dupnik never mentioned Republicans, you admit, not only do you know he did, you agree!

Thanks!

He mentioned specific instances of violence centered vitriol....and yes...they happened to be Republicans

Surprise....Surprise......Surprise

 

[G.T.]

Since it's a blog that would be opinion, thus taken with a grain of salt.

Except for the inconvenient fact that the Telegraph employs a standard for its bloggers. This is what separates them from the likes of the HuffPuff - who employ no ethical standards whatsoever for anyone.

The blog is factually accurate.

This blog does not exemplify having a standard.

 

[G.T.]

This has been a hugely shameful week for sections of the American Left, who have exploited a horrific tragedy that claimed six lives, in order to advance political attacks upon some leading conservative politicians and media commentators, as well as an entire political movement in the form of the Tea Party. The vitriolic and hate-filled attacks have marked a low point for liberal media elites in America in the 21st century, even to the extent that President Obama himself, probably the most liberal US president of modern times, felt the need to rebuke this undignified and crass display of left-wing finger-pointing in his memorial speech in Tucson on Wednesday night.

And after all the accusations against an array of prominent public figures from Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck, to Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, it emerged that the deranged shooter, Jared Loughner, was in no way influenced by political rhetoric, and indeed had no interest at all in politics. As Charles Krauthammer noted in The Washington Post, “rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence”.

I have compiled below a list of some of the most egregious examples of Leftist hysteria over the past week. It is by no means an exhaustive list – this list could easily be expanded to 20 or 30 further instances, especially crude statements from liberal politicians. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was among the very first to link the mass shooting to conservatives, and two of his hugely irresponsible pieces feature in the list below. The list also includes a major article from American Guardian writer Michael Tomasky, as an example of how the Left-wing vitriol of the last week emanated not only from the east and west coasts of the United States, but also in some cases from across the Atlantic.

So here is my top 10 list, which Telegraph readers will no doubt wish to add to in their comments.

Read the list here:

A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous left-wing attacks on US conservatives following the Arizona shootings – Telegraph Blogs

It pretty much fits the bill.

Can I also add to this list the hypocrisy that cross hairs on counties caused this, but somehow gun sights are okay?????

Wonder when those lying fucks will apologise for what they said?

If ever.

What they said deserves an apology.

 

[California Girl]

Since it's a blog that would be opinion, thus taken with a grain of salt.

yes, and nile gardiner is a political commentator from the heritage foundation.

so all this bullshit about journalistic standards do apply to this political hack how?

you'll have to ask the spouter callybrat for that.

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting point.... the Telegraph employs quite strict journalistic standards on its bloggers. Nice list. I laughed at the shit from Jane Fonda. I had not heard that shit before. She's an ass.

SNIFF Tuna fish...................... What proof do you have that the "Telegraph employs quite strict journalistic standards on its bloggers?"

Go and find out for yourself. Idiot. I'm not here to teach an idiot... I don't speak your language.

A claim you won't back up with evidence is a baseless claim. You're notorious for making baseless claims. That's certainly your privilege here, but I would think that putting yourself in the credibility category of, say, a teapartysamurai, would not be high on your do-list;

it is however what you're accomplishing.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Since it's a blog that would be opinion, thus taken with a grain of salt.

Except for the inconvenient fact that the Telegraph employs a standard for its bloggers. This is what separates them from the likes of the HuffPuff - who employ no ethical standards whatsoever for anyone.

The blog is factually accurate.

This blog does not exemplify having a standard.

oh, a standard for sure. but what kind of standard.

and since this obnoxious smug brat has stated that she did not read a full huffpuff article i would like to know how she knows about the ethical standards and factual accuracy of the many bloggers of the huffpuff.

basically, callybrat does what she does best, huff and puff a lot of self-righteous hot air.

 

[G.T.]

yes, and nile gardiner is a political commentator from the heritage foundation.

so all this bullshit about journalistic standards do apply to this political hack how?

you'll have to ask the spouter callybrat for that.

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

Allowing your bloggers to inject opinion is the lack of standard everyone's telling you about. That it's opinion based in fact or not doesn't change that, it's injecting an opinion at all.

 

[L.K.Eder]

yes, and nile gardiner is a political commentator from the heritage foundation.

so all this bullshit about journalistic standards do apply to this political hack how?

you'll have to ask the spouter callybrat for that.

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

do go on, when conversing with TPS you will actually stand a chance, phony.

 

[mudwhistle]

ote=California Girl;3215721]

SNIFF Tuna fish...................... What proof do you have that the "Telegraph employs quite strict journalistic standards on its bloggers?"

Go and find out for yourself. Idiot. I'm not here to teach an idiot... I don't speak your language.

A claim you won't back up with evidence is a baseless claim. You're notorious for making baseless claims.

.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, CG does not make baseless claims. You may not agree with them, but she picks her battles. And she doesn't even bother arguing a point she can't prove.

 

[georgephillip]

Among other things Reagan began the process of emptying mental institutions largely as a cost cutting device.

Jerry Brown continued the policies when he took over a California's governor.

I saw the effects of this firsthand in the early 80s when I was working and living in skid row hotels in downtown Los Angeles.

The first of every month many of the mentally/emotionally challenged living on skid row became something akin to an endangered specie when they left their rooms to cash their monthly stipend.

It was bad then and that was before crack made its debut.

 

[WillowTree]

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

do go on, when conversing with TPS you will actually stand a chance, phony.

That's a good idea because TPS actually makes more sense than you do which makes conversation more meaningful.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Are you serious right now?

There's no both ways.

Agreeing with a statement from someone, is not agreeing with their whole body of work........ and saner minds know that, you're just being a hack plain and simple.


By the way, there's nobody more ironic to be up on this "scoring cheap political points!" soap-box than YOU.

No1 on this site that I can rattle their name off the top is as big of a hack as you are. Sorry.

So you admit you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent.

Just saying!

No, I said I'm not judging whether or not he's "competent," at all, by agreeing with his statement. Why's that hard?

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent, which leaves your judgement about the statement in question, OR you think the guy's compentent enough to make such a statement.

You can't have it both ways.

WHY IS THAT HARD FOR YOU????

 

[G.T.]

ote=California Girl;3215721]

SNIFF Tuna fish...................... What proof do you have that the "Telegraph employs quite strict journalistic standards on its bloggers?"

Go and find out for yourself. Idiot. I'm not here to teach an idiot... I don't speak your language.

A claim you won't back up with evidence is a baseless claim. You're notorious for making baseless claims.

.

Sorry, CG does not make baseless claims. You may not agree with them, but she picks her battles. And she doesn't even bother arguing a point she can't prove.[/QUOTE]

weeeeeeeeeelllll, she *did* say that there's no such thing as 110%. Just saying.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Damn...the man is good

Spot on as usual

So now that you stop the lie that Dupnik never mentioned Republicans, you admit, not only do you know he did, you agree!

Thanks!

He mentioned specific instances of violence centered vitriol....and yes...they happened to be Republicans

Surprise....Surprise......Surprise

So your entire string of claiming it's just republicans whining has been shot to hell, surprise surprise!

 

[L.K.Eder]

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

do go on, when conversing with TPS you will actually stand a chance, phony.

That's a good idea because TPS actually makes more sense than you do which makes conversation more meaningful.

i guess my posts fall below your standard.

 

[G.T.]

So you admit you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent.

Just saying!

No, I said I'm not judging whether or not he's "competent," at all, by agreeing with his statement. Why's that hard?

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent, which leaves your judgement about the statement in question, OR you think the guy's compentent enough to make such a statement.

You can't have it both ways.

WHY IS THAT HARD FOR YOU????

No, see, I'll break it down for you douche towel:

Incompetent people, can make true statements.
Competent people, can make false statements.

Judging a statement, by itself, does not address the point (at all) whether a person is competent....at all..................it's simply a judgement on the statement.

It's plain................................it's simple....................and you just.........can't.......compre.......hend