Illustrating Ann Coulter's Point

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Jul 1, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Sucker-Punch Immunity
    By David Limbaugh
    June 29, 2006

    On "Hannity and Colmes," Alan Colmes interviewed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama about Dean's latest outburst and related issues. Obama is seen by many as a rising star in the Democratic Party, and fairly representative of the party's "mainstream," if you'll excuse the oxymoron, so his responses are telling.

    for full article:
    http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/archives/2006/06/new_column_suck.html#more
     
  2. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,058
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,244
    I'm trying to think when was the last time I read such a piss-weak column. Then I realised, I don't often read right-wing nutjob blogs. And after reading such a load of crap, I remembered why I avoid such BS....
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533

    "The problem is, the press wasn't doing its job; it was doing Al Qaeda's job."

    Yeah - pretty weak...:cuckoo:

    The plain truth can be SO boring.
     
  4. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,058
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,244
    Yeah, because you know, that is what the press does doesn't it? Sits down during its editorial meetings and goes "Hey, let's do Al Queda's job!" Like that's reality, right? That is the TRUTH, right? :thup:
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Actually, only a few elements of the Fourth Estate are actually doing their jobs and putting the actions of the government on display for critical examination by the electorate. After all, an informed and engaged electorate is essential to the democratic process...And it's the last thing the GOP right wing-nuts and neocons want.

    Most of the so called MSM is content to spout the administration's talking points, with the occaissional foray into the waters of the Deliverance wing of the GOP, critical of Chimpy's handling of border security.

    And don't forget, the New York Times cheerfully parroted the Administration line in the run-up to the fiasco that is Iraq.

    <blockquote>"The problem is, the press wasn't doing its job; it was doing Al Qaeda's job."</blockquote>

    Not just weak...It's utterly empty rhetoric with the only purpose being to rattle the cages of the right wing-nut element of the GOP.
     
  6. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Would you care to refute what Limbaugh says in his article with intelligent rebuttal instead of "piss-weak column" and "BS"? Your posted reply is indeed weak.
     
  7. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    When one of the "actions of the government" is its constitutionally-mandated duty to provide for the national defense, putting secret, sensitive elements of that action "on display for critical examination" is not the press's job - it's the ENEMY'S . For, you see, the NYT can scarcely say, "This information is for the American electorate only. DON'T LOOK, OSAMA!" Their decision to print can only be interpreted as egregiously irresponsible, and motivated by a knee-jerk hostility to this administration. Americans everywhere are now less safe. Thanks a lot, pricks. Hope you enjoyed your "gotcha" moment.

    You're exactly wrong. The ascendancy of conservatism in America has coincided precisely with the defeat of the MSM/DNC monopoly. That cartel's last hurrah was Bill Clinton's survival of impeachment proceedings in the face of clear-cut perjury. The Internet explosion, talk radio, and Fox News now ensure that liberals no longer enjoy exclusive control over the flow of information. You and I are witnessing an informed and engaged electorate such as has never existed in this country. Know what that means? It means liberalism is dead; an irrelevant, quaint relic of the past - like judicial activism.

    And YOU, Bully, are likewise a relic - exiled by your own elitist arrogance.

    See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. There was a time when this kind of arrogant bullshit would fly. That time is over; common sense rules the day. And - for those open to the experience - common sense says that you don't publish sensitive national defense information in wartime unless you're interested in seeing your nation defeated. All the flowery prose in the world can't cover the stench of that.
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Use your brain, Dr Grump. Try to grasp that an entity, such as the mainstream press, will move in the direction in which its ultimate interests lie. The mainstream press is liberal. Any success the Bush Administration is able to achieve in the War on Terror goes, therefore, against liberal interests. Liberalism is ruthless; its principal interest is the acquisition - and then, perpetuation - of power. And it doesn't give a flying shit how many Americans have to die along the way. Power is the only thing that matters. Make this the starting point of your thoughts.
     
  9. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,295
    Thanks Received:
    3,058
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +4,244
    Op-Ed pieces rarely deserve a rebuttal. Most don't. This falls into the latter category, but I'll do it just this once for fun. I mean any Op Ed piece that accuses Dems of hyperbole while at the same time calling them "Bush hating" and says Dean is "spewing bile" doesn't deserve it...but anyway...


    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was spewing bile again this week, this time at a Sojourners Convention in Washington, D.C., where Dean likened the Bush administration's "authoritarian government" to the "McCarthy Era."


    I would not call this spewing bile. I'd call it Howard Dean making a comment. And is it an OTT comment when considering some on here are using retrospective history and are now trying to make McCarthy out to be some sort of hero?

    Such hyperbolic language is nothing new for the Bush-hating left, which has long been painting Bush as a Nazi -- literally -- and an abuser of civil rights. The "Bush is a dictator" theme got a boost with the Supreme Court decision holding -- incredibly -- that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorist enemy combatants. So we can expect a new round of Democratic condemnations of the president. But if he dares to challenge their allegations, they'll accuse him of "stifling dissent."

    Who has been calling Bush a dictator? And don't quote left-wing whack jobs. I'm talking mainstream centrist or leftist politicians or media. In the last sentence Limbaugh doesn't even state what allegations that the Dems will accuse Bush of. Let's pretend they will condemn him for Gitmo (and let's also remember Bush himself has said recently he'd like the joint shut), so what? If he "challenges them" I doubt it'll have anything to do with dissent. He'll give his reasons why it should remain open, they'll disagree. Why would the word "dissent" even come into the picture?

    While Obama said he didn't think the administration was blacklisting its political opponents, he said, "There is a mood in the country where dissent is considered unpatriotic. And I think that's a dangerous move. I think we want to have a situation in which dissent is perceived as part and parcel of who we are as a people and what our democracy is about. And that we can have vigorous disagreements without assuming that, you know, the other side is somehow venal or doesn't love their country."

    So? What is wrong with this statement Dave? I agree, and it shows on these boards sometimes. I never see the the centrists or lefties questioning peoples' patriotic credentials. I see neocons do it all the time. So Obama notices it too and points it out. You say it like it is a bad thing.

    Who is calling whom "venal," Sen. Obama? Democrats slam Bush for years, mostly with outrageously false and venal charges, and then become hysterical when he defends himself. It would be like throwing a sucker punch at someone and being outraged when they hit back, claiming they are suppressing your right to assault them.

    Welcome to the world of Bill Clinton Mssrs Bush and Limbaugh. Clinton deserved some of the crap thrown his way, so does Bush. And again, that emotive language.."hysterical"? Hardly. Again, quote average Dems and Centrists, not leftie whack jobs, and you'll find the average Dem far from hysterical. Politicians generally give out, and are subject to, "outrageously false and venal" charges. It is the nature of the job. To act surprised by it is disingenous and kinda pathetic IMO.

    They may not like it when the president and his supporters criticize some of their indefensible positions on the war and their reflexive opposition to every administration policy, but no one has done anything to chill their speech or muzzle their criticism. I'd like to have one example of a Democrats' venal speech being suppressed by the administration. Indeed, I'd like to have one example of a national Democratic press conference on any subject in which the spokesperson didn't venally attack the president.

    And where in Obama's speech did he say that? He was stating there seems to be a mood in certain quarters that dissent is unpatriotic. Where did Obama say Bush et el were trying to suppress speech? Hint: he didn't. Accusing somebody of being unpatriotic (which even the most unbiased observer must see as a charge that most frequently comes from the right - well on messageboards I peruse anyway) and trying to suppress speech are two different things, one of which Obama didn't mention. That was Limbaugh's bow to draw, and he did. Trying to pin it on Obama is just silly.

    Even if the president had called them unpatriotic for almost always finding ways to oppose his prosecution of the war on terror -- which he hasn't -- such verbal counterattacks wouldn't be censorship. The president has no authority over their First Amendment rights and doesn't attempt to exert any -- and they well know it. In fact, if the president truly were trying to muzzle them and getting these results, he would be anything but too powerful.

    Again, Limbaugh is going on about something that he brought up and is trying to attribute it to Obama for some silly reason. But let's just pretend the above is a Dem plank. The only thing that I have seen concern centrists, Dems, and even some conservatives is how THEIR rights are affected re terrorism legislation. They don't want to live in a world where basically the terrorists have won to a degree, because people are running around scared of their own shadow. Again, what is so bad about that. I mean Obama says "people are saying dissent is unpatriotic" and then in the above paragraph Limbaugh comes out and says (in his own words).."Even if the president had called them unpatriotic for almost always finding ways to oppose his prosecution of the war on terror ". Am I the only one who sees the irony of this? Limbaugh has just proven Obama's point for him. Thanks Dave!

    But Obama wasn't through demonstrating his wrongheadedness. When Colmes asked him about the New York Times' publication of the secret program to track terrorists' finances, Obama -- instinctively siding with the Times as a brother in ideological arms -- attempted to point his finger back at the president.

    See that first sentence? What wrongheadedness Dave? The one where you say Obama said that Bush was trying to muzzle folk when he said no such thing? That wrongheadedness?

    Obama said, "I would advise the president to be cautious about beating up on the press for doing their job. ... My attitude is, let the press do its job ... in fact, a lot of the problems that have arisen in terms of leaks and so forth have to do with just the extraordinary unwillingness of the president and this administration to submit itself to any kind of oversight, from anybody."

    And what is he wrong about? Here Limbaugh tries to give off his opinion of Obama as fact. And Obama is right of course. The Bush admin does not give itself over to any kind of oversight. Some would say it shouldn't due to the sensitive nature of some of the info, others would say the admin puts the term "sensitive" over information that is not sensitive but they do not want the other "political side" to know about. Who knows though - after all it's secret!

    The problem is, the press wasn't doing its job; it was doing Al Qaeda's job. It's the same story: If President Bush responds to his Democratic attackers, pointing out the flaws and motives in their criticisms, he's the bad guy for insulting them. Likewise, if the media publish classified information that will damage the national interest and jeopardize American lives and Bush calls them on it, Bush is the bad guy for criticizing them. This is the ultimate in liberal root-cause extrapolation: The media may have committed treason, but Bush made them do it.

    I mean talk about hyperbole and OTT. The press is doing AQ's job. Yeah, right Dave. How many editorial meetings have you been privy too? See that last sentence - the media have committed treason! Well hell, get out the rope and I'll find a tree! For a start the media don't think they have committed treason, so why would they accuse Bush of making them do something they feel they haven't done? Stupid, stupid, piss weak analogy.

    Colmes next asked Obama whether it was "hurtful" when "Jack Murtha talks about civilians being killed in cold blood by troops." At least you have to give Obama high marks for consistency, albeit in articulating a flawed theme. He said, "What I know is, here's a guy who's served our country. I would never second-guess John Murtha."

    And why would he second guess Murtha? Maybe he could have said something along the lines of "I hope Jack has got his facts right" or "I hope he right in what he has been saying". But even if he didn't, so what? What does Obama have to do with Murtha? How are they related politically (IOW, are they pushing the same issues or should they been seen as one?)

    Once again, if you are a liberal, your statements -- no matter how outrageous -- are immune from criticism. It's just an old-fashioned, unsophisticated intimidation tactic.

    Come across to this messageboard Dave. Speak with Ms Coulter or any other pitbulls in the conservative camp....hell, read your own columns. Yeah, liberals are really immune from criticism. Nobody EVER disses them or criticises them...:rolleyes:


    As I said Adam, a piss-weak piece of piss weak writing...IMO of course..
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Well, then - thank God you haven't actually PROVIDED one. What a collossal waste of time and words THAT would have been.

    Oh - and just for clarity's sake - "nuh-uh" doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
     

Share This Page