Illustrating Ann Coulter's Point

[Adam's Apple]

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

 

[Dr Grump]

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

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....

 

[musicman]

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....

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

Yeah - pretty weak...

The plain truth can be SO boring.

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Yeah - pretty weak...

The plain truth can be SO boring.

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?

 

[Bullypulpit]

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

Yeah - pretty weak...

The plain truth can be SO boring.

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.

 

[Adam's Apple]

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....

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.

 

[musicman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[musicman]

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?

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

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...


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

 

[musicman]

Op-Ed pieces rarely deserve a rebuttal.

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I go out of my way to answer Adam in a manner that he asked me to, and this is your response.

Very very MM

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I think it is disingenuous that you say "liberals" don't care how many Americans have to die, when it is liberals who 1) Never wanted any troops to go to Iraq in the first place 2) Want them to come home so no more die.

And before you go into the strawman argument that they are over there trying to stop terrorism, remember there was/is no link between Sadman and AQ, so it is BS argument.

Make that a starting point for YOUR thoughts....

BTW, since when has Rupert Murdoch been a liberal? Or Sumner Redstone for that matter...yadda, yadda, yadda....

 

[musicman]

I go out of my way to answer Adam in a manner that he asked me to, and this is your response.

Very very MM

Perhaps you just misread Adam's post. If memory serves, I believe he asked you to...

refute what Limbaugh says in his article with intelligent rebuttal

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. You must have thought he posted, "please post a rambling, pointless, unsubstantive diatribe consisting of 'huh-uh' and 'that's just the whackos - not the centrists' ". No big deal; who among us is perfect?

 

[Dr Grump]

Perhaps you just misread Adam's post. If memory serves, I believe he asked you to...

I'm sure it was an honest mistake. You must have thought he posted, "please post a rambling, pointless, unsubstantive diatribe consisting of 'huh-uh' and 'that's just the whackos - not the centrists' ". No big deal; who among us is perfect?

Ah, right. And your posts since reek of intelligence, wit and downright trail-blazing must-read anecdotes! Where I'm from we call your version of the above ad hominem and/or piss weak...thanks for playing.

 

[musicman]

I think it is disingenuous that you say "liberals" don't care how many Americans have to die

The NYT has just made it abundantly clear that they don't.

when it is liberals who 1) Never wanted any troops to go to Iraq in the first place

And which liberals were these - apart from Ward Churchill, who said that we deserved 9/11? Liberals were for the war before they were against it (translation: they were-shit-scared of looking shit-scared to the electorate before they decided it was politically expedient to thwart the Bush Administration at every turn - even if it meant emboldening our enemies, damaging troop morale, and outright endangering the lives of American servicemen).

2) Want them to come home so no more die.

So, "cut and run" is what you're saying, then? "Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"? How utterly liberal of you.

And before you go into the strawman argument that they are over there trying to stop terrorism...

That's not what "strawman" means.

...remember there was/is no link between Sadman and AQ, so it is BS argument.

You're...AWARE, aren't you, that we're fighting an enemy which transcends borders and nationalities? That Iraq is, basically, the Normandy of the War on Terror - a good strategic place from which to begin actually participating in a war that's been waged on us for the last twenty years? That ALL these bastards are "linked' in their profound wish to see Americans dead?

Make that a starting point for YOUR thoughts....

Point taken; it was a poor choice of words on my part. Let me try again: Let me know when you START thinking.

 

[musicman]

Ah, right. And your posts since reek of intelligence, wit and downright trail-blazing must-read anecdotes! Where I'm from we call your version of the above ad hominem and/or piss weak...thanks for playing.

Come on - admit it - you liked it a LITTLE...

 

[Dr Grump]

The NYT has just made it abundantly clear that they don't.

Really? So the NYT wants Americans to die? Holy heck. I think that is reprehensible on their part. They should hang their heads in shame. Gimme a look at the link you have, just to make sure...

And which liberals were these - apart from Ward Churchill, who said that we deserved 9/11? Liberals were for the war before they were against it (translation: they were-shit-scared of looking shit-scared to the electorate before they decided it was politically expedient to thwart the Bush Administration at every turn - even if it meant emboldening our enemies, damaging troop morale, and outright endangering the lives of American servicemen).

Ah, yes, Ward Churchill! That bastion of credible left-wing rhetoric that most average liberials says speaks for them...:happy2: . They were for the war because they believed the intel was correct (saps). They were against it when they found out at worst the Bush admin was lying (which is virtually impossible to prove in any way, shape or form), at best (IMO) they took what they were told without delving into it, not because they believed the sources but because it told them what they wanted to hear. Pardon the skeptics, cynics and non Bush butt kissers for having an opinion on the subject and vocalising it...

So, "cut and run" is what you're saying, then? "Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"? How utterly liberal of you.

Riiiigghhhttt. I love that last little beauty. Here's a little advice for free: Nobody will EVER win a war on terrorism so how you think can be won would be amusing to read. I wouldn't call it cutting and running so much as "Is one American/coalition life worth defending that shithole known as the ME?". I say, no.

That's not what "strawman" means.

Really? For you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You're...AWARE, aren't you, that we're fighting an enemy which transcends borders and nationalities?

True. Which is why it will never be won. Do I wish that it could be? Absolutely.

That Iraq is, basically, the Normandy of the War on Terror - a good strategic place from which to begin actually participating in a war that's been waged on us for the last twenty years? That ALL these bastards are "linked' in their profound wish to see Americans dead?

No MM the Normandy of the WOT is/was Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. And why do they wish to see Americans dead? You answer that question, and find a solution, then you might get an end to the WOT (pssssttt and it ain't because they think the west if full of infidels, nor are they jealous of the western way of life - so think on it a little)...

Let me try again: Let me know when you START thinking.

At the risk of sounding like I'm in grade school....you first...

 

[Dr Grump]

Come on - admit it - you liked it a LITTLE...

Ah, no. I've seen you do a lot better....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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?

WEll, actually, what you stated is NOT what he said. Its more like, they sit and say, HOW can we do more damage to the Presidency today? And thats for real.

Yea, its so impossilble for the group that has alot of people claiming Bush sent thousands of Americans to their deaths just so he and his oil cronies could get more money, claim " how outrageous that you could accuse us of doing such a thing as the press doing al quiadas job intentionally, why that would lead to thousands of Americans losing their lives"

And then the NY Times follows it up by exposing a LEGAL program that was helping catch terrorists, under the guise of the publics need to know. YEP, I guess they arent doing al quiada's work are they. Yea, it was al quiada operatives who exposed the secret work the administration was doing to track the funds of terrorists. Hmmmmm

 

[nt250]

This is a perfect example of why liberal arguments drive me nuts.

All politicians, and all partisians on both sides, will argue their case. But liberals are always so sure they are right, and have good on their side. When it comes to liberals on message boards, they are all so sure that they are the ones who are fighting the good fight, and the other side is, by it's nature, the bad guy.

So they listen to nobody but themselves and other liberals. They always consider the source of ANYTHING they disagree with, but never question the motives of the left about anything. And the worst part is, they are so sincere in their belief that their attitudes and views of life, religion, and politics are the only correct and moral ones, that they don't even realize they consider themselve so superior, in every way, from conservatives.

To them, there is no double standard when it comes to how Bush, or the Republicans behave vs how Dean, Obama, and Democrats behave. Leaks? Hell, if a leak hurts Bush, or the country, it's just the press doing it's job. Valerie Plame? OH MY GOD BUSH NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED! LET'S HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs Wilson extend their 15 minutes by posing for a photo spread in Vanity Fair magazine while Scooter Libby probably had to refinace his house to pay his lawyers.

Bush's presidency is a perfect example of how liberals really don't have any clear allegience to any real ideals. Their loyalty is more personal, so they tend to give it to people, rather than the cause. They claim they don't hate America, they just hate Bush. Those that will admit to hating anything, that is. Many refuse to admit they hate because to them it isn't hate, it's the truth. They also have a really hard time understanding how people who DO hate, like Ann, can express it so freely. So they call her a liar and defend John Kerry, who has been caught in more lies than any other politican of recent memory.

But that's what liberals do.