The Left's depressing response to the hate speech of Wanda Sykes

[WillowTree]

Look a liberal response, change the subject (preferably to Bush) and attack.

while the conservative response is always hypocritical!

I call. Please point me to my hypocritical response. Since you said ALWAYS.

long long long wait

 

[WillowTree]

Are you advocating that she is censored? Would you like to tweak the First Amendment a little to prevent people from saying those things?

Or are you just advocating that the President stand up and condemn a mean-spirited comment that was said about a conservative commentator? A comment that was spoken by an individual that was not a representative of his administration.

Because, if Obama is required to condemn mean-spirited comments that are made by citizens that are not part of his administration, then he's got a lot of apologizing to do.

He can start here:

I HOPE RUSH LIMBAUGH IS RUN OVER BY A STEAMROLLER AND THEN HIS FLATTENED CARCASS DEVOURED BY HUNGRY WOLVES.

Because that is a pretty mean-spirited comment, if I might say so myself.

It's just so simple.. all he had to do was refrain from laughing at the death wish of a talk show host.. not complicated at all. he is supposed to represent us.. all of us, not just the left not just hollywood,, all of us.. and therefore is expected to act with dignity. wasssup..

 

[Tech_Esq]

and where was your moral high ground when you defended Obama's sitting under that lunatic pastor who said we deserved the 9/11 attacks? (among other things) pot meet the fucking kettle.

Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright's rhetoric. And did he really say 'deserve' or is that a construct of your empty headed biased ignorance? But the point is, you hypocrites don't distance yourselves from the likes of Rush boy because that all is all you have: stone throwers. Do you defend Bush while you criticize Obama? Hypocrite, add elvis to your list.

Why should we distance ourselves from Rush. Rush is usually right. He may be bombastic. He make go well over the top to make specific points (like when he announce he was supporting Ross Perot during the 1992 election and spent the whole first hour in that character just to prove a point.

The fact is that Rush is just a radio talk show host. Sure, he's iconic and successful and a fixture on talk radio since 1988 when he and Roger Ales got together. But, he's no more important than Jon Liebawitz (Stewart) or Cobert or Maher or the rest of the cast of characters on the left. You need to laugh to be entertained. The right can listen to Limbaugh and be entertained. Rush has no more or less of a political message as they do and deserves to be held to the same standards of accountability (or lack their of) as they do.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are you advocating that she is censored? Would you like to tweak the First Amendment a little to prevent people from saying those things?

Or are you just advocating that the President stand up and condemn a mean-spirited comment that was said about a conservative commentator? A comment that was spoken by an individual that was not a representative of his administration.

Because, if Obama is required to condemn mean-spirited comments that are made by citizens that are not part of his administration, then he's got a lot of apologizing to do.

He can start here:

I HOPE RUSH LIMBAUGH IS RUN OVER BY A STEAMROLLER AND THEN HIS FLATTENED CARCASS DEVOURED BY HUNGRY WOLVES.

Because that is a pretty mean-spirited comment, if I might say so myself.

One might say that apologizing is pretty much his stock and trade. Or maybe he can only do that when he leaves the country, not within it.

 

[KittenKoder]

and where was your moral high ground when you defended Obama's sitting under that lunatic pastor who said we deserved the 9/11 attacks? (among other things) pot meet the fucking kettle.

Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright's rhetoric. And did he really say 'deserve' or is that a construct of your empty headed biased ignorance? But the point is, you hypocrites don't distance yourselves from the likes of Rush boy because that all is all you have: stone throwers. Do you defend Bush while you criticize Obama? Hypocrite, add elvis to your list.

Why should we distance ourselves from Rush. Rush is usually right. He may be bombastic. He make go well over the top to make specific points (like when he announce he was supporting Ross Perot during the 1992 election and spent the whole first hour in that character just to prove a point.

The fact is that Rush is just a radio talk show host. Sure, he's iconic and successful and a fixture on talk radio since 1988 when he and Roger Ales got together. But, he's no more important than Jon Liebawitz (Stewart) or Cobert or Maher or the rest of the cast of characters on the left. You need to laugh to be entertained. The right can listen to Limbaugh and be entertained. Rush has no more or less of a political message as they do and deserves to be held to the same standards of accountability (or lack their of) as they do.

There is the contradiction, by being bombastic you are in effect doing it for shock value, and facts just are not really shocking so to get the shock you have to exaggerate and take a lot of artistic licensing to make it so.

 

[KittenKoder]

Are you advocating that she is censored? Would you like to tweak the First Amendment a little to prevent people from saying those things?

Or are you just advocating that the President stand up and condemn a mean-spirited comment that was said about a conservative commentator? A comment that was spoken by an individual that was not a representative of his administration.

Because, if Obama is required to condemn mean-spirited comments that are made by citizens that are not part of his administration, then he's got a lot of apologizing to do.

He can start here:

I HOPE RUSH LIMBAUGH IS RUN OVER BY A STEAMROLLER AND THEN HIS FLATTENED CARCASS DEVOURED BY HUNGRY WOLVES.

Because that is a pretty mean-spirited comment, if I might say so myself.

One might say that apologizing is pretty much his stock and trade. Or maybe he can only do that when he leaves the country, not within it.

Can't argue with that, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about it while at the same time demanding it?

 

[Tech_Esq]

It doesn't matter how many times you show the brainwashed Ditto-Dopers actual quotes of LimpBoy saying he hopes Americans are in PAIN from the loss of their jobs and the PROLONGING of the Bush Depression so he can in "EUPHORIA" watch the suffering of the American people, they still parrot their programming that LimpBoy was talking about "policy" rather than SPITE.

Another typical liberal response. "I'm too bitter to get a joke (when it comes from the right)"

Really? So ... since I'm a "liberal" (according to many on here) I was somehow breaking an unwritten rule by laughing at the stupid nonsense jokes instead of whining about who said what and who laughed at it?

I've seen what you've written Kitten, I don't think you are a lib. You seem to hold just as many cons. positions as liberal positions. I would say if you cared to bone up on political ideology per se, as opposed to just issue by issue positions, you would probably end up being more conservative than not.

On this issue, I'm in your original camp, I didn't really care. I'm just in here sharp-shooting cuz I'm bored.

 

[Shogun]

.... I guess you could always go search for some evidence regarding torture above and beyond the testimony of those who've been tortured......

 

[Tech_Esq]

Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright's rhetoric. And did he really say 'deserve' or is that a construct of your empty headed biased ignorance? But the point is, you hypocrites don't distance yourselves from the likes of Rush boy because that all is all you have: stone throwers. Do you defend Bush while you criticize Obama? Hypocrite, add elvis to your list.

Why should we distance ourselves from Rush. Rush is usually right. He may be bombastic. He make go well over the top to make specific points (like when he announce he was supporting Ross Perot during the 1992 election and spent the whole first hour in that character just to prove a point.

The fact is that Rush is just a radio talk show host. Sure, he's iconic and successful and a fixture on talk radio since 1988 when he and Roger Ales got together. But, he's no more important than Jon Liebawitz (Stewart) or Cobert or Maher or the rest of the cast of characters on the left. You need to laugh to be entertained. The right can listen to Limbaugh and be entertained. Rush has no more or less of a political message as they do and deserves to be held to the same standards of accountability (or lack their of) as they do.

There is the contradiction, by being bombastic you are in effect doing it for shock value, and facts just are not really shocking so to get the shock you have to exaggerate and take a lot of artistic licensing to make it so.

I'm not sure I follow you. I'll provide an example of a typical Rushism and you can comment on what's bad so I can get it.

I don't get to hear him much now, so I'll use an old example. A homeless update....(cue the music Bullfrog singing "I ain't got no home") ..... It is reported today that the San Francisco city council has approved showers to be installed in all public libraries so the homeless can take showers before they enter the library. (this is a fake story for this example, but typical of what he would report. When he does, it's ripped from the headlines not invented).

After the report, commentary follows. Typically to point out the wasteful excess that city council has engaged in to placate the homeless rather than to solve the problem. Here he may engage in a bit of hyperbole to make the point that installing showers in libraries is wasteful, because some people (in Rio Linda....as he would say) may not get that installing showers may not be the most cost effective way to either deal with the homeless or smelly homeless people in libraries. So he may ask whether we should install showers in every location that the homeless may gather, street corners, under bridges....you get the idea.

So, please comment.

 

[Tech_Esq]

.... I guess you could always go search for some evidence regarding torture above and beyond the testimony of those who've been tortured......

Never for you fucktard. You done pumping your blow up doll already? Evading the truant officer are you?

 

[Shogun]

whatsa matter, lil puss? Don't like it when tortured Arizona Senators agree with Navy Seals about how worthless torture is? myawwwwww.... poor guy.. Weren't you supposed to be the master of evidence? The purveyor of supportive links? The high priest of the church of Authentication? some silly bullshit like that? I've posted the testimony of two men WHO KNOW all about torture... and you? nada. zilch. Not one speck of an iota of fucking evidence beyond crying like a little girl who fell off her bike and skinned her knee.


poor guy. I didn't mean to give you a nervous tic like that!

 

[xotoxi]

Are you advocating that she is censored? Would you like to tweak the First Amendment a little to prevent people from saying those things?

Or are you just advocating that the President stand up and condemn a mean-spirited comment that was said about a conservative commentator? A comment that was spoken by an individual that was not a representative of his administration.

Because, if Obama is required to condemn mean-spirited comments that are made by citizens that are not part of his administration, then he's got a lot of apologizing to do.

He can start here:

I HOPE RUSH LIMBAUGH IS RUN OVER BY A STEAMROLLER AND THEN HIS FLATTENED CARCASS DEVOURED BY HUNGRY WOLVES.

Because that is a pretty mean-spirited comment, if I might say so myself.

One might say that apologizing is pretty much his stock and trade. Or maybe he can only do that when he leaves the country, not within it.

Can't argue with that, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about it while at the same time demanding it?

It's not hypocritical.

It's conservative.

 

[HUGGY]

dosen't matter how much you correct them,, they keep spewing just like the obamabots they are... talking points,, talking points,, gotta remember them talking point

Neo-con playbook....accuse the "liberals" of what you do.

I'm not a liberal but I listen to as many sides as I can. "Talking points" got started by Karl Rove sending out actual memos to the media on points to pound down the viewers and listeners throats.

As far as I can tell there is no such mechanism in the progressive media.

So...go fuck yourself liar. She that smelt it delt it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

dosen't matter how much you correct them,, they keep spewing just like the obamabots they are... talking points,, talking points,, gotta remember them talking point

Neo-con playbook....accuse the "liberals" of what you do.

I'm not a liberal but I listen to as many sides as I can. "Talking points" got started by Karl Rove sending out actual memos to the media on points to pound down the viewers and listeners throats.

As far as I can tell there is no such mechanism in the progressive media.

So...go fuck yourself liar. She that smelt it delt it.

First off, "progressive media" is redundant.

Second, talking points started LOOOOONG before Karl Rove was relevant to anything.

Third.....carry on!

 

[WillowTree]

dosen't matter how much you correct them,, they keep spewing just like the obamabots they are... talking points,, talking points,, gotta remember them talking point

Neo-con playbook....accuse the "liberals" of what you do.

I'm not a liberal but I listen to as many sides as I can. "Talking points" got started by Karl Rove sending out actual memos to the media on points to pound down the viewers and listeners throats.

As far as I can tell there is no such mechanism in the progressive media.

So...go fuck yourself liar. She that smelt it delt it.

talking points,, talking points...

 

[Shogun]

dosen't matter how much you correct them,, they keep spewing just like the obamabots they are... talking points,, talking points,, gotta remember them talking point

Neo-con playbook....accuse the "liberals" of what you do.

I'm not a liberal but I listen to as many sides as I can. "Talking points" got started by Karl Rove sending out actual memos to the media on points to pound down the viewers and listeners throats.

As far as I can tell there is no such mechanism in the progressive media.

So...go fuck yourself liar. She that smelt it delt it.

talking points,, talking points...

hey now.. don't make the guru of proof post evidence.. The world is just not.. ready...

 

[Luissa]

Look a liberal response, change the subject (preferably to Bush) and attack.

while the conservative response is always hypocritical!

I call. Please point me to my hypocritical response. Since you said ALWAYS.

by saying it is liberal response you are implying that the right does not do the same thing. We attack you, you attack Obama and so we then attack Bush and then you attack Gore. The whole system is hypocritical.

 

[Luissa]

while the conservative response is always hypocritical!

I call. Please point me to my hypocritical response. Since you said ALWAYS.

long long long wait

sorry I don't sit here trolling and waiting for someone to respond to me and keep clicking the new post botton. I have other shit to do.

 

[KittenKoder]

Another typical liberal response. "I'm too bitter to get a joke (when it comes from the right)"

Really? So ... since I'm a "liberal" (according to many on here) I was somehow breaking an unwritten rule by laughing at the stupid nonsense jokes instead of whining about who said what and who laughed at it?

I've seen what you've written Kitten, I don't think you are a lib. You seem to hold just as many cons. positions as liberal positions. I would say if you cared to bone up on political ideology per se, as opposed to just issue by issue positions, you would probably end up being more conservative than not.

On this issue, I'm in your original camp, I didn't really care. I'm just in here sharp-shooting cuz I'm bored.

Wow ... you are one of the few who read most of my posts. LOL It's not a bad thing nor am I being sarcastic. I was referring mainly to those like *cough*Willow*cough* who seem to think that since I disagree with some of her views that I am some flaming liberal. So, I stand corrected, you are not one of those.

However, I will clarify my point. Many liberals are like me, the original liberal ideology that I follow was a simple "live and let live" idea, which was their original stance on everything before the strange desire to censor people. Since then I have pushed from the label myself, simply because censorship does not coincide with my personal ideals. But the conservatives are also spinning from their center, and oddly the two are somehow merging on ideologies lately, just different sides.

 

[Tech_Esq]

while the conservative response is always hypocritical!

I call. Please point me to my hypocritical response. Since you said ALWAYS.

by saying it is liberal response you are implying that the right does not do the same thing. We attack you, you attack Obama and so we then attack Bush and then you attack Gore. The whole system is hypocritical.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth, but no, I was not implying that the right doesn't do it. What I was saying is that that particular tactic is thematic of left-wing respondents. That's all I meant. I have not noticed that is "thematic" in right-wing respondents. If you would care to show that I'm mistaken, I may reconsider my opinion.