MoonDawg's Den: The compassionate and tolerant Left

MoonDawg's Den

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The compassionate and tolerant Left

Last evening a local CBS station in Miami reported that talk show host Rush Limbaugh had been "detained at Palm Beach International Airport for the possession of illegal perscription drugs" and that he could "face a misdemeanor charge". As it turned out, Limbaugh, who was returning to the U.S. from the Dominican Republic, had a bottle of prescription Viagra that his doctor had put his own name rather than Limbaugh's on the prescription label, "for privacy purposes".

Limbaugh has often been vilified by liberals for engaging in so-called "hate speech" on his show (the best I've been able to figure out, any time logic and fact are applied in critical analysis of an issue it constitutes "hate speech" for lefties). As well all know, liberals are a compassionate and tolerant lot, above engaging in any sort of "hate speech".

Er, well no, actually. Check out the reaction to last night's Limbaugh story from the Left side of the blogosphere:

Do I wish too much for a little cooler time for Pigboy? You betcha!

...what kind of human-animal hybrid is willing to have sex with the Oxycontin Kid?

...it looks like Roy Black is going to earn himself another boatload of Blimpo's money.

I wonder if the inmates will find his fat head sexy?

Funny, I thought you needed a dick to take Viagra.

...how the hell is that fat, impotent bastard getting laid and I'm not?

... "human being" as vile as OxyBaugh needs Viagra just to jerk himself off.

Bloated Drug-Abusing Racist's Junk Don't Work

Fat, useless, bigmouth, junkie, Rush Limbaugh got nabbed by airport security

Notice that most of the these bloggers invoke Rush's weight in their diatribes - i.e., they judge a person for their appearance, something I thought "tolerant" liberals would never do. Such is the intellectual level of their discourse - schoolyard "nyaahh nyaahh, fatty fatty" name-calling. The Anchoress nails it:

We’ll have to endure the usual suspects basically acting like 5 year-olds sitting around the table saying “poopyhead” and imagining that they’re terribly funny, while they laugh and drip and dribble, and we roll our eyes and wipe up their wee spills.

Indeed. Just remember this episode the next time that liberals try to decry conservatives for "hate speech". If conservatives engage in "hate speech", at least it is not on such an infantile level as this.

19 Comments:

  • First, the comments about Rush are horrible. I don't condone them at all.

    Second, how can you say that conservative diatribes aren't "infantile"?

    Rush compared Chelsea Clinton to a dog in 1993 when she was 13 years old. That's not infantile?

    Come on, Garry. Both sides are terrible. Political discourse in this country is a joke. Saying that one party is less infantile than the other where political discourse is concerned is an even bigger joke. Where was your anger when Ann Coulter insulted the 9/11 widows in her book Godless? That was pretty infantile too. The reason I didn't blog about it was because the Left is just as bad about insulting people who don't deserve it.

    I wish pundits and bloggers would stick to politics and avoid ad hominem attacks, but that will never happen.

    Cheers,
    Jeff

    By Blogger Jeff, At 8:42 PM, June 27, 2006  

  • Furthermore, none of the blogs you cite are the famous liberal blogs.

    The Huffington Post linked to the AOL story about Limbaugh. Some of the comments were inappropriate, but they were not condoned by the blog administrators.

    Crooks and Liars reported the story without the insults.

    Talk Left covered the story without calling Limbaugh names as well.

    The point is that you cherry-picked the worst of the worst and associated that with all liberals. Hmmm.... Some big liberal blogs covered this story quite fairly.

    Also, the worst of the liberals start their own blogs and make themselves sound stupid. The worst of the conservatives--ie. Ann Coulter--write best-selling books and are on FOX news four nights a week spraying their infantile crap. Just a little food for thought.

    Jeff

    By Blogger Jeff, At 8:59 PM, June 27, 2006  

  • LOL, oh noes!!1!! You've caught on to my hidden secret. I say I'm tolerant, then I make fun of people. I guess I should have known that the cat would be out of the bag when I posted it on my blog.

    *eyeroll*

    By Blogger Brian Varitek, At 7:12 AM, June 28, 2006  

  • Howdy Jeff - I am have not heard of the '93 incident, but then I don't listen to Limbaugh more than 3 or 4 times a year (I'm at the office when his show is on). But if he said such a thing, it's reprehensible, and I condemn him for it.

    I am not aware that Coulter has mocked anyone's appearance in her new book. Can I borrow your copy when you're done? LOL

    But as to whether the 9/11 widows (specifically the Jersey Girls) don't "deserve" criticism, that is another question entirely.

    The mainstream liberal blogs you mention have to mind their P's and Q's, but, as you indirectly note, the true mentality of many lefties come out in the comments, as well as in the blogs I linked to. TalkLeft is an especially well-written site by the way; Jeralyn Merritt is the liberal answer to Michelle Malkin.

    And to Brian - my point was not that you and the others were merely "making fun" of Limbaugh. My point was that the infantile hyperbole mocking a person's weight belies the notion that liberals as a whole are a more tolerant and sensitive lot than those racist, evil conservatives.

    By Blogger Garry, At 9:58 AM, June 28, 2006  

  • This is Coulter's quote from her book, speaking of 9/11 widows:

    "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

    Do you really think this type of rhetoric is productive? Do you really think that it's not infantile? Do you defend her words?

    My point is that most political discourse in this country has just degenerated to ad hominem garbage. Pointing it out and saying that one side is worse just doesn't quite work. What floors me is that Coulter is like the goddess of Republican talking heads, and her rhetoric is terrible.

    Cheers,
    Jeff

    PS-Malkin is growing on me. I disagree with her a lot, but her tone is getting better.

    By Blogger Jeff, At 5:48 PM, June 28, 2006  

  • If Coulter had called these women "fat" or "ugly" then it would be closer to my objection about the Limbaugh comments. Actually quite a number of folks on the right have disavowed Coulter's remarks, even if they agree with the gist of her points about the Jersey Girls.

    Although as a satirist Coulter gets a certain amount of leeway, she risks becoming the right's version of Al Franken if the vitriol begins to greatly overshadow the points she's trying to make.

    I defend the first Coulter statement you quoted (some of the Jersey Girls' utterances have ranked up there with Michael Moore-style moonbattery), but not the second - that one was going too far, and she should apologize for it.

    By Blogger Garry, At 6:50 PM, June 28, 2006  

  • I seriously think your biggest problem may be that you take a group (liberals) and generalize them to the point that you're really not even making any sense. Not all liberals are tolerant. Not all liberals claim to be tolerant. Not all liberals make fun of others. Liberal is a political ideology, not, like a description of a person.

    By Blogger Brian Varitek, At 7:11 PM, June 28, 2006  

  • You mean, my friend Brian, "generalizations" like "Republicans Really Hate The Press"? But oh dear, not all Repubs hate the press, for goodness sake.

    In any case, you miss my primary point yet again - it's one thing if I say Bill Keller is a loathsome SOB who should be forced to give up the NYT's source so he/she can be prosecuted. It's another thing if I try to make my case by mocking Keller's physical appearance (although from the few photos I've seen, in actuality he seems to be a rather good-looking chap).

    By Blogger Garry, At 7:55 PM, June 28, 2006  

  • That's the way I write. *Shrug* It's not a liberal thing, it's a *me* thing. Feel free to attack me, but honestly, don't use me as an example for, like, liberal group thought.

    By Blogger Brian Varitek, At 8:08 PM, June 28, 2006  

  • Coulter a satirist? I thought satirists were supposed to be funny. :-)

    But, seriously, I'm not sure I see the difference between calling someone "fat" and calling them a "broad." It's pretty much the same type of juvenile name-calling.

    Also, on the subject of labels, what's your definition of "moonbattery"? Does anyone who criticizes the president fall into that category, or is there more to it? I'm not joking with this question. I really believe that if I understand the label, maybe I'll be less inclined to use an unflattering label in return.

    Lastly, you mentioned in your note to Brian that calling someone an SOB is okay as long as you don't criticize their appearance. I'm I reading that right? Why call them a name if your point will ring true without it? BTW, reporters shouldn't have to give up their sources. If they had to, Deep Throat would have been prosecuted long before the Watergate scandal ever broke. If the administration would quit using contraversial--and, quite possibly, illegal--programs without the approval of congress or without the oversight of the courts, they wouldn't have a problem in the first place.

    My two cents,
    Jeff

    By Blogger Jeff, At 2:07 AM, June 29, 2006  

  • For those wanting to prosecute the Times' sources, Keith Olbermann has an interesting piece:

    Here's the video

    By Blogger Jeff, At 2:28 AM, June 29, 2006  

  • Hey Garry. You might want to read this illuminating study done by the Pew Research Center. It explains a lot. I find the section on party affiliation very interesting considering how long the study has been in place.

    http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

    By Anonymous Alex, At 7:07 AM, June 29, 2006  

  • Well Jeff, "fat" refers to someone's physical appearance, while "broad" is a mildly crude term signifying gender. I imagine it's not that big a deal for women to use "broad" referring to other women - certainly no worse than, say, blacks using the N-bomb when speaking of other blacks.

    I normally avoid using the Wikipedia as a reference, but for something like a blogo-pop-culture phrase it will do (by the way, I would never use this word for you - you are far too rational a person for it):

    "Someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be"

    Ergo, there are right-wing moonbats as well.

    "SOB" is the mildest term I could come up with for Keller (he's a lying SOB, at that). There are many other choice words I would be inclined to use for someone who intentionally damages national security simply to satisfy his own notion of what constitutes the public interest. By the way, nobody - not even the NYT - is claiming that the SWIFT program is in any way illegal.

    Reporters should only have to give up sources if laws have been broken (Deep Throat was giving out confidential, but not classified, info). If a reporter is asked for their source by a Grand Jury, the reporter is under the same obligation as any other citizen to divulge the information.

    If the NYT's source had passed the SWIFT info to an al-Qaeda agent, no one would for a second question that the person should be prosecuted for treason. But passing it to the NYT for all to read is fine and dandy?

    Olbermann, by the way, qualifies as a moonbat - albeit a rather articulate one.

    By Blogger Garry, At 10:10 AM, June 29, 2006  

  • I'm glad you don't think I'm a moonbat. I believe you and I have quite rational debates, and that rational discourse is what will restore sanity to government eventually. :)

    As for your other points, I don't see the difference between fat, broad, and SOB. There might be subtle differences, but truly, they're just labels, negative labels. And, I stand by my point that the right uses them just as much as the left. Both sides are wrong in their discourse.

    As for the NYT leak, we might see it differently, but I do think that this is another one of those leaks that told the terrorists stuff they already knew, like the wiretapping leak. However, if the program is 100% legal, they probably should have sat on the story at the NYT. I think that means I kinda agree with you...weird!

    Olbermann may be a liberal nut-job, but he's hilarious. None of the right-wing crazies on TV--O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.--are anywhere close to as funny as Olbermann.

    Here's a rant of him picking on O'Reilly. It's a crack up.

    Jeff

    By Blogger Jeff, At 9:40 PM, June 29, 2006  

  • "I do think that this is another one of those leaks that told the terrorists stuff they already knew"

    Put the Times story in perspective: Al Qaeda attacked America, murdering thousands. Congress authorized war against al Qaeda. Our government came up with a covert means for tracking international financial transactions that could help pinpoint al Qaeda terrorists. Members of Congress were briefed. The program helped capture Hambali, the al Qaeda kingpin who masterminded the 2002 Bali resort bombing that killed 202 people, and a New York operative who helped launder $200,000 for al Qaeda.

    Obviously, there were terrorists who did not know how this program was tracking them.

    By Anonymous Alex, At 11:50 AM, June 30, 2006  

  • Garry has never found evidence Rush engages in hate speech?? If you thought your tender sensibilities were violated with my OxyBaugh comment, try Rush on for size:

    "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." (to African-American caller.)

    "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

    On blacks being heard: "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

    So, Gary, please buy a parental filter for your browser if you're going to dig into the mean ol' no-name liberal blogs. I always keep a barf-bag nearby if I have to read Freeper-speak.

    By Blogger Dale Overhill, At 4:23 AM, July 01, 2006  

  • And about your not being "aware" that Coulter ever mocked anyone for their appearance:

    4/26/06 - "this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay."

    But maybe you're right -- she's above the fray and superior to us "hateful" lefties (by the way, you keep saying your point is the fat talk, and yet you use my post which has no mention of his weight.) Better we get comments like:

    "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

    "We should invade their [Muslims'] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

    "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

    _Only regret_, she doesn't regret he blew up a day care center, but she does regret he didn't kill a thousand people who work at the Times building.

    By Blogger Dale Overhill, At 4:42 AM, July 01, 2006  

  • And Keller is a moonbat for "telling" the terrorists we are tracking their money? Bush has been a moonbat for years --

    "In a September 24, 2001, speech, Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions."

    If the NYT had not mentioned Americans' records were being trolled, there would have been no outcry from the right.

    By Blogger Dale Overhill, At 4:54 AM, July 01, 2006  

  • Well, what a pleasure to come back from holiday and find these lovely comments from Dale. First off, my "tender sensibilities" were not violated by the posts of you and your peers. It takes a lot more than some sophomoric ranting to violate said sensibilities. My point (apparently lost once again), was that the hate-filled comments being made about Limbaugh were mainly concerned with his physical appearance - i.e., his weight.

    If you disagree with Limbaugh's ideas and opinions, fine & dandy. But resorting to mockery of a person's weight is infantile. You don't provide a link to these supposed comments made by Limbaugh, but let's say he did make those remarks. Are you suggesting that hate speech should be answered with more hate speech? If so, fine - but henceforth I wish to hear no more of liberalism occupying a higher moral ground of tolerance and sensitivity.

    As to Coulter, I did say that I was not aware that she'd ever mocked anyone for their appearance. And none of her comments that you posted prove otherwise.

    And I never said Keller is a moonbat. Keller is an arrogant, irresponsible bastard, but not a moonbat. Bush's speech was very broad, and did not lay out the specifics of the SWIFT program, or the extent of our European allies' participation in the program. Their continued participation is now in doubt, thanks to the NYT.

    By Blogger Garry, At 11:06 AM, July 05, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home