Gay Patriot Header Image

Andrew Breitbart’s first posthumous victory

George Stephanopolous may not have followed up when Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) failed to condemn Bill Maher for a slur that self-described “potty mouth” used when describing Sarah Palin, but the former Clinton staffer did at least ask his fellow partisan “whether Democrats should return” the uncouth man’s money.

The current ABCNews anchor even showed clips of Mr. Maher’s trash talk.  Schumer himself may not have criticized Mr. Maher on ABC’s “This Week,” but as Madeleine Morgenstern reported, a “Schumer spokesman later told Politico he ‘thinks those comments [made by Maher] are inappropriate and wrong.’”  (Wonder if Obama strategist David Axelrod would call Mr. Schumer’s manner of critique a failed “test of leadership“; he dispatched a staffer to do what he failed to do in person.)  Schumer was forced to criticize the liberal entertainer.

As Rush Limbaugh himself put it, everything the Democrats

. . . hoped to accomplish this week, they’ve not accomplished. They might have 25 years ago, but they haven’t. They, on the left, are now being forced by an army of people on the right to comport themselves to the same standards that they are demanding of others, and that’s going to put a real crimp in their style. Remember, when I apologized I said one aspect of what I had done wrong was I descended to their level. And I meant to emphasize that. I descended to their level. That’s what was, among other things, wrong about it. But it was a one-time thing for me. They live there. Now they’ve been called on it.

(Via Tom Blumer via Powerline picks.)  He’s right; 25 years ago, there was no conservative media to dig up and publicize videos of liberals engaging in the type of name-calling that earns excoriation for the rare conservative who stoops to that level.  Stephanopolous would have been able to avoid the question.

As he built on the point cited above, Rush gives one hint about what has changed in the past 25 years:  “It might have been Breitbart people, I forget who it was, with camera and microphone — and they would not condemn any of the language from any of their favorite people on the left.” It might have been Breitbart people.  Indeed.  If not Breitbart people, individuals with Andrew Breitbart’s mentality, those conservatives ready to provide examples of left-wing name-calling.

Score this one as a victory for Andrew Breitbart.  The Democrats wanted to dwell on Rush’s ugly language (for which he has apologized).  Now, even Democrats are asking their fellow partisans about hate speech on the left.

Share

33 Comments

  1. Spot on. Andrews Brietbart modeled so well how to call out the hypocritical double standard from the left. It’s no wonder this was pointed out so quickly: we hate that Andrew’s gone, but he’s got anarmy now. We’ll continue to call out these hypocrisies Andrew himself hated so much. Relentlessly.

    Comment by LoriGirl — March 12, 2012 @ 4:50 am - March 12, 2012

  2. 25 years ago, there was no conservative media to dig up and publicize videos of liberals engaging in the type of name-calling that earns excoriation for the rare conservative who stoops to that level.

    Very true. And I agree, score one for the late Mr. Breitbart.

    It’s good that the rise of new media is providing this sort of check and/or balance. But I wonder – will the end result be better media overall that raises the level of the debate, or just more echo chambers on either side of the spectrum? I hope it’s the former.

    Comment by Neptune — March 12, 2012 @ 8:58 am - March 12, 2012

  3. Neptune, might be a reasonable thing to wonder, except here? I mean, a post that shows the media improving marginally, as a bit of reality penetrates their (left-wing) echo chamber?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2012 @ 11:06 am - March 12, 2012

  4. The way you guys are swooning over Rush Limbaugh for this is hilarious. And you think conservatives are building a better media? That’s not going to happen so long as you keep going all googleyed over these stale political celebrities no matter what they do or so. To believe that there was an ounce of sincerity in Rush’s apology is completely absurd, but it’s had the intended effect – every conservative in the country can only talk about how unfair the media is towards conservatives, how it’s actually the liberals who are the disrespectful ones, and how great a man Rush Limbaugh is for rising above everything and apologizing.

    I’ve tried to explain this before to no avail, but here it is again – Rush apologized because he started losing sponsors, and that’s it. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it wasn’t a moment of anger, it was his deliberately crafted argument that he stills believes in whole-heartedly. We know this because he went on about it for three days. We know this because he escalated the matter by saying that women who support coverage ought to have sex on the internet so that he could watch. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a liberal stoop to so depraved a level, yet this is his defense? Naive, stupid, or hopelessly brainwashed, take your pick – you’re any or all of those things if you buy into his nonsense.

    There is no bigger hypocrite in the country than Rush Limbaugh, the draft-dodger (who calls people that served ‘phony soldiers’), the pill-popper, the makes-fun-of-people-with-Parkinson’s guy. Never been in a position of responsibility, never had any skin in the game by running for office, clearly hasn’t contributed to any kind of quality, enduring Republican dynasty…. so why do you all rush to his defense when he makes a huge ass of himself? All he has to do is say sorry and he remains in your good graces?

    One of the most prominent conservatives in the land goes on a three day bender calling women sluts and prostitutes, and the story for you guys is that Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a twat. You couldn’t be more oblivious if you lived on Jupiter.

    Comment by Levi — March 12, 2012 @ 11:33 am - March 12, 2012

  5. Levi, I would not be talking about Rush if your allies on the left weren’t getting their panties all in a bunch about statements for which he has apologized.

    So, if you’re competent to judge on the sincerity of Rush’s apology, does that make conservatives the arbiters of liberal contrition?

    Here’s the test: if he again describes a liberal woman who makes a public statement in support of a Democratic policy in such (or similar) terms as he once described Miss Fluke, then and only then could we question the sincerity of his apology.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 12, 2012 @ 11:40 am - March 12, 2012

  6. Of course given Levi’s record. him questioning Rush Limbaugh’s sincerity is hilarious in and of itself.

    Now hush Levi. The adults are talking.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 12, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - March 12, 2012

  7. Dan,

    This isn’t a conservative/liberal thing. It’s a human being thing. As someone who has ostensibly graduated from grade school, you should know the difference between someone saying they’re sorry because they mean it and saying they’re sorry because they’re in trouble. Why is a test necessary? He failed it once, so he gets to try again?

    If I started throwing around curse words and f-bombs, and you banned me, and I e-mailed you and said that I was really sorry and that I didn’t mean it, would you think that was sincere apology? Or would you think I was just saying sorry in the hopes that I would be reinstated? Again – politics is completely irrelevant here, this is about how terribly your bullshit detector is calibrated.

    Comment by Levi — March 12, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - March 12, 2012

  8. He failed it once, Levi, yes. You got that right. Unlike Bill Maher, he doesn’t slur his female ideological adversaries on a regular basis.

    Of course a test is necessary, Levi. To see if a man learned from his mistakes. You seem to know more about the Rush’s state of mind than he does.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 12, 2012 @ 12:18 pm - March 12, 2012

  9. If I started throwing around curse words and f-bombs

    If?

    And Dan, Levi embodies the double standard that you talk about.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 12, 2012 @ 12:26 pm - March 12, 2012

  10. He failed it once, Levi, yes. You got that right. Unlike Bill Maher, he doesn’t slur his female ideological adversaries on a regular basis.

    Of course a test is necessary, Levi. To see if a man learned from his mistakes. You seem to know more about the Rush’s state of mind than he does.

    How convenient that you would give a 60+ year old man who’s been on radio for 3 decades another chance, as if regular people slip into misogynistic rants for days on end all the time. I wonder, why is he deserving? Because he’s a Republican? I’m sure that’s enough for you, but the rest of the world knows bullshit when we see it. Just using the word ‘slut’ doesn’t make you misogynistic, but when you use the word slut, and you mean it literally, and you’re talking about women in general, and you go on about it for three days avoiding numerous opportunities to apologize for it, well it most certainly does make you a misogynist.

    I do think I have Rush pretty well figured out, but again that’s beside the point. The real test would have been how Rush continued if his sponsors hadn’t started abandoning him. But that’s what happened. Any thinking person capable of understanding basic human emotions should be able to recognize that Rush Limbaugh meant the things he said, still means them, and only apologized when his business became affected. How you could disagree with such a statement and not have been swindled out of your home by some other charlatan astounds me.

    Comment by Levi — March 12, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - March 12, 2012

  11. How you could disagree with such a statement and not have been swindled out of your home by some other charlatan astounds me.

    Comment by Levi — March 12, 2012 @ 12:41 pm – March 12, 2012

    There’s an easy answer, Levi.

    You are wrong.

    However, you are incapable of admitting that anyone else is right and you are wrong. That’s why you are “astounded” that Dan hasn’t been swindled out of his home; you have created a delusion, buried yourself in it, and are now shocked that reality is following different rules than the ones in your delusion.

    Once anyone here realizes that the fundamental basis of your arguments is a complete inability to see or recognize as valid facts, statements, or ideas that disagree with or contradict your assertions, they start to realize the problem. They also begin to recognize that your namecalling someone as misogynist, racist, or whatnot has nothing to do with misogyny; it only means that you disagree with someone and see them as standing in your way to your glorious socialist regime with yourself as the apparatchik par excellence.

    This whole argument is an excellent example. Rush is a misogynist regardless of what he says or does because you hate him. Bill Maher, Louis CK, Alan Grayson, Joe Kennedy, Barack Obama, and the like are not and can never be misogynists, no matter what they say, because you support and endorse them. Presenting you with facts to the contrary is like putting an algebra textbook in front of a cow; the cow ignores it, just as you do.

    Namecalling Dan as stupid and ignorant, insinuating he hasn’t finished grade school, and implying that he’s so dumb that he would be swindled out of his house because he doesn’t agree with you shows nothing more than the intellectual, mental, and moral vacuity of the left. You have no facts, so you insult. You have no argument, so you attack Dan personally. You have nothing to persuade people to come around to your side, so you scream at them to shut them up so you get your way.

    The game is up, Levi. Worse, voters are starting to recognize that they’ve been played by you and your screaming brat Obama, who is insisting that forcing churches to pay for abortion is what’s important and that people who are more concerned with high gas prices, a sinking economy, and a nuclear Iran hate women.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2012 @ 1:16 pm - March 12, 2012

  12. @NDT

    I think it’s funnier that Levi just argued for his own banning.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 12, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - March 12, 2012

  13. Levi:

    Rush is on over 600 radio stations nationwide. His program is three radio hours, of which nearly half of the radio hours are given over to local advertising by the over 600 radio stations.

    The radio stations carry Limbaugh, because they get to charge their local advertisers more for advertising in those three hours. The radio station keeps all of the advertising money. Not a penny goes to Rush Limbaugh.

    The average local station has about 30 local advertisers in that three hours. Some have many more if they don’t broadcast local news and weather. Altogether, the Rush Limbaugh time slot has over 18,000 local advertisers across the USA.

    Approximately 40 local advertisers out of 18,000 asked that their ads not play during the Rush Limbaugh time period. Rush did not lose a penny and neither did the radio stations.

    Sheri’s Berries cancelled Rush and Sleep Train cancelled Rush on the left coast. Sleep Train asked back in and Rush said “no.”

    Media Matters whipped up a boycott and you are here reporting it. The boycott has has the effect of dropping a flattened piece of popcorn on the freeway and calling it a major speed bump.

    “Hilarious” is your favorite retort. Well, it is “hilarious” that you go to Media Matters and run straight here to report that the sky is falling.

    You are the Baghdad Bob of the Fantasy News Service.

    Certainly, Rush will commit Seppuku when he hears that the great and mighty Levi has branded his apology for acting like a Democrat to be a sham.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 12, 2012 @ 2:07 pm - March 12, 2012

  14. “Rush apologized because he started losing sponsors, and that’s it.”

    He had many more waiting in the wings for openings.

    “We know this because he escalated the matter by saying that women who support coverage ought to have sex on the internet so that he could watch.”

    No, he didn’t.

    “the draft-dodger”

    No, he isn’t. And where’s the Bamster’s service record?

    “(who calls people that served ‘phony soldiers’)”

    No, he didn’t.

    “the pill-popper”

    Can you prove that?

    “the makes-fun-of-people-with-Parkinson’s guy. “

    Never did that.

    ” so why do you all rush to his defense when he makes a huge ass of himself?”

    Because he shows what colossal asses you moronic liberals are on a daily basis. That’s the reason you have to manufacture the above.

    ” Naive, stupid, or hopelessly brainwashed, take your pick”

    Yes, you are and the lowest form of lying POS to boot.

    “This isn’t a conservative/liberal thing. It’s a human being thing.”

    Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable to comment.

    “I do think I have Rush pretty well figured out, “

    But not because you have any real familiarity but because MediaMorons and ThinkPropaganda told you so.

    Comment by TGC — March 12, 2012 @ 5:01 pm - March 12, 2012

  15. “Rush apologized because he started losing sponsors, and that’s it.”

    He had many more waiting in the wings for openings.

    Since you’re so eager for evidence from other people, care to post some yourself? Like who is “waiting in the wings”?

    “We know this because he escalated the matter by saying that women who support coverage ought to have sex on the internet so that he could watch.”

    No, he didn’t.

    What’s this then?

    “So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

    You can listen to Limbaugh at the link I posted, the above is a word-for-word transcript.

    “the draft-dodger”

    No, he isn’t.

    More an issue of draft avoidance if anything, though it’s impossible to know for certain.

    And where’s the Bamster’s service record?

    Funny that the link I posted talks about Limbaugh giving “the response of someone who is evading the question” by “quickly steering the focus away from himself”. Are you a regular listener?

    “(who calls people that served ‘phony soldiers’)”

    No, he didn’t.

    Yes he did (don’t believe me or them, believe the audio they archived).

    “the pill-popper”

    Can you prove that?

    Well we know he’s been through treatment for drug addition in the past. Is that good enough?

    “the makes-fun-of-people-with-Parkinson’s guy. “

    Never did that.

    That was about Michael J. Fox, I remember it well. He said he was “exaggerating the effects of the disease” and that it was “purely an act”. I wouldn’t call it “making fun of” myself though, it was more of an attack on the guy.

    ” so why do you all rush to his defense when he makes a huge ass of himself?”

    Because he shows what colossal asses you moronic liberals are on a daily basis. That’s the reason you have to manufacture the above.

    As I’ve demonstrated, truth is stranger than fiction, especially when the truth is about Rush Limbaugh.

    “I do think I have Rush pretty well figured out, “

    But not because you have any real familiarity but because MediaMorons and ThinkPropaganda told you so.

    Many of my links are to Media Matters, so I would like to hear the nature of your objection to them. On each Media Matters link I’ve given you, there is archived audio demonstrating exactly what Limbaugh said and giving you context with which to judge it. If anything above has been taken out of context, you have an open forum right here to correct both myself and Media Matters at the same time.

    Comment by Serenity — March 12, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - March 12, 2012

  16. Ah, but you see, Pomposity, here’s the problem: in order for someone to refute you, you would have to be capable of recognizing and objectively evaluating facts, and you emphatically fail.

    For example, your whining over draft-dodging.

    More an issue of draft avoidance if anything, though it’s impossible to know for certain.

    Sort of like Joe Biden’s — which neither you nor Media Matters has ever criticized, despite his having the same number of deferments as Dick Cheney (who you viciously criticized) AND a medical condition (for which you criticize Limbaugh) which does not line up with Biden’s claims of outstanding athletic prowess.

    But again, this is typical of the ad hoc moral relativism of leftists like yourself. Had Rush served, you’d be calling him a baby-killer. One can’t expect you to have a coherent set of principles because you would have to violate them constantly in your desperation to push your violent and bigoted Obama Party.

    And as for the “phony soldiers” claim, Pomposity, you should have picked a better source with an actual transcript.

    Again, Pomposity, we can’t expect you to take a moral stance and say people shouldn’t lie about their service as Macbeth did, because that would hurt your Obama Party and the narrative. You and yours like Media Matters have already stated that to lie in the service of the glorious Obama cause is always right and just, just as you and your fellow rioters justified your destruction of property across the UK as being good and right.

    Of course, Media Matters was trying to protect these phony soldiers like Jesse Macbeth who were lying through their teeth about having served. You wouldn’t know that they were lying, though, because you are mentally and intellectually incapable of doing your own research and dependent on Media Matters to tell you what to think.

    But then again, their views mirror yours, so that’s no surprise.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2012 @ 8:58 pm - March 12, 2012

  17. What? Amy posts things that aren’t true? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

    As to new sponsors… Here’s one for example.

    Also let’s not forget that now by Amy’s standards, we can call President Obama a coke head.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 12, 2012 @ 9:02 pm - March 12, 2012

  18. Well Asininity, since you decided to run with MediaMorons, I can quickly conclude that I was right in the first place. I’ll respond to this, though:

    Funny that the link I posted talks about Limbaugh giving “the response of someone who is evading the question” by “quickly steering the focus away from himself”. Are you a regular listener?

    Yes and I heard all mentioned above. You’ll note that I didn’t quickly steer any focus. My point is that military service doesn’t matter a damn when a liberal is POTUS. Didn’t for Clinton (who’s more of a draft dodger than Limbaugh) or ObaMarx. However, it did matter when it came to George W. Bush.

    And, of course, the combat service of H.W. Bush and John McCain (for whom the other two wouldn’t be fit to lead a johnny detail) were the topic of ridicule and besmirchment by the turds on the left.

    Comment by TGC — March 12, 2012 @ 9:24 pm - March 12, 2012

  19. Well we know he’s been through treatment for drug addition in the past. Is that good enough?

    Drug addition? Is that how they teach math in inner city public schools?

    Comment by V the K — March 12, 2012 @ 9:44 pm - March 12, 2012

  20. Suppository,

    Shall we wait to see if Limbaugh has advertisers “waiting in the wings” or must we settle this right now? If so, you go first. Prove that he does not have advertisers waiting in the wings.

    Shall we “chat” about Mr. Fox and the supposed Parkinson’s jab? Mr. Fox testified and flailed about while doing so. He acknowledged that he did not take his calming meds so that his flailing about would add a greater effect to his testimony. Rush made an issue of that. Perhaps you do not think it is a cheap stunt to pump up your pity/victim status when begging for increased pity/victim status. It is not so blatant as the proverbial killer of his parents who asked for mercy on the basis of being an orphan, but it is on the same mucky, slippery slope.

    Rush had an addiction, admitted it and conquered it. Radical liberals, however, seem to hold the opinion that an addiction is permanent and the addict is forever damned. (Unless it has to do with Bill Clinton’s willie.)

    Your “phony soldiers” Media Matters link is purposely convoluted and wrapped around excepts. If you care in the least, you can read the actual Limbaugh transcript and understand the meaning and context of the two words.

    One of your thousands of comprehension problems is that you and your pals love to take two words that can be spun into any story you wish in order to malign those you hate.

    In the final analysis, Rush will still be squashing your type of “critique” with a flick of the wrist while you are still trying to figure out what hit you.

    You only have misrepresentation and an air of superiority to protect your fallacious projections as you strut and fret your moment on the web. Your’s is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and bull and signifying nothing, nada, zilch.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 12, 2012 @ 10:38 pm - March 12, 2012

  21. @The_Livewire: You call President Obama whatever the hell you want to.

    @TGC: “I didn’t quickly steer any focus, which is why I’m going to quickly steer the focus towards liberal double standards”.

    And, of course, the combat service of H.W. Bush and John McCain (for whom the other two wouldn’t be fit to lead a johnny detail) were the topic of ridicule and besmirchment by the turds on the left.

    H. W. Bush is a bit before my time, but I remember the 2008 campaign pretty well and trying to ridicule McCain’s combat service with Sarah Palin ripe for the picking would’ve been missing the point entirely.

    Comment by Serenity — March 12, 2012 @ 10:41 pm - March 12, 2012

  22. and trying to ridicule McCain’s combat service with Sarah Palin ripe for the picking would’ve been missing the point entirely.

    But that started long before the Palin selection. The liberals smeared him with everything from being a bad pilot, to causing the USS Forrestal disaster to colluding with the NVA. That’s the kind of low-life garbage you cheer on and surround the wagons around. That’s the kind of oxygen thieves that propped up fake soldiers, like John Kerry (who served in Vietnam and Cambodia), as heroes.

    Comment by TGC — March 12, 2012 @ 11:31 pm - March 12, 2012

  23. Rush had an addiction, admitted it and conquered it. Radical liberals, however, seem to hold the opinion that an addiction is permanent and the addict is forever damned.

    So, he had the opportunity to be a victim, but he got over his victim status instead. No wonder the left hates him.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 13, 2012 @ 12:56 am - March 13, 2012

  24. Speaking of liberal civility, Alan DisGrayson (who became a liberal media darling for being a horse’s ass) ran a red light and hit a city bus the other day:

    http://www.wesh.com/r/30653147/detail.html

    He was on his way to a fancy dinner with RFK Jr to raise money for another attempt at making an ass of himself in Washington.

    Comment by TGC — March 13, 2012 @ 1:19 am - March 13, 2012

  25. IIRC, didn’t the “phony soldiers” remark allude specifically to Jesse MacBeth, who became a hero of the left after falsely claiming to have served as an Army ranger in Iraq where he claimed to have participated in atrocities he totally made up?

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2012 @ 5:55 am - March 13, 2012

  26. @Amy What’s wrong, don’t like it when people provide proof to counter your lies?

    @Rattlesnake That’s correct. He’s fought an addiction to pain meds (which is different than coke use, Amy) and appears to have beaten it.

    @V the K, that’s correct.
    There was also references to Kerry’s fellow ‘Winter soldiers’ who it turned out weren’t soldiers.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 13, 2012 @ 8:04 am - March 13, 2012

  27. I’m not sure how the number of advertisers lost matters. I never thought for a minute that Rush was in any serious jeopardy of losing enough of his sponsors that he’d be pulled off the air. This isn’t significant to the argument in the slightest. Even if no sponsors had pulled their ads and Rush apologized (an eventuality I still assert never would have happened), it would be insincere. You don’t go ranting about sluts and watching sluts have sex on the internet for three days if you’re sincerely sorry about calling someone a slut. It’s not as if Rush hadn’t firmly established himself as a sexist troglodyte before this, but this was extremely revealing. He had plenty of opportunity to apologize before his sponsors started pulling out and he missed every one of them. In fact, he only became more resolute after the initial reaction and chose to say even stupider things. Again, how can you people not tell the difference between honest and sincere attrition, and a gossipy media personality expressing faux remorse because he went too far and damaged his brand?

    And now we’re on to the next phase of this little trick, where Rush Limbaugh plays the victim and redirects everyone away from his indefensibly sexist rants by accusing the media of being biased, a claim which of course he has never made before. The end result is that this oafish hypocrite that went on a revolting diatribe against women and their sexuality is now more endeared to the conservative movement. The family values crowd is more offended by the idea of liberal media bias than it is by someone calling millions of women sluts. And somehow, you fail to see the irony of the most successful personality in talk radio complaining of systematic bias in the media.

    It’s not complicated.

    Comment by Levi — March 14, 2012 @ 8:41 am - March 14, 2012

  28. Again, how can you people not tell the difference between honest and sincere attrition, and a gossipy media personality expressing faux remorse because he went too far and damaged his brand?

    Comment by Levi — March 14, 2012 @ 8:41 am – March 14, 2012

    Again, Levi, we can.

    You can’t, because you are a bigot.

    Case in point:

    Even if no sponsors had pulled their ads and Rush apologized (an eventuality I still assert never would have happened), it would be insincere.

    And thus did your previous ad hoc rationalization (“he’s only apologizing because of the sponsors”) vanish, now to be replaced by another one that is completely contradictory (“it doesn’t matter if the sponsors left or not”).

    Hence the point. Your argument that Rush is insincere is invalidated by the fact that you adamantly refuse to state the circumstances under which you would find him sincere. You keep changing your ad hoc rationalizations and inserting new, contradictory ones.

    Why? Because you are just barely intelligent enough to realize that the moment you laid down consistent rules, we would actually hold you to them — and show what a hypocritical bigot you are, given your support and endorsement of similar behavior among Obama Party members.

    So you rant and scream and namecall and throw temper tantrums. You have no facts, so you insult. You have no argument, so you attack Dan personally. You have nothing to persuade people to come around to your side, so you scream at them to shut them up so you get your way.

    The game is up, Levi. Worse, voters are starting to recognize that they’ve been played by you and your screaming brat Obama, who is insisting that forcing churches to pay for abortion is what’s important and that people who are more concerned with high gas prices, a sinking economy, and a nuclear Iran hate women.

    Also, it amuses me how you run away like a little coward. It’s because you’re not used to being humiliated and especially by gays, who your homophobic parents taught you were stupid and helpless and needed white liberals like you to “care” for them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2012 @ 2:19 pm - March 14, 2012

  29. So you rant and scream and namecall and throw temper tantrums. You have no facts, so you insult. You have no argument, so you attack Dan personally. You have nothing to persuade people to come around to your side, so you scream at them to shut them up so you get your way.

    King of Projection again. Have you wet yourself yet?

    Comment by Serenity — March 14, 2012 @ 5:28 pm - March 14, 2012

  30. King of Projection again. Have you wet yourself yet?

    Comment by Serenity — March 14, 2012 @ 5:28 pm – March 14, 2012

    Not really, because I have facts.

    Which are of course wasted on violent Jew-hating bigots like yourself, Pomposity, but at least they’re there.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - March 14, 2012

  31. [...] Andrew Breitbart’s first posthumous victory Comments [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Is the scope of Breitbart’s victory bigger than first thought? — March 14, 2012 @ 6:45 pm - March 14, 2012

  32. Hence the point. Your argument that Rush is insincere is invalidated by the fact that you adamantly refuse to state the circumstances under which you would find him sincere.

    I don’t think there are circumstances. A 60 year old man who should know better went on a misogynistic tirade over the course of a few days. How would someone that old convince me he was sincerely sorry? I have no idea, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t involve spinning the whole affair into some yarn about how you’re unfairly targeted and attacked by a biased media. Claiming you’re being picked on and pointing to anybody else is the exact opposite of taking responsibility for yourself, and is another sign of Rush’s insincerity.
    Also, one clue that he is seriously remorseful would be that he’s too embarrassed to even talk about it, but he’s still dragging it up for his own glorification every afternoon. People that are truly sorry about wrongs they’ve done don’t do these things.

    It’s just too late. He should have apologized right after he said it. He should have apologized at any point during the three days in which he reiterated the insult. He should have apologized before he started losing sponsors. He should be taking responsibility and not pointing the finger at others. He shouldn’t be leveraging the aftermath to make a point about media bias. It’s all so phony and blatantly inauthentic, the motivation behind every piece of this is as clear as day.

    Comment by Levi — March 14, 2012 @ 11:31 pm - March 14, 2012

  33. I don’t think there are circumstances. A 60 year old man who should know better went on a misogynistic tirade over the course of a few days. How would someone that old convince me he was sincerely sorry? I have no idea

    So you have no idea whether or not Rush is sincere because you can’t even define what “sincere” means.

    You have just acknowledged that you are a blind, irrational bigot who will never accept any apology from Rush Limbaugh.

    Therefore, since you have admitted that you are a blind, irrational bigot, no one cares or needs listen to you.

    You lose, bigot boy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - March 16, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.