GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/03/02/will-democrats-differentiate-themselves-from-gale-of-hatred-against-breitbart/trackback/

  1. Always the same litany, lefties? Guess they just assume that if someone is conservative, he must fit their narrow view of what a right-winger must be, someone who hates people who differ from the white male norm.

    It seems pretty much anyone, not just conservatives, who takes a stance against one or two of the Left’s sacred cows can get similar treatment. One of my favorite examples of this sort of thing was while reading the comments section of some news article in which Christopher Hitchens and his support for the war in Iraq was mentioned, I witnessed a circle jerk of pure ignorance and conclusion jumping, as several people went on and on about what a “fundy neocon” he is. To top it all off, this was just a few weeks after his book God is not Great was published.

    Comment by Thulsa Doom — March 2, 2012 @ 6:02 am - March 2, 2012

  2. I didn’t read too much coverage of this, and I only saw a few tweets here and there (having been sort of ignoring Twitter for a while), but I will say I did see few liberals/liberal organizations make statements that were classy (for lack of a better word that comes to mind at the moment).

    Of course, some characters can be counted on to demonstrate horrid behavior. So I can’t say I’m surprised.

    Comment by Neptune — March 2, 2012 @ 8:53 am - March 2, 2012

  3. Breitbart delighted in the news of Ted Kennedy’s death, where was his respect for the dead?

    Not that I care. I’m not one to demand a certain decorum when somebody dies. If you think someone’s an asshole on Tuesday, them dying on Wednesday doesn’t change anything. And I’ll give Breitbart credit for one thing, he seemed to agree with that sentiment. He thought Kennedy was a terrible human being and reveled in his death. I wish we didn’t have to take turns being shocked about people’s reactions when someone on our respective side died. Feigned indignation is the worst kind. Tell me that if Micheal Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus that there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from your side. Again – we have Breitbart himself calling Ted Kennedy a ‘pile of excrement’ immediately after his death, so let’s spare the whole series of conservatives-are-more-respectful-than-liberals nonsense.

    Comment by Levi — March 2, 2012 @ 9:12 am - March 2, 2012

  4. Does anyone else feel a little… no a LOT… superior when leftists can’t resist being jerks and a-holes?

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 9:41 am - March 2, 2012

  5. Levi, the conservatives aren’t the group continually trying to convince themselves that they are the only caring, tolerant and sensitive folks out there. Apples and Oranges.

    Comment by alanstorm — March 2, 2012 @ 10:57 am - March 2, 2012

  6. In answer to your question in the title of this post, Dan, yes, I have differentiated myself from the hatred. In Bruce’s initial post, I called Little Kiwi’s pathetic comment out. But, you sound like you want some lofty gesture from the left machine that we get from the right every time the death of a liberal or a person perceived as being loved more by liberals and the vitriol is spouting by the crazy portion of the conservative spectrum.

    It sounds like you’re holding the left to higher standards than the right.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 10:59 am - March 2, 2012

  7. V, yes except that if I’d hoped for better in a particular case, I also feel sad.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 11:01 am - March 2, 2012

  8. Tell me that if Micheal Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus that there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from your side.

    What!?!, no Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar? Not too curious that Levi has to compare Andrew Breitbart to liars, charlatans and clowns.

    I can not speak for others, Levi, but my ghost in the sky religion fiddle faddle causes me to see even those charlatans, liars and clowns as fellow human beings and I would pray, sincerely, for their souls and the peace and comfort of those they left in mourning.

    Moral relativists can throw rocks and taunts, because they make the rules.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 2, 2012 @ 11:06 am - March 2, 2012

  9. Those who live in morally relative glass houses should not throw stones.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 11:09 am - March 2, 2012

  10. Cinesnatch, no, I don’t believe the “left machine” needs differentiate themselves from such hateful rhetoric. I’m just making fun of Barney and the New York Times for trying to hold Republicans accountable for the rhetoric of a handful of extreme conservatives.

    I included this post in the category, “Liberal Hypocrisy,” for a reason. As the penultimate paragraph indicates, if they held Democrats to the standards they expect of Republicans, they’d be demanding that Democrats differentiate themselves s– or taking them to task for the hateful rhetoric of this (more than a) handful.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 2, 2012 @ 11:10 am - March 2, 2012

  11. What!?!, no Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar? Not too curious that Levi has to compare Andrew Breitbart to liars, charlatans and clowns.

    I can not speak for others, Levi, but my ghost in the sky religion fiddle faddle causes me to see even those charlatans, liars and clowns as fellow human beings and I would pray, sincerely, for their souls and the peace and comfort of those they left in mourning.

    Moral relativists can throw rocks and taunts, because they make the rules.

    I’ve been considerably more gracious towards Breitbart than he was towards Kennedy, does that make him more of a moral relativist than me?

    Comment by Levi — March 2, 2012 @ 11:19 am - March 2, 2012

  12. (1) Funny the straw men you set up — every person of consequence that I’ve read on the left has treated this death with the utmost respect. Telling that you can’t even name ONE SINGLE person on the left like a Maddow, Olbermann, Stewart, Josh Marshall, Huffington, etc. who has said anything problematic. On the contrary, they have, if anything, pulled their punches about Breitbart. I mean, really, the best you can come up with a few random tweets? You know how many tweets and internet comments I can find from people on the right on a DAILY basis wishing for harm to befall Obama’s family? You just assume that the left will react in as vile a fashion to Breitbart’s death as he did to Ted Kennedy’s death. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but folks on the left have a little more class than ya’ll.

    (2) Here are some prominent political commentators who actually DID make absolutely horrific statements of jokes in the last 48 hours: Rush Limbaugh, who called a young woman a whore and a slut just because she dared to disagree with his positions, and a Bush-appointed Federal Judge who forwarded from his judicial email a joke about Obama’s mother screwing a dog. Can you IMAGINE the OUTRAGE about the EVIL LEFT on this site had, say, Rachel Maddow or a liberal judge done the equivalent? Sadly for your false narrative, the leading commentators and intellectuals on the left are a heck of a lot classier than the Limbaughs and the Coulters of this world, so the best you can do is pick up on random tweets from crazy folks.

    (3) How about all of the crazies on the right who are claiming that Obama assassinated Breitbart? No mention of them, huh?

    (4) In sum: even when we do right, the left can only do wrong in your eyes. I’d say you have a double standard, condemning the left for exactly the same type of comments that Breitbart himself routinely made, except that NO ONE on the left of Breibart’s stature even MADE those kind of vile remarks. That is why you lack credibility, because you just assume we are all huge aholes. Stay classy.

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 11:32 am - March 2, 2012

  13. “It is very hard to have sympathy for an evil person like Andrew Breitbart!” (…..) “a vile excuse for a human being”

    The world of moral relativism is full of comparative measurement. It is always necessary for moral relativists to have a superlative to resort to when they are frustrated and need to place emphasis.

    Hence, in the first quote, Breitbart is “evil” and in the second quote he is “vile” which is an anagram of evil. But moral relativists get so frustrated that they will resort to “really evil” or “truly evil” or “profoundly evil.”

    The point is that in the Judeo-Christian ethic, the line between “good” and “evil” is thin and nearly transparent. We cross that line regularly. But, when we inform ourselves, we can recognize evil and resort to the good. Doing so, means we are learned and wisened and therefore informed not to do that particular evil again. But, perhaps we do. So we take stock of our misdeed, we repent, we ask forgiveness, we try, try again. Some of us suck at avoiding certain evils. Others of us really try to walk on the side of good.

    But moral relativists, by necessity, hate the concept of being labeled “evil” in any manner. So they have invented this mile wide grey area between good and evil where they can litigate their evil actions and shift the blame and demand mercy.

    These sloppy moral relativists brand Breitbart as “evil” and “vile” or whatever final verdict they care to smear him with, because it camouflages their own misgivings about their understanding of true morality.

    I would ask these folks to identify one “evil” or “vile” thing that Breitbart ever did. I ask this in the name of moral relativity. Because that is how the sobriquet is being applied.

    If you are a moral person, you have no problem having sympathy for an “evil” person. You can focus on the human being and set aside the evil in his passing. You do not have to justify the “evil” and you can rejoice in its demise, if the death of the person brings an actual end to the evil.

    Moral relativists, I have found, can not grasp this simple concept: the man and the acts of the man are separate issues.

    That is why I challenge anyone to come forward and explain a “vile” or “evil” act committed by Breitbart. And, I insist, we play it by the moral relativist’s rules where the division between “good” and “evil” is a mile wide and open to all manner of wiggle, jiggle and finagle,

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 2, 2012 @ 11:35 am - March 2, 2012

  14. Here is the way I look at it. There are going to be people out there who do not surprise me in the least when they go after someone who has just died. And I’m not talking about criticism of career or personal chioces – Breitbarts Sherrod video, Whitney Houstons drug and alcohol abuse, Davey jones played a horrible tambourine and wasn’t a real musician…. yes, I did run into one of those. I’m talking about those who do the “good riddance to evil scum” or whatever. That’s always going to be out there. Hell, even when Queen Liz II, who is I’m convinced clinging on to life for dear life as long as she can to keep idiot Prince Charles from taking the thrown, finally kicks the bucket, there will no doubt a few who will write some horrible things about her, probably for dying and letting the idiot Prince Charles ascend to the thrown.

    That kind of thing doesn’t surprise me.

    What does is when you have a foe of the recently deceased handle the unfortunate event of someones death with class. Case in point – Andrew Sullivan on Breitbart. He could do some of the same things that some of the other media talking keyboard have been doing, but nope. He’s been reflecting on Breitbart in fine form, with reflections and interesting commentary that reminds me of why I still go to his corner of the web. As long as he’s not writing about his man-crush, he’s still a good writer.

    For his handling of Breitbarts passing, I tip my hat to Sullivan for that.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 11:42 am - March 2, 2012

  15. “Libs are up in arms that Rush Limbaugh called one of their own a “slut.” Apparently, that sort of language is to be reserved for Sarah Palin.” – Jim Treacher

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 11:45 am - March 2, 2012

  16. JeffZ, please see how I begin the post. And please note how I crafted the title from expressions made by (1) a liberal Democratic Congressman (2) the editors of the New York Times.

    Yes, I acknowledge the classy liberals. The point of the post is the hypocrisy of folks like Frank and the Times editors. Not to indict all leftists (only the hateful ones).

    By the standards to which Barney and the Times hold Republicans, these hateful leftists speak for the party.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 2, 2012 @ 11:46 am - March 2, 2012

  17. You know, what people who have been raised with decent standards of moral behavior have and people like Levi don’t is the understanding that you can’t justify your own bad behavior by thebad behavior of others.

    Also, atheists like Levi constantly proclaim that they “don’t need God to be good.” Consider Levi’s comments, both in the wake of Breitbart’s death and generally, and ask how that theory is working out.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 11:47 am - March 2, 2012

  18. Tell me that if Micheal [sic] Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus that there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from your side.

    Sure Levi, no problem at all.

    If Michael Moore keeled over or if Keith Olbermann were hit by a bus, no, there wouldn’t be a proportionate amount of similar sentiment from conservatives. Definitely not from known opinion leaders like the bloggers, reporters, etc. who have been caught hating on Breitbart.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 11:52 am - March 2, 2012

  19. That’s right, ILC. When Michael Moore dies, I will probably make some private comments to close friends that would be completely inappropriate in public; but I won’t go on a deranged tear on the interwebs. (But Michael Moore is a hypocritical, anti-American, piece-of-crap.)

    I also have to agree that the classless behavior of Levi, David Frum, Matt Taibbi, Matt Yglesias must be amusing Andrew Breitbart to no end. After all, he always said the left were vile, nasty people… and man, are they ever proving him right.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - March 2, 2012

  20. Dan, you still don’t get it. You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says. It is not. The day the NYTimes publishes an editorial demanding that Republicans spend day after day apologizing for the never-ending stream of incredibly hateful, racist, and outright evil invective labeled against the Obama family by random internet and twitter commentators is the day I will agree with you and say, yeah, that is utterly ridiculous. It would, after all, be a full-time job.

    But that is not what is happening. The crazies on both sides will always be, well, crazy. The difference is, the LEADERS of the right, the biggest media stars, the people whose endorsements carry the most weight, who are featured speakers at CPAC, are the ones who put out all kinds of nasty, personal invective, questioning Obama’s patriotism, calling him a closet Muslim who is not born in America, who wants to destroy this country, who is the product of woman-dog sex, who pals around with terrorists (that was your VP candidate, the last one). Or who call civilans who testify before congress whore and sluts.

    Again, I’ve given two examples from just the past two DAYS, one from a Federal judge, one from your party’s biggest media star. To treat comments from those folks as the same as some random twitter comments would be absolutely ridiculous, but that is exactly what you seem to be calling for. I mean, come on, dude, get real!

    Also, what say you to those who would say that it is fair to treat Breitbart’s death with the exact same amount of respect that he treated the death of a liberal US Senator? The thing is, NO ONE of ANY consequence on the left has even done this. I mean, the guy destroyed Shirley Sherrod’s life, and she treated him (as you note) with respect. What exactly did Ted Kennedy ever do to Breitbart or his family? And by the way, I am one happens to think, despite my disagreements with his methodology and brand of rhetoric, that Breitbart’s death is a very sad event. that does not mean that he is, of course, post-humously immune from criticizm. But to those on twitter or anywhere else who are dancing on his grave (just as he danced on Ted Kennedy’s), that is outright wrong. It’s also wrong to suggest, by the way, that Obama had him assassinated, as many (crazy, extreme, inconsequential) folks on the right are not doing.

    If you are looking for hypocrisy by the left, you really need to look elsewhere. You are losing this argument, and badly. The fact is, the only double standard here is that all of the leading lights on the left have been a LOT more respectful to Breitbart in death than he EVER would have been to them had the situations been reversed. To claim otherwise is beyong disingenous, it’s intellectually dishonest and belied by, well, fact.

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - March 2, 2012

  21. It was wrong of Rush Limbaugh to call Fluke a slut.

    When woman who is attending a $45,000 a year law school wants someone else to pay for her birth control, the proper word isn’t “slut” it’s “whore.”

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - March 2, 2012

  22. I have long maintained that selfishness in an individual is nothing to be particularly outraged over if it’s done rationally

    In a government, however, it’s appropriately called fascism.

    William Holden taught me that in “Born Yesterday.” :-)

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 2, 2012 @ 12:16 pm - March 2, 2012

  23. When woman who is attending a $45,000 a year law school wants someone else to pay for her birth control, the proper word isn’t “slut” it’s “whore.”

    This is a very general statement, VTK.

    Just a note, not all women who take birth control are sexually active, as it’s often used for non-sexual purposes like controlling one’s cycle, menstrual cramps, acne, or anything severe like ovarian cysts and several other medical-grade conditions brought on by hormonal imbalance.

    So, if a hypothetical woman is attending a $45,000 a year law school and needs birth control, are we to then assume she’s not on scholarship and she doesn’t have a hormonal imbalance? Just checking, because I want to make sure I make all the appropriate assumptions when I pass judgment on someone and call them a whore.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:21 pm - March 2, 2012

  24. Sure, Cinesnatch, let’s assume the outlier is true and the logical conclusion is false, shall we?

    Also, the woman isn’t just a random student, she’s a self-proclaimed “Reproductive Rights Advocate.” Which tends to support the “not-an-outlier” hypothesis.

    And the thrust of her testimony was the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, not for use in dealing with rare medical conditions, also supports the “not an outlier” hypothesis.

    And since so many leftists are proclaiming that the GOP “wants to stop women from enjoying sex,” I think that pretty much makes the “not an outlier” hypothesis a slam-dunk. Unless you think Levi is also presuming the woman is a whore.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - March 2, 2012

  25. (Knowing, of course, that Cinesnatch is not interested in arguing logically, he just wants to promote the “War on Women” talking point against, well, the logic and common sense that is its enemy.)

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - March 2, 2012

  26. I don’t listen to Limbaugh, nor do I watch network news, so I have no idea who this Fluke person is. In the quote of yours I used in Post #23, I addressed that you used an absolute. In the future, you just might want to be more careful. Or not. Up to you.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - March 2, 2012

  27. Sandra Fluke is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

    http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/CurrentPILS.htm

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - March 2, 2012

  28. he just wants to promote the “War on Women” talking point

    Please read comment #26.

    And, as I continue to NOT make assumptions about you, please pay me the same respect. Or don’t. Doesn’t hurt to ask.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - March 2, 2012

  29. Shorter Cinesnatch; “I was ignorant of the facts and said something stupid, and its your fault.”

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:46 pm - March 2, 2012

  30. V, what did Frum write that was offensive. Unless I missed it, there’s nothing about Frum in that link.

    There is this. While I don’t agree with some of the criticism, I certainly don’t see anything incendiary that compares to what Yglasias or Tiabbi tweeted.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 12:46 pm - March 2, 2012

  31. Again, your statement in Post #21 was not well-articulated. Thank you for clarifying, VTK.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - March 2, 2012

  32. Yeah that Fluke, such an evil person and yet Carly is popping off about Rush’ little explosion yesterday.

    Comment by rusty — March 2, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - March 2, 2012

  33. But, if you want to insist the quote I referred to in Post #21 was well-articulated, then I mistakenly took you for someone who likes to make his points clearly and intelligently.

    But, you don’t like to admit your wrong. I get it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - March 2, 2012

  34. And, as I continue to NOT make assumptions about you, please pay me the same respect. Or don’t. Doesn’t hurt to ask.

    You might as well be asking for pigs to miraculously sprout wings and fly. There is no respect shown by some of the commenters. It’s not in their nature; scorpions and frogs and all that.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - March 2, 2012

  35. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57389434-503544/fiorina-rush-limbaughs-comments-about-student-insulting-incendiary/

    Comment by rusty — March 2, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - March 2, 2012

  36. There was the scorpion/frog metaphor used in the film “Drive,” I saw recently. Funny that you mention it.

    Thanks for the laugh, SF. Always good to be able to leave a thread with a smile on my face.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 2, 2012 @ 12:51 pm - March 2, 2012

  37. Thought I’d bookmark my Kennedy comments here.

    And JeffZ, what would you call a woman who demands others pay for the contraceptives needed for her to sleep around, to the tune of 3K a year? (Besides V the K’s clear answer)

    Let’s also not forget the Daily Kos’ classy statements about Breitbart’s death.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 2, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  38. In fact, it’s hard even to use the word “issues” in connection with Andrew Breitbart. He may have used the words “left” and “right,” but it’s hard to imagine what he ever meant by those words. He waged a culture war minus the “culture,” as a pure struggle between personalities. Hence his intense focus on President Obama: only by hating a particular political man could Breitbart bring any order to his fundamentally apolitical emotions.

    Because President Obama was black, and because Breitbart believed in using every and any weapon at hand, Breitbart’s politics did inevitably become racially coded. Breitbart’s memory will always be linked to his defamation of Shirley Sherrod and his attempt to make a national scandal out of back payments to black farmers: the story he always called “Pigford” with self-conscious resonance.

    And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness—when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas—how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?

    David Frum writing in Hot Air.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:57 pm - March 2, 2012

  39. Sorry, David Frum writing in the Daily Beast.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - March 2, 2012

  40. Always good to be able to leave a thread with a smile on my face. Comment by Cinesnatch

    I agree that it’s good when you leave a thread whatever is on your face.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - March 2, 2012

  41. Want me to fit your liberal stereotype, OK, here goes: I’d call her smarter than Bristol Palin.

    Seriously, how stupid are you people? First, the Blunt Amendment threatened a HECK of a lot more than contraception. Second, oral contraception (which is extremely expensive, actually) is prescribed for a variety of medical needs besides birth control. Third, you are so cowardly, I’d love for you to call her a whore and a slut to her face and see what happens. Yeah, you don’t come close to having the balls. Fourth, and most importantly — just because someone uses any form of contraceptives doesn’t mean — gasp — that they sleep around. I realize that y’all think that contraceptives are evil and we should just keep populating the earth until it runs out of resources, but most intelligenct people understand that humanity is only sustainable if mosst people limit themselves to between 0 and 3 children, which, even if you are in a MONOGAMOUS relationship, is incredibly unlikely without contraceptives. Or, would you feel better discouraging contraceptive use and just having people have unwanted kids or, better yet in your eyes, aborting the babies? I didn’t think so. Paying for contraceptions prevents the spread of STD’s, lowers unwanted pregnancies, lowers abortion rates, and helps lower poverty in the long run. But y’all are too busy calling people — who for all you know are in a monogomous sexual relationship — whores and sluts to educate yourself on basic science and social policy. The ignorance is frightening and staggering. But then again, why I am surprised by a party which has Rick Santorum as a finalist for the Presidential nomination? OR who casts stones about people they know nothing about when two of your party leaders (Limbaugh and Gingrich) have about six divorces and no doubt innumeral sexual affairs between them? THESE are the people who are calling out OTHER people on moral grounds? A better question: why do I waste my time pointing out the obvious to people who’d rather be willfully blind to their own party’s nastiness, virtriol, and ultimately, descent into political irrelevance?

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - March 2, 2012

  42. # 38.

    V… Sorry, but upon reading the whole thing (the article i linked to in # 30), not just the edited parts; yes, it’s harsh criticism, but I just don’t put it in the same category as the Yglasias tweets.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - March 2, 2012

  43. I thought it was the left who want the Government out of people’s bedrooms.

    Not so much any more, huh?

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - March 2, 2012

  44. Well, Sonic, you and I must use a different filing system because my Category of “Obnoxious Things Liberals Said About Andrew Breitbart When He Dies” accommodates them both.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - March 2, 2012

  45. And where was all this outrage over the word “slut” when feminists were proudly holding “Slut Walks?”

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - March 2, 2012

  46. Well, Sonic, you and I must use a different filing system because my Category of “Obnoxious Things Liberals Said About Andrew Breitbart When He Dies” accommodates them both.

    Yes, it does. My file system include the category “Well written critiques and observations, even if I don’t agree with all of it”, and also has one for “Stupid, idiotic tweets”.

    PS. I must admit, I’m biased on the “tweets” thing, because I think tweeting is one of the more useless and foolish bits of all the social media out there. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the fun short pity comment, but tweeting mostly seems to get people into trouble. Judging from the amount of trouble and damage an errant, poorly thought out tweet can do, why politicians think its a good thing is beyond me.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - March 2, 2012

  47. Is # 45 directed at me? If so, why.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 1:35 pm - March 2, 2012

  48. Fourth, and most importantly — just because someone uses any form of contraceptives doesn’t mean — gasp — that they sleep around.

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 1:03 pm – March 2, 2012

    Actually, in the case of this particular liberal, what Rush pointed out yesterday is that the amount she claimed she spent on contraception annually was sufficient to buy five condoms a day for 365 days a year.

    And what Rush also asked, point-blank: why is SHE the only one supposedly paying for this? Why don’t the liberal men who are screwing her want to pay their fair share and be responsible?

    And this was funny:

    Paying for contraceptions prevents the spread of STD’s, lowers unwanted pregnancies, lowers abortion rates, and helps lower poverty in the long run.

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 1:03 pm – March 2, 2012

    Actually, that is a lie, as this source makes clear:

    Some people wrongly believe that if they take birth control pills, they are protecting themselves not only from getting pregnant but also from infection with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Birth control pills or other types of birth control, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), Norplant, or tubal ligation will NOT protect you from HIV and other STDs.

    So the lie that gay and lesbian liberals like JeffZ are pushing that birth control pills and abortions prevent STDs is totally unscientific and based on their own insane ideological beliefs.

    It explains so much about the HIV rate in the gay and lesbian community that JeffZ doesn’t even know that the vast majority of contraceptive methods do not do a damn thing to stop STDs.

    Meanwhile, I would simply point out this: the Obama supporters like JeffZ are claiming that “98% of women are already using contraception” — yet the rate of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, poverty, and in particular STDs continues to stay the same or go up.

    So Jeff, if “98% of women are already using contraception”, why haven’t the rates of all of these things cratered? Why have they stayed steady, or, in the case of poverty, skyrocketed?

    This is about three things:

    1) Using governmental power to punish people for religious beliefs and to force them to pay for abortions

    2) Laundering Federal and state taxpayer money to the Obama Party through abortion clinics

    3) Buying votes by allowing the irresponsible and lazy Obama Party base like Sandra Flake and JeffZ to avoid paying their bills and taking responsibility for their actions

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - March 2, 2012

  49. Paying for contraceptions Abstinence prevents the spread of STD’s, lowers unwanted pregnancies, lowers abortion rates, and helps lower poverty in the long run.

    Fixed it for you.

    Also, it’s free.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 1:39 pm - March 2, 2012

  50. Another female Georgetown Law Student… doesn’t think it’s other people’s job to pay for her contraception.

    http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/

    Perhaps the female voting block is not as monolithically committed to promiscuous, consequence-free sex at public expense as Democrets want to believe.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - March 2, 2012

  51. First, not that it matters, but while I am (obviously) a liberal, I’m not gay, and I am in a committed relationship (if you are curious how I heard about this site, it is through college affiliation). I am confident that my record when it comes to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the right who would purport to tell me how I should live my life.

    I’ll just address one thing: the difference between abstinence and contraception is that the first (as numerous studies have concluded) doesn’t work at all, and the second works partially. Or do you REALLY need me to point out the thousands of fierce conservative / religious advocates of abstinence education who themselves (or their dependants) engaged in all manner of sexual misbehavior? People of all stripes want to have sex. Saying abstinence will solve any sort of problems related to sexual activity is sort of like saying, hey, the solution to our obesity problem in the US is easy — just eat less! There, problem solved, right?

    Comment by JeffZ — March 2, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - March 2, 2012

  52. I’ll just address one thing: the difference between abstinence and contraception is that the first (as numerous studies have concluded) doesn’t work at all,

    You might want to link to those and make sure they say what you think they say.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 2, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - March 2, 2012

  53. [...] of our readers seem to have misunderstood the point of my post earlier this morning, supposedly suggesting [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On the (supposed) liberal need to differentiate from Breitbart hate — March 2, 2012 @ 2:10 pm - March 2, 2012

  54. Last time I checked, abstinence has a success rate of 100% every time it’s used.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 2, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - March 2, 2012

  55. Wow, Jeff really dropped a flaming bag of liberal stupidity there.

    Abstinence doesn’t prevent pregnancy? So, you can get pregnant without having sex? I mean, I know Georgetown is a Catholic University, but I think even there, the possibility of an immaculate conception is remote.

    And, yeah. A whole lot of the obesity problem could be solved by reduced caloric consumption. But I guess if someone thinks one can become pregnant without having sex, one must be similarly open to the notion that one can get fat without eating.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - March 2, 2012

  56. And, yeah. A whole lot of the obesity problem could be solved by reduced caloric consumption. But I guess if someone thinks one can become pregnant without having sex, one must be similarly open to the notion that one can get fat without eating.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm – March 2, 2012

    It’s more on the order of being stuck in perpetual childhood, V.

    JeffZ and his ilk do not believe that they should ever have to grow up and make adult choices. They want to continue in the self-indulgent, spoiled mentality of their childhood, where Mommie and Daddy filled their every need and they got what they wanted by temper tantrums.

    The problem here is simple. Sandra Flake wants to buy fancy dresses, shoes, and handbags instead of having to pay her bills. Her solution is to demand that Mommie and Daddy pay her bills, and then she shrieks and screams that if they don’t do it, they don’t love her.

    She and JeffZ have just translated Mommie and Daddy to the government. They want the government to pay their bills so they can buy things that are more important to them, and if you don’t agree, you hate women and want them all to die.

    Levi, JeffZ, and Sandra Flake are emotional, mental, and social cripples. They are incapable of making hard choices or value-based decisions. They refuse to believe that they might actually — horrors! — have to go without sex, live in a less-fancy space, buy cheaper food, or not have their new BMW or Jimmy Choos. They are entitled to these things because they want them, and anyone who doesn’t give them these things or agree that they should get them is evil.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 2:39 pm - March 2, 2012

  57. NDT, the Obamacrats depend on that. The depend on people who don’t care that the country is nigh on bankrupt, entitlements are unsustainable, millions of jobs have been destroyed, gas is headed toward $5 a gallon, our enemies are on the move and arming up… as long as the Government promises them free sexual aids, they’ll happily march to the voting booth for him.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  58. Jeff Z said to B. Daniel Blatt:

    You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says.

    This is a new talking point I’m seeing from leftists. I’ve been engaged in a Facebook back-and-forth with a frothing leftist friend. When I brought up leftist hosts use of the terms “slut,” “twat” and wanting a whole political party “fucking dead,” the response was that it didn’t matter. It matters for Rush because he is the “de-facto leader of the Republican party.”

    So my response was “de-facto” according to whom. I also inquired as to why they would even care what the leader of a party they don’t belong to would say.

    We weren’t even debating the contraception issue – my point was that both the left and the right like to dial up the rhetoric for their TV and radio audiences. It’s entertainment. Big deal what some blowhard pundit says on TV.

    What’s funnier is that as much as they hate Limbaugh, he’s getting tons of publicity because they keep making this a story – so they’re actually helping him.

    Comment by ChrisH — March 2, 2012 @ 2:56 pm - March 2, 2012

  59. You seem to believe that something that Rush Limbaugh, a leader of the GOP (and if you claim he is not, then why do all of the GOP leaders, if they ever dare to mildly criticize him, immediately have to grovel for his forgiveness?) says is the equivalent of something a random jack-hole on twitter says.

    This is a new talking point I’m seeing the left use to excuse leftist hosts’ use of the exact same term.

    After confronting a frothing leftist friend’s objection with several instances of leftist hosts using terms like “slut,” “twat,” and an anti-bullying hero wanting a whole political party “fucking dead” he proceeded to tell me that what made if differrent was that Rush Limbaugh is the “de-facto leader of the Republican party.”

    We weren’t even discussing contraception. I was simply trying to figure out why he was so upset over a talk show host making an outrageous statement.

    In fact, I pointed out how he and the rest of the media was actually helping Limbaugh by getting worked up in to a fury. Rush is getting a lot of publicity out of this that he wouldn’t have if everyone just ignored him.

    Comment by ChrisH — March 2, 2012 @ 3:11 pm - March 2, 2012

  60. All these years, I’ve wondered what a “Hoya” was. Now, I know it means “a slut who want you to pay for her birth control.”

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - March 2, 2012

  61. I know this thread has gone off into contraception-land, but I just had to say FTR, this line of sonicfrog’s made me laugh:

    There is no respect shown by some of the commenters

    It’s funny because I have a similar opinion but from a different viewpoint; so that it ends up as one of those “A man goes on a journey / A stranger comes to town” perspective-shifting things. Here it is. From where I sit, certain commentors on the GP blog are nearly-full-time bullsh*tters, who are then unhappy because they expect FAR more respect than their (poor) comments earn for them or will ever get them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:27 pm - March 2, 2012

  62. All these years, I’ve wondered what a “Hoya” was. Now, I know it means “a slut who want you to pay for her birth control.”

    LOL :-) Well, I think it’s telling that (1) she doesn’t turn to cheaper methods, and (2) doesn’t expect her boyfriends to pay. Actually, when I first saw her I thought “Wait a tick – lesbians need contraception?”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:38 pm - March 2, 2012

  63. And for “My Sharia Moor” – GREAT handle, best I’ve seen in awhile! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - March 2, 2012

  64. LOL Well, I think it’s telling that (1) she doesn’t turn to cheaper methods, and (2) doesn’t expect her boyfriends to pay.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 3:38 pm – March 2, 2012

    There’s the big one, ILC.

    Flake, the 1-percenter Georgetown Law student, doesn’t want to pay.

    Her liberal 1-percenter DC boyfriends don’t want to pay.

    They want the working-class black family with three kids down the street that are scraping to afford their home and education for their children to pay instead.

    If Obama Party rich white liberals like JeffZ, Sandra Flake, Levi, and others care so much about “the poor”, why is the entire point of their rhetoric to ensure that “the poor” have to pay higher taxes so that rich white liberals don’t have to pay their bills?

    That’s what I want Levi and JeffZ to answer. They’re both affluent white males; why do they have to increase taxes on poor black families so that they don’t have to pay for contraception for their many partners?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 2, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - March 2, 2012

  65. They want it to be “free” like cheap candy. Why, oh why won’t the grownups work harder to provide it? What kind of cruel world is this, anyway, where you have to work for stuff you need or want?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 2, 2012 @ 4:36 pm - March 2, 2012

  66. Video: Rush Limbaugh apologizes to Sandra Fluke:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yAH-AhDmc

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:27 pm - March 2, 2012

  67. Thanks for that link, V, had been contemplating a post faulting Rush for his use of that term, esp. as per Sister Toldjah’s commentary on Facebook:

    Love me some #Rush but calling Ms. Fluke a slut played into the left’s false narrative that GOP “hates women.” Also, it’s a very ugly word.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 2, 2012 @ 5:32 pm - March 2, 2012

  68. I do not approve of Andrew Breitbart’s comments on Ted Kennedy’s death, but I don’t necessarily disagree with them. Breitbart was a much better man than Ted Kennedy was, and I haven’t seen any instances in which what Breitbart said about Kennedy came close to the vile things frequently said about Breitbart. I reserve celebrating death for truly evil people like dictators, murderers, and terrorists (such as Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il), but Ted Kennedy was about on the line between evil and not evil (in my opinion). And I didn’t see any instances in which Breitbart actually celebrated Kennedy’s death, he merely spoke ill of him.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 2, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - March 2, 2012

  69. I think Rush’s use of the word is defensible on the basis of logic and reason. But logic and reason are unwelcome in our political culture, which is obsessed with drama and narrative. So, you are correct, sir, that Rush’s use of the word was unhelpful and played into the hands of the left; who are desperate to whip up a distraction from Obama’s disastrous energy policy. (Chevy Volt production went on hiatus today, BTW.)

    It bears mentioning, however, that less than a year ago, feminists were embracing and promoting the use of the word ‘slut.’

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42927752/ns/us_news-life/t/cops-rape-comment-sparks-wave-slutwalks/

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  70. Rattlesnake, Breitbart never killed anybody. Ted Kennedy did.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - March 2, 2012

  71. In Mitt Romney parlance, the left gets up every morning with a blow torch and a can of Aqua Net and just waits for the cameras to arrive.

    Comment by V the K — March 2, 2012 @ 5:56 pm - March 2, 2012

  72. Rattlesnake, Breitbart never killed anybody. Ted Kennedy did.

    That is true, and I considered that while making my comment. The only reason I said he was on the line between evil and not evil was that he apparently didn’t intend to kill her, but he did fail to do what any half-decent person would have, which I guess is just as bad. So, he was at the very least on the line, but is probably beyond it (on the evil side).

    That should settle the matter. For the record, I am not the kind of person that casts everyone in a positive light when they die. Michael Moore is a (something that I will refrain from saying here given it will be incivil), and he will be no different when he dies (which, judging by his obesity, may not be too far away). I won’t celebrate his death, though. And I will criticize anyone who does.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 2, 2012 @ 6:46 pm - March 2, 2012

  73. #51 JeffZ:

    I am confident that my record when it comes to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the right who would purport to tell me how I should live my life.

    Stop the presses: !!!!!!!!! We have a whole new moral relativism game of duck and dodge …….. personal morality ……. which is judged and measured by ……… the person who invents his own personal morality.

    Circle: meet argument.

    Well, JeffZ, I am confident that my record when it come to personal morality is a heck of a lot better than almost anyone on the left who would purport to tell me how I should live my life, what is politically correct, what I may eat, how I light my home, whose recreation I must pay for, and on and on and on.

    How does that work for you?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 2, 2012 @ 10:53 pm - March 2, 2012

  74. Breitbart delighted in the news of Ted Kennedy’s death, where was his respect for the dead?

    Better yet, where was Ted Kennedy’s respect for the dead? At the bottom of Nantucket Sound?

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 2:07 am - March 3, 2012

  75. I’ve been considerably more gracious towards Breitbart than he was towards Kennedy, does that make him more of a moral relativist than me?

    How many women did Breitbart allow to drown whilst sleeping off a boozer?

    Exactly.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 2:08 am - March 3, 2012

  76. I am confidant that God’s record with personal morality outweighs everyone on this thread. So, yeah, if you’re going to rationalize Breitbart’s reaction to Ted Kennedy’s death, you’re a moral relativist.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - March 3, 2012

  77. Rationalize? Teddy was a piece of shit who let a woman drown, went on to live a good life and a hero to liberals everywhere.

    It’s creepy how many people that liberals love have blood on their hands.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - March 3, 2012

  78. TGC >> Please explain where I defend Ted Kennedy.

    Like I said, God’s morality out-weighs all. So, if you’re going to rationalize Breitbart’s ill behavior, then you are a moral relativist.

    Nothing to do with whether or not I approve or disapprove of Kennedy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  79. Nothing to do with whether or not I approve or disapprove of Kennedy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm – March 3, 2012

    Well, except for the fact that you claimed Breitbart was bad because (you claimed) he attacked Ted Kennedy.

    If it were a principled objection to attacking the dead, then you wouldn’t have attacked Breitbart.

    But what you’ve made clear is that it’s wrong to attack dead people with whom you agree, but not to attack dead people who you don’t like.

    Therefore, Breitbart was only following your ethical system, such as it is.

    If you’d like to state that you’re unethical, since you call Breitbart that for following your belief system, then at least you would be consistent.

    Now, you’re just a hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - March 3, 2012

  80. ND30, you must be really lean from running in that hamster wheel all the time.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - March 3, 2012

  81. [...] – speaking of Mr. Breitbart, way to stay classy, libs (yes, I’m talking to you, Rolling Stone. And you, Matt Yglesias of [...]

    Pingback by Your (semi-) Daily Dose of Reality v.3.4.11 « Falcon’s Eyrie — March 4, 2012 @ 4:34 pm - March 4, 2012

  82. Now, you’re just a hypocrite.

    The more so, NDT, because he then insulted you incivilly.

    That’s our Cinesnatch: Always demanding that the rest of us live up to standards which, while nice, he really doesn’t keep himself.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - March 4, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.239 Powered by Wordpress