Sunday, July 12, 2009
Using children as weapons
Frank Rich, in a stupid column for the New York Times, can't resist throwing an elbow at a politician's child.
What a classless jerk.
Other than having committed the unpardonable sin of being born Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol did nothing to warrant getting slammed in the pages of the New York Times. What's important is that the family respects life. And lives by those values. But he's too poisoned by libtardism and bitterness to see that.
These ratfucks have a pathological obsession with Palin vaginas.
The game is evident. The libtard media has driven Palin from office by targeting her daughters.... or think they have. They will stop at nothing to use Bristol Palin and her child to attempt to discredit Sarah and drive a wedge between her and Christian voters. It won't work, though. Christians don't condemn premarital sex nearly so much as they 1.) value the sanctity of life, and 2.) Hate the judgementalism and venom coming from people like Frank Rich.
The libtard media is nothing but a pack of rabid hounds. In another time and place, they would probably be Red Army soldiers lined up to gang-rape German girls.
God, I hope she runs for President next time round. I can't say I'll vote for her over the other conservative nominees. I recognize her shortcomings as a candidate. But it might be worth voting for her just to give these bastards conniption fits.
It brings to mind the following line from Sylvia Plath:
Out of the ash I rise with my red hair
And eat men like air
Splash, out
Jason
P.S., Frank Rich has a problem with Bristol getting seduced by Levi as a teenager. But Rich, as a fully-formed adult, was seduced by a con-man, Alan Conway, who convinced Rich that he was really Stanley Kubrick.
That's right: Conway told Rich all the right things, said everything Rich wanted to hear... probably did the journalism equivalent of stroking Rich's hair. Rich was seduced. Taken in by this guy. And thought he was going to get an interview with Stanley Kubrick. Conway lied to him and Rich fell for it.
But Rich, the pathetic, blackened little cur, can't find it in his tar-pumping heart to cut some slack for a small-town teenage girl who's handsome, rugged boyfriend promised to marry her. No, even more than that, he has to drag his sick obsession with Palin vaginas into the pages of the New York Times.
What. An. Ass.
No wonder he draws a paycheck from the New York Times. He fits right in with their corporate culture.
MORE:
No, dipshit. Nobody regards the Palins as 'working class.' They are a middle to upper middle-class family. And it's not a matter of income, you ignorant cur. It's a matter of culture and shared values. And here's a whack on the head with a clue-bat: SARAH PALIN WAS NOT ALWAYS THE F---ING GOVERNOR OF ALASKA!!!!!
MORE:
Did he?? Ok, Rich. I'm calling you and anyone who says that a liar. Rush Limbaugh himself "held up" a picture of Chelsea Clinton on television to identify the White House dog?
I'm calling that stupid bluff.
Show me the vid.
Splash, out
Jason
The essence of Palinism is emotional, not ideological. Yes, she is of the religious right, even if she winks literally and figuratively at her own daughter’s flagrant disregard of abstinence and marriage.
What a classless jerk.
Other than having committed the unpardonable sin of being born Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol did nothing to warrant getting slammed in the pages of the New York Times. What's important is that the family respects life. And lives by those values. But he's too poisoned by libtardism and bitterness to see that.
These ratfucks have a pathological obsession with Palin vaginas.
The game is evident. The libtard media has driven Palin from office by targeting her daughters.... or think they have. They will stop at nothing to use Bristol Palin and her child to attempt to discredit Sarah and drive a wedge between her and Christian voters. It won't work, though. Christians don't condemn premarital sex nearly so much as they 1.) value the sanctity of life, and 2.) Hate the judgementalism and venom coming from people like Frank Rich.
The libtard media is nothing but a pack of rabid hounds. In another time and place, they would probably be Red Army soldiers lined up to gang-rape German girls.
God, I hope she runs for President next time round. I can't say I'll vote for her over the other conservative nominees. I recognize her shortcomings as a candidate. But it might be worth voting for her just to give these bastards conniption fits.
It brings to mind the following line from Sylvia Plath:
Out of the ash I rise with my red hair
And eat men like air
Splash, out
Jason
P.S., Frank Rich has a problem with Bristol getting seduced by Levi as a teenager. But Rich, as a fully-formed adult, was seduced by a con-man, Alan Conway, who convinced Rich that he was really Stanley Kubrick.
That's right: Conway told Rich all the right things, said everything Rich wanted to hear... probably did the journalism equivalent of stroking Rich's hair. Rich was seduced. Taken in by this guy. And thought he was going to get an interview with Stanley Kubrick. Conway lied to him and Rich fell for it.
But Rich, the pathetic, blackened little cur, can't find it in his tar-pumping heart to cut some slack for a small-town teenage girl who's handsome, rugged boyfriend promised to marry her. No, even more than that, he has to drag his sick obsession with Palin vaginas into the pages of the New York Times.
What. An. Ass.
No wonder he draws a paycheck from the New York Times. He fits right in with their corporate culture.
MORE:
Palinists regard their star as an icon of working-class America even though the Palins’ combined reported income ($211,000) puts them in the top 3.6 percent of American households.
No, dipshit. Nobody regards the Palins as 'working class.' They are a middle to upper middle-class family. And it's not a matter of income, you ignorant cur. It's a matter of culture and shared values. And here's a whack on the head with a clue-bat: SARAH PALIN WAS NOT ALWAYS THE F---ING GOVERNOR OF ALASKA!!!!!
MORE:
Or that Rush Limbaugh held up a picture of Chelsea Clinton on television to identify the “White House dog.”
Did he?? Ok, Rich. I'm calling you and anyone who says that a liar. Rush Limbaugh himself "held up" a picture of Chelsea Clinton on television to identify the White House dog?
I'm calling that stupid bluff.
Show me the vid.
Splash, out
Jason
Labels: Alaska, class warfare, Limbaugh, Palin, Palin's Vagina
Comments:
I did not see the episode but think I remember it generating a lot of criticism from left and right. And there's this:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
# posted by 
: 12:53 PM
: 12:53 PM
Oh, Christ. I post a challenge to all those gullible libtards who will believe anything Al Franken and Kos tells them to find the video, and all I get is a third-hand blurb, years after the fact, from FAIR? Summarizing an article from a left-wing hack, who herself didn't even see the video?
Total f---ing garbage.
Ivins has passed on, and isn't around to defend herself, so I won't call her a liar. I think she probably read some lying set of talking points and went with it, because that's what libtards do, and she wasn't a very good journalist who felt the need to check out her allegations.
Here's a clue: It's in Ivins' own language, when you compare it to Rich's. To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? And what does the phrase "put up" mean.
Well, it means something other than "holds up." and "he" may well refer to someone other than Limbaugh.
Already Rich's account is falling apart.
Here's the deal: FAIR, and People for the American Way, and later on, Media Matters, have been taping everything Limbaugh ever says, looking for a chance to discredit him.
If the video really showed what they say it shows, they'd show it at every opportunity.
I'm saying the video DOESN'T show what Rich said it shows.
Gonna keep spreading that lie?
LET'S SEE THE VID!
YOU GULLIBLE LOSERS, LET'S SEE THE VID!!!!
Total f---ing garbage.
Ivins has passed on, and isn't around to defend herself, so I won't call her a liar. I think she probably read some lying set of talking points and went with it, because that's what libtards do, and she wasn't a very good journalist who felt the need to check out her allegations.
Here's a clue: It's in Ivins' own language, when you compare it to Rich's. To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? And what does the phrase "put up" mean.
Well, it means something other than "holds up." and "he" may well refer to someone other than Limbaugh.
Already Rich's account is falling apart.
Here's the deal: FAIR, and People for the American Way, and later on, Media Matters, have been taping everything Limbaugh ever says, looking for a chance to discredit him.
If the video really showed what they say it shows, they'd show it at every opportunity.
I'm saying the video DOESN'T show what Rich said it shows.
Gonna keep spreading that lie?
LET'S SEE THE VID!
YOU GULLIBLE LOSERS, LET'S SEE THE VID!!!!
Oh, Christ. I post a challenge to all those gullible libtards who will believe anything Al Franken and Kos tells them to find the video, and all I get is a third-hand blurb, years after the fact, from FAIR? Summarizing an article from Ivins, of all people? A left-wing hack, who herself didn't even see the video?
Total f---ing garbage.
Ivins has passed on, and isn't around to defend herself, so I won't call her a liar. I think she probably read some lying set of talking points and went with it, because that's what libtards do, and she wasn't a very good journalist who felt the need to check out her allegations.
Here's a clue: It's in Ivins' own language, when you compare it to Rich's. To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? And what does the phrase "put up" mean.
Well, it means something other than "holds up." and "he" may well refer to someone other than Limbaugh.
Already Rich's account is falling apart.
Here's the deal: FAIR, and People for the American Way, and later on, Media Matters, have been taping everything Limbaugh ever says, looking for a chance to discredit him.
If the video really showed what they say it shows, they'd show it at every opportunity.
I'm saying the video DOESN'T show what Rich said it shows.
Gonna keep spreading that lie?
LET'S SEE THE VID!
YOU GULLIBLE LOSERS, LET'S SEE THE VID!!!!
Total f---ing garbage.
Ivins has passed on, and isn't around to defend herself, so I won't call her a liar. I think she probably read some lying set of talking points and went with it, because that's what libtards do, and she wasn't a very good journalist who felt the need to check out her allegations.
Here's a clue: It's in Ivins' own language, when you compare it to Rich's. To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? And what does the phrase "put up" mean.
Well, it means something other than "holds up." and "he" may well refer to someone other than Limbaugh.
Already Rich's account is falling apart.
Here's the deal: FAIR, and People for the American Way, and later on, Media Matters, have been taping everything Limbaugh ever says, looking for a chance to discredit him.
If the video really showed what they say it shows, they'd show it at every opportunity.
I'm saying the video DOESN'T show what Rich said it shows.
Gonna keep spreading that lie?
LET'S SEE THE VID!
YOU GULLIBLE LOSERS, LET'S SEE THE VID!!!!
You seem to be mostly right. But I do seem to be correct in remembering a real-time stink over a real incident.
Good discussion here:
http://lyingliar.com/?p=17
On his TV show in 1992, a few days after the Presidential election, Rush Limbaugh was reviewing In/Out lists (a popular fad at the time):
In today’s New York Daily News right here… it’s the obligatory in-out list. Every time there’s a massive change somewhere, people are in, people are out. I’m now out. It says about me on here, Rush Limbaugh, loud-mouthed conservative and Bush favorite. He’s out.
Rush commented that most of the other things on the days’ list were not funny, but that “one of them in particular” was. Rush quoted from the David Hinckley article
“In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.”
Could– could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at– see who is the cute kid in the White House.
A picture of the “cute dog” (Millie) appeared on the screen instead of the “cute kid” (Chelsea).
Rush immediately said
No, no, no. That’s not the kid.
Then a picture of Chelsea Clinton came on the screen and Rush said
That’s– that’s the kid.
Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance.
It is not an assault on Chelsea, as her picture only comes up in the context of correcting the error.
Franken set up a fake joke, falsely accused Rush of trying to tell it and then complained that the joke would only make sense if Rush put up the picture on purpose.
Rush has always maintained the incident was an accident.
Good discussion here:
http://lyingliar.com/?p=17
On his TV show in 1992, a few days after the Presidential election, Rush Limbaugh was reviewing In/Out lists (a popular fad at the time):
In today’s New York Daily News right here… it’s the obligatory in-out list. Every time there’s a massive change somewhere, people are in, people are out. I’m now out. It says about me on here, Rush Limbaugh, loud-mouthed conservative and Bush favorite. He’s out.
Rush commented that most of the other things on the days’ list were not funny, but that “one of them in particular” was. Rush quoted from the David Hinckley article
“In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.”
Could– could we see the cute kid? Let’s take a look at– see who is the cute kid in the White House.
A picture of the “cute dog” (Millie) appeared on the screen instead of the “cute kid” (Chelsea).
Rush immediately said
No, no, no. That’s not the kid.
Then a picture of Chelsea Clinton came on the screen and Rush said
That’s– that’s the kid.
Rush apologized several times and told a story about how he had learned early in his career the importance of not making fun of someone’s appearance.
It is not an assault on Chelsea, as her picture only comes up in the context of correcting the error.
Franken set up a fake joke, falsely accused Rush of trying to tell it and then complained that the joke would only make sense if Rush put up the picture on purpose.
Rush has always maintained the incident was an accident.
# posted by : 4:24 PM
: 4:24 PM
No, I'm not MOSTLY right. I'm ENTIRELY right.
It's clear from this transcript that A. Limbaugh never "held up" a picture of Chelsea.
B. Limbaugh didn't "put up" a picture of anyone. His live television producer put up a photo of Millie.
C. Limbaugh never compared Chelsea to a dog.
D. Neither did anyone else on the show.
E. Chelsea wasn't even mistaken for a dog. If anything, the dog was mistaken for the 'cute kid.'
I am 100% right about this. Rich is 100% wrong. Ivins was 100% wrong. It was a lie from the very beginning.
And Rich, being a consummate NY Times man, couldn't be bothered to check out the story before running it.
It's another "plastic turkey." A lie through and through, and a slander on Rush.
Saturday Night Live did slam Chelsea's appearance. Limbaugh did not.
The lying liars account has been circulating for a while. If the vid said what the libtards lie that it said, they would have produced it by now.
Franken was great comedy writer. but he unfortunately became a professional liar. He never understood that being a partisan advocate for liberal causes does NOT mean that you get to just make shit up.
What a scumbag.
Ivins, I suspect, didn't know any better. But she was a professional journalist, writing in a newspaper, and she has a minimal obligation to check things out. Even opinion columnists should check things out before they run them. Hell, ESPECIALLY opinion columnists, because they're so widely read.
What a garbage meme. And people who should know better are still spreading it, more than 15 years later.
It's clear from this transcript that A. Limbaugh never "held up" a picture of Chelsea.
B. Limbaugh didn't "put up" a picture of anyone. His live television producer put up a photo of Millie.
C. Limbaugh never compared Chelsea to a dog.
D. Neither did anyone else on the show.
E. Chelsea wasn't even mistaken for a dog. If anything, the dog was mistaken for the 'cute kid.'
I am 100% right about this. Rich is 100% wrong. Ivins was 100% wrong. It was a lie from the very beginning.
And Rich, being a consummate NY Times man, couldn't be bothered to check out the story before running it.
It's another "plastic turkey." A lie through and through, and a slander on Rush.
Saturday Night Live did slam Chelsea's appearance. Limbaugh did not.
The lying liars account has been circulating for a while. If the vid said what the libtards lie that it said, they would have produced it by now.
Franken was great comedy writer. but he unfortunately became a professional liar. He never understood that being a partisan advocate for liberal causes does NOT mean that you get to just make shit up.
What a scumbag.
Ivins, I suspect, didn't know any better. But she was a professional journalist, writing in a newspaper, and she has a minimal obligation to check things out. Even opinion columnists should check things out before they run them. Hell, ESPECIALLY opinion columnists, because they're so widely read.
What a garbage meme. And people who should know better are still spreading it, more than 15 years later.
And yet, from all the jokes Limbaugh made later about how nasty he was and spanking himself, he seemed to think this had implications you don't see.
Post a Comment
