Rush Limbaugh’s Challenge to Liberals, eloquently expressed by…the LA Times.

Challenge? Of what challenge do you speak?

An editorial column in yesterday’s LA Times by Andrew Klavan puts the Limbaugh Challenge right on the front stoop of one of the most liberal newspapers in the nation. That challenge..

Take the Limbaugh Challenge

Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh — why don’t you actually listen to his show before bashing him?

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration’s recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That’s the likelihood; here’s the certainty: You’ve never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven’t. Whenever I interrupt a liberal’s anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: “I’ve heard him!”

Most likely what they’ve heard is the snarling spittle-flecked responses from Rush’s detractors (including White House Obama cabinet members, and similar left-wingers who’ve taken their talking points from media voices. Oh, and perhaps from some so-called ‘moderate’ Republicans (David Frum, Kathleen Parker and others infected with the Republirhinovirus) come to mind. Oh, and the latest lefty darling, that bimbo Meghan McCain (for whom I had this advice: “If you really love this country, then join the service, like your father did. Earn some honor; garner some respect. Because now you have neither.” Harrumph).

Back to that LAT column (getting close to the best part ):

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, “I’m not a liberal, I’m a moderate, and I’m tolerant of a wide range of differing views — but this goes too far!”

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You’re not a moderate or you wouldn’t be reading this newspaper. You’re not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven’t listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Which leads to a question: Why not? I mean, come on, the guy’s one of the figures of the age. Aren’t you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker — I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh’s show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

That’s a question every liberal will have to answer for herself. But this, now, this answer from Andrew Klavan is worth bolding and offsetting and, really, putting on it’s own pedestal. Ready to have your lefty head asplode? Now, again, why do liberals not listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Now let me tell you the real answer: You’re a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You’re terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

(Yes, emboldenings are mine. To make sure you see it.)

This, printed in yesterday’s LA Times.

I wonder how many lib’ruls are picketing the joint this morning? Calling and canceling their subscriptions? Let’s hope quite a few.

Occasionally, the MSM gets something right. Rarely so, now, but when they do, I’ll be the first (well, second: you didn’t think I’d read the LA Times, now did you? ) to acknowledge it.


crossed from home

11 comments:

  1. JTF, 30. March 2009, 10:06

    This is BS. There are FAR more liberls that listen to wingnuts like Limbaugh, Savage, DlGiorno, Valentine, etc… than ever even thought about listening to Olbermann. The only difference is that Olbermann effectively backs up his opinions where as often the wingnuts simply demogogue and opine.

    You know, this works extremely well for conservatives who are too stupid to discern. Notice how Serr8d’s quote attacks intellectuals. Not only do conservatives have no respect for education and intellectualism, they fear it, disdain it, and are clearly jealous of it, because they know they are inferior.

    These same people who attack intellectuals are the same people who worship nascar drivers, the same people who will pan a REAL athlete like Phelps who smokes a bong. This gives you an idea of the type of people we’re dealing with here.

     
  2. Number 9, 30. March 2009, 11:49

    The only difference is that Olbermann effectively backs up his opinions where as often the wingnuts simply demogogue and opine.

    Gasp.

    Not only do conservatives have no respect for education and intellectualism, they fear it, disdain it, and are clearly jealous of it, because they know they are inferior.

    Gasp again.

    These same people who attack intellectuals are the same people who worship nascar drivers, the same people who will pan a REAL athlete like Phelps who smokes a bong. This gives you an idea of the type of people we’re dealing with here.

    You complain that some of your comments have been clipped? Do you read what you write?

    JTF, seriously, WTF? I know little kids that are eight years old that can make a better logical argument than that. That is one of the lamest comments we have ever received. It is democommie lame.

    You really want to go down the “conservatives are inferior” path?

    How can we even respond to that?

     
  3.  

    […] over at TennesseeFree jumps on the Andrew Klavan LA Times article bandwagon and accuses liberals who have a healthy […]

     
  4. JTF, 30. March 2009, 16:12

    Conservatives are divorced from reality. Liberals often listen to conservative media, almost never the opposite, they don’t venture outside their little Fox News/ Hot Air bubble.

    Case in point:
    The same Spanish court that prosecuted the Chilean dictator Pinochet, is now considering charges for 6 Bush Admin officials. Big news… google lists 688 news items on the subject - AP, Reutrs, NYT, ABC, CBS, LATimes, BBC… but try to find this world interest story on the Fox News website…. you won’t find it.

    Conservatives are divorced from reality. They live in an echo chamber where they only hear what they want to hear.

     
  5. Serr8d, 30. March 2009, 18:27

    (Does anyone notice JTF’s structure and syntax has changed, and not even ever so slightly? I think what we have on our hands is…SOCKPUPPET!)

    Either that, or the local smokery is out of his favorite bud.

    Oh, and that ‘Spanish Judge’ you and your ilk have latched onto is as far-left as the Third Circus Court out of San Francisco. He’s always tilting at windmills, on behest of socialists and communists. Surprise me you glom onto him.

     
  6. Serr8d, 30. March 2009, 19:09
  7. JTF, 31. March 2009, 2:53

    It’s ‘left wing’ for a country to prosecute officials who have tortured their citizens like Bush/Cheney did with five Spanish citizens at Gitmo? Was it left wing for the same court to pursue Pinochet?

    Lies

    In a June 6, 2002, address, Bush called Zubaida al Qaeda’s “chief of operations” and said that “From him and from hundreds of others, we are learning more about how the terrorists plan and operate, information crucial in anticipating and preventing future attacks.”

    At a Republican fundraiser on October 14, 2002, Bush called Zubaida “one of the top three leaders in the organization.”

    Fact

    Washington Post
    “not a single significant plot was foiled” as a result of Zubaida’s brutal treatment, and that, quite to the contrary, his false confessions “triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms.”

    But as author Ron Suskind reported almost three years ago — and as The Post now confirms — almost all the key assertions the Bush administration made about Zubaida were wrong.

    Zubaida wasn’t a major al Qaeda figure. He wasn’t holding back critical information. His torture didn’t produce valuable intelligence — and it certainly didn’t save lives.

    You won’t see this at “Hot Air”

     
  8. Serr8d, 31. March 2009, 5:37

    Dig a little deeper, JTF…those lefty no-brain sites you frequent don’t cover the story very well…

    Some U.S. officials remain steadfast in their conclusion that Abu Zubaida possessed, and gave up, plenty of useful information about al-Qaeda.

    “It’s simply wrong to suggest that Abu Zubaida wasn’t intimately involved with al-Qaeda,” said a U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much about Abu Zubaida remains classified. “He was one of the terrorist organization’s key facilitators, offered new insights into how the organization operated, provided critical information on senior al-Qaeda figures . . . and identified hundreds of al-Qaeda members. How anyone can minimize that information — some of the best we had at the time on al-Qaeda — is beyond me.”

    Until the attacks on New York and Washington, Abu Zubaida was a committed jihadist who regarded the United States as an enemy principally because of its support of Israel. He helped move people in and out of military training camps in Afghanistan, including some men who were or became members of al-Qaeda, according to interviews with multiple sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He was widely known as a kind of travel agent for those seeking such training.

    Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

    Two weeks ago, Bush’s vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that “the enhanced interrogation program” stopped “a great many” terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

    “I’ve seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs,” Cheney asserted, adding that the report is “still classified,” and, “I can’t give you the details of it without violating classification.”

    Lastly, the little punk is still alive, still in possession of all of his extremities, and is still a bad actor. Do I feel bad about the poor dear’s waterboarding and other ‘harsh’ treatment?

    Fuck, no. He consorted with terrorists. He played a dangerous game. He got most of what he had coming.

    It could have wound up differently..maybe that’s the way it should have ended for this little terrorist travel agent.

     
  9. JTF, 31. March 2009, 9:47

    HAHAHAHA who you gonna belive? The war criminals, Dick Cheney, or the facts?

    From the article YOU cited entitled: Detainee’s Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots

    “We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms,” one former intelligence official said.

    There is a certain brand of idiot that shakes in their boots when Dick Cheney talks about mushroom clouds and eats up every word like adutiful brainless automoton.

    a number of senior officials from both the FBI and the CIA directly refuted Cheney’s claims. The article, which is worth reading in its entirety, focused primarily on the torture of Abu Zubaydah, Binyam Mohamed and Jose Padilla, but there were also key insights into the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Although Bush claimed that KSM had provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans,” a former senior CIA official, who read all the interrogation reports from KSM’s torture in secret CIA custody, explained that “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit,” and a former Pentagon analyst added, “KSM produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

    lol

     
  10. Serr8d, 31. March 2009, 13:28

    Love your Vanity Fair linky.

    Next time, move up! to High Times.

    Torture? There was no ‘torture’ or ‘war crimes’ at Guantanamo. You redefine the definition of torture for use as political talking points. Waterboarding is not torture. Nor is putting prisoners on leashes and making them bark like dogs. Losing appendages or gaining scars, now, that is torture.

    Those perps you so defend, would you like to have them in your home, for Sunday dinner? They.Hate.You. Just because you are not Muslim. That’s the thing we are fighting: the Islamic jihadists, don’t, care for anyone except themselves and their Mohammed false prophet (pieces be torn from him). They could care less about you or your country (wherever that is).

    Let the Jihadis reform themselves, then join the world community. We don’t have to change; they need to change. And your Spanish Judge, Baltasar, a socialist, is coming to America to try our people? Ha! Even that tool Obama has problems with that.

    You can take your Daily Kos talking points to Huffpo or somewhere were they’ll be appreciated. Here, I’ll be laughing at your stoned self, as you deserve to be laughed at.

     
  11. JTF, 31. March 2009, 17:14

    Ah HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Considering:
    1) Th man you voted for said Japanese officers were hanged for waterboarding

    2) The US tortured numerous detainees to DEATH (see “Taxi to the Dark Side”)

    3) Numerous investigations and organizations including the US military’s own inspector said the US tortured

    4) A former State Department lawyer tells The Associated Press that the Bush administration panicked after 9/11 and tortured prisoners. Your hero PANICKED.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/27/politics/main4897315.shtml

    That pretty much expodes your little torture denial bubble shows how detached from reality yoiu really are. The denialists have no place to hide. HAHAHAHA!

     

Write a comment: