Rest In Peace, Andrew Breitbart

When I saw the news, I was giving a quick look on Twitter before starting work. My first thought was, Nah, probably just a bad joke.

I’ve never met Andrew Breitbart, but I know plenty who have worked with him, and while I can certainly recognize his contributions to our movement, there are other people who are more qualified to talk about the man himself. I’ll post links here in due time.

Andrew RIP – Jonah Goldberg

Andrew Breitbart: R.I.P. Happy Warrior - Melissa Clouthier

In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012) - Larry Solov

The Inspiring Life of Andrew Breitbart – Rob Bluey

About these ads

143 thoughts on “Rest In Peace, Andrew Breitbart

  1. Cluster

    This is very strange. Died of natural causes?? How many seemingly healthy 43 year olds die of natural causes? I wonder what the autopsy will reveal – foul play? I know Andrew had his share of enemies.

  2. Leo Pusateri

    I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Breitbart at RightOnline in Minneapolis this last summer. He was very approachable, down-to-earth.

    Talk about a guy who made a difference.

    He wasn’t just the guy to point at liberal institutions and expose that they had no clothes; he was able to point at liberal institutions and expose the fact that they had no soul, and shone the light of truth on their naked, ugly, evil underpinnings (i.e., Planned Parenthood). He did the job that self-respecting investigative journalists of yesteryear chomped at the bit to do, but that the current crop of parrot-’journalists’ shirk.

    Truth in the world of journalism has lost its staunchest ally.

    1. Jonathan Swift

      I think stitching together audio recordings to imply people said things they never actually said is pretty far from what a “self-respecting investigative journalist” would do.

      1. neocon1

        junswift

        and a LIE about another person is a low as you can go..but YOU are a socialist and that is what they do.

        The racist was caught with her bloomers down and no matter how much you squirm it was her own words.

        Long Live Andrew

      2. neocon1

        CHA CHING………thieves all

        New Communities received a $12.8 million settlement, which included $8.2 million in compensation for loss of farm land, $4.2 million for loss of income and $330,000 to Sherrod and her husband[62] for “mental anguish”

      3. Amazona

        And Breitbart did not do this.

        He took out some extraneous conversation but left in WHAT WAS SAID, AS IT WAS SAID.

        Apologists for the criminals he uncovered have claimed that the editing he did was, as you falsely claim here, “…stitching together audio recordings to imply people said things they never actually said.. ” but this is a lie. We have repeatedly reminded you people that if this were true, it would be a simple matter to prove it——releasing the raw uncut recordings would have been one way, and of course it is possible to tell if a recording has been altered, stitched together, etc.

        Breitbart’s recordings were not. The comments made were in the order they were said, and presented in their entirety. The only “editing” was the removal of other parts of the conversations not relevant to the descriptions of how to break the law, or make sex slaves out of underage girls. The entire recordings were made available to law enforcement, just not submitted to media who were limited to short sound bites.

        You people were sure outraged that any part of the recording was not included in the media releases, but oddly comfortable with the fact that the recordings included advice on how to get away with victimizing young girls.

      4. Count d'Haricots

        Amazona,
        He’s referring to the Shirley Sharrod video. The edited tape given to Brietbart cost her he job because of a perceived dereliction of her duty. But, lost in that controversy was that Sharrod did make racist remarks while speaking for the NAACP~ which was Breitbart’s intent to demonstrate.

      5. Count d'Haricots

        Sorry, that shoukld read “The edited tape given to Brietbart cost Sharrod her job because of a perceived dereliction of her duty.”

        She did make racist remarks.

      6. Amazona

        Thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten about Sherrod, but had a clear memory of Brietbart and the two young journalists who got the ACORN tapes being harangued at CPAC by Lefties who accused them of “editing” the recordings when all they did was select the parts submitted to media.

      7. Jonathan Swift

        I’d be very interested to hear what portion of the full speech was racist. Also, you failed to mention that after the full audio of the speech was released, Sharrod was given an apology and was offered a job back at the Department of Agriculture. There’s a decent chance he was going to lose the defamation lawsuit that was pending at the time of his death.

      8. Count d'Haricots

        I didn’t fail to mention anything; Sharrod made racist remarks about sending a “white man” to a “white lawyer” because he could be better represented by “his own kind.” She admitted that she hadn’t done her job because the client wasn’t a black man.

        Your Obama Administration demanded her resignation without all the facts, blame them not Brietbart, he didn’t ask for her resignation nor did he want it; he demonstrated that the NAACP condones racism.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk is the full video. Go to the 18 minute mark and watch her admit she was a racist and made her decisions based on race. After about 5 more minutes she states that once the “white farmer” was cheated by his own lawyer, she finally stepped up and did what she should have done from the beginning.

        Frankly Swifty, I’m surprised you jumped to the accusation of Brietbart without knowing the entire story (since you just wrote that you hadn’t seen the video). But then you haven’t been making decisions based on facts anyway so what else is new?

      9. neocon1

        MSNBC’s Matthews: Breitbart Didn’t Smear Sherrod; Video Wasn’t Deceptively Edited

      10. Jonathan Swift

        She stated that her actions were a mistake when she made them 25 years ago and she was using the story to describe her epiphany that race should was not the issue.

        If you think that makes her a racist, that’s your call, but I’ve listened to the audio, and that’s not what I get from it at all.

      11. Count d'Haricots

        Swifty,

        Then you’re willing to admit you jumped to accuse Brietbart without facts?

        You’re now going to admit that the Obama Administration likewise jumped to accuse Sharrod without the facts?

        But, you’re still not willing to admit that failing to do her job based on the color of the client’s skin, refering to “his own kind” is racism at its core.

        You haven’t grown at all, have you?

      12. Jonathan Swift

        “Then you’re willing to admit you jumped to accuse Brietbart without facts?”

        No. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        “You’re now going to admit that the Obama Administration likewise jumped to accuse Sharrod without the facts?”

        Yes. I have never said anything contrary to this, nor do I have any idea how it relates to the rest of the discussion. It’s hard to have a sensible conversation with you guys when I can’t speak to you for three posts without having to start digging through Obama bashing to find the conversation I started out having.

        “But, you’re still not willing to admit that failing to do her job based on the color of the client’s skin, refering to “his own kind” is racism at its core.”

        Of course it was racist. Sharrod knew it was racist when she brought it up in the first place. Her speech was about how it was racist and wrong.

      13. Count d'Haricots

        Are you being deliberately obtuse?

        ”I think stitching together audio recordings to imply people said things they never actually said is pretty far from what a ‘self-respecting investigative journalist’ would do.”

        Then you’re willing to admit you jumped to accuse Brietbart without facts? Nothing “stitched” She “actually said it”.

        “Of course it was racist.

        I don’t actually expect you admit you jumped to accuse Brietbart without facts, that’s what makes hard to have a conversation with you people.

      14. Jonathan Swift

        Here’s the problem with what you are saying: he did stitch things together. There are references in the middle of his excerpted clips that he cut out because she says things that indicate that she does not agree with the decisions she made in the story. Breitbart knowingly took what she said and cut out portions in order to change the audio from being a story about something she regretted to something she endorsed.

  3. Count d'Haricots

    You’re right morepat, Andrew Breitbart was a keen judge of human character. We’ll all miss him.

    1. tiredoflibbs

      Tommy-boy: “man up”

      We get this from the guy who ADMITS to not paying his fair share and WON’T PAY his fair share and then lying about it.

      Pathetic.

    2. Count d'Haricots

      tired,

      I don’t understand how Sasshole’s filthy anti-Semitic crap is allowed, but another Mencken quote applies; “He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force.”

      We know Sasshole is incapable of “force” because his girlfriend cut his balls off with his “best friend” and nearly everyone else he knows. Poor little Iranian Pussy.

    3. Count d'Haricots

      neo,

      Always funny to see the Iranian Eunuch coming unglued, especially when someone mentions his “bathroom-wall” wife. This girl is more used than a Kleenex tissue in a gynecologist’s exam room with slightly more K-Y Jelly. He doesn’t care if she’s better “known” for dropping to her knees when introduced to a stranger, but it bothers him that she makes more money than him at the bus depot.

      She is well-known around their Huston neighborhood; her odor reminds people of when the Chicken-of-the-Sea cannery was located in town. But, it’s okay; anything to take the focus off her face.

      1. neocon1

        unpatriotdoggy

        $3000.00 A YEAR for CONDOMS?
        A SLUT fer sure.

        rush figures if we as tax payers have to pay for this broad to boink 3-6 times a day we should get something in return, (not asking to be one of her clients) just a peek LOL
        Humor libtards, try to find some out of the Fn joke going on in front of congress.

      2. neocon1

        moredumbopain

        left – forkers analogy

        Jews = BAD
        Catholics = BAD
        Christians = BAD

        islam = MURDER = GOOD
        Abortion = MURDER = GOOD
        Atheism = Murder = GOOD

      3. Jonathan Swift

        “moredumbopain

        left – forkers analogy

        Jews = BAD
        Catholics = BAD
        Christians = BAD

        islam = MURDER = GOOD
        Abortion = MURDER = GOOD
        Atheism = Murder = GOOD”

        Okay, I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but…

        In what way is Atheism equivalent to murder?

      4. neocon1

        Bmitch

        funny you would mention condoms and ass in one sentence…..bwany??

        condoms ARE birth control you Moron, you want em go buy them, you dont? use an aspirin.

      5. Amazona

        So she not only demands that other people pay for her to have sex, she demands that it be barrier-free sex.

        Not much of a prima donna, is she?

    4. tiredoflibbs

      Once again, tommy-boy, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. The gov’t has a mechanism in place for you to pay more in taxes than you owe. You feel that you don’t pay enough and want your taxes raised.

      It is a simple matter to write a check for the difference. But you refuse, repeatedly, with the lame excuse that the gov’t doesn’t force you to pay more. Therefore, you are a coward and a liar. I accept nothing from the gov’t therefore your pathetic labeling is inaccurate just like all you so called “facts”.

      Again, write the check or STFU, coward!

      1. tiredoflibbs

        Tommy-boy: “I pay what I have to pay legally.”

        So, you only pay what the government tells you to pay. Then you complain that you don’t pay enough?

        You finally admit that you can’t take the initiative and use the mechanisms in place and pay more in taxes that you feel you should pay. You can only do what the government tells you to do.

        You are the epitome of the mindless government drone.

        Write a check or STFU. I am tired of whiny liberals like you, who complain that they don’t pay enough, but are too cowardly to put their money where their mouth is.

    5. Count d'Haricots

      neo,
      Ain’t is ahoot that he always responds?

      Hey Sasshole, if I’m wrong why are you the only one that ever responds when I write about the pussy Sasan Zataban?

      Holy Crap, you’re stupid!

    6. Count d'Haricots

      neo, shhhh, let’s see how long it takes him to respond that I spelled his name wrong; even as he insists it isn’t him.

      What a douche.

  4. neocon1

    moreofapilethanyou

    I thought the pile remark was about Ochimpy…….but kennedydrunk will suffice.

  5. Cluster

    James,

    Your hatred of Jews is well documented, and the fact that you called Afghan’s towel heads the other day, pretty much solidifies your hatred for Arabs, and now we are subject once again to your hate filled vitriol directed at a fellow American that happened to have a different political ideology than you, so it’s obvious that the people you do care for represent a small minority. My question is this, since you consider yourself to be such enlightened progressive who only wants the best for everyone, how can you harbor so much hate for so many people?

    1. Cluster

      Don’t blame Mencken, this is all you, and you do have a lot of anger directed at people you don’t even really know who they are, or what they stand for. I know for sure that you have a childish view of what a conservative is so I can only assume the same for the others. As I said the other day, there was only a few items on that political wish list you posted the other day that conservative would oppose, namely the EPA, but by and large I think most Americans want the same things, we just have very different ideas of how to achieve them, and if liberals like you and Occupy would just control your emotions, maybe one day we could have that conversation.

  6. neocon1

    1369j

    nice of you and james to prove my point that liberals are filthy pukes.
    But hey, you murder your young, or bunga bunga each other so in 2-3 generations we wont have to put up with you scums.

    1. Count d'Haricots

      neo,
      We should all be grateful to penguinpenus for sharing that delightful story; Andrew was certainly a fine judge of human nature and a rare individual to speak the truth about the murdering-lying-hypocrite-misogynist Kennedy. Breitbart spoke the truth about him when he was alive, and continued to do so after Kennedy assumed room temperature.

      We’re going to miss that kind of honesty.

    2. neocon1

      Woo Hoo

      OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE DEEMED A FRAUD BY SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO’S COLD CASE POSSE

      I declare the POS to be a FRAUD in everything he is and does.

  7. Count d'Haricots

    Wow, you’re awful judgmental.

    Do you just hate Brietbart because he disagreed with you?

    What a sad petty little person you are.

    He’s dead, let go of your anger. Or go spread it somewhere where your kind of rancor feeds the other angry little minds of the Left.

  8. mitchethekid

    How about Limbaugh? Calling a law school student who wanted to relate her personal experiences with women’s health care issues a slut and a whore. Suggesting that she make a porn film so he can watch. This is from a man who has been married 4 times and had to have a forged script for Viagra whilst on an all boys vacation. This man is terrified of women and subsequently is intimidated if they are comfortable in their sexuality. If this outburst of his doesn’t expose what “conservatives” have become, then nothing will. Imagine if this young woman was your daughter. And for those of you who still live in the 14th century, the active chemical in birth control pills does alot more than prevent pregnancy. The excuse that it’s a licience for wanton sex is sooo 1950. Sex can be wanton but those who are repressed are usually the most moralizing and reactionary. Good luck Republicans running against birth control. Or the Blunt amendment. Or personhood bills. Forget the economy because it’s getting better. Forget the Presidents rising poll numbers. And now we can forget Andrew.

    1. Cluster

      Mitch,

      A largely unknown fact is that birth control pills are responsible for approx 3 out of every 10 blood clots found in women, so that fact right there I think dismisses the notion that this is a womens health issue. The other fact is that contraception is widely available through county health clinics and Planned Parenthood, to name just two, and people of Faith already contribute that availability via their tax dollars, and they do so with no complaint. So the young lady is just misguided if she thinks that birth control is not already available and/or that this legislation would restrict any of that availability.

      Finally, Limbaugh’s remark was centered around the fact that the young lady said that contraception could cost a woman up to $3000 dollars during their time in college and she essentially wanted others to pay for it. Do the math.

      1. patriotdad1

        And as for his remarks that he feels entitled to watch her have sex because taxpayers are funding contraception?

        It’s just flat out creepy no matter how you frame it.

      2. Cluster

        That was a little over the top, but over the top rhetoric has been a mainstay of the democratic party. So I hardly think they have any room to criticize.

      3. Majordomo Pain

        A little over the top? Had a Liberal radio host said anything like this about your daughter you would have been livid. This is why We understand you people really have no “values” you merely have a set of rules you want others to live by while you do what you please. Liberals using over the top rhetoric doesn’t make it correct for Rush to do it. At some point this noise machine has to be turned off so America can get down to the business of solving its economic and social problems.

      4. Cluster

        At some point this noise machine has to be turned off

        Why don’t we start with the president, who has told Hispanics to punish their enemies, who has had union surrogates speaking directly in front of him saying that they need to “take these son of a bitches out”, and who invites Paul Ryan to sit in the front row while he accuses him of not caring for children with physical handicaps.

        What Rush said pales in comparison

      5. neocon1

        Ochimpy

        “DONT bring a knife to a GUN FIGHT”…

        if he was a student in high school , jr high , or grade schoole he would have been expelled and the parents possibly arrested.

      6. neocon1

        majordumbo

        If she was single and F-ing everything that walked and expected someone else to pay for her ability to be a Ho I would agree with him.
        What is next 2 hour hotel bills?

      7. Majordomo Pain

        The vast majority of Human females who take birth control pills do so for the therapeutic hormones as well as for the contraceptive purpose. This is a women’s health issue and anything that can be done to promote women’s health should be supported. Overall, America needs a single payer health care system and the American government should cease to support any religious organization with federal funds for their hospitals or any other business that relates to health care.

      8. Cluster

        This is a women’s health issue and anything that can be done to promote women’s health should be supported. – major

        30% of all blood clots found in women are result of birth control pills. So I think we can properly dismiss the “health” issue

      9. Jonathan Swift

        What kind of reasoning is that? Nearly every medication has possible side effects. Even if you assume a completely random distribution of side effects, shouldn’t you look at an entire list of health benefits versus risks before making a claim like that?

      10. Jonathan Swift

        “That was a little over the top, but over the top rhetoric has been a mainstay of the democratic party. So I hardly think they have any room to criticize.”

        Gee, when I say things like that, people keep calling it “Moral relativism”.

      11. neocon1

        cO

        It really puts a lie to the claim that these Right-Wing leaders are morally superior,

        Rush is a RADIO talk host NOT a LEADER you MORON, now you want REAL leaders talking SHIITE try the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, SEIU, NBBP, NOI, $harpton, je$$e…there are some REAL class act DEMOCRAT gangsters, thugs, criminals and perverts all talking for the POS and DNC

        go back and re read arguing with idiots pg 13-69

      12. neocon1

        c0

        to keep the hateful hyperbole & vitriolic attacks alive.

        ROTFLMAO

        yeah
        HOW DARE HE ask questions to astro turf “PAID” union agent provocateurs to explain their signs or their positions at a “protest”

        HOW DARE HE post a persons own words on the web.

        HOW DARE HE video thugs egging TEA partybusses as they drove by

        HOW DARE HE fild union thugs beating up a black man and goons ripping signs out of old mans hands.

        HOW DARE HE report on the monster that bit the fingers off a TEA party protestor.

        yeah REAL hateful, hyperbole, vitiolic attacks there you Fn MORON!!
        ribit ribit

    2. Amazona

      mitch, please explain the link between a political belief that the United States Constitution is the best political model for governing the country and a personal opinion that a college girl demanding that others subsidize a hyperactive sex life is ridiculous.

      You people are constantly using the word ‘conservative’ as a pejorative, as an adjective to modify a vast range of actions that have absolutely nothing to do with the political reality of the conservative movement. All this does is exemplify your political ignorance and illustrate that to a certain kind of simple mind “politics” is just identity, scandal, events and personality.

      This explains why you vote the way you do, and why you seem to think that venting your irrational hyper-emotional hate-based spewings is political commentary, but it does NOT mean that the political philosophy of conservatism has anything to do with any of the bogey-men you obsess over.

      BTW, Rush Limbaugh is often nothing more than a mysognistic blowhard. So what? He is not a political figure, he is merely an entertainer who bases his schtick on his take on American politics. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is so stupid I cringe at what comes out of his mouth. But he is not in any way shape or form a leader of the GOP, or of the conservative movement.

      Only the politically ignorant and illiterate, who see politics as personality, could try to condemn a political movement based on what some guy on the radio says.

      1. mitch

        You are ridiculous. The hyperactive sex life you refer to is a supposition. This woman was denied testimony by Darrell Isa in a forum to discuss women’s health care issues. Limbaugh degenerated both the conversation and her character into a crude and vile description of her efforts to educate people by accusing her of being promiscuous and then went even further to suggest she be filmed in a sex act.
        I will say that if you have any sexual hang ups, it is to fetishize politics.
        Unfortunately Limbaugh has a daily audience of 20 million.Glad to know, however that you view him in the light that you do. This still doesn’t detract from his influence.

        http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/how-could-they-believe-this-stuff.html

      2. Cluster

        Actual transcript:

        “My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ.

        Reproductive justice??? What in the hell is that?

        I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result

        Emotional burdens because there is no contraception coverage in her plan?? All she has to do is walk down to planned parenthood. What’s so hard about that?

        “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

        They struggle financially because they can’t have protected sex??

        This chick is a JOKE!!!!!!!!!

        http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/23/transcript-sandra-fluke-testifies-on-why-women-should-be-allowed-access-to-contraception-and-reproductive-health-care/

      3. Cluster

        For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships…

        So not only is the tax payers paying for her school, now she wants tax payers to pay so she can enjoy quite a few evenings of protected sex. Should we feed and clothe her as well?

      4. Amazona

        For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships…

        I’m not sure paying for someone like this to go to law school is in “the public interest”. Forget about her sexual appetites—–the unbelievably twisted and muddled thought processes that she expresses ought to disqualify her from educational assistance.

        I was particularly impressed by her claim of knowing someone who died because she did not have access to contraception. This goes beyond simple stupidity. She did not just blurt this out without thinking it through—it was prepared testimony. If it was just an arguing point, it was a lie. If it represents the way her mind works, well, we already have plenty of stupid lawyers, Velma being the poster child for “SHE made it through law school??!!”

      5. Amazona

        Condom=$1.00
        $1,000.00=1000 condoms
        1 year=365 days
        1000 condoms / 365 days = 2.74 acts of intercourse per day, every single day, all year long

        Sounds pretty hyperactive to me. Assuming she slows it down a little sometimes for Granny’s funeral, or to actually STUDY, she’d have to make up those missed sessions, ramping up some days to five or six encounters.

      6. Majordomo Pain

        This is about oral contraceptives not condoms alone. You should spend more time trying to get Catholic women to stop using the pill. More than 95% of catholic women over the age of 21 use oral contraception at some point in their reproductive lives.

      7. Amazona

        And this relates to the Georgetown/Fluke issue, how?

        As usual, you are completely wrong. This is not about oral contraceptives. It is not about condoms. What IS it about you people that allows you to be so easily sidetracked? Are you really so easily led, or are you willing participants in the agenda of falsely spinning this as a contraceptive issue, or a “women’s health” issue?

        It is about the right of a religious organization to run itself according to its religious beliefs.

        It is not about war, Ayn Rand, miscarriages, “Human females”, or any of the other red herrings you people have been working so hard to dredge up. It is not about “women’s health”. It is not about the ability to use contraception. It is not about the sex habits of Georgetown students. It is not about “conservatives”.

        It is about the right of a religious organization to run itself according to its religious beliefs.

        You either believe that the government has the right, and should have the power, to force people of faith to act in opposition to their faith or you believe that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religious thought and action.

      8. mitch

        Then how to you justify Bob McDonald of Virgina requiring an unnecessary and unwanted invasive medical procedure wherein a probe is inserted into a woman’s vagina in order to shame her about getting an abortion? Hypocrite much??

      9. Amazona

        mitch, what is to be “ashamed” of if the female in question truly believes it is morally right to kill her unborn baby?

        And how is the procedure (which would only be called for a very few times, if any, as most of the time traditional ultrasound would work just fine) any more “invasive” procedure than the one that deposited sperm in her vagina in the first place?

      10. Amazona

        As for her conversation, she sounded like a brain-dead whiny robot. wahhh wahhh wahhh, she whined about “women” FEELING SO HELPLESS when told, not that they could not HAVE contraception, but that they would actually have to PAY for it.

        Any female thrown into utter helplessness because no one else will pay for her to have sex is clearly not mentally or emotionally mature enough to make the decision to have sex.

        And you guys struggling so hard to spin disgust for this sniveling entitlement attitude into some sexual hang-up are as clueless and brain-dead as she is.

      11. Amazona

        Only the politically ignorant and illiterate, who see politics as personality, could try to condemn a political movement based on what some guy on the radio says.

      12. dennis

        Thanks for the Frank Schaffer link. I’ve heard him speak but hadn’t seen his blog before. A great resource for putting the circus of political and religious extremism into perspective, and doing it with respect for real Christianity.

      13. Amazona

        Of course you would be drawn to balderdash like this, a quote from your so-esteemed Frank Schaffer:

        When conservatives cry “freedom of religion” and insist they mean something more than “freedom of worship,” this is what they mean: religious freedom is not just the freedom to gather in a room and pray one morning a week. It is the freedom to impose one’s own religious values on others. Free expression of religion entails the right to reason from religious principles in the public square and — with sufficient electoral support — to enshrine those principles in law and social institutions.

        Yes, this intellectual paragon with whom dennis resonates so strongly first lies when he falsely states that to “conservatives” freedom of religion is … the freedom to impose one’s own religious values on others… and then goes on to explain that TRUE “free expression of religion” means that if enough people vote for or against any religious precept then this is enough to override personal religious conviction— ..”to enshrine those principles in law and social institutions…”

        Thanks for the peek into what impresses and appeals to you, dennis. It explains a lot.

      14. mitch

        You’re welcome. I doubt anyone of the regulars here even know who he is, whom his father was and what he escaped from.

      15. Amazona

        Given the nastiness and stupidity of his writings, I doubt that anyone cares.

        Except for those of you so attracted to nastiness and stupidity.

    3. Amazona

      Good luck Republicans running against birth control.

      You do realize, don’t you, that none ARE?

      This is just another Leftist lie, invented because they know there are some lemmings so bone-deep stupid they will believe it.

      1. Canadian Observer

        I don’t know if you consider Santorum a Republican or not, Amazona, but he does come out against birth control.

      2. Amazona

        Rick Santorum has a PERSONAL religious belief that contraception is wrong. He has repeatedly stated that he would never vote to make it illegal.

        You Lefties are working very hard to spin his PERSONAL beliefs into what he would like as public policy, but this is only done in a callous effort to slime him, and aside from those who knowingly and purposely invent and spread these lies, only the profoundly stupid actually believe them.

      3. Canadian Observer

        Yes, it very well may be Santomum’s views on birth control is only his personal belief , Amazona, but so is his faith, and he doesn’t seem to have any qualms about bringing that into the realm of government.

        … ‘On the eve of the Michigan primary, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told an enthusiastic crowd that not only was the separation of church and state not absolute, there is a role for religious faith in the federal government.

        Building on statements he first made over the weekend, Santorum said that the definition of separation of church and state does not appear verbatim in the Constitution. “What does [appear] is the term the free exercise of religion. Those words do appear, so religion is to be freed from the dictates of government. But … the government is not to be free of the influence of faith and people of faith,” he said’…

        This fellow is far from being Presidential material so I guess there is little chance of his winning the Republican nomination. But, then again, there seems to be no one in the current crop of GOP hopefuls that could be considered Presidential, is there?

      4. Amazona

        In precisely what manner would Santorum bring his faith “into the realm of government”?

        More to the point, how could he NOT do this, to some extent? Do you really believe that it is possible to not bring ones’ personal belief system into office with him?

        Obama’s belief system includes the belief that the United States is too strong, too big, too powerful, too arrogant, and should be brought into ‘parity’ with other nations. It is that we should be part of a world government. His belief system includes antipathy toward capitalism and the free market, and the belief that “when you spread the wealth around everyone benefits”. And as his belief system is of a primarily political nature, it has had a much stronger impact on the nation than, say, a belief in a Supreme Being.

        Perhaps you can tell us precisely which beliefs of Santorum’s you fear he would “bring into the realm of government” and why you think this would be a bad thing.

        As he has already repeated that he would never vote to outlaw birth control, we can drop that straw man. As for abortion, well, many non-religious people also understand that a human life is a human life, and that taking it to accommodate the whim or convenience of another is an atrocity—this is not exclusive to religious people, much less Christians, much less Catholics.

        So pin it down for us……..

      5. Canadian Observer

        Your fear of what you think President Obama’s beliefs are doing to America, Amazona, mirrors what I fear Santorum, with his narrow-minded & regressive ideas, will do to cancel out all the progress that has been made since 2008. Due to the foresight and sound policies of President Obama, the U.S. has gained back the respect it had lost during the Bush debacle. To think that Santorum, or any of the other Republican candidates, could erase the President’s good work is repugnant to me.

        BTW, I had thought that you had perhaps a modicum of decency left but reading over some of your comments in this thread has put that thought to rest.

      6. neocon1

        O M G……

        the foresight and sound policies of President Obama, the U.S. has gained back the respect it had lost during the Bush debacle

        FIVE TRILLION debt in 3 years.
        the ENTIRE ME lost and in flames.
        RIOTS and MURDER of US citizens in Afghanistan.
        Iran wants to kill the POS and burn the former white house.
        OIL 4-5 $$ a gallon
        unemployment the HIGHEST EVER
        most people on food stamps EVER

        yeah I can why some LOSER might like the Kenyan.

      7. Amazona

        Awwwww

        But just out of morbid curiosity, what ideas of Santorum would you consider “narrow-minded and regressive”?

        Pay attention, now—I am going to give you a quick tutorial on politics. Not on the silly, vacuous, identity politics you guys are so addicted to, but real politics.

        There are two basic political models vying for political control in the United States. One, consistently known as Conservative, believes that the best blueprint for governing our country is the one established and codified within the Constitution of the United States of America. It’s an amazing and powerful document, and when it was followed this raw, rambunctious, disorganized bunch of independent and often contrary folk managed to, within a hundred years or so, leapfrog over every single nation in the world, establishing new standards of economic progress and prosperity and individual freedom and liberty.

        The other model, which changes its name often as each name begins to be tarnished by the ugly reality of the system, has been known as socialism, fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, and in its most extreme incarnation Communism. It’s a system based on an odd and emotion-based muddle of fantasies and theories—that people will work hard even when rewards are distributed to those who will not work, that “equality” means equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity, that ambition is evil and private property is worse, and most of all that human nature is so perfectible that some very special people are SO special they can and should be given power over others.

        The first system depends on process to mitigate the natural and inevitable shortcomings of human beings, the latter dismisses process in favor of giving current power-holders the authority to do whatever they want.

        The first system, the Conservative or Constitutional system, has a solid track record of outstanding success when it has been implemented and followed. The second, collectively known as the Leftist model, has an unbroken record of failure, economic misery, loss of personal freedom, and even mass murder.

        When one party is in power, the other will oppose it. For some reason you Lefties are totally bumfuddled by this phenomenon. You bleat, squeal, and pitch major hissy fits when the other side says that what you are promoting is wrong.

        This makes as much sense as getting emotional when fans of one team don’t root for the opposing team in a match. Duh. The very fact of being on one side is proof that someone will not support the other side. The difference, politically, in this country is that one side knows why it is on that side, and the other has no clue–but it’s exciting to e constantly outraged, hostile and vicious.

        Because your allegiance to a system you don’t even understand is emotion-based, and unanalyzed or examined, you take opposition personally, and assume it is equally emotion-based.

        Yes, you LIKE what you see from Obama, but neither you nor any of your fellow travellers has ever been able to explain, much less defend, the system Obama represents. When it is pointed out to you that you simply cannot provide historical examples of Leftist success, you change the subject and start focusing on personalities, events, and other such trivia.

        Rick Santorum has a solid, grounded commitment to a clearly understood political system. You don’t understand it. But then you don’t understand the system that has such emotional appeal to you, either. So you call his preferred system silly names, and invent imaginary bogey-men you can find upsetting, and you create straw men you can attack, and you go through all these strange gymnastics to try to attack the opposition, but really all you do is constantly illustrate that this will be a campaign of ideas vs. emotions.

      8. Amazona

        Due to the foresight and sound policies of President Obama, the U.S. has gained back the respect it had lost during the Bush debacle.

        Sometimes I think YOU are the one living on another planet, not baggi. You are certainly spending a lot of time in a fantasy world. The United States, and Obama himself, are more disliked and ridiculed now than ever. Even the bowing, groveling, boot-licking apology tours of Obama have not done what he thought they would do, and endeared him and/or this country to anyone.

        On the contrary, he has created an image of a weak, dithery, spineless nation with no moral or ethical compass and a diminished sense of identity. Only America-haters could find that to be progress.

      9. Canadian Observer

        “The United States, and Obama himself, are more disliked and ridiculed now than ever. Even the bowing, groveling, boot-licking apology tours of Obama have not done what he thought they would do, and endeared him and/or this country to anyone”…Amazona

        Really? I think you need to get out more and learn, not just what the Right-Wing haters are saying about President Obama but also what thinking folks throughout the world are saying, as well.

        Perhaps you better listen to what the President of Ireland has to say in this short clip, Amazona.

        Believe me, he is not alone.

      10. Count d'Haricots

        And we SHOULD be concerned with what the Labour Party in Ireland thinks of the US, what with them sending suicide bombers to kill Americans.

        Just a shame Obama didn’t prostrate himself before the Irish, like he did to the Muslim world, then Irish opinion of America would be sinking like it is in Russia, Africa, South America, and the entire Islamic world. You know the ones that actually mean us harm.

        But, it’s nice to know the Irish and French like us better, and the Germans, really defused that threat didn’t he? ,i>That’s what counts.

      11. Amazona

        And he will be first in line with his hand out when Ireland needs our help.

        You just keep reducing politics to popularity contests, where you feel most comfortable, and leave real politics to the grownups, OK? All this infantile bleating about who likes who more just proves the superficiality of what passes for political acumen from you lightweights. You keep swooning over the prom king of the Left, and we’ll keep working on finding the best leader of our nation.

        But do keep us up to date on how many foreigners have friended Barry, as this seems to be what impresses you.

      12. Amazona

        I post on politics, CO posts on popularity among the Left.

        That pretty much sums it up.

      13. Canadian Observer

        It was you, Amazona, who said:- “The United States, and Obama himself, are more disliked and ridiculed now than ever. Even the bowing, groveling, boot-licking apology tours of Obama have not done what he thought they would do, and endeared him and/or this country to anyone.”

        I just pointed out that that statement was false. No matter how much you twist & turn, the truth is, the U.S. during the Bush Presidency was loathed & ridiculed throughout the world. Today, thanks to President Obama’s leadership, not so much.

        U.S. citizens travelling abroad no longer have to be ashamed to say they are American. No need to pretend they are Canadian, for example; as was the case when the cowboy was in charge.

        You may post on politics, Amazona, but it is obvious that it is from an narrow & restricted view. Dismissing the value of any country who sees the U.S. in a positive light just goes to show your Right-Wing bias.

      14. Amazona

        CO, you’re an idiot. You have chugged the anti-conservative KoolAid and regurgitated the anti-American rhetoric and still cling to your idiotic fantasy of America being hated when Bush was president and being loved now.

        On the fringes of the radical Left, where you hang out, this may very well be true. In a Left-centric bubble, you and your kind can recirculate your beloved fantasies all you like in a weird pseudo-political circle jerk. But your distorted perceptions have no more relevance to reality than your odd economic theories or your infantile identity politics which reek of nothing more serious than American Idol.

      15. Amazona

        CO, you really think that anyone would be ashamed of being a US citizen and find it an improvement to be thought of as CANADIAN ????

        Whew, the egocentric delusions which control your brain stem are even stronger than I realized.

        Yeah, right, people go out of their way to be thought of as Canadians. You just keep telling yourself that.

      16. Canadian Observer

        Calm down, Amazona. Here’s the thing. When Bush invaded Iraq, you must remember that it wasn’t seen as a positive move by many countries. Since Canada wisely took no part in Bush’s debacle and was thus viewed in a better way, some Americans, to avoid getting hassled and involved in political arguments when travelling abroad, opted to identify themselves as Canadian. No big deal.

      17. Amazona

        Oh, I’m calm. Silly twits like you certainly do not have the power to affect me personally.

        Sure, I remember that (w)hen Bush invaded Iraq, …………it wasn’t seen as a positive move by many ….. I remember that many national leaders either expressed unhappiness with the move in general, or more often, a reluctance to participate—a reluctance that could have been, like Spain’s later cowardice, based on fear of reprisal more than on principle. I also know that the leader of a nation does not speak for all its inhabitants, and I also remember that among people in those nations you reference, many thought the move a good one.

        I am sure it’s possible that some Americans denied their citizenship, just as some Christians have denied their faith. A certain kind of person will do things like this, and after all, what could be more distressing to a wishy-washy American than the horrors of ‘BEING HASSLED” ? Eeeuuuwww!

        I see that you have weaseled your way down from “U.S. citizens travelling (sic) abroad no longer have to be ashamed to say they are American. No need to pretend they are Canadian, for example; as was the case when the cowboy was in charge.” to now saying only SOME Americans opted to deny their heritage.

        You just keep working on your internal suppositions and projections, and your perception of politics as identity and personality, and keep on inventing scenarios that reflect your inner reality, and the rest of us will deal with the world as it is.

        BTW, you might want to butt out of things that don’t concern you and pay a little attention to your own country. It’s not our fault you were so poorly brought up that you were never taught how rude it is to butt into someone else’s business and tell them what you think is wrong with them, but you ought to be old enough know to start to compensate for your lousy upbringing and start to learn some manners.

      18. Amazona

        You’re such a considerate guy, CO. While it was obvious that I have conclusively proved, over the years, that your concept of “politics” is juvenile, superficial and personality-oriented, you took the time to confirm this.

        Thanks for giving such a vivid portrayal of what passes for political content and discourse in your own mind.

        Not to mention what you consider “comedy”. Tee hee snort snicker giggle try to hide the wet spot on your pants.

      19. Canadian Observer

        You’re more than welcome, Amazona; happy to have cheered you up. Politics in today’s climate can be a bit depressing so it never hurts to have a chuckle or two, especially when there is a grain of truth in the comedic presentation, as is the case with this clip.

      20. Amazona

        BTW, if your goal is to entertain, I’d stick with your claim that Americans have ever wanted to be mistaken for Canadians. That was a real hoot.

      21. dennis

        Amazona: “If Ms. Fluke was taken by surprise by a sudden realization that Jesuits are Catholic, and/or that Catholics do not support birth control, then clearly she lacks the intelligence to pursue a law degree.”

        Meanwhile, Georgetown University President John DeGioia blasted the comments of Limbaugh and others as “behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

        http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/usa-contraception-obama-idUSL2E8E2CSS20120302

      22. Amazona

        And the comments of DeGioia relate to the Church’s religiously based determination to not provide birth control—how?

        These are two completely separate things. One is the Constitutionally guaranteed right to ones’ own religious beliefs, and one is a rightful criticism of an obnoxious boor.

        Any effort to link, much less conflate, the two is so inherently dishonest it does nothing but illustrate the lengths to which some types of people will go to try to make a point.

      23. dennis

        The university president came to Fluke’s defense. You want to call him dishonest, go right ahead. I would suggest that your earlier comment on her intelligence (the whole point of my response) is blatantly prejudicial and derived purely from your own personal hostility toward her. I suspect she’s every bit and maybe even more intelligent than you are.

      24. Amazona

        dennis, we’ve seen more than enough of your ‘suspicions’ and find that they come from a dark and dreary place in which your internal fantasies rule. So suspect away, and have fun doing it.

        I suggest that when a person commits a blatantly stupid act (such as going to a Catholic university with the expectation that the university will ignore Catholic dogma to please some students) she is not showing much intelligence.

        I further suggest that her testimony was a litany of stupidity, riddled with lies and hysteria. It was full of throbbing emotion, such as the claim that a LAW STUDENT was reduced to quivering helplessness when told, not that she could not purchase birth control, but that she would have to pay for it. It was dishonest, such as the part where she claims she knows someone who DIED because of LACK OF ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL.

        And you might want to work on your reading skills. I not only did NOT call the university president dishonest, I agreed with him. regarding his comments on Rush Limbaugh. If you want to spin his criticism of Rush into an overall “defense” of the Fluke, spin away. I sure didn’t see any defense of her position, her testimony, or her lies and claims. All I saw was a comment on a third party.

      25. Amazona

        dennis, as usual you try to dodge questions, but I think this one is quite relevant to your own comments. Let’s try this again, ‘K’?

        He (Schaffer) remains one of the most knowledgeable critics of the evangelical right today, from the standpoint of having been a key figure in the early movement.

        Do you grant the same respect to David Horowitz, whose insight into the evils of the Left are based on his having been a key figure in the early movement in this country?

      26. dennis

        Ama, I’d never heard of Horowitz before and have no opinion about him. After googling I learned his parents were members of the American Communist party back in the days of the Soviet Union. His early philosophy seems to have been formed in that milieu. It’s understandable that most normal people would leave such extreme ideology behind as they mature. In that limited sense an analogy with Schaffer works.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “the evils of the Left”, as such terminology from you nearly always means something more prejudicial than it would to me. But if you’re comparing the ideology of Horowitz and his parents in the 1950s or 60s with the thinking of typical liberal Democrats today, I think that would sound absurd to most moderate people. I don’t buy it at all.

        Any further analogy between Schaffer and Horowitz is undermined by the fact that Schaffer didn’t repudiate Christianity as Horowitz completely repudiated Communism. Schaffer renounced the fanatical and highly politicized religious right, to embrace a more traditional and orthodox form of Christianity.

      27. dennis

        Ama: “Yes, this intellectual paragon with whom dennis resonates so strongly [Frank Schaffer] first lies when he falsely states that to ‘conservatives’ freedom of religion is … the freedom to impose one’s own religious values on others… and then goes on to explain that TRUE ‘free expression of religion’ means that if enough people vote for or against any religious precept then this is enough to override personal religious conviction— ..’to enshrine those principles in law and social institutions…’ Thanks for the peek into what impresses and appeals to you, dennis. It explains a lot.”

        What Ama didn’t know when she wrote the above is that Frank Schaffer’s personal history gives him an extraordinary perspective for understanding the agenda of the religious right. He is the son of the late Francis Schaffer, who many regard as the intellectual founder of the modern Christian Right. In his early adulthood Frank Schaffer partnered with his father’s ministry, and personally knew many of the people his father mentored.

        Among the countless religious leaders who were devotees of the elder Schaffer’s ideas are James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Randall Terry, Chuck Colson and the list goes on and on. Many of them, and those who follow them now, are unapologetic advocates for religious legislation. Anyone not aware of this isn’t tuned into the evangelical community very deeply.

        Interesting fact – while still working with his father Frank Schaffer may have been the one most responsible for turning his priorities toward protecting the unborn. However after seeing the movement begun by his father metastasize into a power-hungry political movement indefensible from the standpoint of the Gospel or New Testament Christianity, Frank turned his back on fundamentalism. In the 1990s he joined the Greek Orthodox church. He remains one of the most knowledgeable critics of the evangelical right today, from the standpoint of having been a key figure in the early movement.

      28. Amazona

        Frank Schaeffer is a religious bigot who will lie to support his bigotry. How he got to this despicable state is of no interest to me.

        The term “religious legislation” is purposely vague and meaningless, and pure demagoguery. And if there are a few who do, possibly, feel that it would be a good idea to legislate Christian dogma, for example, there are more who fight stridently for freedom FROM religion and try to ban all references to anything religious from any public arena.

        Most people of faith do not have any interest in forcing anyone else to share or live by their personal beliefs. A few do. Big whoop.

        The misguided goals of a few cannot, or at least would not in a rational mind, be allowed to define the millions who do not share these goals. But if you are a sour and hostile person, you will seek out and even invent things that support your sourness and hostility. Which is what we see from you, as you lecture us interminably on how only you, and possibly a very few other enlightened souls, are the only ones who really truly understand the word of God.

        You are clearly quite enamored of this Schaffer bigot, and share his intolerance. It is no surprise that you are rather proud of this.

      29. Amazona

        He remains one of the most knowledgeable critics of the evangelical right today, from the standpoint of having been a key figure in the early movement.

        Do you grant the same respect to David Horowitz, whose insight into the evils of the Left are based on his having been a key figure in the early movement in this country?

      30. Amazona

        “Building on statements he first made over the weekend, Santorum said that the definition of separation of church and state does not appear verbatim in the Constitution. “What does [appear] is the term the free exercise of religion. Those words do appear, so religion is to be freed from the dictates of government. But … the government is not to be free of the influence of faith and people of faith,” he said’…”

        With what part of this do you disagree?

        Can you find a verbatim reference within the Constitution to “the separation of church and state”? Can you find anything in the foundational documents of the nation or the writings of the Founders to support a claim that “…government (should be) be free of the influence of faith and people of faith.. ?

        Anything?

        Do you grasp the difference between “the role of FAITH” in government and an effort to impose any particular dogma or form of faith?

        What is it about having people of faith in government that bothers you? What elements of faith do you think should be kept out of government? Why?

        And, of course, what the hell business is it of yours, anyway?

      31. neocon1

        cO

        yeah but the racist, never was, cult member, muslim, usurper, AA weasel is. LOL
        stick to frogs kanuck.

    4. Amazona

      … comfortable in their sexuality..

      What a darling way to say “willing to screw anyone even if they don’t know the guy well enough to ask him to contribute to birth control”.

      Yeah, real “comfortable”.

      Because birth control is not necessary unless the sex act involves at least one male and one female, right? So why should anyone other than the participants pay for it?

      This Fluke flake wants strangers to pay for her “comfort with her own sexuality” but doesn’t seem to be comfortable enough in her own sexual encounters to ask her partners to chip in for protection.

      Maybe that would decrease her “comfort” level, requiring conversation and maybe even learning the guy’s name.

      1. Amazona

        Another question–why would a sexually active female dependent on others to subsidize her sex life choose a Jesuit university?

        She passed her L-Sats but didn’t realize that Catholic schools do not pay for birth control?

        Forget the Slut Factor—she is either very very stupid or a troublemaker who purposely set up a confrontation.

      2. Majordomo Pain

        You forget Amazona that all Americans do not live by your religious beliefs. A jesuit college could easily create a religious test that would eliminate those who do not have their beliefs.

      3. Amazona

        You have no clue as to my “religious beliefs”—unlike the Jesuits, who are pretty clear about theirs.

        The Jesuits do not have to “..eliminate those who do not have their beliefs…” but they do have the right to say that their school is run according to those beliefs and that those who CHOOSE to go there will be expected to respect those beliefs. It is the height of arrogance to CHOOSE to go to a school which clearly states its rules and philosophies and then pitch a fit and demand that these be changed.

        If Ms. Fluke was taken by surprise by a sudden realization that Jesuits are Catholic, and/or that Catholics do not support birth control, then clearly she lacks the intelligence to pursue a law degree.

      4. dbschmidt

        From what I understand, she selected Georgetown specifically to attempt and get the policy subverted into paying for items like birth control control, etc. This was intentional from the get go.

  9. dennis

    Sorry Breitbart is gone. I didn’t particularly like the guy but it’s never good to crow over the death of anyone, whether good or bad. And how do we really know that anyway? What we do know is that he’ll never have another shot at redemption, like all the rest of us still do. And that is tragic, and should be sobering to anyone. It could be any one of us, any day.

    Be nice, all you libs out there. And be nice, all you right wingers, too. In the Gospels when Jesus talked about the final judgment the only criterion that he positively confirmed will matter is, How did you treat me, in the form of the least of these, my brethren?

  10. bagni

    hey neo
    a….i feel bad for the wife and kids that breitbart left behind
    b…..they fired sharodd for her racial comments, think they’ll be firing you from this blog for making your usual and quite frequent racial comments?
    d…it’s a one way street here…..that’s why i stop by, nothing more entertaining than watching the regulars here talk to themselves
    e….it actually might be possible to have spirited and intelligent discussions here if you guys weren’t so damn nasty….geez (mark n. would have never let it sink this far, and yes… i miss him)
    f…..neo daddio…please go back to the bar where you belong, if you let me know which bar it is i’ll have a couple of free beers waiting for you next time you stop. it would
    be my pleasure to further your inebriation!!!
    as always
    love and kisses…..
    ::))

    1. neocon1

      na nu na nu dork

      yeah posting the words of je$$e,$harpton,watters, videos of king shabazz, faracan, riots, beatings, looting, murders and mayhem and identifying those responsible really is Raaaaaacist huh?

      you couldnt afford my food and bar bill kid.

      1. bagni

        oh neo daddio
        i was thinking about buying the bar and then shutting it down
        just to tweak you a bit
        ::))

      2. neocon1

        nanu nanu dork

        you would have to make my area dry LOL

        maybe you could have a terrorist write a book about your communist father who abandoned you and a ho mother and say it was your writing, you will need that much $$$$$

  11. Leo Pusateri

    yeah–those dreaded personhood bills. God forbid we actually extend rights to other living human beings.. especially when they’re so inconveniently ensconsed in what should be the safest place on earth for them.

    Those pesky developing children. They deserve nothing. Let them eat scalpels and drink burning saline.

    Hey Mitch– next, let’s you and me go and step on some baby chicks and burn some ants with a magnifying glass.

    1. tiredoflibbs

      bubblehead: “Without individual liberty archaic ideas can be forced upon the Citizens in an effort to consolidate power in the hands of Men who are far past their prime and frighteningly enough realize their time is short.”

      Individual liberty?

      This from a “bubble-memory computer” who espouses the collective mindspeak of the pitchfork.

      But forcing an individual to follow a mandate set by the federal government that is counter to their INDIVIDUAL beliefs and rights guaranteed by the First Amendment is not INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

      Free Democracy? That doesn’t apply here, we have a Representative Republic – big difference.

  12. mitch

    This is a no win issue for you all. His comments are indefensible and now there is an advertiser backlash. Remember what happened to Glen Beck? Lost over 200 accounts and was “separated” from Fox.
    Limbaugh is a misogynist and a voyeur. He is impotent (hence his script for 100 mgs of Viagra using someone elses’ name) And here you all are attacking the college student who wanted to testify and wasn’t allowed to. Instead they had a group of old male virgins wearing dresses. Real experts on female health and sexuality.
    You want to defend Rush? Go ahead. It will only speed the action of the poison into the “conservative’ movement. Hopefully it’s death will be all the more swift and painful.

    Limbaugh Thinks the Sandra Fluke Incident is “HILARIOUS. ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!”

    March 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

    6 Votes

    In an effort to begin my research on sponsors of Limbaugh’s show, I went to Limbaugh’s web site. To my amazement they featured a transcript of his show yesterday. He was responding to the shock and outrage of a variety of people who had taken offense at his attack on Sandra Fluke from the previous day, when he called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” Limbaugh’s reaction to the “left” expressing outrage over his personal attack on this third-year law-student, was not to apologize, or even to suggest that he got a little carried away. Instead of trying to explain away his comments or to mitigate the insulting remarks, he laughed. He said “I think this is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.” We know the Limbaugh generates listeners by saying outrageous things. However, when he does get out of control, and has time to reflect on what he has said, there is no excuse for this wanton disregard of civility. After 24 hours he had the opportunity to apologize or to at least act like he was sorry. He laughed. His lack of remorse, or at least creating the appearance of remorse indicates he deserves to feel the wrath of his sponsors, his station, and the public.

    Here is the testimony of Ms. Fluke.

    Having watched this articulate woman giving her testimony before Congress, I am even more outraged by Limbaugh’s remarks. Ms. Fluke, the past President of the LSRJ (Law Students for Reproductive Justice) was speaking on behalf of all female law students at Georgetown. She was not speaking about personal matters of sexual encounters or personal finances. She gave an example of a law student who had a need for birth control pills not for prevention of pregnancy, but as a treatment to prevent the growth of tumors on her ovaries. That student had polycystic ovarian syndrome. When she was unable to get her necessary birth control medicine, the student developed a tennis-ball sized ovarian tumor that required surgery and removal of her ovary. At age 32, this surgery was devastating, as it occurred during final exams, and she may be unable to have children.

    This specific example of the hardship experienced by a Georgetown student was not a personal example, and not an example of a woman asking for health care coverage for birth control pills so she could have sex. She was in need of the coverage to prevent an ovarian tumor, to prevent surgery, and to prevent infertility. Ms. Fluke wasn’t testifying about her personal hardship, but that of many other women at Georgetown Law School. For Mr. Limbaugh to lodge such a personal attack at Ms. Fluke is unforgivable. In posts to come I will set forth ways we can all make our voices heard about the need to silence this pathetic example of a human being.

    1. Cluster

      Au contrair Mitch – this is a WIN WIN!!!

      Rational Americans are really seeing how juvenile and childish liberals are. And I have to thank you for that.

    2. Amazona

      Why was this woman “…unable to get her necessary birth control medicine..” ?

      Who stopped her?

      She was a “law school student” who could not google Planned Parenthood? Who could not get a job to pay for her pills? Who could not find a neighborhood clinic? Whose own loving parents passed on the chance to be grandparents because they didn’t want to help her out?

      You strident hysterics would be funny if you were not so vicious and virulent. As it is, you are nothing but walking, talking, typing personality disorders who have been pointed by your minders at an imaginary but now deeply hated “Other” you foolishly think is the 21st Century American Conservative.

  13. Cluster

    I think Fluke is setting the women’s movement back 40 years. Weren’t women suppose to be equals? Weren’t they suppose to be able to bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan?

    Now they are financially impaired if someone else doesn’t buy them birth control??

    Pretty sad commentary

  14. Cluster

    What a pile of excrement this quote from Schaffer is:

    It is the freedom to impose one’s own religious values on others. Free expression of religion entails the right to reason from religious principles in the public square and — with sufficient electoral support — to enshrine those principles in law and social institutions.

    Religions are not trying to impose anything on anyone. In fact, they are not trying to change anything. It’s the liberals that trying impose their will on religion. Secondly, is Schaffer really saying that populist support should dictate Church doctrine?

    That is an outrageous statement.

  15. Amazona

    CO, you’re trying to weasel out of answering questions. Why is that?

    Let’s try again: Can you find a verbatim reference within the Constitution to “the separation of church and state”? Can you find anything in the foundational documents of the nation or the writings of the Founders to support a claim that “…government (should be) be free of the influence of faith and people of faith.. ?

    Anything?

    Do you grasp the difference between “the role of FAITH” in government and an effort to impose any particular dogma or form of faith?

    What is it about having people of faith in government that bothers you? What elements of faith do you think should be kept out of government? Why?

    And, of course, what the hell business is it of yours, anyway?

    Think you’re up to this, or are you still preening in your fantasy that people actually yearn to be thought of as CANADIAN ???

    1. Canadian Observer

      Can you find a verbatim reference within the Constitution to “the separation of church and state”? …Amazona

      I bow to your expert knowledge of your country’s Constitution. I’m sure you’ve studied it with the fevor of a true Patriot and if anyone can recite it verbatim, it would be you, Amazona. I will take your word on it as I know how well you interpret and understand what the Founders wrote.

Comments are closed.