THE MOST VILE OF RADIO TALKERS......

Yeah; the kind of phony conservative who thinks Andrew Sullivan is a political conservative......

I don't think I'm a moderate. I think I'm a conservative.

A REAL conservative, not some paranoid fringe hack who sees a commie boogie man hiding under every bed. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I listen to Rush and Hannity occasionally if I'm driving, and I've never heard either one wish physical harm to people they oppose. I don't agree with them on most things, but they are much more civil than the Mike Malloy's and Ed Shultz's of the left. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're talking out of your ass again. Limbaugh is the most offensive asshole on the air, and has been since he first burst (like a zit) onto the scene.

Here's Rush suggesting that Liberals be treated with violence.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...inst-liberals#

AssUP; you can't even read can you ?

Your own post quotes Rush as saying "we can handle Democrats without resorting to violence".....

"RUSH: I have to say, though, folks, terrorism is the greatest threat, because we can still defeat liberals without violence. So terrorism still, of course, represents a greater threat than the Democrat Party. We can handle them without violence. So far."

Again. Whirly, you've stirred up some real shit with a fake spoon.

Trying to say one hate radio asshole is worse than another is one thing -- totally depends on your point of view.

The issue here is that you've chosen to make a comment about birthers into an assault on the victims of the Newtown massacre.

Talk about politicizing tragedy to suit your own, misplaced priorities.

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR! And yes, the REAL results are in. It's you, Whirlyturd.

AssUP; you can't even read can you ?

Your own post quotes Rush as saying "we can handle Democrats without resorting to violence".....

"RUSH: I have to say, though, folks, terrorism is the greatest threat, because we can still defeat liberals without violence. So terrorism still, of course, represents a greater threat than the Democrat Party. We can handle them without violence. So far." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What's your point... that Rush is less serious about his hatred than Malloy?

YOU'RE A FUCKING IMBECILE!

Prediction -- next step of this debate will be spelling and punctuation.

You're talking out of your ass again. Limbaugh is the most offensive asshole on the air, and has been since he first burst (like a zit) onto the scene.

Here's Rush suggesting that Liberals be treated with violence.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...inst-liberals# Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You posted a link which proved just the opposite of what you were trying to prove. How dumb is that? Loony tunes, Assup, the Dipshit of the Year winner for 2013.

AssUP; you can't even read can you ?

Your own post quotes Rush as saying "we can handle Democrats without resorting to violence".....

"RUSH: I have to say, though, folks, terrorism is the greatest threat, because we can still defeat liberals without violence. So terrorism still, of course, represents a greater threat than the Democrat Party. We can handle them without violence. So far." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Apparently, you having your own reading comprehension problems.

The clear implication of the "so far" is that violence is clearly an option to be used against the Democrats - at SOME point.

Ruch's comment appears to be more serious than Malloy's. But I STILL don't take Rush's comment seriously. it is hyperbole.

But, for some reason, you think Malloy's crack about a circular firing squad is something that should be taken seriously.

AssUp my faith in you as DipShit of 2013 continues..........

You posted a link which proved just the opposite of what you were trying to prove. How dumb is that? Loony tunes, Assup, the Dipshit of the Year winner for 2013. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Rush's opining about something that may or may not happen in the future is more serious than Malloy's actual call for the opposition to commit mass killing?

Fucking unbelievable the bending and twisting you will go thru to make a losing argument.

Apparently, you having your own reading comprehension problems.

The clear implication of the "so far" is that violence is clearly an option to be used against the Democrats - at SOME point.

Ruch's comment appears to be more serious than Malloy's. But I STILL don't take Rush's comment seriously. it is hyperbole.

But, for some reason, you think Malloy's crack about a circular firing squad is something that should be taken seriously. Originally Posted by ExNYer

AssUP; you can't even read can you ?

Your own post quotes Rush as saying "we can handle Democrats without resorting to violence".....

"RUSH: I have to say, though, folks, terrorism is the greatest threat, because we can still defeat liberals without violence. So terrorism still, of course, represents a greater threat than the Democrat Party. We can handle them without violence. So far." Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Try this one on for size, needledick!

When Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called Limbaugh “irresponsible” for using false information to get people angry at the government, Rush denied that there was any evidence of him using violent rhetoric against the government (which wasn't what Dupnik said): “He has not been asked, by the way, to cite any evidence or any examples of partial information, wrong information. This is all cliched.” Limbaugh claimed, “this sheriff has not even made anything up, much less produced a scintilla of evidence that anything I've had would inspire such behavior.”

Limbaugh declared on Monday, “at no time has anybody who does what I do or I ever called for violence. I have never subtly promoted it, have never gone anywhere near it.”

Since I literally wrote the book about Rush (The Most Dangerous Man in America: Rush Limbaugh's Assault on Reason, Thomas Dunne Books, March 2011), I would like to provide a few examples of Limbaugh's calls for violence from his website.

Speaking about the 2009 military coup in Honduras that overthrew the democratically-elected president, Limbaugh noted, “the coup was what many of you wish would happen here...”

A few days later, he again endorsed the idea of an American military coup against Obama: “If we had any good luck, Honduras would send some people here and help us get our government back.”

Of course, Limbaugh will never do more than dream about a military coup against President Obama. But the fact that he does dream about a coup, and constantly refers to Obama as a dictator, reflects how far from reality Limbaugh has strayed and how he is encouraging violence by his listeners.

Limbaugh was endorsing a violent revolution against the Obama Administration: “Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, what we are living through right now is exactly why the Revolutionary War was fought?”

While he calls for violence against the Obama Administration, Limbaugh also imagines vast conspiracies run by Obama to kill people. After reading reports of executives at hedge funds getting death threats, he concluded that it was an Obama-run conspiracy: "probably ACORN people.... I'm sure it's coordinated. Obama has the network to do this."


http://limbaughbook.blogspot.com/201...-birthday.html

Deny, deny, deny!

Again, I ask, what's the point of this thread? What is the takeaway? What are you trying to make others believe?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from yet another frivolous and irresponsible rant is:

You are clearly the DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR!

the comment Rush made was akin to this

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7mkJNpmZjc...0/thistime.jpg

Rush's opining about something that may or may not happen in the future is more serious than Malloy's actual call for the opposition to commit mass killing?

Fucking unbelievable the bending and twisting you will go thru to make a losing argument. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Are you ACTUALLY saying that you take seriously Malloy's joke about a circular firing squad? You think that was an "actual call" (your words) for birthers to commit mass suicide? Really?

Who's bending and twisting now? Talk about a losing argument.

You made an extremely stupid point to start this thread. You copied and pasted a link in which some other right wing nut pretended to be indignant about Malloy's wisecrack.

But instead of conservatives on this board backing you up, just about everyone on both the left and the right thinks your post is ridiculous. Which is why most of the prominent conservatives on this board have not chimed in. Even they can't believe you tried to make a serious issue out of this.

And rather than back down or JUST LET IT DROP, you are now doubling down on stupid. You are digging your heels in and are trying - UNSUCCESSFULLY - to argue that Malloy was serious about birthers forming a circular firing squad.

Pathetic. Stubborn, paranoid zealots are why the GOP put up such shitty candidates in 2008 and 2012. YOU are why Obama got elected.

Malloy has a history of wishing violence on those he opposes; his birther comment wasn't a one-off, but a pattern.......you don't want to know/discuss it, so be it.

Here is just a short summary of Malloy's hate rants, there is nothing phony about the guy....i thought you lefties were about tolerance......

Why you insist on defending him is beyond me.

http://newsbusters.org/people/mike-malloy

pointing out your ignorance isnt defending Malloy

You obviously don't know the definition or how to use the word "ignorance" in a sentence correctly......how was my post ignorant? Just because you don't agree with it ?

What was factually incorrect in my post ?

Where is the "ignorance" CJ; we know you are a complete moron, so point out my "ignorance" in this thread ....