The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

14 August 2006

Miami Herald, WINZ-AM, Air America

'HITLERIAN'

Irresponsible On-Air Language Stuns South Florida Man




From today's Miami Herald, here's our letter of the day:


Israel insulted

I was shocked and dismayed when I tuned in Air America on WINZ-940 AM just before midnight Aug. 8. I heard a venomous outburst of hatred for Israel, with Israelis being called ''Hitlerian.''

This is the ultimate expression of insult and bigotry. Rank anti-Semitism was thinly disguised as disagreement with Israeli policy.

I tuned in again the following night and heard Israeli actions in Lebanon being equated with Nazi actions in Poland.

How sad. I've rejoiced in the rise of Air America as a thoughtful network and a counterweight to the rantings of Rush Limbaugh. Of course, Air America has its own liberal ranters, but I'm not aware that even the nastiest of right-wing talk-show hosts have sunk this low.

I believe in free speech -- period, no exceptions. But I do think that South Floridians, especially my fellow Jews, should be aware of what's going on here after most of us have retired for the night.

RICHARD ROSICHAN, Miami Beach


Richard, the Radio Equalizer has a suggestion: try contacting the Anti- Defamation League with details of this incident. Recently, over similar incidents, they've gone after both Keith Olbermann and Air America's own Randi Rhodes.

Just don't expect to be able to shame the network into changing its ways, as that hasn't been at all productive in the past.

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

AAR Crash: David A Lunde

44 Comments:

  • That does sound pretty offensive. As a liberal, I was initially hopeful about Air America. I've come to realize, though, that my general agreement with its core politics doesn't matter, because the network is no more relevant than the right-wing noise machine it was designed to oppose. The jig is up: Punditry is dead.

    By Blogger Derek Doran-Wood, at 14 August, 2006 14:14  

  • Why is criticism of Israel so intolerable, so very unthinkable?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 14 August, 2006 15:26  

  • Why is calling them Hitlerian no more than "criticism"?

    By Blogger Jim, at 14 August, 2006 16:49  

  • i personally don't give a shit about AAR, but i'm sick of how everyone in this country blindly supports Israel. seriously, Israel could walk into your house, kill your mother, and you people would still be licking their testicles.

    By Blogger hardcore conservative genious, at 14 August, 2006 16:55  

  • AMEN!! Americans are rightfully justified to question blind obedience to special interests and foreign policies that continue to massacre thousands of our soldiers in furtherance of the expansionist goals of an entity that has no loyalty to America or anyone else but themselves.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 14 August, 2006 17:05  

  • Try saying those words to Debbie Schlussel, a Detroit based Conservative Jewish woman, and you're asking for trouble.

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 14 August, 2006 18:23  

  • Please! Another right-wing wackjob who sees terrorists behind every doorway, and is neither held accountable for her dubious fact-checking skills, nor her intolerably whiny voice (how do these virtuous "conservative" female pundits explain the heat-seeking spandex tops they feel obliged to don on their blog photos, anyway?)

    Talk about someone who has no respect but anyone but her own!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 14 August, 2006 21:11  

  • Funny how there is no attribution as to which "AAR" show this statement supposedly came from. Was this a local show on WINZ?

    You make a big deal over AAR criticizing Israel, but you say nothing about how Right-wing radio uses offensive terms when describing people, nations or actions THEY don't agree with.

    I am Jewish myself, and I can find a lot to criticize Israel AND all of the other players for.

    By Blogger Liberaltopia, at 14 August, 2006 21:11  

  • Re:"Why is criticism of Israel so intolerable, so very unthinkable?"

    It's the same as if I call you a nigger to describe your behavior if I see you in a welfare line. Is that "criticism"? Using Hitler to compare anything about Israel just goes to show how pathetic and desperate these losers are.

    By Blogger Owen, at 14 August, 2006 22:25  

  • Weak analogy.

    The show was critical of Israel, not hurling racial slurs at Jews (not that that would be "politically correct", either).....

    I wonder why the original whiner was too spineless to quote the show's host by name, instead choosing to smear the network itself.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 14 August, 2006 22:53  

  • Genious said: "seriously, Israel could walk into your house, kill your mother, and you people would still be licking their testicles."

    The thing is, Israel doesn't do that, but the Pallies and the Hezbos do. And the Lamestream Media has spent the last 20+ years licking the testicles (amongst other parts) of Yassir Arafat, and is currently assuming the position for the HZB chief thug, Nasrallah.

    I do blindly support Israel, because unlike most nations in the ME, they actually have a functioning parliamentary republic system, with opposition parties that are actually allowed to oppose and compete in the arena of ideas, rather than be shot and left in a roadside ditch.

    However, if you groove to the countries that shoot the opposition and leave them in the roadside ditches, well, different strokes....

    By Blogger JD, at 14 August, 2006 23:37  

  • Hashfanatic wrote: "I wonder why the original whiner was too spineless to quote the show's host by name, instead choosing to smear the network itself."

    Good question. In the Tuesday lineup, it is Mike Malloy in the 10 pm to midnight slot. However, not having the unedited version of the letter (McClatchy has a notorious letter-to-the-editor editing history), it may well be that the host was named in the original letter but the page editor chose to leave it out, not being able to get comment from the host in question. After all, it's a pretty charged accusation. Or maybe it was done for brevity's sake.

    A Google search has Malloy throwing around the word "Hitlerian" in the past, but it is primarily used in relation to individuals in the Bush administration, particularly the SecDef and the Veep.

    Liberaltopia said: "You make a big deal over AAR criticizing Israel, but you say nothing about how Right-wing radio uses offensive terms when describing people, nations or actions THEY don't agree with."

    Care to give an example, or will it be in the nature of "aw, everyone's heard it before" kind of thing? Remember also - there are many folks who get offended at the very idea of any kind of negativity or criticism of their positions on issues; sometimes even to the point of spewing apoplexy (reference here would be "Propaganda, Minister of"). There is no right anywhere in the Constitution not to be offended, much as some folks would like to think that there is.

    By Blogger JD, at 14 August, 2006 23:51  

  • Ah, the same Mike Malloy, whose program was mysteriously pulled from the Air America lineup in New York a while back?

    Must be an interesting story in there somewhere. Perhaps the thought police were offended by Mr. Malloy's rants?

    After all, we wouldn't want New Yorkers to actually question Israel's actions, now, would we?

    (Publicly, that is.)

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 15 August, 2006 00:05  

  • By Blogger W.C. Varones, at 15 August, 2006 09:28  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger W.C. Varones, at 15 August, 2006 10:02  

  • Criticism of Israel is perfectly acceptable and sometimes justified, but anyone can see that the serial bashing that comes from the socialist left is something else entirely.

    The left simply can't tolerate an economically successful, capitalist country in that part of the world.

    You have to understand that, when dealing with leftists, you have to read between the lines, because they can't tell you what they really believe.

    A good example is Sam Seder's recent request of listeners to send emails to "Support the Show."

    It not about supporting the show, it's about "saving" the show. There's a difference.

    By Blogger Brett, at 15 August, 2006 10:42  

  • Brett:the left simply can't tolerate an economically successful, capitalist country in that part of the world.

    Blatent stupidity. The left's argument has been the actions in Lebannon emblazzoned terrorists and made Isreal LESS SAFE. Now hezbolah are seen as international HEROS, op-eds express this view from papers ranging from The Guardian and the Phily Inquirer, and the NY times and even the Wall Street journal. The above poster just shouted out blatent right wing stupidity, another case of a right winger expressing how the left feels, without even READING and listening to the criticism from the left. Shut up, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 15 August, 2006 13:33  

  • RWW - what made Israel less safe was two things:

    1) Fighting a war in a fashion to try to garner approval (or at least mitigate the disapproval) of other uninvolved parties around the world;

    2) The Olmert government actually being stoopid enough to believe that the United Nothing would actually live up to its word regarding a defensive force.

    It is my hope that HZB are actually more stoopid than Olmert and his cabinet are, and will decline to disarm, thus giving Israel the option to keep pounding the ever-loving shyte out of them until they do.

    By Blogger JD, at 15 August, 2006 20:12  

  • Except neither the Israeli leadership nor their military is capable of pounding the shit out of a squirrel.

    It'll take more of OUR tax dollars and military resources to help them accomplish that (to hell with our guys in Iraq, you know!)

    Yeah, what a great investment.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 15 August, 2006 21:01  

  • "Hash fanatic"

    Except neither the Israeli leadership nor their military is capable of pounding the shit out of a squirrel.

    Wow. That is damn near the dumbest thing I have seen in a festering and ever-expanding world of Gramscian socialist leftwing tripe.

    Israel could turn Lebanon and Syria into parking lots should they feel the need to do so. They are the ones restraining their power - the Hezbos are the ones hiding, after all, behind civilian populations, using their women and children as sacrificial lambs and/or as human sheilds. You know - like good Islamists tend to do everywhere in the world every day.

    Not that leftists care a whit about anything except for their daily two-minutes hate against the "neocon fascist GWB." Orwell was prophetic in predicting the current state of the left - focus all hate and fear onto a hate-object (GWB has become Emmanuel Goldsten). Everything else is irrelevant and inconsequential - the hate and demogoguery of Big Brother and the Party has to permeate your being or else...

    It'll take more of OUR tax dollars and military resources to help them accomplish that (to hell with our guys in Iraq, you know!)

    And the US is an ally of Israel. Sorry if "alliances" irk you, but your crowd is always crowing about the need for "our allies" and "international accpetence." Now that we have it with several traditional allies (Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, Israel, Germany, etc.), you quite predictably whine and cry foul.

    And it is interesting to note that suddenly the left cares about Iraq - when they think they can use it to bash Bush. Otherwise, its a complete failure, unsalvageable, hopless, destined for failure, quagmire, the troops don't know what they're doing and neither do the generals, etc.

    Double-standards out the wazoo, but leftists like the ones who routinely post here shrug it off. Lying and being logically inconsistent are hallmarks of the left in this country and around the world.

    In related news, Air America's target audience is a small slice of myopic, hypocritical, uneducated angry liberals and leftists. No wonder they're tanking.

    Now put down that hash and step away.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 16 August, 2006 09:49  

  • What's with the lefty animosity toward Israel, anyway? Sure, the Israelis aren't perfect, but do you really think the Middle East would be a calmer, friendlier place if the entire nation of Israel was pushed into the sea? Like the folks who want to destroy Israel don't want to destroy us, too?

    Seriously, I never have understood the anti-Israeli sentiment among liberals. You guys claim to be big on human rights ... so what does that leave you with? Cheering for Iran, Syria and the Hezbos? Yeah, they'll certainly advance the cause of peace, all right -- as soon as they're done nuking New York, L.A. and Chicago.

    This reminds me of all the outrage over Abu Ghraib. There was all this hand-wringing over -- gasp! -- panties put on the heads of prisoners, yet the same complainers were strangely silent when American citizens were getting their throats slit by Zarqawi and his merry men. (Gee, this wouldn't have anything to do with America- and Bush-hating, now would it?)

    The real mystery is why Jewish Americans continue to vote for Democrats, who are traditionally more worried about the Constitutional rights of guilty terrorists than the lives of innocent civilians.

    In any case, if you really do loathe Israel (or Jews, or both), you must really be enjoying the so-called U.N. peace agreement, which does absolutely nothing besides giving the Hezbos a chance to reload. Sheesh, I've seen smarter deals arranged between elderly people and guys who go door to door and promise to blacktop your driveway cheap.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 16 August, 2006 09:54  

  • ... without even READING and listening to the criticism from the left. Shut up, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

    By Minister of Propaganda, at 15 August, 2006 13:33

    The post wasn't directly at you personally, a-hole, but you took it as such, because deep down you know I'm right, a-hole.

    I've been reading and listening to it for the last two years, a-hole. That's how I came to that opinion, a-hole.

    And as far as my shutting up, I'll say what I want, when I want and you'll do nothing about it.

    By Blogger Brett, at 16 August, 2006 10:37  

  • How come the nation formerly known as the United States of America is the only "ally" that presently supports Israel's failed attempt to immolate the sovereign state of Lebanon and its people?

    Hmmph. More failed foreign policy, or just another case of two birds of a feather, flocking together?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 August, 2006 10:50  

  • O.K Brett

    which leftist said "Isreal has no right no exist because they are a economically successful, capitalist country"??????

    the only people you listen to are assholes on CNN,FOX and the rest of the right-wing bought and sold cable media and the brainless rightwing hosts who all claim to know "what liberals want and think". Site someone from the left who thinks what you said we think. You can't, you won't and I stand by what I say

    you are a hack who listens and watches a steady diet of propaganda from the right. Your side controls the media 100% and all of your views on "liberals" are dictated you by professional propagandists, polluting the airwaves with hatred, bigotry & a lust for endless wars. You fools, may own and control the media, but you do not own America's minds. America has seen past the cable news talking points, all the "Lamont is Al Queda", "democrats are weak on terror" talking points in the world will not stop what will happen to your favorite football team, ahh excuse me political party in november. America has spoken, we are not bought by RNC talking points any longer. Good luck with the endless spew of lies

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 16 August, 2006 13:53  

  • hashfanatic said ...

    "How come the nation formerly known as the United States of America is the only 'ally' that presently supports Israel's failed attempt to immolate the sovereign state of Lebanon and its people?

    "Hmmph. More failed foreign policy, or just another case of two birds of a feather, flocking together?"


    So what's your point? That U.S. foreign policy should be dictated by popularity polls? Besides, how exactly would the world be any more peaceful -- and the U.S. any more secure -- if America decided to sell out its best ally in the Middle East? It's like Robin Hood thinking he'd be better off if he told the Sheriff of Nottingham where to find Little John.

    You're also overlooking (or pretending to overlook) a painfully obvious fact: that Hezbollah started the hostilities, not Israel. And that the Hezbos, who have no stature as a government, continued to launch missiles into Israeli neighborhoods long after firing the first shots -- then hid behind civilians like a group of schoolgirls. Typical Islamic terrorism tactics: count on your enemy to display greater concern for civilians than you do.

    At any rate, you keep firing random potshots at the U.S. and Israel with the accuracy of the average Katyusha. So how about coming clean on your own loyalties? I mean, are you a big fan of Iran, Syria and the Hezbos or what? Do you collect Nasrallah trading cards? Are you an Ahmadinejad groupie?

    Obviously you aren't a Bush fan, but I rather doubt you have any special love for America either, no matter who's in the Oval Office. Which would explain why you keep not-so-subtlely trying to convince the rest of us to believe in strategies and philosophies that are guaranteed to undermine the security of the free world.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 16 August, 2006 17:14  

  • "Please! Another right-wing wackjob who sees terrorists behind every doorway, and is neither held accountable for her dubious fact-checking skills, nor her intolerably whiny voice (how do these virtuous "conservative" female pundits explain the heat-seeking spandex tops they feel obliged to don on their blog photos, anyway?)

    Talk about someone who has no respect but anyone but her own!"


    Oh yeah, Hash? Well, Debbie has a PERSONAL CONNECTION to 9/11--her cousin died that day in the attacks and she gets very VERY threatening Emails from ISLAMO-FASCISTS in DEARBORNISTAN, MI! So try telling your comments to her face--JUST TRY!

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/08/bassem_abulhass.html

    And you want to talk about whining voices--how about Randi Rhodekill, Janeane GODAWFULHO of AAR or Amy Goodman--The Lesbo Fembot--from Commie bootlickin' Pacifica!

    And notice that conservative women like Debbie, Michelle Malkin, (PA Congressional Candidate against Jack Murtha) Diana Ivey seem to be attractive while the three "females" I mentioned before ARE NOT?!

    And if Debbie has a whiny voice like you say, then why did she have her own talk radio show in Detroit and filled in recently on Sirius Satellite Radio? She has also made appearances on Howard Stern's freak-a-thon radio program.

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 16 August, 2006 18:35  

  • "Nab-A-Nip" Malkin is attractive??

    And if "Schlussel-Gelt" did actually lose a cousin in the 9/11 "occurrences", hasn't her mourning period officially ended, six years later?

    Appearing on Stern (for a price, I'm sure) doesn't exactly win her credibility points, and if Sirius wants to entertain a guest who sounds like the stomach pumping of a suicide attempt, hey, it's a free country....

    For some.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 August, 2006 21:31  

  • "And if "Schlussel-Gelt" did actually lose a cousin in the 9/11 "occurrences", hasn't her mourning period officially ended, six years later?"

    Hey, jackass - is if the Jersey Girls can use their husbands as vehicles to celebrity with no comment from your side (which they did), then I thinks its OK for Schlussel to mention her loss.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 17 August, 2006 01:57  

  • And its five years, not six. Lay off the hash, hashfanatic.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 17 August, 2006 01:59  

  • Who's justifying the Jersey Girls, anyway?

    The difference is, they actually lost close relatives, and took being thrust into the limelight and used it for good purpose, unlike certain publicity whores who work to promote a hidden agenda.

    Only five years? With all the whining, it must have just seemed like six....

    Must be all those "terrorists" having been exposed since.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 August, 2006 06:46  

  • The difference is, they actually lost close relatives, and took being thrust into the limelight and used it for good purpose, unlike certain publicity whores who work to promote a hidden agenda.

    What would that "good purpose" be? Bashing Bush and blaming him for 9-11? Of course it is! How about Deb Burlinghame? She lost a husband, supports the war and the Prez, and has as much "absolute moral authority" as any of the self-dubbed for publicity "Jersey Girls." Do you consider that a good cause? You must, by your own logical calculus.

    And who, exactly, "thrust" the Jersey Girls into the spotlight? Answer: They did it themselves and cut campaign commercials for Kerry. Exploiting their husbands deaths for left-wing media and political fodder.

    And what, pray tell, is the "hidden agenda?" This is just more paranoid dribble from a hash addict. There were no planes either, right?

    You honestly can't be serious about your last comment (but you are, which is telling).

    The goal posts of "compassion" and "sympathy" shift quite easily on your side, apparently.

    So now one has to lose a CLOSE relative to have any "weight" to throw around when arguing with deranged liberals like yourself. Otherwise, (according to a hash fanatic's 'logic') the deaths mean nothing.

    And you wonder why people don't trust liberals to look out for EVERYONE's safety.

    If a person lost a first cousin, best friend, aquaintence, or a coworker, then that doesn't count as a "loss." Immediate family only.

    And if they happen to be conservative after losing a relative or friend, then hashfanatic says forget it. They can't say anything, ever, for any reason, becuse the left says so (unless they are bashing Bush or conservative Americans - then they suddenly become part of a "good purpose."

    What a hypocrite you are. The sad part is that it has never dawned on you.

    Maybe its all that hash.

    LAY OFF THE HASH. It is damaging your brain beyond repair.

    "Only five years? With all the whining, it must have just seemed like six...."

    The whining comes from the left, who have elevated it from annoying and childish prattling from limpwirsted wimps to an entire culture of percieved grievances against their imagined "enemies." Congratulations - the constant focus on today's Rovian faux-outrage has also impared your ability to count.

    After all, if you can't tell the difference between five and six, then what makes you qualified to run the government or win the war?

    This is too easy.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 17 August, 2006 08:54  

  • Awww....Is the poor widdle wieutenant OFFENDED, now?

    Maybe he should concern himself with the battlefield losses we AND Israel seem to be so famous for these days.

    Methinks "Lieutenant Loser" is just looking for a way to spin this to blame the eeevil Jimmy Carter (someone so deranged and irresponsible, he tried to fix hurricane damage by building HOUSES...)

    Don't worry, Lou. After another interminable month of whining over 9/11, the country will tire of your invective as it did Coulter's, and you and your comrades will quietly fade into obscurity.

    Just in time for November.

    BUH-BYE!!! BUH-BYE!!!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 August, 2006 12:00  

  • Compelling "argument." A breif synopsis - (namecall) blah blah (namecall in scare quotes) blah blah (you hate Jimmy Carter ?) blah blah (namecall).

    Not very convincing, other than an indication of your adolescent status.

    "BUH-BYE!!! BUH-BYE!!!"

    Just like your "moral victories" where we were supposed to "fade into obscurity" in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 17 August, 2006 12:57  

  • hashfanatic said ...
    "Methinks 'Lieutenant Loser' is just looking for a way to spin this to blame the eeevil Jimmy Carter (someone so deranged and irresponsible, he tried to fix hurricane damage by building HOUSES...)"

    Actually, I think we can all agree that Jimmy Carter is doing his nation a great service by building houses -- mainly because it keeps him from having anything to do with politics. Let's not forget double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation and an Iranian hostage situation that President Peanut was clueless to resolve, yet President Reagan ended it before he'd even warmed the seat of his chair in the Oval Office.

    "Don't worry, Lou. After another interminable month of whining over 9/11, the country will tire of your invective as it did Coulter's, and you and your comrades will quietly fade into obscurity."

    You mean after buying enough copies of Coulter's book to make it No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list??? If that's "tiring of her invective," I can find you about a million other writers who'd love for the country to be that "tired" of them.

    And by the way ... how come you won't answer whether you were cheering for Iran, Syria and the Hezbos in the Lebanon conflict? Dodging the question only tends to reinforce what many of us suspected all along. Come on, be what you are and be proud of it!

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 17 August, 2006 14:08  

  • On Coulter...the only reason her book is on the list in the first place is that her handlers arrange for her books to be acquired in mass bulk quantities...and handed out for nothing at legion halls, centers, conferences, corporate symposiums, evangelical churches, etc.....all organizations that neocons frequent.

    This way, the numbers go up, the anorexic crack whore feels like she's make a worthwhile contribution to contemporary political dialogue, and her already-converted readers get what they always want...something for nothing.

    The same way the far-right and the Israeli hawks skew the polls-by circulating special software that their readers can use-to vote however many times they want on an issue (Diebold, anyone?)

    The Lebanon conflict? I'll tell you this much. I didn't support Israeli aggression.

    Should I be ready to be hauled off now, for such an unforgivable crime?

    What "patriots"!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 August, 2006 16:07  

  • As Pat Buchanan correctly stated, this is not our war.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 August, 2006 16:27  

  • "The Lebanon conflict? I'll tell you this much. I didn't support Israeli aggression."

    Hmmmn, then we have to assume you supported the Hezbollah terrorists and their rocket attacks on civilians in Israel? Don't look now, but your true colors are showing.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 18 August, 2006 09:56  

  • And?

    I guess things are easier to see, now that you finally figured out that your yarmulke goes on TOP of your head and not over your eyes.

    Why not think of AMERICA'S interests for once?

    Just another neocon loser dumbass.

    Next.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 18 August, 2006 11:12  

  • Hashfanatic said ..."The Lebanon conflict? I'll tell you this much. I didn't support Israeli aggression."

    The Benson Report said ... "Hmmmn, then we have to assume you supported the Hezbollah terrorists and their rocket attacks on civilians in Israel? Don't look now, but your true colors are showing."

    ***************************
    My point exactly, Benson. Never allow someone to come in here and bomb-throw without pinning him down on his own worldview.

    And in this case, it seems our humanitarian leftist buddy was waving the Hezbo flag as bombs flew into Israeli neighborhoods and pummeled children. But hey, that's cool -- like I said, don't be shy about your deep-seated opinions. BE WHO YOU ARE AND BE PROUD OF IT!

    Even if "who you are" is a person who sees nothing wrong with civilians being slaughtered, just as long as they're Israelis -- or maybe that should be, "just as long at they're Jews."

    Hmmmm, I seem to recall a famous guy in the 1940s who felt the same way ... gosh, what was his name again? ... you know, had a mustache, spoke German ...

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 18 August, 2006 11:13  

  • Hashfanatic said...

    "On Coulter...the only reason her book is on the list in the first place is that her handlers arrange for her books to be acquired in mass bulk quantities...and handed out for nothing at legion halls, centers, conferences, corporate symposiums, evangelical churches, etc.....all organizations that neocons frequent.

    "This way, the numbers go up, the anorexic crack whore feels like she's make a worthwhile contribution to contemporary political dialogue, and her already-converted readers get what they always want...something for nothing."

    ******************************
    Ahhhh, I get it ... and that explains why, after debuting No. 1 during the week of June 25, her book is STILL NO. 9 ON THE FREAKIN' NEW YORK TIMES BEST-SELLER LIST!

    Read and enjoy:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/books/
    bestseller/
    0820besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Dang my dinghies, that sure is a lot of neocon legion halls, corporate symposiums and evangelical churches! Nine weeks' worth and counting, to be exact!

    Honestly, where do you get this stuff? Please point me to the source so I can go there for my daily chuckle.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 18 August, 2006 11:29  

  • I don't know, Fourth.

    I do know that this country has been on a total decline since Reagan was brought in.

    I see record deficits (contrasting with Clinton's surplus), war for no discernible reason, total hatred for this nation worldwide, illegal day laborers swarming on our streets, for starters.

    And I see some dumb bitch's book being thrown in my face to obscure the view of everything else I need to be concerned about.

    There IS no such thing as a conservative today. Strategically detrimental warfare, cronyism, corruption, alliances with dark forces, seperation based not on worth and merit, but temporary gratification (on the political and defense aspects).

    It's not so much that neocons stand up for failed policy. It's that they don't have the moral strength to stand up for anything in the first place.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 19 August, 2006 23:27  

  • And you think Reagan's to blame for America's modern problems? Good grief, if the guy who preceded him, Jimmy Carter, had been re-elected, we'd probably be wrestling with triple-digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates (instead of the double-digit insanity that his administration bestowed us with).

    And if Carter could have at least begged, borrowed or stolen a spine, he could have slam-dunked the Ayatollah Assaholla and perhaps nipped Islamic radicalism in the bud.

    Of course, Clinton treated the first World Trade Center attack like a police matter, then turned down Osama bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a silver platter. He even had other chances -- like the time the drone spotted bin Laden in Afghanistan -- yet apparently did little besides watch the terrorist leader on TV. One of Clinton's concerns was that the U.S. had nothing to charge him with. (Criminey, will somebody explain to liberals that war doesn't involve criminal charges, search warrants and defense attorneys?)

    I think there's plenty more moral strength in Bush's stand against terrorism than in anything I've heard from the Democrats. The best you'll get from them is, "Well, we need to negotiate. And then we need to offer incentives. And if the incentives don't work, then we need to impose sanctions. And if the sanctions don't work ... then we need to, ummm, take it to the United Nations."

    The Democrats are in a political bind, because they can't mention things that go bang and boom without alienating their anti-war moonbat wing, which goes bonkers at the mere mention of the word "military." On the other hand, Middle America knows very well that you can't fight terrorism by saying, "Pretty please, Osama."

    As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party has moved so far left in the last four decades that tough-on-defense candidates like JFK and Hubert Humphrey would probably get the Lieberman treatment if they were alive in 2006. In fact, they'd probably be Independents or Republicans.

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 21 August, 2006 00:45  

  • Fourth, do you seriously believe that Bush and the neocons have been in any way successful at fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe from it?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 21 August, 2006 08:05  

  • Clinton CORRECTLY treated the "first attack" as a police matter.

    Sending in troops with planes, bombs, and (sometimes) body armor to cause physical destruction and torture of civilians in unarmed sovereign nations is about as effective at trapping and capturing terrorists who may (or may even NOT) be operating there is as sensible as slicing swiss cheese into triangles with an electric carving knife.

    It may look impressive and inventive, at first, but soon, useless results will be yielded, and the aggressors look like morons and pussies, a la the US and Israelis.

    Frankly, I would have expected the vaunted "conservative" right to have made a better showing in this regard.

    And that's what America gets for expecting neocons to do anything but lose wars, and rape and pillage the American treasury in the process.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 21 August, 2006 16:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger