MB3- Ted Rall calls U.S. troops idiots and their death improves the gene pool

[trumptman]

http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall071022.gif

I wonder if we will see any reporting on this?

Ted Rall declares that we need the Iraq war so we enjoy a backhanded means of engaging in eugenics.

In his column (http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/) Mr. Rall wrote these insane statements.

Even after soldiers get killed, their parents promote the war so their dead kids won't be lonely in heaven.

Few Gold Star mothers tell him off. Those who do are polite to the man who murdered their children as surely and as viciously as if he'd shot them himself. Why don't they spit at him?

Much like Coulter, there are indeed an occasional couple nuggets of truth in his writing. Being viciously foul and vile doesn't mean there isn't a point to be made. However this is seriously wrong.

In case anyone wants to play the "marginally published" card, he is published in 140 newspapers including the LA and NY Times.

I wonder what sort of letter he will get from the Senate?

Nick

[Jubelum]

I wonder what sort of letter he will get from the Senate?


Not one worth 4.2 million. :smokey:

[spindler]

What exactly is the point of posting this topic? I doubt even 1% of the left wing people who read this board would agree with this guy. So one guy who is a jerk or who had lost sight of the basics made some lame cartoon.

When 3 far right people are charged with conspiracy to blow up an abortion clinic, we don't rush to make a thread about it. What is the point of this thread? Until someone mainstream, like say Hillary Clinton, agrees with it, what is the point of posting this?

It sounds like some nut like MarcUK got himself a comic strip. That's about all there is to it.

[@_@ Artman]

Pogue Colonel: Marine, what is that button on your body armor? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VHKpGJX29s)
Private Joker: A peace symbol, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Where'd you get it?
Private Joker: I don't remember, sir.
Pogue Colonel: What is that you've got written on your helmet?
Private Joker: "Born to Kill", sir.
Pogue Colonel: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
Private Joker: No, sir.
Pogue Colonel: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you.
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?
Private Joker: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Private Joker: Our side, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Private Joker: Aye-aye, sir.

It's a fuckin' cartoon(ist)...:rolleyes:

[Frank777]

When 3 far right people are charged with conspiracy to blow up an abortion clinic, we don't rush to make a thread about it.

Um..you do realize where you're posting this, right? :err:

[Northgate]

The guy's an asshole. What else is there to discuss?

[BRussell]

The guy's an asshole. What else is there to discuss? We could discuss the fact that every liberal here will say this guy is an asshole, but conservatives (like trumptman) defended Rush Limbaugh down the line in your thread a while back.

[trumptman]

What exactly is the point of posting this topic? I doubt even 1% of the left wing people who read this board would agree with this guy. So one guy who is a jerk or who had lost sight of the basics made some lame cartoon.

When 3 far right people are charged with conspiracy to blow up an abortion clinic, we don't rush to make a thread about it. What is the point of this thread? Until someone mainstream, like say Hillary Clinton, agrees with it, what is the point of posting this?

It sounds like some nut like MarcUK got himself a comic strip. That's about all there is to it.

You're right you don't make a thread about it. Instead you just tar everyone with that brush as a right-wing extremist and propose hate legislation to counter the claimed actions.

Pogue Colonel: Marine, what is that button on your body armor? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VHKpGJX29s)
Private Joker: A peace symbol, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Where'd you get it?
Private Joker: I don't remember, sir.
Pogue Colonel: What is that you've got written on your helmet?
Private Joker: "Born to Kill", sir.
Pogue Colonel: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
Private Joker: No, sir.
Pogue Colonel: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you.
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?
Private Joker: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Private Joker: Our side, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Private Joker: Aye-aye, sir.

It's a fuckin' cartoon(ist)...:rolleyes:

Citing fiction to support... a cartoonist who is offensive. Interesting.

The guy's an asshole. What else is there to discuss?

Do you read the sources that support the asshole? Have you advocated for them to drop the asshole?

We could discuss the fact that every liberal here will say this guy is an asshole, but conservatives (like trumptman) defended Rush Limbaugh down the line in your thread a while back.

First you are welcome to show where Limbaugh has made claims that if a certain group died, it would help improve our collective IQ and strengthen the gene pool. I'll gladly condemn it as being in bad taste.

Second, we had 41 Senators sign a letter condemning Limbaugh and asking his EMPLOYER to take action.

Are you going to be asking the LA and NY Times to drop Ted Rall?

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

What part of the whole Freedom of Speech thing you don't fucking get Trumptman?

He can say whatever he wants, illustrate whatever he wants and express whatever he wants. If you are insulted, offended or outraged...I think he did his job.

http://www.mostlyposters.com/images/posters/fullsize/47102c.jpg

[trumptman]

What part of the whole Freedom of Speech thing you don't fucking get Trumptman?

He can say whatever he wants, illustrate whatever he wants and express whatever he wants. If you are insulted, offended or outraged...I think he did his job.

Did I suggest we outlaw his speech?

The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them.
Lenny Bruce


Nick

[@_@ Artman]

Did I suggest we outlaw his speech?

The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them.
Lenny Bruce


Nick


Being viciously foul and vile doesn't mean there isn't a point to be made. However this is seriously wrong.

I don't find anything wrong. He's spot on. You don't think so and can't understand why I guess. I don't know. I think it has to do with your pathological crusade with the "media" *.

* Things you disagree with.

[trumptman]

If you don't find anything pathological about eugenics then you are beyond help.

Eugenics, you know that who belief system that drove folks like... Hitler. Nothing wrong with that? If you think he is spot on then you are one sick puppy yourself.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.67nj.org/newstoday/imgs/adolph_banjo.gif

http://badgas.co.uk/lynndie/hitler_bush.jpg

http://www.robdamanii.com/macros/hitler-is-amused.jpg

[segovius]

KInd of reminds you of those other cartoons - you know, the ones insulting Muslims and deliberately created to do so by real racists and nazis...oh, wait...I forgot, that's allowed. Sorry.

Strange Trumpt should be getting his knickers in a twist about Eugenics...it was a right-wing 'Xian' invention and has always been the province of hardcore winger extremists. Opposing it seems pretty much a liberal position.

Wasn't it Churchll who wanted to sterilize the working class?

Even today Xian fundie nutters like Albert Mohler (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891) (nice National Socialist ring to the moniker there) are still promoting it. Not that it ever gets mentioned anywhere....

[trumptman]

It is pathetically sad that a discussion about a present day person advocating eugenics and death becomes derailed with the usual knee-jerking about claimed historical omissions by certain groups, real or imagined.

I can't possibly get my knickers in a bunch now or ever because it is claimed that X bad trait was practiced by Y person of clamed significance.

Margeret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a chief proponent of eugenics. On the left they don't call it eugenics anymore, they just call it abortion and assisted suicide and leave the motivations for such things to the shadows.

I mean what else could an "unwanted" child really signify, but one that is unfit coming from someone who is unfit.

But really, lets wave the hands some more... and ignore Rall. I heard someone in 1783 advocated for a position and I consider them to the right politically, so no one from that side of the political spectrum can ever discuss, condemn, complain about that position.

Nonsense...

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

The thing is that I'm not easily offended by art or speech. Yes, some artists need to be cited for their utter lack of tact and decency (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/10/19/is-a-dead-dog-considered-art.php). But they should not be censored or stopped. You shouldn't shoot the messenger when the message has some kernel of truth.

[segovius]

It is pathetically sad that a discussion about a present day person advocating eugenics and death becomes derailed with the usual knee-jerking about claimed historical omissions by certain groups, real or imagined.

I can't possibly get my knickers in a bunch now or ever because it is claimed that X bad trait was practiced by Y person of clamed significance.

Margeret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a chief proponent of eugenics. On the left they don't call it eugenics anymore, they just call it abortion and assisted suicide and leave the motivations for such things to the shadows.

I mean what else could an "unwanted" child really signify, but one that is unfit coming from someone who is unfit.

But really, lets wave the hands some more... and ignore Rall. I heard someone in 1783 advocated for a position and I consider them to the right politically, so no one from that side of the political spectrum can ever discuss, condemn, complain about that position.

Nonsense...

Nick

Hold on, you were the one who invoked Hitler.

It was inevitable that you would and after that it's all fair game.....

[trumptman]

Hold on, you were the one who invoked Hitler.

It was inevitable that you would and after that it's all fair game.....

I invoked Hitler and said someone couldn't and shouldn't condemn eugenics because it is a tendency within their thought model?

You need to follow through with your conclusions. I showed Artman why eugenics is not okay in present and historical terms. You do the opposite. You claim historical precedent as a means of retracting the ability of certain people to condemn eugenics and the people who advocate for it today.

That my friend is a very large difference.

Nick

[Frank777]

Who is Ted Rall?

...he is published in 140 newspapers including the LA and NY Times.


I guess liberals really don't read newspapers! :D

[giant]

Who is Ted Rall?
He's like the liberal Rush Limbaugh. HUGE political celebrity with a really high profile. I mean, he is basically a household name and is pretty much universally considered to be among the most important and widely read political commentators.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.pentoon.com/images-01/subjects/ted%20turner/turner-hitler.gif

http://www.pentoon.com/images-01/subjects/michael-moore/make-my-day-fatso.gif

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/allieimages/2007/Turkey-in-Back.jpg

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/langimages/2007/Columbia-University.jpg

[Jubelum]

What part of the whole Freedom of Speech thing you don't fucking get Trumptman?

He can say whatever he wants, illustrate whatever he wants and express whatever he wants. If you are insulted, offended or outraged...I think he did his job.


I don't get from Nick's post that he has a problem with the First Amendment... I think we all understand that whole "Freedom of Speech" thing quite well, as often as it gets beaten into the CW around here. He can do whatever, say whatever, yadda yadda.

No one is challenging his right to free expression... but Nick's right... there will be no letter coming from Harry Reid and 41 senators to this guy's syndication company. Because it is OK, apparently... I mean, outrageous is outrageous, right? Slamming the soldiers is bad, right? Can I getta demagoguery from a "D"? Anyone? We're told by a bunch of totalitarians that we need a freedom-abridging "Fairness Doctrine," but this is defended as "free speech." What brazen doublespeak.

[spindler]

So trumptmann, what EXACTLY do you think us liberals should do because some schmuck we've never even heard of wrote a really offensive cartoon? Do you really think we should start some petition against Ted Rall, who we never heard of until five minutes ago? I tried to find a list of "newspapers" he is published in but couldn't. I bet they are just the local rags that are 90% advertising they give away for free.

No liberal has agreed with this cartoon, and most have said it was offensive. You are feigning outrage that we are not taking some action. So what action EXACTLY should we take against this Joe Blow nobody we've never even heard of?

[midwinter]

Who is Ted Rall?

Bingo.

I read The Guardian and Z-Mag as much as the next pinko commie America-hater, and the first time I ever heard of Rall was from a right-wing blog.

[AsLan^]

Can anyone think of a good reason to have joined the Army in 2007?

And no, three hots and a cot doesn't count, although it is a pretty good reason.

[BRussell]

Bingo.

I read The Guardian and Z-Mag as much as the next pinko commie America-hater, and the first time I ever heard of Rall was from a right-wing blog. Oh come on, you know that Ted Rall and Ward Churchill lead all of our coven meetings.

[talksense101]

I really don't see anything out of the way in that cartoon. Of course, you could issue a fatwa against Ted Rall for making fun of what you hold dear. That would level up the playing field.

[Northgate]

[QUOTE=trumptman;1163388]It is pathetically sad that a discussion about a present day person advocating eugenics and death becomes derailed with the usual knee-jerking about claimed historical omissions by certain groups, real or imagined.QUOTE]

Dude. You're the fucking king of this technique. Come on. For every Coulter outrage you simply cite Franklin. For every Limbaugh outrage you simply site MoveOn. You have a well documented history on these boards of using EXACTLY these methods.

And now you're going to rail against.

I gotta hand it to you Trumpt. You really are a Republican through and through. :lol::lol::lol:

[Northgate]

No one is challenging his right to free expression... but Nick's right... there will be no letter coming from Harry Reid and 41 senators to this guy's syndication company.

Spoken without a single shred a irony. Wow.

[Jubelum]

Spoken without a single shred a irony. Wow.

Posted with a huge bit of redundancy. If you've got something to say, say it.

[Ke^in]

What exactly is the point of posting this topic? I doubt even 1% of the left wing people who read this board would agree with this guy. So one guy who is a jerk or who had lost sight of the basics made some lame cartoon.

When 3 far right people are charged with conspiracy to blow up an abortion clinic, we don't rush to make a thread about it. What is the point of this thread? Until someone mainstream, like say Hillary Clinton, agrees with it, what is the point of posting this?

It sounds like some nut like MarcUK got himself a comic strip. That's about all there is to it.
The point is, the internet is a breeding ground for people to indoctrinate others. 10 years ago on the internet the things people were calling "too extreme" and "no one would go for that" are now the norm.

The fact that people believe that the US was involved in 9/11 or that we faked the moon landing is proof that the stupidity above is contagious.

And that we should bring it up and denounce it no matter what.

[groverat]

I think the key flaw in his logic is George W Bush himself.

[trumptman]

So trumptmann, what EXACTLY do you think us liberals should do because some schmuck we've never even heard of wrote a really offensive cartoon? Do you really think we should start some petition against Ted Rall, who we never heard of until five minutes ago? I tried to find a list of "newspapers" he is published in but couldn't. I bet they are just the local rags that are 90% advertising they give away for free.

No liberal has agreed with this cartoon, and most have said it was offensive. You are feigning outrage that we are not taking some action. So what action EXACTLY should we take against this Joe Blow nobody we've never even heard of?

First, just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he isn't published, doesn't get work and can't made an impact.

Second, do whatever you want. What is hilarious to me is to see the folks who substituted their own think or actions they believe I've demanded. I've not said Rall should have laws passed against him, should be arrested, has committed a hate crime, or any other such nonsense.

That doesn't mean I can't note it is a terrible and bad thing that he said and that I disagree with it.


Dude. You're the fucking king of this technique. Come on. For every Coulter outrage you simply cite Franklin. For every Limbaugh outrage you simply site MoveOn. You have a well documented history on these boards of using EXACTLY these methods.

And now you're going to rail against.

I gotta hand it to you Trumpt. You really are a Republican through and through. :lol::lol::lol:

This is because they don't want to just express outrage at Coulter or let the market determine the merit of her ideas, rather they would silence her often utilizing means that involve aggression. If someone were attacking the stage at a Ted Rall talk being given at a university, and attempted to harm, silence, or prevent the speech from taking place, I would argue for the right of Rall to speak and for criminal prosecution if necessary against anyone who was preventing it.

With Coulter as an example, you've had just such actions take place.

Now the last bit is where the media shows their colors, Rall can claim eugenics and it gets no play, Limbaugh or Coulter says something that can even be misquoted into a bad intention and it gets broad press. It is clear who the media desires to paint as extremists and who they leave alone.

Nick

[screener]

Posted with a huge bit of redundancy. If you've got something to say, say it.

Maybe Reid gets Rall's self-depractory humor.:lol:

[screener]

let the market determine the merit of her ideas,
Nick

Kinda like a poll huh?

Judging by her book sales, everything sane people think about the right wing must be true.

Left wing nut-job book sales pale next to her and other right winger sales, so what does that say?

The right wing in the States has the market corned in Nut-Jobs.

I gotta laugh,:lol:

[spindler]

That doesn't mean I can't note it is a terrible and bad thing that he said and that I disagree with it.



Let's look at the real purpose of this thread and all the cheap things Trumptmann plans to do with it:

(1) It should be obvious that you probably aren't going to get any serious discussion by starting a thread about something 99% of people would disagree with. If I start a thread titled "Three right wing people caught planning to blow up an abortion clinic!!!!" it probably won't be a serious thread, but just a cheap attempt to tie other right wing people to that.

(2) 99% of liberals will disagree with what Ted Rall said, and Trumptmann will simply ignore them. He will sit and fish for anything that sounds like agreement so he can hook all liberals into it. Artman agrees with the quote somewhat, so Trumptmann feigns outrage and says "If you don't find anything pathological about eugenics then you are beyond help.". But then we find out the real purpose: he then manages to claim liberals are all about eugenics: "On the left they don't call it eugenics anymore, they just call it abortion and assisted suicide and leave the motivations for such things to the shadows."

It would be like me making a thread about three people who wanted to blow up an abortion clinic and then trying to slide into "Conservatives are all about violence. The Iraq war just shows that they are all about violence, just like with these three guys trying to blow up the abortion clinic.

(3) After he fishes for agreement, while not mentioning that 99% disagree, then he lies about what was agreed to in the following quote: "I showed Artman why eugenics is not okay in present and historical terms.". Artman never said anything about agreeing to eugenics. Artman may have agreed that the troops are ignorant, which I think is really radical in its own right, but he never specifically mentioned anything about agreeing to eugenics. It's just something Trumptmann made up to feign outrage about.

(4) Cheap relativism. Then he tries to get a free pass for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh by using Ted Rall to pretend that liberals don't mind disgusting things. He ignores that no one has heard of Ted Rall so there is no practical reason to do anything, but 20,000,000 people listen to Rush Limbaugh every day.

(5) Also, he gets to pretend that this whole thing shows that the media has some outrageous bias against the right. This ignores the fact that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are well known, and know one cares about Ted Rall. It's kinda like how if Brad Pitt says "all blacks should be killed" then we would take immediate action against that. But if some unknown redneck in a country bar says the same thing, there isn't much practical reason to take the same action.

[trumptman]

Let's look at the real purpose of this thread and all the cheap things Trumptmann plans to do with it:

Yes, let's ignore the obvious and instead deal with the real "intentions" which allow all the cheapshots, name calling, and insinuations that my real actions wouldn't indicate. That is so much more fun instead.

(1) It should be obvious that you probably aren't going to get any serious discussion by starting a thread about something 99% of people would disagree with. If I start a thread titled "Three right wing people caught planning to blow up an abortion clinic!!!!" it probably won't be a serious thread, but just a cheap attempt to tie other right wing people to that.

Actually we spend a lot of time now removing the rights of all to insure that the exception cannot become the rule. This is true of the right and left. Those three right wing people that no one agree with have made it so we all have to respect certain safety zones with regard to reasonable protesting for example. The exception has made it so that "don't tase me bro" is the rule for all of us.

(2) 99% of liberals will disagree with what Ted Rall said, and Trumptmann will simply ignore them. He will sit and fish for anything that sounds like agreement so he can hook all liberals into it. Artman agrees with the quote somewhat, so Trumptmann feigns outrage and says "If you don't find anything pathological about eugenics then you are beyond help.". But then we find out the real purpose: he then manages to claim liberals are all about eugenics: "On the left they don't call it eugenics anymore, they just call it abortion and assisted suicide and leave the motivations for such things to the shadows."


Let me do what you do... let's ignore what Rall and Trumptman said, and let's get down to what I REALLY want you all to believe. Then I can post several points addressing the "cheap things" you believe.

It would be like me making a thread about three people who wanted to blow up an abortion clinic and then trying to slide into "Conservatives are all about violence. The Iraq war just shows that they are all about violence, just like with these three guys trying to blow up the abortion clinic.

You are right. No one has ever alleged that conservatives prefer war, create enemies to keep us all scared, and desire and support a military-industrial complex. Anything that suggests that is a figment of my imagination.

(3) After he fishes for agreement, while not mentioning that 99% disagree, then he lies about what was agreed to in the following quote: "I showed Artman why eugenics is not okay in present and historical terms.". Artman never said anything about agreeing to eugenics. Artman may have agreed that the troops are ignorant, which I think is really radical in its own right, but he never specifically mentioned anything about agreeing to eugenics. It's just something Trumptmann made up to feign outrage about.

I think you lost even me here. I'm afraid I don't even understand my own motivations and actions as viewed through your prison. I guess my true actions and motivations are a secret even from me. Bwahahaha. I'm so evil.

(4) Cheap relativism. Then he tries to get a free pass for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh by using Ted Rall to pretend that liberals don't mind disgusting things. He ignores that no one has heard of Ted Rall so there is no practical reason to do anything, but 20,000,000 people listen to Rush Limbaugh every day.

You are aware that declaring that something is right or wrong because it is popular is a fallacy correct?

(5) Also, he gets to pretend that this whole thing shows that the media has some outrageous bias against the right. This ignores the fact that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are well known, and know one cares about Ted Rall. It's kinda like how if Brad Pitt says "all blacks should be killed" then we would take immediate action against that. But if some unknown redneck in a country bar says the same thing, there isn't much practical reason to take the same action.

You should investigate Rall's website. He gets plenty of work from large and reputable sources. The fact that you try to declare, a fallacy to do so, that we should ignore the wrong because of the person committing it is a profoundly strange isn't "popular" enough to matter is just odd.

I'll tell you what. I'll practice what you preach. In the future, I'll ignore your posts because.....well, because you don't count which means they don't count either.

That's what you are saying right? Oh...wait... who cares.

Nick

[spindler]

Let me put it simply. Trumptmann. There really is no way anyone is going to have a serious, point by point discussion based on something 99% of people disagree with. This thread will never turn out like a thread on, say, the pros and cons and economic considerations of raising the minimum wage.

So the only real purpose it can serve is for you to use generalizations and find vague connection between liberals and this and that and this and that. The purpose of your thread is not to have an honest back and forth on a real subject, because this is not a real subject that anyone is debating. The purpose of it is to find vague ways to say whatever you want. There can't be any tight, critical thinking, because it isn't a subject that liberals are even arguing for.

It's like you're "Al Gore is a hypocrite" thread. 99% of liberals agree, but you just use it to make vague arguments about unrelated subjects.

[Jubelum]

Maybe Reid gets Rall's self-depractory humor.:lol:

The best part is, you've had a month to understand the concept and still miss it. :D

[screener]

The best part is, you've had a month to understand the concept and still miss it. :D

Oh I got the "concept", you hate Gore and are making fun of yourself, according to you, although that aspect I don't get.

From the Thesaurus, on your Mac,
The familiar phrase self-deprecating is, literally speaking, a virtual impossibility, except perhaps for those suffering from extreme neuroses.
But hey, life goes on.

[Northgate]

This is because they don't want to just express outrage at Coulter or let the market determine the merit of her ideas, rather they would silence her often utilizing means that involve aggression.

At first I wasn't sure if you were referring to the group that boycotted CBS and their telemovie "Nancy & Ronnie" and forced them to dump on Showtime and subsequently losing a couple million dollars in the process. I mean that's punishment through "aggressive" use of the boycott, is it not?

Oh wait. You were referring to some other incidents that have resulted in...well... nothing. Because the last time I checked Coulter was still books by the boat load, Rush Limbaugh's ratings couldn't be higher, Sean Hannity and the rest are still riding high.

[Northgate]

Posted with a huge bit of redundancy. If you've got something to say, say it.

You know good and well what I meant. Utterly breathtaking irony that you'd mock Harry Reid and their cute little "letter" when Republicans in congress just wasted a whole lot of the tax payers time approving legislation against a pun in a newspaper ad. :lol::lol::lol:

[Jubelum]

You know good and well what I meant. Utterly breathtaking irony that you'd mock Harry Reid and their cute little "letter" when Republicans in congress just wasted a whole lot of the tax payers time approving legislation against a pun in a newspaper ad. :lol::lol::lol:

I never said that I supported the legislation re: MoveOn.

Strawman, line one.