Posted on 07/09/2008 9:09:02 AM PDT by EveningStar
Changing course after a week of attacking Rush Limbaugh over his new deal, "progressives" have suddenly turned against New York Times interviewer Zev Chafets, who wrote the widely- read piece on the talk titan that ran in Sunday's paper.
Like a pack of rabid dogs, the unhinged left has labeled Chafets "creepy" and a "dittohead", among other insults.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioequalizer.blogspot.com ...
ping
And we’re surprised because.....?
Typical “enlightened” behavior
Gee, I don’t know what to say except maybe the next time you interview a writer who writes a piece on Michael Moore you can ask, “Why didn’t you challenge his opinions?”
Media Matters has started it liberal jihad against the author and is peddling the fiction mentioned in this article.
Mad Dog Democrats
“The Right seeks converts, the Left seeks heretics.”
It’s the nature of the scorpion to attack.
Funny that anyone on the right is controversial. Those on the left such as kieth overbite and the clown on hardball are not.
“Dittohead” is an insult?
Typical liberal “tolernace.”
Yep, isn’t it ridiculous how they liberals are not tolerant of Rush, Hannity, etc.? They believe oh so strongly in freedom of speech, so they say. Yet they would love to silence talk radio.
Somebody smarter than me has said that if you truly believe in free speech, you will want free speech for the opinions that you yourself don’t like. You will want that person to speak his opinion so that all voices are heard. You would not want to silence opinion with which you disagree.
Bill Clinton used to complain that Rush Limbaugh could yak for three hours a day and attack whatever Bill was doing. Howard Dean has dismissed those who listen to Rush Limbaugh as uneducated, simplistic people who don’t understand the nuances of the issues.
Maybe some of Rush’s listeners do understand the nuances, and see that on some issues the Democrats / liberals / radicals are very simplistic and black and white in their view of the world.
So we don't really know there were fifteen million. Most likely the numbers were a lot less. That same number was used by a radical, leftist sociologist prof of mine back in my college days. That guy was a wacko, and Garfield probably is too.
The journals of European explorers mention many Indian settlements that had disappeared as early as the time of the first British colonial settlements. It’s probable that measles and other ‘new’ diseases the explorers inadvertently exposed the Indians to went through their ranks like the plague.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.