If that’s the case…well, I don’t think you should be lecturing others on what’s hateful.

Precisely.

The underlying argument behind O’Reilly’s attempts to smear everyone on the political left is that hating is something only people on the left are capable of. This is complete BS and we all know it. Hate knows no political affiliation.

The mere fact that Ann Coulter is presently the leading spokesmodel of the conservative movement in America shoots O’Reilly’s theory down in smoke and flames. The woman is the living embodiment of hate and bigotry in 21st century America. Anyone who works at Fox News – where this fascist is regularly given a soapbox to spout her shrill screed – has no right whatsoever to call anyone else a hater without expecting to be labelled a complete hypocrite.

in a slanderous, disgusting homosexually suggestive way.

Aha! Now I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter. It’s not slanderous since no one is reporting the picture as fact and no reasonable person can interpret is as such.

Is a sexual act between two men what people have the problem with? Gay panic? Gays are “disgusting”?

If that’s the case…well, I don’t think you should be lecturing others on what’s hateful.

On August 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm, Rusty said:

No, it’s a Photoshop that portrays Lieberman as submissive to Bush.

in a slanderous, disgusting homosexually suggestive way. Don’t sugarcoat it.

Lieberman isn’t being “submissive” to Bush. They are standing tall, side by side, to confront morons who would endanger their own country in a time of war. Looks like that is you.

And yes, Iran is next. The Iranians will make sure of that, if they continue to kill our troops in Iraq.

Lieberman is the only Dem with any guts to stand for what’s right in this fight.

Well, he was a Dem, anyway.

Also, he did lose a Dem primary, but he won the general, and sent Ned Lament back to his mansion empty handed!

That cost the Dems a seat in the Senate caucus, brilliant maneuver!

again mr huggy, O’reilly was referring to the commenters and how they were still up there and not immediately removed, not the original post. Context

Really? See, I thought it was about how dailykos is a “hate site”, and that a few nasty posts from a few of the site’s readers represent the views of everyone who writes for and reads it. At least that’s the running mantra over in the – *ahem* – “no spin zone.” However the original posts which the incessently reported upon comments completely refute that idea.

To wit: regarding Tony Snow’s cancer, O’Reilly reported “the Daily Kos thinks the world would be better off without Tony Snow, now that his cancer has come back.” However Kos himself actually said “I wish smooth sailing to Tony Snow and his family through the weeks to come.” This post is followed by 925 comments, 924 of which are supportive of Tony Snow.

That context makes a world of difference, but of course you don’t get context in the “no spin zone”. Because if you were given that context, there would be no story.

We can go back and forth on this all day. And it’s understandable that some may take offense. I found the picture trite and a little too broad. I must admit I chuckled at it.

And, frankly, a racy satirical photo is not as bad as sexually harassing a producer or refusing to listen to dissenting arguments.

O’Reilly says that dailykos posts offensive pictures and commentary everyday, yet he is only able to procure one single photoshopped picture and a handful of comments from a site that receives thousands a day.

O’Reilly’s reportage on dKos is amateurish and lazy. Would you prefer a collaboration of conservative bloggers and blog readers doing his legwork? I would ignore individual commenters and focus on the “anti-zionist” and anti-military diaries. Instead of leading this week with a “homo-shop” of Lieberman, O’Reilly should have reported that on the previous Friday one of the most recommended Kos diaries insinuated that Pat Tillman was murdered by the military. If one were to follow that with reports of some of the “Protocols of Daily Kos” type diaries, then some Democratic Presidential candidates might begin to reconsider their decisions.

Of course, hopefully, no one thinks it really happened. But, to state that it’s not a personal attack is ludicrous.
Of course it’s personal. There are plenty of satirical photos and cartoons that don’t have to stoop to the level of mocking a sitting Senator & President by posing them in a sexual posture.

A non-personal response would be to have Lieberman carrying a GOP banner, or something similar. This was just pure vile and hatred aimed at a Democrat who won’t tow the party line. Plain and simple.

Satire is supposed to sting. Otherwise what’s the point. I’m sure a few English thought Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was out-of-bounds too.

It’s not a personal attack. No one thinks what’s depicted in the picture really happened. It’s satirical. It’s no different than a racy political cartoon.

So a photoshop of you having masochistic sex in front of a cheering audience with a ‘Yearly Kos’ banner would not be thought of as a personal attack but a satirical/politcal cartoon?

Yet Michelle has a picture posted on her website of a Koran in a toilet. This is disrespectful to Muslims.

Some muslims believe our very existence is disrespectul.

And liberals HAVE said far worse – such as the Iraq contractor issue, or wishing death upon a sitting Vice-President or President.

It was widely publicized that someone left a comment on O’Reilly’s site that implied he/she would kill Hillary if she was elected president.

As for the Lieberman picture, it’s ridiculous to call it ‘in-bounds’. Sen. Lieberman has voted with the Democrats on what, 95% of issues in his tenure? But then he dared to defy the far-left and now is villified by characterizations of sexual gratification with the President?

How sick is that? And you think that is ‘In Bounds’? Disagree with the man if you will – but leave the personal attacks out of it.

It’s not a personal attack. No one thinks what’s depicted in the picture really happened. It’s satirical. It’s no different than a racy political cartoon.

I don’t like DailyKos, but I’ve always been appreciative of the hatchet job they’ve done on Lieberman. It’s not just the far-left that’s sick of him. It takes more than the far-left to lose a primary.

Quick links to some things farther down the page: 2007.08.03 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup …