Pushback

Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reiley routinely engage in hate speech?

POST EXAMPLES.

Put up or shut up.

Oh yes, definitely free speech. Free speech that the voting base needs to hear more of, and make an informed decision regarding John Edwards' choice of media mouthpiece

Liberals' defence of this is "well Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do it too".

I learned a long time ago, the argumnet is won when your opponent uses that debating tactic.

"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit. . ."

I don't recall Limbaugh, et al. saying anything remotely as offensive as that. Those characters are slso able to write whole PARAGRAPHS without resorting to the "F" bomb but modern lefties would only consider that a defect in style.

I'm not sure I can call it hate speech -- but it sure is retarded and ill-informed. Maybe that's Edwards' "two Americas" view: One America for rich blood-sucking lawyers and one for bad writers with a ton of opinions unsupported by reality.

Didn't George Allen lose his re-election bid because he used a word that is considered hate speech? Even though, as far as I know, noone can read anyone else's mind yet, certain words are hate speech and certain words are not. Who decides who hates and who does not hate?

Oh Shark, with pleasure. Examples.

Well, there was Rush Limbaugh saying that the White House got a new dog, and flashed open a picture of Chelsea Clinton when she was 11 years old. Rush Limbaugh accusing Hillary Clinton of murdering Vince Foster.

Let's see,... Hannity thought it would be fun to wear blue ribbons to honor the cops who beat Rodney King.

O'Reilly... need I bother. Ok. He encouraged Al Qaeda to bomb San Francisco because they passed an anti military recruiter law. And I quote.

O’Reilly said “if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco.”

If Edwards wants to associate with someone who has problems advocating for her side without wild accusations and venom, let him. He will face the political consequences somewhere down the road. This was not well thought out on his campaign's part.

Certainly many of you must be joking! And to those who would say that the likes of Limbaugh (Club Gitmo Gear?), Coulter ("roll over and crush Canada"), et cetera, are not doing the exact same thing I assure you that YOU obviously don't listen to them, as I do. Daily. Oftentimes it's laughable, other times excrutiating - then again so are many liberal commentators. I've also read their books - and their Democratic and liberal rivals'. Both sides do the same thing, pull the same dirty tricks, manufacture evidence to support their claims, take things out of context, and so on. To assume either does anything otherwise is naive at best and assinine at worst.

That being said, I still fail to see the point here.

Obviously the girl Edwards has hired is extremely partisan and very rough, not to mention quick to jump (the Duke case in particular), but I'm sure he'll be reigning her vitrole in. If nothing else, the conservatives and Republicans should be thrilled that they will have one less virulent blogger out there ripping them to shreds.

Now if only someone on the right would hire Michelle Malkin as a campaign worker maybe we could all have a quiet, productive political day...

"To characterize her work as hate speech is ridiculous"

Hardly. She makes generalizations based on stereotypes. Provincialism -> bigotry -> hatespeech.

No surprise. Its a blind spot for the Left - they've never really done any self-examination re their own hate. The term "redneck" [bigoted term once used to denigrate immigrant farm laborers]frequently shows up in the pages of the NYTs and WaPo. Its no different than "wetback" or "nigger", but Marcotte and her ilk still use it.

She is macaca (is that spelled with a capital "M"?)

>>>>Who decides who hates and who does not hate?<<<

Liberals obviously. For example, the Mohammad cartoons were examples of hate, so much that the Times wouldn't print them. But Piss Christ, or Virgin Mary Dung painting were perfectly acceptable for publication- praise even.

Or Joe Biden, feeling the need to comment on Obama being such a well-spoken, well groomed and nice black man. WTF!??! I have never heard such a paternal, condescending racist (and stupid) comment in my life, and it's barely a blip. Meanwhile, Trent Lott says something stupid at an old mans birthday party and he gets raked over the coals. You tell me what the double standard is.

The Dems have a KKK member in their Senate caucus for crying out loud! But "macacca" or whatever George Allen said is hatespeech.

Gimme a break...

A lot of people here comment about "free speech". As usual, people have no idea what "free speech" is or means.

this article does not attack her right to speak opinions. It attacks those opinions. Free speech does not mean that you can say what you want and not have anyone else criticize you.

Nor does free speech mean you can say whatever you want and still have whatever job you want. The only institution that is precluded from "censoring" your speech is the government.

thus, we are free to criticize her speech, we are free to point out that her juvenile and hateful speech and the fact that Edwards hired her despite such juvenile, vulgar, and hateful speech says a lot about Edward's decision-making. Pointing such things out, and criticizing Edwards for hiring her, does not eliminate her "free speech." If she loses her job now, b/c of the criticizm, it does not do anything to eliminate her "free speech". She will still be free to go on her blog and write her idiotic, vulgar, juvenile rants.

So, there is no "free speech" issue here. Just as she has the freedom to state obnoxious things, we have the freedom to criticize her for saying them, and to criticize Edwards for associating with her.

I hope people can understand this simple explanation. I am sick to death of people throwing around the term "free speech" under the belief that it means someone can never be criticized for the things they say.

One of the greatest features of free speech is its uncanny ability to expose the terminally stupid. The hiring of Ms. Marcotte has provided me with some insight into the judgement of Mr. Edwards and has allowed me to completely rule out ever casting a vote for him in a primary or general election. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the civic service she has provided.

Whooaa Terry, you know better than to ask such questions. From the looks of things here, you apparently have not been given permission by your Leftist overlords..

I dont carfe what they say, but I do care that you can question it...which the media seems not want to do of certain groups. When will the media grow a set and get in the face of the Islam apologists such as terror support groups as CAIR etc.

Media should and has questioned Christians, Jews, etc. for their annoyances...Muslims are not anointed with some special "not questionable" status...no matter what they say. If they live here then they are....and they deserve some very severe questions and perhaps actions taken if they refuse to act as this society has deemed we will act when here in the US. If they do not like it,,,there are places they came from that allow wife beating, mutilation, honor killings etc...they can go to Britain where it is now common. The had 150 honor murders there last year.

Congrats trifecta! You only had to go back almost a decade to find Rush Limbaugh using "hate" speech.

And speculating about Vince Foster isn't "hate" last time I checked. Stupid, yes. Hate, no

WELL DONE!

Let us not forget that Mrs. Edwards is a member of the nutroots posting community as well.

well said, Great Banana--one suspects that when the political animal that John Edwards is understands he has just written off a large part of America by moving far left, I suspect the blogress' will be looking for new jobs--AND, just like William Arkin and the Dixie Chicks will be playing the victim card (instead of reading your nice precis of free speech and its consequences).

People are free to state their opinions, even if they do it in an offensive way. People are free to criticize those opinions or how they were expressed. People are free to hire who they want, regardless of how other people react to the person hired.

But people are also free to draw their own conclusions about the character of those who express offensive opinions, or strong opinions in an offensive manner.

And they are especially free to draw their own conclusions about the character and competence of those who hire people who have demonstrated their character through repeated instances of offensive behavior.

Some Repub, thank you. You beat me to it.

Look, I am not easily offended. I love South Park, don't have any problem with their irreverent Jesus parody (and I am a Christian). But this person's description of the immaculate conception is just WAY over the line. There is irreverent and then there is crude disrespect.

Does she have the right to write it? Of course, this is the internet. Will I be contributing to Edwards' campaign, as I did in '04? No way. Not if this is the type of person he chooses to surround himself with.

"Both sides do the same thing, pull the same dirty tricks, manufacture evidence to support their claims, take things out of context, and so on"

Logical fallacy of tu quoque:

R: Amanda Marcotte makes bigoted hateful statements.

L: But so does Ann Coulter, ergo I excuse Marcette's bigotry.

R: .....

She should have every right to engage in as much hate speech (or otherwise) as she chooses.

And (the real question) what does this say about Edwards as a potential President? Does he agree with her? Did he not vet her enough? Does he want to spend a lot of time "distancing" himself from her?

She's done. It's just a matter of time.

Its a moot point anyway, I'm not at all impressed with Edwards:

Edwards:I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. ...

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: ...the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials.

via Captains Quarters.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009103.php#comments

Edwards wants to lead the country, yet he can't even accept responsibility for decisions he made on the Sen Intel Cmmte.

Sure John, its was all Clinton's fault...

These comments are offensive and stupid but being offensive and stupid is not exactly an innovation in the left wing blog-world. Her comments make Fox news look pretty even-handed and restrained.

I love it....conservatives embracing political correctness. (i.e. you can't say THAT) will wonderes never cease?