Charles condemns hate while spewing it

I laugh when the washed up guitarist decries hate from the Right. In his latest post attacking Rush Limbaugh Charles once again mentions hate on the Right.

Charles uses hateful language himself.

Practice what you preach Chuck.


52 Comments on “Charles condemns hate while spewing it”

  1. danrudy says:

    I wrote Rush earlier today…
    I told him that my wife and I do not want any more kids so I was thinking of masturbating more often to cut down on sex. Will ObamaScare pay for the tissues and porno mags that I will need to keep from having sex with my wife more often?

  2. doppelganger says:

    cough cough Shreiking harpy cough cougn

    /hypocrite

  3. doppelganger says:

    charles will you condemn Ed Shultz for calling laura ingraham a slut?

    what about LVQ calling fox news reporters SLUTS ?

    / hypocrite

  4. MrPaulRevere says:

    Lest we forget: Rush Limbaugh, Honorary Lizardoid http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/23044

  5. Claytonia Sibirica says:

    ChenZhen, as The Minotaur :
    Ah…we did document the whole exchange:
    http://diaryofdaedalus.com/2010/12/08/weazy-vs-luddy-clash-of-lgf-losers/
    It was “Fuck you sideways”
    “Bitch”
    LOL

    Aaah nice, gotta kind of miss ludwig. I mean yeah he was REALLY REALLY NUTSO and had some serious anger issues, but he was also ready to go on a moments notice.

  6. a-naughty-mouse says:

    Rush should not have attacked that woman in that way. This isn’t about having sex. It is a simple issue. Should the government be allowed to force companies to provide services that are against their beliefs. Should a Kosher Deli be forced to allow their employee to bring a ham sandwich in the Deli?
    Obama wants to force the insurance companies to give FREE (no extra charge) $1200 a year coverage. The Catholic churches or catholic universities refuse to pay, so Obama says he is telling the insurance companies to pay for it (and not recover the cost).

    That is what Rush and others should be talking about. Ask the voters…. “Does that makes any sense?”

    • Daedalus says:

      Agreed, the issue hhere is paying for birth control. Why should I pay for it?

      • a-naughty-mouse says:

        I seriously think that it has to be phrased as Obama phrased it. The insurance companies have to pay for it (and not recover the cost).

        It is such a ridiculous idea that giving this product that they admit costs at least $1000 a year would not cost the insurance companies anything.

  7. doppelganger says:

    sandra fluke is still a moron.

    and from the looks of her I’m thinking she doesn’t need any birth control

    • Claytonia Sibirica says:

      Sponsor pressure, Rush knows what’s what!

    • livefreeor die says:

      Rush was smart. This pulls the rug out from under the Democrats focusing on his “needing to apologize” to Fluke and allows the focus to go back on why should people pay for other people’s birth control. In that light, isn’t providing birth control to people who can’t afford it one of Planned Parenthood’s missions?

  8. Not that I like to drag policy or politics in here, but ya know, as a relatively progressive, Obama voting, socially liberal male like myself I watched that C-SPAN vid that CJ posted up (thanks, CJ) and I have to say that it wasn’t that convincing for me. Sure, I’m male, and I’m sensitive to the plight of the underdog and the disenfranchised, but beyond the actual health-related necessities of contraception medication (which is what I assumed the entire issue was about; insurance coverage for the “pill” when it’s prescribed for health risks), the argument she was making wasn’t exactly resonating with me. Perhaps I’m, again, a guy, and therefore naive on this, but I always thought that, for the most part, women forked over the $$ for birth control because they didn’t want to get pregnant. If they went another way, they insist on men using condoms. Or both.

    This gal was obviously lobbying for all of it to be covered, health risk or no. In fact, taking the question of health risk entirely out of the equation, therefore not subjecting women to the question when they’re looking to have such things covered. Unless I’m misunderstanding something.

    I dunno…I know Rush is an entertainer and he’s been out of the cycle for a while, so naturally he’ll milk something like this before the proverbial bubble bursts, but even I found myself watching the testimony and thinking “wait a second…what?”

    • Claytonia Sibirica says:

      I kind of feel like it comes down to patient rights,though. I’m paying into to health insurance pool too, and so are all the other employees.

      I don’t know why the companies rights trump mine.

      • Zappa Would Be Vomiting says:

        It really is simple.

        Pull up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

        Article 18 and 20 provide that one is free to practice a religion as well as have an explicit right to not act against conscience nor be forced into an association with others wherein they’d be forced to act against belief.

        Your belief system may say that all sorts of things are OK that aren’t OK with someone else’s. Fairly elementary, right?

        Well there is a 2000 year old belief system (which you are under no obligation whatsoever to follow – see UDHR 18 and 20) that says sexual intercourse is divinely inspired and that contraception interferes with God’s will.

        Again – you are under no obligation to believe that anymore than you are obliged to think Mohammed rode a flying horse.

        Here is the rub – there are those who do.

        We live in a society (or at least once did) where people were free to practice their religion as long as they didn’t impose it on anyone else. Yet, now, the government has promulgated a rule wherein this 2000 year old religion will be compelled to act against conscience and compelled into an association that violates conscience.

        It is just like banning burkas, except the state can at least demonstrate some state interest (like security / identification) where burka wearing comes in conflict with national interest.

        What is the national interest here? Giving something away which is already cheap and widely available to anyone who seeks it.

      • m says:

        The patient has a right to work somewhere else or go to school somewhere else if they don’t like the benefit plan.

      • Claytonia Sibirica says:

        Organizations shouldn’t have the same rights as people, and especially at the EXPENSE of peoples rights.

        But lolohsoserioustalk

      • Zappa Would Be Vomiting says:

        Claytonia Sibirica :
        Organizations shouldn’t have the same rights as people, and especially at the EXPENSE of peoples rights.
        But lolohsoserioustalk

        What individual right is being infringed?

        A right to free stuff that others have to pay for?

        I was unaware that such rights exist.

        Yes – this is funny in an absurdist sense. Too bad it is playing out as reality.

      • Voltaires Crack says:

        You’ve never heard of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of birth control’?

    • doppelganger says:

      they want it both ways.
      They will say that coverage is all about women with ovarian cysts and endometriosis who need the pill for a legitimate medical condition ( I’m not sure anybody, even the catholic church should have a problem with that, It’s hormonal treatment no different than regulating somebody’s thyroid)

      BUT, they insist on calling it “reproductive rights” and again argue that the cost of contraception is cheaper than child care.

      well, you can’t say that the real reason you want it covered is for a medical condition and then spend the other 99% discussing pregnancy prevention.
      Sorry ladies, pay for your own “birth control” or get your man to wear a rubber. anyway, with all the STD’s out there, they should be having safe sex anyway. no wonder all these slappers have the clap

      • livefreeor die says:

        What they’re also leaving out (conveniently) of their calculations is that if you get STDs, you might develop conditions that make you infertile. Infertility is much more expensive to treat than having a baby (one IVF cycle can cost as much as a hospital birth and there’s no guarantee it will be successful).

      • doppelganger says:

        and decades of anti-retroviral therapy for HIV is quite expensive. more expensive than raising a child

        I recommend
        1. mandatory implanted government funded contraception for all feminists, liberals, moonbats, and mindless moderate Obama supporters

        the less these libtards breed, the better America’s future. we need to limit the reproduction of the lower end of the bell curve

    • m says:

      necessities of contraception medication (which is what I assumed the entire issue was about;

      No, before it was even an issue mawskrat’s wife worked at a Catholic hospital and she didn’t have any problem getting it for medicinal purposes. This is a created problem.

      • doppelganger says:

        I totally believe that. A simple letter or a phone call from a doctor to a reluctant insurance carrier should result in coverage.

        but elective birth control. no way.
        they don’t cover botox or boob jobs

      • Zappa Would Be Vomiting says:

        doppelganger :
        I totally believe that. A simple letter or a phone call from a doctor to a reluctant insurance carrier should result in coverage.
        but elective birth control. no way.
        they don’t cover botox or boob jobs

        I, as a male, could argue that my sexual health requires cosmetic surgery to make me attractive to a mate, or simply to make me feel better about myself.

    • Daedalus says:

      That’s good intellectual honesty. My point is why should I pay for her birth control? She can pay for it herself.

  9. Pakimon says:

    Claytonia Sibirica :
    stay classy you guys :p

    I’ll give it a try because “classy” is my middle name.

    Georgetown Law School Coeds preparing to speak before Congress:

    • Claytonia Sibirica says:

      OK I grant you that point.

    • livefreeor die says:

      Oops-is it possible to get a NSFW type warning for those types of links? Sorry-all of our family computers are in the same room and my 14 year old was literally 5 feet away from me when I opened (and quickly closed!) that!

      • Pakimon says:

        Sorry about that.

      • Pakimon says:

        In the future I’ll put a warning for any links.

        I’m glad I didn’t get around to reposting the link depicting Ludwig’s latest creation/replacement for the departed (and deflated) Ms. Ssssss

    • livefreeor die says:

      I’m sure he wouldn’t have minded!

  10. Claytonia Sibirica says:

    It would have kind of ruined the joke to put a NSFW warning on it, kind of a catch-22

  11. livefreeor die says:

    Pakimon :
    In the future I’ll put a warning for any links.
    I’m glad I didn’t get around to reposting the link depicting Ludwig’s latest creation/replacement for the departed (and deflated) Ms. Ssssss

    Is it a vinyl replacement or “other”?

  12. Zappa Would Be Vomiting says:

    Chuck Tweets:

    I think the right may be having a nervous breakdown, caused by too much exposure to the word “vagina.” 2 hours ago

    Chuck has nervous breakdowns and self administered orgasms confused.