The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Letterman Lied: He Knew His Rape Joke About Willow Palin Was About a 14 Year Old – UPDATE: Letterman Apologizes

Posted by iusbvision on June 11, 2009

As you have all seen the latest excuse from David latterman is that he thought the daughter that was with Sarah Palin was the 18 year old Bristol and not the 14 year old Willow (in the end it doesnt matter that much, rape jokes are just not funny).

Our friends at Hillbuzz have the evidence and it is pretty compelling:

There is just no way possible for David Letterman to claim, as he did on television last night, that he didn’t know he was brutalizing 14-year-old Willow Palin on Tuesday (but instead wanted to attack her older sister).

When Sarah Palin took this recent trip to New York to celebrate Secretary Seward’s purchase of Alaska, the abolitionist and women’s movements, and to show her daughter a good time in New York, we were surprised it was Willow in tow this time, and not the more usual Piper as her mother’s traveling companion.

Since last week, there’s been non-stop reporting of Willow Palin in upstate New York with her mom and dad. Willow Palin in a parade in Auburn, New York. Willow Palin at Harriet Tubman’s house. Willow Palin with her mother at a Yankees game in the new stadium.

14-year-old WILLOW PALIN.

For someone as obsessed with the Palins as Letterman clearly is, it’s absolutley impossible for him not to know the Palin daughter he said was statutorily raped by Alex Rodriguez (in his joke that “Palin’s daughter got knocked up” at the Yankees game) was 14-year-old Willow.

SOMEONE on his staff did enough research to know the Palins went to the Yankees game — try this experiment for yourself and try Googling anything on Sarah Palin + daughter + Yankees Game, and Willow’s name will pop right up not four words from her mother’s name over and over and over again.

WILLOW, WILLOW, WILLOW.

Letterman knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to hurt Palin where it matters most: her family. He most likely always had his non-apology prepared ahead of time as well — as we speculated yesterday when we said, “Watch, he’ll probably claim he was talking about Bristol and will think that makes all of this okay. But, he knew it was Willow. Everyone knew Willow was the daughter traveling this time. But Letterman will lie and try to weasel out of this and claim he was attacking the oldest daughter instead.”

Slimeballs have excuses like this on file before they do things they know are wrong. You’ve certainly had people like this in your lives, we bet. Husbands who cheat, buying cans of paint or something ahead of time and keeping them in the trunk so when they “go out to Home Depot for a while to get paint”, they can really pop over to a motel for a fling. But they think they’re smart because they have that paint to walk in with as their alibi.

Only, the receipt in the bag is from yesterday, not tonight.

UPDATE: David Letterman has now officially and fully apologized for his nasty sex jokes about Gov. Palin’s daughter. The apology seems sincere but in all fairness it must also be said that this has been a rating bonanza for Letterman, he himself has helped to keep this in the news by bringing it up repeatedly on his show and he did try to use this to get Gov. Palin on the show. Publicity is publicity is ratings during sweeps week. If this was not sweep time I would be less skeptical of this apology. Lets just face the facts some people have done worse things during sweeps week to get attention (sweeps is the weeks where the ratings are officially taken to set the advertising prices till the following season).

Letterman:

“All right, here – I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week – it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don’t know about it.  But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’  And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani … and I really should have made the joke about Rudy …” (audience applauds) “But I didn’t, and now people are getting angry and they’re saying, ‘Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who’s completely innocent, minding her own business,’ and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she’s now at the ball game, and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.
 
“And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer ‘Newshour’ – this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke.  And I’m certainly – ” (audience applause) “– thank you. Well, my responsibility – I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause).

17 Responses to “Letterman Lied: He Knew His Rape Joke About Willow Palin Was About a 14 Year Old – UPDATE: Letterman Apologizes”

  1. cousinavi said

    The premise of the rape humor accusation, then, rests on the presumption that Letterman can distinguish between one Palin spawn and another, and the age of consent – 16 in Alaska and 17 in New York.
    Assuming Dave can distinguish between Sleepy, Dopey, Farty, Tic Tic and the rest of the Palin brood, Willow is 14, could not legally consent to sex with A-Rod, so Letterman is making rape jokes.
    It’s a bit of stretch. Especially when Bristol was riding Levi just down the hall in the family home.
    Frankly, in terms of providing financial support for any accidental, abtinence-only oopsie daisy, Alex is a step up for the Palin girls.
    Willow is fourteen, she lives in Alaska where there’s not much else to do, and she has a couple of stunning role models. Who’s taking bets on the due date? They’ll WISH the daddy was A-Rod, instead of the paint huffing son of the turkey geeker.
    This fact changes nothing. It was joke. Sarah Palin is a blithering, empty hypocrite.

    http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/save-willow-palin-from-her-mother/

    [You mean like when the left freaked over Senator Lott giving the 100 year old Senator Strom Thurmond good birthday wishes and the left and the media whipped it all up to his good wishes amount to him being a racist?

    Or how about when the left and the “Media Matters” people using careful editing tricks to claim that Rush Limbaugh is a racist? Or when the Obama campaign used editing tricks to make a commercial that made it seem like Rush Limbaugh said racist things about hispanics when he was really defending them??

    Either way letterman knew that Willow was 14 cause it was all over the New York local press before he had his “jokes” and some of that evidence is right here – https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/letterman-lied-he-knew-his-rape-joke-about-willow-palin-was-about-a-14-year-old/

    – Oh wait a minute – that is THIS post, which means that you didnt even bother to read it and address the points in it directly that refuted what you stated.

    If a Republican had said this about one of Obama’s daughters or Chelsea Clinton you would be right here freaking out over it.

    So the only person here who is a hypocrite is you. Its too bad that you couldnt even muster a decent argument. It is also so obvious by your venomous tone that hate is blinding you form your own glaring hypocrisy and your defense of this undefendable sexist conduct with the zeal of a defense attorney. It is no wonder that your blog gets so few hits, irrational haters are a dime a dozen. – Editor]

    [UPDATE – This young man got pretty upset on his own site with me when I mentioned that haters like him are a dime a dozen and get very little web traffic. For the record in the 24 hour period since he appeared his site has sent us 6 hits, in comparison our post about Carrie Prejean and Steven Crowder got 9,000 hits in 24 hours. – Editor]

  2. Angelo said

    The treatment of the Palins has really made me re-evaluate the meaning of success. I have often considered the “cheaters don’t win and winners don’t cheat” philosophy but the abuse of the Palin family has totally re-emphasized the importance of integrity to the concept of victory for me. May God bless the Palin family.

  3. cousinavi said

    Modding me now, huh?

    You future junior muckrakers club kids are a treat.

    In any case, on the chance that your academic requirements keep you from research:

    Senator TRENT LOTT: I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have
    had all these problems over all these years, either.

    [Lotts comments were merely gracious and light hearted to a 100 year old man at his birthday party, only a genuine hater would put such meaning into Lott’s mouth, but since your blog is little more than a vulgarities laced rant, it is no surprise that you would do such a thing – Editor]

    Nothing like some segregation, eh?

    You want to equate that with a joke told by a comedian, premised on the issue of teen pregnancy, an issue for which Palin has cravenly thrust her child into the spotlight, as a joke about rape – an argument that requires, in order to make sense, the assumption that Letterman knew one Palin offspring from the next.

    An interesting thought experiment: Who’s older, Dweezil or Moon Unit Zappa? I’d take heavy bets on long odds you don’t know.

    [As we demonstrated with facts, the fact that 14 year old WILLOW was with Palin was all over the local media, reported everywhere and repeatedly, so if he saw on the news that the Palin’s went to the game, you knew it was Willow. Even the National Organization for Women, who defended Bill Clinton through multiple credible allegations of rape and sexual assault and misconduct, put David Letterman on their Wall of Shame. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but even more so it speaks volumes about how extreme and out of touch you are – Editor]

    I think it’s an interesting question: Would Dave have made the same mistake were the Palin girls named Mary and Susan rather than Bristol and Willow?
    Is Bristol’s baby Trigg or Tripp? Trac’s in Iraq… I know that.
    It might just be fair to say a little confusion over which is which is understandable. It’s like a Dr. Suess story, for chrissakes!
    It’s beside the point, in any event, because your assertion that Letterman knew fails in any event.
    It was “all over the media,” proves absolutely nothing. It does not prove he knew either girl’s name or age, which of them squabbed ahead of schedule, or which was at the ballgame.
    His words are self-evident.
    Your attack on Letterman requires that he not only KNEW those things, but that the premise of the joke was assaulting an underage girl – a joke about sex between an adult man and a child Letterman KNEW to be 14 years old.
    Your argument requires that we ignore Sarah and Bristol’s yammering public hypocrisy on the subject of teen pregnancy and sex education, AND Sarah’s despicable exploitation thereof.
    That is, quite plainly, logically insulting and a nothing more than a desperate ploy to fling outrageous words from a pillbox of phony indignation.

    I would go further. I would restate my previous point and stand by it. Even IF Letterman knew which daughter was which, I reject the assertion that the joke crossed any line.
    Sarah Palin, the Jesus-loving, abstinence preaching, incompetent shell of a reality TV candidate, exploited her daughter’s teen pregnancy for political advantage. She CONTINUES to do so. Her daughter, it would seem likely, was knocked up under Sarah’s nose – in her own home. If Sarah Palin is going to exploit her poor parenting skills, it’s fair to ask what lies in store for the next pubescent female in line. And if it’s fair to ask the question, it’s fair to make the joke.
    In fact, the jokes usually come first.

    Libertarian, eh?
    I bet you make a point of telling that to the chicks, you free thinker, you.

    [Look at the dripping venom of this character, it has been a while since someone with full blown Palin Derangement Syndrome posted on the site, so I always appreciate when one of these types posts here so that their comments server as a spectacle for normal people to see. People who encourage this type of clearly irrational hate, feed the emotionalism of those like the Fox News hating, Neo-Con hating nut (that nut also had the conservative magazine “The Weekly Standard” on his hit list) that shot and killed the security guard at the Holocost Museum or the other nut that killed that American Soldier after the NYT proclaimed that soldiers former Commander in Chief to be a “monster”.

    After reading this poor young man’s web site, and seeing how filled with vulgarities and cuss words and venom towards the Palin’s and others, people he doesn’t even know, it is no wonder that he defends Letterman’s awful behavior with the zeal of a defense attorney, he engages in similar vulgar behavior regularly on his own web site. – Editor]

  4. azie said

    David letterman is just another pig in this planet,so i’m not surprise by his comments o sara’s palim kids.he should be worry about his rating end his jealousy on Jay Lennon

  5. cousinavi said

    strong>[A note to readers, this nonsense below from Mr. Cousinavi is the level that “debate” has fallen to among the far left, unfortunately some extremist professors don’t argue much better. Extremism combined with hate often yields the same dysfunctional behaviors. It is quite amazing that he actually believes he is making points and showing “evidence” while he cusses at me and others while at the very same time accuses all others of engaging in nothing more than the ad-hominem. The sophistic rhetoric employed is not so dissimilar from that of a dysfunctional pre-teen who see’s everything totally in his favor (no matter how much he damns himself) while shirking all responsibility. A pattern of behavior that most parents become familiar with. I have little doubt that he has convinced himself that he is regarded as a serious and substantive commentator. – Editor]

    Condescension?

    “Young man”?

    [I am a returning student who finsihed my first career and am launching a new one – I am older than most of my professors, so yes to me your just a young man, but your own words make that clear to clear thinking people who read them. – Editor]

    Hit counts generated by the student body who generate your content and all their friends and family…and you take that as evidence of your popularity? Color me impressed! I’m sure South Bend is well served by your journalistic cyber storm troopers.

    Ad hominem attacks do not constitute argument. Let me know when you have a position to take on the issue. So far, all you’ve done is attempt insults while reproducing a post from a blogger who still wants Hillary to win the primary. […and this coming from the guy who spits out cuss words and vulgarities on his own web site and “declares” them to be “real” arguments. This is the problem with young people who are mired in hate, or envy, or some other form of rank emotionalism, they lose all introspective – Editor]

    Your defense of Trent Lott is telling. Lott apologized unreservedly for his patently racist comments, and the ONLY person who rose in his defense was the ONLY black man in the Republican congress, who (surprise, surprise) was ordered to do so. Yassah, boss…defend Mastuh Lott! Even HE could only bring himself to defend the MAN, while condemning the words. Not YOU, though. YOU defend the words. Very telling, indeed.

    [Actually he and everyone else made it clear that he was just wishing an old man well at his birthday. He apologized to anyone who took them out of what was an obvious context, but people like you created an entirely new context around what Trent Lott said to take a decent man and try to brand him as a racist. So you are clearly just not interested in the truth here – Youtube –

    – Editor]

    Still clinging to the “Willow was all over the local media” angle, I see. Of course you are. Despite the fact that it proves nothing, and certainly does not prove that Letterman KNEW one Palin from another, it is the cornerstone of your entire flawed position. Without that assumption (He KNEW…he HAD to have known!), the idea that Dave was making jokes about raping a child – itself a pretzel of a proposition – falls apart.
    Libertarians (LOL), at least the ones worthy of the name, tend to pay attention to facts. You’re nothing but a right-wing apologist in the style of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck masquerading behind a label you adopt because you see yourself as insightful and ever so edgy. You solid non-conformist! Marching to beat of your very own drum!
    As I said, let me know when you develop an ARGUMENT instead of just flinging mud and repeating things you read in Atlas Shrugged.

    Also note that you (as one would expect from someone who understands the meaning and self-identifies as a LIBERTARIAN) selectively edit my posts, and choose which of my words suit you. There’s a useful debate tool. I wouldn’t stoop so low, but that’s me. In certain professional circles, there are severe penalties for such behavior.
    I suppose when you have no argument in principle, nor ability to engage the topic, that’s what you’re left with. Hard editing, changing the subject, backdoor comments, and ad hominem. Well done! It’s no wonder so many read and link to you – it’s those high journalistic standards. Did it ever occur to you that some chunk just click by to see what the arrogant crotch spawn in South Bend are yammering about and mock you?
    Perhaps you can call me, “Poor, young man” again. On the off chance that your parents give you sufficient spending money to make a bet, would you care to find out which of us is older or more academically credentialed? How about we compare passports…have you ever been out of Indiana? Suggest, until you find someone beneath you (and good luck with that), you stow the condescension. You haven’t been anywhere, done anything or lived long enough to have earned it.

    Look at the dripping venom of this character, it has been a while since someone with full blown Palin Derangement Syndrome posted on the site, so I always appreciate when one of these types posts here so that their comments server as a spectacle for normal people to see.

    Character attack; assertion of mental illness; assumption of abnormality in argument.
    Bold claims made in the absence of substantive argument. Do they even teach you what ad hominem is? Is this the sort of political discourse which you think elevates your premise? Stunning.

    People who encourage this type of clearly irrational hate, feed the emotionalism of those like the Fox News hating, Neo-Con hating nut (that nut also had the conservative magazine “The Weekly Standard” on his hit list) that shot and killed the security guard at the Holocost Museum or the other nut that killed that American Soldier after the NYT proclaimed that soldiers former Commander in Chief to be a “monster”.

    Irrational hate, emotionalism, comparison to Fox News (now THERE’s a pot/kettle claim!), and an attempt to associate my position with ultra right-wing murderers.

    [Actually, the man who went into the New York Holocaust Museum, as I indicated previously and you ignored, was a left wing extremist. His many writings make it clear that he hated Bill O’Reilly, hated Fox News, hated conservatives and “Neo-Cons”, and he espoused views against Israel that are common among left wing anti-semitic academics and ANSWER anti-war rallies. In fact the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard was on his hit list

    – Editor]

    Do you EVER make an argument, or have you nothing besides personal attacks; that condescending, dismissive tone that allows you to consider that you need not actually make an argument until you find someone who measures up to your lofty self-image? For that matter, stop identifying yourself as “Editor”, at least until you stop riddling your posts with poor grammar and misspelled words.

    After reading this poor young man’s web site, and seeing how filled with vulgarities and cuss words and venom towards the Palin’s and others, people he doesn’t even know, it is no wonder that he defends Letterman’s awful behavior with the zeal of a defense attorney, he engages in similar vulgar behavior regularly on his own web site. – Editor

    Would it suit you better if I only directed venom towards those with whom I am personally acquainted?
    Physician, heal thyself!
    I direct venom – based on facts and principles which are clear despite said venom – at any target that EARNS it. You have NOTHING BUT venom. No point, no facts, no argument – you simply fling shit like a caged monkey.
    Does “vulgarity” twist your South Bend panties into knots? You may trust me when I tell you that my vocabulary, while assuredly saltier than yours, is also bigger and deeper than yours will ever be. At least I can spell and avoid redundancy (“vulgarities and cuss words”…and bad language and naughty bits…)
    Further, insofar as I know (and for which I am thankful) you and I are not acquainted (a circumstance I should not care to see altered). And you had the nerve to call me a hypocrite! Kid, you’re a riot. If you possessed a shadow of the brain you believe you have, you’d hang your head in shame.

    STILL waiting for evidence supporting your bold, bullshit claim that Media Matters edited Rush Limbaugh to make him appear racist. Or is that merely another “factoid” upon which you base your ginned up crap for which you have no proof whatsoever? Please…no links to Conservapedia, ‘kay?

    [Ok lets have a conversation about Media Matters –

    Here is when they did an edit and misrepresent job on Rush to make it look like he was a racist – and Juan Williams and Al Sharpton both said that Media matters was full of it – http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/09/media-matters-is-despicable.html

    They make their living by attacking conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and numerous others. What they do is take their words out of context in order to smear them. This latest incident is from a radio show where he was talking with African American liberal, Juan Williams about racism and he was condemning it. Media Matters took what he said out of context and are trying to make him out to be a racist. Al Sharpton even went on the air last night and defended O’Reilly and agreed that the attack was baseless.

    Here is where they did the same dirty trick to John Gibson – http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20070409220134/index.html

    Here is where they tried the same dirty trick against Bill O’Reilly – http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003906527_bill27.html and http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI1M2QzNGM2YWE5YTc1ZDFhMTU0NmFiZmQ0OWMxNzc=

    Here is where they did another edit and misrepresent job on Rush Limbaugh – http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/28/media-matters-leads-dishonest-smear-on-rush-limbaughs-phony-soldiers-line/

    and here is Rush’s response to Media Matters lies – http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125111.guest.html

    Here is when they did an edit and misrepresent job on Rush to make it look like he was a racist – and Juan Williams and Al Sharpton both said that Media Matters was full of it – http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/09/media-matters-is-despicable.html

    They make their living by attacking conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and numerous others. What they do is take their words out of context in order to smear them. This latest incident is from a radio show where he was talking with African American liberal, Juan Williams about racism and he was condemning it. Media Matters took what he said out of context and are trying to make him out to be a racist. Al Sharpton even went on the air last night and defended O’Reilly and agreed that the attack was baseless.

    Here is more info on Media matters smear tactics –
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/30/group-behind-smear-campaigns-against-limbaugh-o-reilly

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2009/03/10/o-reilly-how-liberal-media-smear-machine-slimes-conservatives

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2007/09/30/john-gibson-rips-media-matters-liberal-bias-lies

    Quoting Gibson:

    This thing about Rush is really crystal clear. You can see how they lie. In this case, they said Rush said something, posted an audio recording of it and an audio transcript and cut it off at the precise moment where the next thing he said proved them wrong. Heres how it went down. I’ll play this bit and you can hear what Media Matters posted of what Rush said and then I’ll play you what he said next….the words that came next. The words that came right after they cut it off….and you will see…here…because this is radio…you will hear the live admission by this Soros backed group called Media Matters.

    You just have to hear it….the part they cut out.

    – Editor]

    Run along. It must be time for you to head down to the quad and impress the girls with your Libertarian rhetoric and really big…hit count.
    “Yeah, baby. I got 2300 page views this week alone. Wanna see my modem?”

    Vado concubitus per vestri.

    [In 24 hours Mr. Cousinavi sent us 6 hits with his link to us in his article, in 24 hours our article on Carrie Prejean and Steven Crowder recieved 9000 views – Editor]

  6. Angelo said

    Maybe the Burger King “I like square butts” commercial could be used as both evidence that David knew it was Willow and justification that it was a disgraceful attempt at humor. When I first saw that commercial I thought, “wow, that’s really wrong… ‘booty is booty’… what the heck? it’s a commercial for a kids meal!..guess this just goes to show where people’s morals and standards of what is appropriate has gone.” And that commercial stayed on the air for a long time and I still don’t know if it’s been pulled. So Letterman may have just been following Burger King’s (and Barack’s) lead at trying to raise the bar at what you can get away with without getting caught. Maybe this kind of immorality is the shape of things to come, emanating from its origins in internet child/rape porn to main stream.

  7. littlejohn said

    Given that the joke was about being “knocked up,” it seems certain Letterman was referring to the unmarried 18-year-old, Crankshaft or Chainsaw of whatever the shit her name is.
    Ms. Palin shamelessly used her enormous litter of offspring as political props during her campaign. She thereby forfeited any right to protecting them from generally harmless jokes.
    If Ms. Palin wishes to get into a public debate with a man whose job it is to respond quickly and wittily to insults, she does so at her own peril.
    Sarah Palin is clear very limited in the area of intelligence. She really ought to shut up.

    [So when a candidate takes their family to the convention they are political props, well the Clintons took Chelsea, and the Obama’s took their little girls too. Geraldine Ferraro had her kids there when she was running for VP with Walter Mondale in 1984. So it is fine to call Geraldine and Michelle Obama “slutty” and make jokes about thier kids getting knocked up by A-Rod?

    And this right after Playboy magazine published its “hate-rape” article against conservative women.

    Some how the standard that you are applying to Palin would not be applied to Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. This is the message of the far left, if your a man and you have little kids like JFK your OK, but if your a woman then your a slut who should go back to the kitchen and your kids are fair game for rape jokes and other vile sexual attacks.

    For our thousands of normal readers, this is the kind of hate that is typical on the left and is promoted on many college campuses today. – Editor]

  8. viva said

    I’m becoming increasingly disturbed by the lack of any evidence that Willow was actually at the Yankees game. So far nobody has a verified picture or any footage of her at the game. How could that happen when the media were wall-to-wall?

    [Ever heard of Google? The local media covered it ….
    http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–palinvisit-ny0607jun07,0,7926604.story

    That took me all of about 12 seconds to find – Editor]

  9. KAM said

    I’ve visited this thread a few times over the past week.

    Why do you keep changing the posts? Why do you insert your replies into the comments of others?
    I saw another post on some website that says you do not allow dissenting opinions – that you cut off people who disagree with you. For a site that trumpets its commitment to Free Speech, that sure seems like hypocrisy.

    Also, I followed all of the links you offered as proof of media bias. None of them have anything to do with demonstrating bias. They’re just right-wing opinions, not evidence. It’s like when you cite your own writing as proof of your own opinion. That’s not proof – that’s just circular prattle. You can’t say “Bill O’Reilly was smeared” then offer, as proof, Bill O’Reilly SAYING he was smeared!

    Also note that you seem rather proud of the great deal of visitors you get on this site. The rate at which comments refresh on your “recent comments” sidebar would seem to suggest that you aren’t nearly as busy as you claim to be…but perhaps your claims and the facts are commonly incongruous.

    [Mr. Cousinavi,

    Please read our web log rules, we do not allow people to come and post under multiple names as if to have a real appearing a conversation when in fact it is you talking to yourself. Changing your email address and running this site from an anonymizer based in Taiwan isn’t quite enough to fool us. Please follow our very simple rules.

    I know that you believe that you declaring something true in the face of real evidence otherwise from News Busters and others makes you think you are a winner, but anyone with access to a common search engine can verify the editors comments above as those facts were covered by multiple organizations and other reporting sources. If you want to play games I have the IP’s of most of the anonymous posting services and if needed we will add them to our black list. As if it isn’t already obvious, anonymizers aren’t as anonymous as you might think. – Editor]

  10. Taiwan said

    [This is from Mr. Cousinavi again, he posted with a new name and email, but alas its the same IP address. Normally we do not allow such hate fileld rants that are so void of any real substance, but every once in a while its a healthy thing to catalogue what some deranged leftists are really like. Also, it appears Mr. Counsinavi is is unaware of the difference between dissent and vacuous, hate filled, name calling. I have no doubt that he considers this nonsense to be real intellectual argument making, but the fringe is rarely known to display much introspective. – Editor]

    You don’t allow dissenting opinions, period.

    You bastardize the comments, reference your own posts as evidence, crap up links to blithering punditry, and hold yourself out as some sort of “fair” news analysis.

    You’re a FRAUD. A sham. An embarrassment to the very idea of thinking and open discourse.

    You’re a putz.

  11. Formosa said

    [This is from Mr. Cousinavi again, he posted with a new name and email, but alas its the same IP address. Normally we do not allow such hate fileld rants that are so void of any real substance, but every once in a while its a healthy thing to catalogue what some deranged leftists are really like. – Editor]

    I’m not having a conversation with myself, you disingenuous, lying piece of crap.

    I’m trying to respond to the utterly false bullshit you insist (ala Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity) on promoting as insight, analysis and reportage. It isn’t. It’s poorly formed opinion and an abject fear of dissent. You have yet to deal with ANY criticism, nor provide ANY evidence in support of your wild, unfounded, ridiculous claims.

    But that’s how you ignorant right-wing nutbars roll.

    FRAUD! SCAM ARTIST! No brains, no proof. No nothing. No wonder you’re in Indiana.

  12. Formosa said

    [This is from Mr. Cousinavi again, he posted with a new name and email, but alas its the same IP address. Normally we do not allow such hate fileld rants that are so void of any real substance, but every once in a while its a healthy thing to catalogue what some deranged leftists are really like. – Editor]

    The title of your post says it all, fuckwit: Letterman Lied.

    A bullshit claim for which you have NO PROOF.

    You start with lies, you use other lies as cites to support your lies, and you smugly and foolishly think you’ve proved something.
    You have: That you’re an asshole without regard for reason.

  13. Formosa said

    [This is from Mr. Cousinavi again, he posted with a new name and email, but alas its the same IP address. Normally we do not allow such hate fileld rants that are so void of any real substance, but every once in a while its a healthy thing to catalogue what some deranged leftists are really like. – Editor]

    Mod away, you chickenshit.

    No dissent. Just your opinions. Free speech, indeed.

    You’re a JOKE.

  14. [You guessed it folks Mr. Cousinavi again – Editor]

    […] 16, 2009 by cousinavi I’ve been trying (read beating my head against a wall) to help some incredibly myopic right-wing fuckwits in Indiana see the error of their ways. The filthy talking point whores edit comments, impose their […]

  15. Angelo said

    Just watched Letterman’s apology. I still don’t know what to think. I was just watching some show on body language and lying the other day so I’m still not an expert, but I wonder what one would say. My first impression is that the whole thing, from [intentionally stimulated] overreaction to sincere apology, was a well calculated plan to engender viewers and shame any one remaining unconvinced of his moral and/or comedic superiority. This, of course, made me recalculate how perverse Letterman may be. For it seems to be of a sadomasochistic nature, either of wanting to increase his [moral] punishment with further perjury, or of wanting to upstage Obama with his apology (highlighting Obama’s lack thereof) [potentially] indicating that he (Letterman) desires to be found out, not only to be a liar, but a racist as well. Like I said, I’m not an expert, and I don’t intend to libel someone. I just try to understand the truth and the reasons people have for avoiding declaring it. And my mind generally ties things back to the Bible, so I was reminded (again) of the story of Naaman the Syrian and Elisha the prophet. Naaman went to Elisha to be healed and Elisha helped bring about his healing. Elisha had refused payment but his servant, Gehazi, went and requested payment for the healing and when Elisha found out he commanded Naaman’s illness (leprosy) upon Gehazi and his descendants. It might appear a long shot at establishing relevancy but Gehazi must of thought he wouldn’t be found out or get in trouble and Obama may have overcome his [perceived] shortcomings and left them to David. To summarize, Letterman’s apology has not thoroughly convinced me of his lack of malicious intent toward others or himself. And on a side note: it’s not just the Burger King commercial that has appeared circumspect to me, neither was it offensive to me solely for inappropriate sexual inferences. I had noticed other commercials before as being slightly racist or casting blacks in a deliberately derogatory manner. The Burger King commercial seemed to exacerbate that and re-emphazise the derogatory intent toward blacks in certain media applications of humor.

  16. IUSB Morons said

    [This is from Mr. Cousinavi again, he posted with a new name and email, but alas its the same IP address. Normally we do not allow such hate fileld rants that are so void of any real substance, but every once in a while its a healthy thing to catalogue what some deranged leftists are really like. – Editor]

    LOL!

    Pick and choose, you putrid bucket of slop.

    You haven’t got the guts to post my substantive comments, but you pick and choose these little bon mots in support of your arrogant bullshit claim that “the left” has no arguments.

    The FACT of the matter is that you won’t post them, you disgusting bit of ether slime.
    You’re nothing more than a wet fart emitted from an unwashed Limbaugh ass crack.

  17. iusbvision said

    By the way all – here is the latest from Mr. Cousinavi, a racist attack against Michelle Malkin; with the prerequisite sexist attack that he has shown repeatedly:

    http://cousinavi.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/michelle-malkin-vs-whore-distinguishing-characteristics/

    Here’s the difference between Malkin and a whore:
    When a whore says “Me so horny!” she’s lying.
    When a whore says “Anyt’ing you wan’…” she MEANS it.
    When a whore says “Five dolla’ boom boom!” it ONLY costs FIVE DOLLARS.

    The whore is far more sincere, and once properly compensated, a helluva lot less likely to spike your drink and sell one of your kidneys.

    For those of you who do not know, Malkin is from the Philipines. At the top of the screen on his site it says “truth conquers nothing” and I am confident that he believes that. – Editor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: