Tuesday, May 15th, 2007
Calling the WAAAAAAAHmbulance for Boortz
Boortz tries his hand at the victimization game:
BOORTZ: So, I am aware, for you “Brocksters” out there at Media Myrmidons, Democrat[sic]Underground.com, MoveOn.org, Huffington. I am well aware that all over this country right now, you people are running tape recorders on this show. And you’re just waiting for me to say something.
Not — you’re not waiting for me to say something that you might disagree with. You’re not waiting for me to express an opinion or a thought that you might disagree with. You’re waiting for me to say something that you can demagogue and see if you can make me the next Don Imus. And it’s not just me, you’re doing the same thing to Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the rest of them.
You’re just waiting for one little statement that you can take out of its total context and just go on a rampage with, with your Web postings and see if you can pull that Don Imus thing off all over again, see if you can find some whimpering old woman executive somewhere that’ll just, “Oh! Oh, my God! We’ve got to do something now.”
No, it’s called quoting you accurately and providing context, you misogynist twit! I find it funny that every time you and your ilk are called on your bilious rhetoric, you play the victim card and claim that you’re being taken out of context - when you’re not using it to pat yourself on the back, that is. Never mind that no conservative to date has been able to prove that Media Matters has posted something out of context. Never mind that more often than not there is no conceivable context in which your rhetoric would be considered “in bounds.”
You know, every time a conservative claims to have been “taken out of context,” I have to ask, “how much f**king context do you f**king NEED? Five minutes on each side of the comment in question? Ten? Fifteen? The whole f**king show? And who decides how much context is sufficient? You? The person who claims that the 4-10% of the insurgency in Iraq comprised of Al-Qaeda members and sympathizers is “a large amount” and who apparently believes that Dilbert is liberal agitprop? Give me a break!
