She really pissed me off with that crap.  I grew up on a street full of boys who were bigger than me and stronger than me. I was sensitive and cried and was a dork who didn't fit in. One day I went to the basketball court and asked if I could join, they called me names and told me to fuck off and leave, I crossed the field and noticed my button on my jean jacket sleeve was unbuttoned, lifted my arm up to button it and one of the dicks thought I had flipped him off, next thing I know I have 6 bullies chasing me back to my house.

Obviously, you weren't packing enough heat. The Glock 17 is great for taking out multiple hostiles. Why with only six, you should have at least 5 bullets left in you magazine without reloading unless you work for the police. In a world where bullies chop off heads, kids can't be too careful.

Who is the one crying over Serena using the word 'bully'? Crying about being bullied as a kid. Certainly not me. And her use seems a lot closer than equating genocide, torture and murder to bullying. You can probably accuse her of being a hypocrite, because Serena is well known for being insulting and verbally abusive. Indeed, many have labled her a bully. Personally, I don't give a shit what you want to call it. A professional and public organization should always represent themselves professionally in public. Obviously, these comments weren't professional, the organization took disciplinary action, move on.

If I was representing some organization having some dealings with the President, I would be very respectful. Since I am just an internet loudmouth spouting my two cent opinions to random people, there is no need for me to be professional. Although, the term Bama is meant with all love, and if me and Bama were dodging bullets in Chi town together and sharing a toke & coke, I don't think he would be offended by it.

As for being a bully, maybe I am. You have certainly accused me of it and you are the expert. I don't remember killing anyone though.

Seems to me that she had a much bigger mike as her comments were aired on every news channel while Rush has a few million regular listeners. I dare say that 99% of the reason Rush made his comments was out of hopes that it would stir up controversy to promote his show. He is after all a shock jock, controversy is what makes him money and he is a bully all the time. People listen to him because they enjoy listening to him make people the butt of jokes.

What I am missing is why Rush is being a bully, while Tarpischev is not. The only real difference I see is who the victim is. One is rich and famous and the other is not rich and less than famous. So you are saying that rich and famous people can't be bullied because they theoretically have enough money or fame to get on national television and refute their attackers publicly? Using that logic, a school kid couldn't possibly bully another school kid because the victim has the ability to respond exactly as publicly as the bully can attack. 

WTF do the Koch brothers and the Waltons have to do with this?

Well that is too bad. She is going to use it whether you and I like it or not. She's a fucking bully!

Nonsense. Rush rarely expounds on any kind of deep political analysis. He talks about the news of the day in a way that pokes fun at the left from a conservative perspective. He was trolling before Al Gore invented the internet, saying the things that conservatives always thought would be fun to say but didn't want to offend.

From the early days of Paul Shanklin parodies and some of his brilliant update theme songs, I still find myself humming them from time to time (I don't remember, my brain is in a blender...it's Jello!) His whole "America held hostage" countdown etc. And he would frequently put stuff in a controversial way just to get media attention. He even had a phrase for it for awhile can't remember exactly what it was "Media poke of the day" or something like that. He'd say he was going to do it in advance and sure enough, it would be on Media Matters. In fact, I'm pretty sure he announced it right before his comments on the college ditz.

I'd put Chris Mathews in the same boat, except he is incapable of actually being funny. A failing of many in the left who try to emulate Rush's style. Without being funny, you are just an asshole. (Ed Schultz falls into the complete asshole category but I think he thinks he is funny) I wouldn't put George Will in that category, but George Will could also never pull off doing a solo show for an hour let alone three. Even policy wonks like me would be bored to tears. Don't know about Maddow, I've never actually watched anything other than a few youtube clips. Her voice annoys me.

I heard Carville substituting a show once and that was pretty in depth policy, but was also boring. But you can bet he is a bully, you don't make it as high as he did in politics if you aren't willing to push people around and pressure them to do what you want.You need to throw some intern under the bus to protect your candidate, you do it. That is just political hardball 101. 

But let's face it, real political analysis just doesn't make entertaining radio. Probably the only radio personality I heard really be successful with a political analysis radio show was Tony Snow. Neil Boortz used to pull it off to some extent, but he never stayed serious for terribly long. And there is some liberal guy that I've only heard while driving through Chicago who gets pretty deep into political theory, but his show is so successful I don't even remember his name. 

If you want thoughtful political commentary, writing is simply a much better medium. If you want some red meat, thrashing the other guys, making fun of them and delivering a one-sided beat down- radio is perfect. That the liberals take it all so seriously and get all offended just makes it funnier imo.   

incidentally (and i know you were being tongue-in-cheek, beyond, but i can never resist this), al gore never said he invented the fucking internet. he said something along the lies of "I took the initiative in inventing the internet," which, granted, was a bit grammatically vague, but the meaning was clear: he claimed to have put money and political clout behind the technology when no one else would. everyone who ever made that joke, from 2000 till today, knew goddamn well that's not what he meant. it's just a slightly more sophisticated version of he tactic we used in school when we wanted to get a rise out of someone we didn't like. they'd be trying to throw insults at us, or even explain what they wanted to say, and we'd just keep responding with shit like "what? you're a faggot? what's that? you like to suck dick?" etc. in fact, i guess brian kind of took a page from that manual.

That is pretty much the point of my much more verbose posts. (I tend to go on and on when I am drunk) That is where most radio is. I don't consider it a bad thing.