Dana Loesch's "race card" hypocracy

Dana Loesch today got into an argument on Twitter and fell back on one of her usual empty attacks: she accused @queenofspain of playing the "race card" for pointing out that the GOP and tea party attacks on ACORN were politically motivated by the fact that ACORN played a central role in registering minorities to vote. Queen of Spain pointed out that this was not a claim that the GOP was racist, but simply that they were willing to use these (unethical) tactics to win elections. Thus, it really wasn't "the race card", but that didn't stop Loesch from tweeting the following:

And

And

After this last one, Loesch says:

Well apparently Loesch is an expert on lazy and inherently bigoted debate, as we can see from her own history of actually playing the race card, unlike Queen of Spain.
First, in an argument with the St. Louis Young Dems, she repeatedly suggests that anyone who doesn't think that Kenneth Gladney was "brutally beaten" by "union thugs" must be biased because Gladney is a black man:


But, of course, serious questions have been raised about the right-wing story about Gladney, so much so that Gladney was named the Riverfront Times' Ass Clown of the Week. There are a lot of reasons to question the story, so Loesch is both "lazy" and "inherently bigoted" to suggest that the only reason people would question it is because Gladney is a black man.
And if that's not enough, check out this tweet from Loesch:

Huh? She's claiming that someone is racist for "ignoring the contributions of brilliant black conservatives." What does that even mean? Since "ignoring" in this context apparently means, "not mentioning," why is Dana Loesch "ignoring" the contributions of brilliant black liberals?
When Loesch routinely violates here own stated principles, it's pretty hard to know what she stands for other than an unfaltering commitment to self-promotion.

Ultimate Irony! Ed Martin Ducks Out of Debate with Primary Challanger!

Ed Martin, as part of a publicity stunt, challenged Congressman Russ Carnahan to attend a "townhall meeting." Carnahan, like any smart politician, ignored Martin because if he didn't everyone would think that he could be easily bullied. Of course, Martin and the right wingers freaked out about the fact that Carnahan wasn't at their fake town hall.

But get this: earlier in January, Ed Martin had already agreed to debate Republican Primary challenger John Wayne Trucker, and then chickened out! So Mr. "I heart free speech" Martin was afraid to have a honest-to-God democratic debate, and then turned around and tried to attack Carnahan for not attending his astroturf event.

Maybe someone should have told Mr. Trucker than Martin only attends debates in Todd Akin's district.

Of Copyrights and Cowards

Anyone's who has read this blog (or is vaguely aware of reality) would of course never be intellectually surprised at the idea that right-wing bloggers exhibit a non-stop stream of hypocrisy. Even so, in some cases it is almost impossible not to be emotionally jarred when encountering these bloggers praising themselves for some imagined quality while at the same time exhibiting behavior that is directly at odds with the quality they claim to possess. Dana Loesch recently provided us with just such an instance.

Loesch apparently is upset that this site has been exposing her and her fellow teabaggers hypocrasy, and posted a message on her site warning about lawsuits if I didn't take down images that were orginally posted on her web site. I did not know about this law, but now that I do I have replaced all of the original images with screen shots in order to avoid any problems. What is truly hilarious, however is the following quote from Loesch:

I don’t have a problem with people who start dissenting blogs, I, unlike some people, love dissent! I think dissent is patriotic. What I don’t think is patriotic is when someone steals my copyrighted images for use, without credit, on their website.

.

OK, so first of all, in the post in question I am quite clear about the fact that the images are coming from Loesch's blog. In fact, the whole point of the post was to criticize Loesch for being painfully unaware of the hypocrasy presented in her pictures (she was blabbing about following the rules while showing pictures of teabaggers who violated the no sign rules at the event). So the idea that I was using her pictures without acknowledging that they were her pictures is ridiculous.

Furthermore, what legitimate motives can she have for doing this? Am I taking away some profit that she would have made from the photos? No, since she clearly wouldn't use them to show the world how stupid she is. Am I profiting off of the pictures? No, look at this site; there's no advertising going on. Is it because she has such a deep and abiding respect for rules? Well, I've already shown how hypocritical she is on that particular subject.

In other words, while she is bragging about how much she loves dissent, she is simultaneously threatening a law suit whose only purpose could be to prevent the sharing of information that she doesn't like. She's threatening a lawsuit not to protect herself, or to honor the rules, but purely to stifle dissent, literally while she presents herself as a champion of dissent.

So scared shitless are Loesch and the other right-wingers, that they are afraid to provide a link to this site or even mention any distinguishing feature about it because they know that their followers are entirely dependent upon living in an information vacuum. The ideas put forward by right-wing bloggers are like a mold that grows on the bottom of some rock; the minute they are exposed to sunlight or oxygen they start to wither and die. Thus, people like Loesch have to do everything they can to prevent their followers from actually being exposed to other points of views. Right-wing blogger Jim Durbin of 24th state attempted to link to other bloggers a while back and then stopped shortly after getting his ass kicked by STL Activist Hub. 

Yes, Dana Loesch, self-proclaimed champion of free speech.  She thinks that boycotts are a slap in the face of freedom, unless they're used against groups she doesn't like.  She thinks holding signs is patriotic, unless the person doing the holding isn't a teabagger.  And now she sings the praises of dissent, while doing everything in her power to prevent views that are opposed to hers from being seen.  Dana, I don't blame you for not linking here.  It's the only way your absurd talking points can survive.