Right Wing Hero Shoots Up Liberal Church
POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Thursday, August 14, 2008 03:08
VIEWED: 9766
PAGE 1 of 2
suitably edited:
On Sunday, 58-year-old Jim Adkisson entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during a children's performance of the musical “Annie Jr.” In a guitar case, he carried a shotgun and 76 rounds. Adkisson killed two church members, Greg McKendry (60) and Linda Kraeger (61), and wounded six more before he was wrestled to the ground as he tried to reload.
Inside [Adkisson’s] house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.
Some quick Google searches turned up these quotes from prominent right-wingers:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity
"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." — Michael Savage
"Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." — Rush Limbaugh
"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O’Reilly
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." — Glenn Beck
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." — Ann Coulter
"I don’t see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis." — Bill O’Reilly
"The Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba -- Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." — Rush Limbaugh
"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ‘em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the [House] speaker." — Sean Hannity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So your saying his defense should be, "The right-wing Christian Dominionist nut-job shit-disturbers made me do it."...?
It was like that when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
What is the point of this post, exactly?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where do you get off calling this nut a " right wing hero " ??
That doesn't make any sense.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
gotta love those heroes that go around killing people they don't agree with, that's the american way....i guess
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by EvilDinosaur:
gotta love those heroes that go around killing people they don't agree with, that's the american way....i guess
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
Again, you repeat w/ out explanation. How is this nut case a 'hero' ?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Where do you get off calling this nut a " right wing hero " ??
I object to the term 'hero'.
They also found TV Guide in this guys house. A search of TV Guide indicated a large number of programs such as 'the CBS Evening News', Hannah Montana, and something called the Lifetime Movie Network.
I think its pretty clear what really set this guy off.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
.... i hate to state the obvious, but in fact, the world might be a better place if each individual would only learn to think for themselves....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hope and believe that this guy is not thought of as a hero by most right-wingers,
that being said, there has been a dehumanizing effort of the right wing voices against liberals and other targets, and eventually that shit is going to take its toll.
Whereass you see a little bit of it on the left, with say, Mike Malloy that has nothing be derogatory things to say about Republicans, I do not see astounding calls towards violence in his language nor in any other liberal's language, on the whole.
Whereas on the other side, we get words like "lynching" Mrs. Obama out of O'reilly's mouth, demands that certain people should be shot from the likes of Reagan, calls for crashing and inciting rioting at the Democratic National convention from Limbaugh, a comment from a Fox news contributor that suggested it would be a good thing if Obama was shot, suggestions from Bolton that if the top 10 levels of the UN were lost it wouldn't make a bit of difference, O'reilly saying that if al qaeda comes in and blows up San Fransisco a collective 'we' aren't going to do anything about it, and so on and so on. I'm not even going to touch the right wing religious leaders and their speech.
This kind of shit, oft repeated, does have an effect on people, especially when the pressures of their everyday lives mount up and they crack a little. This sort of distortion and condonation of violence eventually makes people want to take action against the group these talking heads have blamed repeatedly for their problems,
and if not legally responsible, these hate preachers Are responsible... for fueling this fire by making violent messures sound heroic, even patriotic, in a country that is supposed to work democratically.
They are working with terror, they are making it feel physically riskier to ideologically allign oneself with liberal values. It's shameful, and you guys should have a problem with the overall tone that makes violence an answer.
Instead your problem is with the likes of REverend Wright, who may have an issue with the way our government has worked, may have a problem even with white people, though I don't think that was proven or even developed well, but nobody could pull out a speech where he advocated or condoned violence, otherwise I'm sure I would have heard it a billion times by now.
Yeah, HE was the danger to our country's values...not the people preaching violence and intimidation over democratic action...
...........
On edit, I remember one on the left that I object to, no matter how accurate it might be. Maher is a 'provocoteur', his show is 'politically incorrect', but I don't think it was helpful to say that if Cheney had died years ago(it was something like this) a lot less people would be dead now.
I'm not saying I don't think its true, but I don't know what positive purpose this could have. He could have made the same point just saying if "cheney hadn't been elected to office" etc.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some people, delusional ones, cannot separate fantasy from reality. If you over-engage yourself with all the cable and internet news and blogs, it is easy to see how anyone can get upset, angry, and frustrated at what opponents of your positions believe. We see it here at RWED often. Fortunately 99.99% of people are able to reject violence as a tool to advance their views.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have frequently heard people say that Bush & Co should be brought up on war crimes charges, lined up against a wall, and shot.
There are people making ludicrous statements in every political field, and that anyone would act on these statements is a testament not to the power of 'right wing' or 'left wing' mouthpieces and their corrupting influence, but rather of a deep lack of intellect and reasoning capacity coupled with a fragile emotional state.
So take your 'wings' and clip them, and discard them in the cemetary of empty political mongering, and try saying something meaningful for a change.
These kinds of threads make me ill.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
people say a lot of things...
of course treason is still punishable with the death penatly, and at least that still respects legal channels,
but I don't advocate talk like that,and don't want the death penalty as an answer to any problem,
but it doesn't undermine my point which was not that people on webpages or on the street are saying this kind of shit, but that there are people who are given wide audiences saying this kind of shit, people who are legitimized by their sindication...etc.
and i'm sorry if the subject makes you ill, but prove to me that both sides are equatable in this regard, and i'll drop it.
Just saying they are don't fly brother
and on edit....
what do you think the point of me adding my thoughts to this thread are? I'm pointing out an obvious pattern that people should be aware of. I even threw in the two people on the left I know of that have dabbled in similar warfare,
which is as apolitical as this topic can get, because sadly the game and the tactic is political, and seems to trend along a certain party line more than the other. What would be your reasoning for prefering to ignore it exactly?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have frequently heard people say that Bush & Co should be brought up on war crimes charges, lined up against a wall, and shot.
Yes, because he committed war crimes. What did these churchgoers do, other than belong to a church that respected the philosophy of loving one another?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Again, you repeat w/ out explanation. How is this nut case a 'hero' ?
I'm not the original poster of this thread. And I certainly don't think of this man as a hero, I'll try to make my sarcasm a little more obvious in the future.
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity
This quote comes from Mike Tidmus's Blog. He claims he heard Hannity say it on Hannity and Combs on June 15, 2005.
There is no video evidence or transcript to support Mr. Tidmus's claim.
Liberal bloggers make up quotes like this with no source material. Then other Liberal Bloggers use the original Blog as their source and so on.
Let me give you an example: here is a quote from Fireflyfans.net posted by NewOldBrownCoat on Dec 5th 2007.
Quote:
I'm NewOldBrownCoat and I say I hate black people. We need to kill all black people. Black people should die...not because they're black...but because I hates them.
I am shocked and appalled by the racism and violence advocated by this post. I'm so shocked that I will fail to disclose a link to the source material.
Now if somebody...like Aurapter comes along...he can quote your quote as fact...despite the fact it has no basis in reality.
I note that not all the quotes you mentioned fall into the catagory or pure fiction. Some are satirical, some are out of context, some are Ann Coulter, and some are dead on.
It really does not matter. This guy shot up a church looking for evil liberals. There is hardly an epidemic of violence caused by conservative rhetoric. There is an epidemic of violence caused by liberal Democratic social policy.
Tell you what, I'll trade you Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for fifty years of conservative control of City politics in most American cities.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity
This quote comes from Mike Tidmus's Blog. He claims he heard Hannity say it on Hannity and Combs on June 15, 2005.
There is no video evidence or transcript to support Mr. Tidmus's claim.
Liberal bloggers make up quotes like this with no source material. Then other Liberal Bloggers use the original Blog as their source and so on.
Let me give you an example: here is a quote from Fireflyfans.net posted by NewOldBrownCoat on Dec 5th 2007.Quote:
I'm NewOldBrownCoat and I say I hate black people. We need to kill all black people. Black people should die...not because they're black...but because I hates them.
I am shocked and appalled by the racism and violence advocated by this post. I'm so shocked that I will fail to disclose a link to the source material.
Now if somebody...like Aurapter comes along...he can quote your quote as fact...despite the fact it has no basis in reality.
I note that not all the quotes you mentioned fall into the catagory or pure fiction. Some are satirical, some are out of context, some are Ann Coulter, and some are dead on.
It really does not matter. This guy shot up a church looking for evil liberals. There is hardly an epidemic of violence caused by conservative rhetoric. There is an epidemic of violence caused by liberal Democratic social policy.
Tell you what, I'll trade you Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for fifty years of conservative control of City politics in most American cities.
H
Outstanding!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh,
Jong, what was outstanding about that, seriously?
The funny part is you tend to be all too aware of where conservative politics have taken us these last 8 years,
so why would you reward Hero with such praise for an assinine and unfounded comment that liberal democratic social policy has caused violence,
as opposed to say, the Iraq war maybe?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Does that make the Unibomber a left wing hero? 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now if somebody...like Aurapter comes along...he can quote your quote as fact...despite the fact it has no basis in reality.
Or George W. Bush - like he "quoted" British intel in his justification for invading Iraq without facts and without any basis in reality...
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Does that make the Unibomber a left wing hero?
[Sarcasm ON]
Yes.
Unibomber = Left Wing hero.
Tim McVeigh = Right Wing hero.
David Koresh = Left Wing hero.
Janet Reno = oddly enough, RIGHT Wing hero, for refusing to negotiate with Koresh and for burning his house down on top of him.
Does that about cover it?
Oh, yeah - Eric Rudolph = Left Wing hero, according to Hero's logic. If there hadn't been an abortion clinic there, he wouldn't have been forced to bomb it! See what you liberals did? If you would just stop using your rights, we wouldn't have to kill you all to defend your freedoms!
Sheesh, how can you people not get that?
[Sarcasm OFF]
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't forget about William Krar there, Mikey.
Funny how the press buried that one when they learned where his political leanings were.
Why is it that all the really nasty domestic terrorists are hard-right, if them "damn liburlllz" are so dangerous, eh ?
Could it maybe be that Liberals as a general rule try to influence people with means OTHER than violence ?
(Not including folk who simply want the State to commit violence on their behalf, those are National Socialists, look it up to see what I mean by that.)
I still find it howlingly ironic that what set this nutter off at those "damn liburlllz" is having his food stamps cut off....
All that aside, one can SAY whatever they damn well please, it's what you DO, that concerns me.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Yes, because he committed war crimes. What did these churchgoers do, other than belong to a church that respected the philosophy of loving one another?
Bush has commmitted no war crimes, and its nut case views like yours who say he did which give other nut cases an excuse to shoot up churches.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Couldn't find proof of this. Have you got a link? By that I mean a link that proves that he made it up, not that it was originally quoted in his blog.
Originally posted by Hero:
This quote comes from Mike Tidmus's Blog.
------------------------------
This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Now if somebody...like Aurapter comes along...he can quote your quote as fact...despite the fact it has no basis in reality.
Or George W. Bush - like he "quoted" British intel in his justification for invading Iraq without facts and without any basis in reality...
Mike
Wrong. The British did indeed say exactly that, and still stand by their statement, even today.
Your analogy is false.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually the British confessed to war crimes in Iraq and the Americans there have done worse.
Can't wait to see Bush in the Hague.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Somehow missed this bit of idiocy earlier..
Quote:
There is hardly an epidemic of violence caused by conservative rhetoric.
*points to Iraq*
And now they're talkin shit at Iran, with obvious intent to provoke a country who, in spite of having talked a considerable amount of smack in the other direction, has shown truly remarkable restraint in dealing with an aggressive military force hell bent on provoking them.
Oh, and before anything thinks it perhaps hypocritical for someone who's advocating an outright witch-hunt style purge with a side order of decapitations to be condemning this incident, allow me to point out that I am neither Liberal nor Conservative, but an Anarchist, and (this is the important bit) Constitutional Minimalist.
That means no, I DON'T have a problem with the idea of lynching those who swore an Oath to uphold the US Constitution, then turned around and shat upon it, and to be downright blunt about it, while I *might* have a problem with doing so to those who cheerlead and supported them in spite of this, and continue to do so, given the simple fact that the support of such collaborators and informant weasels are the gears that make tyranny FUNCTION effectively, damned if I would act to prevent it, although I would not participate.
To be even downright crass about it, where this particular batshit nutter screwed up was aiming in both the wrong direction (if he's pissed over the loss of his food stamps, he was aimin at the wrong end of the political spectrum) and not aiming "high" enough - shooting the drones accomplishes nothing, if you wanna send that kinda message, you need to start with folks who SET policy, not those who suffer under it.
While that might not be the nicest way to put things, it's a damn sight better than the rightwingnuts who are without a doubt smiling up their sleeves as they offer false platitudes about how horrible this incident is while secretly hoping for more of the same.
I ain't gonna sit here and lie like that, it's pointless and no one with half a brain would believe it anyhow.
Like I've said before... to ME, ain't a dimes worth of difference between these Straussian Neocon proto-fascists and Al Queda to me save for the Neocons being physically closer and a more imminent threat - they're both fountains of hate and violence against anything or anyone who doesn't march in step with them.
Still doesn't mean I wanna cap folk just for holding those beliefs, so long as they do not ACT against me (which the Neocons have, and Al Queda has NOT) then I could give a fuck.
But the right to belief ends at the wall of anothers right to NOT believe the same things.
To attempt to forcibly carry it past that point, aggressively and with malice aforethough, that's where you *deserve* a cap in yer ass, it's just that simple.
Clear ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:Quote:Couldn't find proof of this. Have you got a link? By that I mean a link that proves that he made it up, not that it was originally quoted in his blog.
Originally posted by Hero:
This quote comes from Mike Tidmus's Blog.
Since 2005 there has been not one piece of video evidence to support the quote and not one transcript. We live in the age of YouTube, if he said it someone would have it and it would be available.
That said...I have no doubt Mr. Tidmus HEARD it. Many liberal bloggers labor under a hearing disability when listening to a conservative speaker. They hear what they want to hear...not what is actually said.
For example...President Bush says "no draft". Liberal Blogger hear Bush say "we will have a draft, but only of African Americans to support the illegal occupation of Iraq in violation of international laws and to further our oil interests and to commit the war crimes that I will personally authorize and oversee".
Right wing bloggers have a similar delusional hearing disorder.
For example. A liberal speaker says..."God Damn America!" But the Right Wingers only hear them say "God Damn America"...but fail to realize realize that what he meant by "God damn America" was "America needs to address social injustice both at home and abroad through a peaceful and respectful dialogue with all interested parties."
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*points to Iraq*
*Iraq points back at Frem...and winks*
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's a good point, actually.
Originally posted by Hero:
We live in the age of YouTube, if he said it someone would have it and it would be available.
Quote:I'm glad you said this, it means that we agree that bloggers on both sides have a delusional hearing disorder.
Right wing bloggers have a similar delusional hearing disorder.
By the way, kudos for interpreting Wright's comments for what they were supposed to be, that puts you ahead of many liberals who bought into the spin.
------------------------------
This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
African American Hero Shoots Up Quick Trip!
On Sunday, 32-year-old Jermaine Addington entered the Tennessee Valley Quick Trip during the midnight shift. In his jacket pocket, he carried a handgun and 12 loose rounds of ammunition. Adddington killed two station employees, Greg McHendry (60) and Linda Kruger (61), and wounded one more before he was wrestled to the ground as he tried to reload.
Inside Addington's house, officers found a copy of "Smoke the Man" by rapper Supa Killa, "Git tha Hos" by rapper MC Magnum, and "The Bitch Factor," by rapper Who Whoodie Who. Some quick Google searches turned up these quotes from prominent African American rappers:
"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every damn cracker." — Supa Killa
"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... the Man!" — MC Magnum
"The Man is the greatest threat this country faces, except for skank hos." — Who Whoodie Who
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
These kinds of threads make me ill. And I'm hoping by swapping a few words and letters of the alphabet, you might be able to tell why.
The statement, the argument, is inherently fallacious. The idea seems to imply that 'you people' are more inclined to killing sprees than 'our people' because 'your rhetoric turns people into psychopaths.'
And any argument which starts with 'you people' is one I find detestable.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So AntonyT, YOU PEOPLE don't believe
a systematic demonizing of a people can have a real effect on the population at large?
In NAZI Germany there were just a lot of individuals behaving badly? It wasn't a general dehumanization of the jews that made it easier for them to do the things they did to them?
Or what about RWANDA where two ethnic groups were consistently pitted against each other by propaganda making one seem stupider, baser, less human than the other. MOre individuals behaving badly?
..............
That said, your point about rap is taken.
But rap is "entertainment", and punditry is often not taken as entertainment, even though that is what it is.
And rap is frankly, more diverse.
ON the other hand, punditry that suggests violence as a solution, and a certain group as the problem for all of our woes, is far more systematic. If you say something loud enough and long enough it becomes true, and that's a whole lot of people saying the same things, to a wide audience, many of whom have no other information inlets.
You honestly going to say this has no effect?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been too busy to reply, but here's some more , from the same source, again edited somewhat:
"Adkisson targeted the church, [Investigator Steve] Still wrote 'because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.'
"Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.'"
Carol Smallwood, a longtime acquaintance of Adkisson’s, said he hates “'blacks, gays and anyone different from him,” ... In a four-page note Adkisson left in his car, he explicitly noted his hate for the “liberal movement” — the Unitarian Universalist church is well known for its liberal stances on homosexuality, civil rights, opposition to war, women’s rights, and multiculturalism.
The right has already begun and will continue to claim that Adkisson is just a crazy nut, is not really a conservative (or is actually a liberal), that his stated motive of carrying out right-wing ideology means nothing, and that it is “inappropriate” to discuss politics in relation to such a heinous crime.
Obviously, this merely scratches the surface of what issues daily from the mouths and keyboards of right-wing pundits.
Meanwhile, back at FOX, they have imposed a near media blackout of this story, despite the involvement of its two biggest stars. As of 9:28pm PT, a search of the foxnews.com website turned up not one story about the shooting. Neither O’Reilly nor Hannity mentioned the shooting on the Monday or Tuesday after the shooting. In contrast, both O’Reilly and Hannity devoted large blocks of their shows to the Virginia Tech shootings, and FOX did stories about it around the clock. But when their books helped provide the justification for politically motivated murder, Hannity and O'Reilly apparently can’t be bothered to address it, or even acknowledge that it happened.
Even though FOX won’t cover this story, it cannot be allowed to fade because no matter what conservatives will say, this shooting in Knoxville says something very important about the right wing and the messages its most prominent, powerful, most highly-paid voices are sending to millions of Americans.
Now, these are MY WORDS, not the fraudulent, propagandistic, character assassination forgeries created by other posters to this thread:
While some posters question the accuracy of ONE Quote, they don't have anything to say about the rest.
Reminds me of the OJ trial, when Johnny Cocharane said that if the jury disbelieved one thing a witness said they could ignore his entire testimony. So when the chauffer said he saw OJ sneaking down the street but was innaccurate on the time by 1 or 2 minutes, they could throw out the basic fact, OJ sneaking, because the guy had the time wrong by the error of his watch, in spite of the fact that cell phone records showed an accurate time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The responsibility for action always lies with the individual. The only exception to this is mental incompetence.
The 'you people' problem, the one you are complaining about (liberals were 'you people' to the man that performed these acts) is the same thing you are doing. You complain about liberals being dehumanized by 'the right,' and then proceed to perform the exact same function.
When you equate 'the right' with the worst actions and comments taken by their membership, it is the same as equating 'liberals' with the worst actions and comments taken by their membership.
Any argument which uses 'you people', be it theirs or yours, is detestable. You should revile at using it, as it is the very thing you are purportedly complaining about.
The process of dehumanizing someone is twofold.
Step One - LUMP THEM TOGETHER.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bullshit,
because at the end of the day I NEVER advocate violence as a solution. And I don't consider all people with conservative values scum. The people manufacturing outrage and advocating violence are not the party at large, but they are essentially rallyers for certain agendas that suit that party's goals.
If a pattern exists I think its important to point it out.
because the thing I'M sick of is listening to the media when these topics come up, anything that involves left or right, and then their big solution being "WEll they're all doing it",
like that makes everything even, and there's no point in trying to ascertain if there really is a difference. Why believe anybody ever? Why pay attention to any news source, because as they said on the TV, they're all bad. They couldn't convince you they were better, but at least they can convince you that there's no point in seeking out something better, with a higher tone.
The facts don't bear that out dude. Why act like both sides are the same, when they are not?
"you people" "them people", it's an unfortunate convenience. We can't write five page sentences every time we try to talk about topics, as qualifiers for EXACTLY who we are talking about every time. I'm sorry the simplicity of it offends you...if you have a better solution I'd like to hear it.
..............
also, what do you mean the responsibility always lies with the individual...
that you're in the camp that morality is embued within you by some higher power?
That every cannibal is morally reprehensible because they were raised in a tribe of cannibals and believe that is the only way?
Paradigms have a lot to do with what we think is acceptible behavior, and thus, how we behave.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
Quote:
The statement, the argument, is inherently fallacious. The idea seems to imply that 'you people' are more inclined to killing sprees than 'our people' because 'your rhetoric turns people into psychopaths.'
Good point.
You will, however note, that no matter how sarcastic I put it - I am always careful to be VERY specific on the target of such commentary, insult or slagging.
To wit: Straussian Neocon proto-fascists.
(i.e. PNAC, Clean Break Signatories)
These folk are ALREADY murderous sociopaths, callin em that is just statin a fact.
And since they are successful in a society that breeds, reveres and rewards them (with a token slap on the hand here and there for forms sake) - dimbulbs who don't seem to realize that a critical key to their success is being born into wealthy and politically powerful families try to emulate them.
Some take it to extremes, and the encouragement from folks who should know better doesn't help it any.
It's pointless to deny the obvious, that these things DO influence peoples actions because people in our society and education system are conditioned TO respond to that influence instead of thinking for themselves.
It still does come to an individual standpoint though, at least with me - if you've done no harm to me or mine, imma dislike you from an emotional distance and leave you alone....
It's when you DO THINGS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT ME (like Engler fucking the cab industry on his way out of office, which crippled my ability to make a buck) that imma take it kinda personal and retaliate in the manner I feel proper.
And stabbin me in the wallet via the Taxman, to finance shit that directly impacts me in a negative fashion is about the fastest way in the universe to piss me off.
Believe me, for what I paid in gas today.... I'm all for removing our CinC, even on the flimsiest excuse, Billy humped one intern, Bush humped us all.
So yeah, it's individual, hell, to put not too fine a point on it, ya might call it personal - that's MY freakin money....
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Some counterpoints:
"I don't consider all people with conservative values scum."
Then perhaps you need to define 'Right Wing' for me. Because I thought you were referring to people with conservative values. I'm sure a lot of people thought that, too.
"that you're in the camp that morality is embued within you by some higher power?"
Imbued as I am with the ability to reason, and reasong that morality exists for logical reasons of reciprocity, I guess you could say I think morality is an intrinsic trait amongst reasoning people. But that's an argument for another thread (feel free to start one.)
"That every cannibal is morally reprehensible because they were raised in a tribe of cannibals and believe that is the only way?"
Reprehensible and responsible are different things. Even in his own society, the cannibal is responsible for what he does and who he tries to eat. If he tries to eat someone and they kill him, are you honestly saying that he isn't responsible for his actions and the consequences? That he didn't know what he was doing?
""you people" "them people", it's an unfortunate convenience. We can't write five page sentences every time we try to talk about topics, as qualifiers for EXACTLY who we are talking about every time. I'm sorry the simplicity of it offends you...if you have a better solution I'd like to hear it."
I'd recommend not using terms that you are positive include people who you are not trying to condemn. 'Right Wing' is a heck of a lot of people. A lot of people who don't condone violence against people for their political beliefs. A lot of people who would find the commentary of these political entertainers repugnant. Because once you include them in your ire, they may feel compelled to defend themselves against your slander, and that may put them in a defensive posture right next to people they'd normally distance themselves from.
I used to watch a lot of cartoons and read a lot of comics. I remember Bugs Bunny cartoons with buck-toothed monstrosities that were meant to represent the Japanese. I remember rediculous charicatures of Japanese people in superhero comic books.
I also remember listening to how we rounded up every Japanese person in the country and stuck them into concentration camps. That's what you get when you create a 'Them.' Dehumanizing works in both directions, and you can become as guilty of it as the people you claim to loathe.
Just because you think one side is worse than the other doesn't give you permission to behave badly. I'm sorry you think it's Bullshit to say so.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Actually the British confessed to war crimes in Iraq and the Americans there have done worse.
Can't wait to see Bush in the Hague.
Sure they did.
Don't hold your breath on Bush an the Hague thing.
Not gonna happen.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AntonyT
except that you may have missed in my original post where I said at the very beginning, I don't believe most right wingers would consider this guy a hero. The whole point of my post was to direct attention to a certain media influence.
I'll grant that right after that I didn't make a clear enough distinction about whether I meant all right wingers, or just those numerous voices that apparently resonate with right-wingers enough that they continue to play. There's a chicken and an egg question here that I think is worth exploring.
..............
Woah, I'm not sure how your argument about Japanese internment camps is a counterpoint to my argument. It seems like we're in agreement. media influences opinions...huh...
FDR was a liberal, true - but what he did was decidedly un-liberal, and I challenge you to find many conservatives of the time that were at odds with the decision.
and that wasn't me that did that, and I would never have advocated that, nor would I advocate something similar for republicans(its just ridiculous that somehow talking about tactics is the same as saying they are simian or something), unless I had a different mindset than I do today. It seems kind of abusive to say that I can't even point out a group for labeling and targetting others, because all of a sudden that makes me a 'labeler.'
From now on I'd better be careful about how I malign the KKK, maybe some of their members don't advocate violence on blacks...maybe some of them just think they should be brought back to their own country...
the reality is certain symbols start to stand for something, and from my vantage, republican punditry today is starting to stand for something hateful.
Where we continue to disagree is that you think patterns are unimportant, that we don't need a gestalt sense of things.
I do agree that when we look at patterns we shouldn't automatically malign everybody loosely connected,
but I don't agree just as a random example that we should not look at race when it comes to poverty. Once we do look at race, we may come to vastly different conclusions, but race obviously has an impact, and shouldn't just plain be ignored.
Party affiliation, I'm sorry to say does seem to have a different affinity for tactics.
I have drawn no conclusions as to republicans in general over the population at large. I have drawn conclusions about their speakers.
If more lefties talked like that I think we might see more right wing churches getting shot up, because there are ideologues in both parties....people that are more about team than truth.
On the other hand it's worth considering that such speakers don't resonate so effectively with liberals, and could never get the same kind of foot-hold that so many hate speakers on the other side manage to gain.
I don't think at any point i've drawn a conclusion as to which of these is true, but I don't think it should be off limits discussing these issues.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Some additional responses follow:
"Woah, I'm not sure how your argument about Japanese internment camps is a counterpoint to my argument. It seems like we're in agreement. media influences opinions...huh..."
Of course media influences opinions. That's the very purpose of propaganda. I do not feel, however, that the individual becomes any less responsible for his actions simply because he saw a television or radio broadcast. In essence, I do not believe being part of a mob shields the individual from their proverbial sins. Blame the propagandist for what they said, and blame the criminal for what they did, respectively.
"FDR was a liberal, true - but what he did was decidedly un-liberal, and I challenge you to find many conservatives of the time that were at odds with the decision."
I don't think it matters what FDR was beyond President and Afraid. He was alone in being President, but not alone in being Afraid.
"It seems kind of abusive to say that I can't even point out a group for labeling and targetting others, because all of a sudden that makes me a 'labeler.'
From now on I'd better be careful about how I malign the KKK, maybe some of their members don't advocate violence on blacks...maybe some of them just think they should be brought back to their own country..."
This is a bad analogy. The KKK is a much more narrowly defined organization with a much narrower belief system than the 'Right Wing.' Which is, you know, probably a third of the U.S. population. As for 'Right Wing Pundits' I think there are probably more of them than we can count on all our fingers and toes. I can't believe all of them say such hateful things. I'm doubtful that even most of them do, but I don't see how we can know. Most every town has a political radio station with a right wing advocate of some kind, I would think. I doubt either of us has a good idea of what they are all saying.
"Where we continue to disagree is that you think patterns are unimportant, that we don't need a gestalt sense of things."
Patterns can be important, but they can also be misused. Or is Profiling a good idea?
"I do agree that when we look at patterns we shouldn't automatically malign everybody loosely connected,"
I'm glad to hear this.
"but I don't agree just as a random example that we should not look at race when it comes to poverty. Once we do look at race, we may come to vastly different conclusions, but race obviously has an impact, and shouldn't just plain be ignored."
All right. Don't ignore things. Just adjust the size of your brush and the color of your paint to accommodate the differences in the grain, eh?
"Party affiliation, I'm sorry to say does seem to have a different affinity for tactics."
I'm not convinced that party affiliation automatically inclines someone towards particular tactics. I really hope people are more complicated than that.
"I have drawn no conclusions as to republicans in general over the population at large. I have drawn conclusions about their speakers."
Best single them out, as I've pointed out there are a lot of speakers, and we don't even know what percentage of them are committing such infractions.
"On the other hand it's worth considering that such speakers don't resonate so effectively with liberals, and could never get the same kind of foot-hold that so many hate speakers on the other side manage to gain."
I'm fairly sure I've heard of radical liberal organizations such as Ecological Terrorists and Animal Rights Terrorists who resonate quite well with hate speech, given the proper motivators. I feel strongly that the majority of liberals reject such behavior, and even groups with similar goals abhor some of the tactics these people employ. I believe the same thing about conservatives or 'Right Wingers,' putting the majority of them far from any nutcase or nutcases who choose to do harm.
"I don't think at any point i've drawn a conclusion as to which of these is true, but I don't think it should be off limits dis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If more lefties talked like that I think we might see more right wing churches getting shot up, because there are ideologues in both parties....people that are more about team than truth.
I doubt it. Remember, the lefties are - in general terms here; don't wanna go labeling anybody - pretty anti-gun. They might protest, or write a really stinging letter to the editor, but they're not likely to shoot up anything that doesn't come in a syringe. :)
Of course, in pointing that out, I also point out part of Anthony's point, too, about why painting a group with such broad brushstrokes can be a danger. How so? Because I'm pretty darned left-leaning in my ideology AND I really enjoy shooting guns. Yup, as the Fun-Lovin' Criminals would say, "Stick 'em up, punk, I'm the gun-lovin' liberal."
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I think there are probably more of them than we can count on all our fingers and toes. I can't believe all of them say such hateful things. I'm doubtful that even most of them do, but I don't see how we can know."
I get TownHall and listen to hate -- err - I mean talk -- radio, read Drudge and other sites. Not only is the majority saying hateful things, they are saying and printing and blogging hateful things without exception.
Let me repeat that - every last one of them.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT has expressed pretty much what I would say. I see this a lot. Some lunatic who associates himself with a particular point of view does something horrendous and becomes a convenient excuse by people who don’t agree with that point of view to start labeling that point of view negatively. The truth is that haters, murderers and extremists exist everywhere and because a hater associates himself with the Left, like say Kaczynski or Manson, doesn’t mean the Left is full of haters or even that Left-wing points of view are wrong. In fact, the media today is full of Left-wing opinions that are hateful and manipulative, much like those hateful and manipulative opinions who seek to relate the Right to this murderer, but this doesn‘t make Left-wing opinions wrong, anymore then Right-wing opinions are made wrong because someone who reads Coulter shoots up a church. I’m sure Rigteous9 and NewOldBrowncoat would take offense at being compared to Charles Manson, simply because they hold a Liberal perspective, but evidently they have no problem making those comparisons of the Right. It’s really time we learned to separate our philosophical and political arguments from acts of random violence, they are quite independent of one another. It’s a childish stunt, not a reasoned argument.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
"Let me repeat that - every last one of them."
So how many right wing radio hosts and bloggers are there, Rue? How did you find them all? How did you find time to listen and read them all? Having done all that, how did you remember what they all said or typed? Did you catalogue their hate speech on a spreadsheet?
I am expressing doubt that you could know what every right wing radio person or blogger says or does.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Extremism tends to run in cycles in the United States oscillating between Left and Right-wing extremism. Currently, Right-wing Extremism is the major threat, I think. This, however, will change soon if it hasn't already. From about the 1960s to the 1980s, Left-wing Extremism was the principle danger, and we are beginning to see extremist groups form, like MoveOn.org, which typically herald the onset of Left-wing Extremism. This is the part that the Lefties on the board won’t like - Left-wing Extremism in the US is more dangerous then Right-Wing extremism. The reason? Left-wing extremists tend to be better educated and better able to organize. Right-wing extremists tend to be poorly educated and frequently individuals. For instance, periods of Left-wing extremism tend to see more active and larger terrorist groups and more acts of terrorism then periods of Right-wing extremism. Left-wing Extremism definitely exist and the Left-wing political environment is as susceptible to it as the Right, but the Left is traditionally much more effective at it.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I doubt it. Remember, the lefties are - in general terms here; don't wanna go labeling anybody - pretty anti-gun. They might protest, or write a really stinging letter to the editor, but they're not likely to shoot up anything that doesn't come in a syringe. :)
Of course, in pointing that out, I also point out part of Anthony's point, too, about why painting a group with such broad brushstrokes can be a danger. How so? Because I'm pretty darned left-leaning in my ideology AND I really enjoy shooting guns. Yup, as the Fun-Lovin' Criminals would say, "Stick 'em up, punk, I'm the gun-lovin' liberal."
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT,
just one point, because I don't really have too many grievances with most of what you said.
This goes to my original point,
how many "eco-terrorists" do you know of have a talk show on cable news or am radio. Sure those people are out there, but they are far more fringe than O'reilley and Hannity and Coulter and SAvage...etc.
I appreciate your attempt at being neutral, and independant of "sides", but it's a little frustrating to me that you keep coming back to "I"m pretty sure"
You don't have examples that match mine. YOu believe there are probably some out there. I think that your point would be more powerful if you found 10 or 12 examples of liberal voices(specifically those who are given a microphone and are paid to spew their hatred) saying te same kinds of things.
If you find that, you've got me check and mated. I'll be convinced that there's no difference.
And lets make one more thing clear... we're actually talking about the most prominant voices in conservative punditry. These are the very most mainstream people they've got. Limbaugh still has one of the very biggest audiences out there. O'reilley has a huge following on Fox. These aren't fringe voices from the right, they are the flagship voices.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I appreciate that you see right-wing extremism as the bigger threat today. I don't know off hand that the left was ever a bigger threat in this country, it has usually been the underdog...but power corrupts, and if the power gets consolidated on the left side of the dial, taht's where all the pricks are going to gravitate, so I might quibble, but I accept that this could oscilate.
.............
Since you said it, that the right is the bigger threat today, I take it then, that you have evidence, a pattern of behavior you've taken into account that has helped to inform your opinion, and that being said, that pointing out such things in itself is not juvenile but could be important to getting at a greater understanding of our current climate.
I will also point out,(not to leave Newoldenbrowncoat out in the cold on this one, because I think he's voicing frustration and a genuine concern that maybe this guy is a hero to some on the right), that at no point have I said that the man would be looked at as a hero by right-wingers.
I said that there's a media tactic that both demonizes people on the left and talks about violence towards us as patriotic, and I said that that has to have a real world effect.
So just to go back to your own point about right-wing extremism being the major threat today, it would seem that we are in total agreement, and this kind of bipartisanship feels good.
I think it's rather healing to have this conversation, don't you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Not being a collector of political hate speech, I tried 'liberal hate speech' in google.
I don't know if this stuff is true, or who some of these people are, or what context they were under. I think some of them are comedians. Of course, I suspect a lot of the hate speech coming from right-wing pundits is intended to be funny.
Please let me know if any of these are good examples of liberal hate speech, equivelant to the right wing hate speech you have cited.
From http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:d0gVjolRpwoJ:patterico.com/2007/0
3/05/leftist-hate-speech/+liberal+hate+speech&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1
--Anthony
Brace yourself for the leftist hate:
National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg:
f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.
USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas:
I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.
Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen:
For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.
Comedian and (former) talk show host Craig Kilborn [Caption under footage of George W. Bush]:
Snipers Wanted
Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club:
And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.
Actor Alec Baldwin on Conan O’Brien:
f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.
Comedian Chris Rock:
If President Clinton would pardon me I would whip Starr’s ass right now. I will get a crew from Brooklyn and we will stomp him like, like, we’re Savion Glover. We’ll stomp him like it’s bringing da noise.
Director Spike Lee on Charlton Heston:
Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog.
James Carville on Ken Starr:
He’s one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps.
Syndicated columnist Alexander Cockburn:
There is a sound case to be made for dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami. The move would be applauded heartily by most Americans. Alas, Operation Good Riddance would require the sort of mature political courage sadly lacking in Washington, D.C., these days.
Columnist, author, media pundit, journalist, and newspaper editor Dan Savage:
My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I’ll go to Bauer’s campaign office and cough on everything. Phones and pens. Staplers and staffers. I even hatch a plan to infect the candidate himself; I’ll keep a pen in my mouth until Bauer drops by his offices to rally the troops. And when he does, I’ll approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth.
That column also appeared on Salon.com. It was a little more than hate “speech” — the guy actually did try to give Gary Bauer the flu.
It’s racism you want?
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd:
There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word.
Democrat presidential candidate Jesse Jackson on Jews:
Hymies
and on New York City:
Hymietown
During his presidential campaign, Jesse Jackson was linked with (and refused to denounce) Louis Farrakhan, who has at times been linked with the Congressional Black Caucus, which also supported his Million Man March. Farrakhan is a man of the left who has been a harsh critic of President Bush.
Here’s Farrakhan on Jews:
Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I recently attended sunday service with a family member and the sermon covered by the pastor was regarding the congregation's TV viewing habits. He went on chastising the messages coming from the various TV shows (MTV and other programs he felt had questionable moral values).
A friend, who lives in Florida, had said that her pastor also warned her church of the dangers of watching mainstream TV and listening to questionable radio programs. She won't watch movies that even so much as have swear words. Imagine that, not even something as non-threatening as PG-13. More and more I've heard of people being told about staying away from mainstream media, but replacing them with programs that advocate "christian values."
Couple that with the hatemongers who advocate "ridding the country" of anyone who may be different. Different in their way of thinking, worshipping and generally living their lives. Where have I heard that before? Wasn't there a country in Europe that thought that way and persecuted a certain group of people because they worshipped and behaved differently?
Hmmmm! Wasn't that the country that had a king who ran roughshod over their basic rules and principles to fit his needs? Haven't millions died defending the basic freedoms that we've enjoyed (until recently) and continue to die for? We have a political party that has wooed and used the christian movement to further their own agenda. That has succeeded in duping the honest folk within that movement that they had a friend in the highest office in the land. That same friend who has ran roughshod over the basic principles and beliefs of this great country, has failed miserably in providing the religious utopia they so desparately wanted.
The so-called "hero" - fueled by the hatemongers and political magicians of the airwaves and poltical pulpits - committed a detestable act upon innocent Americans whose only crime was that they were pursuing their American dream; the freedom to worship. Period.
Nothing happens in a vacuum people. All these things that have happened over the last 10 or so years are all interrelated. Are basic freedoms have been shredded in the name of war on terrorism. Our leader tells us he does not need to answer to us because he the president. As the Church Lady would say, "How convenient!" I mention all of this because, as another poster stated, we are not thinking for ourselves. We're letting others make up our mind about things we know are wrong or should know are wrong. We listen to the "barker" at the carnival knowing full well you don't get something for nothing. We've been lied to, Hoodwinked! Think for yourselves people!
Don't believe the hype! As for me, I aim to misbehave.
The political process only works as well as it's people - Anonymous
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you,
I wish you would first make sure the ones you're posting are accurate...
second I'd appreciate context...like say waht Alec Baldwyn was saying,it could be hateful in its suggestion, or it could have been making a point of American politics versus other world politics...,definitely with violent overtones, but either way it goes to my third point,
third I'd point out that most of those people on this list whos names I know are actors and entertainers, not pundits who are expected to have a firm grasp of the facts, and are not very likely to be charicaturing their own comments. I can't even be sure how the Crhis rock comment came out...was it stand up or a skit? either way was he playing a mad violent charicature or was he speaking for himself? That's the problem with putting all these in here like this.
by the way, there is a woeful short supply of links to anything regarding Kilborn and that caption. It was a long time ago and all, but I'm surprised that I couldn't find one link that wasn't heresay on the issue. Not saying it's not true, but a better researcher would have to find it.
Fourth, I'd point out that Carvill isn't a liberal, we don't want him. He is a democrat, granted.
Byrd is a racist, old hold-out from the good old dems when they used to be the conservatives. He may vote with some liberal ideas but I've never thought of him as a liberal. I'd be intersted to see that his voting record proved me wrong. I'll have to look at that.
Talking about giving somebody the flu doesn't really sound that serious to me...reprehensible if actually carried out on the other hand, even though apples and oranges when compared to killing, or lynching somebody, and frankly sounds more like farce than an actual attempt.
Howard Dean, definitely a liberal -I would like to know context and whether he was speaking about office holding republicans in teh specific. I wouldn't have too much of a hard time with taht statement, except for the fact taht half the dems should be on the same list.
Farakhan is hardly a mainstream voice for liberals. He's quite fringe, probably (though I'm not certain) even within black communities. His links to politicians etc. are not what we are discussing. If you recall the man gets no mainstream play unless it is to attack him and his hate-speech.
The St. Petersburg Democratic Club? Seriously? who the fuck are they? - I looked it up and they aint much of anything.
I'm not at all sure how Pete Stark's comments fit into anything...that's a floor argument with a specific person. I wouldn't be any more likely to include Cheney's "go fuck yourself."
..............................
You've got me on Moulitsas. I'll give you this one all the way. Daily Kos is pretty big in liberal circles, and I believe it is his blog. On the other hand, it's not radio and its not TV, and his isn't the persistent voice of the Daily Kos..
- and by the way, after he said this he lost advertisers and Kerry abandoned any connections to his site. It had repurcussions that he has since recovered from. Still, I can't knock his liberal credentials, (aside of my own opinion that such statements are not liberal), and therefore he definitely applies.
the british pundit Charlie Brooker is another good example, though I don't know him, it seems like he has a big audience. Asking where the assassin of the 21st century is when we need him is pretty stupid, and hateful.
Cockburn's statement is reprehensible. I don't know who the hell he is though. He's a columnist and he has contributed to such magazines as the Nation. A fairly minor player in that regard.
Same with the other colemnists, just because those sources just aren't as far reaching as television and radio, which I believe all my examples came from. These people don't have the same platform to spew this kind of anger, and harm-wishing.
Don't know Tony Hendra either, Huffington post is big on the other hand.
The problem with touching on columnists and bloggers though is that I haven
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
"second I'd appreciate context..."
Context is something we've not had at all in this discussion.
Do I really need to become an expert on political hate speech to discuss this, or is it sufficient to say hate speech can be found wherever there are people?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I will also point out,(not to leave Newoldenbrowncoat out in the cold on this one, because I think he's voicing frustration and a genuine concern that maybe this guy is a hero to some on the right), that at no point have I said that the man would be looked at as a hero by right-wingers.
I said that there's a media tactic that both demonizes people on the left and talks about violence towards us as patriotic, and I said that that has to have a real world effect.
And, more than anything, that is the point of the original post, I think.
You have people like Reagan going on-air and saying that "these people should be shot" and "I'll pay for the bullets" - and that kind of sentiment, if not those exact words, is echoed again and again not only by the little people like us, but by the major players in the right wing of the media.
So, when some delusional dickhead takes them at their word and actually DOES it, it seems to me that they are left with two choices:
1) Come out and publicly say that they never meant it, and were only trying to get ratings, or
2) Endorse this goon's actions and call him a hero to their cause.
It's been argued that demonizing a group doesn't condone violence against them, but the use of propaganda has repeatedly shown that if you want to attack a group, the very first thing you do is demonize them, dehumanize them. It makes it so much easier to kill them if you don't consider them real humans in the first place.
So there are lots of good points posted here, on all sides of the issue. Anthony and Finn make good points especially, in that there is definitely more than enough hate to go around. Maybe we could all dial it back a bit - and I'm one of the guilty ones, I know. A
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
"So how many right wing radio hosts and bloggers are there, Rue? How did you find them all? How did you find time to listen and read them all? Having done all that, how did you remember what they all said or typed? Did you catalogue their hate speech on a spreadsheet?
I am expressing doubt that you could know what every right wing radio person or blogger says or does."
I presume if they aren't reaching a mass market then they're not exactly meeting the definition of a pundit. Wouldn't you agree ? So some ranter on a 5 watt CB isn't going to be a pundit.
I scan pretty much all the major outlets reaching all the major markets. It doesn't take an Einstein to check the titles and opening sentences of, say, TownHall and find the screaming hate there. I will try and remember next time I get it (conveniently, in my inbox) to post it for you. Or to scan and post Drudge.
And BTW, I find your question to be sophistry. You admit you have no knowledge of the pundits, and then claim that anyone else's knowledge is false, based on your -- oh, never mind ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
You have people like Reagan going on-air and saying that "these people should be shot" and "I'll pay for the bullets" - and that kind of sentiment, if not those exact words, is echoed again and again not only by the little people like us, but by the major players in the right wing of the media.
So, when some delusional dickhead takes them at their word and actually DOES it, it seems to me that they are left with two choices:
1) Come out and publicly say that they never meant it, and were only trying to get ratings, or
2) Endorse this goon's actions and call him a hero to their cause.
Thank you, actually. You got into my head and made the exact inference I was trying to pass on. In fact, I don't think it was even clear in my own mind.
But you did miss the # 3 action-- Ignore the whole thing and hope nobody notices before it goes away. The original writer suggests that that is the current action of Fox News, Hannity, Combs, etc. I think I left that quote in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Rue, I guess since I am not an expert, I will have to accept your statement that you have surveyed every pundit on the right wing and found each of them, without exception, to spew hate speech - as factual.
I suppose I will have to accept as factual any information I am given where I am not an expert, as to question such information would be sophistry.
I am an expert in very few areas, so there will be almost no criticism I can offer on virtually any topic. I will have to accept what I'm told by people who proclaim themselves to be experts, even when their assertions seem outrageous.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
When you posted you obviously didn't get the severe slip of logic in your thinking. And, when someone like me has worked very hard over may years to get an extensive knowledge base, your ignorant sarcasm is plain stupid and rude.
If you want to debate information, let's go at it. I'll match mine up against yours any day. Just remember, all I have to do is post ONE hate-filled thing each from a list of pundits (ie real ones in mass-markets) to prove my point. While you have to show me that a majority never posted anything in that category.
But if you want to have a snit-fit, you're on your own.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right-wing extremism has certainly been the major threat over most of the last 20 years. You can’t take this as vindication of Left-wing extremism. That completely ignores the 60s, 70s and the early 80s, when domestic terrorism stemming from Left-wing Extremism was a far worse threat then Right-wing Extremism of the last 20 years. Left-wing extremism does exist today. It exists in the Media. And it is rising in power, and is coming close to trumping Right Wing efforts if it hasn’t already. And it will. And when it does it will be a far more destabilizing influence then the current or previous bout of Right Wing extremism. And these are the conclusion of the FBI as reported in a 2001 DOE document: “LEFT-WING EXTREMISM: The Current Threat.”
Your desire to focus solely on Right-Wing extremism as if it exists in a vacuum, does not promote healing of any kind, rather it intensifies the problem. As I said the better way to look at it is to realize that extremism exist on all sides and is pretty much independent of the philosophy. Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It exists in the Media."
Bullshit. If it did the coverage of Obama wouldn't be 80% negative.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, you really have to be committed to the lie to say something like this, considering the flowery praise that has been thrown at Obama over the last several months, even considering that he associates himself with characters who would ruin any other mans political career.
Originally posted by rue:
"It exists in the Media."
Bullshit. If it did the coverage of Obama wouldn't be 80% negative.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well put, Finn.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the better way to look at it is to realize that extremism exist on all sides and is pretty much independent of the philosophy. Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
Very Bruce Lee.
Waving Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
unless your philosophy incorporates non-violence as a central tennet, of course.
Then the philosophy itself has to be corrupted first.
I was kind of joking when I said this was healing, but you should note that in that post I did say that power is a corrupting force, and that I accepted the possibility of left-wing extremism once the left-wing had a good majority of the power. I don't know when that condition has ever existed in this country, but perhaps it has.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Left totally controlled this country in the...well not there....OH! in the sevent...uh, well not there...
I'm drawin' a blank here...
Clueless Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Rue, I certainly never intended to be rude, and I don't think I've been stupid (which was a rude thing to say.)
You essentially said that someone needs to be an expert to express doubt in your assertions, and I countered that if I have to be an expert to express doubt, then I'll not have much doubt in my life.
You stated that all Pundits on the right, without exception, use hate speech. This seemed to me an astounding statement. It also seemed to me impossible to know.
However, I must admit that I don't know either. I don't know how many right wing pundits there are, I don't know where to find a list of them, and I don't know how big your audience has to be before you are considered a pundit.
I did feel that with a population of 300+ million people, the U.S. probably had more than a dozen right wing pundits. I imagined in my head that there would be at least hundreds of right-wing advocates with radio, television, and newspaper exposure. It occurred to me that unless someone made a profession of surveying them, it would be impossible to know if they all used hate speech.
So, forgive me if my ignorance offends you, but I expressed my doubt based on very realistic reasoning. I don't think that any reasonable person would find fault with this line of thinking.
Unfortunately, there's no way I can prove that some right wing pundits don't use hate speech. As I said, I don't even know how many there are.
I am man enough to admit what I don't know.
But I'll also tell you that your expert opinion is really surprising to me. I wish I had a way to verify it. If I found your statement to be factual, I'd be forced to change my opinion, and lift the benefit of the doubt from the right wing luminaries. I'd also be very, very afraid and appalled.
But I simply have no way to know, and I'm not sure I want to take your word for it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Many philosophies with non-violence as the central tenet have been used as an excuse for violence. And saying that a philosophy must be corrupted (interpreted in an extreme way) before it becomes extremist is true of all philosophies, including Right-wing philosophies. Just because you believe the Left may be based on non-violence, which it is not necessarily by the way, will not and has not prevented Left-wing Extremist groups from employing violence.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
unless your philosophy incorporates non-violence as a central tennet, of course.
Then the philosophy itself has to be corrupted first.
Quote:You choose not to know it, because you don’t want to believe it, but the Left has considerable power in this country, certainly more then enough for a current of extremism to exist. And rarely is extremism practiced because the views that spawn the extremism are a majority. More often it is the other way around. Violent extremists are generally a small fraction of opinion, seeking to employ violence in order to bolster that minority view to greater promenence.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I was kind of joking when I said this was healing, but you should note that in that post I did say that power is a corrupting force, and that I accepted the possibility of left-wing extremism once the left-wing had a good majority of the power. I don't know when that condition has ever existed in this country, but perhaps it has.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's just that its the extremism from the majority that worries me far more greatly, Finn. I guess that when its the majority though, it's no longer extremism - maybe that's the rub.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The problem is that it’s not the majority. You want to a call it the majority because you want to label anyone you think is Right-Wing as shooting up churches, but in reality, Right-wing extremism is a very tinny fraction of Right-Wing philosophy.
Originally posted by Righteous9:
It's just that its the extremism from the majority that worries me far more greatly, Finn. I guess that when its the majority though, it's no longer extremism - maybe that's the rub.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008
jul27,0,6802141.story
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias
Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.
By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 27, 2008
Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week.
Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals. (Sound like anyone we know, Finn ?)
But now there's additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at three broadcast networks.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
***************************************************************
Now this doesn't include the major errors of fact McCain has made that have been either ignored or actively edited out by the 'liberal' media - that Iran supports al Qaeda in Iraq (different sect) which Lieberman corrected, McCain accepted the correction, then went back the next day and retracted his acceptance and restated the error (now THAT'S confused !), that Sunni and Shia are switched around as to who is who, mistaken Somalia for and Sudan, and so on.
AND the fact that Drudge and the media in general while they were lambasting Obama for not visiting the troops kept showing a picture of him playing basketball. And where was he playing ? In IRAQ, on a US base, with the troops.
How's that for a complete right-wing echo chamber ? Courtesy of - the 'liberal' media.
you.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obama is being exposed little by little, like peeling the leaves off an artichoke. The more people see of his past radicalism, in-experience, and associations with other radicals and outright racists, the more he's not going to have anything left in terms of support other than double-shot kool-aid believers. That explains why his numbers are tanking, despite all the epic major-media lovefest efforts. Soon most Dems are going to be screaming for Hillary to step in and save the election, as Obama slinks off in post-arrogant shame, his Malcolm X tee-shirt. Ludacris CD, and Farrakhan birthday card in tow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Looks to me like yet another media story favorable to Barack Obama. And another Liberal buying it hook line and sinker.
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008
jul27,0,6802141.story
How's that for a complete right-wing echo chamber ? Courtesy of - the 'liberal' media.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know Finn, you COULD have found the LATimes report - instead you chose to say I was fabricating. When confonted with actual facts from the article, you COULD have looked up the orginal source of the study http://www.cmpa.com/ . Instead you chose to say it was an LATimes invention.
You're such a stupid dick. And dishonest as well. But that ground's been covered many times before by other posters.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"despite all the epic major-media lovefest efforts"
Show me where. Please. Or are you just another one of the brain-dead parrots ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I did both of those things. But this study doesn’t say what you pretend it does, so I guess that makes you the dishonest stupid dick.
Originally posted by rue:
You know Finn, you COULD have found the LATimes report - instead you chose to say it was a fabrication. You COULD have looked up the orginal source of the study http://www.cmpa.com/, instead you chose to say it was an LATimes invention.
You're such a stupid dick.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue:
You know Finn, you COULD have found the LATimes report - instead you chose to say it was a fabrication. You COULD have looked up the orginal source of the study http://www.cmpa.com/, instead you chose to say it was an LATimes invention.
Finn:
Actually, I did both of those things."
No, for the record THIS is what you said:
"Wow, you really have to be committed to the lie to say something like this, considering the flowery praise that has been thrown at Obama over the last several months, even considering that he associates himself with characters who would ruin any other mans political career."
And THIS
"Looks to me like yet another media story favorable to Barack Obama. And another Liberal buying it hook line and sinker."
In other words, claim 'liberal bias' where it's the opposite, and blame the 'liberal media' for the results of a study. Just like a dishonest stupid dick.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fact: la times is a media outlet
Fact: la times printed a story about how abused poor Obama was and how unjust "haters" (those who disagree with Obama) are.
My statement was factual. This is yet another media story favorable to Obama.
Fact: the Study you cited does not say the Networks were unfair to Obama, but rather they were neutral towards both candidates
Fact: where the study does conclude that Obama received more unfavorable coverage compared to McCain was in ventured opinions, not news. Which proves only that even liberal democrats can get sick of all the fuzzy feelings towards Obama.
Fact: None of this demonstrates the Left-wing Extremism isn't as common in the media as Right-wing extremism.
Fact: several studies have shown the coverage Democratic Presidents and candidates is more favorable in general then Republican. A point that I've made on this board and cited. A point which you ignored because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. A point which the LA times likely ignored as well. Similar studies have shown that Foxnews has a fairer coverage then any of the Networks.
This will be my last post to you, because I have no interest in trying to deal with your stupid dickness. And you certainly have no interest in any kind of intelligent discussion.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh good. Now I don't have to respond to lies.
Here's the REAL study, not what Finn made up.
MEDIA BASH BARACK (NOT A TYPO)
Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain
Barack Obama is getting more negative coverage than John McCain on TV network evening news shows, reversing Obama’s lead in good press during the primaries, according to a new study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also finds that a majority of both candidates’ coverage is unfavorable for the first time this year. According to CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter, “Obama replaced McCain as the media’s favorite candidate after New Hampshire. But now the networks are voting no on both candidates.”
These results are from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 249 election news stories (7 hours 38 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008. ... We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns about each other.
(Comment - so, we've established that this content is in NEWS STORIES and voiced by sources AND REPORTERS, not in editorial commentary, as Finn so falsely claimed.)
MAJOR FINDINGS:
Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.
This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).
(Comment - this is not only expected but was predicted months back - the 'liberal media' was concentrating its attacks on the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton as opposed to Obama ("Hillary Pilloried? On-air evaluations of Hillary Clinton were nearly 3 to 2 negative (42% positive 58% negative comments"), while giving McCain a free pass ("John McCain leads the Republican race for good press with 3 to 1 positive evaluations (73% positive v 27% negative)". If you compare McCain's negative to Hillary Clinton's, you'll see a decided slant in favor of the presumptive republican nominee v the presumptive democrat. In other words, the 'liberal media' was trying to bring down Hillary and boost McCain.)
Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8. During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable), compared to 48% favorable (v. 52% unfavorable) for McCain.
Obama’s bad press has come at a time when he was much more visible than McCain. Since June 8, he has been the subject of 120 stories on the three network evening news shows, 50% more than John McCain’s 80 stories.
(Comment - in other words, they are launching an intensive atttack on Obama.)
Examples of Obama’s evaluations:
Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC
Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS
Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC
CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, you're arguing the old ends-means point again, something about which you seem thoroughly inconsistent.
SO AFA extremism is concerned, is it OK to kill 100,000+ in order to steal their oil? How about to bring them "freedom"?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Show me where. Please. Or are you just another one of the brain-dead parrots ?
Show you where??? You are clearly the one who's brain-dead if you don't know what the whole world knows. That's all that's been talked about since Obama and the Network anchors did their Sgt. Pepper tour around the world. And you know what Rue, you obtuse bitch, go fuck yourself. All you do is defend or deny the indefensible, and then you hurl insulting names at people. Kiss my ass!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In other words, you got nothing. Again. Have a nice ... whatever.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
I wasn't ignoring you, I was at work.
Some of the quotes I picked not b/c they're so hateful, but because they're really stupid. And many really are just plain hateful.
Rush Limbaugh
"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares."
Sean Hannity
(to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?"
Bill O'Reilly
"Bill Moyers on PBS, he's -- hides behind the label of objectivity. He's about as objective as Mao Zedong, all right. I mean he's a Far-Left bomb-thrower who actually runs a foundation that funds left-wing organizations. I mean the guy's a joke. Get out of the news business, Bill."
Michael Savage
"And I think there should be no mercy shown to these sub-humans. I believe that a thousand of them should be killed tomorrow. I think a thousand of them held in the Iraqi prison should be given 24 hour -- a trial and executed."
Mike Gallagher
"I have two sources, both of whom wish to remain anonymous, that report to me that New York Times Editor Bill Keller was spotted in a dumpster last weekend in the Hamptons snorting crack cocaine and smothering a pair of cocker spaniel puppies with a pair of sweat socks. ...Of course this isn’t true – not that I know of, anyway – "
Dennis Prager
"The idea that you earn things - that you earn respect, that you earn income, responsibility. the vote, punishment... these ideas are anathema to the liberal mind."
Hugh Hewitt
"The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists""
Larry Elder
"In the last 1,000 years, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain translates in just one year."
Ann Coulter
"Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking."
But I haven't finished my list, I still need to find quotes for
Lars Larson
Brit Hume
G Gordon Liddy
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
Michael Medved
George Will
Ollie North
Robert Novak
Tucker Carlson
Laura Ingrahamn
Peggy Noonan
William Safire
Andrew Sullivan
Bernard Goldberg
Bill Krystsol
David Frum
Brent Bozell
Charles Krauthammer
David Horowitz
Rupert Murdoch
Roger Ailes, Fred Barnes
William Bennett
Lawrence Kudlow
Steve Forbes
Dennis Miller
Matt Drudge
Byron York
where these kinds of quotes are just as endemic and easy to find.
Do you claim BTW that you're unaware that THIS is what passes for 'conservative' punditry ?
Really.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous9
Quote:
the reality is certain symbols start to stand for something, and from my vantage, republican punditry today is starting to stand for something hateful.
This, I think, is the salient point.
The meaning of symbols changes over time, look at the Swastika, originally a native american symbol for good fortune, and many years later due to it's association with National Socialism, seen as a symbol of pure evil.
I would say that the Republican Party is well on it's way for much the same reasons.
When people act under a symbol, they color that symbol with the intent and aftermath of their actions - and it takes a LOT of work to "clean the blood off" as it were.
For example, the Anarchists to this very day are often seen as bomb tossing maniacs intent on causing destruction thanks to the high profile actions of what amounts in the end to relatively few individuals.
The Democrats have their own stains, not the least of which is Andrew Jacksons actions towards Native Americans, a grudge WE barely remember, but most of them have never really forgotten.
Of course, (imminent snark warning!) Bush is likely to be seen as a different kind of stain on the Republican party, somewhere in the neighborhood of it's BVDs....
What you DO under a symbol has an effect on how it is perceived, and most folk I know consider the Republican party in this day and age to be every bit as much a fountain of hate and misery as any Islamic Extremist front.
Let's be bluntly honest, just change a few words here and there, and the rhetoric spouted by either one is damn near identical.
That's not to say one side is better than the other, it's just pointing out an obvious truth that no one seems willing or able to deal with.
As far as where such extremism can lead -
I HIGHLY reccommend John Ringo's novel
"The Road to Damascus"*
Based on the BOLO works of Keith Laumer.
The "bad guys" from said work incorporate extremist elements of BOTH of our current primary political "sides" and it shows in horribly explicit detail just where that can go, well enough that it required no suspension of disbelief on my behalf regarding those events.
When I look at either main party, Republican or Democrat, it's POPPA and the POPPA agenda I see lookin back at me.
And I KNOW where that goes, always have from the time I was a small child.
So yeah, they scare me, and to be honest, they SHOULD scare *you* - both of em.
-Frem
*- Title is available at the Baen Free Library, but is well worth having in hardcover in addition.
http://www.webscription.net/p-355-the-road-to-damascus.aspx
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, you're arguing the old ends-means point again, something about which you seem thoroughly inconsistent.
Quote:Sure, Signym. Whatever you say.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SO AFA extremism is concerned, is it OK to kill 100,000+ in order to steal their oil?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, what you said was
Quote:In a general sense, you view extremism as destabilizing, whether supporting "right-wing" goals (such as ending abortion) or "left-wing" goals (such as ending international trade agreements like NAFTA). In fact, you have considered the possibility that even philosophies with non-violence as a central tenet may become corrupted and violent. In other words, extremism (which you have defined as "domestic terrorism" or "violence" for the purposes of this thread) is a bad thing, whether applied by the left, the right, and the nominally non-violent. "Violence" is not a suitable means to ANY ideological end, no matter what part of the political spectrum. Correct?
Right-wing extremism has certainly been the major threat over most of the last 20 years. You can’t take this as vindication of Left-wing extremism. That completely ignores the 60s, 70s and the early 80s, when domestic terrorism stemming from Left-wing Extremism was a far worse threat then Right-wing Extremism of the last 20 years.... it will be a far more destabilizing influence then the current or previous bout of Right Wing extremism.
Quote:So, what about the idea of freedom? Is that not also an ideology which can become tainted with violence and terrorism? A philosophy in which the means might overtake the ends? Can one use widespread terrorism to create "freedom", like the IRA or the Basque separatists? What can be more violent than bombing a few hundred civilians to further a political end?
Your desire to focus solely on Right-Wing extremism as if it exists in a vacuum, does not promote healing of any kind, rather it intensifies the problem. As I said the better way to look at it is to realize that extremism exist on all sides and is pretty much independent of the philosophy. Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
Except maybe bombing tens of thousands?
It seems to me that by YOUR standards... at least, the standards that you expressed in this thread... there are damn few good reasons to apply violence or terrorism, and many otherwise good causes (or potentially good causes) which can become tainted with extremism. A simple logical example of one such cause would be the cause of "freedom".
--------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I await your reply.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's so easy to see the black and white and label it as such, isn't it NOBC.
I choose to live in a world where there are many more than two answers to any given question. You should try it sometime. It will blow your mind.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym the manipulation in your argument was painfully obvious from the very beginning. Yes, I and everyone else get the point you think you’ve so cleverly disguised. You want to accuse the US of terrorism, and me a hypocrite, by pretending the Iraq war is ideological, but it is not, and your whole point is really quite pointless. So there's not really anything to respond to.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uh, what is "shock and awe" except terrorizing a population with vastly superior firepower?
You want to accuse the US of terrorism
Quote:No, just terribly confused.
and me a hypocrite
Quote:Well it wasn't about self-defense, it wasn't about WMD, it wasn't about terrorism, and it wasn't (you say) about oil, so the only remaining reason was to liberate the Iraqi people from a merciless tyrant in the name of freedom. Right? That's a political goal, right?
by pretending the Iraq war is ideological
Quote:You call it manipulation but I call it logic. Your views are so context-sensitive that they can't withstand actually being, yanno, taken at face value. What you see as "good" or "bad" changes drastically depending on WHO you apply the rules to, or what the "cause" is. So when you invited us all to remove context by saying
the manipulation in your argument was painfully obvious from the very beginning.
Quote:what you REALLY meant was ANY IDEA... except that which YOU agree with. If you don't see the point, I'm sure others do.
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No. What I meant was what I said. As usual, you won’t actually listen to what your being told, because you’re not really interested in discussion, just demonizing those you don’t agree with.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which was that ANY IDEA can become the focus for violence and terrorism, which is destabilizing. An idea that I actually agree with! I don't think I'm "demonizing" you at all.
What I meant was what I said. As usual, you won’t actually listen to what your being told, because you’re not really interested in discussion, just demonizing those you don’t agree with.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s the funny thing about you Signym. That’s why I don’t like talking to you. Because even when we find common ground, you will attempt to twist the “meaning” just so you can accuse me of being hypocrite. Like I said, you’re not interested in discussion, just finding reasons to attack people you don’t agree with.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Which was that ANY IDEA can become the focus for violence and terrorism, which is destabilizing. An idea that I actually agree with! So why should I demonize you?
What I meant was what I said.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, but it's a dog & pony show...the Left may be banning trans-fats (hey- Ahnult ain't of the Left) and raising awareness about global climate change, but the Right is where the old money is, hence the power as well.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You choose not to know it, because you don’t want to believe it, but the Left has considerable power in this country
The Left merely enjoys the ability to get the people behind rejecting the wars that the Right has THE POWER to start again and again, IMO.
So the left may have more voices, but they're little ones..........
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn, I'm not "twisting" the meaning at all. I'm taking it at face value and applying it exactly as you said.
you will attempt to twist the “meaning”
Quote:That's a pretty global statement. Seems to me that it was meant to apply across the board, to ALL ideas. Now, perhaps you have unrealized mental reservations or exceptions that conflict with that statement. Perhaps what you meant was "Any idea except the idea of patriotism..." Or maybe what you meant was "...you have become an extremist, unless you're an authority..." ?
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
Anyway, thats enough for today.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s not true. The Right has no more ability to start wars then the Left. And the Left has considerable wealth and very capable to getting their message out. Many of the wealthiest people in this country are Liberals, while the Right is often motivated at a much more grassroots level. That’s part of the reason why the Left is able to form very powerful organizations like NOW and MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org is almost completely funded by a single individual - so there’s no possible way to claim that the Left doesn’t have considerable wealth.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Yeah, but it's a dog & pony show...the Left may be banning trans-fats (hey- Ahnult ain't of the Left) and raising awareness about global climate change, but the Right is where the old money is, hence the power as well.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You choose not to know it, because you don’t want to believe it, but the Left has considerable power in this country
The Left merely enjoys the ability to get the people behind rejecting the wars that the Right has THE POWER to start again and again, IMO.
So the left may have more voices, but they're little ones..........
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn! Moveon is NOT funded by a single person. It was started by two people who initally worked word-of-mouth, and then who created a website. The two people did NOT kick their net worth into Moveon. Moveon has raised tens of millions from SMALL donations. It does NOT have a foundation behind it. If you can't get your logic straight at least get your facts straight! They're too easy to look up!
MoveOn.org is almost completely funded by a single individual - so there’s no possible way to claim that the Left doesn’t have considerable wealth.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay- then the only other answer is that many of the Left AND the Right are really the 'men behind the curtains', in cahoots to rule the world from their shadow government...otherwise how could the likes of Bush & Cheney get away with so much?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
there’s no possible way to claim that the Left doesn’t have considerable wealth.
Power & profit trumps ideologyisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's very heavily funded by some very wealthy individuals. This is what allows MoveOn.org to play a completely partisan roll. MoveOn.org completely refutes the idea that the Left doesn't have wealth enough to be influential.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So...what? They just like doing it more?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not true. The Right has no more ability to start wars then the Left.
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, the monyed fight is between "international capital" and "national capital". International capital likes things smooth. Wars are bad for trade. National capital likes war, that's where they make beaucoup bucks. Clinton was an internationalist. That's why he pushed so hard for NAFTA, CAFTA, and the DMCA. (For which I will never forgive him.) Cheney's net worth OTOH is tied to Halliburton.
The little people have no voice in the doings of the moneyed.
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’ll have to talk to Mulder and Scully about that. A government conspiracy is not really necessary to explain your disagreement with the Bush Administration. Part of the problem here, I think, is that many of you want to use your disagreement with the current administration as an excuse to hate the Right, but the Bush administration is not the Right. Just because you disagree the current right-leaning (in some views) administration doesn’t make the Right full of powerful meanies and the Left full of voiceless nice people. There is plenty of power on both sides. Plenty of meanness and plenty of niceness on both sides.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Okay- then the only other answer is that many of the Left AND the Right are really the 'men behind the curtains', in cahoots to rule the world from their shadow government...otherwise how could the likes of Bush & Cheney get away with so much?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
there’s no possible way to claim that the Left doesn’t have considerable wealth.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Clinton started more wars then Bush.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:So...what? They just like doing it more?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not true. The Right has no more ability to start wars then the Left.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, it isn't. Their operating costs come from donations, as does their PAC money. Two founders (Joan Blades, Wes Boyd) are wealthy (13 million between the two of them) but they do NOT fund Moveon. The third... Eli Pariser, who started an independent website and then joined forces with Moveon... was a dirt-poor student at the time. He also does not fund Moveon.
It's very heavily funded by some very wealthy individuals
---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But not influential enough to stop unnecessary wars, I guess.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
MoveOn.org completely refutes the idea that the Left doesn't have wealth enough to be influential.
Dude, the way I see it, things like MoveOn just bring the overall balance back to the center......look at the whole demonizing of Iraq- NO "left" mainstream media challenge then, just yeah baby, he needs to be stopped (from, y'know, something)!!!!
Stop staring a the individual trees for a moment Finn, and look where we are. It's been Rightyville for a long time now.
Crush, Kill, Destroyisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME