Right Wing Hero Shoots Up Liberal Church by NewOldBrownCoat

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 5:59 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 6:30 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 7:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 7:29 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 7:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It exists in the Media."

Bullshit. If it did the coverage of Obama wouldn't be 80% negative.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 7:47 AM

Quote:
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.

Well put, Finn.
Very Bruce Lee.

Waving Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 7:51 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 8:02 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 8:18 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 8:18 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 8:43 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 8:47 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 10:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 10:56 AM

RIVERLOVE

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 11:30 AM

Quote:
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.

you.

Looks to me like yet another media story favorable to Barack Obama. And another Liberal buying it hook line and sinker.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:11 PM

Quote:
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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:32 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 12:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. For previous CMPA findings on the 2008 elections:
http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election08.htm

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 2:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 2:15 PM

RIVERLOVE

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 2:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 2:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 4:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 2, 2008 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, you're arguing the old ends-means point again, something about which you seem thoroughly inconsistent.

I’m not.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SO AFA extremism is concerned, is it OK to kill 100,000+ in order to steal their oil?

Sure, Signym. Whatever you say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 3:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, what you said was

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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?

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 5:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, I await your reply.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 5:29 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 5:58 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 6:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You want to accuse the US of terrorism

Uh, what is "shock and awe" except terrorizing a population with vastly superior firepower?

Quote:
and me a hypocrite

No, just terribly confused.

Quote:
by pretending the Iraq war is ideological

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?

Quote:
the manipulation in your argument was painfully obvious from the very beginning.

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

Quote:
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.

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.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 6:48 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 6:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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.

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.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What I meant was what I said.
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?

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:09 AM

Quote:
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

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.
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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
you will attempt to twist the “meaning”

Finn, I'm not "twisting" the meaning at all. I'm taking it at face value and applying it exactly as you said.

Quote:
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.

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..." ?

Anyway, thats enough for today.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
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
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.
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..........

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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.

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!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
there’s no possible way to claim that the Left doesn’t have considerable wealth.

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?

Power & profit trumps ideologyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:47 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not true. The Right has no more ability to start wars then the Left.

So...what? They just like doing it more?

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
there’s no possible way to claim that the Left doesn’t have considerable wealth.

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?

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not true. The Right has no more ability to start wars then the Left.
So...what? They just like doing it more?

Clinton started more wars then Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's very heavily funded by some very wealthy individuals

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.

---------------------------------
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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 3, 2008 7:58 AM