“A quick question for you to ponder, ladies and gentlemen. How do we know which side in this war John Kerry is on? In the last war he was with the enemy, met with them, lied for them before a Senate committee. How do we really know what side he is on?”

You’ve got to admit that wingnut sites are much better at that eliminationist and genocidal rhetoric than we are. I mean sometimes liberal site posters wonder what would happen if someone in power died, but for general, unbridled “kill all the Muslims” rhetoric you can’t beat wingnuts.

It seems to me that the problem with Redstate or any of the other derivative sites is not that they have hateful speech. They do. The problem is that if you oppose that speech, you are booted from the site. Tell me how that supports democratic institutions.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768267/posts

“Mr. President, in light of the comments by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), it is important that there be such an examination of the political activities and associations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., principally from the beginning of his work in the civil rights movement in the mid 1950s until his death in 1968. Throughout this period, but especially toward the beginning and end of his career, King associated with identified members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA),with persons who were former members of or close to the CPUSA, and with CPUSA front organizations… Throughout his career King, unlike many other civil rights leaders of his time, associated with the most extreme political elements in the United States. He addressed their organizations, signed their petitions, and invited them into his own organizational activities. Extremist elements played a significant role in promoting and influencing King’s opposition to the Vietnam war – an opposition that was not predicated on what King believed to be in the best interests of the United States but on his sympathy for the North Vietnamese Communist regime and on an essentially Marxist and anti-American ideological view of U.S. foreign policy.”

“King’s patterns of associations and activities described in this report show that, at the least, he had no strong objection to Communism, that he appears to have welcomed collaboration with Communists, and that he and his principal vehicle, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), were subject to influence and manipulation by Communists. The conclusion must be that Martin Luther King, Jr. was either an irresponsible individual, careless of his own reputation and that of the civil rights movement for integrity and loyalty, or that he knowingly cooperated and sympathized with subversive and totalitarian elements under the control of a hostile foreign power.”

– Sen. Jesse Helms, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, October 3, 1983

Well, you could start with one of LGF’s staples: photos of Palestinians rushing to the site of an Israeli military attack. Have you never seen one of these posts?

Oh really? The only time Kos has removed such comments is when it affected him personally. The kind of invective I have read there remains there – hateful as anything that appears on sites like FreeRepublic.

and on LGF the comments are endorsed and encouraged by the site’s owner.

I call bullshit on this one. I’d like to see some evidence of him encouraging and endorsing such language.

I’d rather have seen the guy compare what O’Reilly is doing (highlighting a few out of context anonymous forum posts) with what Billo always bitches and moans about with Media Matters. He whines that the eeeeevil Soros-funded Media Matters takes a 3-second clip from a 2-hour show and says that it represents O’Reilly. But at least those 3 seconds were words that actually come from Billo’s mouth. Billo’s pull quotes come from who-knows-where, certainly not kos or any of the other frontpagers or rated diarists. So what Billo is doing is actually far WORSE than the behavior he mewls about from MM.