’)The conservative blogs are enraged that people are pointing out that they have and are stoking the fires of an atmosphere of hate that leads to police officers getting killed. As I’ve written for years, this is part of their pattern of behavior in America and for too long we’ve accepted their verbal diarrhea and incitements to violence as honest political dialogue and not the insanity it is.
UPDATE: Ooooh, this one clearly rankles old Insty, because he actually responded… Oh, no he didn’t. He called me a “shill” for Media Matters and accused me of being on a listserv. Its days like this I’m glad that when I was deciding what side of the political aisle I wanted to be on, I didn’t make the same mistake as Glenn Reynolds and choose the one where we encourage people to shoot cops. Also, kind of funny for Reynolds to call me a shill when he spent years writing articles for a lobbyist and is a key figurehead in the joke that is “PajamasTV”. But whatever, this clearly annoyed The Prickly One.
UPDATE 2: Reynolds has updated his post again. First, “Jim Treacher emails”. Funny, this isn’t the first time that has happened. In the past Reynolds has forwarded me attacks that Jim Treacher, who last I checked is some kind of comedy writer for the unfunny RedEye show on Fox News (apparently Treacher doesn’t write for Red Eye, but wrote a blog for the unfunny guy who hosts the ridiculously unfunny Redeye or some crap that I don’t care about, but I do know for sure Treacher sends cowardly emails to Reynolds about me), sent to him. Apparently they’re some kind of email buddies and Treacher isn’t the guy who can’t talk to your face without big bad Instapundit to back him up.
Then, Reynolds characterizes himself as “an early booster of Oliver Willis’s blogging career”. Hmmm. I started blogging a while before he did, and in the aftermath of 9/11 we linked back and forth. We agreed on the invasion of Afghanistan, but when Reynolds started advocating for the invasion of Iraq and calling those who were against it pro-Saddam anti-Americans I and others called that out for the bullshit it is and was. Reynolds, as is the usual tactic from him and the right, tries somehow to change history and make out that when I began working for Media Matters it changed my outlook on things. Oh, to be as intellectually dishonest as Glenn Harland Reynolds and have to look at yourself in the mirror every morning, knowing that you’ve built an entire media persona and career filled with excrement and that you’re past the point of no return on it. I would have sympathy for him, but he signed up for it on his own and churns out swill every day without anybody compelling him to.
Furthermore, Reynolds has an almost patholigical aversion to pushing out his own position and instead hides behind others. My guess is he does it because he’s wrong so often and get called on it, it must be easier to just link to someone and say “Heh. Read the whole thing.” Or say “so and so emailed me to say x”. Some of us, especially some of us liberals, have the balls to put our own opinions up and stand behind them.
Not to pat myself on the back – but I will anyways – I am one of those people.
ALSO: Don Surber jumps on Reynolds idiot train as well, doing the conservative thing they always do by trying to use a totally unrelated recent event as comparison. Surber’s argument is that because I didn’t write about the shooting in Oakland, somehow I can’t write about this one. Does the right understand that we are completely on to this silly game of theirs? We’ve watched it for years. The mainstream media laps up this “two sides” bull, but we don’t.
The shooting in Oakland was horrible, but the guy who did it was just a bad guy. The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.
August notes: “Wow, Oliver, you know you’ve pissed off Instapundit when he has to link to five other people’s thoughts.” Heh. Indeed.
A writer at Volokh report cites happiness studies to try and prove that people on Fox News haven’t been pushing paranoia about Obama being anti-gun (which is what I and others have ben saying). Or something. Oh, conservatives…. distraction is the name of the game.
God forbid Republicans/conservatives take responsibility for any of their actions, ever.
I’ll repeat what I said in another area:
The left is shamelessly exploiting the death of three cops in an attempt to silence those they don’t like. That’s it. You can try to polish a turd all you want, but it doesn’t work.
The left has tried it before, and they’ll try it again. They care about nothing but advancing their own warped agenda and if it means exploiting the tragic deaths of cops to try and silence conservative voices, that’s what they will do.
wait are we here monitoring “evil right wing neocon media?”
I’m pretty sure technically these guys are “paleocons.”
Jay Caruso: “You can try to polish a turd all you want, but it doesn’t work.”
Actually, the Mythbusters proved it does work.
Moving on…
“The left has tried it before, and they’ll try it again. They care about nothing but advancing their own warped agenda and if it means exploiting the tragic deaths of cops to try and silence conservative voices, that’s what they will do.”
Were you paying attention to the last 8 years? How many times did Republicans use 9/11 to their political advantage?
The Right exploits tragedy by lying about it and trying to destroy decent people. That’s what they do, and what they are. Real Americans point out the consequences of the Right’s evil, and assholes like Jay object. Go to hell, Jay. You’ll be right at home.
All this apocalyptic talk and eliminationist rhetoric from the right has consequences, as we’re seeing.
Of course, they feign outrage when they get called on it. Just as they did with Timothy McVeigh, and the Oklahoma City bombing.
The left is shamelessly exploiting the death of three cops in an attempt to silence those they don’t like.
Meanwhile, you decided the best thing to do in response to 3,000 people being murdered was get The Dixie Chicks off the air. No wonder you have no idea what responsibility looks like.
Would you care to explain what on earth you’re talking about when you say “exploiting”? Are supposed to cluck disapprovingly, wring our hands, and look away?
Sorry. No.
This sphincter bought what FOX News and the neo-libertarian mess that’s been posing as conservatism sold for a long, long time now. It’s blindingly obvious. What you say in public has consequences, and “just kidding” doesn’t cut it anymore. Don’t whine when your inflammatory rhetoric gets met with the disgust it deserves. You have the right to say whatever you’d like in public. You don’t have the right to be protected from the consequences of your actions.
Here’s the deal. There have been moments in history when either the right or the left have incited chaos and lawlessness to support their political ends. Sixties radicals who built bombs and rioted in the streets were rightfully spurned. When the right begins inciting, they should be likewise spurned. Failure to do so now will only lead to bigger problems down the road.
If the conservative commenters here can’t at least renounce this kind of talk to save the once proud Republican party, at least they can do it to support the country they claim to love.
Yeah, so what if we call Obama a gun-grabbing socialist on every talk show in America, plus Fox News. We didn’t think anyone would, you know, believe us.
Warped agenda?
Like telling Americans that Barack The Magic Negro is a closet-Muslim who is coming to take their guns and establish a one-world currency?
During the 90’s, this was fringer bullshit. Now? It’s mainstream Republicanism/conservatism.
Shit your diapers all you want Jay Caruso, but you own this one.
You can try to polish a turd all you want, but it doesn’t work.
You know that doesn’t make any sense, don’t you?
I’ll repeat what I said in another area:
The left is shamelessly exploiting the death of three cops in an attempt to silence those they don’t like. That’s it. You can try to polish a turd all you want, but it doesn’t work.
The left has tried it before, and they’ll try it again. They care about nothing but advancing their own warped agenda and if it means exploiting the tragic deaths of cops to try and silence conservative voices, that’s what they will do.
And I’ll repeat what I posted in another area:
Oh, I’m sorry, Jay. How rude of me to interrupt. You were saying?
Ed: “Oh, I’m sorry, Jay. How rude of me to interrupt. You were saying?”
Those that complain about the ‘Blame Game’ are usually those who are to blame.
Where’s all the outrage at the officers killed in Oakland, you know the one where people marched in the street calling the killer a “hero?”
Do those on the left “own” that one? What about Ayers, who is directly responsible for the killing of an officer? Do you “own” that one, too?
What this reveals is the infantile attitude and intelligence level of the above posters. So wrapped up in your warped ideology, you will grasp at anything to tar and feather those who do not share your views.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I do not care for either party. So, you can blast me all you want, call me all the names you want, and dismiss me out of hand. I’m used to it. It’s the normal reaction: When you can’t argue using facts, you attack your opponent.
Take a good, long, hard look in the mirror. You are guilty of what you ridicule others for. Own that.
Steve: “Where’s all the outrage at the officers killed in Oakland, you know the one where people marched in the street calling the killer a ‘hero?’”
When did this happen?
“Do those on the left ‘own’ that one? What about Ayers, who is directly responsible for the killing of an officer? Do you ‘own’ that one, too?”
About the same time as Ayers?
“I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I do not care for either party. So, you can blast me all you want, call me all the names you want, and dismiss me out of hand. I’m used to it.”
Poisoning the Well.
“It’s the normal reaction: When you can’t argue using facts, you attack your opponent.”
I’ll see your Argumentum ad Hominem and raise you a Tu Quoque from above.
Just to take a slightly different tack, I think it’s interesting, sort of, that Instapundit doesn’t allow comments, although it’s moments like this where you can pretty much see why. Also, Steve, I’m pretty sure the cops killed in Oakland weren’t exaclty analgous to this particular situation, and also I’m pretty sure that the Ayers thing happened, and I’m just guessing here, about 30 years ago. I honestly think you’d be better off trying to make the case that this guy wasn’t egged on by the more hysterical elements of the Right. I’m not saying you’d be successful or anything, just that I’m fairly sure that your mom, much like mine and almost everyone else’s, told you that two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Do those on the left “own” that one?”
Why would liberals “own” that on a political basis? It wasn’t a political act. And let’s not forget…you rightists cheered the organization that held that march when they heckeled Obama last year…remember?
Oliver, seriously, you have the stupidest trolls on the Internet.
A.
Exploiting = telling the truth about it. Look, I want the right in America to own up to the hateful stupidity it is, but I don’t want anybody to die thanks to their rhetoric. Those of you already in the tank don’t care about the consequences, McVeighs of the world be damned, but there are some who may be tempted by the rank simplicity of right-wing arguments. If exposing this stuff moves them off the fence, the better for the world.
Sean Hannity’s Fox show had a “New World Order” chyron on thursay’s episode
“this guy wasn’t egged on by the more hysterical elements of the Right”
When a liberal media figure goes on and tells Americans that they should murder cops who are coming to take away their solar panels, you’d have a point.
Glenn Beck and Comrade Rush telling Americans to be afraid of their oogity-boogity NEGRO president?
Yeah, they share some blame here.
But Republicans love to play the false equivalence game. And they always lose.
Funny but I don’t remember any of the “liberal media” or member of the Democratic congress recently going on television talking about “Armed responses” and open revolution. The cop killing in Oakland didn’t happen because Keith Olbermann told disaffected left wing thugs to take up arms. Did he?
So spin the hell out of this thing with all the “look over theres” that you want. This is tragically the wingnuts proverbial chickens coming home to roost–only they never dreamed one of their chickens would kill three cops, devastate three families and a whole city because they spouted their bile day after day.
To riff off of “Jay,” the gun extremist:
The right “is shamelessly exploiting” and exploited any number of things: the deaths of several thousand on 9/11 to lie US into an unnecessary war (Iraq), the use of that war to violate the Constitution, torture people, commit war crimes, commit unlawful surveillance, and even profit from that war even while demanding a tax cut during two costly wars and an exploding debt (Republican Bush almost doubled the US debt).
The right “has tried it before, and they’ll try it again. They care about nothing but advancing their own warped agenda and if it means” ignoring the deaths of over 4,266 American troops or a few American law enforcement officers “that’s what they will do.”
And if anyone calls them on their sick, murderous sociopathy they will “try and silence” those “voices.”
O’Reilly: “cut his mike!” “shut up!” “shut up!” “shut up!” “shut up!” “shut up!”
This is why I responded to Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s Huffpo commentary last week…. where he tried to say that Limbaugh and Co. were no big deal.
http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2009/03/earl-ofari-hutchinson-is-dead-wrong-on.html
I’m building a Right Wing Media page…. which will include all the major incidents of violence in recent years that were the result of the atmosphere whipped up and encouraged in part by Right Wing hosts and pundits. I’ll be adding the Pittsburgh incident as well.
http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2007/12/another-look-at-recent-events.html
P.S.
I’m also looking for someone who can redesign my blog header…. I really don’t have much money to work with. I’ll respond to any offers.
“Exploiting = telling the truth about it.”
Glad to hear you’re not using the murder of police officers to try to silence people you don’t like.
“Look, I want the right in America to own up to the hateful stupidity it is, but I don’t want anybody to die thanks to their rhetoric.”
So you think the Beatles should have been locked up with Charles Manson.
Hey, what’s your stance on violent video games? You’re in favor of banning them, presumably.
Athenae: “Oliver, seriously, you have the stupidest trolls on the Internet.”
That’s probably why many of us come here.
That’s probably why many of us come here.
It is one of those perverse incentives of the internet that weblogs benefit from the fact that people like Jay Tea are completely nuts and impervious to reason. If he made sensible arguments and responded to facts, we’d probably ignore him. As it is, it’s much more interesting to mock his stupidity and right wing delusions.
Wow, how wonderful to see liberals leaping to the defense of the police. I guess the days of championing cop-killers and would-be cop-killers like Mumia El-Jamal and Bill Ayers and Leonard Peltier are finally history, and we can forget the long history of the phrase “off the pigs!”
Pity this sympathy for the cops didn’t come around in time for the OJ Simpson trial or the LA riots triggered by the Rodney King incident…
J.
All you can do is try and change the subject. Unbelievable. Not even a modicum of ability to address any of the issues at hand.
Ladies and Gentlemen I present to you, Jay — shining representative of modern conservatism ca. 2009. Empty, idiotic, and too much of a coward to respond to any substantive argument against the hate-filled, anti-American right he’s part and parcel of.
Wow, another false equivalence from JT. He lists 3 “cop killers”, but doesn’t tell the reader that the support for these people “from the left” is because 2 of them may not have gotten a fair trial and Ayers, well I don’t know exactly who is supporting him, but he wasn’t convicted of cop killing either.
And yet not JT or any of these people can condemn the hate speech that led to this tragedy. Shameful, if they can feel shame. I vote for sociopath.
Wow, Oliver, you know you’ve pissed off Instapundit when he has to link to five other people’s thoughts.
J.G.Thayer: “Wow, how wonderful to see liberals leaping to the defense of the police. I guess the days of championing cop-killers and would-be cop-killers like Mumia El-Jamal and Bill Ayers and Leonard Peltier are finally history, and we can forget the long history of the phrase ‘off the pigs!’”
Translation: “LOOK OVER THERE!”
“Pity this sympathy for the cops didn’t come around in time for the OJ Simpson trial…”
Huh? How was the O.J.Simpson trial political?
“…or the LA riots triggered by the Rodney King incident…”
Ummm… The cops were the bad guys in the Rodney King incident.
From the General Social Survey via here: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1239009165
“General Social Survey data showing that the odds of a Democrat or Independent reporting having been arrested or charged with a crime are 122% higher than the odds of a Republican reporting being arrested or charged with a crime. Among those who report having been arrested or charged, only 12% are Republicans. The others are 9% Independent, leaning Republican; 18% Independent (no leans); 18% Independent, leaning Democratic; 40% Democrats. (Of course, arrest is not the same as offending or conviction, but the political makeup is likely to be in the same general direction.)
“I am aware of no data on the party identification of murderers in general or of cop-killers in particular, but there is no reason to suppose that the political orientation of cop-killers is any more Republican than the general criminal population, which everyone assumes (and GSS data indirectly suggests) is disproportionately Democratic.”
I’m an Independent so I’m not in great company. The fact tho in all this is, I’m not in any company. Oliver Willis reminds me of the Clinton administration after the Oklahoma City bombing trying to blame conservative talk radio. Its bankrupt and the lowest.
Wow…congrats OW on getting Reynolds to acknowlege your existence. Your life’s work is complete.
I don’t like the tone of any talking head who advocates violence – left or right. I’ve switched to music (or changed the channel) more than once listening to some talking head who starts getting a bit too “excited” about things whether it be Limbaugh or Olbermann.
Here’s the thing, folks. If you don’t see that you are committing a huge sampling error here then you are simply *not* being honest with yourself. You can “prove” to yourself that the right wing is filled with homicidal maniacs by taking quotes (real or not) from, well, right wing homicidal maniacs and playing them over and over in your head (or on the “Angry Independent’s web site). You can then extend your categorization to all Republicans then to all Conservatives and really get a good boiling hate on for *millions* of people.
And the more extreme members of the right wing can do the same thing by oversampling Mumia-defenders, the Socialist World Workers party and, well, left-wing homicidal maniacs.
Seriously, systematically oversampling wingnuttery to stoke your hatred and systematically undersampling the hard-left wackos to justify them is no way to go through life.
Oh, and if you need a blanket statement from a Conservative condemning this nut-job who killed the cops then I’m absolutely there: killing police out of some delusional, misguided belief that you are striking a blow against Obama’s policies is evil – plain and simple. Encouraging anyone to kill, assault or intimidate a political opponent is wrong and to be condemned in the strongest language. Any self-justification that Conservative principles are worth defending through violence violates the central belief of Conservatives in an *ordered* liberty that is best advanced through limited government and the rule of law. There are no exceptions.
I have every faith that Conservatives will beat your “arguments” (such as they are) by superior argumentation and by the repeated demonstration that a system of ordered liberty and limited government produces superior outcomes to the statism and collectivism that you promote.
Well, quite the kerfuffle. So it appears that we have a crazed gunman who, upon hearing the invective spewed forth on the Internet and on television everyday, decided to kill a few cops. I was wondering when this might finally happen.
It seems to me neither side of the political aisle has been conducting themselves very well these days. If anyone here believes that overheated rhetoric is solely the province of the other guys, you aren’t reading enough. Just because today’s crazy happens to be of the conservative bent does not mean that tomorrow’s will not be of the liberal bent. I do seem to recall Olby routinely castigating both Bush and Cheney as fascists, after all – and what should be done with fascists? A cuddle and hug, perhaps? I think not.
Face it, the level of political discourse in our country has reached its nadir. For either a Republican or a Democrat to stand up and claim that it is really the other side that holds a monopoly on vile and dangerous invective is rather stupid. We all share the blame for the presently rough levels of our discourse. The proof of this is on display right here. I read not a jot, not a single word, in sympathy of the slain officers, but plenty about how it was the responsibility of political talking heads.
I always figured one day someone would actually take action based on the words of others. Perhaps, just maybe, we should *all* take this as a lesson, dial down our rhetoric and start treating one another with a bit more respect. It cannot possibly be that *everyone* who disagrees with us politically is some type of evil monster. It cannot possibly be that everyone on the other side is a proto-fascist, hell bent on destroying the country we love. Sorry, but it just isn’t logical to think this.
Here’s an idea: let’s start acting like adults, who understand that our actions, and our words, have consequences. That might be a refreshing change.
For some weird reason, I haven’t heard from the good people at the NRA about this latest shooting, like the astute Wayne LaPierre, who once blamed gun violence on Bill Clinton (“That death is on the president’s hands.”) He also claimed that Clinton willingly accepted a certain level of gun violence and killing to advance a gun-control agenda.
So when Richard Poplawski writes,
just remember that it’s not the fault of any good and decent NRA or Glenn Beck or the rest of the Truth Tellers, it’s on Bill Clinton and B. Hussein Obama, and the rest of the Marxists who want to take our guns by way of more events like this. See?
Oh, and a reminder:
http://crooksandliars.com/node/26768/print
It’s the same as the Christian Right’s hatred against gays. They hide behind the love the sinner, hate the sin excuse but the angry guy on the barstool doesn’t see the distinction.
from Volokh-”… General Social Survey data showing that the odds of a Democrat or Independent reporting having been arrested or charged with a crime are 122% higher than the odds of a Republican reporting being arrested or charged with a crime. Among those who report having been arrested or charged, only 12% are Republicans. The others are 9% Independent, leaning Republican; 18% Independent (no leans); 18% Independent, leaning Democratic; 40% Democrats.”
122% higher. About says it all about Democrats, dunnit? 122% higher. The cops ain’t worried about us right wingers.
You should probably know that you are being vivisected over at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1239004924).
They are using real research and established fact to critique your rant so it will be kind of hard to refute. Since you are “Like Kryptonite to Stupid,” however, I have no doubt that you will have a suitable response.
I second the observation on the cop-killers Mummia, Ayers and Peltier. I would also add the clown in Oakland a couple of weeks ago and all of the dirtbags nationwide who kill cops every year. The point is is that the persons political persuasion doesn’t matter. Anybody who kills a cop is a psychopath and needs to be put down. At least we on the right don’t celebrate the f…er in film and song and talk about how “oppressed” he was.
He called me a “shill” for Media Matters
InstaPseudoLibertarian needs to look the definition of “shill.”
I dunno, link farmer Glenn raised some good points. I mean, he threw two con buzz phrases into one insult (media matters shill and journolist). My goodness, who can argue with that bulletproof logic?
I guess the days of championing cop-killers and would-be cop-killers like Mumia El-Jamal and Bill Ayers and Leonard Peltier are finally history, and we can forget the long history of the phrase “off the pigs!”
And which popular liberal commentators, politicians and respected spokespeople expressed these sentiments?
Oh, that’s right. These were private citizens with no access to TV and radio stations and editorial pages and who were not paid for their opinions, just like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter! I’m sure you are supportive of their First Amendment right to say something you do not agree with and that you decried the hate campaign against the Dixie Chicks for having the temerity to dislike the president far short of calling for armed rebellion.
As if.
The people responsible for the acts of violence are… the people committing the acts of violence. Doesn’t seem like many in this thread have come to grips with that – too busy transferring blame for political opportunity and validation.
To believe that but for the rhetoric of the right or left those committing these acts would be normal, rational people is itself irrational and naive.
Pardon the interruption, please go back to reinforcing warped, shallow, illogical conclusions.
Isn’t Glenn Reynolds a government employee? Doesn’t that make him a welfare recipient without a job?
According to Republican Steele, government “work” isn’t “work” so by the Republican definition Glenn Reynolds doesn’t have a job, he just receives a welfare check to be lazy.
Does anyone regularly drug test Glenn Reynolds? Isn’t that what the Republicans have insisted on? That lazy welfare recipients like Glenn Reynolds get regularly drug tested?
Doesn’t Reynolds need to show regular proof that he’s looking for a real job? Sitting blogging all day is clearly a sign that he’s not doing anything useful.
Your government dollars at work: wingnut welfare for job impaired right wingers.
Republican Logic: “Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.”
Terrorist’s allies: “Jay Tea,” “Jay,” “Dennis,” and “SaveFarris.”
Each one made the point of minimizing Republican John McCain’s admiration for murderous right wingterrorist G Gordon Liddy.
And to think, McCain’s the “best” of the Republicans. Explains a lot.
Truth stings indeed.
[...] (Daily Kos) Oliver Willis Andrew Sullivan John Cole Taylor Marsh Firedoglake digby Dave [...]
Good ol’ InstaCracker.
Of course, Jay ID Tea neglects to mention Randy Weaver and David Koresh who were championed by the NRA and assorted GOP pundits. Of course, both are white guys–so it was ok.
Another point, in the case of both Pelletier and Mumia, nobody is condoning the murders involved. Instead, the issue concerned the fairness of the trials. Conversely, conservatives have defended Randy Weaver and David Koresh on the basis that their killings of law enforcement officers were justified.
Funny that you had nothing to say about the nut that killed four cops in Oakland having Marxist views. Or the loads of degenerate black racists that celebrate this sicko as a hero. Just……funny, ya know.
The second sickest group of people are those that will take some random nut of any political affiliation, and exploit it for their own gain. You have crossed that line. And you chose to ignore it when it was one of “your people” that killed a few cops.
Despicable.
If you snap and kill cops, it’s because you are crazy. Plain and simple. The Pittsburgh wacko and the wacko in Oakland – just crazy.
What complete twaddle. Verbal pablum. This is the silliest thread I’ve ever seen.
Funny that you had nothing to say about the nut that killed four cops in Oakland having Marxist views.
You know this how? And he was a respected spokesperson for which TV or radio station?
Your mama just called. Breakfast is ready.
Funny that you had nothing to say about the nut that killed four cops in Oakland having Marxist views. Or the loads of degenerate black racists that celebrate this sicko as a hero. Just……funny, ya know.
Relevant links would greatly bolster you otherwise impotent argument. Something to the effect of:
http://crooksandliars.com/node/26768/print
for example.
And if you could stay on topic, that would help even more (i.e., influential and celebrated pundits encouraging crazy shit).
Good luck, and thanks in advance. And have fun at the Stormfront meetings.
Oh, and a reminder:
http://crooksandliars.com/node/26768/print ed
It amazes me how you and others point to this obliteration-of-the-truth blog post by Dave Niewert as the smoking gun that solves the mystery of why this nutcase decided to kill police officers and who set him for it.
Here’s the transcript of the conversation between Glenn Beck and Wayne LaPierre, ed. Nowhere and at no time did Beck and LaPierre “warn of insidious Obama plot to grab our guns“, as Niewert titles his blog post. And neither does Beck ever “spin around and hysterically call for the torch-bearing mob to come get you“, as he ends the blog post.
These two mainly discuss the fallacy, since debunked by the NRA as a lie, that 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. Niewert treats that grossly overstated 90% figure as a truism…. either he is guilty of relying on poorly informed sources, or he is lying. At the very least, he is guilty of the same “apocalyptic shrieking, weeping, and teeth-gnashing” that he spends every single day of his life writing about and accusing Glenn Beck of doing.
His blog post doesn’t indict anybody except himself. Along with you guys here who repeat it is as some kind of proof that your lunatic fantasies deserve merit and recognition.
These right wing boobs are lucky they aren’t real boobs because they never do any self-examination and would surely have suffered cancer long ago.
What’s one to think when G-list comedy writer Treacher accuses Oliver of trying to score cheap political points when he writes for Red-Eye, a show which thrives on cheap shots like it’s a college student and actually generates less laughs than NBC’s Joey.
Douches.
From Washington Monthly:
Edward Perkovic said Poplawski, his best friend, feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.”
Thanks for playing, Dennis.
We’ve gone from Bush Derangement Syndrome to Beck Derangement Syndrome.
Jim Treacher: So you think the Beatles should have been locked up with Charles Manson.
I just love this argument. I’d like anyone on the right (Jay, Jay Tea, Dennis, anyone?) to explain to me just what the connection is between the Beatles and Manson. You’re going to say “Helter Skelter”, right? Hmmm.
You want to show us just where in that the Beatles are advocating the murder of anyone?
Either show us, or admit it’s a bullshit argument. My bet: They’ll do neither and just change the subject.
The only one I see stoking flames of hate here is YOU, Oliver. Instead of arguing the facts, you resort to name-calling and ridicule. It’s children like you who drove me away from the Left more than a decade ago. Grow up.
If the cop-killer in Oakland was just a “bad guy”, then why can’t the same be true for the cop-killer in Pittsburgh? Why is it only incitement from the Right that drives unstable listeners around the bend, and not incitement from the Left?
Those are rhetorical questions, I won’t waste any more time here.
since debunked by the NRA as a lie
Hahhahhahaha. That’s sort of like saying “cured by bleeding” or “Bernie Madoff was a financial whiz.”
Volokh? Come now, the guy supports torture.
BTW, I rather enjoyed InstaCracker taking a potshot at JornoList. Especially considering InstaCracker is a member of a similar listserv group featuring NRA staffers.
Jay Tea: Wow, how wonderful to see liberals leaping to the defense of the police. I guess the days of championing cop-killers and would-be cop-killers like Mumia El-Jamal and Bill Ayers and Leonard Peltier are finally history, and we can forget the long history of the phrase “off the pigs!”
Pity this sympathy for the cops didn’t come around in time for the OJ Simpson trial or the LA riots triggered by the Rodney King incident…
Do you really have such a narrow-minded, myopic, us vs them view that you can only see it as on one side and hippie, liberal scum on the other? Does putting on a police uniform immediately confer sainthood?
Those defending El-Jamal and Peltier are objecting to their treatment at trial and are calling for justice and fairness. I’m sure you could find someone praising them for (allegedly) having “offed some cops!” but there are, of course, outliers in everything. The vast majority of people are not praising them for their actions but objecting to the injustice of their treatment.
Peletier, for example, has been supported by Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Amnesty International, the Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, and many other people and groups of similar ilk. Are you going to claim any of them are glad when cops are shot?
There is a consistency in supporting El-Jamal and objecting to the right-wing rhetoric that influenced the recent cop killer. A respect for truth and justice and law that Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh and their advocates just don’t share.
I read Surbers post (thanks for the link) and your characterization of his argument is false.
“ALSO: Don Surber jumps on Reynolds idiot train as well, doing the conservative thing they always do by trying to use a totally unrelated recent event as comparison. Surber’s argument is that because I didn’t write about the shooting in Oakland, somehow I can’t write about this one.”
His point was you are a hypocrite using tragedy as a political football when it suits your political objectives and ignoring facts that undermine them. He in fact states outright:
“But Willis has the right to remain silent.”
And in this case hes right.
MEC2: The people responsible for the acts of violence are… the people committing the acts of violence. Doesn’t seem like many in this thread have come to grips with that – too busy transferring blame for political opportunity and validation.
To believe that but for the rhetoric of the right or left those committing these acts would be normal, rational people is itself irrational and naive.
Yes, people are ultimately responsible for their own choices and actions. This holds true for the person firing on cops as it does for those who are advocating people to do just that.
Would those committing these acts “be normal, rational people” if they had never heard any right-wing talking points? Probably not. But they did and it’s unrealistic and irrational to argue that they were not influenced in their actions by what they were told.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here argue the shooter isn’t responsible for his actions. But lots of calls for those who advocated violence and hatred to be held responsible for theirs as well.
Why do you have such a strong objection to that?
[Apologies if this posted multiple times. Seem to be having connection issues.]
MEC2: The people responsible for the acts of violence are… the people committing the acts of violence. Doesn’t seem like many in this thread have come to grips with that – too busy transferring blame for political opportunity and validation.
To believe that but for the rhetoric of the right or left those committing these acts would be normal, rational people is itself irrational and naive.
Yes, people are ultimately responsible for their own choices and actions. This holds true for the person firing on cops as it does for those who are advocating people to do just that.
Would those committing these acts “be normal, rational people” if they had never heard any right-wing talking points? Probably not. But they did and it’s unrealistic and irrational to argue that they were not influenced in their actions by what they were told.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone here argue the shooter isn’t responsible for his actions. But lots of calls for those who advocated violence and hatred to be held responsible for theirs as well.
Why do you have such a strong objection to that?
[...] were being mean to them: “You killed these police officers. It’s all your fault.” As Oliver notes, the Instawanker has been thrashing about angrily [...]
Lindgren is throwing out a large red herring. Criminals are more likely to be Dems than Repugs? This factoid is meaningless unless you can break down the splits by the crime being committed.
Look, there’s little question most of the acts of home-grown terrorism committed in this country were committed by folks who hated liberals (Adkisson, Unabomber) or were inspired by the NRA/GOP (mcVeigh, Poplawski).
One conservative comeback to this is that there are more Democrats in jail than Republicans. They’re implying that being a Democrat influences one to commit crimes. But Democrats aren’t the types to suggest that people should arm themselves and prepare for revolution. They don’t suggest that the government wants to take away their guns. These are all things a number of conservative talkers say. There is a direct causal relationship between right-wing leaders implying a need for armed revolution, and some people taking that seriously and acting on it.
The actual relationship between crime and Democratic party ID is that they are both spurred by poverty. Living in poverty increases one’s tendency to commit crime, because of social dysfunction or desperation. It also increases one’s tendency to be a Democrat, because Democrats favor policies that help lift people out of poverty.
Could someone please tell me when Beck, O’Reilly, or Hannity ever advocated killing cops? When and who advocated killing cops?
You people are just making s**t up now. I enjoyed this blog, and even the snarky comments on occasion, but this is just too d**n much. Attributing the actions of one nut that flipped because a dog peed on his carpet or something to some “right wing talk conspiracy” is utterly ridiculous. And to state such a thing costs you much credibility. BTW, volokh tore this blog a new a**hole. And you look bad now. Conservatives as a whole are more supportive of law enforcement than the left ever has been or will be. And I say this as a son of an officer shot in the line of duty some time ago. The remarks on this blog are despicable, disgusting, and flat-out wrong.
You have embarrassed yourself, ow. With one post, you’ve gone from reasonable liberal to opportunistic political kook.
Congratulations.
Has any wingnut tried to pin the latest shootings on the lack of the Ten Commandments posted in our schools yet, as prominent Republicans very quickly did after Columbine?
Has Wayne LaPierre of the NRA put directly blamed these latest shootings on a Democratic President, as he did President Clinton for a shooting (“he has blood on his hands”–classy)?
Has the NRA yet said that President Obama willingly accepts a certain level of gun violence, as they did of President Clinton?
Has the head of the NRA dropped some batshit crazy racism and blamed the rash of gun violence on “mixed ethnicity”?
Thanks again, wingnuts. Keep defending the indefensible.
When and who advocated killing cops?
Thanks for proving the reality-based point, you stupid, stupid person. You really should go Galt at your earliest convenience. Have fun!
The comments are even more hilarious than the original post. Republicans, of course, did nothing to cause these or any other shootings. Everyone here knows that, despite what they write. Everyone here also knows, if they’re paying attention, that it’s Democrats who foment distrust of law enforcement, which may be because, as Jim Lindgren points out, it’s Democrats who are more likely to commit crimes.
But it’s been fun watching your communal efforts at distraction (“Look over there, a bird!”)
Wow, they really don’t see it.
Their goddamnned elected representatives can talk about Obama reeducation camps, their media – on their biggest, most important media outlet – can use nazi imagery when talking about the President of the United States (!), others can point out that you should aim for the head when the ATF shows up, their bloggers can talk about wanting to come drag people out into the streets and beat them…
And they really, truly don’t see it. I’m just really sort of flabbergasted.
Accused cop-killer Richard Poplawski spent hours posting racist messages on an extremist right-wing Web site, decrying blacks and Latinos and warning of forthcoming economic collapse fueled by the “Zionist occupation” of America, an expert in political extremism has determined.
{…}
An account kept on Stormfront, a gathering place for racial extremists and others from the far-right show Mr. Poplawski’s increasing belief in a coming economic and political collapse in the days leading up to the time of the deadly standoff in which he is charged with killing three Pittsburgh police officers.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09096/960938-100.stm
————————————————————–
He was clearly a neocon, Fox News guy. Either that or a Columbia Middle-East Studies major.
deranged progressive andrew mickel executed an officer with a bullet to the back of the head after posting an anti-bush manefesto on the liberal website, indymedia.
marxist npr personality, mumia abu jamal, executed a police officer in 1981. since then he sits on death row enjoying the support of the mainstream left.
these are just two. mumia was political and received the poilitical support of the left, the former was a political act.
the poplawski shooting was over a dog pissing on a rug.
I also forgot to add to what someone mentioned about most criminals being Democrats..I worked as a street cop for over 10 years in South Los Angeles, which has one of the highest murder and Crime rates of the City and usually of the country..This area votes overwhelmingly Democrat and overwhelmingly voted for Obama..Does this suggest anything about Democrat voters tendencies to commit crime and murder people??
If your excuse for all these Democrats killing and robbing is due to their poverty, then consider that this area and California has been strongly Democrat for years, but the Democrats have never improved the peoples life there.
It’s not the crazy guy’s fault. The mean conservatives with their Jedi Mind Tricks MADE him do it!
That’s all you got? Really?
These two mainly discuss the fallacy, since debunked by the NRA as a lie, that 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.
We sell weapons to the Mexican army. through corruption and theft, those weapons end up in the hands of the cartels. So yes, those weapons come from the US.
How is that fallacious?
Oh no Parthenon – I see what you’re saying. It’s just complete bulls**t. The guy was bats**t crazy. That’s pretty much it. I don’t hear anyone advocating the type of lunacy he pulled, as some of you have insinuated. Crazy people do crazy things. Always have. You’re simply making more out of this for political gain. It isn’t going to work though. It just makes you look ruthless and cold to exploit a tragedy like this. One person out of tens of millions goes nuts, and you jump on it as if it’s proof of some sort of “right wing talk conspiracy.” It’s incredibly stupid.
Again, who is advocating s**t like this? Who? When? Where?
Bill Ayers maybe? Oh wait, he’s a leftist. Nevermind. What about eco-terrorists? There are plenty of nuts to go around.
Some rube: “The left is shamelessly exploiting the death of three cops in an attempt to silence those they don’t like.”
I am reminded of a quote by Harry Truman: “I don’t give them hell. I give them the truth and they think it’s hell.” Nobody’s trying to silence you, cubby. Pointing out that you’re ethically bankrupt is not the same thing as trying to “silence” you.
I’m a Unitarian Universalist, and I saw people in my religion slaughtered by Adkisson who spelled out his motive quite clearly (and is repeated above by ed in the comment posted April 5, 2009 at 11:12 pm). The Republican hatemongers, yokels, and rubes have yet to take responsibility for that crime, so they are certainly not going to take responsibility for this one.
This is going to get worse before it gets better. The apologists here are simply morons, sheep. The truly evil people are Hannity, Rush, Beck, and their ilk. If you’re fans of theirs, truly, don’t bother to answer me. I am not interested in whatever justification your 86-IQ brain conjures up.
yo mama: You people are just making s**t up now. …
And we’re glad to know that you, of course, never would.
yo mama: … Attributing the actions of one nut that flipped because a dog peed on his carpet
Whoops. I sit corrected.
I’m a Unitarian Universalist, and I saw people in my religion slaughtered by Adkisson who spelled out his motive quite clearly (and is repeated above by ed in the comment posted April 5, 2009 at 11:12 pm).
Here it is again. Just so the right wing assholes in these precincts might get a clue as to what is going on. And what many reality-based people have seen coming (see Willis, Oliver and Neiwert, David). It bears repeating.
Charles – when did hannity, beck, rush, etc advocate anything like this? Who did? When? If you can’t come up with anything or anyone, then it’s fair to conclude those in the “right wing talk conspiracy camp” are just completely full of s**t. It’s a slimy attempt at political opportunism, and it reflects poorly on those engaging in it. From my experiences, those you mentioned are staunch supporters of law enforcement and would be on the complete opposite side of what you’re claiming. Honestly, have you ever even listened to those individuals? Or do just go off of what you read lefty blogs?
Anyways, I’ll be waiting for your answer. Who? When? Who on the right do you blame for this crazy bastard going, well, crazy? And why?
Honestly, have you ever even listened to those individuals? Or do just go off of what you read lefty blogs?
Yo dude, i’m a Christian and conservative, but I gave up on the Republican party around 2002. I only vote a mix of Dem and Libertarian now. Why?
Because that’s about when the Republicans started talking like literal NAZIS all the time. I literally do not understand how any American who believes in inherent rights and democracy can stomach the fascist talk the Republicans have apparently decided is their core message.
Yo mama missed it where I said precisely I would not answer any 86-IQ response–brilliantly right after Ed repeated Adkisson’s motive, ghostwritten by Glenn Beck.
As to the law abiding nature of these fine pundits, let’s go with G. Gordon Liddy for $1000, Alex, and Liddy telling his listeners to go for “head shots” when they come up against the ATF. All this in the run-up to Oklahoma City.
Then, for double jeopardy, just in time for the rubes to tell us Liddy doesn’t count, the answer is “John McCain.” The question is, which candidate for president has appeared on Liddy’s show multiple times?
Yo dude, I’m an agnostic conservative. I don’t want anyone shot for their views. And I would like to know who does advocate such a thing. Let me know
Whom:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/04/no-one-is-trying-to-silence-right-wing.html
But go ahead and keep pretending you don’t see any connection, even when your ideological compadres like Jim David Adkisson et al spell it out for you.
Now where would that nice Republican boy Poplawski get that idea?
Do everyone a favor and go Galt already like you said you would. And, of course, stay classy. Thanks in advance.
Right on. G Gordon Liddy’s fault. I’m sure the guy was perfectly f***ing sane until he heard Liddy.
This is the most ridiculous thread I’ve ever seen on here.
[...] were being mean to them: "You killed these police officers. It
Yo dude, I’m an agnostic conservative. I don’t want anyone shot for their views. And I would like to know who does advocate such a thing. Let me know
uh, get on any of the racist (I mean really racist, like neo-nazi) sites sometime. They love Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and they act like they take all of Beck’s *wink wink* Civil War Simulation very seriously. They totally believe Obama is a sekrit Mooslim trying to turn America socialist (why muslims would want socialism is beyond me…)
Ed – the guy was nuts. No disputing that. But no one advocates this type of stuff. And it’s hardly an epidemic. This is no more, and actually probably less able to be linked to conservative pundits than your little lefty eco-terrorists are to your side of the aisle. But hell, I don’t even do that. I understand that some people are just nuts. If these talk radio hosts were as powerful as you claim, this would be a daily occurence. And I ask you again – have you, or do you listen to any of the people you blame for this? If so, point me to something that has advocated this kind of insane behavior. Or can you just admit that this fella had a screw loose from the very start? A very large screw.
Looks to me like you no class at all. And your argument is bankrupt. I’d like to know if you apply the same “one time is enough to smear an entire demographic” type of logic to other movements?
Or can you just admit that this fella had a screw loose from the very start? A very large screw.
Anyone saying otherwise?
Looks to me like you no class at all. And your argument is bankrupt.
I hope you not major in rhetoric.
I’d like to know if you apply the same “one time is enough to smear an entire demographic” type of logic to other movements?
Tell you what, you give me an analogous example (ask your Tutsi friend) and I’ll let you know. Mm-kay. Unless and until you are capable of that, go Galt dude. You kept saying you were gonna. What’s holding you back? Are you chicken?
“uh, get on any of the racist (I mean really racist, like neo-nazi) sites sometime. They love Glenn Beck and Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and they act like they take all of Beck’s *wink wink* Civil War Simulation very seriously. They totally believe Obama is a sekrit Mooslim trying to turn America socialist (why muslims would want socialism is beyond me…)”
Just so I know, and understand where you are coming from, but is it your belief that there are no hate sites populated by those who identify as Democrat? Is it your belief that the Republican party is intrinsically evil, and those who identify as Republican are also intrinsically evil? Finally, has there never been a political crime perpetrated by someone who identifies as Democrat?
I can certainly ask the same questions of the Republicans in attendance as well.
If those of either political persuasion answer “no” to any of those questions, well, what can you say to something like that? The answers, of course, are all “yes”. The point being that neither side is wholly aligned with the angels, neither side can claim to be pure of nature. Which brings me to my next point: maybe we dial down this stupid rhetoric and start being rational for a while.
Perhaps a mantra, repeated quietly to oneself, twice daily: being Democrat does not make one evil. Being Republican does not automatically make one a fascist. I will not employ vile rhetorical devices to make cheap points. I will treat my fellow countrymen with a bit more respect and dignity. I will not speak and act as if my mission in life is to incite a civil war, because, frankly, my petty political disagreements are not quite worth all *that*.
Sure, it may take a while, but eventually, if everyone participated, we might actually start to enjoy living in this country again. What a concept.
Shorter yo mama: Despite several instances of violence spurred on by wingnut media, I will continue to pretend not to see it.
Yes, this guy had a screw loose. And Fox et al helped tighten it.
P – which ones? I’d like to see some of what’s being said by them in regards to Beck, O’Reilly, etc. I’m honestly curious.
But anyways, trying to link mainstream people like those I mentioned is like trying to link the craziest indymedia wackjob, or eco-terrorist, or animal rights nut that threatens people to mainstream democrats. It’s just not fair or rational. And it shouldn’t be done to try and score political points.
I don’t know anyone that has shown any support for this nutbar that killed those officers.
I’d like to know if you apply the same “one time is enough to smear an entire demographic” type of logic to other movements?
One time? Atkinson happened a long time ago? Did you hear about the neo-Nazi that was building a dirty bomb in his kitchen in Maine?
These are not becoming isolated incidents.
Estarcatus: Being Republican does not automatically make one a fascist.
Oh no, certainly not! I was only pointing out to “yo mama” upthread that I gave up on the Republicans because their rhetoric sounded like nazi-talk to me, and in fact real Nazis DO in fact admire and listen to the most flamboyant and excitable of the right-wing talk shows.
I don’t know anyone that has shown any support for this nutbar that killed those officers.
check out vdare or stormfront message boards.
Ed……
Bill Ayers ring a bell? He didn’t seem to concern you, even though he bombed a few places. Weather Underground. ELF.
There are nuts on the left. Probably more, but who’s counting? I just have the decency to realize they’re nuts first and foremost, and don’t reflect reasonable, rational democrats. This concept is over your head.
Estarcatus – well said! That summed it all up right there. Read and learn, kiddies.
then Duros, if you’re that scared, I suggest you just go barricade yourself in the basement or something. The eeeeevil righties won’t bother you there. Bring your laptop so you can still post comments.
You’re certainly a fearful little thing.
“…in fact real Nazis DO in fact admire and listen to the most flamboyant and excitable of the right-wing talk shows.”
Yes, I am quite sure that some Nazis do indeed admire the charged rhetoric of those you mention. Just as I am sure that leftist extremists admire those who spew invective from a leftist perspective.
The point, again, is that perhaps it is time to be a bit kinder and gentler all around. What we say, in the short or long term, has consequences. And what is being said these days would lead an outside observer to conclude that the citizens on the country in which these words are said are on the verge of taking up arms and shooting one another.
To reiterate: just because it was a conservative nut job today does not preclude the possibility of it being a liberal nut job tomorrow. And it will be, at which point we all bear some responsibility for what happens.
Bill Ayers ring a bell? He didn’t seem to concern you, even though he bombed a few places. Weather Underground. ELF.
Not analogous–which mainstream lefties openly encouraged Ayers type of behavior? But thanks for playing. Have fun playing Galt and at your Stormfront meetings!
Just as I am sure that leftist extremists admire those who spew invective from a leftist perspective.
Examples, please. Any remotely close to what’s been documented in this thread? Thanks in advance.
Fearful? Me?
Don’t think so, Sparky.
Bill Ayers ring a bell? He didn’t seem to concern you, even though he bombed a few places. Weather Underground. ELF.
Considering I was 7 years old at the time, I hardly see how that’s relevant today. It’s not like I was in a position to criticize at the time.
There are nuts on the left. Probably more, but who’s counting?
They are just less likely to shoot up a McDonald’s, is that it?
Find us some examples that happened in THIS century please.
Right on. G Gordon Liddy’s fault. I’m sure the guy was perfectly f***ing sane until he heard Liddy.
This is a shameless example of moving the goalposts. Or maybe just mindless.
In your 4:35 pm comment, you asked who on the right advocated this. One answer, whose advocacy was more explicit than most but is definitely not unique, was G. Gordon Liddy, as Charles said in his 4:46 comment. If you need a link, here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2505.
After it’s been shown that some right-wing media figures have, in fact, advocated shooting law enforcement agents, you make a completely different issue of whether or not the killer was completely normal and sane until he heard Liddy’s advice. That’s ridiculous, no one made that claim until you mentioned it, and it has nothing to do with the topic. But on the other hand, it diverted attention from the fact that, yes, some right-wingers have advocated for this. Well done.
For what it’s worth, I think John Cole’s take on all this is more or less indisputable.
Also, I only come by here now and then; why does OW have so many persistent trolls, anyway?
It’s noteworthy that after right winger G Gordon Liddy’s radio listeners were told to go for “head shots” to kill American law enforcement officers, REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN SOUGHT OUT LIDDY’S FAVOR AND COMPLIMENTED LIDDY PROFUSELY.
Violent right wing extremism is the Republican main stream.
Keep in mind that for prominent right wing leaders Limbaugh and Coulter, Republican McCain WASN’T EXTREME ENOUGH for them.
“Yo Mama,” right winger Coulter advocated for the murder of an American Supreme Court Justice (amongst myriad other malignant things). And she’s still one of Murdoch’s regular Fox TV Goons.
How much American history do you actually know “Yo Mamma?” You want to go back to the days of the regular right wing lynchings? Back to when left wingers were mysteriously murdered? Back to the right wing blowing up clinics? Back to when the right wing murdered Doctors?
How about we go back to when the right wing lied US into an unnecessary war and got 4266 American soldiers killed?
The right wing’s violent rhetoric that lied US into an unnecessary war and killed four thousand two hundred sixty six of our American neighbors could definitely count as a kind of “epidemic.” An epidemic of right wing fearmongering indistinguishable from terrorism.
As for eco-terrorists, I repudiate their methods and would repudiate them personally if I knew any of them. They are the same kind of sick as the right wingers who used terrorism to lie US into the war that murdered more Americans than were lost on 9/11.
Ah, yes. Bring back the good old days of 1861.
“Examples, please. Any remotely close to what’s been documented in this thread? Thanks in advance.”
You are quite welcome, but here we have another form of the same argument: your side is worse than ours. I have no idea what you would consider “more extreme”, and it is certainly not the point. You seem intent on proving that those on the right are more evil, somehow, than those on the left. Good luck with that.
But this is more of the same argument: you’re worse than we are. My point is not to tar either side with the evil brush. The fact we have too many people attempting to do just that is, to me at least, disturbing. Do extremists exist? I am quite sure they do. Do they exist on both sides? Well, yes, they do. Are there more on one side or the other? I have no idea, and I am not sure how you would quantify this and then provide your definitive proof. And in the end, that is not what I am talking about, anyway.
What I *am* asking is, at the rate we are going, are we going to have more extremists in five years, or less? If more, is that a good thing. If less, is that a desirable goal. If it is, what do we need to do to get there? The obvious answer is that we all act, well, *less extreme*. Which means that we recognize those that disagree with us politically for what they are, mostly: normal human beings, just like us, trying to do what they think is right. Not evil, not fascist, just human, to be treated with decency and dignity.
I know, politics is rough sport and always has been, but should it be this rough?
“Yo Mama” asks: “who’s counting?”
Here’s a place that’s counting right wing terrorism:
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/
Abortion clinic violence:
“There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years.”
“In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. In 1993, there were 78 death threats aimed at clinic employees. And, in 1996, bombings, threats and harassment affected about one-third of U.S. abortion clinics.”
For more recent examples of right wing terrorism:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_violence.html
Specifically in the last eight years:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp
The problem with the right wing is that terrorism like this is often exactly what they in fact support even while playing distraction games like Yo Mama is doing (along with several of the other right wing apologists of right wing violence here today).
And remember, if you side with the baby Jesus, it ain’t terrorism.
Somehow.
[...] This is surely one of the dumbest thing any blogger has ever written anywhere: [...]
What I *am* asking is, at the rate we are going, are we going to have more extremists in five years, or less?
And what I am asking is for you give me a concrete example how both sides are just as bad as each other. Otherwise, yes, Team Left is not as bad a Team Right, with respect to this thread’s topic. Your wishy-washy, evidence-free equivalence doesn’t cut it with the reality based.
You seem intent on proving that those on the right are more evil, somehow, than those on the left.
Again, with respect to this thread’s topic, we (team reality-based) has done that. Read the quotes and citations if you don’t believe me.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Slain_white_supremacist_had_components_for_0309.html
Just to refresh
Must a been a hippie, amirite?
Estarcatus uses the Faux Noise argumentation technique of asserting a thing so sincerely that evidence is no longer needed.
By faith alone, Estarcatus’s fictions become true.
Evidence is for liberals, after all.
If Estarcatus asserts that he/she has magic market pixie dust that they can sprinkle and create ponies with, then it’s someone else’s responsibility to prove otherwise.
Hey, Estarcatus, sprinkle some magic market pixie dust on some subprime mortgages and make triple rated securities.
Then, after we collect all the underpants…
?
We’ll be rich!
Hitler never killed anybody. He was all talk.
yo mama, April 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm
There are nuts on the left. Probably more, but who’s counting?
Certainly not any Republican’ts who are trying to make false equivalences between the few examples of liberal nuts and the vast amount of Reich wingnut Republican’ts who have been coming out of the woodwork since the scary black islamo socialist commie pinko fag junkie got elected by the largest mandate in recent memory.
This thread is highly amusing. A Den Mother on crack, Jay Tea with his usual Limbaugh licking obeisance, and yo yo mama getting out the Republican’t slime and deflect playbook yet again.
You forgot to bring up the Republican’t propaganda point that he’s not an american citizen, though. Scaife needs you to hit all the high points if you are to get that sweet sweet wingnut welfare…
Smarter brain dead Republican’ts trying to find yet another way to mask their eliminationist rhetoric about Democrats, please…
“Estarcatus uses the Faux Noise argumentation technique of asserting a thing so sincerely that evidence is no longer needed. ”
It seems that you may be attempting to make some type of assertion here, but I cannot quite make out what it may be. You are attacking what, exactly, in my statements? That there are extremists on both sides of the aisle? The very definition of extremist seems to me to be terribly subjective, much like the definition of ugly, or stupid. At least another poster here is direct when he or she says:
“Your wishy-washy, evidence-free equivalence doesn’t cut it with the reality based.”
What point, exactly, are *you* trying to make?
As to the poster of the above quote, I have not made the argument that there are not *more* extremists on one side or the other, I have only said that there are plenty on each side. If you believe, based on the limited data set you have provided, that there are more on the other side, then fine, you are free to do so, and you may even be right. I would not care to argue that point as it appears to me there is no end to the argument.
What I have argued is that not each of us needs to be an extremist as well, and that the way we are choosing to conduct ourselves surely does nothing but breed more. It poisons our society, and turns us needlessly against one another.
Perhaps I was not being clear, so I will state it flat out: those who assert that inflammatory rhetoric has an effect are, to my thinking, correct. Further, such inflammatory rhetoric damages the civil nature of our society, whether it be Rush inflaming the base or Olby branding the President a fascist. It’s all bad, none of it better than the other.
If you want to argue that the right is more prone to this type of behavior, have at it, though not sure I care to join that argument, as that appears to be an argument with no end. However, if the rhetoric *really*, truly disturbs you, seems to me you would be condemning it no matter from where it originated.
>The shooting in Oakland was horrible, but the guy who did it was just a bad guy. The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.
This statement perfectly sums up Oliver. To translate: “Stuff that might stick to my side is isolated and doesn’t count. Stuff that might stick to the other side is endemic and representative.” Take that meme in all its grand stupidity, repeat it endlessly, and you have oliverwillis.com.
Oliver: “The shooting in Oakland was horrible, but the guy who did it was just a bad guy. The killing in Pittsburgh was the result of right-wingers spreading disinformation. This guy, already disturbed, was apparently helped over the edge by conspiracy theories pushed by the mainstream right in America.”
Haplo9: “This statement perfectly sums up Oliver. To translate: “Stuff that might stick to my side is isolated and doesn’t count. Stuff that might stick to the other side is endemic and representative.” Take that meme in all its grand stupidity, repeat it endlessly, and you have oliverwillis.com.”
Do you have evidence the Oakland shooting was politically motivated? We do with the guy in Pittsburgh. In fact, we now have evidence he posted a Glenn Beck video in a White Supremacist website to bolster his case.
Do you have the same level of evidence for your argument?
I’m a longtime reader of this site, and as liberal as they come. Voted for Clinton twice, then Nader, Kerry, and Obama. I’ve never owned a gun and never will. I’m an atheist, I support gay marriage and a woman’s right to choose, and I eat tofu on a regular basis.
All that said:
Even if a prominent right-wing talk-show host came right out and said “Obama wants to take your guns, so kill as many cops as you can before that happens”, that host would bear no responsibility — none, zero — if one of his listeners decided to do exactly that.
Ice T wrote a song called “Cop Killer”, but guess what? He bears no responsibility for the deaths of any police officers either. Nor does Marilyn Manson bear any responsibility for the Columbine shootings, nor Judas Priest for the suicide of one of their fans. It’s the same argument, and it’s equally fallacious.
Duros writes:
I’m sure Duros meant “…helped loosen it further,” but aside from that: horses get spurred on by people with spurs in their boots. People, on the other hand, bear responsibility for their own actions. That’s it. Glenn Beck, in my opinion, is guilty of fatuous, insincere, narrow-minded demagoguery — but that’s only my opinion, just like his opinions are only his. What he’s not guilty of, in any way, is the death of another person.
It seems that you may be attempting to make some type of assertion here, but I cannot quite make out what it may be
Why am I not surprised?
To reiterate: just because it was a conservative nut job today does not preclude the possibility of it being a liberal nut job tomorrow. And it will be, at which point we all bear some responsibility for what happens.
You maybe. My hands are clean, and will always be cleaner than those on the right.
This statement perfectly sums up Oliver. To translate: “Stuff that might stick to my side is isolated and doesn’t count. Stuff that might stick to the other side is endemic and representative.” Take that meme in all its grand stupidity, repeat it endlessly, and you have oliverwillis.com.
Let me ask you something. Did the Oakland shooter has books by Al Franken, saying to kill those that stand in his way? Did George Soros (whoever the hell that is) tell him to stop the government at all costs? No? Didn’t think so.
The Far Left is looking for any excuse these days to score brownie points against Republicans and those blue dog Democrats who stray an inch from the plantation.
That’s my observation, and I’m a Democrat who voted for Dukakis in ‘88.
Personally, I’d love to punch Kos in the mouth and then send him to the hospital. He is ruining it for my party.
“Why am I not surprised?”
Not sure, as I do not know you. Because a freakish accident, involving a steel beam that penetrated your brain, has left you incapable of both surprise and blinking? That is just one guess at random. Or, perhaps, because, like so many others, you are spoiling to pick a fight with someone on the Internet. That seems fruitful and a good use of one’s time, to be sure.
On the other hand, it seems rather silly to be in a permanent snit. I understand, the loss of the ability to blink might make anyone rather cross, but, in the words of Obama: unclench your fist. I am searching for dialogue, while you appear to be reaching for diatribe. If you disagree with anything I have said, I am more than willing to listen and then put forth a rational response. Well, as rational as I can make it, anyway.
Wow, lots of fresh trolls in the pot today. Those pingbacks are getting it done.
Really, Yo, Dennis, JT, Yankee Jay, new trolls – we want to be convinced. At least I do. Give me a liberal Jim David Adkinson, a liberal Poplawski, since the beginning of the Bush administration. Hell, start in the last Bush Administration if you want. And then quote several examples of left-wingers fantasizing about violence, the proper way to commit violence, or suggesting the left might soon need to resort to violence.
And you will have me.
Oh, I can talk to your face, Ollie. It’s not like I could miss it.
And yet, Jimmy, you spend the entire time sending fat jokes in email to Glenn Reynolds. LOL.
Felix Helix: “Even if a prominent right-wing talk-show host came right out and said “Obama wants to take your guns, so kill as many cops as you can before that happens”, that host would bear no responsibility — none, zero — if one of his listeners decided to do exactly that.”
I disagree. What you say has consequences, and you should be held responsible for that.
If you say, for instance, ‘Black people are subhuman. Black people are subhuman. Black people are subhuman. And here’s your gun.’ and the person you are talking to goes out and shoots some black people, then you are responsible for those deaths.
Of course, the key fact to remember here is…
Responsibility is not a pie chart. One person being more responsible for an event does not mean someone else is less responsible.
“Ice T wrote a song called “Cop Killer”, but guess what? He bears no responsibility for the deaths of any police officers either.”
Entertainer vs. News. There’s a huge difference.
“…nor Judas Priest for the suicide of one of their fans. It’s the same argument, and it’s equally fallacious.”
Actually, that case was about subliminal messages causing suicide, so that was actually proven to be baseless.
This happend before, Oklahoma city bombing was a product of right wing radio.AT the time Gorden Liddy 0n his radio show was telling people that if your going to shoot an fbi agent you should shoot him in the groin because he has no protection there.RUSH on his show was saying somthing is going to snap the people were not going to take this he was talking somthing about Clinton.I remember a show called crossfire where someone brought this and other right wing radio shows up, the Repulicans went bananas and the democrate backed off.We can’nt back off this time.this is there M.O.they lose an election and they become dangeros.the GOP has been taken over by a culture of biscuit eating right wing vulger racist.and unfortunatly thats a lot of middle America
Esta, pro tip: not a good idea to act morally superior when you don’t have the high ground. Just an FYI.
Not sure, as I do not know you. Because a freakish accident, involving a steel beam that penetrated your brain, has left you incapable of both surprise and blinking? That is just one guess at random. Or, perhaps, because, like so many others, you are spoiling to pick a fight with someone on the Internet. That seems fruitful and a good use of one’s time, to be sure.
Hey, I’m not the one that can’t understand English.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Entertainer vs. News. There’s a huge difference.”
Why? Because it ruins your argument?
Felix is right, and it seems to me like the Kos kidz are just itching for something else to feign indignation over. It’s a tired ritual of the Left: blame a tragedy on something you don’t like and then use your own manufactured outrage as the evidence for “necessary” regulation.
Dear Oliver,
Jim Treacher is not now, nor has he ever been, a writer for the unfunny Redeye (sic) show on Fox News. Please don’t slur his good name like that again.
Don’t worry – I have every confidence that all your other facts are correct.
Carry on, my good man. Carry on.
Love,
TV’s Andy Levy
Calling the work you do “TV” is sort of an insult to an entire medium. And I include “The Hills” in that.
Parthenon: “And then quote several examples of left-wingers fantasizing about violence, the proper way to commit violence, or suggesting the left might soon need to resort to violence. And you will have me.”
Just begin reading this comment thread here.
I imagine it doesn’t surprise you that I couldn’t care less what you think of me, or Red Eye (note: two words, not one). Nor would I imagine that you care what I think of you – as well you shouldn’t.
I was merely pointing out a factual error on your part, which you should correct. No need to thank me – it’s what I do!
Have a great night, and an even better tomorrow!
Love,
TV’s Andy Levy
Wow, more Republican “entertainment” “writers” who nobody has ever heard of. Good times.
When are the DVD’s of the 30 Minute News Hour coming out? We’re dying to mock your lack of talent once again.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Entertainer vs. News. There’s a huge difference.”
Kev: “Why? Because it ruins your argument?”
Why? You have to ask why?
Where do you get your news that you have to ask what’s the difference between news and entertainment?
“Felix is right, and it seems to me like the Kos kidz are just itching for something else to feign indignation over.”
Like when the left freaked out over the gifts Obama has been giving? No wait, that was the right.
“It’s a tired ritual of the Left: blame a tragedy on something you don’t like and then use your own manufactured outrage as the evidence for ‘necessary’ regulation.”
Those that hate the ‘blame game’ are usually to blame.
Michelle Bachman said she wanted people “armed and dangerous”. How can you not see the connection between talk like that and actions like this?
By the way, what regulations? I haven’t seen people arguing for regulations because of this.
Damn, Oliver, you really struck a nerve! Congrats. I gotta say, though, this many trolls, and it may be time to moderate comments. Something’s got the righties in a panic; their violent rhetoric has once again come home to roost–as it did with Tim McVeigh, as it did with Eric Rudolph, as it did with Jim Adkisson.
Glad people are mentioning Jim Adkisson; it’s important not to forget about that guy.
Those reaching desperately for equivalence–you don’t get it. WE DON’T HAVE TALK SHOW HOSTS REACHING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ADVOCATING VIOLENCE (or “rebellion,” as Beck is euphemistically putting it.) Both sides have idiots, but yours have loud megaphones. Hell, Ann Coulter called for the New York Times building to be blown up, which would, of course, result in hundreds of people inside it dying horrible deaths (actual Coulter quote: “The only mistake Timothy McVeigh made is not going to the New York Times building.) No condemnation from the right for that, no criticism. Bill O’Reilly, November 2005, said that if Al-Qaeda blew up San Francisco, we shouldn’t rebuild it.
I’d say “You’ve made your bed, now lie in it,” but I can’t help fearing more innocent people are going to die because of what you’ve done.
Red Eye (note: two words, not one)
And yet its swill, spelled either way! As I’ve said a million times, I don’t have a problem with a conservative humor show — just make it actually funny.
To riff off of Kev:
“It’s a tired ritual of the” Right: “blame a tragedy on something you don’t like and then use your own manufactured outrage as the evidence for “necessary”” unnecessary war, illegal surveillance, torture, war crimes, debt, tax cuts, deregulation, lawlessness, roundups of the ‘others’ into an archipelago of secret prisons for the foreseeable future on the word of a single leader without any of the oversight mandated in the US Constitution as well as in signed treaties….
Kev, your link didn’t have any of the evidence you implied would be there. There was a lot of racist, bigoted, simplistic hostility, though. Several posters blamed a generic “left” for nearly every act of violence they could find that was done against a Republican but didn’t provide any evidence that those people were motivated by anything said on the left nor was there any evidence that those acts were even committed by somebody who was identifiably a “lefty.”
It’s the equivalent of going through FBI statistics and claiming that any violent act done against a Democrat was done by a Republican. It’s absurd nonsense.
But it’s the usual kind of particularly ignorant, vicious kind of absurd nonsense that Surber attracts.
Perhaps you can do the difficult work of coming up with some evidence yourself. Or at least link to a credible source or original sources.
Jim Treacher, April 7, 2009 at 1:57 am
Oh, I can talk to your face, Ollie. It’s not like I could miss it.
Perhaps you should avoid talking out of your ass, trenchant, while you’re at it.
It’s not like we could miss an ad hominem attack from a Republican’t asshole with nothing of substance to add to the conversation…
As far as the original topic of conversation goes, I’m still trying to see if the Reich wingnuts can come up with any examples of far left liberals going on a killing spree because of something that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow said on TV. I do remember when a bunch of right wing gun nuts traveled half way across the country to execute Alan Berg, a liberal radio talk show host, in his driveway. Funny – that was a true example of right wing gun nuts pro-actively executing liberals, and yet it seems to be completely ignored by the Republican’ts in their hurry to go even further back in time and bring up William Ayers.
Come talk to us if PigBoy or Spammity or this Beck clown get gunned down one day by a liberal on their way to work, and it is proven that it was a far left radical liberal who did it. Until then, all you’ve got is your standard Republican’t bullshit.
Nice left handed echo chamber you have here. Any of you ever pull your heads out of the sand and sniff reality?
“Esta, pro tip: not a good idea to act morally superior when you don’t have the high ground. Just an FYI.”
Ok, thanks for that. Always room for a pro tip.
“Hey, I’m not the one that can’t understand English.”
And thank you for the basic assessment of your English skills. Care to use them to engage in a conversation? Might be fun. Then again, might not. Only one way to find out!
Paranoia: it’s not just for breakfast anymore!
Occasionally a killer might be ideologically motivated. Most aren’t. Why can’t you dweebs leave it at that? Everything doesn’t have to fit the narrative.
OK, just so we’re all clear, prominent right-wingers with high status and influence in media and politics DO advocate for this kind of thing, right? G. Gordon Liddy being the best, most explicit and direct example, but others are definitely out there, like Michelle Bachman saying that she wants people to be armed and dangerous. Because that’s what all this discussion is about.
Oliver, face it, you’re just not very important. Nor is this little choir. Think whatever you want to think. It just doesn’t matter. You’re not a player in the bigger game. You and the choir are on the outside looking in; you’ve always been there and you’ll always be there, even when your “side” is in control. Rage away; you’re nothing more than comical. Keep preaching to each other while I go get another sno-cone. Too funny.
[...] Now, they’re trying to “blame recent high profile shootings on those who believe in the 2nd Amendment” as if opposition to gun control means they encourage lunatics concerned about losing their weapons to shoot at cops. Left-wing bloggers are accusing their conservative counterparts, in the words of one such blogger, of “stoking the fires of an atmosphere of hate that leads to police officers getting killed.“ [...]
JacDesVert, April 7, 2009 at 7:34 am
Nice left handed echo chamber you have here. Any of you ever pull your heads out of the sand and sniff reality?
Nice Reich wing comment that has no meaning or relation to the discussion at hand.
Do Republican’ts always fling poo when someone rattles their cage?
Oh – and I’ve run out of popcorn watching you traitorous unamerican Republican’t ball washers twist and spin to avoid the issue at hand – your Reich wing eliminationist rhetoric is causing some of your fellow Republican’ts to start murdering their fellow americans. If any of you had a conscience, I’d be wondering how you sleep at night. As it is, it is immensely amusing to see you try the same old Republican’t bullshit even when you know that everyone realizes it’s bullshit.
Keep digging up, stupids!
Dotar Sojat, April 7, 2009 at 11:29 am
Occasionally a killer might be ideologically motivated. Most aren’t. Why can’t you dweebs leave it at that? Everything doesn’t have to fit the narrative.
In this case, a killer was ideologically motivated. Most aren’t, but this one was, and he was motivated by Republican’t eliminationist rhetoric. Why can’t you unamerican traitors accept that? Everything doesn’t have to fit your narrative, either.
“Why can’t you unamerican traitors accept that?”
Just a question, Tom, but what should be done with un-American traitors? If that is what a majority of Republicans are, what, exactly should we do? You equate them with the “Reich”, which can only mean you feel they are, at the very least, Nazi-ish, so what is your idea about how they should be dealt with?
From your tone, I wonder if you feel they should be jailed, exiled…or worse. I wondered the same thing about Savage when I caught his show. Couldn’t ask him, but I can ask you.
Hi Oliver,
Lindgren’s stats are incorrect. He couldn’t do even simple math.
Please read my post at VS, or do the numbers for yourself:
http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Data+Analysis/
Shorter Dojat Shithead or whatever: “You are so unimportant O-dub that I am going to post on your blog. Twice.”
Gosh.
Thrice even.
Dotar Sojat: “Gosh.”
Good come back. You realize how many times this post has been linked to? It’s hard to argue Oliver is unimportant when the right keeps attacking him.
“hard to argue Oliver is unimportant when the right keeps attacking him.”
I think that everyone has learned, by now, that it pays to be as provocative as possible. Increases the outrage factor, which in turn increases page hits and traffic overall (and, sometimes, ratings, book sales, listeners, etc.). Ann Coulter knows this, as does Olbermann, as does Savage, as does Franken, as did Donahue, and on and on and on.
Not even saying it is not, at times, sincere. Just saying this is how we make our points, now. This is what passes for acceptable discourse on both sides in certain circles.
Let’s be honest, if we really wanted to get to the bottom of the extremist question, we wouldn’t run out and write a blog post designed to stir everyone up, or say the things I hear said on the radio or on TV every day. On the other hand, if we wanted to alienate and marginalize, this is exactly what we would do.
The point here is not to solve a problem, and extremism is a problem that needs to be solved. The point here is to, essentially, point out that all the bad, really horrible people, are all on the other side. It’s no different on the blogs that lean heavily right, populated by the true believers. They do it, too.
This isn’t politics, it’s a blood feud. How it ends, I have no idea, but it doesn’t look as if it is going to end well.
On the other hand, if we wanted to alienate and marginalize, this is exactly what we would do.
Jesus, you’ve got some nerve. Alienate and marginalize? This coming from a guy that subscribes to the political ideology whose reps in the media joke about blowing up newspaper buildings and shooting liberals (but leaving a few alive) and use nazi imagery in connection the president.
If reality ever stops back by your brain, let us know.
“If reality ever stops back by your brain, let us know.”
Not the ideal start to the national reconciliation I am fomenting, but it will have to do.
“This coming from a guy that subscribes to the political ideology whose reps in the media joke about blowing up newspaper buildings and shooting liberals (but leaving a few alive) and use nazi imagery in connection the president.”
Actually, I do not prescribe to a political ideology where it is OK to say things such as this. I think I was fairly clear in saying that I decry all of this type of rhetoric, whichever side it comes from. Personally, I think we see it too much from both sides, which has been my point. I think we do better condemning it than by simply accepting it as a symptom of our modern, troubled age.
So, let’s play a little game. Suppose I am an all knowing, all powerful conservative demigod, and you are an all knowing, all powerful liberal demigod. We have proposed to do away with the single most hateful, spiteful, useless gasbag in the populations that represent our political views. I start by snapping my fingers and making Savage disappear.
Which liberal gasbag do you make disappear?
The liberal gas-bag who calls for the forced conversion of Muslims a la Coulter.
Oh, wait — that person doesn’t exist. My little false equivalency game is ruined! Ruined I say!
“hard to argue Oliver is unimportant when the right keeps attacking him.”
Estarcatus: “I think that everyone has learned, by now, that it pays to be as provocative as possible. Increases the outrage factor, which in turn increases page hits and traffic overall (and, sometimes, ratings, book sales, listeners, etc.). Ann Coulter knows this, as does Olbermann, as does Savage, as does Franken, as did Donahue, and on and on and on.”
And the people on Left point to Coulter, Rush, etc. as the ‘face of the GOP’ as a way to attack the GOP.
The don’t bring them up over and over again while simultaneously arguing they are unimportant.
Do you see the problem?
“Let’s be honest, if we really wanted to get to the bottom of the extremist question…”
We’ve answered that question. We don’t need to have a debate here. We just need to…
“On the other hand, if we wanted to alienate and marginalize, this is exactly what we would do.”
Exactly. We just need to alienate and marginalize those who would advocate violence against the government.
Glad we agree.
Estarcatus: “So, let’s play a little game. Suppose I am an all knowing, all powerful conservative demigod, and you are an all knowing, all powerful liberal demigod. We have proposed to do away with the single most hateful, spiteful, useless gasbag in the populations that represent our political views. I start by snapping my fingers and making Savage disappear.”
Savage? O’Reilly said he would let Al Quada bomb San Francisco. Can Savage top that?
Ann Coulter argued for bombing the NYT building. Can Savage top that?
Rush Limbaugh… Let’s not even get started on what Rush has said. But Rush was able to Dick Cheney, even after all of that.
“Which liberal gasbag do you make disappear?”
Savage: “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites! You should only get AIDS and die, you pig!”
Got any prominent Left Wingers that have said something like that?
Oh, C.S.
My question about the difference between News and Entertainment was simply to point out that there isn’t such a clear delineation. In what category would you place John Stewart or Ann Coulter? Or Rush for that matter. They’re all a fusion of the two; I’m certain you can see that. How much of the news side of things must one’s program contain for them to suddenly become culpable for other people’s behavior? Inversely, if the entertainment side of things frees an artist or speaker from responsibility for another’s actions, and I submit that it does, why then should a strictly “news” man not be aloud to report with the same freedom? But in all honesty, I do not really believe anything is strictly “entertainment” or strictly “news” anymore.
And what burden must the words of a speaker or writer meet before they are culpable for the violent actions of another? Certainly, “You should go out and kill all blacks,” is beyond instigation. But what if, like the vast majority of libertarians and conservatives are going, someone merely expresses their discontent using charged words? Something like what Jefferson said a while back: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Was he inciting violence?
Perhaps, then, we should all just use good judgement. Call out the specific individuals for their statements rather than citing repeatedly the same statements of one or two popular commentators in an indictment of an entire group of people. What credit is it to you if you claim to love and upload freedom of speech and tolerance but cannot extend such privileges to the people with whom you disagree?
You must understand that most libertarians and conservatives think independently, especially the politically vocal kind. We may each agree with the occasional statement made by fiery, entertaining personalities on the right, but our lack of retribution towards them doesn’t mean we support their every statement. (You do know that they’re in the spotlight, trying to sell something, and just jockeying for more attention, right?) In fact, we tend to simply ignore the more outright moronic statements that are made by both liberals and conservatives, assuming that people of reasonable intellect will be able to see the fringe comments for what they are. We become involved in the rebuttal when it appears that a fringe theory has gained legs and needs to be squashed before it’s accepted into the mainstream as truth. Otherwise, we’ve got family, friends, work, leisure… and we’d rather be doing those things than arguing in an echo chamber.
We all enjoy mocking our opponents, and that’s understandable. But what’s happening here is an attempt to calumniate a huge cross-section of America simply because you don’t like their political views. I have a huge problem with the methods of the Obama Campaign and Administration, but I don’t blame my liberal friends for the Obama Administration’s actions, nor for the outrage that administration elicits. I simply think they’re misguided in their views, and with education and experience, they’ll come along. Hey, the majority is already open-minded enough to oppose Obama’s budget.
Oppose the ideas, don’t try to destroy the adherents. That’s not exactly the honest dialogue and open politics America tried to vote in last November, is it?
“You must understand that most libertarians and conservatives think independently, especially the politically vocal kind.”
LOL. Like when Michael Steele had to grovel before Comrade Rushbo?
Jaim, it doesn’t look like you actually understood my point about the vast majority of libertarians and conservatives (and I was referring to the whole group, including regular folks, not just political big mouths, talk show hosts, or the rest of the nationally recognized GOP big shots) allowing these goofs to make a fool of themselves.
I don’t take my marching orders from any “conservative voice,” not the least of which is either one of them. So what’s your point, Jaim?
Just for kicks: You charge Limbaugh and Beck with fear mongering, would you be willing to level the same at the Obama Administration for the methods used to pass the pet-project filled stimulus?
Kev: “My question about the difference between News and Entertainment was simply to point out that there isn’t such a clear delineation.”
What? There’s no distinction between news and entertainment? You think some people are confusing Ice T for a news reporter?
That is what we were talking about.
“In what category would you place John Stewart or Ann Coulter? Or Rush for that matter.”
Jon Stewart is a comedian. He says so himself. He has said it is scary for people to use him as a news source.
Coulter and Limbaugh, on the other hand, are people who try and shape opinions. They are not ‘just entertainers’ but they are clearly not news.
Glenn Beck is on Fox News. News. It’s in the name.
“We may each agree with the occasional statement made by fiery, entertaining personalities on the right, but our lack of retribution towards them doesn’t mean we support their every statement.”
I agree that you don’t have to denounce every crackpot on your side. I agree with that, for the most part. But when they cross the line, or do it consistently and with a high profile, then you have to.
Glenn Beck is clearly one such case. As is Rush, Billo, Anne Coulter, Michael Savage, etc.
“Call out the specific individuals for their statements rather than citing repeatedly the same statements of one or two popular commentators in an indictment of an entire group of people.”
I would if it were one or two isolated incidents by people who were punished, and not rewarded for these outbursts.
“…assuming that people of reasonable intellect will be able to see the fringe comments for what they are.”
Glenn Beck is fringe? Billo is fringe? Michelle Bachman is fringe? Rush Limbaugh is fringe?
We are not talking about the fringe. We are talking about the mainstream base of the GOP.
“I have a huge problem with the methods of the Obama Campaign and Administration, but I don’t blame my liberal friends for the Obama Administration’s actions, nor for the outrage that administration elicits.”
Has the Obama administration said they want people ‘armed and dangerous’ over conservative political ideas?
Your false equivalency doesn’t work with me.
“Oppose the ideas, don’t try to destroy the adherents. That’s not exactly the honest dialogue and open politics America tried to vote in last November, is it?”
No. Destroy the adherents. As long as there are people who think the other side are traitors, there will be no dialogue.
People who are using hatred and violent imagery to oppose Obama and make a buck need to be isolated and diminished.
“Just for kicks: You charge Limbaugh and Beck with fear mongering, would you be willing to level the same at the Obama Administration for the methods used to pass the pet-project filled stimulus?”
I would object to the term, “pet-project filled stimulus”.
I would also object to the false equivalency here.
Most economists agree that temporary massive government spending is the best way to get us out of an recession. Especially one that is this big.
On the other hand, I don’t hear too many experts talking about FEMA run concentration camps.
Making predictions of the future based on expert opinion is not fear-mongering. Saying Obama is going to take away your guns and set up a totalitarian state is.
You lefties are just upset cause the death count was so low. Everyone knows that the Democrats are the Party of Hate, they even embraced their hatred back when they made Dean chairman.
You’re not a player in the bigger game. You and the choir are on the outside looking in; you’ve always been there and you’ll always be there, even when your “side” is in control.
I’m either getting orders direct from George Soros and Barack Obama or I’m a lonely outsider looking with my nose up against the glass.
Make up your minds!
“Destroy the adherents. As long as there are people who think the other side are traitors, there will be no dialogue.
People who are using hatred and violent imagery to oppose Obama…”
I appreciate your swift self-contradiction.
Briefly: I don’t care what Jon Stewart, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh say about themselves. Loads of people get their news from these sources, whether those talking heads want to admit it or not. I agree that it’s scary to use him as a news source, just as it is with Rush, Coulter, or even Beck. But the fact of the matter is that a great many people do.
MY ORIGINAL POINT was that it’s irrelevant whether its news or entertainment, both can potentially have strong effects on their audience.
And I shouldn’t even need to speak out against someone like Savage. One blanket, emphatic, “No,” should be sufficient for my feelings on that shouting lunatic for the rest of my days. I won’t waste time on him.
I didn’t say the Obama Administration incited violence, I said they were fear mongering. Fear mongering to get everyone to capitulate to his ridiculously bloated government plans just like the Bush Administration used fear mongering to get people to feel unpatriotic for opposing the War in Iraq.
By the by, I know Glenn Beck gets all excited and cries all the time, but what is it you find so crackpot about him? He seems to espouse a valued quality of the Left: open-mindedness. Like he has been about the FEMA camps. They sound ridiculous, but let’s investigate the story first. Makes good television. Sure enough, it was just some fringe conspiracy theory. Denounced, but with actual evidence contradicting the conspiracy theory rather than just dismissal and shouting at the promoters.
I don’t know the context of most of these comments you’re using to spear the Right because, apparently, the lefties pay more attention to the conservative media than I do. And I rest gently in the knowledge that none of you are taking the quotes out of context because, as I can be sure, you’ve watched or listened to the entire program in question. Right?
HEH! That’s hilarious. I just looked up Bachmann’s statement for some context, and guess what? She was definitely referencing the Jefferson quote I mentioned a few comments ago. I feel that now is a good time to mention that Jefferson understood the need for the Second Amendment to be that the people should need to keep the government at bay. That’s right, Jefferson wasn’t so much advocating the right to bear arms for personal protection as he was for protection from the government. But what do I know… I actually read the stuff the Founders wrote.
*that should be “a quality highly valued by the Left” instead.
HoolyHoop, April 7, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Just a question, Tom, but what should be done with un-American traitors? If that is what a majority of Republicans are, what, exactly should we do? You equate them with the “Reich”, which can only mean you feel they are, at the very least, Nazi-ish, so what is your idea about how they should be dealt with?
Funny – I don’t recall anyone on the right asking that question when Rush and Coulter and Hannity et al say the exact same thing about Democrats. Even today.
Maybe one day Republican’ts could stop taking orders from Rush and his ilk, say something along the lines of “We apologize for debasing the dialogue for the past forty years”, and actually treating the opposition as fellow americans. That could be a starting point (as long as they keep to their word). Until then, you have no right to even ask me that question and expect me to consider answering it.
From your tone, I wonder if you feel they should be jailed, exiled…or worse. I wondered the same thing about Savage when I caught his show. Couldn’t ask him, but I can ask you.
From my tone, you might be able to catch the whiff of parody that I use to highlight this sort of incendiary rhetoric from the right. Funny how I continually get called on my rude manners and uncivil dialogue by the people who have been rude and uncivil in their dealings with the opposition for forty years. And usually they’re rude and uncivil while they do it. And funny how you don’t even notice that in your hurry to try and get a quotable blurb from a DFH commie pinko fag junkie…
Tell ya what – Sparky: you get all those riech wing gasbags on the telly and all of the a-list bloggers on the right to stop using their huge mass media platform to say something very similar (but, generally speaking, much worse) about liberals and Democrats, and I’ll think about ratcheting things down a bit on my end. You should start looking at your own house and getting them to stop tossing stink bombs before getting on the fainting couch because I farted in the room…
For forty years we’ve been hearing this sort of talk about liberals from you lot. One z-list blogger imitates your rhetorical ’style’ and you get your knickers in a twist about it. Yet another example of those fine upstanding Republican’t values…
“Destroy the adherents. As long as there are people who think the other side are traitors, there will be no dialogue.”
“People who are using hatred and violent imagery to oppose Obama…”
Kev: “I appreciate your swift self-contradiction.”
I wasn’t advocating violence. I was using your phrase. You can destroy these people by isolating them and deminishing them.
By the way, it is not intolerant to fight intolerance. Anyone who says otherwise is as stupid as someone who thinks Ice T is a news reporter. … Oh wait.
“Briefly: I don’t care what Jon Stewart, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh say about themselves.”
And I noticed you’ve dropped Ice-T from that list again.
“MY ORIGINAL POINT was that it’s irrelevant whether its news or entertainment, both can potentially have strong effects on their audience.”
And your original point is wrong. 100% wrong.
Entertainment is there to entertain.
New is there to inform.
It is primary goal to effect the opinions and attitudes of its audience.
The two are different.
You are falling for the False Continuum. To quote a website, “The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful…”
“And I shouldn’t even need to speak out against someone like Savage. One blanket, emphatic, ‘No,’ should be sufficient for my feelings on that shouting lunatic for the rest of my days. I won’t waste time on him.”
Savage isn’t some lunatic. He’s a best selling author. He has a highly rated, nationally syndicated radio talk show.
And what about Rush? He interviewed Dick Cheney. Kind of hard to call that fringe.
“I didn’t say the Obama Administration incited violence, I said they were fear mongering. Fear mongering to get everyone to capitulate to his ridiculously bloated government plans just like the Bush Administration used fear mongering to get people to feel unpatriotic for opposing the War in Iraq.”
Gee… Lying about WMD or using expert advice to predict the future.
Yeah, more false equivalency.
“By the by, I know Glenn Beck gets all excited and cries all the time, but what is it you find so crackpot about him?”
Did you see his show recently when he had all of his stage lights on so he could waste as much energy as possible? Look at his record on Global Warming. He’s a crack pot.
Hell, he recently used Nazi imagery when talking about the Obama administration.
“That’s right, Jefferson wasn’t so much advocating the right to bear arms for personal protection as he was for protection from the government.”
Well, duh. Don’t think you make a remarkable discovery there.
And yeah, I know the context of Michelle Bachman’s quote.
Considering her record, saying she was referencing Jefferson is being kind. Or naive.
Good Gaia, still at it.
“Funny but I don’t remember any of the “liberal media” or member of the Democratic congress recently going on television talking about “Armed responses” and open revolution”
Oh but I do ,It wasn’t on TV but online;
“Hello Everyone, my name’s Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I’m coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility.”
A self professed left winger He was an idiot contributor for Indymedia Andy Mickel is awaiting a execution date in California.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24016-2005Apr3.html
The Washington Post article about him also parades some of the comments from idiots supporting Him. So don’t spread the manure that the left doen’t practice intolerance and does not preach revolution.
They invented it.
You must understand that most libertarians and conservatives think independently, especially the politically vocal kind.
Well, they think they do, anyway. And that’s what’s important.
“..just like the Bush Administration used fear mongering to get people to feel unpatriotic for opposing the War in Iraq.”
Funny thing. I didn’t feel unpatriotic for opposing the war in Iraq.
“Funny but I don’t remember any of the ‘liberal media’ or member of the Democratic congress recently going on television talking about “Armed responses” and open revolution”
JerseyGeorge: “Oh but I do ,It wasn’t on TV but online;”
Really? Andrew Mickel is a member of the ‘liberal media’ or a member of the Democratic congress?
The left has nuts of there own, but the right seem to elect them to office, or give them a time slot on national TV and / or radio.
“Really? Andrew Mickel is a member of the ‘liberal media’ or a member of the Democratic congress?
The left has nuts of there own, but the right seem to elect them to office, or give them a time slot on national TV and / or radio.”
He was a contributor to Indy Media not exactly a conservative media site. And no the left just gives them prime time shows on msnbc. You made the salient point when you said,
“The left has nuts of there own.” As does the right.
Thats where the whole story should lie. Just a another pathetic loser who had an urge to do harm.
“He was a contributor to Indy Media not exactly a conservative media site.”
He was an internet loon. You want to go around comparing internet loons?
“And no the left just gives them prime time shows on msnbc.”
Give me examples of Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow doing anything like what Michael Savage has done. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Bill O’Reilly.
Give me examples, or take your false equivalency and show it up your ass.
Good gravy, C.S., you’ll just yammer on until the cows come home, won’t you? You must fancy yourself rather important. I hope at least your family thinks so.
“Most economists…”
Are you serious? Where on earth did you pull “most economists” from? (Answer: Barack Obama’s speech.) I understand that the pretense of a consensus is a classic political technique, but come now, we’re all adults here. That’s just not very persuasive. And to assume that there’s only one school of economic thought is just juvenile. Several historians, particularly those who study the Great Depression, would heartily disagree with you.
“To quote a website…”
That’s very authoritative. I’d probably have left that nugget out of my comment, but you… you get the C.O. Jones award of the day for sticking with it.
“Look at his record on Global Warming.”
What is this supposed to mean? Oh, are you suggesting that there’s a consensus here as well? Would you like to discuss the fear mongering used in the global warming camp? (Or is it climate change now?) Denying a ridiculous theory and calling it for the farce that it is– not a bad record from what I can tell.
And seriously, the Left needs to get over this “Bush lied about WMD” bull. I was NOT a fan on the invasion of Iraq because I didn’t think we’d met our burden of proof for Just War, but relaying bad information is quite different from lying. Our intelligence agencies had the same misinformation as Britain and Russia’s, and corroboration like that would lead any reasonable person to assume that it’s valid info. As much as it helps support the Bush Derangement Syndrome, you have to come to terms with the fact that Bush himself didn’t manufacture some grand lie. He relayed bad info.
And again, why does it seem like the Lefies in this thread are more attuned with Savage’s show and Beck’s program than anyone? Do you really tune in for that much of their program, or are you speaking authoritatively on a subject where most of your information comes via YouTube clips?
P.S. Enjoy some commentary from a few of those that don’t fall into your “most economist” misnomer of a category:
“Government spending does not cause a net increase in jobs over the long run; it costs jobs. Every dollar the government spends is either taxed or borrowed from the private sector, which means it “crowds out” private sector job creation. And because government spending is less efficient than private sector spending, the economy actually grows more slowly in the long run as the government gets bigger.”
More here.
“Savage? O’Reilly said he would let Al Quada bomb San Francisco. Can Savage top that?
Ann Coulter argued for bombing the NYT building. Can Savage top that? ”
I said we will start with one. Notice I did not say we would end there. I’ll stay with Savage.
“Got any prominent Left Wingers that have said something like that?”
Well, I was hoping that you would single out one and we would take the conversation from there. But, if it is your position that there is no one, absolutely no one, on the left that you feel does more harm than good, what can I say? At that point, this is not a conversation so much as a polemic.
Kev: “Good gravy, C.S., you’ll just yammer on until the cows come home, won’t you? You must fancy yourself rather important. I hope at least your family thinks so.”
So says the man who keeps responding to my posts.
Care to explain this bit of obvious hypocrisy?
“Are you serious? Where on earth did you pull “most economists” from? (Answer: Barack Obama’s speech.)”
Paul Krugman, actually. You might have heard of him. He recently won a Nobel prize.
Me: “To quote a website…”
Kev: “That’s very authoritative.”
Wow. Classic poisoning the well. Instead of dealing with my point, you attack my source. I’d link to a website giving the definition, but I know how you dislike websites as sources. … Except when you post links to them.
Hmmm. More hypocrisy?
“What is this supposed to mean? Oh, are you suggesting that there’s a consensus here as well? ”
Oh dear god! You’re a denier. This makes so much sense.
Yes, there is a consensus on global warming. There’s as much a consensus here as there is on evolution. But perhaps you are a creationist as well?
“And seriously, the Left needs to get over this ‘Bush lied about WMD’ bull. I was NOT a fan on the invasion of Iraq because I didn’t think we’d met our burden of proof for Just War, but relaying bad information is quite different from lying.”
It wasn’t bad intelligence; they fucking lied. Remember ‘yellow-cake uranium from Nigeria’? That was a lie. It was debunked before the State of the Union speech, but it was included anyway. That was a fucking lie.
And that’s just one example. They intentionally shut out any expert who didn’t agree with there pre-approved conclusion, which was most experts. (Got that information from the man who headed up the weapons inspectors in Iraq after the first war, who was American, so you can’t say, ‘Hans Blix was a Germany, and didn’t want to find WMD.’
Kev: “P.S. Enjoy some commentary from a few of those that don’t fall into your ‘most economist’ misnomer of a category:
“Government spending does not cause a net increase in jobs over the long run; Every dollar the government spends is either taxed or borrowed from the private sector, which means it ‘crowds out’ private sector job creation. And because government spending is less efficient than private sector spending, the economy actually grows more slowly in the long run as the government gets bigger.”
A couple of points…
1.) We are not talking about long term, but short term.
2.) I noticed they declared the government to be less efficient as fact instead of an assumption.
Look at the overhead of the IRS. Now compare that to the overhead of private collection agencies.
Look at the overhead in the Canadian health care system. It’s roughly 17%. Look at the overhead in private health care in the United States. It’s 33$. That’s not even close.
If the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be right by accident.
Me: “Got any prominent Left Wingers that have said something like that?”
Estarcatus: “Well, I was hoping that you would single out one and we would take the conversation from there.”
It’s your claim. You do the research.
“But, if it is your position that there is no one, absolutely no one, on the left that you feel does more harm than good, what can I say?”
You are…
1.) Putting words in my mouth.
2.) Moving the goal posts.
“At that point, this is not a conversation so much as a polemic.”
I can tell you what this is not. This is not an argument. In an argument you put forth evidence that what you say is true.
You are merely saying there are those on the left who are just as bad, but refuse to even give names.
Kev, leave ‘em be.
“Give me examples, or take your false equivalency and show it up your ass.”
You’re kidding right?
Olberman never has the opposing view on his Show and just jerks himself off with his guests. He does nothing but brand the opposition as fascists and nazis, Not to mention His hypocrisy, His excoriation of Bush on the FISA subject and then His backtracking on it is 1 example; http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html
Or maybe his interview with Howard Dean about politcial discourse…Please.
Savage is over the top, O’Rielly rants to his own agenda.
Limbaugh on the other hand backs up His opinion with facts, I might no agree 100% with his conclusions, But there is substance there not not oral flatulence ala Olberman.
Limbaugh on the other hand backs up His opinion with facts
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong!
“It’s your claim. You do the research.”
My claim is that there are plenty of loud mouths on both sides. You seem to feel the loudest, foulest mouths are on the right. Do I have this about right?
“You are…
1.) Putting words in my mouth.
2.) Moving the goal posts.”
1. Perhaps so.
2. Not sure I see this one. What I will say is that my attempt to have a conversation were entirely unsolicited, and not entirely welcome, I think, so I will let it go.
“I can tell you what this is not. This is not an argument. In an argument you put forth evidence that what you say is true.
You are merely saying there are those on the left who are just as bad, but refuse to even give names.”
You are certainly correct, this is not an argument, it was my attempt at generating an actual conversation. As for listing those I think are “just as bad”, that, as you must surely know, is entirely subjective. Certainly, I have some in mind that probably would greatly increase the level of our national political discourse if they simply were to be quiet, but that is entirely my own opinion. It would seem to me to be as fruitful as arguing over what tastes better, cherry or grape. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I think I am not.
Instead, I thought, maybe, it might prove a useful exercise to have a discussion on extremism, and how it is provoked by the things we see and hear on a daily basis, in the media, on the Internet, etc. This, probably, is not the forum for that, so I will let this thread die a natural death.
I wish you well, though, and take care.
Me: “It’s your claim. You do the research.”
estarcatus: “My claim is that there are plenty of loud mouths on both sides. You seem to feel the loudest, foulest mouths are on the right. Do I have this about right?”
My claim is Rush Limbaugh is a racist asshole. I can supply the quotes if you want.
My claim is Michael Savage is a bigoted prick. I can supply the quotes if you want.
My claim is Glenn Beck is a deranged nut bar. I can supply the quotes if you want.
Your claim seems to be, ‘Both side have their nuts and are therefore the same.’ Unless you have quotes to back it up, this is false equivalency.
“You are certainly correct, this is not an argument, it was my attempt at generating an actual conversation.”
I’m not interested in a conversation. I’m interested in an argument. An argument as defined in most textbooks on logic and reasoning.
I.E. Two sides with differing views, each putting forth claims with evidence to back up those claims.
A conversation is devoid of claims and evidence.
Dotar Sojat: “Kev, leave ‘em be.”
He has to leave. If he keeps posting, he just shows himself to be a larger hypocrite.