Then finishes with this:

“The righties will never do the things they are talking about: hanging, shooting, etc.”

But then we have all these abortion clinic murders etc…the will ‘never’…heh-

OW may be reactionary, but thats why he s popular.

Among hard-line, take-no-prisoners, our party right or wrong, no compromise partisan domgatists, sure.

Anyways, what about right-thinking, winds of change, Eject! Eject! Eject!, tacitus (I think someone already mentioned it, but whatever), or some of the much lesser-known ones like Stereo Describes my Scenario (which is part of Oliver Willis’ much-maligned “Conservative Brotherhood)?

freerepublic.com regularly edits out liberals from their message boards.

michelle magalagadingdong also edits out liberal posts

balloon-juice conservatives continually attack the liberal posters, even though the vast majority of the liberal posters are well spoken and trying to encourage further debate

even here the conservative posters either ignore the original questions or just attack OW for being a “bush-hater” without ever addressing the issues. Even when given thoughtful arguments they tend to batter that down with irrelevant myths, until most of the liberal posters just quit responding, because in responding they’d have to wade through a multitude of inane “you’re just a bush hater” rhetoric that doesn’t solve anything.

As for this topic, I believe that what OW is looking for is actual conservatives that have tossed the Bush tripe aside and are looking for a REAL conservative movement within politics. Most of these blogs mentioned are just bully pulpits to bash the left, including 60% of the posts on Balloon juice.

OW may be reactionary, but thats why he’s popular.

Oliver : You are correct. I inadvertantly named wizbang twice in my prior response. In the wonderful construct of a Sen. Durbin apology, I apology IF you took offense to my remark.

On the other hand, it seems that myself and several others have managed to show that there are a variety of grass roots conservative blogs out there. I suspect that if you wandered outside of mediamatters, kos, atrios, and drum now and then, you might know that.

It’s “bad and racist?”

It seems to me as if the point of the post is to examine what the person is saying (”But also notice: he supports the same end. The only debate is about the means.”). Is it now “hateful, bad, and racist” to interpret and discuss the meaning of what someone has publically stated, if that person happens to be Muslim (or Jewish, or Christian, etc.)

I mean, the curator of this very website routinely claims that anyone who walks into a courthouse and starts shooting is somehow connected with or inspired by Tom DeLay, despite a stunning void of evidence, based solely upon a particular interpretation of DeLay’s words. Is that “bad” and “hateful” too? Or is that particular brand of interpretation and discussion somehow more acceptable because the person being discussed is a White Republican rather than a Saudi imam?

I don’t necessarily agree with LGF’s take on this particular matter. In fact, I’d like to see more Muslims getting out there and publically denouncing “the Muslim who makes do with breaking the wooden podium, with screaming, and with patronizing, condescending rhetoric that ‘Islam is coming, and it will change the face of the earth.’” So I disagree with LGF on this. But just because I disagree with them does not make the comment “hateful, racist, and bad.”

A conservative posts on a liberal site and receives insults.
A liberal posts on a conservative site and is treated respectfully.

Conclusion: conservatives are more respectful than liberals.

Anybody see a hole in the logic?

(But I will say this about schadenfreude: while liberals aren’t shy about expressing their glee at the death or illness of a conservative icon, I’ve never seen one express a wish to kill said icon. I can’t say the same about conservatives, at least on Free Republic and LGF - there are some bloodthirsty fuckers over there.)

If a conservative dies (Ronald Reagan, Barbara Olsen) or is inflicted with a potentially fatal disease (Laura Ingraham), there’s usually a fair number of commenters who fall all over themselves with glee.

Conservative commenters, however, extend prayers and wishes for recovery.

You “hate” certain people who comment on this website?

As for LGF, I stopped reading it a couple years ago, when it became clear that most of the commenting base was utterly ignorant. But it seems pretty short-sighted of you to claim that it’s somehow “hateful” to track atrocities committed by Muslims (especially against Israeli Jews) rather than simply reporting facts about a certain group of people.

A glance at LGF’s frontpage right now (again, discounting the comments section, which is pretty awful), reveals nothing “hateful” at all. A few posts about the President’s speech, some torture-related posts, some anti-leftist posts (which, by your own standard is, if “hateful,” hateful only of “ideas,” which you yourself have condoned), a post about an Israeli soldier convicted of manslaughter, China, the WTC Memorial, Checkpoint Charlie getting bulldozed, a few open posts, etc.

So really, unless you want to get into the merits of the commenters (in which case I could point to any left-wing blog like Kos or Atrios and find dozens upon dozens of truly nauseating filth, so I doubt you really want to start that particular shouting match), I think it’s kind of unfair to call LGF (or, at least Charles Johnson, who does the “blog posts” you refer to) particularly “hateful” toward Muslims.

That being said, the commenters there keep me away pretty much all the time.

“Fighting dirty” in a rhetorical sense in a duel of typewriters, is hardly the same as being prepared for armed conflict against our true enemies.
Please note that I didn’t call liberals either violent or cretins , two words you apparently do not understand.
Better luck next time.

At least this blog hates ideas, and not people (well, except GWB. And Cheney. And certain OW trolls).

So, LGF isn’t much different than Oliverwillis.com in that respect, then?

And Frank_D, as an ex-longtime member of Plastic.com, I think it’s unfair to call it a “liberal blog.” It’s an “online community” populated mostly by blithering idiots (mostly of the liberal persuasion, granted) and run by a schizophrenic asshole named Carl. It’s not so much a “blog” as a Slashdot clone infused with Carl’s pseudo-grandiose theories on online community-building. As such, it’s not correct to call it “liberal” or “conservative.” It is the sum of its members. Most of whom are extremist gasbags, at least when it comes to questions of politics.