The arrests of members of a Michigan-based "Christian" militia group should convince doubters that there is good reason to worry about right-wing, anti-government extremism -- and potential violence -- in the Age of Obama.
I put the word Christian in quotes because anyone who plots to assassinate law enforcement officers, as a federal indictment alleges members of the Hutaree militia did, is no follower of Christ. According to federal prosecutors, the Hutaree -- the word's not in my dictionary, but its Web site claims it means "Christian warrior" -- are convinced that their enemies include "state and local law enforcement, who are deemed 'foot soldiers' of the federal government, federal law enforcement agencies and employees, participants in the 'New World Order,' and anyone who does not share in the Hutaree's beliefs."
According to the indictment, the group had been plotting for two years to assassinate federal, state or local police officers. "Possible such acts which were discussed," the indictment says, "included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade" with homemade bombs.
Nine members of the Hutaree were named in the indictment. Eight were arrested during weekend FBI raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana; one suspect remains at large. The group's Web site shows members in camouflage outfits traipsing through woods in "training" exercises. They could be out for an afternoon of paintball, except for the loony rhetoric about "sword and flame" and the page, labeled "Gear," that links to several gun dealers. Along with numerous weapons offenses, the Hutaree are charged with sedition.
The episode highlights the obvious: For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right.
It is disingenuous for mainstream purveyors of incendiary far-right rhetoric to dismiss groups such as the Hutaree by saying that there are "crazies on both sides." This simply is not true.
There was a time when the far left was a spawning ground for political violence. The first big story I covered was the San Francisco trial of heiress Patricia Hearst, who had been kidnapped and eventually co-opted by the Symbionese Liberation Army -- a far-left group whose philosophy was as apocalyptic and incoherent as that of the Hutaree. There are aging radicals in Cuba today who got to Havana by hijacking airplanes in the 1970s. Left-wing radicals caused mayhem and took innocent lives.
But for the most part, far-left violence in this country has gone the way of the leisure suit and the AMC Gremlin. An anti-globalization movement, including a few window-smashing anarchists, was gaining traction at one point, but it quickly diminished after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An environmental group and an animal-rights group have been linked with incidents of arson. Beyond those particulars, it is hard to identify any kind of leftist threat.
By contrast, there has been explosive growth among far-right, militia-type groups that identify themselves as white supremacists, "constitutionalists," tax protesters and religious soldiers determined to kill people to uphold "Christian" values. Most of the groups that posed a real danger, as the Hutaree allegedly did, have been infiltrated and dismantled by authorities before they could do any damage. But we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was authored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.
It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction -- the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.
Demagogues scream at people that their government is illegitimate, that their country has been "taken away," that their elected officials are "traitors" and that their freedom is at risk. They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend. But they shouldn't be surprised if some listeners take them literally.
If you want to do crap like crosshairs on political leaders you have that right but I also have the right to judge such actions.
Yeah, merely using a graphic of a target on Palin's website for targeting unpopular Democrats to run against and replace in elections with Republicans. How violent.
That's so much less subtle than Democrats producing books and movies over the last 5 years that fantasize about assassinating President George W. Bush. And angrily calling Bush a war criminal and a murderer.
You saw some guy tried to shoot republican Rep. Cantor of Virginia, right? (A shooter who just happens to be a gay muslim who donated --twice!-- to the Obama campaign. )
Someone else threw a brick through a Republican Representative Eric Cantor's window.
Liberals (mostly gay activists) attack Christian churches. In backlash to public rejection of gay marriage amendments.
Liberals disrupt speeches at book appearances of Conservatives(Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, in the last 2 weeks). Conservatives may object to what Liberals have to say, but at least we allow them to talk and have a dialogue with us.
But liberals borrow a page from Stalin and Mao, and just want to shut down any dissenting conservative views, preventing Conservatives from speaking, by declaring Conservative views as hate speech, by baselessly slandering Conservatives as racist or violent, or trying to revive a twisted Fairness Doctrine (thinly veiled liberal censorship) to drive conservatives off the air.
Far-Left violence is a threat, because it is constantly given a free pass, which only encourages more violent and uncivil Liberal attacks on conservatives. That doesn't matter to the 80%-plus liberal media, who abdicate their responsibility by not reporting it.
Liberals disrupt speeches and book appearances of Conservatives. Conservatives may object to what Liberals have to say, but at least we allow them to talk and have a dialogue with us. But liberals borrow a page from Stalin and Mao, and just want to shut down any dissenting conservative views, preventing Conservatives from speaking, by declaring their views as hate speech, by slandering them as racist or violent, or trying to revive a twisted Fairness Doctrine to drive conservatives off the air.
Far-Left violence is a threat, because it is constantly given a free pass, which only encourages more violent and uncivil Liberal attacks on conservatives. That doesn't matter to the 80%-plus liberal media, who abdicate their responsibility by not reporting it.
Case in point, Karl Rove's booksigning interrupted by liberal (Code Pink) protestors :
Real liberal violence and intimidation and shut-down of free speech by liberals.
-vs- potential "hate speech" by conservatives.
Interesting how the lesser one is manufactured into a page one issue in the media for a week. And the more severe actual attacks by liberals go virtually unreported, despite video evidence of liberal violence, liberal intimidation, and liberal violation of free speech.
The episode highlights the obvious: For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right.
The old saying "You're not paranoid if they're really trying to get you" applies.
It's not conspiracy theory that our leadership has been putting us on a path toward globalism for decades:
NAFTA and GATT were strongly opposed by citizens who wrote their Representatives and Congressmen to oppose it (myself included).
The offshoring of jobs has been widely opposed by Americans.
Moves to open our borders with Mexico in the form of ports, truck drivers and international highway systems have been widely opposed by Americans.
Amnesty for illegals has been widely opposed by Americans.
Deficit spending that threatens to collapse the dollar --which I amd many others believe it is intended to-- is widely opposed by Americans, as the Tea Party movement manifests.
But despite majority opposition to these things, the government (i.e., a globalist elite, who undermines our sovereignty) does them anyway.
So to some degree, these right-wing militia guys have a legitimate argument about preparing to defend themselves against federal tyranny. Because our sovereignty is in jeapordy.
But where I draw the line is when some of these militia guys talk about attacks on police officers. Even if police officers are tools of a tyrannical government, they are unwitting tools, and targeting police officers just hurts innocent people not responsible for destroying our rights and sovereignty. THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO PEACEFULLY, SHORT OF VIOLENCE, OPPOSE WHAT IS OCCURRING, AS THE TEA PARTY IS DEMONSTRATING. And it's character assassination to connect the Tea Party to these trigger-happy lunatics.
They are NOT representative of conservative opposition. Any more than PETA or the Weather Underground's terrorist antics are representative of the majority of Liberals.
The only difference is dangerous lunatic conservatives get national media coverage, and dangerous lunatic liberals do not.
If you want to do crap like crosshairs on political leaders you have that right but I also have the right to judge such actions.
Yeah, merely using a graphic of a target on Palin's website for targeting unpopular Democrats to run against and replace in elections with Republicans. How violent.
....
A rifle crosshairs won't seem so tame after one of the crazies from the right try to assasinate a democrat. Besides it's not just that, she has alot of angry rhetoric that goes along with her crosshairs.
MEM, I'm having problem with the RKMB search function. Could you dig up the posts from 2004 and 2009 where you condemned the Democrat Party for this "crap"?
Because I'm sure you did. Anything else would make you look stupid and hypocritical.
A rifle crosshairs won't seem so tame after one of the crazies from the right try to assasinate a democrat. Besides it's not just that, she has alot of angry rhetoric that goes along with her crosshairs.
Ah, so you're falling back on being a hypocrite. Not surprising.
If your objection is now that the Palin map was accompanied by violent or militaristic language (ex: "a call to arms") then your attempt to draw a distinction still fails. One of the maps above refers to republican districts as being "behind enemy lines," which is, of course, a military or war term.
But keep splitting those meaningless hairs. I'm sure we won't find more similar rhetoric in both parties to keep making your argument look disingenuous.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
That has to be the worst attempt at justification that I've seen in quite some time. Horrible. Just horrible. You're working way to hard to project the Republicans as the evil ones and the Democrats as faultless and good.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
Oh, wow.
I think all that semen you ingest has finally killed whatever remained over your brain cells.
Erick Erickson will pull 'shotgun' over Census CNN contributor and prominent Republican blogger Erick Erickson is threatening to pull out a "shotgun" to scare away census workers.
Erickson — the founder of the conservative blog RedState — said on his Macon, Ga.-area radio show Thursday that if a census worker carrying a longer American Community Survey form came by his house, he would "pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door."
"They're not going on my property. They can't do that. They don't have the legal right, and yet they're trying," Erickson said, in a recording by the liberal media watchdog Media Matters. "The servants are becoming the masters. We are working for the government. We are becoming enslaved by the government."
On his blog, RedState, Erickson wrote Friday that he was being "misconstrued."
"ACS Surveyors are getting belligerent," he wrote, "and have showed up on people's doorsteps to harass them and threaten jail. I said if some ACS person showed up on my doorstep to try to arrest me for not wanting to tell the government how often I flush my toilet, I'd get out my wife's shotgun and get them off my property. Naturally the left is out today saying I was on the air advocating killing census workers."
Despite having a history of inflammatory rhetoric — he once called retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter a "goat f—ing child molester" — Erickson was touted by CNN as an "agenda-setter" who is "in touch with the very people" the network hopes to reach when they signed him to provide commentary in March.
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
That has to be the worst attempt at justification that I've seen in quite some time.
MEM, you have to be kidding. Anyone and everyone knows that targets are used in shooting. For example:
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not. Both sides have used the target imagery but not the crosshairs. I think the cross hairs automatically suggests a gun. Add Palin's "reload" comment and it's clear that she is purposely going for the gun imagery.
Are you a parody of a progressive or are you being serious?
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical. If they were I think you would have some examples of politicians using crosshairs. Do you have any?
Of course. One would point out similarities in order to argue things are the same.
I've already set forth my position as to why they are the same. In fact, I am happy to point out that crosshairs are simply one type of target used in shooting practice, along with others I've cited. Case in point:
As I said before, can you explain why they are different?
To date, I haven't seen you cite a single example of how they are different.
Furthermore, I would like to remind you that you are the person who started a thread and insinuated that politicians using this type of imagery are inciting violence. Therefore, I think the burden is on you at this point to explain why the DNC doing it is okay but a republican doing it is different/wrong. I, personally, accept that both sides do it as a form of harmless political metaphor.
At least take a shot (no pun intended) at explaining why one kind of target (Palin crosshairs) is different than another (DNC bullseye).
Take your time. Take all day in fact to consider your position if you want. Feel free to make your post as long as you want. I don't think Rob has a character limit.
If you can explain your position, great. If you can't, just admit it.
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical.
MEM is right. Crosshairs are used on scopes (including many nonweapon mounted models) and lenses as a tool to center your vision. Whereas a target is an object that you're supposed to hit with a weapon or other violent actions. Therefore, the use of targets in campaign rhetoric is a more severe incitement of violence.
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical.
MEM is right. Crosshairs are used on scopes (including many nonweapon mounted models) and lenses as a tool to center your vision. Whereas a target is an object that you're supposed to hit with a weapon or other violent actions. Therefore, the use of targets in campaign rhetoric is a more severe incitement of violence.
I think you can "target" somebody without a gun being involved. A "crosshairs" however just automatically brings to mind a gun being aimed at somebody. Add to the fact that Palin used words to go along with it to support that idea of a gun being used it's hard to ignore. Even more so when current events have a right wing militia planning to kill cops. If that's what she wants to do at her prep rallies, that is her right but I think it's at best poor leadership on her part.
So what you're saying is that targeting someone (metaphorically) in another party is okay as long as the reader thinks "crossbow," "missile" or anything but gun?
Then we are back to the fact that the Democrats previously used targets on the opposition in pretty much the same way that Palin did. The only difference, by your own argument, is that one used a target that made you think "gun" and the others used targets that implied (at least to you) other weapons.
So then you must agree that the Democrat party was also wrong (or, in the alternative, that both were engaged in harmless political metaphor), correct?
No Palin used crosshairs while working the gun imagery.
You just wrote that the gun part of it is largely irrelevant:
Originally Posted By: the G-man
So what you're saying is that targeting someone (metaphorically) in another party is okay as long as the reader thinks "crossbow," "missile" or anything but gun?
Originally Posted By: MEM
No that wouldn't be ok either.
You just wrote that targeting a political opponent with something other than a gun is also wrong.
Therefore, the fact that Palin used "gun imagery," by your own admission is no worse than the DNC using other forms of targeting imagery.
Nope. You can mistate all you want but I never said the gun part was irrelevant. Palin can talk about reloading and use her crosshairs all she wants too. I just think it's very poor leadership on her part.
I cut and pasted my question--and your response--verbatim (assuming you haven't gone back and edited it). We can all read what you wrote. I misstated nothing.
You said targeting was wrong regardless of the weapon the metaphor brought to mind.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
So what you're saying is that targeting someone (metaphorically) in another party is okay as long as the reader thinks "crossbow," "missile" or anything but gun?
So what you're saying is that targeting someone (metaphorically) in another party is okay as long as the reader thinks "crossbow," "missile" or anything but gun?
Originally Posted By: MEM
No that wouldn't be ok either.
Are you now saying that targeting someone in another party IS okay as long the reader thinks of a different weapon?
It is a matter of record, and I've posted examples to demonstrate, that the images used by the DNC were, like the Palin "crosshairs," forms of targets. I've demonstrated, and you've failed to rebut, that both the DNC targets and the Palin crosshairs are used in shooting practice.
Shooting. As in guns.
If your argument is that gun imagery is wrong, then you need to either: (a) condemn the Democrats too; (b) admit that both sides were speaking in harmless metaphor. Otherwise, you are being a hypocrite.
You still haven't answered my question from yesterday and now you're demanding I answer one of yours?
But, sure. I'll answer your hypothetical just as soon as you answer mine:
if a GOP leader had been assasinated in 2004 or 2009, do you really think the DNC would have continued to use targets and written about 'targeted republicans' on their websites?
I think there would have been greater sensitivity by dems but they were not using crosshairs or had militias with plans to kill cops so it wouldn't have been much to change.
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical.
MEM is right. Crosshairs are used on scopes (including many nonweapon mounted models) and lenses as a tool to center your vision. Whereas a target is an object that you're supposed to hit with a weapon or other violent actions. Therefore, the use of targets in campaign rhetoric is a more severe incitement of violence.
I think you can "target" somebody without a gun being involved. A "crosshairs" however just automatically brings to mind a gun being aimed at somebody. Add to the fact that Palin used words to go along with it to support that idea of a gun being used it's hard to ignore. Even more so when current events have a right wing militia planning to kill cops. If that's what she wants to do at her prep rallies, that is her right but I think it's at best poor leadership on her part.
Doc if you would care to tackle the question I posed to G-man feel free.
Why, when all you've done is dodged and double talked out of everyone else's questions? My post, though made sarcastically, still blows holes in your 'crosshairs are worse than targets' argument. How was Palin's use of the image and her rhetoric any worse than that of the Dem Party that G-man pointed out of "Behind Enemy Lines" or of "Targeted Republicans"?
You want answers without having the balls to provide them yourself?
Alright, I think that if a Dem politician would have been killed after Palin's speech, she would have stopped her rhetoric just as fast as the Dems would have stopped theirs if a Rep politician had been killed. In other words, right-a-fucking-way. Because that's what politicians do.
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 47 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence
Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play! 7500+ posts 47 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence
Can't wait for the spin on this one.
It's just sad that you're now down to this type of post. Rex already has that job. I do give you credit for at least answering a question though.
It amazes me that you're not capable of seeing how silly the whole argument of 'crosshairs are worse than targets' is. They are equal rhetoric, whether good or bad. You just can't bring yourself to saying that the Dems and Reps are level with this kind of thing whether you approve of the style of rhetoric or not. That's what's really sad here.
The target stuff gets used by both parties though but not the cross-hairs. Any theory as to why if as you say they are "equal"?
Two days ago I provided examples and citations to show they were equal, insofar as: (a) cross-hairs are a form of target; (b) targets, and not just cross-hairs, are used in shooting practice.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
[A target is] not the same thing as crosshairs G-man.
....I am happy to point out that crosshairs are simply one type of target used in shooting practice, along with others I've cited. Case in point:
As I said before, can you explain why they are different?
To date, I haven't seen you cite a single example of how they are different.
You have refused/failed, despite multiple opportunities to do so, to give a single reason why they're different. You just keep repeating your opinion that they are.
I think there would have been greater sensitivity by dems but they were not using crosshairs or had militias with plans to kill cops so it wouldn't have been much to change.
I guess if MEM wants to have the Reps lay claim to the extremist militia; then, under the same 'rules' of politics, the Dems would have to lay claim to movements like ALF and ELF.
You have only pointed out some similarities. That's not the same thing as being identical.
MEM is right. Crosshairs are used on scopes (including many nonweapon mounted models) and lenses as a tool to center your vision. Whereas a target is an object that you're supposed to hit with a weapon or other violent actions. Therefore, the use of targets in campaign rhetoric is a more severe incitement of violence.
How's that for splitting hairs?
targets are what you shoot at. crosshairs are what you use to aim at your target.
CNN's Erickson lashes out, doubles down on "shotgun" remark April 05, 2010 4:55 pm ET by Eric Hananoki
In response to criticism, CNN's Erick Erickson is claiming that liberals are "misconstruing" his remark about pulling out a shotgun if the government tries to arrest him for not filling out the American Community Survey. Erickson also lashed out at "people" who "linger on every word I say" by stating: "You people are nuts. Absolute nuts. Where do you get off misconstruing that I'm agitating for killing Census workers when you people are out there advocating for the killing of the unborn on a regular basis. You have no shame."
On April 1, Erickson said of the American Community Survey: "This is crazy. What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I'm not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They're not going on my property. They can't do that. They don't have the legal right, and yet they're trying."
That same day, Media Matters posted a seven-minute audio clip of Erickson's remarks, in context, along with transcript. The headline on Media Matters' post was, "CNN's Erickson: I'll '[p]ull out my wife's shotgun' if they try to arrest me for not filling out the American Community Survey."
On his radio show today, Erickson accused Media Matters of running "a story on their website saying I'm advocating shooting Census workers":
ERICKSON: I saw a report now -- it was an email and I've deleted the email, that now the word this year that everyone is using is narrative. The word narrative has been around for a long time but people are now paying attention to it in ways they didn't in the past. The media constructs the narrative of events. They do not set out to create it, but again, as I've discussed before, the world view -- the narrative is that conservatives are angry and are turning violent. And they have people in the New York Times and the Washington Post and even the Wall Street Journal and across the board throughout the traditional media building the narrative that conservatives are angry.
The target stuff gets used by both parties though but not the crosshairs.
Now you're backtracking:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: thedoctor
Are you sure that a Dem has never used the term 'crosshairs' in any speech what-so-ever? I'm pretty sure that it's a common used phrase.
I'm sure they've used the word but not in a graphic like Palin did.
But more to the point:
We've got democrats using target graphics against republicans. We've got democrats (including Howard Dean and John Kerry) using the word cross-hairs in discussions of targeting the opposition and/or their policies and, in the case of Obama, saying he'll bring a gun to the fight with the GOP. And you're still trying to claim a distinction?
Come on. This isn't even hypocritical any more. You're just plain acting delusional. (Oh, and nice attempt to change the subject after 3/4 of the board called you out by posting something from media matters having nothing to do with Palin)
CNN's Erickson lashes out, doubles down on "shotgun" remark April 05, 2010 4:55 pm ET by Eric Hananoki
In response to criticism, CNN's Erick Erickson is claiming that liberals are "misconstruing" his remark about pulling out a shotgun if the government tries to arrest him for not filling out the American Community Survey. Erickson also lashed out at "people" who "linger on every word I say" by stating: "You people are nuts. Absolute nuts. Where do you get off misconstruing that I'm agitating for killing Census workers when you people are out there advocating for the killing of the unborn on a regular basis. You have no shame."
On April 1, Erickson said of the American Community Survey: "This is crazy. What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I'm not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They're not going on my property. They can't do that. They don't have the legal right, and yet they're trying."
That same day, Media Matters posted a seven-minute audio clip of Erickson's remarks, in context, along with transcript. The headline on Media Matters' post was, "CNN's Erickson: I'll '[p]ull out my wife's shotgun' if they try to arrest me for not filling out the American Community Survey."
On his radio show today, Erickson accused Media Matters of running "a story on their website saying I'm advocating shooting Census workers":
ERICKSON: I saw a report now -- it was an email and I've deleted the email, that now the word this year that everyone is using is narrative. The word narrative has been around for a long time but people are now paying attention to it in ways they didn't in the past. The media constructs the narrative of events. They do not set out to create it, but again, as I've discussed before, the world view -- the narrative is that conservatives are angry and are turning violent. And they have people in the New York Times and the Washington Post and even the Wall Street Journal and across the board throughout the traditional media building the narrative that conservatives are angry.
I posted the right wing nut from CNN stuff because it falls into the subject matter of this thread btw. "rising risk of far-right violence"
Given that you did so in lieu of addressing the many points raised in response to your own argument about Palin I think it's pretty clear what your motivation was.
I don't know, MEM. The way you've pretty much lied about her in this thread, attacking her for things that you accept in Democrats and making imaginary distinctions where none exist, does come off as pretty hateful.
Not going to play that game, MEM. I made it clear that your fabrications were about the distinctions you were trying to draw between her actions and those of your fellow democrats, to wit:
Quote:
attacking her for things that you accept in Democrats and making imaginary distinctions where none exist, does come off as pretty hateful.
And why won't you answer my questions from two (nearly three) days ago, instead of posing your own?
So I didn't actually lie as you originally accused me of doing.
I don't know if you lied or not.
As noted above, a case could be made that the way you attempted to create a false distinction between her acts and the DNC's (when in fact, they are virtually identical) is intentional. If so, that could be considered a lie.
On other hand, it could be that you are actually so far divorced from reality that you actually believe there's a difference between her actions and the DNC's. In that case, I guess you aren't really lying, but just delusional.
Has anyone else noticed that alleged suggestions of violence by Republicans or Tea Party members is big, big front-page news for a week or more.
But...actual violence by Democrats goes virtually unreported?
I'm sure if that brick had been a drawing of a target cross-hairs on a map, MEM would be the first person here to condemn what happened to that GOP congressman. After all, when has he ever displayed a foolish inconsistency?
By the way, you'll probably find this interesting:
Racists. Nutbags. Radicals. Extremists. The Tea Party movement has been slammed as all these and more in the mainstream media, particularly since fringe elements of the group went screaming after members of Congress in the run-up to the health care vote.
But even as Tea Party "fury" has become all the rage in popular accounts of their protests, some observers say the rallies are nothing compared to the anti-Bush frenzy at Iraq War protests in years past — outbursts that the press generally ignored.
"What's interesting about the media's latest freak-out is that there were radicals aplenty under President Bush [who] protested in the streets [and] talked openly about revolution and killing," said Evan Coyne Maloney, a documentary filmmaker who has followed anti-war protests since 2003.
"But oddly, the violent imagery used by people claiming to be advocates for peace never registered with the media," he wrote online. "If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story."
As the Huffington Post has pointed out, a few posters have popped up at Tea Party rallies calling President Obama the "new face of Hitler," a baby killer and even a slavedriver.
But those appear to pale in comparison to attacks on President George W. Bush, who was hanged in effigy, burned in effigy, compared to Hitler, called the Antichrist, a human abortion, and made the subject of numerous sustained death threats for about seven years. Those attacks, while highly visible, went mostly unreported outside of scattered conservative blogs.
The dem brick got reported more because it was part of a much larger reaction of violence after the healthcare vote. Stuff like death threats and a gas line being cut. You guys don't want to talk about it but threats or worse from the right is way up.
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove was targeted last week by handcuff-toting Code Pink members who tried to carry out a citizen's arrest during a book signing in Beverly Hills. As the attempt failed, one protester shouted to Rove that "the only comfort I take is that ... you're going to rot in hell."
Thousands of extreme critics weren't content to wait until Bush administration figures reached perdition — many made open death threats, though they got little press coverage.
And somewhere here at RKMBs I wrote about a group of lefties in Ithaca who threw actual human blood on a soldier and a recruiting center as part of an antiwar protest.
So, basically, there was violence from the antiwar left during the Bush years but it didn't get the coverage that one or two incidents from the tea partiers are getting now.
We also have examples of liberal environmental groups, freaked out by Al Gore's promise of global warming, engaging in acts of violence and eco-terror. However, as doc pointed out, very few of the Palin and talk radio bashers saw fit to try and blame Gore for the torching of SUVs and the spiking of trees.
And, of course, there are the union thugs who attack people openly in order to quell opposition to this or that union-friendly (typically democrat) politician.
At some point, it comes down to a "tree falling in the forest" kind of thing. If the media plays up violence on side (the right) and downplays it on the other (the left) it will seem as if one side was worse than the other. In fact, it would be very difficult, if the media downplayed left-wing violence, to even find the examples to show that the left did it.
Finally, I would remiss if I didn't point out that representatives of one side being violent is not excused by past bad acts from the other sides. A crime is a crime, if it occurred.
The issue I'm addressing is whether the media (and some people such as yourself) aren't being much quicker to publicize and generalize the bad apples on one side after doing their/your level best to cover-up (for lack of a better term) the bad apples on the other side.
Oh, and I guess this confirms that you are admitting defeat on the Palin/target/DNC/crosshairs argument, insofar as you're still trying to talk about other stuff now.
The Rove/code pink incident was national news G-man. A tree fell, people heard. The problem is there were more attacks on dems so instead of a tree here and there falling it was many.
The Rove/code pink incident was national news G-man. A tree fell, people heard.
I just did a search of google news for the phrase "rove code pink". It returned 294 results in 0.14 seconds.
Conversely, I searched google news for the phrase "tea party violence" and it returned 1,790 results.
That seems to indicate that the press wrote stories about the alleged tea party violence approximately six times for frequently.
Similarly, a searching google news for the phrase "left wing violence" generated only 755 results, whereas the phrase "right wing violence" generated 1,740 results (ie, more than a two to one margin).
Based on this it at least seems as if the press covers supposed conservative violence much more than supposed liberal violence.
Karl Rove Doesn't Like Publicity Over Code Pink Incident – What ... News Hounds (blog) - 9 hours ago
After the Code Pink “Citizens Arrest" of Karl Rove, at a Rove book signing, Rove said this on Fox News: “Well, you know, what was interesting was I thought ...
MiamiHerald.com Rove Book Signing Gets Surprise Ending CBS News - Mar 30, 2010
Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans on Monday walked toward Rove with handcuffs, saying she was making a citizen's arrest. "Look what you did, you outted a CIA ... California: Rove Leaves Stage After Heckling - New York Times Karl Rove blasts Democrats and promotes his new book in the East Bay - San Jose Mercury News Lafayette ready for Rove - is Rove ready for Lafayette? - San Francisco Chronicle (blog) Dallas Morning News (blog) - FOXNews all 500 news articles »
So after trying to say it wasn't reported now it's supposed to be as reported as much as all the right wing violence combined?
At least you have the Doctor to console you on how unfair life is for conservatives
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove was targeted last week by handcuff-toting Code Pink members who tried to carry out a citizen's arrest during a book signing in Beverly Hills. As the attempt failed, one protester shouted to Rove that "the only comfort I take is that ... you're going to rot in hell."
Thousands of extreme critics weren't content to wait until Bush administration figures reached perdition — many made open death threats, though they got little press coverage.
And somewhere here at RKMBs I wrote about a group of lefties in Ithaca who threw actual human blood on a soldier and a recruiting center as part of an antiwar protest.
So, basically, there was violence from the antiwar left during the Bush years but it didn't get the coverage that one or two incidents from the tea partiers are getting now.
We also have examples of liberal environmental groups, freaked out by Al Gore's promise of global warming, engaging in acts of violence and eco-terror. However, as doc pointed out, very few of the Palin and talk radio bashers saw fit to try and blame Gore for the torching of SUVs and the spiking of trees.
And, of course, there are the union thugs who attack people openly in order to quell opposition to this or that union-friendly (typically democrat) politician.
At some point, it comes down to a "tree falling in the forest" kind of thing. If the media plays up violence on side (the right) and downplays it on the other (the left) it will seem as if one side was worse than the other. In fact, it would be very difficult, if the media downplayed left-wing violence, to even find the examples to show that the left did it.
Finally, I would remiss if I didn't point out that representatives of one side being violent is not excused by past bad acts from the other sides. A crime is a crime, if it occurred.
The issue I'm addressing is whether the media (and some people such as yourself) aren't being much quicker to publicize and generalize the bad apples on one side after doing their/your level best to cover-up (for lack of a better term) the bad apples on the other side.
Oh, and I guess this confirms that you are admitting defeat on the Palin/target/DNC/crosshairs argument, insofar as you're still trying to talk about other stuff now.
I will give you that, perhaps, my reference at the end to the media doing "their ...level best" to cover-up liberal violence was imprecise and could lead someone who read my post quickly to think that I was implying they didn't cover it at all. However, I think the rest of my post made it very clear that I wasn't trying to claim their was no coverage, only a relative dearth when compared to coverage of supposed right wing violence.
You found less stories about left wing violence because there's less of it.
Unless you have an scientific study to prove that, your theory is just that. A theory. No better or worse than mine (ie, that there is/was violence from the left but it didn't/doesn't get the same level of coverage and that this creates a false impression of less violence on one side).
So we agree to not agree and I'll just keep posting additional violence from the right. You can keep talking about Rove and code pink and the few occassional other trees that fall.
... actual violence by Democrats goes virtually unreported?
The evidence, M E M, is that there's an abundance of liberal violence that goes unreported.
That there was far more inflammatory liberal rhetoric, harassment by liberals, and violence by liberals --in the specific examples of anti-Bush Iraq war demonstrations, and environmental terrorism-- that you like to pretend doesn't exist.
So we agree to not agree and I'll just keep posting additional violence from the right. You can keep talking about Rove and code pink and the few occassional other trees that fall.
Am I the only one to notice that whenever MEM pulls the "we agree to not agree and I'll just keep making shit up and ignoring anything that contradicts my limited world view" card it means he knows he's lost?
So news reports about right wing violence is now "making shit up"? That doesn't seem very rational but whatever.
Quote:
Broken windows Jake Sherman and Marin Cogan wrote today how intense the backlash has been in some quarters to the health care bill's passage, and the Kansas City Star reports on another broken window:
Authorities in Wichita and some other cities across the country are investigating vandalism against Democratic offices, apparently in response to health care reform.
And on Monday, a former Alabama militia leader took credit for instigating the actions.
Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Ala., former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern “Sons of Liberty” to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.
“There’s glass everywhere,” said Lyndsay Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party. “A brick took out the whole floor-to-ceiling window and put a gouge in my desk.”
Stauble said the brick, hurled through the window between Friday night and Saturday morning, had “some anti-Obama rhetoric” written on it.
... actual violence by Democrats goes virtually unreported?
The evidence, M E M, is that there's an abundance of liberal violence that goes unreported.
That there was far more inflammatory liberal rhetoric, harassment by liberals, and violence by liberals --in the specific examples of anti-Bush Iraq war demonstrations, and environmental terrorism-- that you like to pretend doesn't exist.
But it does.
More liberal reportage of a few conservative incidents --while ignoring that the ratio of craziness and death threats by liberals during the Bush years was much higher-- does not prove there are "more" conservative incidents. It only proves that the liberal media wants to spin it that way.
Calif. man arrested over calls to Pelosi By Pete Williams Justice correspondent
The FBI has arrested a California man accused of making harassing and obscene phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her support for the recently passed health care bill.
FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler identified the man as Gregory Lee Giusti, 48, of San Francisco. He was arrested at his home shortly after noon Wednesday.
While the charges are under seal, a federal official said he will be charged with violating a federal law against making calls "to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications."
The charge carries a maximum two-year sentence.
Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that the suspect made dozens of calls to Pelosi's homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband's business office. They say he recited her home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she should not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted. ...
You neglected to include this part of the MSNBC article you linked to:
Giusti has been in trouble previously for making threats. In 2004, he pleaded no contest in San Mateo County, just south of San Francisco, to a felony charge of making criminal threats and was sentenced to a year in jail and three years of supervised probation.
The 2004 arrest occurred on a commuter train after Giusti was kicked off for not paying his fare, Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County, said. Giusti became enraged, started screaming and threatened to kill the conductor, who called in the sheriff, Wagstaffe said.
So, rather than some sort of "tea partier" or "militia" member (the alleged topics of you thread, remember) it appears what we have here is a distrubed individual with a history of making threats, going back four years before the tea party or Sarah Palin were allegedly whipping up anti-Democrat fervor.
The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence.
The guy sounds like he's one of the far right crazies to me.
Your initial comment on this thread was as follows:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
If you want to do crap like crosshairs on political leaders you have that right but I also have the right to judge such actions.
It followed your posting, apparently approvingly, of an editorial that stated
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day -- and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies -- is calibrated not to inform but to incite.
So, clearly, your intent with this topic was to argue that Palin, talk radio and the tea parties were inciting violence.
And, of course, we all know that you've since been made to look like a fool by the fact that the DNC did the same sort of map as Palin.
So now you're citing a threat made against Pelosi by a clearly disturbed individual with a history of threats unrelated to politics and trying to tie it to your initial thesis. And leaving the individual's history out even though it was originally in the article you linked to.
Man charged with threatening Wash. senator Sen. Patty Murray was target of menacing calls over health bill vote By Pete Williams Justice correspondent NBC News updated 4:22 p.m. CT, Tues., April 6, 2010
Federal prosecutors have charged a Washington state man, Charles Alan Wilson, with repeatedly making threatening calls to Sen. Patty Murray's Seattle office, threatening to kill her because of her support for the health care bill.
FBI agents say they arrested Wilson after getting telephone records and calling him to confirm that his voice matched the one left on voicemail in Sen. Murray's office.
The investigation began in late March, after the health care bill was passed, when a staff member notified the FBI that a man who'd been calling the Seattle office for months, leaving messages after hours, had begun making overt threats to kill her.
In one message, according to court documents, he said, "I hope you realize, there's a target on your back now. There are many people out there who want you dead. ... Kill the ----ing senator. I'll donate the lead." In another, he describes himself as "a senior citizen on Social Security and Medicare" and says, "I want to thank you so much, very, very much, for signing my death warrant."
FBI agents checked the office phone records against the times the voicemails were received, leading to Wilson's number in Selah, Washington. As an additional check, an agent posing as a volunteer from a fictitious group opposed to the bill, Patients United Now, called Wilson on April 1 and talked to him for 14 minutes. He said he "hated" the new law and that he had repeatedly called Sen. Murray's office to complain, referring to her with a phrase, "sneaker shoes Murray," also often used on the voicemails.
The FBI also determined that Wilson, 64, has a handgun registered to him and a valid concealed weapons permit.
He has been charged with threatening a federal official, a felony carrying a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. ...
From the MSNBC story you just linked to (and cut from your post):
Both Republicans and Democrats have been the targets of violent threats. A man who had used a Web video to announce his intention to kill Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., was arrested on March 29. Cantor, a top House Republican leader, opposed the health care bill.
... Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that the suspect made dozens of calls to Pelosi's homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband's business office. They say he recited her home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she should not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted. ...
whomod content User some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts 7 seconds ago Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence
I understand why Doc has to go the fake quote route.
Where did he post a fake quote?
On 04/07/10 10:48 PM you posted the following verbatim (emphasis added):
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Quote:
Man charged with threatening Wash. senator Sen. Patty Murray was target of menacing calls over health bill vote By Pete Williams Justice correspondent NBC News updated 4:22 p.m. CT, Tues., April 6, 2010
Federal prosecutors have charged a Washington state man, Charles Alan Wilson, with repeatedly making threatening calls to Sen. Patty Murray's Seattle office, threatening to kill her because of her support for the health care bill.
FBI agents say they arrested Wilson after getting telephone records and calling him to confirm that his voice matched the one left on voicemail in Sen. Murray's office.
The investigation began in late March, after the health care bill was passed, when a staff member notified the FBI that a man who'd been calling the Seattle office for months, leaving messages after hours, had begun making overt threats to kill her.
In one message, according to court documents, he said, "I hope you realize, there's a target on your back now. There are many people out there who want you dead. ... Kill the ----ing senator. I'll donate the lead." In another, he describes himself as "a senior citizen on Social Security and Medicare" and says, "I want to thank you so much, very, very much, for signing my death warrant."
FBI agents checked the office phone records against the times the voicemails were received, leading to Wilson's number in Selah, Washington. As an additional check, an agent posing as a volunteer from a fictitious group opposed to the bill, Patients United Now, called Wilson on April 1 and talked to him for 14 minutes. He said he "hated" the new law and that he had repeatedly called Sen. Murray's office to complain, referring to her with a phrase, "sneaker shoes Murray," also often used on the voicemails.
The FBI also determined that Wilson, 64, has a handgun registered to him and a valid concealed weapons permit.
He has been charged with threatening a federal official, a felony carrying a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. ...
Doc was, and rightly so, pointing out the irony of you posting this article after you all but insisted that a target didn't connotate violence the way that "crosshairs" supposedly did.
For example:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man 04/02/10 07:53 PM
A target isn't the same thing as a crosshairs. All you did was find the closest thing you could to a crosshairs and declare it the same. It's not....
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man 04/04/10 10:11 PM
I think you can "target" somebody without a gun being involved.
Here you go, M E M, more evidence that conservatives are violent right-wing haters:
Oh wow. Wait a minute... those are DEMOCRATS throwing eggs at a Tea Party bus.
And then when the cops came by to see who unlawfully threw eggs, the Dems tried to blame it on the REPUBLICANS who were present. And the Republicans proved they were innocent by playing back the videotaped event for the cops to see it was THE DEMOCRATS who lied and actually threw the eggs.
Here's the same Nevada Tea party rally, where conservative Andrew Breitbart is threatened just for standing there and exercising his free speech rights, by those models of democracy and peaceful demonstration, the Democrats:
The guy with the mustache (who threatened Breitbart) also misdirected a Tea Party bus away from the rally, and gloatingly bragged about it. He was later revealed to be a member of a local electricians' union, a brownshirt tool of the Democrats.
And here's the same white-mustached union thug, ranting about class warfare and how rich people are going to pay!
I'm so confused, all these peaceful Democrats standing around weren't embarassed at all by what this guy said, and actually agreed with him and thought he made a great statement. You'd almost think that... ALL of these Democrats present have a hatred of rich people, embrace class warfare, and approve of any underhanded tactics (threats, egg-throwing, misdirection) that advance their cause, while undermining the right to assembly and free speech of the Tea Party members.
I must be indoctrinated by right wing hate. It all seems so obvious to me...
by Matt Kibbe The Left is escalating their attacks against Republicans, conservatives and the Tea Party movement. The movement that the Left and the media have laughed off for over a year now as a radical fringe of racists, bigots, homophobes, and domestic terrorists has come to pose a serious threat to the entitlement establishment and to the agenda that the Democrats promised their base. Now, they’re lashing out. They’re fabricating stories which are later disavowed. There is talk of infiltrating upcoming events. Attacks on organizations and individuals have increased.
To provide an example, the FreedomWorks office recently received this postcard in the mail (offensive language):
The return address listed Kim Hendren. Kim Hendren is a Republican in the Arkansas state legislature who is running for US Senate in 2010. To state the obvious, it would bring stupid to a new level to send something like this on an open postcard and list your name and address – especially if you were running for office. After we received a second installment of the hate-filled postcards, the FreedomWorks staff did some digging. We contacted Kim Hernden’s office and questioned him about it, and he filled us in on the smear campaigns against him. He’s been on the receiving end of relentless political attacks throughout his campaign, and was honestly not surprised that someone had taken to writing hate-speech in his name.
The attacks on the good people that are showing up are being used to change the subject. This is race baiting in reverse, and it needs to stop. The Democratic machine has smeared the Tea Party from the very beginning, saying that these people aren’t real and are driven by race and hate. Nancy Pelosi even went as far as suggesting that they were Nazis. These tactics are damaging to the fabric that holds us all together as a country.
So how do we fight back? Retaliation is not the answer. Going toe to toe with those who seek to destroy you rarely proves beneficial. This is our opportunity as a movement and as lovers of liberty to rise above it and come out on top. Show up at your local events and remember why you’re there.
Originally Posted By: Moscow Central Committee, 1943
Members and front organizations must continually embarass, discredit and degrade our critics.When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi, or anti-Semitic... The association will, after enough repetition, become 'fact' in the public mind.
And by the way, tactics of slander and misdirection are basic tenets of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals in advancing the liberal agenda.
Of which Barack Obama is a student of.
And Hilary Clinton wrote her masters thesis on Alinsky. More than that, Hillary Clinton met Alinsky and almost took a job working for him, and regularly corresponded with him while he was writing his book Rules For Radicals, on how to use deception to advance a leftist agenda.
But I'm sure that most liberal Democrats reject these tactics. It just seems like they all embrace these tactics of intimidation, slander and sabotage of their political opposition. Yeah, it just seems that way...
Mom: Son who threatened Pelosi got radical ideas from Fox News By Raw Story Thursday, April 8th, 2010 -- 9:55 am
It may not be a story you'll hear about if you watch America's "fair and balanced" news network.
In an interview on a California ABC News affiliate, the mother of a man arrested for threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) blamed Fox News for exacerbating her son's mental illness, saying it encouraged his behavior.
"Greg frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of the family, which gets him into problems," the 83-year-old mother of the accused man, Eleanor Giusti, said. "I say Fox News, or all of those that are really radical, and he, that's where he comes from." ...
Giusti [is] also the subject of a lawsuit by a San Francisco church which alleges he has engaged in a "campaign of harassment" of church members, and has been convicted of petty theft and welfare fraud.
So...are you next going to claim that Fox news encouraged him to commit petty theft, welfare fraud and anti-church harassment?
Because none of those sound like "right wing" ideas. Especially harassing a church.
Let's face it. This guy's mom is "blaming" Fox news the same way that some other guy's mom "blames" video games, horror movies, Scorcese movies or "Catcher in the Rye" for her son's mental illness/criminal behavior.
A New Hampshire state representative has resigned his position and announced he will not run for re-election after writing that a dead Sarah Palin is "more dangerous than a live one."
His resignation comes after another New Hampshire Democratic candidate apologized the same day for his Facebook post in which he wished Sarah Palin and the father of her grandchild, Levi Johnston, had been on the plane that crashed Tuesday, killing former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Congressman Paul Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who just lost his seat to Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican, had another target on his mind before he lost his election...Rick Scott, now the Republican Governor-elect of Florida. Kanjorski is clearly not a Scott fan. In fact, he has suggested that the Governor-elect should be…shot.
You read that right. Here's the quote, which seemed to vanish in the pre-election haze. It was reported at the time in the Scranton Times:
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him [sic] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan: 'I Consider Myself a Conservative' 1 month ago Monday afternoon, I was on MSNBC's "The Dylan Ratigan Show" with The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart and Alicia Menendez.
We discussed several interesting topics, including the Obama administration's elevation of Minority Leader John Boehner and Tuesday's GOP primary in Delaware.
It was a good time and a great debate, but the comment that caught my attention most didn't come from a panelist, but rather from Ratigan, himself, who said, "I consider myself a conservative."
Ratigan went on to clarify, adding that, "you can do whatever you want. The social [issues] ... I could care less. ..."
Sadly, Ratigan didn't get to finish explaining, but it was still an interesting moment -- if for no other reason that that it is generally assumed that most MSNBC hosts are liberal Democrats.
Personally, I've always found Ratigan to be more of an intellectually honest, cynical iconoclast who is hard to pigeonhole. While he clearly has some conservative leanings, I was surprised to hear him describe himself as "a conservative."
Let's see how long it takes the left to pick up on this. ...
The guy he had on was a liberal though, one that I don't agree with. I also think one liberal saying something means about as much as one conservative saying something. I know for some people that may seem unfair.
Juan Williams was fired for absolutely nothing. Keith Olbermann was suspended in a show of pseudo-ethics on the part of MSNBC.
If ever a firing were appropriate, Dylan Ratigan should be fired for openly advocating violence against the U.S. government.
This is yet another manifestation in the 60's-forward mentality of the Left, in their rabid Anti-Americanism. Read Pat Buchanan's DEATH OF THE WEST, in particular the chapter "Four Who Made A Revolution".
1960s liberalism, whether those participating in it are aware of it or not, is deeply rooted in communism, going back to the 1930s and 1940s, with its goal of infiltrating education, journalism and all forms of media entertainment, to undermine faith in government, religion, and our other western institutions, so that after a few decades of liberal indoctrination undermining faith in our institutions, the public would willingly accept overthrow of those institutions and be open to replacing it with a Marxist/socialist system.
We now have a socialist Alinsky/Cloward-and-Piven disciple in the White House, a secretary of state who is likewise a self-described progressive who wrote her masters thesis on Saul Alinsky, a media that is 80% liberal, and an education system that is likewise more than 80% socialist.
Marxist radicals are thuggishly making their power-grab, and slandering the defenders of our democracy with increasing boldness. This is just one more manifestation of it.
Hey c'mon G-man, it's totally different when a liberal does it. You can tell by how liberals don't even blink when their side does the exact same thing!
I noticed M E M's been gone for 2 or 3 weeks. Maybe he's at a retreat for MediaMatters or RAW, brushing up on his talking points.
It's amazing with M E M how, no matter what sourced facts you post, just reflexively posts whatever the current counter-attack talking points of the Left are for that day.
Hey c'mon G-man, it's totally different when a liberal does it. You can tell by how liberals don't even blink when their side does the exact same thing!
I love how, consistently, when Conservatives do stuff, its an unbearable outrage. But when the Democrat/Left does the exact same thing, it happens invisible to liberal or media scrutiny.
A longtime Democratic strategist is taking heat for recent comments about how aggressively his super PAC plans to go after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
"We're not going to pull resources from Christie, we want to kill him dead," Brad Woodhouse told Bloomberg Politics.
Woodhouse is president of the left-leaning American Bridge, launched by Media Matters' David Brock.
Man, this one's gonna be tough for MEM. This threat of murder came right from a Media Matters-affiliated guy. That, along with Raw Story, is the MEM bible.
But, I'm sure MEM won't be hypocritical and he'll be along any second to condemn this
Consider it condemned G. Say did you notice your party was demanding an apology? And this is a national media story. And you and WB I'm sure still feel it's just all so unfair. Le sigh.
The suspect for the shooting at a Republican baseball practice was an outspoken GOP critic who said this year that it was time to “destroy Trump” and his allies.
Authorities identified James T. Hodgkinson, a home inspector from Belleville, Ill., as the lone suspect for the attack that left five people injured....
Bernie Sanders..said in a statement that Hodgkinson "apparently volunteered" for his presidential campaign.
Hodgkinson wrote just three months ago about his desire to bring down Trump and the GOP.
“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.,” he said in a March Facebook post.
He was also a member of several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including "Terminate the Republican Party" and "The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans."
Note how newsbusters stitched the quote together. I do think there are people from both sides that take things to far and also remember your reaction to Kathy Griffith from the D list taking things to far. Unlike some republicans who have gone further I doubt she'll be welcomed in the WH by any administration.
Please give me an example, M E M, where a Republican did something as extreme as:
Holding up a realistic bloody severed head of a political opponent, as Kathy Griffen did.
Talking about putting 12-year old Barron Trump in a dog cage with a child pedophile, so that an allegedly heartless Melania Trump will change her mind and feel sympathy for child illegals (who by the way, were only caged like that when BARACK OBAMA was president in 2014, NOT while Donald Trump was president in 2017-2018). That comment was by Peter Fonda.
Repeated wishes that Donald Trump would be assassinated, as expressed on multiple occasions by Joy Behar, Johnny Depp, and others. And even the Hamilton stage play, where Trump was killed in effigy on stage, and again in a music video by Kanye West.
Please show me where there was ever ANYTHING close to this by Republicans about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And I don't mean things like the target hairs, where it requires some tea-leaf reading to possibly interpret it as a death threat (and again, Democrat campaign manager Bob Beckel for Mondale's 1984 campaaign said he was the first one to use the crosshairs-image targeting of a Republican opponent), but not a clear death threat, as the exaamples above are.
And by the way, Democrats did the same regarding George W. Bush.
Nugent has been particularly critical of President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying they "should be tried for treason & hung".[102]
At various times he has labeled Clinton a "worthless bitch"[103], "toxic cunt", and "two-bit whore for Fidel Castro".[104]
That's all arguably true!
Quote:
On Facebook he shared a video depiction of Clinton being shot by her 2016 Democratic presidential primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, commenting "I got your guncontrol [sic] right here bitch."[102]
That's actually funny, imagining Sanders killing Hillary. But he's just re-tweeting someone else's video for humor effect, not seriously threatening Hillary himself or encouraging anyone else to. It's kind of similar to the re-Tweeted video of Trump wrestling a guy with the CNN logo photoshopped over his face. It's clearly for humor and not a serious call for violence.
Quote:
At a concert on August 22, 2007, while wielding what appeared to be automatic rifles, Nugent said in reference of Obama, "suck on my machine gun".[103] In the same gun wielding rant, Nugent said of Dianne Feinstein, "ride one of these you worthless whore".[105]
That again is defiance and not a threat. Are you even aware that while Senator Feinstein is among the greatest proponents of gun control, she carries a gun herself and has armed guards? As do most of the Democrats who want to take away all guns from citizens.
Do as I say, not as I do. Nugent expresses defiance at the central proponent who wants to take away his guns, but doesn't talk about coming after Feinstein, only defensively holding his ground at those who come after him and his guns.
Quote:
In January 2014, Nugent called Obama a "communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel".[106]
Subtracting the "subhuman mongrel" remark, everything Nugent said is true. I've said the same thing in different words. That Obama is a Cultural Marxist radical, who has spent his entire adult life surrounded by Marxist radicals, even having them within the Obama administration, and I've quoted the marxist comments of those in Obama's administration. Probably not even a complete list.
The "subhuman mongrel" part, while ostensibly racist, could be intended just as insult. I don't share the racist sentiment, but Nugent has a right to his opinion, and even the right to be racist. Arguably Eric Holder, Michelle Obama and others within the Obama administration have made racist statements, and Nugent certainly has the same right to say such things from the other side of the spectrum. Although we all know the liberal media will never hold Obama or his officials to the same standard.
Quote:
That February, Nugent endorsed Greg Abbott in the Republican primary election for Texas Governor. Abbott however, distanced himself from Nugent due to the "subhuman mongrel" comment, saying, "This is not the kind of language I would use or endorse in any way."[107] After being further chastised about it by Senator Rand Paul, Nugent apologized for the comment.[108] However, when asked in April 2017 if he regretted his comments about Obama, he replied "No! I will never apologize for calling out evil people"[109]
That's still more apology and civility than most of the liberals who have said vile things about Trump, about Melania Trump, about Trump's 13 year old son have offered. Trump for all his Twitter posts, has shown far more restraint than I would if they came after my family like that.
Quote:
On April 17, 2012, while stumping for Obama's opponent Mitt Romney at the 2012 NRA Convention, Nugent said, "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year."[110] Nugent received a visit from the Secret Service for these remarks.[10] Following these comments, commanders at Fort Knox opted not to allow him to perform at a previously scheduled event.[111]
I wonder if the people threatening Trump, and even killing him in effigy such as Kanye West, the Hamilton play, Madonna "Burn down the White House", Johnny Depp "Maybe it's time for another actor to kill a president", Kathy Griffin holding up a realistic fake severed Trump head, ever got a visit from the Secret Service.
I don't hear about visits to celebrities or others by Secret Service for threats far greater against Trump.
Nugent's "dead or in jail this time next year" seems to say Nugent himself would be targeted by Obama if Obama were re-elected in a second term, not that Nugent threatened to attack Obama. Any of the insane Dems I listed above made far clearer threats against Trump. Only the visit by Secret Service makes me see that as halfway credible, that Nugent threatened Obama. At best it is open to interpretation.
And Nugent's comments about being "dead or in jail" are given truth by the fact that political opponents of Obama were targeted by the IRS (And weaponizing the IRS is arguably how Obama narrowly won the election), and how the Obama administration, if not Obama himself used FBI and DOJ and illegal FISA warrants to protect Hillary from prosecution, and attempt to prevent Trump from winning the election (Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages: "POTUS wants to know everything." )
Quote:
On February 12, 2013, Nugent attended the State of the Union address given by President Obama. He was the guest of U.S. Representative Steve Stockman of Texas's 36th congressional district.
If I lived in Texas, that would make me an even greater supporter of Steve Stockman. Nugent is essentially a gun rights advocate, expressing his free speech rights, and has said nothing approaching the threats to Trump I cited above.
Quote:
DONALD TRUMP
In February 2016, Ted Nugent praised Trump's 2016 Republican Presidential Primary opponent Ted Cruz, stating "My dream would be if Ted Cruz became president tonight. I really admire Ted Cruz, on many levels."[113][114] However Nugent later endorsed Donald Trump, and during the last week of the U.S. presidential election campaign performed at a number of Trump rallies in Michigan, including Trump's final campaign rally in Grand Rapids.
On April 19, 2017 Nugent, in the company of Kid Rock and Sarah Palin, had a "long planned" visit at the White House. According to Nugent the visit lasted four hours and was like "a family reunion." Nugent described it as "a wonderful personal tour of every room" followed by photo sessions and dinner with Donald Trump. [115]
When any of the Democrat celebrities I cited make even a half-hearted apology for the stuff I listed above, I'll start thinking about criticizing Ted Nugent, or Trump's inviting him to the White House.
Nugent did campaign for Trump and fundraise for Trump in doing so, so I think that warrants the invitation. To my knowledge only Kathy Griffith made any attempt to apologize, even half-heartedly, in a desperate attempt to save her career, and a few weeks later when that didn't work, she railed a new stream of insults against Trump, making clear the insincerity of her initial apology.
Nugent, in contrast apologized for his incivility, but still said he "will call out evil people."
So we're not going to agree on the interpretation of what Nugent said or Trump's inviting him to the White House.
But what Nugent said didn't get anyone killed. Whereas Obama invited leaders of Black Lives Matter to his White House, even as he shunned the victims of the violence Obama as president stoked with his racially charged remarks and endorsement of Black Lives Matter and thugs like Michael Brown.
Nugent has been particularly critical of President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying they "should be tried for treason & hung".[102]
At various times he has labeled Clinton a "worthless bitch"[103], "toxic cunt", and "two-bit whore for Fidel Castro".[104]
That's all arguably true!
Everything alleged without proof about Trump (over 2 years of investigation, no proof) is actually proven treason by Obama and Hillary. And only by Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr and company sabotaging and destroying the evidence and the case are Obama and Hillary not prosecutable. (Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, Hillary's illegal e-mail server that compromised national security every day she was secretary of state, lies and cover-up PROVEN about the Benghazi attack, that compromised the 2012 election, illegal FISA warrants, unmasking Republican names in FISA transcripts, weaponizing DOJ/FBI and the FISA court against Trump, weaponizing the IRS against Republicans, the Hillary campaign buying information on Trump directly from the Russians...)
Not advocating hanging them, but certainly prosecuting them. Not on wild speculation, but on the clear evidence.
It's a fact that FBI allowed Clinton aides destroy Hillary's multiple cel phones with a hammer, with the incriminating texts and emails on them. And bleach-bit computers. And destroy other evidence. In the last few days, the FBI wiped the memory of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's cel phones, including all their texts from the crucial months from Oct 2016-April 2017. It's a fact that the FBI investigators gave immunity to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in exchange for no information and no prosecutions. Where conversely, the FBI gave no immunity to Trump officials, and instead threatened them with long sentences and manufactured perjury traps to extort plea bargains from them. And in Jerome Corsi's case, he refused to testify to false statements and said he rather go to jail than lie.
It's a fact that all 16 of the lawyers on the Mueller investigation, NONE of them are Republican, and 9 of the 16 are Democrat campaaign donors. And one of them, Jeannie Rhee, was just prior employed by the Clinton Foundation as their lawyer, whose job was to obstruct FOIA requestss for Clinton records. She is doing the exact same job protecting the Clintons and damaging their opposition, as part of the Mueller team. It's a fact that every single investigation, trial and plea bargain with Manafort, Flynn, Pappadapoulos, Stone and Corsi, have been riddled with legal irregularities that go way outside normal FBI procedure. And vindictively hyper-aggressively go after Trump officials, whereas they treated Clinton officials with kid gloves, no perjury traps, no leverage, no extorted plea deals.
Lawsuit over false claim that Palin’s 2011 electoral map was connected to the shooting of Gabby Giffords — something the Times repeated in June 2017 even though the claim was known to be false.
I'd guess the appeals court is dominated by Obama-appointed judges. As we've been over before, the "targeting" with literal targets on the posters of political candidates began with Bob Beckel as Waler Mondale's campaign manager in the 1984 election. Used in many elections after that, where no shootings occurred. Which far precedes the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords. And in the case of nutjob shooter Jared Loughner, police forensics people went through every browsed site on Loughner's computer, and so far as I know, they never found any links to any "target" campaign ads that Loughner had browsed on his computer. And Loughner had wacko conspiracy theory globalist banking reasons he cited as his motive for the shooting, not motivated by Palin campaign rhetoric or posters.
But y'know, never let a thing like the facts get in the way of liberal judges jerking around Sarah Palin, and keeping a liberal narrative alive.
I'd guess the appeals court is dominated by Obama-appointed judges. As we've been over before, the "targeting" with literal targets on the posters of political candidates began with Bob Beckel as campaign manager in the 1984 election. Used in many elections after that, where no shootings occurred. Which far precedes the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords. And in the case of nutjob shooter Jared Loughner, police forensics people went through every browsed site on Loughner's computer, and so far as I know, they never found any links to any "target" campaign ads that Loughner had browsed on his computer. And Loughner had wacko conspiracy theory globalist banking reasons he cited as his motive for the shooting, not by Palin campaign rhetoric or posters.
But y'know, never let a thing like the facts get in the way of liberal judges jerking around Sarah Palin, and keeping a liberal narrative alive.
The liberal judges on the appeals court are letting her suit go forward, actually.
Well, that's reasssuring. That at least on this occasion it's not a judgement along partisan lines. Unlike all the legal injunctions filed by Obama-appointed judges to prevent Trump's executive orders from being implemented on border security, screening muslim immigrants and so forth.
Regarding the Palin case, 10 years of litigation can't be cheap. If Palin hadn't become wealthy from her celebrity, she might have a very difficult time pursuing justice against the slander that she is somehow responsible for a nut like Loughner shooting Gabby Giffords. Despite the lack of evidence that Loughner ever saw such an ad, and that "targeting" political ads precede Palin by more than 2 decades.
Well, that's reasssuring. That at least on this occasion it's not a judgement along partisan lines. Unlike all the legal injunctions filed by Obama-appointed judges to prevent Trump's executive orders from being implemented on border security, screening muslim immigrants and so forth.
Regarding the Palin case, 10 years of litigation can't be cheap. If Palin hadn't become wealthy from her celebrity, she might have a very difficult time pursuing justice against the slander that she is somehow responsible for a nut like Loughner shooting Gabby Giffords. Despit the lack of evidence that Loughner ever saw such an ad, and that "targeting" political ads precede Palin by more than 2 decades.
Palin filed her lawsuit two years ago, not ten. She sued when the Times repeated the alleged defamation in 2017
I wonder why she didn't file the defamation suit when the allegation was first made. And if her waiting until 2 years ago to file hurts her case.
Or possibly the reverse, that she was reluctant to sue, and that she gave them plenty of time to make a retraction, and only sued when the slander was made again, might actually give more weight to her case against the New York Times.
I wonder wwhy she didn't file the defamation ssuit when the allegation was first made. And if her waiting until 2 years ago to file hurts her case.
Or possibly the reverse, that she was reluctant to sue, and that she gave them plenty of time to make a retraction, and only sued when the slander was made again, might actually give more weight to her case against the New York Times.
The short version is this.
Public figures can only sue for libel if there is showing to of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
When the allegation first appeared 10 years ago, it was difficult to show actual malice or reckless disregard because there were still questions as to the gunman’s motive.
Eventually we learned that the gun man’s motive was in no way tied to Palin. Even the New York Times acknowledged that.
Despite that, Several years later, in 2017, they repeated the original, disproven, allegation.
This meant that Palin could now sue because they had (allegedly) exhibited reckless disregard of the facts. The reckless disregard, Palin argued, was the Times ignoring their own prior news coverage coverage.
There's a lot of Democrat rhetoric these days that fits well into that "actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth" category. Comments akin to throwing kerosine and a match on someone.
I think Letterman's comment maliciously joking about knocking up Palin's then-14 year old underage daughter qualifies.
As does inciting violence toward Palin by blaming Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting, with absolutely no evidence, and plenty of evidence that Democrats were using the same "targeted" districts and candidates for 24 years prior.
I was watching the House hearings with Maria Yovanovich today, and Democrats over and over pounded the talking point of "smears against ambaassador Yovanovich"... but never specifically listed the "smears" that led to her being fired. They mentioned some of Trump's recent tweets, and the phone call between President Trump and Ukranian President Zelenskyy... but failed to mention that Yovanovich was quietly fired almost a year ago, and that there were no "smears" until the Democrats and Deep State weaponized Yovanovich, and Trump responded and defended himself.
Also, they weren't "smears". There were complaints within the U.S. embassy in Ukraine about then-ambassador Yovanovich repeatedly making disparaging remarks about President Trump, that were reported by others in the State Department, and when she was seen as a partisan who was undermining Trump, she was recalled and replaced. Likewise (as Zelenskyy made clear in the transcribed Trump/Zelenskyy July 25th phone call) multiple subordinates in the Ukranian government had reported remarks by Yovanovich to Zelenskyy, to the point that he felt she had a loyalty to the previous Ukranian government and was hostile to the Zelenskyy government, and they therefore had no confidence in her.
The malicious lying narrative is that all those complaints came from Giuliani. They did NOT.
But back on the subject of "actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth"...
Have any of these Democrats heard of Brett Kavanaugh?
Or Nicholas Sandmann, and his entire Covington Catholic high school that had to be closed due to threats resulting from comments by Democrat leaders and liberal media pundits?
Or for that matter, have they heard of Donald Trump? Who has endured endless Democrat vile slanders and calls for violence against him? Or Trump supporters who have become cannon-fodder due to these calls for violence by Democrats and news media pundits? https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018...ump-supporters/
I think Palin, as well as any of the above, could sue Democrats or the media for their egregiously slanderous, dangerous and violence-inciting rhetoric.
Court: Sarah Palin libel lawsuit against NY Times to go to trial
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit after it was dismissed by the District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, and denied the Times’ petition for rehearing.
The suit then went back to the District Court, and the NY Times moved for summary judgment...
The District Court just denied the NY Times motion for summary judgment, ordering the case to go to trial.
The Order details the timeline of the Times editorial process that gave rise to the editorial, including the removal of material from the first draft that would have cast doubt on Palin’s responsibility. After publication, people within the Times, including columnist Ross Douthat, internally notified the editors that there was no evidence to support the claim against Palin.
Less than a day after the Editorial’s publication, after having found no evidence of the “link” to which it referred, the Times revised and corrected the Editorial. The Times published the first revised online version at 11:15 a.m. on June 15, 2017…. In it, the Times deleted the phrases “the link to political incitement was clear” and “[t]hough there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack” and added the sentence “But no connection to that crime was ever established.” In addition, the Times published a series of corrections, which ultimately clarified that no link between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords was ever established….
As a lawyer, you're clearly more familiar with these nuances than the rest of us. I take that the New York Times wants to do this perhaps to have their journalistic errors less visible to the public? Or perhaps to save on legal expenses? Or to move the lawsuit to a venue more friendly to the N Y Times?
Why would the New York times pursue a "summary judgement"?
From the article: summary judgment. That is a procedure where the court can grant judgment for a party where there are no material facts in dispute and the law is in the party’s favor.
In other words the times was arguing that Palin’s case shouldn’t even go to trial because it was too weak and the judge disagreed with them
That apparently had a vast membership of... 9 people. All arrested by the FBI, and the group no longer exists.
Based in the city of Adrian, Michigan, slightly south of Detroit and Lansing. A town that has a total population of barely 20,000 people, and only 84% of which is white. A city so deeply white-racist that... it was a center of the Underground Railroad to liberate black slaves up till the Civil War. The Hutaree are so influential on the town of Adrian that... they are not even mentioned. Not even a blip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian,_Michigan
As M E M ignores the nightly terrorism and violence of Antifa (that by their Facebook site has daily site visits of at least 23,000 members nationwide). And ignores Black Lives Matter (with undisclosed numbers, and funding donations of about $250 million), that have burned the downtown districts of large cities nationwide, and burned and looted business districts in smaller cities and towns nationwide that go virtually unreported. Leftist groups that have attacked and injured over 2,000 police officers nationwide, killed at least 2 police officers. And resulted in the deaths of dozens of other people nationwide. Whereas the Hutaree were arrested and convicted before really doing much of anything.
Which side seems more dangerous to Americans: the Hutaree, or these other leftist groups?
From the article: summary judgment. That is a procedure where the court can grant judgment for a party where there are no material facts in dispute and the law is in the party’s favor.
In other words the times was arguing that Palin’s case shouldn’t even go to trial because it was too weak and the judge disagreed with them
So... the New York Times pushed for this because they anticipate a judge ruling is favorable to The Times, and that increases the chance of a ruling in the Times' favor?
Do you think that Palin's team warrants this, on lack of evidence, or do you think she should have a jury trial?
oh won't someone defend the poor innocent little faggot?
