Media Matters: A long, hot summer of hate
It was an ugly week, and a telling one.
"Global warming is no different than health care, is no different than cap and trade," Rush Limbaugh explained on Monday. "It is simply another branch of liberalism, statism, that is designed to expand government control over individuals and their liberty and their freedom and their income."
"And if this plays out right ... you can do some great damage, culturally, to liberalism," he concluded.
The next five days showed how seriously the right wing is taking those words and how far it is willing to go to confuse and manipulate the public, and to capitalize on the ensuing fear and rage. The goals: the complete delegitimization of Obama and the wholesale destruction of the progressive movement he leads.
Glenn Beck is anti-violence, pro-poison
On Monday, Glenn Beck made clear that he does not support violence in the name of political causes. Sure, he's advocating civil disobedience if need be. Maybe 70 million people voted for Barack Obama less than a year ago, but who cares? "It is time to go to Washington!" he preached on Wednesday. "It is time to stand or sit in the middle of the street if you have to!" But remember: no violence.
Then on Thursday, he poisoned the speaker of the House. Not literally, of course -- just in effigy. On live television. What's the problem? Can't you liberals take a joke?
It was a perfect example of the game conservatives in the media are playing: pouring gasoline on the fire, and then, once they are criticized, saying that they were only kidding. But what does Beck expect his viewers to take away from his broadcasts? After a week of increasingly violent protests at town halls around the country, including one such event at which protesters reportedly mentioned Beck by name when explaining what inspired them, he cannot seriously contend that his rhetoric isn't having an impact, isn't stirring up the rage and confusion that is defining opposition to Democratic reforms. How many times can Beck portray Obama as a traitor who is destroying our national sovereignty, or compare the president's health care proposals to those of the Nazis, before the anger spills over? He calls for calm, and then describes the Obama-led "brownshirts" who are silencing dissent and the "enemies list" the White House is compiling of those who dare to voice their opinions. Meanwhile, it is the Democrats, we are told, who are the irresponsible ones. It is Democrats who are using the language of "pure hate," as Frank Luntz told Beck, to describe the brave patriots who are shouting down members of Congress in defense of liberty. Why are they doing it? Beck's answer? They want to create "more problems" so "they can use the iron fist and crush people." In the meantime, Beck urged his supporters to continue pressuring their members of Congress, even if they have to "hold a meeting ... in front of their house."
There was a hint of accountability this week after several of Beck's advertisers canceled their contracts with his show in the wake of his accusation that Obama hates white people. But the provocation continued. "When will someone stand up and say, "Traitor'?" Beck ranted on August 5. "When will someone stand up and say, 'Thieves'? ... The American way of life is being systematically dismantled and destroyed! The republic is in danger!"
Beck is right. If he gets his way, it is in danger. Reason will have been replaced by rage.
With Obama in office, Lou Dobbs claims to be an independent no more
Lou Dobbs took aim at everyone this week -- and CNN still has his back.
In spite of fresh criticism from sources as diverse as the NAACP and Don Imus, CNN alone among the major cable channels decided that it would refuse to run the ad Media Matters put out calling for the network to address Dobbs' promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory. Predictably, Dobbs tried to make the entire issue about Media Matters itself, saying the ad "really reveals a lot about" who we are. He continued the theme throughout the week, portraying Media Matters as one of the White House's "attack dogs" and asking Obama to call us off, something Ann Coulter agreed with when she was a guest on his radio show.
It was actually a banner week for Lou. In fact, he officially abandoned his stance as "Mr. Independent," using his radio show to inform Obama (a regular listener, to be sure) that he was "moving from being an independent, sir, to being absolutely opposed to ... any policy you can conceive of!" Dobbs celebrated his newfound opposition by spreading misinformation on health care reform (it's socialism, by the way, because Obama's a socialist), hosting a Michelle Malkin lovefest, defending Limbaugh, raising the specter of incipient fascism, and repeatedly attacking Keith Olbermann, whom he described as a "cretin" and a "psycho" who was "psychologically scarred" from beatings by "girls" that he supposedly suffered as a child. No wonder, then, that Olbermann works at MSNBC, the network Dobbs called a "coven of thugs."
And not to be left behind by his fellow right-wing media celebrities, Dobbs offered support to a caller who threatened to "brawl" with health care reform advocates at a town hall, encouraging others like him to make their "voice heard."
But whatever you do, don't say "birther" on his show.
Rush Limbaugh hates Nazis, which is why he hates Nancy Pelosi
It's hard to imagine, but in certain ways, Rush was actually the most reasonable of the conservative heavy hitters this week ... except for his repeated comparisons of the Democratic leadership to the Nazi high command. Whoops -- never mind.
With the precision the right-wing echo chamber provides on a daily basis, Rush reiterated his heartfelt belief that if Democrats have their way, senior citizens -- the very same group that benefits exclusively from that evil government-run program known as Medicare -- will spend their last days on a "Statist Farm," where they will be unable to see a doctor and suffer at the hands of heartless bureaucrats whose job it will be to "make sure certain people die." On the other hand, if you were a loyal Obama supporter, you know, like an HIV patient, you might get special treatment. Limbaugh also mocked the voice of Kathleen Sebelius (he sure hates it when women talk) and described her work promoting reform as a "campaign of pure fraud and deceit." And he had a warning for some of the crooks in D.C.: "You Blue Dogs are about to see your last days if you vote for this bill." At least he's giving them one more chance to get it right.
Predictably, Limbaugh decried the idea that anti-reform town hall protests were anything other than the work of self-informed citizens. "It's not ginned up, it's genuine. It's real," he explained. Sure, there isn't a single shard of evidence that any well-funded conservative organization has spent a single second spreading lies and advocating aggressive tactics in the hope of furthering the disruptions.
"There is no manufactured anger," Limbaugh said the next day. "The anger is legitimate and real and it is boiling over."
There's that idea again: The anger is boiling over.
In order to truly manipulate people, you need to convince them that they are fighting pure evil. And on Thursday, Rush finally got down to business.
"[T]he Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo," he said on air. He went on to explain "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany." Key among them: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." On Friday, he did it again, but blamed Nancy Pelosi for "starting it" because she had pointed out that one conservative protester had made a sign featuring a swastika. There was plenty of photographic evidence to back her up, but Limbaugh still called her "deranged."
Sounding the same call as Beck and Dobbs, Limbaugh explained that Obama's "brownshirts" were coming, sure to make use of the "snitch website" he had set up. He warned of "union thugs" who had "roughed up" a protester -- "Mussolini-type stuff." He accused a St. Louis SEIU local of violence, and then gave out the office's address.
He even latched onto a recent fad in conservative circles: comparing Obama to the Joker, the sociopathic anarchist from the most recent Batman movie. "His goal was to undermine the whole system," Limbaugh said of the character, while actually explaining himself.
He wasn't kidding. The conservative playbook has been laid bare, and it is ugly. In the face of this summer of hate, progressives must persevere. And in so doing, they must be driven not by anger at the thought of who they are fighting against, but by devotion to who they are fighting for: everyone the conservative movement is so content to leave behind.
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters Senior Fellows: Eric Boehlert asks The New Yorker to clean its monocle after it toasted Michael Savage, and Jamison Foser has a must-read column on how the media should bring some clarity to the health care debate.
Don't forget to order your autographed copy of Eric Boehlert's compelling new book, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press, May 2009).
If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our senior fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, Foser, and Frisch on Twitter.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by John V. Santore, an associate at Media Matters.
Thank you for your last paragraph in particular:
"...they must be driven not by anger at the thought of who they are fighting against, but by devotion to who they are fighting for: everyone the conservative movement is so content to leave behind."
I really needed that today. It will go a long way in helping me calm my anger and open up again.
What upsets me is the traditional media.
I hate to use a tactic that the right uses but, it illustrates the mindset so well:
If a liberal said and did what these people have over just the past week, let alone the last year, how would they be treated?
The right is allowed to get away with all this violent rhetoric and irresponsible inciting of the base and using inflamatory rhetoric without any censure or criticism by the media. They treat them as naughty bad boys but, little more.
The left, on the other hand, is always treated like convicts. Someone says something mildly critical and the media are all over them like bugs.
And the media allows the right destract them and keep them for presenting the facts. the media repeats the right's talking points like they are the facts while the truth is thrown out the window.
this is what has me really upset.
When is the right going to be criticized and jumped on for this ugly language and behavior? Is it going to take a real tragedy before the media wakes up to the reality of what the right is doing???
For example: the left has the vast majority of media outlets, with the exception of talk radio (and they want to shut that down). They routinely call names and make accusations in a direct attempt to smear the character and reputation of anyone on the right who disagrees with them, meanwile they will accuse the right of the very things they are doing. They accuse the right of "hate speech" when it is simply disagreement.
The left has NO INTEREST in the TRUTH. They are only interested in passing their agenda to turn America into a multicultural, multiracial, socialist society where leftist politicians have total and intimate control over the lives of the people, so that it will then make an easy future transition into global governance.
The most insidious quality of the left is that they're cleverly using people's compassion and kindness against them. They know that most people don't want to see others suffering, or homeless, or impoverished, or without decent health care, so they LURE people into the leftist web of deceit. They try to convince them that by just giving government MORE OF YOUR MONEY and MORE POWER OVER YOUR LIFE, society will be a better place. But now it's too late, and we have become SUBJECTS of the government, lost freedoms we once took for granted, and STILL there will be poor suffering people, except that now we have joined their ranks.
The multi-racial, multi-cultiural thing is only on the surface, and only about a quarter inch deep. There has been a long train of abuses and usurpations that evince a campaign AGAINST mainaining or producing any True Diversity. Racial, religious, cultural, political or economic. We have been led towards a bland mono-culture, a ubiquitious Melting Pot of hobo stew, rather than a well-stocked buffet of truly different flavors and choices, and all the little experiments that True Diversity would put before us.
Today's liberal reformer ,,, Tomorrow's iron-fisted statist.
History repeats itself, because those who forget, and refuse to learn from History, are doomed to repeat it.
Bush had 8 years to effectively secure the Mexican border, but he didn't.
Obama is poised to reform immigration law in favor of those millions here illegally.
What then do we do? That is my question?
What does anyone do? Work for viable 3rd, 4th & 5th Parties, study and mount serious challenges to some of the nonsense in the Courts. Educate yourselves and your Family, and your Fellow man, and [try to] help them think past the zero-sum-gain political duopoly. Thats about the best general advice I have so far.
Fact is, a lot of this nonsense can't and won't stop for just this reason. Many of the loopholes that are being exploited and generally venturing beyond the pale are used by both sides. To actually put a stop to one, begs a reciprocal reduction in the arsenal for the other.
There are some good Cold War analogies for it all, along with ample evidence that Cold War mentalities have been adopted.
I am referring to a culmination of decades, even generations. Thats where the pattern emerges and the escallation is evident.
If you want me to say that its the ultra-right that have gone beyond the pale in what this site calls the most attention to, then yes, I can easily cede that. Its not like there is any way to argue against such an observation.
Still, the point I was making is that both sides have members who will stoop below or even do directly against the very core "values" they espouse, with an eye-for-an-eye/all's-fair attitude. And, it's largely encouraged, applauded or simply over-looked by their fellow 'team-mates'. We all-too-easily become what we hate.
You can see it here, in the comments on this site as on virtually every other message board and chat-room, just as you find it in the media and political realm. I have caught myself doing it in the heat of the moment and when other priorities were the focus, on more than one occasion. Its still a lapse of judgment, and one that I at least recognize.
In any case, what I point out should hardly surprise anyone after a bit of reflection.
And what is written by posters on a posting board doesn't count. There may be a small equivilency in that realm, although the right does seem to be very exurberantly hateful and less reasonsed most times, IMO.
But what we see in one week on this site doesn't have a liberal equivilency by any stretch of the imagination. You know it, we know it, all God's children know it.
So my very reasonable sounding friend, please ante up, as they say.
Thank you in advance.
When I said "what we see in one week" I was referring to the items listed by MMFA. In one week alone, the hatefulness by the right is so prodigious and ubiquitous, that there is simply no liberal equivilent in a month or perhaps even a year. And probably actually longer.
Any feeling and thinking human being should be able to ascertain that, regardless of what political stripe they are.
I'm seeing that more and more lately around here by the not-so-ultra right-wingnuts . I ain't buying it. It's a false equivalency.
Okay, a bit of a sophmoric example. But the logic is somewhat the same. ;-)
This is their attempt to deflect from your "give some proof that both sides do it" challenge. Since they don't really have anything of equal bile to quote from....
Hewe we go again, do as I say not as I do... pwovide pwoof wif at weast thwee iwoncwad wefewences wif good standing wif the awmighty, etc, etc,.... When you ask fow pwoof of something that is a given, heck, in the news aww the time, you destwoy youw cwedibiwity. Wook, one can onwy digest so much invented swop about Sawah Pawin, Beck, Wimbaugh, (insewt any consewvative/ wepub name hewe), ow the disingenuous awgument that Obama can stiww cwaim inhewitance to the cuwwent economicaw mess(Yes, it's his mess now, wike it ow not) befowe saying enough is enough. My aww time favowite is when someone on this site cwaimed that the 90,000.00 in W. Jeffewsons fweezew was a bwack-bag opewation, uh-hah-hah-hah. ....Pwease if you have a point to wefute an awgument, post it-- stop wif the pwoof nonsense, by and wawge the fowks who visit this website wiww eww on the weft-side anyway....and if youw awgument is the bettew, weww then, checkmate...
Now I can decipher it! And that checkmate thing sounds alot like Tommy, but I digress.
Citizenbyright may be the Bizarro World Doppelganger to the fictional Dos Equis spokesman, The Most Interesting Man in the World.
Some concision, and a lot less pompous self-importance would probably help our clear-eyed and impartial friends make his points more effectively.
I hope it didn't hurt too much.
(Since you are still pretending that I am "on the other side") No, by all means, don't 'back off' at all. Why should your oh-so superior socio-political values be any less feckless and fluid than the other team's?
But, why triffle yourself with such details, aye?
And again, LIAR, I never once, not ONE time did I say or even imply that no evidence is required. I did say that one need only reflect a bit to see it, on both sides. I gave a tiny bit of the evidence of liberal hypocrisy, and of that hypocrisy being over-looked/encouraged (which was my point, that I leveled equally at BOTH sides) but some of the least cognizant saw only an attack on them, and responded in all-too-typical fashion.
Some of you people have exactly the same propensity of self-inserting the very same type of ideological escape valve into any statement or point that you simply don't like,,, as the furthest of the far-right nutjobs. I know, because I have dealt with it from them too.
After a couple of the self-appointed attack drones sense a challenge to the mass imagination, they falsify the premise and toss in a bit of fabricated spice, then its like releasing a pheremone to the rest of the colony.
You are no better. Be better.
Drawing a 'during the last week' arbitrary line-in-the-sand to provide an ideological escape-valve doesn't take away from what I did say. Neither does artificially limiting the acceptable examples to 'hate-speak', or eliminating whats tossed around on message boards. If anything, what one finds on the message boards is as much evidence of where each sides 'leaders' have led them as it evences the constituancy that those'leaders' represent. One would be remiss to simply discount all of that.
Still, that wasn't the point I was making at all, so at least read what I wrote. I was referring to not only hypocrisy, but specifically to the hypocrisy of encouraging or being blind to hypocrisy when its from the one's own 'team'.
Examples of what I was actually talking about where they occur on the "left"? There are many, and I will even give a few blatant one's in a moment. First I will say that I can and have, many times pointed out the same sort of thing about the "right" on 'their' boards, and been called a 'crazy leftist looney pinko" and the like for doing it. That didn't deter me anymore than a few moron(s) who need their diapers changed falsely labelling me as a 'wingnut dittohead fascist' or some such when I do the same on 'their' forum. If anything, all that gibberish just drives the point home, they provide the palpable examples for me more often than not. Truth is, I am both and I am neither I am point-by-point, issue-by-issue, and I will take an absurdity, hypocrisy or instance of doublethink to task regardless of race, religion, gender or political persuasion. I long-since renounced the peer pressure to simply pull the red lever or the blue lever like some trained monkey.
So, here a few examples, which will undoubtedly earn some 'thumbs down' if not some disparaging remarks by the dirty diaper types, not because what I point to is incorrect, but simply because they just don't like it, it's not flattering to their 'team'. They simply can't grasp that calling bs on one side doesn't ipso facto equate to an attempt to paint a halo on the other. Many even seem to believe that if any particular example is not given, then such a thing must never have happened, and the general point must be wrong, along with the person making it. Certainly doesnt make that inferance correct, but again, it opens an escape-valve for the digressor, and keeps them from having to provide logic-for-logic, do any ideological self-examination or say anything that might draw the ire of his 'team'.
1. A group that espouses 'democracy' and the importance of voting, going out and registering cats, dogs, convicts and even dead people. (ala ACORN during the last election) Not that its anything new, as that, and gerrymandering (both sides guilty) and otherwise trying to rig elections. Its reminiscent of Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall fame encouraging his fellow Democrats to "vote early and often".
2. A group that rails against sexism and sexual harrassment in the workplace, who prides itself on its leaders being more ethical and of a higher calibre/standard than the others (again, both groups guilty in that aspect) who will gladly overlook the infidelities and on-the-job sexual exploitation of a subordinate, as well as the attempted cover up. I don't even need to mention a name there. (Of course that can be balanced against the uproar against a sleaze-ball Republican from Florida who got caught texting interns, but at least he had the decency to resign and his fellow (R)s had the integrity to demand it, and far as anyone knows he never even scored, just appeared to be attempting to.)
3. A group that champions environment causes more than willig to look past Al Occidental-Petroleum Gore's hi-pollutng lifestyle.
4. A group that espouses tolerance, Freedom of Religion and the Separation Clause and claim to be all about anti-descrimination, who will sit by as its members denigrate, castigate, dis-enfranchise, harass and generally mock "Christians" for doing the same thing. Who will abuse the power of government to wage ideological guerrila turf-warfare against the religious, while quite falsely hiding beneath the banner of "Secularism". Seculer means unconcerned with, NOT opposed to. The same constitutional guarantee that thankfully keeps us from living in a Theocracy, also just as thankfully keeps us from suffering under an Atheocracy as well.
5. A group thats all about proof and facts, about accuracy and education, that will allow its members to revise history and deny the dirty hands of its own Party (Slavery, Secession, the KKK, Jim Crowand so on) and generally lay the blame on Republicans for the mass grave in its own closet. (As if the Republicans don't already have enough blood on their hands and bones in their back yard)
This is the sort of hypocrisy and intellectual as well as ideological dishonesty I was speaking of. I can go on and on, but I'll wait for a response(s) to better home in on the point.
Obviously a two line quip or a short back-handed hack-and-attack paragraph is much easier to proof-read, as well as presenting far less of a synaptic challenge to begin with.
Of course, nothing is easier than being the anonymous thumbs-down troll.
The latter is an easy way to try to camouflage a lack of the former, though.
Answering to points I didnt make, words I didnt use, criteria I didnt limit the logic to,,, thats when it gets complicated.
Its quite alright though. No different than on the wingnut forums, really. They see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and judge how they want to judge, and deny what they want to deny as well, regardless of whats in actually put front of them.
ACORN again. Please. This group pays people to register voters, and occasionally "mickey mouse" and obvious fraudulent "voters" sign registration cards. ACORN then catches the obvious fakes and REPORTS them to the appropriate county election board.
CLINTON again. And I guess you're referring to NOW and other feminist spokeswomen? Since I actually lived thru the stupid Ken Starr witch hunt, I remember many women's groups denouncing Clinton for his infidelity. Perhaps you don't because you really did just come out from under a cabbage leaf.
AL GORE again. Gawd, we don't think you realize how lame this talking point is.
Citizens United again. I don't see any evidence that they're trying to shut down freedom of religion.
Dixiecrats DID surge enmasse to the Republicans when Democrats in the 60s finally did the right thing and embraced Civil Rights.
______________________________________________
Now, your "points" actually were trying to prove some double standard deal but had no examples of vile hate speech. NONE. SO you're completely devoid of any legitimate examples of the Left using vile hate speech.
One more thing: when you post, have a point. Also, try not to be long winded. It makes your arguments so much better.
'Hate Speech' is only one inexcusable transgression out of many. (Though I was encouraging everyone to look around on boards like these, and pay attention to the tones & tactics that they and their fellow posters employ, hence the 'become what we hate' caveat.)
Someone else thought they grabbed a peach & ran with it by trying to limit the point to 'hate-speach' alone, as I explained like,,, repeatedly.
ACORN, got caught in many states supplying fraudulent registrations that they did not catch and deal with, but were caught doing it. Its on-point. Its members overlooked some fouls in the team effort, and the bigger team overlooked ACORN.
Clinton; No actually I wasnt referring to NOW or any other subgroup that tried to call bs on him, and quickly found itself silenced. I was/am talking about the whole Party and its True Believers, and even [most of] the media, that were and have since been willing to give him a pass.
Al Gore, yes I do realize how lame it is to even mention him. Doesn't change the fact that he has been and is hypocritical the his own pet issue, and its largely overlooked.
Citizens United, no I wasn't referring to them specifically at all, I was pointing to the general sentiment, and what commonly has a blind eye turned to it.
Yes, some of the most vile did jump ship like the rats they are, and infiltrated the Republican Party (ala NeoCons) and some bad apples have spoiled the bunch. By the same token, a lot of the progressives who once steered the Republican Party, found their way into the Democratic fold. (Funny that we can point out the hard-core racists as former Democrats, but not identify progressives as former Republicans) Still doesn't change history one iota. Can't go back and rewrite the textbooks to claim Democrats freed the slaves. All you may legitimately do is add a footnote about whats happened since and identify some turn-coats. Besides, regardless of membership the core Principles of neither Party have been utterly re-written, they haven't exchanged Platforms.
Again, what I was pointing out is simple. It happens in every War and most every type of War. We make as much as we can out of what the 'other guy' is doing wrong, while we overlook some of the stunts our own have pulled. Counter-strokes don't always come tit-for-tat. The far-right have responded with hate-speech to what they perceive as an assault on them. Its only one thing in the below-par arsenal used by both sides. Weaponized ideology, sometimes overt, sometimes insidious.
Anyway. My pointing out in an attempt to have some of you hold yourselves, AND your team-mates, to a higher standard, or even to your own espoused standards, on ALL fronts is apparently just too much.
So, by all means, you former progressive Republicans, fire away. Continue on as you have. Play and be played, and let the whole thing devolve into juvenille foolishness. The former Democrats on the far-right have already reduced so many of you to their level, hurling invectives and knee-jerk derogatories as a matter-of-course, instead of a continual, progressive raising of the bar. As such, many of you have become just as willing to blindly accept anything that the other side rejects, just on playground principle, as the other side has.
Yes, keep doing it, until both sides have made fools of themselves and their fellows to the point that viable 3rd, 4th & 5th Parties can emerge and come into their own. Bicker yourselves into obscurity. If we are lucky enough to avoid destroying the entire Nation and sailing square into the jaws of despotism before then.
You would all do well to remember the obvious; In the final tally, its not what the "Right" or the "Left" did while it was in power. If fortunes can change so capriciously between elections, then something is fundamentally wrong. No, whatever has been done, whatever will be done, its Our Government thats has done it.
If all that is truly beyond you, if it makes no sense to you whatsoever, then you are Lost. We are all Lost.
"
Raise the Bar, people.
I think the funniest part is that they actually think the act hasn't been seen before. I've been posting here off & on for a few years, some have been here from the beginning of the site, and it's amazing (in a very dull way) how similar every example of this species is.
It's been done. Not as well by some, much better by others. And they always feel picked on and victimized by those who see through them
I don't think BBR is necessarily being dishonest. He/she may actually believe he's reached this superhuman plateau of fairness.
I've seen it in once-strident-Republicans who are educated beyond the level of the average redneck birther, reacting to the dumbing down of the party and it's takeover by the far right mouth breathers.They know the party is a mess, but have so much invested in it, and are generally the type who have an extremely difficult time dealing with the realization that they've been so wrong about everything, that the only thing left to do is adopt a phony middle-ground.
The concern troll bit is cute, but only entertaining because the ones doing it generally believe it's much more sophisticated and original than it is.
Everyone MUST either be an abject liberal or an abject conservative, else they are simply a member of some singular incoherent fringe.
Far too baffling to conceive of anyone ever seriously taking the best of what they see from any and all sources, and rejecting the negative nonsense & what runs against their own personal Conscience. Its simply too much to consider. If someone is against a liberal pundit, or calls out a liberal leader for a transgression, well gee, that person is thus exposed as an enemy to all things liberal. Taking issue with one thing equals taking a counter-position to ALL things on the hive's agenda,,, blah blah blah.
People like that keep you all down. They keep you from ever truly thinking, much less acting, very far outside the little box your Party has designed for you. They are every bit as much the bane of Free Will and Free Thought as their right-wing counterparts.
Fact is, you can be for one thing that the 'liberals' champian, AND be for one thing the 'conservatives' champion, AND be for one thing the 'Independents' rally for, AND,,, you can even be for what you've figured out on your own. You can, and you SHOULD.
Otherwise you, and the rest of us, are continually playing the zero-sum-gain game of the symbiotic political duopoly year after year after year. Always led by empty promises and platitudes towards that illusory four-year horizon.
Throw off your chains. Climb out of the bucket.
That assesment is certainly closer to the truth than the utterly backwards treatment you've given me, and you've stepped straight into it, repeatedly.
The old farmers used to protect their sheep, by putting a jackass or two in the pasture with them.
It would carry a lot more weight with me if the source for this information about registration fraud was NOT ACORN. ACORN discovered the fraud, separated the fraudulent registrations and handed ALL registrations in AS WAS REQUIRED OF THEM. They then reported that they had internally discovered fraud and were dealing with it.
Similarly, reports in the MSM regarding UN corruption were solely sourced on reports BY the UN.
I don't get my marching orders from anyone, right or left, radio or tv.
I used them because they were a good example of what I was pointing to,,, and yes without question, tactics like Registering cats, dogs & dead people gave the wingnuts a ball to dribble, and led in no small part to a lot of 'hate-speech' about it.
People on one side use such infractions to make everyone on the other side look far worse than they are. While they largely ignore infractions by their own side. I would imagine that for some, the reason they support ACORN so much, is for no better reason than the other side has singled them out. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
We see through you. Get better soon.
Again, I brought up ACORN for Registering dogs, cats & dead people to Vote. That simple. The fact that the entire organization wasn't discredited, or their actions-of-a-few didn't cast a pall across all the rest, the same way a few nutjobs and miscreants on the right are used to put the entire group to shame,,, only bolsters the point I was making.
I extend to you my hope for your speedy recovery as well
Again, you DID try to bring up ACORN to make a phony idea that they did something wrong, which they did not.
Get over it.
There are several purposes behind Registering fictitious voters.(Aside from lazy, worthless, criminal registrars) One, obviously, is election day fraud through allowing some people to slip through the booth more than once, under alias. Second, is to gerrymander a District. Third would be to throw off the pollsters & statistics. Things like that can throw off an opponent, making them abandon a District they think is "lost", or to expend more resources there than they actually need to, not to mention that it can and does influence the voters themselves, causing some to simply stay home because they believe their vote will not matter.
I am not at all unfamiliar with the game, ma'am.
Still, the bona-fide reports of phony voter Registrations ala ACORN are numerous and wide-spread.
YOU say that ACORN took care of it all. Have any Proof of that? Election fraud is a very serious crime. How many of the criminals did ACORN turn in to the Authorities? How many did they banhammer from their ranks?
Your turn now. Give examples of this unreproachable virtue you ascribe.
Again, you have NO examples of hate speech by "the Left."
Now its a phony issue, and thats your source? A few posts back, you were quite aware of at least what you ceded did happen there. You said that ACORN purged the phoney Registrations, like a good little group of girl scouts.
So, according to your source, it was all a ginned up 'vast right-wing conspiracy'? And one that posters here know all about? Why didn't they all call you down when you impeached them as much as you did? Why didn't they jump in and [blog] source me to death?
As to "no liberal equivalent" to hatefulness by the Right, have you watched Keith Olbermann or Rachel Madow, or read the personally insulting attacks on Republicans on sites like this?
Democrats have retaliated in spades ever since the Clinton years, but with new anger since Obama won the presidency. Why? When a Democrat occupies the White House and with majorities in both Houses,attacks on those who don't agree with your policies look thuggish. It is the job of the opposition to oppose. Only dictators try to intimidate, humiliate, or otherwise silence dissent.
Sometimes I think the Left has a permanent victim mentality, explained, but not justified, by media bias against it in the past. Mainstream media has been biased towards the Left, not against it, since the second Iraq war. Democrats need to behave like winners, not like losers who secretly think they don't deserve the prize.
Winners do not need to issue personal insults when someone objects to their policies. They take criticism seriously, respect the critics and address their concerns. Leaders lead.
Show us some examples? This website has no attacks on republicans (maybe in the commentaries, but again, that is just regular people like you and me allowed to type, more or less, what we want).
I've watched Maddow's and Olberman's shows a few times, and Maddow is a great show. She does a great job of taking in facts, interviewing people, asking actual real questions. There is nothing on Maddow's show that even approaches anything the right is doing, same for Olberman.
As others keep asking, show us some examples.
The liberal media bias is a myth. Heck, there is an entire site showing what is being spouted in the media on a daily basis and the misinformation that is espouses.
Your talking points are great, they reflect the party view very nicely. Cult of victimhood has been played by the right for so long, it's riduculous.
Just look at your often phrased refrain, "Liberal media..."
Ironic, as the Left is generally the side thats associated with going to bat for Free Speech.
Fact is, you can go read the Supreme Court precedents regarding Free Speech, and you will see that a great deal of what gets characterized as 'hate speech' here, isn't considered to be that, actually. And, it isn't 'hate-speech' thanks in no small part to the legal efforts of the far-left itself.
Can't have it both ways. Be careful what you wish for
I don't think hate speech is when someone disagrees with me. But I can see hate speech for what it is, and what it is, is ugly, and it happens on a daily basis. You show me, again, some examples of someone from the left taking what someone said opposite of their opinion, and calling it hate speech. You can't do it, because those examples don't exist.
Anyone goes to bat for free speech. Where has anyone tried to stifle it? Not on here. Not in our government. Free speech, let me remind you, is about the government not making any laws to abridge said freedom. Far as I know, that hasn't happened in a long long time.
Nobody said hate speech isn't free speech. I will defend to my death, the right for people to say those things, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Hate speech is protected free speech whether anyone likes it or not. Example: Neo-Nazis. Look at all of the white pride websites out there. They're not shut down. They're operating. Why? It's called free speech. It has nothing to do with the far left, it has to do with people following the Constitution. Hate speech is protected. That doesn't mean we can't classify it as such just because it's allowed.
Be careful yourself, because you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about.
Never said or even implied that it did not. Read what I HAVE written.
Ah, another mid-stream game-changer. And if I do that, if I give you an example, will you accept it? Will the next shin-biter come up and whine 'Oh, now give ME an example of that while they were wearing a blue tie and eating ice cream,,, and if you can't,,, then HA!' It just keeps getting further and further and further from the very simple, very honest, very obvious point I made in my very first post. Yes, very much like the "birthers" in that.
Ahem, Ahem, Ahem.
Actually, I do know, and very well so. As a matter of fact, I was just postulating on another thread the difference between Free Speech, the Right of every individual, against what I see as PAID SPEECH using the Public Airwaves, as in what Beck/Limbaugh etc are involved in. They aren't "journalists" so its not a matter of Free Press.
What they do, is for-profit, they are entertainers. So, to my mind, what they do is/should be as subject to greater Regulation, as the difference between a Private Citizen exercising their Right to travel on the Public roadways is different than a commercial vehicle using the streets for profit.
You might want to kep up with current events a little better as well.
A "Love America, Hate Bush" shirt is A-OK. (I agree with that, personaly. I'd almost bought a "Bush is teh suxr sauce" T-shirt myself.)
Yet, a "Love America, Hate Obama" shirt will automatically mark you out as a 'racist' 'bigot' 'wingnut' etc ad nauseum.
Just like this image is fine;
But just TRY to make that same image with Obama's face,,, and see what it gets you, from the Free Speech Left
You were one of the first to demand examples. Now they are given, and more in-waiting, and so you skulk away, admitting nothing.
How,,, validating.
And what are we dealing with right now?
And would you not agree it's been raised to a whole new level by the current problem people?
And exactly how many forum posters does it take to equal the scope of Beck/Hannity/Rush/Dobbs/Savage/ + the GOP?
Reflect more.
The longer the wait, the more people die for lack of care, lose their health insurance, or beccome under insured. But whats a little more uneeded death and suffering when we somehow need to get this exactly right? We do not normally exclude laws from modification for a 1000 years. Why do you think this will be the case here?
Forum posters equal forum posters.
To Equal Beck/Hannity/Rush, et al? Sharpton/Jackson/Moore/Stewart/Colbert/Mahar/Garofalo/Schecter/Franken/Stern and on and on. (I actually like Stewart and Colbert, but I recognize what they are doing)
Slightly different gimmicks, different boundaries each may or may not cross, mostly entertainers, wannabe's/has-beens and people who have been given far too much attention (Left and Right). They all do their part to denigrate & make fun of, and even bait & infuriate the 'other team'.
Personally, when I do listen to the radio, its either NPR or other Public Radio, when not listening to music. I can't stand wingnut radio/media because it IS full of gibberish, and I can't stand far left-wing media for exactly the same reason.
Pound-for-Pound, just a few decades ago, it was the other way around. The "Conservative" media was much more prim & proper, more,,, conservative. Whereas the "liberal" outlets were where the radical, obliquely violent, bordering-on-revolution elements could be found. And, they were prone to saying whatever they wanted, however they wanted, challenging anyone to shut them down when they crossed the lines of decency. Would do well to note that a lot of the right-wing listeners of today, remember all of that.
Now you might find some lefty saying something hateful in the media somewhere, but so far you're zippo. Instead of giving you a fruitless search, though, I'll be generous. How about a cap and trade? You cap all the non-journalistic, self-absorbed verbage, and we'll trade you Colin Powell for Arlen Spector.
Its not limited to "vile" its about transgressing one's own espoused principles, and allowing their fellows to do it when its perceived to be working for the team.
Empty retort #2; Already addressed more than once. You still think I am someone on the 'other team'. It show just how shallow and intellectually lazy you've let yourself become. Everything and everyone is either this or that. If they take a position thats slightly opposed to whatever nonsense you favor on a given issue, then they are put in the same box and burdened with the same animosity shomn to those who oppose ALL your teams positions. Its a complete breakdown in logical thought and decency. There is no legitimate syllogism there. One thing simply does not follow the other.
Trade me a Colin Powell for an Arlen Spector? What the hell is all that about? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I am an Independent Citizen-at-Large.
I'm not the one in the paper bag here.
Frankly, you've proven it several times over, citizenoftheright. You actually think we haven't seen concern trolls like you over and over and over again ad infinitum on this board? You're far too ready to defend Limbaugh and attack Olbermann and Maddow (whom you clearly have never actually watched) for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear to mistake you for being "on our team"...
Now, Show mo ONE spot where I have 'defended Limbaugh' OR 'attacked Olbermann and Madow'.
You will find instance after instance of me attacking Limbaugh, as I have never in my life defended that over-stuffed pile of monkey-tripe. Beyond that, you will fing nowhere that I have even mentioned Olbermann, and I don't remember ever even pointing specifically to Madow in anything, much less anything that could be construed as an 'attack on' her.
So. PROVE your accusation,,, or you are exposed here as just another LIAR.
ACORN's COMING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DDDIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!...
And, if you don't retract, and none of your fellow team mates call you out for it as they should, you will be a perfect and quite predictable example #7.
Sorry, but I'm following this "debate," and you are just rambling, throwing out vagues assertions without any concrete proof. It would be nice if you actually made a point and then backed it up.
First, you define "concrete proof" that WILL satisfy you, in your own terms. No more jumping through ephemeral hoops past that.
Since thats the challenge, I get to stick with my "concrete" premise;
Notice yet again, I didn't limit it to one 'side', and I didn't limit it to 'hate-speak'.
Thank you too, perfect example #8
Since you have produced zero examples of hate speech by "the left" we conclude that you are only here to distract from the article, which is replete with examples of hate speech....not from anonymous posters on web sites, but by actual HOSTS of television shows and radio broadcasts.
Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
So even though I clearly said and explained transgressions, that aren't simply limited to 'hate-speech' or even to the media,,, you aren't going to be satisfied until I can give examples of left wing hate-speech. (left-leaning people in/on the media making politically-motivated vicious and even violent comments & threats about persons and groups they hate)
Since you obviously appear to be arguing that there are NONE to be found, how many will it take to satisfy you? You task me over it because I haven't privided ANY, so, how many would you like? Toss out a number thats enough to prove that it DOES happen and HAS happened.
Hurry, before they close this thread. I have compiled a pretty fair list here already, but I want to have you set the numerical bar, in line with your comments thus-far. 5, 10, 20?
I have several that are overtly about killing a President & VP, and about various leaders of Congress and other prominent political figures, as well as about people on the 'right' in general, and even some very nasty comments about minorities. Nothing you could not have gone out and found on your own, with little difficulty.
Its not the point I was making, but you have pushed it in that direction. I've found that sometimes the best way to nail someone is give them exactly what they ask for.
Just one example would do. You haven't produced anything at all. Nada. From ACORN to Al Gore you've just thrown out false cliches, that have nothing to to with the topic.
So I suggest you get some sleep and read a book. How about Gandhi's Autobiography: My Experiment with Truth.
1. Hers's a great example from Tony Hendra.
2. Nina Totenberg, saying that if there was retributive justice, Jesse Helms or his kids would get AIDS from a transfusion
3. Howard Dean- 'I Hate the Republicans and everything the stand for...'
4. Craig Kilborn airing footage of Bush with a 'Snipers Wanted' caption
5.Mike Webb- saying Bush should be put to death for war crimes
6. Ted Turner- insulting Christians
7. Randi Rhodes- airing a threatening sgment about Bush with gunshot sound-effect & all. (She was allowed to remain on the Air after that, but when she later called Hillary a name,,, gone)
8. Julianne Malveaux- On Clarence Thomas; "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
9. Bill Mahar- Really, too many remarks against Republicans, Christians and other groups he hates to list. He did offer a great rationalle for assassinating Cheney.
10. Al Sharpton- long record of it
11. Dan Savage- detailed his plan to contaminate Gary Bauer
12. NAACP aired a spot of a pickup truck dragging chains, accusing Bush of murdering James Byrd a second time
13. Alexander Cockburn-suggesting a nuke be dropped on the Cuban section of Miami.
14. Hardly a need to go over how many time the Bush & Co. & Repubs were characterized as Nazis in the media. (I did more than my fair share of that personally, and still do)
15. Paul Begala, former Clinton aide, on MSNBC.com referring to the red-state-blue-state mape during the Gore v. Bush Election- "But if you look closely at that map you see a more complex picture. You see the state where James Byrd was lynched-dragged behind a pickup truch until his body came apart -- it's red. You see the state where Matthew Shepard was crucified ... for the crime of being gay -- it's red. You see the state where right-wing extremists blew up a federal office building and murdered scores of federal employees: red. The state where an Army private thought to be gay was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat, and the state where neo-Nazi skinheads murdered two African Americans because of their skin color, and the state where Bob Jones University spews its anti-Catholic bigotry: they're all red, too."
And lest we forget Alec Baldwin on NBC (was it on Leno or Conan?) "[I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families."
Ok, I have more of course, but surely even for you more than 10 examples will fulfil the 'at least one' bar you set.
Again, my original point was simple. People on both sides cross the boundaries of ethics and decency, in a variety of way. Most of the time, the other side will make more of it than it may amount to, while their own side will generally make less of it than what it is.
Its simple observation, there is ample evidence-in-circumstance to back it up.
Cut and pasted.
And I'm always suspicious when those symbols show up for apostrophes.
You seem to be familiar, pbg. Where have you been? What position do you have on it, now that you have waded in this far.
In any case, that site (being one of several I looked through) is by no means a "Source" in-and-of-itself. No doubt that had I tried to use it as a source, which I wouldn't have, someone would have jumped squarely on it. Regardless, this is an internet thread. I am quite able to follow APA, Chicago et al, and even Legal Citation guidelines. You demand footnotes? Thats no problem, so long as you are willing to bear exactly the same burdens... If you don't want to follow the same standard in your each-and-every post,,, then don't quibble over it.
Now, forward.
The statements given are attributed to the people that made them. If you find an error, if you have some proof that they are fictitious, I will gladly retract any of them, with all due apology, and happily provide other examples.
Otherwise, there are some examples of... Deal with THAT.
Here's a pretty good one on tit-for-tat strategy,,, from the Daily Kos.
And your little Randi Rhodes anecdote, I happen to know about. Her staff put together a skit, which aired when she was on a day off. When she found out about it, she apologised numerous times, said it was in bad taste, and she would never advocate violence in any way.
The Randi Rhodes one, thats hardly the only off-color comment that came from that show. What her staff did only reflects the tone and tenor of the environment. So she apologized.
Do you forgive and engage in apologetics for your opponents as easily?
Nevertheless, I'll discount that particular Randi Rhodes skit, in deference to your Testimony.
Anyway. You asked for examples. You said ONE would be enough. So that leaves what,,, still more than a dozen given?
Will it ever be enough? Will there ever come a point where you can say, 'alright, I see where you are coming from, and how you came to that conclusion,,,'?
These people get on night after night, advocating hate and violence, and all you can do in your pathetic little attempts to say "every side does it" is bring up phony stuff that isn't comparable at all and in some cases entirely false.
The Republican party has become a disturbing group of hate mongers, liars and psychopaths. Now that's not "hate speech", it's reality. Unfortunately. My parents, who were life-long Republicans, would be appalled.
there is no need to 'give examples' on the right. Thats all well taken care of here and elsewhere. But, some sycophant operatchiks on the 'left' think that saying/pointing to ANY example of nonsense on 'their side' equates to you being a right-wing sycophant operatchik.
They have completely abandoned their Free Will and abdicated their civic responsibility to call bs on bs, wherever they find it. Instead they behave like,,, the other guys.
You apparently don't understand logic or argumentation. Using your tactics, I can say "Gravity is also a flawed theory," and when someone asks me exactly what I mean, for proof, I can simply say "Thats [sic] all been taken care of elsewhere."
Doesn't that make your assertion patently false and therefore automatically invalidate everything you have written or will write? Are you anti-scientific, or simply don't know what you are talking about?
Moreover, since there is no viable explanation for something as ubiquitous as 'gravity', should the average poster argue down anyone that refers to it, as if it doesn't actually exist?
Thats exactly the sort of "logic" thats been employed on this thread...
i said there is no need to give examples on the right, because this entire site is almost entirely devoted to giving examples on the right,,,, DUH.
If I don't provide any examples of the right's transgressions,,, does that mean that there AREN'T any?
Logic and Argumentation, indeed.
Now jug wine is okay, but it doesn't produce good results when trying to stay on topic and seem credible. But have a good evening.
The thinly veiled Senate speech by Robertt Byrd
There is a wealth of information out there about Bush's Family ties to the Nazis, which are indeed true. Though few of them mention the fact that Ol' Prescott was a Progressive Republican (not much unlike his contemporary Third Way Socialists in the NDSAP) ala American Birth Control LeaguePlanned Parenthood (you can read more about the guiding light behind all that here) United Negro College Fund, Peace Corps etc.
Here is a laundry list
But, this one,,, is quite fitting, given the current climate and considering the source.
There, hope that helps :)
and seen a centrist like Kingsley called a liberal? How many times have you seen a conservative like Mona Charon presented as an objective nonpartisan analyst and not identified as a conservative? It is like a cheater at cards- if "only you" knows that
the ace of hearts has a bent end, then sooner or later you will win all the money on the table- one card out of 52 is all you need to read. The MSM slants things toward the right in a subtle way.
That, cb, is like saying water is subtly wet! The whole Dobby the CNN House Bigot affair this week is remarkable only in the fact that Dobby is actually coming out from behind his "independent" mask in front of the audience, unlike an O'Reilly who will stay hidden resolutely behind it...
I despise angry rhetoric and actions. I see it on both sides.
This does not alter the fact the I am totally opposed to Cap and Trade, and a Single Payer, government run health insurance system.
I am frustrated by the inability of my congressional representative and my senators, to get that.
So that we even the playing field here are are few quotes from the left. Are you going to critcize them for their hate speech?
"You know, you might want to look into this, [President Obama], because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight."
"Rush Limbaugh -- 'I hope the country the fails.' I hope his kidneys fail."
----------------------------
"[Obama] told me I did a great job. The first lady said the same thing. I got a 'well done' from the president, I'm on cloud nine."
--WANDA SYKES
"[Tea Party goers are] just a bunch of wimpy, whiny, weasels who don't love their country."
--PAUL BEGALA
"Reagan's dead and he was a lousy President."
--KEITH OLBERMANN
"You know, I just want to say to her (Sarah Palin), just very quickly...F--- you."
--JON STEWART
"I also believe that America is the greatest sin against God."
--FR. MICHAEL PFLEGER
"I'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That's right, the Pope is coming to America this week and, ladies, he's single."
--BILL MAHER
"Look, [Mitt] Romney comes from a religion founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and a rapist. And he comes from that lineage and says, 'I respect this religion fully.'"
--LAWRENCE O'DONNELL
"Is America ready for a black president? Well, I say we just had a retarded one. When did being black become a bigger deterrent than being retarded?"
--CHRIS ROCK
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."
--HOWARD DEAN
Good freaking grief!!!
The next time you take your marching orders to post nonsense about "liberals", could you at least BUY A CLUE about the site!!
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
1. E Pluribus Unum
2. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
3. In God We Trust
That is pretty much it. If you can measure those three things in a matrix against any modern day issue, you have the conservative game plan. No kidding.