Conservative "outrage" over flag video undercut by Beck and Bush defacing flags
Saying, "Words will not express my contempt," Lou Dobbs told listeners he was "outrage[d]" by a report that the group Organizing for America's website had listed as a finalist in a health care video contest a video in which a mural of the United States flag is "splattered with health care graffiti until it's covered completely by black paint." But conservatives' purported "outrage" over the video is undercut by the fact that Fox News' Glenn Beck and President Bush previously defaced U.S. flags.
Dobbs expresses "outrage" and "contempt" over video
Dobbs: "[W]ords will not express my contempt" for "outrage" of video in which flag mural is "splattered with health care graffiti." On the October 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Dobbs cited a Politico.com article that reported, "One of the 20 finalists in health care video contest run by Barack Obama's campaign arm features a mural of an America flag splattered with health care graffiti until it's covered completely by black paint." Dobbs stated, "You know what we ought to do? We ought to put that up on the website. If we can get a hold of that, I mean, people should see this kind of outrage. This is -- I have no -- words will not express my contempt." [United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, 10/28/09]
Beck, Bush also defaced U.S. flags
Beck wipes stars from U.S. flag onto his studio floor, replaces them with logos of corporations, organizations. On his July 30 Fox News show, Glenn Beck stated that the stars on the U.S. flag "used to represent the states" but they now represent the Service Employees International Union, Wal-Mart, General Electric, General Motors, CitiBank, and ACORN, which he said were "the new people that we're really representing in America." After stating that "I think we should replace all of the stars" on the U.S. flag, Beck wiped the stars from the flag onto the floor of his studio and replaced them with the logos of the six organizations he mentioned. He then stated: "We should stop calling it a flag. We should just start calling it the logo of our nation." [Glenn Beck, 7/30/09]
Beck wipes stars from U.S. flag to protest their inattention to "state rights." On his Fox News show, after removing four stars from a U.S. flag -- including a star he said represented Delaware "because Joe Biden pisses me off" -- Beck wiped all the stars from the flag, with many of them falling onto his studio floor. He replaced only the star representing Alaska and said he also would do so for Tennessee, suggesting that only those two states were "serious about state rights and that pesky little thing called the Constitution." [Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
Bush signed flag at a 2003 rally in Michigan. According to an August 26, 2003, "White House Notebook" column by Dana Milbank in The Washington Post (retrieved from the Nexis database), Bush "went on a brief foray into the criminal underworld last month in Livonia, Mich., where he ran afoul of U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8 (g): 'The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.' The transgression occurred when President Bush, on a July 24 visit to Beaver Aerospace & Defense Inc., accepted a request to sign a well-wisher's U.S. flag."
An August 4, 2003, Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial opined of the event (from Nexis):
Conservative radio talk shows are bemoaning the fact that some Americans take exception to Old Glory being used as an autograph pad.
For an administration that embraces the idea of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the flag, perhaps signing one with an indelible Sharpie wasn't a terrific idea.
Just imagine the uproar from the chattering classes had President Clinton been captured on Kodachrome doing the same thing.
A photo from the event:
WND "Superstore" offers self-described "Tea Stained" flag. WorldNetDaily's "Superstore" website offers for sale what it describes as a "Tea Stained (Heritage) Mahogany 50-Star Flag Kit." The site displays a U.S. flag with "[w]hite areas of antiqued cotton" that "appear darker."
Because according to Mr. Dobbs if you're Hispanic you better have Documentation even if you're Homeless in the Hood.
It was all made clear to me when Fox News showed a Vid of Hispanics being arrested at the Boarder & then they segued into Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
News Corp. "A Racist Enterprise" An organization just a little to Mean & Hateful to Ignore.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
How does it feel Lou to get booted out of a whole country. You must be very proud of all the ranting and raving about latinos.
YOU ARE SO LOW YOU HAVE TO LOOK UP TO LOOK INTO A SNAKES EYES.
ADIOS LOU
Hypocrites.
If you can't be bothered to observe proper care and display of our Flag, I'd rather you not bother to display it at all.
Oh, but we forget a basic truth, if the President does it, its legal. President Nixon said so.
"b.) when used as a marketing gimmick as when a business flies a huge flag in front of its property to call attention to itself...
Good point. When my son was in Iraq, he and his buddies received a T-Shirt with the American Flag with the American Eagle silk screened over the American Flag (Fine). However,above the American flag was a large three lined logo for Harley Davidson. The issue for my son was, they were sent by elementary school children who thought they were simply supporting the troops. We both laughed about it, and my son said: "Gee Mom, I went to Iraq, and all I got was this lousey T-Shirt.
This may not fit the criteria that you stated,but my son and I thought it was pretty cheezey
What this means is that while people like Beck are trying to mainstream their radical conspiracy theories, viewers are not presented with any reason to dismiss that nonsense. It's common sense to think that someone would object if there wasn't really something to what he was saying. Sponsors wouldn't be pressured in any way to withdraw from the show or give Beck an ultimatum if people aren't inspired to contact them and complain about the programming. Consider Imus. If nobody covered what he said, would he have paid any price for his words? Without a documented history of other comments, then would his "nappy-headed hos" line have gotten him fired? That same concept applies to Beck, where there will never be a "straw that breaks the camel's back" if none of the other straws are put on there to begin with. Along the same lines, a lack of coverage would allow him to contradict himself any number of times without taking a significant hit to his credibility. When he says that he opposed Bush's bailouts now, the vast majority of viewers aren't going to remember the exact words he said to the contrary two years ago or whatever.
Typically your argument relies on some "controversy is what they want" concept. We don't really know what anyone wants. People will surely act like they enjoy it, because it's not like they're going to admit otherwise. But it's not a trumping concern anyway. It's not about what anyone wants, it's about protecting the public dialogue and holding people accountable for unacceptable behavior.
Hypocrisy wrapped in ignorance garnished with literally blind rage. Mr. Dobbs may have the memory of a mayfly but the rest of us know better.
I suspect Fox is about to get a new Friend.
Now, personally, for me, I would never deface, or devalue the US flag in any way, shape, or form, but I would also fight to allow others to do it, because that's what freedom of speech is about. It's about protecting not only the things we agree on, but protecting the things we also find repugnant.
Granted, he doesn't have the same status as St. Reagan but still.
(sarcasm)
"Of course you can have freedom of speech, so long as everything you say follows approved party guidelines. You can praise and endorse Bush however you want." It's the same party that feels it has the right to force all moral choice (i.e. freedom) in this land into lockstep conformity with it's religious views. Abortion is just one example of this, of course. So is prohibition in any of it's various forms. So is pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Yes, and why can't you extend that same freedom to decide to all adults in this country? Because you don't think I'm grown up enough to decide for myself what porn is, so you must do it for me?
Sorry for the rant. This is an especially sore spot for me.
People who wave the flag as a cape and it touches the ground, or fly the flag at night without lighting violates flag etiquette.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
Just out of curiosity, how do you define "members of a patriotic organization"?
Also, I apologize up front but; I can't help myself.
Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
Isn't your heart in the approximate center of your chest, just behind the sternum?
At Faux News, when you call President Obama: socialist, fascist, communist, nazi, Hitler, Stalin, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot.....
Isn't your heart in the approximate center of your chest, just behind the sternum?
Nope, just to the left (!!!!one!!!) of the sternum, the center would be just to the left of the edge of the sternum.
But THREE wrongs?? It's ok !!!
Pointing out a hypocritical position is not, in fact, hypocrisy.
Readthe whole thing.
It was just matter of time that the liberal blogosphere daily bashing of Lou Dobbs was going to spur on some crazy loon with a gun and do some damage.
This rhetoric by the Left must stop before something really catastrophic happens.
Eliminationism, pure and simple.
Words, have consequences, and Lou's own words put himself in danger.
crickets chirping
Will MMFA accept responsibility for the shots fired at Dobbs?
MMFA hasn't incited violence against Dobbs or anyone else. MMFA can certainly take credit and responsibility for publicizing Dobbs' own views about many issues.
So the question is: Will MMFA condemn the violence directed at Dobbs?
I'm not holding my breath.
So the question is: Will MMFA condemn the violence directed at Dobbs?
I'm not holding my breath." - Dick2012
O'Reilly claimed that Tiller was a "baby killer" and that anyone who did not stop him had "blood on their hands". Please show us where MMFA said anything close to this in regards to Lou Dobbs - then we will agree with you. Also, encouraging violence on Tiller until he was killed and then condemning it requires a special kind of cynical disconnect in the brain. It also requires a special kind of ignorance to use that as a defense of O'Reilly's rhetoric, as you just did. Pathetic.
typical wing nut responses. come up with the conclusion to the story before you even know what the story is about. you guys sure are precious.
Will MMFA accept responsibility for the shots fired at Dobbs? - hooser
Absolutely. Now, just show us where MMFA ever said that Lou Dobbs was a "killer" or had "blood on his hands" and we will agree with you. Glad to see you guys finally coming around to Bill O'Reilly accepting his own moral culpability, though.
MMFA certainly pointed out O'Reilly's years of incendiary rhetoric and baseless accusations against Dr. Tiller, but MMFA never asserted that the blame for Dr. Tiller's murder belonged "squarely on the shoulders of Bill O'Reilly."
Tiller was vilified for his deeds and called a murderer and "Tiller the Killer". Without such egregious character assassination, Tiller would be alive today.
Randy
I agree..just pointing out mal's hypocrisy
Also, the only news reports I can find of this alleged incident are from extreme right wing news sources. I'll wait to see if an actual news source reports on this, or if Lou talks about it himself.
Cheney2012 wasn't referring to you, but rather someone called "mal".
If it had happened, it would have been big news here in New Jersey since Lou lives here.
What's strange to me isn't that Dobbs didn't say anything about this for weeks, but that he started talking about it when the police still hadn't found a suspect and hadn't charged anyone. If the police didn't find anyone and had nothing new to report, I just wonder what happened to prompt Dobbs to start talking about it on air.
Show me on this website, or others, where they have misinformed about what Lou Dobbs has actually SAID. MMFA posts transcripts, and audio, and video of these things that Dobbs has said over the years and months, and the only rhetoric MMFA has used against Dobbs, has been his own words.
It's not surprising that you don't see the difference.
Now, do I think Lou deserves to get shot at? No, absolutely not. Am I surprised? No, absolutely not.
My exact sentiments on the Baby Killer. COnservatives denounced the violence. When will the criminals at MMFA denounce?
Good to see you came out against violence when given a second chance.
As your first post said this:
Is it the so called liberal blogosphere, or is it Lou's own words (which are highlighted here for all to read)?
Words, have consequences, and Lou's own words put himself in danger.
Ah, but with Dr. Tiller, there were plenty of conservative who hold the murderer up as a hero. If this action took place against Dobbs, I dare say there won't be any liberals who would hold that action up as heroic.
Randy
We can go back to having abortion be illegal. That way, wealthy women who wanted one could go back to flying to Europe where they are legal, and poor women could go back to being butchered in alleys when confronted with the necessity of terminating a pregnancy. Perhaps you'd like to re-institute slavery while you're at it, and take away the right of women to vote as well? After all, both those things are in the Constitution as originally written.
As for slavery and voting rights for women. They have absolute;ly nothing to do with abortion.
Now, if we amended the Constitution in the proscribed manner to ban abortions that would be OK, right. Since it would be "in the Constitution."
Or would you throw a hissy fit at the loss of the 'right' to kill the innoncent?
As always, you're free to not have an abortion.
And destroying a mass of cells is not killing the innocent.
Unless, of course that innocent life is in Iraq - then they are a necessary casualty of war. How very Christian of you, Dick.
Or, are you one who only cares about 'innocent life' before it's born?
Dobbs performs abortions? Or did he have them performed on him? What the-?
Lou Dobbs has every right to say whatever he wants without fear of violence. He does not have a right to say whatever he wants without fear of criticism, boycotts, or any other legitimate and legal response.
I agree..just pointing out mal's hypocrisy
Words have consequences as I pointed out above. I never said he deserved to get shot at because of it, and wouldn't agree in that area at all. Debate him, certainly. Point out what he said, and why it's wrong, certainly. Shoot at him? No f'ing way. That's just dumb. I don't think he's said anything that should promote violence against him, but, there are folks out there who aren't as rational as I.
(I still maintain that none of this has anything to do with MMFA's original post about these flag stories and that hoosier's link to the Dobbs story is simply trolling. But as long as we're going down this road, let's cut to the chase: there simply is no link to be drawn between the alleged violence against Dobbs and MMFA's publication of Dobbs' own outrageous remarks in context.)
And you don't know what triggers these guys to do such things. So there's no way you can differentiate between what O'Reilly and Beck said and what MMFA says that would make Beck and O'Reilly guilty and MMFA completely innocent, which is the case you seem to be making.
Neither side is responsible. The individual is responsible for his actions.
But no matter, the left will never look at itself through the same prism it views and judges everybody else. It's that simple.
That being said, liberals have never really stressed the importance of personal responsibility, they will always hunt down someone or something else to blame. Many of them here say it's just a conservative catch word that means we are mean, or something.
Generalization troll.
Yes.
Do that.
I have nothing to hide.
How about Lou Dobbs blaming minorities for a so-called bullet that bounced off his roof? Is that what you conservatives consider personal responsibility?
That's funny because every time I point out examples of conservatives showing an absolute absence of personal responsibility for the disastrous consequences of their market fundie ideology, you Tommy, er, RighteeO swoop in, in full tizzy mode, toss off some platitudes about how you are so morally superior to liberals and make some empty reference to personal responsibility. Then you slither off to another thread and pretend you were never caught merely using personal responsibility, the way so many self-important conservatives do, as a rhetorical tool for leveraging political advantage.
Truth be told, if the right any sense of personal responsibility, they bend their knee and beg forgiveness for everything from 9/11, to Iraq, to torture, to New Orleans, to medical bankruptcies, to the implosion of a deregulated Wall St. But we all know better than to hold our breath waiting for that, we'll just shoulder the burden of cleaning up your messes, never ask for a thank you and move on to the next item... the way a responsible citizen ought to.
"If you want a name from here, Roundhouse."
Making it personal too, huh? How very responsible of you to stick to the issues.
I would ask you for actual examples of me arguing against personal responsibility, but we all know you trade only in the vague and general.
Has MMFA ever argued otherwise? It's entirely possible, but to my knowledge MMFA has never said that O'Reilly is criminally responsible. You say that liberals "never really stressed the importance of personal responsibility" but here is a case in which O'Reilly is being held personally responsible for the moral implications of his rhetoric as a professional broadcaster.
You've failed to show us HOW MMFA, or other liberal blogs have promoted violence, or spoke in violent rhetoric about Lou Dobbs.
Continuing to believe in fairy tales STILL doesn't make them true.
Do you support waterboarding, regardless of whether it's performed on a Muslim terrorist or an American GI?
MMFA has done nothing of the kind. There's no comparison to be made besides a comparison between baseless attacks and calm, reasoned criticism. If you think I'm wrong, that's great, but you and Hoosier have offered absolutely no evidence to support the accusation that MMFA uses "false information to foment hatred towards Lou Dobbs or any American who speaks out against Amnesty or illegal immigration".
And this still has nothing to do with MMFA's post about these flag stories. This entire absurd conversation is an empty substitute for a legitimate counter-argument to MMFA's post.
I mean, look at this post. It started off being about alleged flag desecration, then got hijacked into "Look over there! Lou Dobbs says somebody fired a gun at his attic three weeks ago! If you libs don't immediately condemn this contemptible act of violence, well then YOU are no better than the violent liberal who tried to shoot Lou Dobbs' attic." (Cause we all know the Liberal Revolution will start with shots fired at the attics of prominent conservatives.)
I mean, look at this post. It started off being about alleged flag desecration, then got hijacked into "Look over there! Lou Dobbs says somebody fired a gun at his attic three weeks ago! If you libs don't immediately condemn this contemptible act of violence, well then YOU are no better than the violent liberal who tried to shoot Lou Dobbs' attic."
It's a common conservative tactic; always answer an attack with an attack. It has less to do with misdirection than it has to do with our liberal inclination toward being in a perpetual defensive crouch. Although, I don't know why we feel the need to defend ourselves from the people who have proven themselves to be the cause of our social and economic woes today, but we do. We liberals and progressives, however, are not the ones who keep screwing up the country, we need not defend ourselves from these incompetent hacks on the Republican right.
Here's a challenge for all of us, an experiment, if you will, just stay on the offensive. Attack everything they say and grant them no credibility. Keep shoving their noses in the hypocrisy, or lies, exposed in these articles. Do not relent. See then how easily they derail these threads.
But you stated earlier that the left's rhetoric about Dobbs has lead to violence.
So you wingnuts can say anything, no matter how irresponsible and it has no consequences. But not the other way around.
Meanwhile, you haven't addressed my simplest question: what "false information" has MMFA published "to foment hatred towards Lou Dobbs or any American who speaks out against Amnesty or illegal immigration"?
Free speech only means you are free from government control. It does not mean you are free from moral repercussions. I am quite hopeful there are quiet moments when O'Reilly himself reflects on his own statements and realizes his own moral culpability. But, then he is probably incapable of self reflection.
Take hoosier, for example. Anyone who can make the statement:
"It was just matter of time that the liberal blogosphere daily bashing of Lou Dobbs was going to spur on some crazy loon with a gun and do some damage.
This rhetoric by the Left must stop before something really catastrophic happens."
while defending O'Reilly's statements at all costs and providing no examples of the left's rhetoric that "must stop" is clearly incapable of self-reflection and only capable of partisan thinking.
Dr. Tiller had already been shot in both arms when O'Reilly said on air said on the air:
And then there was the time he said:
Right. Because if it wasn't a figure of speech, that would be the explicit expression of a wish of violence against Dr. Tiller by a professional broadcaster.
And then there was the time he made this false accusation:
Let me repeat: this was after Tiller had been shot in the arms for doing an unpopular job.
Meanwhile, [/url]MMFA has said that Lou Dobbs stood by his 'report' that "[t]he invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans" in which he presented grossly false statistics about leprosy among recent immigrants to the United States.
THAT is the crime of which MMFA stands accused by Hoosier by Cheney2012: pointing out that Dobbs and O'Reilly failed as broadcasters. And they point out that Dobbs thinks his critics have created an environment in which violence against him is encouraged. But Hoosier and Cheney2012 don't think that's possible, because there's no way to conclusively establish links between violent rhetoric and violence. At least not by conservatives.
Funny how MMFA has sanitized the front of its homepage this morning by removing all Dobbs 'stories'
I congratulate you on your effective trolling, but none of this has anything to do with the flag stories that MMFA highlighted in this post.
So far, all we have are poor news sources and blogs reporting it.
Again, I was like everyone else and, when I researched this, I could not find any posted news articles anywhere, except for ONE Fox News post.
It is very fishy though. It's late October (huntin' season where I'm from) and he lives in rural New Jersey. If a bullet has lost so much velocity that it bounces off of siding, then I doubt it was intentionally fired at Dobbs or his house
Why wouldn't we be dubious of the right wing media. They're the same lot who ran with that story during the election about the girl who bloodied herself up and carved on herself and tried to say she was attacked by liberals for being a conservative.
What evidence is there that MMFA has "used false information to foment hatred towards Loud Dobbs or any American who speaks out against Amnesty or illegal immigration"?
I condemn this act of violence, as I'm sure you and everyone else here does. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the previous commenter's accusation of hypocrisy against MMFA (except that it is also completely unfounded).
Let me put it to you this way. You just wrote:
Now you're not suggesting that someone should take violent measures "to stop this rhetoric by the Left", are you?
magnolialover didn't condemn the violence...DOH!!
And I'm disappointed to see that you're expressing how seriously you take this act of violence by voicing Homer Simpson.
Also, the whole article was about how some are using false information (where is it?) to foment hatred and violence against Lou Dobbs. All that I said above was that his words may have gotten him into trouble, not anything made up about him. I still don't think violence is the way.
To derail the thread, of course. They couldn't have us talking about the right's hypocrisy over flags, could they?
So, how about I take a right-wing tack on this when I reply? Lou Dobbs paid somebody to shoot up his house so he could more effectively play the victim. 'Some people' have begun saying this is all just a ploy to help him keep his job at CNN despite pressure to have him removed.
I don't advocate violence. MMfA doesn't advocate violence. Please cite an example of 'rhetoric by the Left' where violence against Lou Dobbs has been advocated. Blog posts do not count. You'll need someone of, say, Bill O'Reilly's stature, okay?
There are no conclusions you can draw about what the true trigger is for the nutcase, so therefore you can't make any kind of verifiable conclusion about the use of violent imagery and the differences of those versus the tactics used by MMFA to attack political opponents as to just what causes the trigger mechanism.
You're now trying desperately to argue both sides of this argument, declaring that MMFA fomented hatred against Dobbs which is somehow related to the alleged gun incident, while maintaining that you can't actually draw any connection between even violent imagery in media to acts of violence.
Why don't you take some time to resolve this argument with yourself and then come back and defend a coherent position.
Earlier I was wondering where the trolls were, now I realize I was just reading the wrong posting.
And I am sure you understand this already but; there only reason for posting is to deflect intelligent debate, not partake of it.
Think it's because they were attacking me personally, and it had nothing to do with being a troll cop? I do.
What I'm arguing against is the hypocrisy of the Left. Someone here stated that no one here ever accused O'Reilly or Beck of being directly responsible for any murders. That may be true but I can tell you I've witnessed hundreds of comments and many articles by liberal journos and bloggers basically calling them murderers. I'm asking you to explain to me the difference. If Dobbs had someone take a shot at him and he's getting constant death threats over the phone, then he has a right to be alarmed. I don't call MMFA and SPLC attempted murderers or implicate them in any crime, but I am quite certain that if Dobbs was a liberal and involved in a controversial subject that was anti-conservative and he had shots taken at him, that the right would be blamed and it wouldn't just be the right; there'd be a face attached to it. Beck O'Reilly or Limbaugh...or possibly Savage.
I'm asking you to reconcile that and tell me why no concern about the rhetoric of those vocally opposing Dobbs; or are you saying all those on the left who call Beck O'Reilly Limbaugh, FOX accomplices to murder are just needlessly hyperventilating?
That one went pretty quiet, didn't it. Kinda odd considering all the screeching over that incident, isn't it?
But perhaps you can tell me if there's anything new by conservative bloggers accusing William Sparkman of being a pedophile or by conservative radio hosts theorizing that he was a victim of "open borders"? Those theories emerged pretty quick, didn't they?
Hoosier, you're not helping your cause, and you're apparently blind to the fact that you're digging yourself in deeper.
No, Hoosier, stop there and take note: it is true to the best of my knowledge. I've seen absolutely no evidence that MMFA or the SPLC accused O'Reilly of direct legal responsibility for Dr. Tiller's murder.
"I'm asking you to reconcile that and tell me why no concern about the rhetoric of those vocally opposing Dobbs;..."
What do you expect me to express concern for? What some anonymous commenter said on a La Raza supporting website? If you think that anyone comparable to O'Reilly has said something equally irresponsible about Dobbs, present the evidence and I'll condemn the remark.
All of this goes to my original point: this doesn't demonstrate hypocrisy by MMFA or the people who frequent its forum. And it still has nothing to do with specific conservative hosts on talk radio and cable who reserve their outrage about the flag for their opponents.
I don't know who "all those people on the left who call Beck[,] O'Reilly[,] Limbaugh [and] FOX accomplices to murder" are because you haven't cited a single person who has made such a remark, but if those comments exist, yes, I think they're hyperbolic. If you wanted to ask that, you could have at the beginning.
Instead, you cited a specific accusation of MMFA and the SPLC fomenting hate against Dobbs with false charges, and you still haven't backed up that accusation. And now you acknowledge that it may not even be true. This is not how to have a rational discussion, and it's not how to convince anyone of your position, hoosier.
By your standard, you could shut down any criticism. Limbaugh could go on the air and say "This is a white man's job, impeach the n*****" and you have to imagine that MMfA would have several items and articles about that. If that criticism was followed by a shot at Limbaugh's house (bouncing off the siding, at that), then MMfA would be supposedly responsible for it. There's a boundary between what is reasoned criticism and what is incitement, and this is the distinction that you're being asked to make. Where is MMfA saying that Dobbs has to be stopped "by any means necessary" or anything of the sort?
Just classifying someone as a "nutcase" doesn't erase the difference between words said in good faith and violent and/or paranoid rhetoric.
This is the distinction to which Hoosier and Cheney2012 seem oblivious: O'Reilly didn't take heat for opposing abortion, but because he's a professional broadcaster who adopted the specific terminology of people who wanted to see Tiller killed.
If there were an organized movement of people who posted names and addresses of conservative talk show hosts with photographs with their heads in crosshairs, and if that group used a particular violent epithet when talking about Lou Dobbs, and if MMFA adopted that epithet in its commentary about Dobbs, and then if someone who held the beliefs of the previously-mentioned organized movement violently attacked Dobbs... yeah, then MMFA would be as accountable as O'Reilly.
When all of those conditions are satisfied, Hoosier, then you can start claiming some sort of moral equivalence. In the meantime, O'Reilly still behaved recklessly and despicably, and you still haven't supported your original charge that MMFA uses "false information to foment hatred towards Lou Dobbs."
The question is, what prompted him to do that. If you think whoever did it, acted on something that angered him from watching Dobbs, fine by me. If you deny that it was likely something said by someone more critical of Dobbs, like the firms mentioned in the article, that's fine by me, too. But you haven't made a very convincing case that you know what the difference is between what makes someone take the step of actually firing a guy at someone. Words have meaning. O'Reilly's and Beck's may sound a bit more hyperbolic, but criticism is criticism too, and no one knows that whatever that difference is between hyperbole and the obsessed criticism that MMFA has for certain people is the difference between spurring someone to action and not. You can split hairs all you want, but the fact is, you just don't know.
The left has their crazies, too. And those crazies read sites like this. Just like fringe right crazies watch Fox.
Hoosier, you began all this when you linked to that argument and added, in your own words and of your own free will, this supporting comment:
If that's not what you meant, maybe you shouldn't have written it. Maybe you were being sarcastic, but there's been plenty of time for you to clearly say so and you haven't. Don't take issue with me for taking you at your word or for asking you to back up the arguments that you cite in support of your link.
I've provided specific examples of what I find reprehensible and irresponsible about O'Reilly's coverage of Dr. Tiller, and I still don't think O'Reilly is responsible for the man's murder. Neither has MMFA expressed such an accusation, to the best of my knowledge. There are specific legal criteria that must be fulfilled in order to be charged with incitement to crime, and O'Reilly has not, to the best of my knowledge and in my opinion, met them.
I'm not splitting hairs, Hoosier. I've written in metaphorical 50-foot tall neon the specific acts that by O'Reilly that strike me as remarkably irresponsible, incendiary and unprofessional.
You have offered not a single example of irresponsible behavior by MMFA: you've simply opined that it's criticism of Dobbs strikes you as "obsessive." You have every right to your opinion, but I have every right to tell you that there is a world of difference between a website's frequent, calm, rational criticism and a professional broadcaster's adoption of the epithet used by people who want to see legal abortion providers assassinated and then falsely defending his behavior by claiming that he was simply "reporting" what others called Dr. Tiller after the man was gunned down in his own church.
Again: Dobbs is blaming this alleged act of violence on the discourse of his political opponents and critics, but you've chosen to attack MMFA rather than Dobbs. This is irrational, since MMFA has never claimed that O'Reilly is responsible for the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Are you seriously trying to say that Bill O'Reilly didn't call Dr. Tiller 'Dr. Killer'?
That he didn't link Dr. Tiller with a child rapist?
Of course, Beck never mentions abortion, does he?
Mr. Beck deals in fear, mostly of the government and 'racist' President who's in charge of it, and he couches his fear speech in violent imagery, including baseball bats, invocations of martial law, loss of rights, etc. etc. While it may be a tiny bit more sophisticated as far as schtick goes, it's still painfully transparent when viewed objectively.
I'm not seriously saying MMFA did. That is the whole point.
You and Hoosier don't think there's a connection between discourse in media and violence? Great. Go tell Lou Dobbs.
A Google News search this morning produces zero confirmation from any authority that the incident actually happened---other than Dobbs saying it did. Perhaps you shouldn't be jumping the gun until you have a fact or two--no pun intended.
Dobbs mentioned the bullet earlier this week on CNN and his radio show.
Dobbs says he had been receiving threatening phone calls for weeks. On his radio show, he connected the gunshot to his advocacy for a crackdown on illegal immigration and to his opponents' rhetoric.
The home is on a farm in Wantage, about 50 miles northwest of New York City.
It is small-game hunting season, but no hunters were seen in the area.
hmmmm, where's the source on this quote:
We have just learned that someone has fired a gun at the home of Lou Dobbs, with his wife just a few feet away from the incident. The gunfire followed a series of threatening phone calls.
From TPM
Was Gunshot That Lou Dobbs Blamed On 'Ethnocentric Interest Groups' Just Hunter's Errant Bullet?
Earlier we reported that CNN's Lou Dobbs claimed that a shot fired at his New Jersey home ought to be blamed on "ethnocentric interest groups" who are "all attacking me." But it turns out that shot may have been little more than a hunter's errant bullet.
Think Progress reports that it spoke with New Jersey State Police spokesman Sgt. Stephen Jones, who confirmed that a bullet had struck the side of Dobbs house -- but that a hunting accident had not been ruled out as the cause.
He pointed out that Dobbs' residence is located in a "very rural" area. "With hunting season starting up," such incidents are "not at all uncommon," Jones told us.
And that's from a blog, not a nationally broadcast news network and radio host. If you insist on comparing this incident to the conservative media's reaction to the assassination of a man in his own church, Hoosier, Bill O'Reilly called Dr. Tiller "Dr. Killer" -- a term used by the community that expressed a desire for his assassination -- even after his murder.
2) We do not know who allegedly fired at Dobbs' house. Dobbs claims to be "Mr. Independent" who equally raises the ire of left and right (I know, I don't believe him either). Maybe it was someone on the political right who took the shot.
Maybe it was apolitical. Until the police make a statement or an arrest, people are guessing.
We don't know who fired shots at Dobbs' wife or what the motivation was or what spurred whoever did it along, so yes, people are guessing.
The same caution should be afforded all possible political violence until facts are known. That is hardly done on the left these days. Look how many people rushed to judgment in the William Sparkman death, for example.
You are, quite simply, wrong. Here's an interview with Roeder's ex-wife that deals with his frequent listening to talk radio.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1535026/WAMC.New.York.News/A.Conversation.with.Scott.Roeder's.Ex-Wife
Dobbs' incident apparently happened on 5 Oct. What? Almost 4 weeks ago. Why are we just hearing about this now? Apparently, Dobbs said that someone fired a shot, not 15 feet from his home, but yet somehow, the bullet BOUNCED off of his attic, and fell to the ground (relating what I saw on a story). Now, I've got a few firearms myself, and do some shooting, and I know for certain, regardless of the caliber of whatever alleged firearm was used to shoot at Lou Dobbs that if a shot is taken from 15 feet away, it's not going to bounce off of the vinyl siding on his home's attic.
And also, if someone WAS taking shots at him, or his wife from 15 feet away, how did they miss so horribly? I'd not like to see Dobbs or his wife harmed, but really? 15 feet? And it hit the attic and the bullet bounced to the ground?
There are some facts in this story that aren't adding up, at all.
Oh yes, that's right: abortion opponents just tried to get eBay to host an auction to benefit Roeder.
Draw your own conclusions, Cheney2012 and Hoosier.
Would those be corporations that no longer advertise on his shows?
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
1. TORT REFORM
2. Award Caps
3. Charging the "country of origin" for all ILLEGAL ALIEN care even if we have to take it out of their foreign aid.
4. Be able to purchase health insurance across state lines.
Did you know that Kaiser and BlueCross/BlueShield are NON profits? Actually 40% of the health insurance providers in the US are NON profit
Ask your liberal senator of congressman if THEY are going to enjoy the same fabulous health care reform they are trying to push off on us!
Translation: dot your I's, cross your T's and pay no taxes, no questions asked.
Randy
You're accusing others of making off topic comments? This thread is a response to MMFA's post about conservative media figures like Lou Dobbs selectively defending the flag from defacement only by their political opponents: not TORT reform, not illegal aliens, and not health care reform.
If you want to talk about those things, great, but man-up and do so without attacking others for going off topic as much as you are.
Glad you realize how pathetic you are.