On more reasoned and mature discourse from Leftists

As you may not have heard, Glenn Beck and his family were assaulted in a New York City park. Now, first, before I get into it, I will clarify that when I say “assault”, it seems to have been only in the legal sense of the word… what happened to them was assault by the legal definition, and was from the moment the wine was spilled on his wife. That’s assault, brotha, even if it’s not the fist-meet-face sort.

Of course, reaction from the left in general has ranged from “It’s just more of his demented lies, no one who opposes Glenn Beck would do such a thing” to “The bastard had it coming, it’s his own fault, shame it wasn’t something worse”.  Well… those two things don’t work together terribly well, but hey, doesn’t stop some people from putting them together in the exact same post on the subject.

Of course, Glenn Beck has the right to his views and no-one should ever take that right away from him… but y’know, the right to speak goes both ways, so if someone wants to boo and heckle you, they’ve got that right too, especially if you’re the kind of bloke who can lose his bap on-air and furious slate a caller, only for you to call them a “pinhead”.

So, just to be clear, having a TV show and saying things people don’t like means that people can shout at you and insult you as you walk along the street. It also excuses physical damage to your person or possessions. Might as well have been honest and followed up “but y’know” with what he actually meant, “he shouldn’t be allowed to actually speak about them”. In fact, note the distinction there… Beck has the right to his views, not to express his views. Clearly, being a conservative is okay, just so long as you don’t go around making it all obvious you’re a conservative. Y’know. Maybe you could tone down the conservativeness, to spare the feelings of those who could be offended. Be conservative on your own time, not in public where children could be exposed to that sort of lifestyle. Don’t see how that could be offensive to ask of all you Pubs.

Speaking of closet conservatives, expect to see a lot of Beatles CDs burn-… I mean, mp3s deleted. Turns out that Lennon was not the die-hard, eternal counterculture true believer many thought he was. I think this has a high probability of being true, since the one dropping this little revelation tries to make excuses for him:

“He’d met Reagan back, I think, in the ’70s at some sporting event. … Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young [peace] demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that. … He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me,” he told “Beatles Stories” filmmaker Seth Swirsky.

First of all, looove the ambiguous wording there. “Go after”. Just enough to imply horrible things without actually giving any claims to be debunked. The incident between the national guard and the protestors has become like a drinking story for the left re: the right’s fascist tendencies. Every time it gets told, it’s more violent and more of a jackbooted crackdown. But aaaanyway, the fact that he tries to excuse Lennon by saying he “forgot” about it it, while making sure to bring it up all the same, says this guy is probably speaking the truth when he talks about Lennon’s conservative leanings. “Don’t hate him too much for it, okay? It may have been just a phase or something. It’s not like he was one of those flaming conservatives.”

But speaking of entertainers, and wandering back to the Beck incident, let us ponder the person of Jon Stewart. The man who held a supposedly sincere “Rally to Restore Sanity”, to plead with people to tone down their partisan hatred, to cut down on the vicious rhetoric. (Okay, so he doesn’t allow conservative pundits on his show, but he really isn’t partisan, honest!) But hey, that’s just his show, right? It’s just comedy. Surely, being that the Rally was a non-partisan effort to reach out and plead for reasonable discourse, he would take some time to deplore the actions taken towards Glenn Beck, yes? That’s not very sane, that’s not very reasonable, it deserves chastisement from someone whose opinion could theoretically matter to the perpetrators.

Sadly, it doesn’t look like he’s going to find time to do so, what with his busy schedule of making racist comments about Herman Cain. Don’t expect to find the video on the Daily Show’s site… or much on youtube, either, straaaangely enough, as this was the best I could find. (Admittedly, maybe I’m not looking in the right places. Feel free to prove me wrong on that one.)

Sorry for the nasally douche after, but that’s the only clip of the actual incident I could find. Most of the videos regarding the incident are liberals defending Stewart for making “the obvious joke” and sneering at Cain for having a thin skin. Similarly, most of the news articles (of which there are few) on the subject are busy making Stewart the victim, accusing Cain of playing the race card and of being thin-skinned about a harmless joke.

If you have to take a moment to actually process the irony of all this without your head exploding, I understand. I think we all need a headache break after that one. If you don’t, maybe it’s time to reevaluate your standards.

Let’s just take a moment to think about this, alright? A white political pundit mocks a black politician using a racial stereotype, caps it off with stating that the black politician is obviously stupid because he “doesn’t like to read”, and the general response of the news media is… to defend the white guy and chastise the black guy.

I mean, sure, this isn’t actually anything new. For godsakes Fox itself airs at least an hour of what’s essentially the same thing every week. Seth MacFarlane votes Democrat and openly despises conservatives and everything even slightly related to conservatives (except Conway Twitty, I don’t know if that’s him being deliberately ironic or what… oh, and Fox, obviously, whose money he’s glad to accept lots and lots of), so he can get away with making openly racist jokes. Same thing with Stewart… he is a Speaker Of The Narrative, to be defended no matter what.

Fun little side note here, when trying to look up the racist quotes made about Clarence Thomas by various people, I discovered that leftists have their own catchy little name for blacks who go off the reservation by registering Republican: “Rethuglitoms”. Shockingly, Google and Wikipedia seem to have buried or deleted most of these references… I know, I wouldn’t have expected that either. (Where’s the sarcasm tag? Ah screw it.) It doesn’t seem to have bothered to cover up the same vitriol by black people themselves, though… Spike Lee, so famously angry at white people for, well, living, doesn’t seem to have had problems referring to Thomas as a “chicken-and-biscuit eating Uncle Tom”… a statement I’m sure he feels proud of every time he looks over his large collection of black stereotype memorabilia.

Again, anyway. Even if you don’t agree with the tactic some are starting to suggest… that conservatives borrow from Democrat-supporters and begin decrying all criticism of Cain as racist, even when it’s obviously not… it’s hard to argue that Stewart’s comments would not have been considered wildly racist had they been made about Barack Obama. Well… it’s obviously not that hard, you’ve just got to abandon those little things like “integrity” and “honesty” and “consistency” and then it starts getting really really easy, to judge by the amount of it. Heck, go looking for the story yourself, you’ll have a tough time finding one that even mentions the incident outside of the context of defending Stewart and rebuking Cain (or, at the very least, tries to spin it as Cain letting Stewart off the hook).

If this is sanity, stop the sanitarium, please, I’d like to get on.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    I’m not surprised to hear that Beck gets bad reactions when liberals see him. Why wouldn’t he? Like some posters here, his basic ‘message’ (repeated over and over again) is that if you have a different political philosophy then you have to be a fucking moron, and you are responsible for the destruction of America. And you’re a communist.
    There is no discourse with Beck. There’s not even an attempt. He’s just a guy ranting at people who share his views, and trying to make sure there’s an “us” and “them” mentality at all costs. There’s no acknowledgement that people who hold different views are able do so with as much legitimacy and sincerety and thought as you’ve put into yours (or he’s put into his). Saying “if you’re a liberal then you are a moron” is………… moronic.

    Of course that’s not to defend anyone assaulting or abusing him or his family. People should behave themselves and exercise self-control.

    Thumb up 0

  2. InsipiD

    How many times have you watched his show or listened to his radio show to know what he says? You’re vomiting someone else’s assessment of him without knowing what you mean, aren’t you? I’d bet $20 on it. Produce examples of him inflaming people or encouraging them to do to anyone what was done to him. Show me examples of his rhetoric comparing to the way Gawker talks about him. Show me that what he says about Obama or congressional Democrats even compares to how Huffington or even Sullivan talk about Palin or Bachmann. If this is his fault for what he says, show that he would have it happen to his opponents. It’s worth noticing that this did happen to him, while the infractions blamed on conservatives are almost always hypothetical. I’m not going to let it stand that Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh or any of the others are dangerous people who inflame their audiences to criminal action, especially when anything they ever say is 4 steps back from what Democrats say and get a pass for.

    Produce examples.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365

    I’m not surprised to hear that Beck gets bad reactions when liberals see him. Why wouldn’t he?

    Right after I read that I was ready to chastise you over the obvious distinction between thought and behavior, but then you chastised yourself with this:

    Of course that’s not to defend anyone assaulting or abusing him or his family. People should behave themselves and exercise self-control.

    Aren’t those two mutually exclusive and incongruent?

    I am not a Beck fan, I think he is a bit of a tweeb, he wishes he was as funny as Ann Coulter, he isn’t, but clearly you must see that radio personalities, or even those like Jon Stewart play to their base and are paid to go over the top from time to time.

    I would never put Beck in the same category as Bill Maher, Beck is measured compared to the hateful vitriol Maher spews n every show but let’s say Maher was out with his family in public, would it be OK for me to say:

    “I’m not surprised to hear that Maher gets bad reactions when conservatives see him. Why wouldn’t he?” Does not he have a right to be left alone and unbothered from those “bad reactions”?

    Funny, but you don’t hear much about conservative folk having “bad reactions” and acting out on them wrt to liberal personalities out in public, I guess they know the difference between thinking bad of someone and acting badly in public.

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365

    I just found the latest Coulter column and it is about the Beck attack:

    Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.

    Nice

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    I’ve seen plenty of Beck’s Fox show. It’s just the same thing over and over again. Being a liberal means being a moron. It’s all so mind-numbingly binary.
    But hey, thanks for assuming I haven’t. That’s exactly what I’m talking about – not actually taking the views of others sincerely. Pretty much taking it for granted that the ‘other side’ is being dishonest.

    Produce examples of him inflaming people or encouraging them to do to anyone what was done to him. Show me examples of his rhetoric comparing to the way Gawker talks about him. Show me that what he says about Obama or congressional Democrats even compares to how Huffington or even Sullivan talk about Palin or Bachmann. If this is his fault for what he says, show that he would have it happen to his opponents. It’s worth noticing that this did happen to him, while the infractions blamed on conservatives are almost always hypothetical.

    Beck does things like drawing lists of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ on his blackboard. He foresees the apocalypse. He’s into the rise of some kind of caliphate. And he’s linking socialism to it all in some kind of nutty way too. He’s been going on about “rioting and chaos coming to the US like it has in Europe”. And it’s all the fault of the liberals. It doesn’t seem to matter to him the vast majority of liberals are moderates, just like the vast majority of conservatives are moderate. He’s got his narrative and he constantly looks for ways to ‘prove’ it. Like the infamous Wilmington debacle.

    Beck himself constantly presents the specter of vast cataclysmic violence as inevitable – just around the corner, unless you all turn back from liberalism soon. People take offence to that. Unreasonable people yes, but also reasonable people.

    After the shooting in Arizona, Beck has encouraged Pain to get some protection because an “attempt on you could bring the Republic down.” Yeah that’s a good way to calm things down – by presaging a civil war based on an assassination attempt on Palin.

    I’m not going to let it stand that Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh or any of the others are dangerous people who inflame their audiences to criminal action, especially when anything they ever say is 4 steps back from what Democrats say and get a pass for.

    I’m wasn’t arguing that. I’m saying it’s not surprising. You keep calling people morons (in effect) and keep ranting about how they’re totally responsible for all that is wrong in everyone’s lives, and they’ll no doubt be some push-back somewhere.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Section8

    Of course that’s not to defend anyone assaulting or abusing him or his family. People should behave themselves and exercise self-control.

    Wow, nice line after your paragraph basically defending the action. I don’t know all the bells and whistles on this blog, but if there is a way to change that line to a 1pt font, with the word disclaimer in front of it, that line would be the best candidate yet.

    Thumb up 2

  7. CM

    Right after I read that I was ready to chastise you over the obvious distinction between thought and behavior, but then you chastised yourself with this:

    Aren’t those two mutually exclusive and incongruent?

    I ‘chastised’ myself? What? How?
    I was pointed out that:
    (a) it’s not surprising to hear that some people pushing-back against years of (often) offensive ranting
    (b) it’s not acceptable to push-back in an unlawful or inappropriate manner

    (a) is acknowledging that (b) doesn’t always happen….some people act inappropriately.

    I am not a Beck fan, I think he is a bit of a tweeb, he wishes he was as funny as Ann Coulter, he isn’t, but clearly you must see that radio personalities, or even those like Jon Stewart play to their base and are paid to go over the top from time to time.

    I haven’t heard the term tweeb – I yahoo’ed it, as google isn’t working on this pc, and it doesn’t seem like it applies, so I assume you mean dweeb?).
    Yep, even Beck says he’s in the entertainment business (he says he doesn’t give a “flying crap” about the political process, he’s in it to make money – “controversy is its own coinage”).

    But calling yourself ‘entertainment’ that doesn’t mean there aren’t ramifications from constantly putting out idiotic conspiracy theories and incendiary schtick. If he’s going to play the “progressive hunter” (like a Jewish Nazo hunter, because, you know, the elites are taking you down the road of a progressive utopia, that only ends in death camps) then reasonable people are going to get really quite offended.

    As the quote goes, with power comes responsibility. If you’re going to push people’s buttons (and you know that’s what you’re doing because that’s what earns you the big bucks) then you can’t just hold up your hands and say ‘Nothing to do with me, I’m just a poor widdle entertainer”).

    I would never put Beck in the same category as Bill Maher, Beck is measured compared to the hateful vitriol Maher spews n every show but let’s say Maher was out with his family in public, would it be OK for me to say:

    “I’m not surprised to hear that Maher gets bad reactions when conservatives see him. Why wouldn’t he?” Does not he have a right to be left alone and unbothered from those “bad reactions”?

    Of course. If he does that sort of thing to an even greater extreme then that’s even worse and it should be even less surprising. (I haven’t seen a lot of Maher, although a few of his quotes were posted at MW forums and discussed)

    Funny, but you don’t hear much about conservative folk having “bad reactions” and acting out on them wrt to liberal personalities out in public, I guess they know the difference between thinking bad of someone and acting badly in public.

    The crazies on the right tend to just shoot people these days.
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-number-of-patriot-groups-militias-surges-by-244-in-past-year

    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/patriot-movement-calling-joe-stack-hero/story?id=9889443

    If you’re a nutjob aching to take someone out to show the government what you think, then this current climate is gonna be the one that gives you the most encouragement. Hell, you might be considered a hero too.

    This seems to be the unfortunate reality of the current environment.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    I was in no way defending the action. I wasn’t even going to write that, but I thought if I didn’t someone is bound to suggest I was somehow excusing the behaviour. And now, even after writing it, I’m apparently still defending it (to the point where apparently wanted to hide it away). Fuck, that’s awesome. Hey, why not add that I was obviously a strong supporter of Saddam Hussein since I objected to the invasion of Iraq? I’m not a conservative, ergo I must be stupid and unethical right?

    Can you guys not see the weirdness of spending so much time being offended about being stereotyped everywhere you look while at the same time spending a lot of your time stereotyping liberals?

    Thumb up 0

  9. Section8

    CM, you have a several debate tactics which everyone here is aware of.

    1) Is the let’s be friends, ok asshole?
    Basically a line flaming someone or a group followed or preceded by
    keywords like “but I understand”, or “I can see why”, or “but I’m not going to criticize/or judge”, or “but I respect that”.

    2) Is the convenient amnesia.
    Why I’ve never heard of that? Are you saying everyone does this when you say Left or Right? All X billion of them? Doesn’t matter how current the issue is, and zero liberty is given to make even the slightest generalization. It’s a tactic to run an argument in the ground with unnecessary details of events everyone else but you seems to be aware of.

    3) Is the who me?
    As in, why am I the victim here all I was doing was making a statement (see item 1) and/or asking questions (see item 2).

    Thumb up 3

  10. loserlame

    There is no discourse with Beck. There’s not even an attempt. He’s just a guy ranting at people who share his views, and trying to make sure there’s an “us” and “them” mentality at all costs. There’s no acknowledgement that people who hold different views are able do so with as much legitimacy and sincerity and thought as you’ve put into yours (or he’s put into his). Saying “if you’re a liberal then you are a moron” is………… moronic.
    Of course that’s not to defend anyone assaulting or abusing him or his family. People should behave themselves and exercise self-control.

    Hate to bring up U2 and The Bono, here (I could win free tickets to U2 in Nashville, woohoo) but when ordinary folks post simple, clean critiques of U2’s music at youtube and most anywhere else, fans go all lose all self-control, vulgarly screeching for the deaths of not “morons” but “nigger fag drink piss bitch and die yo mamas crusty vagina lololol BONO is GOD”

    You say we may ignore those “morons” cuz they’re all just harmless letting of a lil steam.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    1) I don’t really understand this. Who is the ‘asshole’ in this case? The people who assaulted Beck and family? I don’t want to be their friend, or anything similar.

    2) Hey if you don’t want to be picked up on gross generalisations, then don’t do it.

    3) If you want to abuse or misrepresent what I said, then I’ll respond.

    Anyway, the point is: I wasn’t excusing the behaviour.

    Thumb up 0

  12. loserlame

    I haven’t heard the term tweeb – I yahoo’ed it, so I assume you mean dweeb?).

    I had a hard time with

    able do so with as much legitimacy and sincerety and thought

    I pondered “sincerety” over and over but its Greek to me (bless those Greeks, eh) .

    Thumb up 0

  13. Section8

    2) Hey if you don’t want to be picked up on gross generalisations, then don’t do it.

    Who me? Can you show me where I’ve done that?

    My generalizations are no more general then let’s say writing.

    Can you guys not see the weirdness of spending so much time being offended about being stereotyped everywhere you look while at the same time spending a lot of your time stereotyping liberals?

    Which guys? Everyone here? The entire world? What?

    Thumb up 2

  14. loserlame

    Can you guys not see the weirdness of spending so much time being offended about being stereotyped everywhere you look while at the same time spending a lot of your time stereotyping liberals?

    I used to think it was weird of U2 fans to lurk around under their fav videos calling critics nigger fags (fags are good, just ask NY) telling them to STFU BONO IS GOD BONO IS GOD and bemoaning their not being able to enjoy watching and adoring their God for all the negative posts under Bonos godly music.

    I’ve since learned that poets are not to required to obey boring old Terms of Service, stuff like that.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Who me? Can you show me where I’ve done that?

    I was responding to your numbered accusations. “You” = anyone who wants to do it.

    Which guys? Everyone here? The entire world? What?

    How could it possibly apply to anyone else except those that do it?

    Thumb up 0

  16. richtaylor365

    I ‘chastised’ myself? What? How?

    If you didn’t, then you should have because that was a silly statement. Let’s look at it again:

    I’m not surprised to hear that Beck gets bad reactions when liberals see him. Why wouldn’t he?

    Can we, for the sake of argument, substitute “bad reactions” with “bad behavior” because, after all, any “reaction” would have to be something overt, in your face. So your are absolutely condoning bad behavior because Beck is Beck, and reasonable people just can’t control themselves, pretty weak.

    As I said before (and something you obviously know but won’t admit) it does not matter what people think, it is how they behave that counts and nobody, not Jon Stewart, not that colossal ass Bill Maher, nobody deserves to have people behaving badly in front of them and their family, unacceptable, period.

    then reasonable people are going to get really quite offended.

    Oh, so that is your litmus test for acting like an ass, if you are really offended then it’s OK to behave badly.

    As the quote goes, with power comes responsibility

    What does that even mean, is this some veiled threat that you better watch your P’s and Q’s or “reasonable people” will come after you? really.

    then you can’t just hold up your hands and say ‘Nothing to do with me, I’m just a poor widdle entertainer”).

    Of course you can, getting offended because someone said something you don’t agree with does not give you license to assault that person, do we really need to say this? We have freedom of speech here and if Beck calls liberals pinheads, if that offends liberals, too bad, we expect liberals to be able to control themselves not be a criminal, just don’t listen to him, problem solved.

    The crazies on the right tend to just shoot people these days.

    So you are probably one of those that just knew going in that Giffords’ shooter was one of those crazy conservatives going off the rail. If this was true I guess I could use that same line that you used, “I’m not surprised to hear that Giffords gets a bad reaction when conservatives see her, why wouldn’t they?” and if i made such a silly statement as that, I would be in need of some serious chastisement.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    My point was that people can sincerely hold views that are different to yours without being morons, or being liars, or being evil. Sure, there ARE morons of every political persuasian. Two people who share the same opinion haven’t necessarily arrived at the opinion in the same way.

    Thumb up 0

  18. richtaylor365

    That is not at all what she said, she was making a sweeping generalized statement (that is what she does in case you haven’t noticed) about the unmanliness of liberals, it is called humor, again, that is what she does. If you want to bemoan the lack of respect she gives the left, go ahead, that is her rice bowl. but you can bet that many on the left (like those that got at Beck) do not know how to act like adults and can’t distinguish between bad thoughts and bad behavior (sometimes you just have to act out on those baser instincts, right?) so that is why she has to pay for body guards. You think those the Mahers and Stewards of the world worry about their safety, phshaw, they know which side the bread crazy is buttered on.

    Thumb up 1

  19. loserlame

    When fans say “we” hope “you” die, they mean “all fans and Bono” included wish for all non-fans to die. Nary a fan ever steps out of line to disagree because they’re otherwise instantly reclassified as nigger fags needing to drink piss and die. As all niggers and fags must.

    Thumb up 0

  20. richtaylor365

    My point was that people can sincerely hold views that are different to yours without being morons, or being liars, or being evil.

    Well, of course they can, reasonable people know this, but reasonable people also don’t give other “reasonable people” license to behave badly, no matter how much you get offended.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Section8

    How could it possibly apply to anyone else except those that do it?

    You are right, it couldn’t apply to anyone else except those who do it, but I was just looking for specifics to whom that statement would apply to since you generalized by using “you guys”. That’s ok, if you’re not up to providing details I understand, I’ll assume you meant Hal and Kimpost. Knock it off you two.

    Thumb up 0

  22. richtaylor365

    Loserlame, this is probably falling on deaf ears but I would really really appreciate it if you could focus just a bit and keep on topic with your comments. And can you please quit with the racist and homophobic names? Yes, we are all adults here (I think) but those terms are so patently offensive that good taste should preclude anyone from going down that road. I know you can do it.

    Thumb up 1

  23. Rann *

    You forgot the “I don’t understand what you mean, no matter how thoroughly you explain it. Please explain it repeatedly until I’m satisfied” bit. Which is lucky, since he needed to reply to you with it.

    Thumb up 4

  24. richtaylor365

    Can you guys not see the weirdness of spending so much time being offended about being stereotyped everywhere you look while at the same time spending a lot of your time stereotyping liberals?

    First of all (and just speaking for myself) I never get offended at being stereotyped. I very rarely get offended, period. I think this is where liberals (yep stereotyping again) go off the rail, they seem to think that they have some inalienable right to not be offended, so any and all statements not in line with their narrow views and they get all butt hurt. And with that anal discomfort comes retaliatory reaction that I not only have a right to voice my offense but have a right to act out on me being offended, however unsavory or criminal that reaction might be.

    I prefer hanging out with the adults, those that value freedom of speech and the rule of law, that can handle a few insults, secure in their beliefs and principals, and a little hysterical whining from the other side does not bother me one bit.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    If you didn’t, then you should have because that was a silly statement.

    I didn’t. What I said is what I meant. I think I’m just acknowledging reality.

    Can we, for the sake of argument, substitute “bad reactions” with “bad behavior” because, after all, any “reaction” would have to be something overt, in your face.

    Sure.

    So your are absolutely condoning bad behavior because Beck is Beck, and reasonable people just can’t control themselves, pretty weak.

    Woah, you’ve lost me. You’re missing a step – how does not being surprised that an incident occured equate to condoning the behaviour (in any way, shape or form)? I don’t think that was reasonable behaviour. I have no idea whether the perp was a ‘reasonable’ person. Sometimes reasonable people act unreasonably. Sometimes it’s an unreasonable person.

    As I said before (and something you obviously know but won’t admit) it does not matter what people think, it is how they behave that counts and nobody, not Jon Stewart, not that colossal ass Bill Maher, nobody deserves to have people behaving badly in front of them and their family, unacceptable, period

    .

    I’m not sure if we’re having language issues or what here. I said in my first post that I wasn’t looking to defend anyone assaulting or abusing him or his family. People should behave themselves and exercise self-control. How is that any different to what you say I won’t admit?

    Oh, so that is your litmus test for acting like an ass, if you are really offended then it’s OK to behave badly.

    Where did I infer that it was ok to behave badly? I quite clearly said the exact opposite. I think you’re confusing the lack of surprise that some people will take the opportunity to behave badly should they find themselves in close proximty to someone like Beck (who they may only ever see/hear abusing and mangling their opinions).

    What does that even mean, is this some veiled threat that you better watch your P’s and Q’s or “reasonable people” will come after you? really.

    No. I’m not making a ‘veiled threat’. Or inferring there is one. I think I’m acknowledging reality. If you are in a position of political power (a politician or a popular pundit) then you have an inherent responsibility for what you say. It doesn’t exist in a vaccum.

    If anything, the threats come from Beck and his ilk (the ‘progressive hunter’ schtick, progressive “vampires” have a “taste of blood” and are “gonna start getting more and more violent”…….continuing his history of invoking Nazis by comparing Fox to the Jews during the Holocaust……he doesn’t have to explicitly suggest action, he just constantly reminds his viewers of what will inevitably happen if things don’t change).

    At the end of the day people are 100% responsible for their own behaviour. But there are some unhinged people out there. It’s an extreme analogy, but you don’t hold an anxiety support group and start ranting about how the black helicopters are coming to take everyone away, and then blame the attendees for being paranoid.

    Of course you can, getting offended because someone said something you don’t agree with does not give you license to assault that person, do we really need to say this?

    No you don’t need to say it because I already did.

    We have freedom of speech here and if Beck calls liberals pinheads, if that offends liberals, too bad, we expect liberals to be able to control themselves not be a criminal, just don’t listen to him, problem solved.

    Of course you should ‘expect’ it. I expect everyone to just stick to the arguments and not descend into personal abuse, but it still happens. Someone people just can’t help themselves. Expectations aren’t always met, and that shouldn’t come as any sort of surprise.

    So you are probably one of those that just knew going in that Giffords’ shooter was one of those crazy conservatives going off the rail.

    No. Before we knew who the guy was I said the cross-hairs thing could be a big co-incidence but that it wasn’t a good look for Palin.

    If this was true I guess I could use that same line that you used, “I’m not surprised to hear that Giffords gets a bad reaction when conservatives see her, why wouldn’t they?” and if i made such a silly statement as that, I would be in need of some serious chastisement.

    I don’t see how the comparison is valid. Did Giffords have a long record of ranting and raving about how conservatism was going to ruin America (and the world), and infering what cataclysmic events would occur unless Dems stay in power?

    Thumb up 0

  26. CM

    Again, I don’t see that I’m giving anyone licence. I don’t give anyone the licence to behave badly, but they sometimes do. I can acknowledge that it occurs without condoning it.

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    That is not at all what she said, she was making a sweeping generalized statement (that is what she does in case you haven’t noticed) about the unmanliness of liberals, it is called humor, again, that is what she does. If you want to bemoan the lack of respect she gives the left, go ahead, that is her rice bowl. but you can bet that many on the left (like those that got at Beck) do not know how to act like adults and can’t distinguish between bad thoughts and bad behavior (sometimes you just have to act out on those baser instincts, right?) so that is why she has to pay for body guards. You think those the Mahers and Stewards of the world worry about their safety, phshaw, they know which side the bread crazy is buttered on.

    I guess it’s just not humour that does anything for me. It just reads to me like lazy weak mindless binary ranting. I don’t see that it adds anything of value to any discussion. All it would seem to do is to legitimise hate of those one disagrees with politically. I dunno, perhaps it’s a cultural-difference thing.

    You’re also STILL inferring that I condone inappropriate behaviour?
    I’m not sure why you’re still doing that….

    Thumb up 0

  28. richtaylor365

    And since we are on the subject of stereotyping:

    I’m not surprised to hear that Beck gets bad reactions when liberals see him. Why wouldn’t he?

    So, all liberals react badly to views not consistent with their own, boy, that sure sounds like stereotyping to me. Ergo, all liberals must act out on being offended, unable to separate bad thoughts from bad behavior. Gee, even the staunches of right wingers here would not have gone that far, yet you did, ummm. And with the “Why wouldn’t he?” license at the end, inferring that you, as a reasonable person, totally understands how other reasonable people would reasonably behave this way, going all commando on Beck and his family, nope, no assent there.

    Thumb up 2

  29. JimK

    CM you are so full of shit you make MY ass ache.

    You’re also STILL inferring that I condone inappropriate behaviour?
    I’m not sure why you’re still doing that….

    Let me show you the exact phrase that leads one to believe you weren’t that upset with someone assaulting Glen Beck’s family in public:

    Why wouldn’t he?

    So now you can stop playing your stupid fucking “Who, me?” game. In case you hadn’t noticed, everyone is onto it and you aren’t achieving anything. Unless what you are hoping to achieve is having most everyone roll their eyes every time you comment.

    Thumb up 2

  30. CM

    You mean like saying “I don’t understand why you’d condone inappropriate behaviour” instead of acknowledging that I haven’t? ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  31. InsipiD

    I can’t take you seriously if you’re going to cite the SPLC as a source about the danger of a movement that hasn’t done anything. Everybody can pretend that there’s a dangerous swell of right-wing terrorists, while the reality is that left-wing terrorists like ALF and ELF carry out hundreds of acts for every one that can be pinned on a right-winger. Those right-wingers that are blamed can never be reliably linked to any organized movement like the lefties. Everybody was quick to assume Giffords’ assailant was a conservative, but that turned out to be false. Time and time again, conservative movements are portrayed as violent or blamed for violence when it so often turns out to be the opposite. Even the suit-ruining glitter or pie attacks that liberals are so fond of have no parallel in conservative circles.

    Again I say, cite quotes of Beck that suggest that he encourages violence. Show me how he even advocates “accidents” like the one that his wife was victim of.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    For me I don’t think it’s offence so much as frustration. I guess to me there is the potential to have some great discussions on loads of issues involving people who have different views. But they never seem to be able to get off the ground here because we’re stuck on generalisations. I get chastised for trying to delve into any detail, for asking for some background on an opinion. I get the impression that the opinion is just required to be accepted because this is a conservative place, and that’s that.

    Where I come from adults deal with specifics and accuracy and don’t assume that people are morons simply because they consider an issue from a different perspective (and unsuprisingly reach different conclusions). I don’t see how decent discussions between people who think differently can ever take place when there seems an overwhelming desire to ridicule and misrepresent the other’s views.

    I don’t know whether you are suggesting that I’m not, but I’m very much for freedom of speech. And the rule of law. Beliefs and principals are all good with me too. Even insults have their place. I enjoy the cut and thrust of intelligent debate.

    I dunno, maybe my expectations have been misplaced and I’m in the wrong place for what I’m after. I came here from MW forums and I probably expected to just be able to continue where I left off.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    Why wouldn’t he get bad reactions? It’s unarguable that he infuriates some liberals. It’s inevitable that if he’s in public he’ll come across some of them. And unfortunately, particularly given the charged political atmosphere that seems to exist in the US these days, some amongst those liberals he’s pissed off are likely to react.

    Sorry, I honestly don’t see how that is condoning deliberately kicking wine onto his wife’s back.

    In my world “Why wouldn’t he get bad reactions” does not equal “It’s ok for Glenn Beck and his family to be assaulted in public”.

    So now you can stop playing your stupid fucking “Who, me?” game.

    Great, now I’m placed in an impossible situation where I can’t even explain myself.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    I can’t take you seriously if you’re going to cite the SPLC as a source about the danger of a movement that hasn’t done anything. Everybody can pretend that there’s a dangerous swell of right-wing terrorists, while the reality is that left-wing terrorists like ALF and ELF carry out hundreds of acts for every one that can be pinned on a right-winger. Those right-wingers that are blamed can never be reliably linked to any organized movement like the lefties. Everybody was quick to assume Giffords’ assailant was a conservative, but that turned out to be false. Time and time again, conservative movements are portrayed as violent or blamed for violence when it so often turns out to be the opposite. Even the suit-ruining glitter or pie attacks that liberals are so fond of have no parallel in conservative circles.

    If you didn’t like that link, you won’t like this one either
    http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
    Compare that to the pie-throwing nature of these:
    http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
    Some on Malkin’s list is certainly bad – but I don’t see how it’s even close to the previous one I linked (which covers just the last 2.5 years). Particularly in terms of the type of incitement that crazies pick up on, and act on. And certainly in terms of people being killed or seriously injured people in the name of politics.
    Name-calling? Madonna saying “I’ll kick her ass!”? Sandra Bernhard being rude about her? The worst result seems to be property damage.
    Where are the lefty nutjobs going out and killing and maiming in the name of politics?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s crazy on both sides.

    The issues that Beck rants about are going to strongly appeal to many on that first list. Before anyone points it out, I agree that many are ‘anti-government’ rather than conservative. I’m not saying that ‘conservatives’ shoot people, I’m saying that rhetoric that appeals to people like those on this list is somewhat irresponsible in the climate that currently exists. The people on that list bear total responsibility for their actions. And the people in positions of power who engage in violent crazy paranoid political rhetoric like Beck are also responsible for theirs. I don’t agree that because a shooter must take 100% responsibility for their actions that automatically means others must take 0% for theirs.

    Again I say, cite quotes of Beck that suggest that he encourages violence. Show me how he even advocates “accidents” like the one that his wife was victim of.

    I’ve given you some quotes (hunting progressives, hunting vampires, invoking the Nazis, saying that liberals are going to get ‘more’ violent). He certainly doesn’t say “go out and act violently in my name” but he does certainly infer that there is fire and that “gee, what should we meet fire with”. He creates and endlessly repeats his narrative and a key part of that is that liberals must be stopped. To unhinged people, with a chip on their shoulder, his narrative (being a person in a prominent position) reinforces theirs.

    Thumb up 0

  35. richtaylor365

    . I get chastised for trying to delve into any detail,

    Not in this case, on this thread, I used that word because you were providing tacit approval for bad behavior. There is nothing unusual or burdensome in asking for references or links in a discussion, or even asking for clarification.

    I get the impression that the opinion is just required to be accepted because this is a conservative place, and that’s that.

    Could not be farther off the mark. The only way blogs like this work is for as many different people with as many different points of view chime in. It goes nowhere if an author posts something and the only comments are “Yep”, “Ditto” ,”You got that right”, and so one. But, and I pointed this out to both you and Kimpost already, this is a right leaning blog, if you come for a chat, be prepared to mix it up. And be prepared to have your shit together because most here are not of your persuasion and will call you out on any inconsistencies or lame arguments. But isn’t that really what you are after anyway?

    Where I come from adults deal with specifics and accuracy and don’t assume that people are morons simply because they consider an issue from a different perspective (and unsuprisingly reach different conclusions).

    Look, it makes for cumbersome writing if the author has to inject “some” when he is lampooning liberals in a post. If it will make you feel better just insert the words “most” or “some” whenever you see that word, it will be easier to digest for you. you also have to accept the fact that with any political writing, a creative license exists to stereotype, it is part of the process and everyone accepts it and gives it it’s proper weight, doesn’t mean anything really, nobody assumes that anything they read involves ALL, do they?

    I don’t know whether you are suggesting that I’m not, but I’m very much for freedom of speech. And the rule of law. Beliefs and principals are all good with me too. Even insults have their place. I enjoy the cut and thrust of intelligent debate.

    Yes, we know all that, but concerning this particular topic you needed to be re introduced to your convictions.

    I came here from MW forums and I probably expected to just be able to continue where I left off.

    What did they have there that we don’t have?

    Thumb up 0

  36. CM

    So, all liberals react badly to views not consistent with their own, boy, that sure sounds like stereotyping to me.

    I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that I would expect he’d get a bad reaction whenever he’s seen by a liberal.

    Is this better?

    “There is an example of him getting a bad reaction? That is shit that people can’t behave themselves. Unfortunately I am not surprised though, particularly given the attitude he seems to have towards liberals. By the same token, I wouldn’t be surprised if people displayed inappropriate behaviour in front of prominent liberals who abuse and demean conservatives”.

    If I’d been able to pick the reaction to my comments accurately before they were posted, I might have worded it like that.

    Ergo, all liberals must act out on being offended, unable to separate bad thoughts from bad behavior. Gee, even the staunches of right wingers here would not have gone that far, yet you did, ummm.

    I think you’ve misunderstood my position.

    And with the “Why wouldn’t he?” license at the end, inferring that you, as a reasonable person, totally understands how other reasonable people would reasonably behave this way, going all commando on Beck and his family, nope, no assent there.

    I totally understand that people sometimes act unreasonably. Sometimes it’s because they’re unreasonable people, Sometimes they’re people who are usually reasonable but have acted unreasonably in that instance (they’ve been struck down with some sort of stupid mob mentality, they’ve had too much to drink, or for some other reason).
    Anyway, we’re going around in circles now. I don’t believe that you are accurately portraying my position on this.

    Thumb up 0

  37. CM

    Fuck me my lazy Friday afternoon sure got shot to shit with this thread ;-)

    I’d like to think your comments applied equally to others here but I’m far from convinced. Already there is one topic (high on my list of interests) which is banned (about which you made a comment about just the other day but I thought better of picking it up and responding to it).

    And be prepared to have your shit together because most here are not of your persuasion and will call you out on any inconsistencies or lame arguments. But isn’t that really what you are after anyway?

    Absolutely. I have little interest in left-leaning blogs (whenever I’ve tried I almost always end up making conservative arguments).
    So long as when I try and point out inconsistencies and lame arguments I don’t just get “you’re employing debate tactics” thrown back in my face. I can always start pointing out the debate tactics others use, but I would consider that a cop-out.

    Yes, we know all that, but concerning this particular topic you needed to be re introduced to your convictions.

    I don’t agree.

    What did they have there that we don’t have?

    The ability to get into depth/detail on anything. An inherent acceptance that if you’re going to claim something, you should be providing evidence for it (without being asked). No banned topics. Nobody making ridiculous claims of victory when it all gets too hard (well there was one guy years ago but he was mocked for it by everyone).

    Thumb up 0

  38. JimK

    I don’t believe that you are accurately portraying my position on this.

    Oh absolutely. OBVIOUSLY it’s everyone else’s fault that you used specific words in a specific order that impart a specific meaning, but you meant something else.

    It could never, ever be that you A. meant that Beck sort of deserves this, and you didn’t expect to get called out on a throwaway line, or B. chose your words poorly. It absolutely has to be that everyone else is misrepresenting you.

    First rule of holes, Scott Adams. First rule of holes.

    Thumb up 4

  39. richtaylor365

    I’d like to think your comments applied equally to others here but I’m far from convinced. Already there is one topic (high on my list of interests) which is banned (about which you made a comment about just the other day but I thought better of picking it up and responding to it).

    They were addressed to you because I was responding to your comment, but yes, they apply to everyone. You don’t think If I write something dopey or unprovable that most here won’t jump my shit about it? You seem to have forgotten a little thread concerning the use of force in a warrant-less search where it was basically me against everyone else, that is how blogging works, if something does not sit well with you, you chime in.

    And no topic (that I’m aware of) is banned here, if something is stuck in your craw, air it out.

    The ability to get into depth/detail on anything. An inherent acceptance that if you’re going to claim something, you should be providing evidence for it (without being asked). No banned topics. Nobody making ridiculous claims of victory when it all gets too hard (well there was one guy years ago but he was mocked for it by everyone).

    All reasonable, and stuff that we provide. I seem to recall some over 100 comment threads where you were prominent, you did not get your fill?

    Thumb up 0

  40. InsipiD

    The first page was a compiled list of literally every single act that could be blamed on right-wing causes within the timeframe. Further, it equated violent acts with any use of a “violent” allegory such as targeted or armed and ready, whether meant literally or not. Similes and metaphors that use military or violent terms are a part of standard speech to the point that it is possible to use them without realizing the implication that someone might pin on it later. Mostly, it equates gun violence to right-wing thought and the individual right to own guns, while ignoring the fact that most guns are not used for crimes. Evaluate voting patterns among residents of areas with high crimes and you’ll find that it isn’t conservatives that are committing most of the violent gun crimes in the US. I’m always distrustful of someone who thinks that the way to prevent violent crime is to make something I do or own illegal. I’m not robbing banks, shooting politicians, popping drive-bys, or even inflaming others by taking pictures of my guns pointed at political enemies. They are also quick to label anyone who opposes them or any “progressive” policy as a potentially violent person. I’m sure that everyone who laments the way Obama is steering the bus over a cliff is just achin’ to shoot cops. Nobody could possibly want to own a gun unless they fantasize about killing cops to create anarchy. That’s not a political argument at all- it’s an attempt to make opposition to the argument illegal. It’s a disgusting and typical leftist tactic.

    The second link shows how common violent rhetoric is on the left, that is clearly not meant to be representative, but literal. It even goes down to 8 years of political cartoons that made Bush look like a monkey, when a similar cartoon about Obama would be declared racist. Republicans: fair game. Democrats: off-limits.

    Where are the statements from mainstream right-wing talking heads (specifically Glenn Beck) that would suggest that they advocate violence?

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    I believe my words were fine (you’re right in that it wasn’t a series of sentences I carefully crafted after significant thought – but only because I didn’t consider it would be subject to interpretation). Some of you took what I said to mean something quite different – i.e. what I posted was misinterpreted. That happens (especially in the area of politics when someone is in a minority – there are more people looking to illustrate how they are wrong). Since then I’ve clarified and made my meaning clear. So then it moved from misinterpretation to misrepresentation.

    Recently you hassled me for being anal about the accuracy of words/sentences used by others . But now not only are my choice of words being dissected, I’m being told what I really meant?

    I’ve found myself in close proximity to public figures who have opinions I don’t think much of, or actively and strongly disagree with (e.g. Blair). I’ve never done anything remotely inappropriate. Or assumed anyone else would. I expect people to behave themselves. But with polarising people, I’m not going to pretend I’m surprised when it does happen. Why would I? Why would they? How does that not make sense?

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    Thanks Insipid, you clearly took some time and care in preparing that response, which I thought was excellent.

    I guess I should put it on record that I’m not anti-guns. I’m not a supporter of gun control, here or in the US or anywhere. I think the arguments put up against gun-control are generally pretty good ones.

    However I personally would like people in positions of power to consider the possible ramifications of what they are saying (and especially if what they are saying is a consistent narrative, and especially if it’s feeding the narratives of the unhinged, and especially if the person with power does nothing to distance themselves from that fringe). I’m not talking about the ramifications to reasonable people (like yourself, and the millions like you) but to those on the fringe (and the list I linked to would suggest there are still plenty of people living on the fringe). That’s all. Not trying to suggest guns or speech should be restricted, just trying to suggest that there is a responsibility that comes with power and with free speech, just as there is a responsibility that comes with the right to own guns. The more freedom, the more responsibility everyone has. If you’re in a position where you can influence people, you have an added layer of responsibility.

    Where are the statements from mainstream right-wing talking heads (specifically Glenn Beck) that would suggest that they advocate violence?

    Directly advocating direct violence would be a terrible career move for someone with power, and a sure fire way of losing a privileged position. However constantly conjuring up a narrative which suggests that this might be the final chance to save America from socialism/liberalism while at the same time consistently evoking violent rhetoric and imagery is doing the same thing indirectly. And particularly when it’s said very seriously, over and over again, in the style of a lecture (with a blackboard no less, it’s a lesson in the truth don’t you know….not entertainment at all).

    Just out of interest, how did you guys interpret the ‘second amendment remedies’ comment from Sharron Angle? Was it misinterpreted?

    Thumb up 0

  43. CM

    Ok, cool, thanks.

    All reasonable, and stuff that we provide. I seem to recall some over 100 comment threads where you were prominent, you did not get your fill?

    I think one particular poster has been the cause of not being able to scratch the surface on some things. To be honest I’m used to significantly more detailed discussions (the evidence is over at MW forums – look at the number of posts in some of the threads). But as I say, the format here is quite different (doesn’t lend itself to ongoing discussions on a particula subject for any more than about a day or two) so that’s something that I have to get used to (rather than arrogantly expect to fit my wants).

    Thumb up 0

  44. hist_ed

    Was there any point to all his stuff? I take it he was mostly ignored, but was it all some sort of extended art piece exploring how irritating one could get on a blog as an expression of disatisfaction with post post industrial/socialist society? Or was he just an anoying prick?

    Did he come over with the crowd from MW or was he always here and just less annoying?

    And why the fuck can’t I get my kitchen sink to stop leaking? Put it in a couple of months ago with way too many hours of getting it so the damn disposal doesn’t leak. Fine up until today (probably earlier and undiscovered) when I find a fucking lake under my kitchen counter. It’s enough to drive me to drink-oh wait, I’m a drunk already-it’s enough to drive me to drink MORE.

    Thumb up 0

  45. CM

    Was there any point to all his stuff? I take it he was mostly ignored, but was it all some sort of extended art piece exploring how irritating one could get on a blog as an expression of disatisfaction with post post industrial/socialist society? Or was he just an anoying prick?

    Did he come over with the crowd from MW or was he always here and just less annoying?

    LOL ;-) He came over from MW forums. Back in about 2003 or so he was Jabba the Moore. He got banned but came back as Jabba. Got banned and came back as 4characters. I think there were other banning and usernames as well. He’ll be back. You can bet a large sum of money on it.

    And why the fuck can’t I get my kitchen sink to stop leaking? Put it in a couple of months ago with way too many hours of getting it so the damn disposal doesn’t leak. Fine up until today (probably earlier and undiscovered) when I find a fucking lake under my kitchen counter. It’s enough to drive me to drink-oh wait, I’m a drunk already-it’s enough to drive me to drink MORE.

    Ahhh, some light relief…..
    Crap, sorry about that. I’m pleased that you’ve found a temporary ‘solution’. ;-) My kitchen mixer tap (faucet) has been leaking (and old and needs replacing). Bought a replacement, just haven’t had time to put it in.
    If it makes you feel any better I’m still trying to patch up leaks on my water tanks outside that I’ve spent like a million hours on. Driving me insane too.

    Thumb up 0

  46. AlexInCT

    Beck has the right to his views, not to express his views. Clearly, being a conservative is okay, just so long as you don’t go around making it all obvious you’re a conservative.

    Actually that’s not even it, Rann. What they hate Beck for is that like some others, he isn’t afraid to champion what he believes in, but worse, that he points out how f-ed up what the left believes, does, and pretends it stands for and does, are. That’s what pisses them off the most. If you are the type of leftist ass kissing conservative, like John McCain and some other quasi conservative people that real conservatives tend to feel are just RINOs, and you kiss their “collectivist” asses, then you are absolutely loved. They even give you prime time to speak as long as you are demonize conservatives, conservative ideology & views/opinions, and conservative anything else in general. That love and freedom to speak your mind however is only extended until you are up against a lib like McCain found out the hard way.

    Being a conservative is only OK if you also acknowledge the left is superior. If you don’t, you are bad. If you speak up and point out how bad the left generally is and that they are basically fluff and failure writ large, well then you are beyond evil, and you have everything bad coming. The left only likes diversity as long as it is diversity within the spectrum of what they agree with. If you are outside that you should be silenced, attacked, and willing to tolerate everything and anything else that will help shut you up.

    Thumb up 0

  47. richtaylor365

    CM, it would make your comments much easier to read if you were a bit more diligent in making sure that the quotes you use have quotation marks around them. In about a half dozen instances now, and the 2:11am comment is another example, I read your comment and I think it is your words, only to find out that you are quoting someone else for a rebuttal, very confusing.

    However I personally would like people in positions of power to consider the possible ramifications of what they are saying

    This is where you lose me every time because it infers that “bad reaction” push back is justified, it is not.

    and especially if it’s feeding the narratives of the unhinged, and especially if the person with power does nothing to distance themselves from that fringe).

    Ah, so everything said now has to be washed through the filter of “how would an unhinged crazy person interpret my statement?”

    Sorry, no such hurdle exists within the First Amendment. When you only allow responsible speech as being protected, you infer then that irresponsible speech is not and if irresponsible speech is spoken then the ramifications you talked about, in whatever form they take, are justified. That is not how it works.

    I think a good example of this and one that I have used in the past is Fred Phelps. For my money there is not a more veil disgusting pile of human filth in the whole country then Pastor Phelps. Is there anyone that deserves an ass whoppin’ more then him? doubtful, but the system we have says that he gets to spew his garbage. As long as he and his misguided sheep followers are not breaking any laws, they stay in their animal pens and get the proper permits, they have the right to say whatever irresponsible thing they want. Now you would lecture all of us that since he is a public figure, wielding some degree of political power, that there ramifications for his words, and any attacks on him you would understand (not condone, of course), but I expect people to act lawfully and to respect other’s rights to be an ass.

    However constantly conjuring up a narrative which suggests that this might be the final chance to save America from socialism/liberalism while at the same time consistently evoking violent rhetoric and imagery is doing the same thing indirectly. And particularly when it’s said very seriously, over and over again, in the style of a lecture (with a blackboard no less, it’s a lesson in the truth don’t you know….not entertainment at all).

    I guess I am at a disadvantage because I don’t watch his show but are you sure you are not misrepresenting his approach? How many times have I rang the doom and gloom bell here wrt our mounting debt, do you thinking I am advocating armed insurrection? You think, just maybe he is trying to rally “the troops” with the weapons of choice being the vote at the ballot box, and not a gun?

    Thumb up 1

  48. richtaylor365

    To be honest I’m used to significantly more detailed discussions (the evidence is over at MW forums – look at the number of posts in some of the threads).

    The discussion here can go on as long as two or more folks carry it forward. For my one self, once all the angles have been gone over and nothing new is offered, I move on, but there is no limit placed on comments. If you want to revisit something, go for it. If you are lamenting the fact that people here are not as interested in some topics as you are, well, there are many topic specific blogs out there. I know you want more AGW stuff but I just can’t provide the expertise ( not my bag) to give you any satisfaction.

    Thumb up 0

  49. Rann *

    From what I could gather practically every post was (really bad) satire. He thought it was clever, it was the only gig he had, and he never turned it off or did anything else. It was impossible to determine where he actually stood on an issue because you could never tell whether he was just venting his annoyance over some group or another or if he was mocking the other side or what. He wouldn’t settle down and act normal (whatever normal was for him) long enough for anyone to be able to tell what was bullshit and what was just, well, him being full of bullshit.

    Thumb up 1

  50. AlexInCT

    I am with Rann on this that loser tried hard to be satirical but failed bigtime, despite the fact that it wa sobvious to me that he wasn’t keen on anything liberals stand for. I also clearly saw that language caused him issues – he’s not a native english speaker – and some of that was lost in the translation unless you could make the connections. He didn’t bother me too much, but then again, I am insane and prone to wasting time going in circles with people that think they are bing clever when they are anything but.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CM

    Nah he’s an American and English is definitely his first language. German is his second.

    I am insane and prone to wasting time going in circles with people that think they are bing clever when they are anything but.

    ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    Definitely a weird guy. From what I’ve picked up over the last, what maybe 7 or 8 years, he had a pretty difficult childhood and adolescence in Germany. It clearly still affects him deeply.

    Thumb up 0

  53. Kimpost

    So I stayed away for a couple of days, and this incredible post past me by. This and loserlame got himself banned.

    Gotta stay focused. :/

    Thumb up 0

  54. richtaylor365

    Not too late to chime in. CM was complaining that these posts die too prematurely, care to give this one some CPR?

    Thumb up 0