«

»

LSM hypocrisy

This is how the LSM reported the Michigan protests by union thugs, pissed that they had lost the vote the made Michigan another right-to-work state:

Crowds tore down two large tents that had been set up on the Capitol’s front lawn, one for right-to-work supporters, who were greatly outnumbered among the demonstrators, and another for opponents. No one was reported injured.

The video below showed what the union thugs really did. Let me know if you still think the LSM reported this accurately or if their was more of the usual lies by omission bullshit that has been going on for way too long:

Yeah. sure. Nobody was hurt. Imagine this was a Tea Party rally and the some old lady spit in the direction of a LSM member. Can you imagine the 24/7 coverage and accusations of hate and violence? In this case where we had serious violence from one of the left’s special interests? Nobody was hurt!

54 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    The man being punched is Steven Crowder from PJTV. I just read on Facebook that there is a $1000 reward for ID on the man throwing the punch.

    Which of our stalwart posters or commentators will be first to defend and/or make excuses for these union thugs?

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Kimpost says:

    Crowder was on Hannity yesterday with a message. He wants the guy who threw the punch to step forward so that they can face each other in the ring. You know, like real men. Either that or he will press charges.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  3. salinger says:

    Yeah I saw this first on that conservative blog – the Huffington Post.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  4. Section8 says:

    You know, like real men.

    As opposed to just assaulting someone in the heat of the mob right Kimpost? That’s what real men do. :)

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  5. AlexInCT says:

    Yeah I saw this first on that conservative blog – the Huffington Post.

    That says more about your choices than anything about the LSM’s bias and shilling. Bbesides, I am certain that the Huffsters downplayed it, or like Kimpost does, tried real hard to make Crowder the problem. You wouldn’t happen to have a link to the post you read, would you?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  6. salinger says:

    Pretty much a straight news report – the comments are what could be expected. An interesting side note – the victim in this case has blogged for the Huffington Post – says a bit about HIS choices now doesn’t it?

    Link

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  7. Poosh says:

    Exceptions do not a rule make. And left-wing media outlets sometimes do employ non-liberals to fill in gaps and do one-off articles etc, It’s very hard to have a completely loyal house if you’re running a LSM outlet. Business is business!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Thrill says:

    Note Huff Po’s latest update:

    UPDATE: Dec. 12 — On Twitter, Steven Crowder claimed that a protester threatened to kill him, which can be overheard off-camera in the video he posted. That video appears to be edited. Another video posted on YouTube by FTRMediaLive suggests that protesters were confronting a person possibly in possession of a firearm who may have been associated with the Americans For Prosperity. Electablog authored a post that also questions the sequence of events shown in the video.

    So they’re basically calling Crowder a liar. Sure, they’ll post the story but then rapidly move to undermine the circumstances. Beautiful.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Kimpost says:

    or like Kimpost does, tried real hard to make Crowder the problem.

    I made Crowder the problem? :)

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  10. pfluffy says:

    Let me know if you still think the LSM reported this accurately or if their was more of the usual lies by omission bullshit that has been going on for way too long.

    So? It sounds like the “injured party” has found numerous outlets to get his story told. I am quite sure that the always fair Hannity will get to the bottom of it and report it straight up with no lies by omission. Since you seem so invested in how this story is reported, perhaps you could follow up with Hannity’s coverage.

    Which of our stalwart posters or commentators will be first to defend and/or make excuses for these union thugs?

    I have no intention of condoning violence. If someone punches someone that is a crime. Were there no police present to make arrests?

    I don’t much follow these stories because they mean precisely nothing to me. I have lived my entire working life in a “right to work” state and I have always known that if my boss doesn’t like the way I hold my pen I could be fired. That is what “right to work” is. If some fresh out of high school kid will do a job cheaper than you will, you are out the door, because that is easier than trying to get you to take a giant pay cut. Yes, it can be good for business. It can also suck for employees. The grass isn’t necessarily greener over here. Chicken plants in the south are always hiring.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      
  11. Dave D says:

    . I have lived my entire working life in a “right to work” state and I have always known that if my boss doesn’t like the way I hold my pen I could be fired. That is what “right to work” is.

    O….M…..G! ANY employer should have the right to hire/fire as needed or as they can pay (just like everyone else). Is there some “employment fairy” out there to circumvent this problem that I am not aware of? The ONLY solution is to sign a contract/collectively bargain, which RTW does NOT dissallow. I just don’t have to participate in that thuggery if I chose not to…… What’s the problem here? Spoiled brats not wanting to leave the dark ages of comfy blandness at someone elses expense, imo.

    Hot! Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

      
  12. pfluffy says:

    ANY employer should have the right to hire/fire as needed or as they can pay (just like everyone else).

    Sure. I am just suggesting that people be careful what they wish for lest they receive it. RTW is great for employers and not necessarily so great for workers.

    Spoiled brats not wanting to leave the dark ages of comfy blandness at someone elses expense, imo.

    What, exactly, does this mean? If I am interpreting it correctly, then yes, people generally want to continue their employment at their current wages. When people have their wages sliced/diced, their expenses aren’t usually sliced accordingly. For exciting reading, check into what it takes to get a mortgage modification when hardship ensues. It is understandable that they would want to continue in “the dark ages of comfy blandness” because the “enlightened ages of discomforting excitement” that follows a pink slip can be quite unpleasant.

    I am actually not a big union proponent at all. Like I said, I have always worked in a RTW state and it is doable. I am just amazed at how seemingly popular RTW is becoming given the precarious position it puts workers in.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  13. CM says:

    It is understandable that they would want to continue in “the dark ages of comfy blandness” because the “enlightened ages of discomforting excitement” that follows a pink slip can be quite unpleasant.

    Nice.

    Yeah to me “the dark ages” would be a situation whereby an employee has no security of employment, and can’t live accordingly. I certainly wouldn’t want to live with that sort of ‘freedom’, no matter how good I was at my job, or secure I felt in it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  14. Dave D says:

    Security of employment is a subset of the employers health/willingness to pay. What planet do you guys live on? There are no wages to “protect” if the company is not profitable.

    Globalization has removed the barriers of protectionism the union dinosaurs enjoyed in this country in the 50′s-90′s. They have to evolve. Or go extinct. I really could care less. They are mindless thugs and they just proved it again.

    Also, why should the removal of mandatory union dues eliminate unions? If they serve their workers as they say they do, then they will continue doing so with voluntary payments, right? Or are we trying to protect their jobs, too? I have trouble keeping track of who is protected and who is not.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Hal_10000 says:

    I’m tinkering with a post on “right to work”. The Left makes a point about contracting that would be valid if we lived in a legal vacuum on labor law. But you can’t separate out the federal laws regarding unions and the workplace they have created.

    What’s amazing today is to watch people justify the punch, saying they were “provoked” by the very presence of ADP, not to mention Crowder. Gee, I can’t imagine they be saying the same thing if a pro-life protester or a tea party protester did the same thing. In fact, we know. When protesters supposedly said nasty things to Conressmen going to vote for Obamacare, they were blasted as evil violent racist thugs. And they thought their livelihood was at stake just as much as these union guys did.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Section8 says:

    The ONLY solution is to sign a contract/collectively bargain, which RTW does NOT dissallow. I just don’t have to participate in that thuggery if I chose not to…… What’s the problem here?

    Dave has the definition correct actually. Does anyone want to challenge this? Or is it the narratives of the man with the top hat and cigar that threw you out for the first kid that walked by.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Hal_10000 says:

    Just remember, kids: when right wing protesters are prodded into the least of things, it’s because they are violently lunatics. When left wing protesters beat people up, it’s because it was a “false flag” operation.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  18. pfluffy says:

    Security of employment is a subset of the employers health/willingness to pay. What planet do you guys live on? There are no wages to “protect” if the company is not profitable.

    So, the only reason an employer would fire someone is financial. Dave, it is you that is living on some magical planet. Right to work means you can fire without cause. You can fire for no reason at all – a brain fart one day that you just don’t want to look at Suzie any longer or that Mary has an irritating voice and chews her pen tops. Like I said, it is doable and most people get along fine with it, but there is no job security at all. That may not interest you, but it is something to consider when politicians are playing games with it.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  19. pfluffy says:

    Dave has the definition correct actually. Does anyone want to challenge this? Or is it the narratives of the man with the top hat and cigar that threw you out for the first kid that walked by.

    More like the guy with the beer gut that threw you out for his nephew.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  20. CM says:

    Security of employment is a subset of the employers health/willingness to pay. What planet do you guys live on? There are no wages to “protect” if the company is not profitable.

    If the company truly isn’t profitable, then people will be made redundant. Nothing wrong with that. Both parties should of course have escape-clauses in the contract. But I don’t believe the employer escape-clause should allow them to put an end to someone’s employment without good reason.

    I’m pro-union, but I’m certainly against any sort of compulsion to belong to one (we ended that over 2 decades ago here). Despite what I said above, I also don’t object to the new law here which allows an employee to be ‘let go’ within the first 90 days for no reason (I see it as having a negative side, but I think the positive side is worth it).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  21. pfluffy says:

    I’m tinkering with a post on “right to work”. The Left makes a point about contracting that would be valid if we lived in a legal vacuum on labor law. But you can’t separate out the federal laws regarding unions and the workplace they have created.

    I am not sure what you are talking about, Hal. There are no unions here at all. There are a handful of federal labor laws like the ADA and FMLA, but that is about it. My husband is a public school teacher and he is forbidden from even joining a union. I appreciate the anti-union sentiment when they do stupid shit, but it is a fantasy that RTW is a bastion of freedom.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  22. Section8 says:

    Just remember, kids: when right wing protesters are prodded into the least of things, it’s because they are violently lunatics. When left wing protesters beat people up, it’s because it was a “false flag” operation.

    Totally. Also, if you were to say Kill those fucking Palestinians and their mothers and daughters who encourage the suicide bomber, you’d be a racist asshole or at the very least an “ignorant”, “war monger”, knuckle dragging moron lacking “intellectualism”, but Kill the mothers and daughters of those Yanks who ordered torture, we’ll you’d be “artistic”. It’s quite comical to watch the dignified diplomatic mavens of the left.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Mississippi Yankee says:

    An interesting side note – the victim in this case has blogged for the Huffington Post – says a bit about HIS choices now doesn’t it?

    And Andrew Breitbart (hardly a lefty dupe) set up the Huffington post for Adrianna to begin with… so what’s your point?

    I have no intention of condoning violence. If someone punches someone that is a crime. Were there no police present to make arrests?
    I don’t much follow these stories because they mean precisely nothing to me.

    Yes there were, and they belong to a union as well. This all happened before yanno, in Wisconsin earlier this year. But I suppose you weren’t paying attention then either. I can only hope you were paying a bit more attention when you voted last month.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  24. pfluffy says:

    Yes there were, and they belong to a union as well. This all happened before yanno, in Wisconsin earlier this year. But I suppose you weren’t paying attention then either. I can only hope you were paying a bit more attention when you voted last month.

    I only passively follow the coverage of these event, they are unlikely to change much of anything in the south. This is a fight for the states involved (yanno, federalism). If people in MIchigan and Wisconsin want to boot their unions out, more power to them.

    How does my voting last month have anything to do with union busting in Detroit? I live in a state where the Governor prayed for rain on the Capitol steps during a drought.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  25. CM says:

    Totally. Also, if you were to say Kill those fucking Palestinians and their mothers and daughters who encourage the suicide bomber, you’d be a racist asshole or at the very least an “ignorant”, “war monger”, knuckle dragging moron lacking “intellectualism”, but Kill the mothers and daughters of those Yanks who ordered torture, we’ll you’d be “artistic”. It’s quite comical to watch the dignified diplomatic mavens of the left.

    IMHO there are complete fuckwits on the left and the right. You’ve given two excellent examples.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  26. Section8 says:

    IMHO there are complete fuckwits on the left and the right. You’ve given two excellent examples.

    Fair enough CM. I can’t argue with you if we agree. I’m sure there will be a next time. Probably in about 5 minutes.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  27. CM says:

    Fair enough CM. I can’t argue with you if we agree. I’m sure there will be a next time. Probably in about 5 minutes.

    ;-)
    I assume you’re referring to the lyrics in that ‘song’ that Psy sung during the height of the Iraq situation. I’m confident that none of the resident libtards here would come anywhere close to holding an opinion like that, including then.
    Anyway, not my intention to derail the union discussion….

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  28. mrblume says:

    Totally. Also, if you were to say Kill those fucking Palestinians and their mothers and daughters who encourage the suicide bomber, you’d be a racist asshole or at the very least an “ignorant”, “war monger”, knuckle dragging moron lacking “intellectualism”, but Kill the mothers and daughters of those Yanks who ordered torture, we’ll you’d be “artistic”.

    I’m sorry to disappoint CM, but I disagree. You’re carefully phrasing this (“those encouraging”) to dilute the sentiment that was actually expressed in previous threads, “all Palestinans are terrorists, so kill them”. The Psy lyrics, on the other hands, don’t even talk about those Americans who are encouraging torture by passively supporting it. It only targets those actively torturing (and, unfortunately, their relatives). And yes, it’s done in a form that can traditionally claim artistic license.

    Still, I think you’re onto something. If you, Section8, were to write a song about killing Hamas terrorists, I wouldn’t be offended, but I would hardly respect you for it either. There’s an obvious difference though: Hamas terrorists are being killed on a regular basis (and sometimes, their mothers and daughters). The Americans responsible for torture act with impunity. That not only affects an emotional component (“they’re getting away it it”), it also makes it much harder for you to claim metaphorical meaning. It would be hard not to understand you as supporting the actual killing going on. It isn’t hard at all to consider that Psy probably wouldn’t *really* support killing anyone.

    Also, note that if there is hypocrisy here, it goes both ways. The very people finding the Psy lyrics outrages clearly wouldn’t have a problem with similar text targeting Palestinians.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  29. CM says:

    I’m sorry to disappoint CM, but I disagree. You’re carefully phrasing this (“those encouraging”) to dilute the sentiment that was actually expressed in previous threads, “all Palestinans are terrorists, so kill them”.

    Sorry but I didn’t phrase it. Nor did I compare the phrasing here with anti-Palestinian comments made by right-wingers here on previous threads.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  30. Dave D says:

    So, the only reason an employer would fire someone is financial.

    I said security of emploiyment is a SUBSET of the employers health/financial status. Doesn’t mean it’s the ONLY thing, but surely a requirment. Nice generalization…..

    There are no unions here at all.

    So what you are saying is that, given a choice, the customer in your state (potential union member) NEVER choses to purchasse the product offerred (join a union). Tells a LOT about the real value of these things. Or is it that the thugs/bosses in the union don’t want any part of it if they don’t have total control over their “people”, including funding only democrats? That sounds more like it from my history.

    Also, what is wrong with being able to terminate people for no cause? It’s called a “layoff” and happens frequently for reasons like “we can’t afford to pay you anymore” or “we decided to put less emphasis in your area this quarter”? Companies that do this will have trouble retaining dedicated/talented employees. I don’t see the problem here, other than lots of people apparently don’t want to continuously convince their employer that they are worth what they are paid. That seems to be the real problem here.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  31. Dave D says:

    I certainly wouldn’t want to live with that sort of ‘freedom’, no matter how good I was at my job, or secure I felt in it.

    If you’re good at your job, you don’t need any aditional security of employment.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  32. Mississippi Yankee says:

    How does my voting last month have anything to do with union busting in Detroit?

    As this happened in Lansing MI I might owe you an apology because you really don’t seem to pay attention. Hopefully you didn’t vote last month too.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  33. CM says:

    Dave, that sounds a little too much supporting excessive policing powers, or CCTV everywhere, on the basis that if you’re law-abiding, you have nothing to fair.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  34. Dave D says:

    Well, if you have no talent or nothing to bring to a job/employer, you SHOULD have something to fear, imo. Collectivists sure see things from a different point of view…….

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Kimpost says:

    I see unions as market forces in play. It’s basically just a bunch of guys (and gals) working together isn’t it?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  36. pfluffy says:

    As this happened in Lansing MI I might owe you an apology because you really don’t seem to pay attention. Hopefully you didn’t vote last month too.

    I don’t know why you are choosing to troll me (I suspect that it is because you disagree with me). I was up front about this not really pertaining to me. I merely pointed out that RTW is not the font of freedom it is being portrayed as. If you work in a RTW state and like it, great!

    Well, if you have no talent or nothing to bring to a job/employer, you SHOULD have something to fear, imo. Collectivists sure see things from a different point of view…….

    So, I’m being trolled by MY for not registering vital demographic information and you are given a pass for disregarding your own admission that other factors are involved with retaining employment. You keep talking about being fired for cause. I don’t know many people, including myself, that would argue that if you bring nothing to the table your employer should and can fire you. This is NOT what RTW means. RTW means you can be fired without cause, even if you bring plenty to the table.

    It’s called a “layoff” and happens frequently for reasons like “we can’t afford to pay you anymore” or “we decided to put less emphasis in your area this quarter”? Companies that do this will have trouble retaining dedicated/talented employees. I don’t see the problem here, other than lots of people apparently don’t want to continuously convince their employer that they are worth what they are paid. That seems to be the real problem here.

    Again, reductions in force are different than termination without cause, but I suspect that you already know that. One thing that we can probably agree on is that small companies run by lunatics firing people willy-nilly would probably have other problems that interfere with the proper running of said companies. I have worked for lunatics before and the best strategy for dealing with them is to quickly find a new job. Sometimes convincing an employer you are worth the money you are paid has little to do with job performance. Catch my drift?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  37. Hal_10000 says:

    Hmmm. Fox broadcast the Crowder fight with a start point a little earlier. It almost looks like he threw the first punch.

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/selective-editing-by-fox-news-contributor-revealed-by-fox-news/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38. AlexInCT says:

    I merely pointed out that RTW is not the font of freedom it is being portrayed as. If you work in a RTW state and like it, great!

    Yeah, because freedom is not having a choice whether to pay dues to a union organization that primarily spends those funds helping their democrat buddies get elected and for their top people to live like royalty. Again: all this measure does is remove the mandatory union payment. If the union wants the money of its members, it needs to earn it. The left, the donkeys, and the union bosses all hate that idea, because it primarily means they now actually have to serve their constituency instead of just taking it all for granted.

    But you can keep pretending that what happened was the poor union people being told they no longer could unionize so their employer could then exploit them, and then harp about loss of freedom. The only people that lost any freedom are the bosses and the donkey politicians, and that is because they now have to work for the union dues, and they abhor that idea.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  39. pfluffy says:

    But you can keep pretending that what happened was the poor union people being told they no longer could unionize so their employer could then exploit them, and then harp about loss of freedom. The only people that lost any freedom are the bosses and the donkey politicians, and that is because they now have to work for the union dues, and they abhor that idea.

    And you are free to pretend that all these companies and politicians want is some freedom for the workers of Michigan. Of course that is all that they want, right? What else could it be?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      
  40. Dave D says:

    IMO, there is no “cause” for termination. If the company doesn’t want you around or you want to leave, you should be gone. “Cause” is something invented by unions to protect the unemployable, imo. Age discrimination and sexists/racist hiring practices are one thing (necessary), but anything else should be totally up to wether you are doing your job, delighting your employer, and the company is making money.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  41. ilovecress says:

    DaveD – the thing is, in the majority of cases ‘companies’ don’t fire people – ‘bosses’ do. And bosses aren’t controlled by market forces, and some are tools. What ’cause’ does is force the tool boss to prove that the termination was, in fact, driven by whether you are doing your job, delighting your employer and the company is making money – rather than for personal reasons.

    In fact, labour rules should be there to protect pure market forces from personal grudges and people just acting like d*cks. It should guaruntee that if you work hard and make the company money, you can’t get fired because your boss doesn’t like your face, and wants to hire his idiot nephew.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  42. CM says:

    Age discrimination and sexists/racist hiring practices are one thing (necessary),

    But if you can fire someone without reason, they becomes pointless. You’re effectively giving up on anti-discriminatory hiring laws. Of course nobody will admit to firing someone because of their age, but if they don’t have to give a good reason ,they could do it anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. CM says:

    Collectivists sure see things from a different point of view…….

    Yeah, because being against compulsory unionism is just so collectivist isn’t it.

    I think this is (yet) another issue where some people get so ideological they can’t even comprehend that anyone who doesn’t agree with them might not be diametrically ideological.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  44. Section8 says:

    I’m sorry to disappoint CM, but I disagree. You’re carefully phrasing this (“those encouraging”) to dilute the sentiment that was actually expressed in previous threads, “all Palestinans are terrorists, so kill them”. The Psy lyrics, on the other hands, don’t even talk about those Americans who are encouraging torture by passively supporting it. It only targets those actively torturing (and, unfortunately, their relatives). And yes, it’s done in a form that can traditionally claim artistic license.

    Question is why should any of Psy’s lyrics be acceptable period? I thought you guys were the diplomatic type? If not, again it’s just picking sides and nothing more, which is fine but honesty about the topic should kept as such, otherwise it’s my violence and violent rhetoric is more “diplomatic” than your violence and violent rhetoric rather than the left’s supposed issue with the violence itself. Are leftist more “civilized” or not? So far I’m not seeing it.

    Still, I think you’re onto something. If you, Section8, were to write a song about killing Hamas terrorists, I wouldn’t be offended, but I would hardly respect you for it either. There’s an obvious difference though: Hamas terrorists are being killed on a regular basis (and sometimes, their mothers and daughters).
    The Americans responsible for torture act with impunity. That not only affects an emotional component (“they’re getting away it it”), it also makes it much harder for you to claim metaphorical meaning.

    There’s also a difference between torture and murder (and yes some Iraqis may have been or were murdered). There is also a difference between the targets of such acts between the two parties. We can go in circles all day about the details but, the issue remains the same. Why is the violence you excuse any more just if the argument all along from the left has been that violence and violent rhetoric is unacceptable and intolerable? Clearly it is from time to time, it just depends on what YOU think is acceptable, as well as what I think is acceptable, but that’s not what the left have been preaching.

    Also some who did the torturing have been punished and rightfully so. Has Hamas gone after anyone who put bombs on some kid to go blow himself up in a Café somewhere deliberately targeting civilians? Either way the Bush administration fell out favor for a variety of reasons including the conduct of some of the troops during the Iraq war.

    It would be hard not to understand you as supporting the actual killing going on. It isn’t hard at all to consider that Psy probably wouldn’t *really* support killing anyone.

    That’s just your assumption about Psy and nothing more. It could just as easily be he’s be quite content to see us all dead after we all buy his CD, but in the meantime he needs to do what is necessary to get the sales so he apologized. As far as understanding me, considering I’ve said I think there should be a Palestinian state I’m not sure what you are talking about? What is your assumption based on I wonder. Is it that he’s from Korea and I’m an American?

    Also, note that if there is hypocrisy here, it goes both ways. The very people finding the Psy lyrics outrages clearly wouldn’t have a problem with similar text targeting Palestinians.

    Possibly, but only one side has spent the last 10 years of condemning any hint of violence regardless of the target or reason as unacceptable, labeling folks either ignorant, self-absorbed, racist, the list goes on. Hell, the left have been finding violence where there wasn’t any. The problem for the left these days is you guys have given us on the right immunity by setting the standards that are impossible for anyone, including the left, to uphold. If you don’t support someone or their policies, you’re racist. If you excuse or try to justify a violent act regardless of target, reason, or emotional state at the time, you’re an ignorant knuckle dragger. If you don’t give a shit about people overseas, you’re self-absorbed. If you do you’re an arrogant American interfering in other’s affairs. There is no out for those on the right, so there is no need for me to worry about what label I get either way. The only question now is when it comes to violence and violent rhetoric from left, the excuses and the justification for it. All I can say is what does that make you?

    Some hypocrisy flows more ways than others. Generally it flows more in the direction of those who set the standards. You guys are the ones setting the standards these days. Sorry but the liability is all on you my friend, and so far it isn’t looking too good for some of you.

    Hmmm. Fox broadcast the Crowder fight with a start point a little earlier. It almost looks like he threw the first punch.

    Looks like the guy was arguing with someone else. Maybe the fight started between those two as the rest were peacefully tearing down the tent in the background.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  45. CM says:

    Question is why should any of Psy’s lyrics be acceptable period? I thought you guys were the diplomatic type?

    “You guys”? Who is that exactly? Be useful to know. Presumably I’m one of those ‘you guys’ too.

    First of all, they weren’t his lyrics (by which I mean it wasn’t his ‘song’ – it was by a Korean band called ‘N.EX.T’).
    Second, what do you mean ‘acceptable’? I think pretty much anything is ‘acceptable’ in a lyric. And we’re all free to judge the author of the lyric, and person or persons who decide to deliver it. As he says in his apology, he rapped the lyrics at an anti-war demonstration, at the height of a very emotional worldwide outbursting of anger at (what was perceived by many as) the absolute cynicism of the actions of the American government, and in a country where the U.S. has a large military presence (since the Korean War). On top of that they’d just had the death of two Korean school girls, who were killed when a U.S. military vehicle hit them as they walked alongside the road. Notwithstanding all that, the contents of the lyrics are just awful and if I had attended the demonstration I would have found them offensive and utterly counterproductive.

    ….but only one side has spent the last 10 years of condemning any hint of violence regardless of the target or reason as unacceptable, labeling folks either ignorant, self-absorbed, racist, the list goes on.

    I don’t agree with that. At all. That’s far too simplistic. Many on the left opposed the war in Iraq because they didn’t see it was being legitimate or necessary. That’s quite different from what you’re suggesting. You seem to be attempting to simplify everything to the point where it loses any meaning.

    There is no out for those on the right, so there is no need for me to worry about what label I get either way.

    But in the same post you seem to be providing ‘no out’ for anyone on the left – apparently violence of any kind is always unacceptable to everyone on the left. That’s just nonsense.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  46. Section8 says:

    Notwithstanding all that, the contents of the lyrics are just awful and if I had attended the demonstration I would have found them offensive and utterly counterproductive.

    Really? I bet you would have thought of it like this…

    he rapped the lyrics at an anti-war demonstration, at the height of a very emotional worldwide outbursting of anger at (what was perceived by many as) the absolute cynicism of the actions of the American government, and in a country where the U.S. has a large military presence (since the Korean War). On top of that they’d just had the death of two Korean school girls, who were killed when a U.S. military vehicle hit them as they walked alongside the road.

    As for the kids being run over, it was an accident, but truthfully, I think we need to go. If our accident is going to result in hang’em high, well then they can fight off the deliberate actions of their enemies without us standing in the way. That’s another topic though. Just strange none of these countries ever actually order us to get out.

    I don’t agree with that. At all. That’s far too simplistic. Many on the left opposed the war in Iraq because they didn’t see it was being legitimate or necessary. That’s quite different from what you’re suggesting. You seem to be attempting to simplify everything to the point where it loses any meaning.

    It goes beyond the Iraq war. Also, when I talk left, yes I’m speaking left in general. There are variances among individuals. Just like when you talk about anyone right of you as part of the “extreme” I’ll assume you take variances into some consideration but of course when speaking politics a lot is taken into generalization. You can’t break it down to every person. You can pretend you never generalize and find it “weird” as I’m sure you will, but we all know better here so I won’t worry about that too much.

    But in the same post you seem to be providing ‘no out’ for anyone on the left – apparently violence of any kind is always unacceptable to everyone on the left. That’s just nonsense.

    Missed the point. Thankfully the post is still there.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  47. CM says:

    Really? I bet you would have thought of it like this…

    No, that’s the context behind what he did. However in my view it doesn’t excuse it.

    Just like when you talk about anyone right of you as part of the “extreme”

    I can safely say I’ve never done that. That’s a ridiculous accusation.

    Missed the point. Thankfully the post is still there.

    The point seemed to be premised on the left being a collection of people who all think the same, and therefore any one individual can be called to account for some sort of group decision. I don’t accept the premise.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  48. Section8 says:

    No, that’s the context behind what he did. However in my view it doesn’t excuse it.

    It’s wrong but … I understand doesn’t cut it. No way in hell would the right get that kind of slack.

    Personally, I don’t give a shit what he says. It’s a free country here, and by extension he can say what he wants. I don’t think his stuff should be banned. I don’t think he should be performing at the government sanctioned WH Christmas party but whatever. That says more about our God in Chief than anything else. I can just guarantee you if someone said the same thing “artistically” about Palestinians, there is no way in hell we’d be tolerating excuses.

    I can safely say I’ve never done that. That’s a ridiculous accusation.

    Oh ok. /smirk/

    The point seemed to be premised on the left being a collection of people who all think the same, and therefore any one individual can be called to account for some sort of group decision. I don’t accept the premise.

    Let’s try something new. Instead of me rewriting the post 500 times only to get the response that you don’t understand or don’t accept the premise even though I’ve used the words “some” and explained the reason for generalization, why don’t you just keep posting various possibilities of what I was getting at, and when you write the correct one I’ll say Bingo! Or we can leave as is. I don’t care either way.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  49. CM says:

    It’s wrong but … I understand doesn’t cut it. No way in hell would the right get that kind of slack.

    Can you give me an equivalent example?

    Personally, I don’t give a shit what he says. It’s a free country here, and by extension he can say what he wants. I don’t think his stuff should be banned. I don’t think he should be performing at the government sanctioned WH Christmas party but whatever. That says more about our God in Chief than anything else.

    I was surprised that he was still able to perform. I wouldn’t have though it would have been appropriate.
    As someone who was against the Iraq invasion, I did give a shit what those protesting against the war did, because some of it was counter-productive, under-mining, and utterly stupid. Repeating lyrics like that is a good example. If you’re going to explain why your opponents position is unreasonable, you need to try and be as reasonable as possible while doing so.

    I’m going to risk a Godwin here – but anyway……determining and setting out the relevant issues/triggers/environment that lead to Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent actions provides a degree of context but it doesn’t excuse him of any of what he did.

    I can just guarantee you if someone said the same thing “artistically” about Palestinians, there is no way in hell we’d be tolerating excuses.

    Sure, and fair enough. As I said – there are complete fuckwits on the left and the right.

    Oh ok. /smirk/

    Speaking of standards – usually when making accusations, it’s a good idea to actually back them up with something. Otherwise it looks like you operate in an environment where very low standards are tolerated. I.e. back it up or don’t say it to start with. Unless you just don’t give a shit either way. Entirely up to you of course.

    Let’s try something new. Instead of me rewriting the post 500 times only to get the response that you don’t understand or don’t accept the premise even though I’ve used the words “some” and explained the reason for generalization, why don’t you just keep posting various possibilities of what I was getting at, and when you write the correct one I’ll say Bingo! Or we can leave as is. I don’t care either way.

    We’ll leave it then. I’m clearly not the intended recipient of your point anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  50. Section8 says:

    Can you give me an equivalent example?

    No, I’m not aware of any “artistic” expression where someone on the right has said kill their daughters and mothers. There might be something out there, but I haven’t seen it. This seems to be more of a left wing phenomenon. I’d just say I doubt they’d be invited to any WH party or anything remotely related without a massive uproar from the left. Hell when bin Laden was taken out many on the left found it ranging from weird to outrageous that anyone would actually be happy about it. It was almost as though we should have been apologetic about it.

    I did give a shit what those protesting against the war did, because some of it was counter-productive, under-mining, and utterly stupid. Repeating lyrics like that is a good example. If you’re going to explain why your opponents position is unreasonable, you need to try and be as reasonable as possible while doing so.

    Agree, and for the most part I haven’t seen you do the Americans are warmongers bit. There have been a few times race cards have been thrown in but over all not that much from you. Certainly not nearly as much as I’ve seen from other leftists over the years here and elsewhere.

    Speaking of standards – usually when making accusations, it’s a good idea to actually back them up with something. Otherwise it looks like you operate in an environment where very low standards are tolerated. I.e. back it up or don’t say it to start with. Unless you just don’t give a shit either way. Entirely up to you of course.

    Come on man, we’ve been accused of being the fringe for our free market views time and time again. Do I really have to dig this up?

    We’ll leave it then. I’m clearly not the intended recipient of your point anyway.

    Half a bingo over all. Full bingo as in you are not the intended recipient.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  51. Mississippi Yankee says:

    I don’t know why you are choosing to troll me(I suspect that it is because you disagree with me).

    So, I’m being trolled by MY for not registering vital demographic information and you are given a pass for disregarding your own admission that other factors are involved with retaining employment.

    Ah, the old “fights like a girl” strategy. I’m starting to remember you from before now. The name changes but the game’s the same

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  52. Section8 says:

    Holy cow. Twice I’ve tried to post on this subject.

    RTW means you can be fired without cause, even if you bring plenty to the table.

    Anyhow Look up at-will-employment on Google. 49 out of the 57 states have it. Tried two links now but it drops the post. RTW is different and simply is the choice about joining a union or not. Period

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  53. CM says:

    Agree, and for the most part I haven’t seen you do the Americans are warmongers bit. There have been a few times race cards have been thrown in but over all not that much from you. Certainly not nearly as much as I’ve seen from other leftists over the years here and elsewhere.

    For the most part? So sometimes I do say Americans are warmongers?
    I’ve thrown out the race card a few times? I don’t remember that. I remember misinterpreting a comment from Rich about Obama being hired by a company purely to have him on their basketball team, but that was most certainly not ‘playing the race card’, it was a genuine misunderstanding.

    Come on man, we’ve been accused of being the fringe for our free market views time and time again. Do I really have to dig this up?

    Only when it gets very ideological do I ever suggest people are living out on the fringe. There is plenty of room, far from the fringe, for free market views.
    It’s obvious from your comments on this that you misunderstood. No problem, I’m happy to elaborate.

    Half a bingo over all.

    That’s a new one for me. Not 100% sure I understand, but I assume that doesn’t matter.

    Ah, the old “fights like a girl” strategy.

    Good to know there’s a name for that strategy.

    RTW is different and simply is the choice about joining a union or not. Period

    In that case I’m in favour. Guess my communist card gets taken away, yet again.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  54. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Ah, the old “fights like a girl” strategy.

    Good to know there’s a name for that strategy.

    CM,
    Really it took this age addled brain until this post to remember not only who but what this creature is/was/and I’ll bet will be again.

    In day of yore I would have used a bit different nomenclature to describe the strategy. I think she might even pre-date Thrill on this site.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.