GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/09/27/the-conservative-violence-in-left-wingers-heads/trackback/

  1. All they have is their narrative and their prejudice.

    Good choice of words. Prejudice (pre-judging) is exactly what it is.

    If the census worker was trespassing in a area crawling with meth labs and other drug dealers – he could easily have been killed by a left-winger. (Given that druggies, statistically or on average, are more likely to be on the left side of the aisle.)

    Meanwhile, left-wingers threaten the lives of policemen and shopowners at the G20 protests, and Sean Hannity has two of them who glibly condone all that violence (and make utter imbeciles of themselves in several other ways): http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/25/video-hannity-interviews-socialists-at-the-g20-what-could-go-wrong/

    I wonder how different things would be, if the American political Right ever did engage in one-twentieth of the violence that the American political Left does. Or one-one-hundredth of the violence that the American political Left imagines.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2009 @ 4:49 am - September 27, 2009

  2. Wow
    You link approvingly to Robery Stacy McCain in an article about fostering hate? McCain is a racist, confederate apologist and frankly a certifiable Glen Beckesque moonbat.
    The very fact you link approvingly to McCain – a hate mongering bigot – you have invalidated everything else written in your post. – Especially since McCain associates with hate groups and neo Nazis who DO inspire violence.

    But don’t take my word for it:
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34727_The_Other_Other_McCain

    His own words:
    “[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion,”

    On Lincoln:
    “1st RULER and TYRANT of the AMERICAN EMPIRE” and a perpetrator of “Murder, False Imprisonment, and numerous HEINOUS crimes against the SOUTHern states and AMERICANS in general!”

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 8:51 am - September 27, 2009

  3. After thirty years of seeing the likes of gillie trot out false accusations of racism aganist basically anyone who holds a different opinon than their Revealed Truth, I’ve come to the conclusion that to a Democrat the word “Racist” basically translates out to, “This guy’s right so here’s a distraction.”

    Thanks for admitting that R.S. McCain is right, gillie.

    Comment by DaveP. — September 27, 2009 @ 9:14 am - September 27, 2009

  4. [...] The Conservative Violence In Left-Wingers’ Heads [...]

    Pingback by Sunday, September 27, 2009 — ExposeTheMedia.com — September 27, 2009 @ 9:23 am - September 27, 2009

  5. You know why I believe gillie? Because he has worked so hard to build a reputation for fairness and honesty on this forum.

    (OK, how many people just blew their beverage all over the screen? C’mon, answer up.)

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2009 @ 9:40 am - September 27, 2009

  6. The subtext to the Sparkman death is this: Clay County, Kentucky is populated with inbred, lawless moonshiners who keep their wives barefoot and pregnant, belong to the KKK, long for the return of slavery, hate blacks, gays and outsiders as much as they love their guns, dogs, pick-ups and the Confederate flag. And, they are religious primitives who dance around with rattle snakes. If they sober up and stumble to the polls, they always vote Republican.

    This fits the urban liberal’s theme of the wicked, backward south. Anyone who lives in the south is but one step removed from the degradation and scrawny, misshapen denizens of Clay County, Ky.

    Sparkman’s death is a catalyst for all the diversity loving, sophisticated, liberals to start baying at the moon and declaring the cold, cruel heart of conservatism has been exposed.

    For gillie and his ilk the mystery of Sparkman’s death is no mystery at all. He knows the conservative heart and in his heart he knows conservatives everywhere are cheering at the news of Sparkman’s death.

    As a conservative, I see Clay County, Ky as one of those many poor areas of America where people scratch out a living and go about the business of their everyday lives. The population of Clay County is almost all white, almost all flirting with the poverty level, and probably darn glad for the Wal-Mart. If they watch Saturday Night Live, I doubt they see the humor in the constant liberal snark about the minds and lives of the rural poor. I doubt they either understand or admire the lack of pride among urban elitists. I doubt gillie could ever stand to live in Clay County, Ky.

    Comment by heliotrope — September 27, 2009 @ 10:03 am - September 27, 2009

  7. When a pro-life demonstrator was shot and killed in Michigan a couple of weeks ago, remember how President Obama, Planned Parenthood, and the left wing media establishment cautioned everyone on the pro-abortion side to tamp down their rhetoric and refrain from violence?

    Neither do I.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2009 @ 10:35 am - September 27, 2009

  8. 1st – Little Green Footballs is NOT a liberal site. He is a conservative who proves that McCain is a hatefilled racist, connected to anti-semties and a confederate apologist.

    2nd – Someone who says its rational to be revolted by interracial marriages is clearly a hatemongering racist. And to deny that is closing your eyes to reality – Open your eyes Dave P!

    3rd – To link to a hate filled luny like McCain in such a post trying to debunk the reality of “conservative violence” is insanity.

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 10:44 am - September 27, 2009

  9. “To link to a hate filled luny like McCain in such a post trying to debunk the reality of “conservative violence” is insanity.” (quoting myself?! Egomaniac much?)

    To put this in terms you guys can understand. This would be like linking to Michael Moore in an post about the need for liberals finding common ground with republicans

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 10:56 am - September 27, 2009

  10. gillie, sorry, none of those things apply to R.S. McCain. He and the folks at Little Green Footballs have been engaging in some kind of turf war, trading insults for some time now.

    Yeah, I grant he engages in some hyperbole, but instead of addressing the issue, you attack the messenger. Shows you’d rather attack conservatives and right-wingers than address their points–that does seem to be your business in these threads.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 27, 2009 @ 11:26 am - September 27, 2009

  11. “but instead of addressing the issue, you attack the messenger.”
    Wrong.
    You say “Even when the only evidence tying conservatives to violence exists in left-wingers heads.”
    And then you link to the hatemonger McCain!
    Its called Irony. I imagine you are familiar the concept

    Further – You can’t dismiss the facts that Johnson has uncovered as just a “turf war” and “hyperbole” McCain is clearly a racist with ties to white supremist groups. That’s reality.
    I would hope not defending him, because that would make you an apologist for a bigot.

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 11:38 am - September 27, 2009

  12. Hey, GayPatriots(s), I’ve been reading a lot of these sites lately and notice you can put the commenter’s nom de guerre first, before the comment. Could you do that, too? It’s annoying to have to scroll down first to find out if the commenter is the deranged Tano or the enough-of-that-crap-now-lets-talk-about-what-I-want-to-talk-about Gillie. Please?

    Comment by DaveK — September 27, 2009 @ 11:38 am - September 27, 2009

  13. “gillie, sorry, none of those things apply to R.S. McCain”

    Dan – I hope that statements comes from lack of research. He has said that its “rational” to be revolted by mix race marriges. Go back and read through that post byLGF.

    Then please explain why you think he is not a racist.

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 11:44 am - September 27, 2009

  14. gillie…

    Little Green Footballs is not a conservative site. The keeper of the site exposed the phony documents CBS used to try to get G. W. Bush from being re-elected. That hardly makes him a conservative. It only makes him a person who didn’t go along with some liberal’s attempts to distort and defame.

    Since that time, which pushed Little Green Football’s fame, it has been a part of Pajamas Media and dropped from Pajamas Media.

    The site has a lounge of dedicated lizards who vote out anyone with whom they do not agree. They have become an inbred crowd of seventh grade boys who all worship their leader.

    Taboo subject #1 is any discussion that implies biological evolution is wrapped up in theory and has little in the way of facts that prove Darwin’s theories. They interpret any questioning as evidence of insane, religious narrow mindedness and an effort to poison the minds of little children.

    Taboo subject #2 is anything positive or thoughtful concerning Glenn Beck.

    There is no open discussion on Little Green Footballs. You either join the crowd and stone the victim or you are banished.

    So, gillie, if you wish to pick points about Stacy McCain which you have gleaned and thoroughly believe because it was on Little Green Footballs, you can not have considered the source. I suspect you would be a very happy member of the gang and would enjoy the frat club chatter which rewards style over intelligence every time. Your style would fit right in with the lizards in the lounge.

    Comment by heliotrope — September 27, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - September 27, 2009

  15. Let me join the chorus of McCain defenders.

    He’s funny, visceral and a daily stop for me. While LGF I last visited about three years ago and apparently I’m not alone in watching their sad decent.

    Here’s a quick recap from McCain himself, if anyone is interested in a primer on how to defend yourself against empty charges of ‘Raaaaacsim.’

    Remember: it has five A’s in it!

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — September 27, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - September 27, 2009

  16. gillie,

    Spoken like a true bed wetting, racist, “Stalin/Mao apologist” leftard.

    Of course, racism, homophobia, misogyny and hatred in general are OK as long as you and your ilk are doing it. So is violence. I am sure you cheer every time an anti-abortion protester has been killed. I am sure you laughed and made jokes when that Tea Party protester got his finger bit off by one of your fellow 0bamaworshipers, too.

    I got a little news flash for you, hun…

    Keep this kind of crap up. The fire you and your ilk are starting will in the end consume you.

    Comment by Nahanni — September 27, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - September 27, 2009

  17. gillie,

    This lesbian sister give McCain a good airing. Check it out.

    http://www.aconservativelesbian.com/2009/09/13/robert-stacy-mccain-is-a-lousy-racist-and-a-terrible-bigot-not/

    Comment by heliotrope — September 27, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - September 27, 2009

  18. To all of you apologists out there.

    He has said that its not rational to be revolted by mixed marriages.

    How could that be anything but racist?

    Open your eyes people!

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - September 27, 2009

  19. I’ve read that he was found naked, with his clothing in the back of a pickup truck found at the site and hanged low enough that his feet could touch the ground. Why is nobody considering the explanation that he might have died during a sexual encounter gone wrong?

    Comment by John — September 27, 2009 @ 12:30 pm - September 27, 2009

  20. More:
    “Robert Stacy McCain writes for VDARE and Takimag, two disgusting, openly racist websites. And he’s a friend of Richard Spencer, a self-avowed white nationalist. McCain is a member of the white supremacist group League of the South, and he’s associated with the deeply racist American Renaissance.”
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34649
    LOS member and Washington Times national reporter Robert Stacy McCain says in an essay posted on the League’s main site, slavery was “generally” characterized by “cordial and affectionate relations” between white and black Southerners.
    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=452
    More confederate/slavery apologistism:
    http://74.125.155.132/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cache:http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/scvspeech.html&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    He is a racist. Yet you folks are defending him because a liberal (me) is criticizing him.
    Your wagon circle is knocking up too much dust.
    Stop circling, let the dust settle and look at the facts around you. When you do, you will certainly agree with me.

    Comment by gillie — September 27, 2009 @ 12:38 pm - September 27, 2009

  21. 1st – Little Green Footballs is NOT a liberal site.

    gillie: We can all see that you are way, way, way, way, WAY behind the times.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - September 27, 2009

  22. gillie:

    He’s never written for VDARE. Please stop with the ransom-note attacks. It’s unseemly.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS’

    Comment by MFS — September 27, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - September 27, 2009

  23. Why don’t they send census workers out in pairs, or even triads? I wouldn’t go in as a government worker alone in one of these areas. I’d also have a GPS tracker and a bluetooth. And a helicopter flying over, if I could get one. What were his supervisors thinking?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — September 27, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - September 27, 2009

  24. gillie,

    Even Wikipedia steps away from calling the League of the South a “white supremacist group.” Because you can find people who insist that honoring the Confederacy is racist does not mean that those who honor the Confederacy are racists. Would you please point out specifically where Stacy McCain longs for slavery to be reinstated or supports white nationalism? Nail him for us, please. We don’t care about what others have called him. Show us the proof. Find his words and hang him with them.

    Comment by heliotrope — September 27, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - September 27, 2009

  25. gillie, you’d call RSM or myself racist anyway because we disageree with you.

    To you, and to tano and indeed most of the rest of the Left, “RAAAACISM!!!!” is the way you attempt to shut down the conversation when it isn’t going your way.

    THis has been true of the Left since the Seventies, and of you personally since you’ve been posting here.

    Therefore, I view your cry of racism as your way of explaining that you have no real arguement, that the person you’re accusing is in fact correct, and that’s all.

    Thanks for your approval and agreement with myself and Mr. McCain, gillie.

    Comment by DaveP. — September 27, 2009 @ 1:56 pm - September 27, 2009

  26. And, for the record…

    LGF is NOT a ‘left-wing site’.

    LGF, these days, is a CRACKPOT site, devoted to religous bigotry and Obama deification (odd how those two go together).

    Comment by DaveP. — September 27, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - September 27, 2009

  27. Remember the sign from the D.C. protest, “It doesn’t matter what I put on this sign, you’ll call it racist anyways”?

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — September 27, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - September 27, 2009

  28. Conservatives….want some more good news…..
    40% of Americans now STRONGLY DISAPPROVE OF Obamateleprompter.
    59% now say Americans are Angrier now than under Bush.
    Republicans jump to a 4 point edge in the generic ballot over the Democrats.
    Opposition to Obamacare hits a new high of 56%.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
    The hydrogen filled Obama zephlin …ooo the horror…
    God Bless America.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 27, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - September 27, 2009

  29. The conservative violence in left-wingers’ heads

    … is the topic. And yet here we are, talking instead about gillie and what he wants to talk about. Imagine that.

    To make little gillie feel better or like he’s getting even more attention, I’m going to give a quick primer here on when something is racist.

    First, people aren’t racist: Ideas and actions are (or may be). Second, what is racism? It is when an idea or action objectively pre-judges individuals by their alleged race. (I say “alleged”, because often the person’s race is only imagined or in the eye of the beholder.)

    Note the adverb, “objectively”. That means the idea or action *really* has to pre-judge individuals by their alleged race. An idea or action isn’t racist, just because Charles Johnson or gillie or me or anybody else claims it is. The action/idea has to really treat individuals differently in some way, or (say) cast aspersions on them, because of their race (real or imagined).

    Also, even if the last idea or action from person X is racist, that doesn’t mean the next one will be. Even if it were proved that R.S. McCain said something racist once, it wouldn’t matter the next time when he said something undeniably true or made an excellent point. In other words, trying to bring up someone’s *past* (and *allegedly*) racist comment is just a cheap and pathetic way to try to change the subject, something that leftists are almost always in need of doing.

    Racist ideas and/or actions should be dealt with as they arise. Just call the specific action, idea or comment racist, as it pops up – and only if you have good reason, of course – and then forget about it. I recently dealt with something like that from a commentor at GayPatriot. The commentor made comments pre-judging individuals on their alleged race. I highlighted and condemned the racism of the underlying ideas, then moved on.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - September 27, 2009

  30. P.S. to my #28: the point being, gillie, that you ought to follow my example. If you feel that *B. Daniel Blatt* has said something racist in his present post on “The conservative violence in left-wingers’ heads”, then kindly identify it for us and move on. Otherwise, stop with the cheap, pathetic subject-changing tactics that we all see through.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - September 27, 2009

  31. No-one knows what went on in this vile affair, but if I had to place a bet, my money is on the drug connection. Naturally given the decayed polits of this era, conspiracies-r-us is working overtime to frame the debate.

    You have to be a World Class Moron to murder someone just because he is a ‘fed’. And that kind of lunacy would probably show up in other areas of said moron’s life . In other words anyone that CRAZY would likely already be in the jail or in the ground.

    Protecting drug operations after an inadvertent call-in from the census on the other hand — you are STILL a moron and an animal, but not in the World Class category. Follow the money as they say.

    Drugs — Money + tinge of insanity.
    Fed Hatred – — Insanity straight out.

    I hope they apprehend the monster(s) who did this. Soon.

    Comment by DougF — September 27, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - September 27, 2009

  32. DougF, that’s exactly where I’d place my money is as well.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 27, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - September 27, 2009

  33. “has not stopped the left-wing internet ghouls from seeking to exploit Sparkman’s death for political purposes,

    The left ALWAYS exploits death for their own gain. Our soldiers, Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, victims of Katrina etc. etc. etc. I find that even MORE reprehensible and disgusting than alleged racism real or imagined.

    He has said that its not rational to be revolted by mixed marriages.

    What’s racist about that? It’s not rational.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - September 27, 2009

  34. Gillie,

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    Holy cow, you’e a bore (and a boor).

    Comment by American Elephant — September 27, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - September 27, 2009

  35. The sad irony is that lefists are the biggest racists in America today – i.e., the individuals who most consistently support racist ideas and actions. Throughout American history, up to and including today, the Democratic Party has been the part of people who think in racial terms and support racial divisions and distinctions.

    Maybe that is why leftists need to cry “Raaaaaysist!” on other people so much. Part projection, part deflection and compensation for their own sins.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - September 27, 2009

  36. The Democrats have been quite right to think in “racial terms.” You cannot bring people over here in chains and exploit them as slaves and then treat them as second-class citizens under Jim Crow, and lynch them at will, unpunished, for any reason, and then expect them to simply stand up and shake it all off. The Democrats recognize that there have been injustices performed and that, unfortunately, even today when an employer is interviewing and black candidate and a white one he will usually veer toward the white candidate. Realizing this and fighting for true equality is hardly racism, even if it does take race into account. But of course, none of you are black and none have experienced what it’s like to actually face on a daily basis the racism that still flourishes in America. That doesn’t give anyone license to cry “Racism!” at every turn, but to deny that race is still a serious issue is an exercise in self-deception. Some liberals do indeed over-play the race card, foolishly. That doesn’t mean racism isn’t a very serious problem. Luckily program like Affirmative Action have worked quite well, helping people like Justice Thomas and countless others rise above their circumstance and prosper. And that is wht America is all about.

    Comment by richard — September 27, 2009 @ 11:40 pm - September 27, 2009

  37. You cannot bring people over here in chains and exploit them as slaves and then treat them as second-class citizens under Jim Crow, and lynch them at will, unpunished, for any reason, and then expect them to simply stand up and shake it all off.

    But they can shake it off and vote for the party who fought to keep it alive? NY can build ships to import the slaves and NYC can build skyscrapers on their graves, but no hard feelings there.

    Luckily program like Affirmative Action have worked quite well, helping people like Justice Thomas and countless others rise above their circumstance and prosper. And that is wht America is all about.

    So America is all about selective racism? America is all about telling blacks that their accomplishments don’t mean dick and they need the benevolence of whitey Uncle Sugar to get anywhere in life?

    That’s not my America.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2009 @ 11:49 pm - September 27, 2009

  38. The Democrats have been quite right to think in “racial terms.”

    Nope. They were and are wrong to.

    Thomas Jefferson, the Democrats’ founder, was a famous racist who could hardly even bring himself to free his own children by Sally Hemings. Throughout the 19th century and until the 1970s, the Democrats were the party, first of slavery, then of Jim Crow. Note: Abraham Lincoln, who wasn’t perfect but who was the Great Emancipator, was a Republican. Instead of giving us the KKK and Jim Crow, Republicans gave us the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the Democrats ‘made the switch’ from racism on behalf of whites, to racism directed in some part against whites – e.g., with racist preferences to be given in hiring, education and criminal justice. And yet Democrats (and liberal Republicans imitators, the “me too” movement) managed to destroy the families of large numbers of blacks (and other poor people) in the process, with the Great Society programs. Funny how that worked out. Both of those things – racist preferences, and destructive programs to keep people dependent on government – the Democrats continue to stand for today.

    The Democrats recognize that there have been injustices

    Or so they claim in their propaganda. Even Hitler had some great-sounding reasons for his nasty programs, remember.

    fighting for true equality is hardly racism

    But “fighting for true equality” is exactly what the Democrats ARE NOT doing. Rather, they are fighting to keep racial distinctions, preferences and divisions alive in the 21st century. That’s not “fighting for true equality” at all. It’s fighting for racism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2009 @ 12:22 am - September 28, 2009

  39. Dr. Martin Luther King:

    I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream… a dream of equality of opportunity… where men will not argue that the color of a man’s skin determines the content of his character.

    Unfortunately, Dr. King was confused on many issues and did not maintain the above consistently – but the above expresses my own stand.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2009 @ 12:27 am - September 28, 2009

  40. The interesting thing about individuals like Richard is how quickly they demonstrate that they merely project their own misbehavior onto others.

    For example:

    The Democrats recognize that there have been injustices performed and that, unfortunately, even today when an employer is interviewing and black candidate and a white one he will usually veer toward the white candidate.

    1) Sexist, since it assumes all employers are male.

    2) Racist, since it assumes all employers are white — unless Richard is trying to argue that black employers also discriminate against black people in favor of white people.

    3) Further racist, since it assumes the black candidate is always more qualified than the white candidate and that the only reason whites are ever chosen is out of racism.

    By that tack, then, my female Asian boss, since she chose white-male me, is a racist and is prejudiced against black people.

    Next up:

    But of course, none of you are black and none have experienced what it’s like to actually face on a daily basis the racism that still flourishes in America.

    In short, your intelligence and opinion are invalid because of your skin color. It doesn’t matter what experiences you’ve had; none of them matter because you are not black.

    Next:

    Luckily program like Affirmative Action have worked quite well, helping people like Justice Thomas and countless others rise above their circumstance and prosper.

    Notice how Richard automatically assumes that black people are inferior and need “affirmative action” because of “their circumstance”.

    Furthermore, given that Richard’s Obama Party insists that Justice Thomas is a race traitor and sex pervert who is incompetent and should be impeached, that would mean that affirmative action results in unqualified individuals being wrongly put in high positions because of their skin color.

    In short, Richard’s diatribe proves ILC’s point quite nicely. It is the Obama Party and its adherents like Richard who are the true racists and who support discrimination on the basis of skin color. They have developed elaborate rationalizations for why, but that hardly negates the fact that they do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 1:26 am - September 28, 2009

  41. You cannot bring people over here in chains and exploit them as slaves and then treat them as second-class citizens under Jim Crow, and lynch them at will, unpunished, for any reason, and then expect them to simply stand up and shake it all off.

    The Chinese railroad workers did.

    Comment by V the K — September 28, 2009 @ 8:31 am - September 28, 2009

  42. Shhh, V the K, you’re bringing facts to an arguement.

    You might have him think about the Irish
    - Or the Jews
    - Or the Vietnamese
    - Or the left-handed…

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2009 @ 9:38 am - September 28, 2009

  43. A quote from none other than the “frenzied left-wing blogger” Joe Scarborough (!), re: Glenn Beck: “When you preach this kind of hatred, and say that an African American president hates all white people — hates all white people, you are playing with fire. And bad things can happen. And if they do happen, not only is Glenn Beck responsible, but conservatives who don’t call him out are responsible.” It might be worth considering.

    Comment by william — September 28, 2009 @ 10:42 am - September 28, 2009

  44. william,

    See Kayne West. That line was crossed a long time ago. I’ve yet to see the howls of condemnation of a man at a fundraiser for victims who made such a statement.

    You also might want to try linking stuff.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2009 @ 11:23 am - September 28, 2009

  45. Bingo, Livewire. It’s interesting how minority members can flat-out call anyone a racist that they like, but when a white person calls out someone who is obviously and openly discriminating on the basis of skin color as a racist, liberals and their sympathizers wet themselves and scream about how “dangerous” that is.

    The Obama Party and the liberal left are upset and terrified because of two things: “racist” is losing its effect as a weapon for shutting down discussion because of overuse, and people are actually figuring out that “racist” is what Obama Party members claim whenever anyone criticizes them, not when someone actually IS racist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 11:49 am - September 28, 2009

  46. The favored “rebuttal” of the defensive right: “But… but they did it, too!!” When faced with a critique of white racism, spit out the response: “But a black person is racist, too!” For a number of reasons, this is fallacious reasoning, but the most important reason, of course, is: so what? Ever heard of a little maxim “2 wrongs don’t make a right”?

    Now, for the Google-challenged among you… here is the link to Joe Scarborough’s comments. It’s an embedded video and it comes from an article in the New York Times, which I know you’ve been told to revile, but the video is the video; you don’t have to read the article. It wasn’t covered by Fox, which is why you might have missed it last week. Note that Scarborough recalls being in Congress in 1995, when we had a right-wing terrorist attack in Oklahoma City that some of you may recall; he explicitly makes the link between the heated rhetoric from the right at that time (remember, it was the Clinton years, so there was lots of apocalyptic conservative hysteria on talk radio then, just as we have now). The quote I referenced before comes around the last minute or so:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/scarborough-on-beck-hate-speech/

    Comment by william — September 28, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - September 28, 2009

  47. william,

    Thank you for showing you can post a link. Good for you!

    My point, which you missed, is that the lack of outrage at Kayne West leaves your accusaions hollow.

    Now as to the President when you:
    - are a member for decades of a church that blames white people for the evils of the world
    - appoint to the Supreme court a justice who would discriminate against a race of people based on the colour of the skin of the people who didn’t make the cut
    - appoints a man who’s ranted about ‘whites’ poinsing ‘minority’ communities.
    - asks us to judge him by the ‘people he surrounds himself with’.

    The conclusions drawn by GB and others do seem to carry weight.

    OTOH, I can point out that President Obama doesn’t hate all white people. After all he palls around with terrorists regardless of the colour of their skin.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - September 28, 2009

  48. The favored “rebuttal” of the defensive right: “But… but they did it, too!!”…. For a number of reasons, this is fallacious reasoning, but the most important reason, of course, is: so what? Ever heard of a little maxim “2 wrongs don’t make a right”?

    Yes; it would be another example of your not practicing what you preach.

    Where were you when the kids sung Bush’s praises over Katrina?

    In short, you’ve made it clear that “someone else did it” is an acceptable and valid argument to the left. You may either admit that you were wrong and that it is never a valid argument, or continue to bluster and make it even more obvious that you are a hypocrite.

    This disconnect is truly the issue that is at the center of the Obama Party’s problems. Having never had to be accountable for their actions or coherent in their logic, they simply don’t realize that most people are not favorable to those who practice themselves what they criticize other people for doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - September 28, 2009

  49. Excellent commentary. I’ve been fighting with my corner of the blogosphere on that. The latest is that it’s irrelevant if the killer was motivated by Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh, since they create an “atmosphere” which encourages violence. Hmmm…

    Comment by Tim — September 28, 2009 @ 2:32 pm - September 28, 2009

  50. OTOH, I can point out that President Obama doesn’t hate all white people. After all he palls around with terrorists regardless of the colour of their skin.

    Actually, the only reason Obama supports Ayers is because Ayer’s group also preaches racism.

    Convinced that all whites were born tainted with the original sin of “skin privilege,” the fighting brigade of the New Left internalized racialist thinking as hatred of their own whiteness. “All white babies are pigs,” declared one Weatherman. On one occasion the feminist poet Robin Morgan was breast-feeding her son at the offices of the radical journal Rat. A Weatherwoman saw this and told her, “You have no right to have that pig male baby.” “How can you say that?” Morgan asked. “What should I do?” “Put it in the garbage,” the Weatherwoman answered.

    Bernadine Dohrn [Ayers' wife], an acid-loving University of Chicago law student turned revolutionary, reflected the widespread New Left fascination with the serial-killing hippie Übermensch Charles Manson. “Dig It! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!” In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a three-fingered “fork” gesture its official salute.

    So it can be safely said that Obama only supports those white people who hate their own whiteness.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - September 28, 2009

  51. Here is another link, to Stanley Crouch in the New York Daily News, that makes a similar point. Note that he draws an instructive parallel to the failure of many in the Black left in the 60’s not to call out violent rhetoric (and lots of other examples of failures of the left) with what’s been happening today on the right. He doesn’t make this comparison to EXCUSE the inaction/cowardice of the right; he makes the comparison to encourage a DIFFERENT course on the right. It’s called trying to learn from history, instead of petulantly repeating it! (see above response by Livewire for what I’m referring to). Here’s the link:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_a_ringmaster_may_have_emerged_to_tame_the_party_loons_.html

    And a quote: “It all comes down to something simple. Once the circus animals take over, look out. The clowns could ignite the tent in order to get into their good graces and receive the toxic tumult heard in their growls and shrieks of support.”

    Comment by william — September 28, 2009 @ 2:36 pm - September 28, 2009

  52. Note that he draws an instructive parallel to the failure of many in the Black left in the 60’s not to call out violent rhetoric (and lots of other examples of failures of the left) with what’s been happening today on the right.

    An “instructive parallel” that is a bunch of hooey, because he and his fellow leftists fully support and endorse the Black Panthers and violence.

    When Crouch and his Obama Party put their money where their mouth is and demand that their fellow black racists be punished, then they can demonstrate that they have anything more than words. But as it stands, both Crouch and Obama are liars.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 2:59 pm - September 28, 2009

  53. And until then, North Dallas, you won’t do anything to even acknowledge the violent rhetoric of the right? You’ll rage about the Weather Underground, but you’ll gloss over Oklahoma City. Never mind the time difference, never mind the body count disparity.

    And actually, re: New Jersey, I know it might be a bit too subtle for you, but my point was not that “someone else did it.” I wasn’t trying to EXCUSE one action on the left by pointing to another on the right. My point was that the outrage about this teacher in New Jersey, coupled with silence in other instances of ideological intrusion, suggests that the Fox-frenzied right has a double standard at the very least. It’s not about IF educators are giving our children political messages; it’s about WHAT KINDS of messages. Indeed, some people wisely link the phony outrage to a much more widespread and pernicious campaign to de-legitimizie the president, at all costs. As Keith Boykin writes (read the whole piece; I think you’ll find this is how more and more Americans are seeing you and your overblown tactics and rhetoric):

    “Let’s be clear. This is not about school kids. This is about the conservative agenda to undermine the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Put this story in the category of the birthers, the deathers, the town brawlers, the tea baggers and the school boycotters who did not want the President of the United States speaking to their children in a classroom assembly.

    If school kids were singing about Ronald Reagan or George Bush, this wouldn’t even be a story. In fact, as a former public school teacher myself, I seem to recall instances when school kids did sing songs about previous presidents, and no one complained about the threat to the republic.

    But for some reason, today’s school children are expected to completely ignore the historic nature of America’s first black president. And the millions of black and Latino and white children who are inspired by President Obama are supposed to shut up.

    No, this is not a “controversy” about education. This is an example of how the right-wing cleverly manipulates the media with their feigned outrage about anything Obama. Even more troubling, this controversy demonstrates how the right is willing to undermine democracy itself to achieve its political aims.”

    http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2009/09/kids-obama-and-politics-002304.php

    So, really, I have to ask: does ANYONE here want to acknowledge that there might be a danger in the heated rhetoric of the right? Does ANYONE want to learn from Oklahoma City? Or are you all just going to keep jabbing fingers back?

    Comment by william — September 28, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - September 28, 2009

  54. So, really, I have to ask: does ANYONE here want to acknowledge that there might be a danger in the heated rhetoric of the right? Does ANYONE want to learn from Oklahoma City? Or are you all just going to keep jabbing fingers back?

    If we thought that you actually cared, we might.

    But what we realize is that you state outright that you “don’t regret setting bombs” and “feel (you) didn’t do enough”.

    In short, you and your Barack Obama Party have no qualms with violence if it gets you your way, as we see rather convincingly from the Black Panther case, and in fact will resort to even more violence if you don’t get what you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - September 28, 2009

  55. First of all, didn’t Joe Scarborough say that Clarence Thomas wasn’t black enough?

    And until then, North Dallas, you won’t do anything to even acknowledge the violent rhetoric of the right?

    WHAT violent rhetoric? Pea-brained liberal douchebags wail and gnash their teeth about “violent rhetoric of the right” without EVER once providing any examples. Just what is it that we’re supposed to acknowledge?

    In fact, as a former public school teacher myself, I seem to recall instances when school kids did sing songs about previous presidents, and no one complained about the threat to the republic.

    As a former public school student from the late 70s-early 90s, I don’t recall of ANY instances where we sang songs about ANY presidents. However, we were forced, every February, to sing We Shall Overcome and another song I think was called Lift Up Your Hearts and Sing. We also had to do book reports on Black History. Friend of mine did a book report on the Klan. I thought he was crazy, but he got an A+.

    But for some reason, today’s school children are expected to completely ignore the historic nature of America’s first black president.

    Why should we teach children to focus on race?

    And the millions of black and Latino and white children who are inspired by President Obama are supposed to shut up.

    Who are they? Can you point out the millions? I’ll bet they don’t give a crap one way or the other and are more concerned with their scores on the Wii.

    So, really, I have to ask: does ANYONE here want to acknowledge that there might be a danger in the heated rhetoric of the right?

    What “heated rhetoric”?

    Does ANYONE want to learn from Oklahoma City?

    We did. We learned that ignorant sonofabitches like yourself will try to blame whomever you want for it. It’s shameful. It’s disgraceful and you should be roundly criticized and ridiculed for it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 28, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - September 28, 2009

  56. If school kids were singing about Ronald Reagan or George Bush, this wouldn’t even be a story. In fact, as a former public school teacher myself, I seem to recall instances when school kids did sing songs about previous presidents, and no one complained about the threat to the republic.

    Are you sure? Why don’t you do a little research. You’d find a Democratically lead Congress held hearings when Bush Sr addressed the children. Get your facts straight.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

    Comment by Tim — September 28, 2009 @ 5:44 pm - September 28, 2009

  57. If school kids were singing about Ronald Reagan or George Bush, this wouldn’t even be a story.

    That comes close to being the single most absurd claim I have ever read on this blog.

    OF COURSE there would be a MASSIVE story and outcry, if schoolchildren were taught to sing songs about Reagan or Bush. Get real!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2009 @ 6:14 pm - September 28, 2009

  58. Today’s example of heated, violent right-wing rhetoric. Kitty Werthmann comparing Obama to Hitler and urging her audience to arm up and buy ammunition at the “How to Take Back America” conference. No, nothing to be alarmed about there. Change the subject, move on.

    Here’s her quote for those of you who might be morally inclined to alarm:

    “If we had our guns, we would have fought a bloody battle. So, keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. [...] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into Socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was National Socialism. [...] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/28/werthmann-nazism-socialism/

    Comment by william — September 28, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - September 28, 2009

  59. Actually, william, you did a fine and fabulous job of showing how liberals like yourself try to manipulate the truth.

    Notice the headline on ThinkProgress:

    Right-Wing Conference Tells Activists To Get Their Guns Ready For ‘Bloody Battle’ With Obama The Nazi

    Notice in your own quote:

    1) The “bloody battle” quote is referring to a previous event in history, not Obama

    2) She says Hitler was a Nazi, not Obama

    3) She never says to get their guns ready; she says to keep their guns, buy more guns, and buy ammunition.

    Meanwhile, william is confronted with direct quotes showing that his Obama Party does not regret setting bombs and killing people, and that they did not do enough violence, and he has nothing to say.

    william and his leftist friends like to talk a lot about suppressing speech. I think it’s pretty obvious that all william is interested in is trying to stop conservatives from speaking with his lies and smears. It demonstrates the intellectual vapidity of the left that their only response to criticism is to ban and try to destroy those who dare disagree with them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - September 28, 2009

  60. I’ll be the first to admit ‘we learned from Oklahoma city’ We learned you don’t hold fund raisers in terrorists’ homes.

    We learned you kill them.

    Now william can’t point to any politician on the right endorsing, condoning or associating with terrorsits. So he has to deflect from the last two democratic presidents who pardon terrorists (Clinton) or work hand in hand with them (Obama).

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 28, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - September 28, 2009

  61. 3) She never says to get their guns ready; she says to keep their guns, buy more guns, and buy ammunition.

    Nor does she say pull the trigger. Nor does she actually pull the trigger. How many different ways can you dream up to not see this as a direct incitement to and on a direct continuum with violence?

    In one short sentence, you’ve made it clear: you are utterly devoid of morality.

    Comment by william — September 28, 2009 @ 11:08 pm - September 28, 2009

  62. Ah yes, william. I knew you had the heart of a true lib in there somewhere. When you lose the argument, attack the person! Good job!

    Comment by Tim — September 29, 2009 @ 12:59 am - September 29, 2009

  63. How many different ways can you dream up to not see this as a direct incitement to and on a direct continuum with violence?

    There really is only one way: reality.

    But given your support and endorsement of people who openly state that they “don’t regret setting bombs” and “feel (you) didn’t do enough” in the process of setting those bombs to kill people, I think we’re all pretty clear on the fact that you’re not at all familiar with that concept.

    That’s what makes your condemnation of the Oklahoma City bombers particularly amusing, william; given your Barack Obama’s endorsement and support of bombing buildings, it should be obvious that the only reason you’re upset is because your fellow wingnuts weren’t supposed to bomb buildings when the Obama Party was in charge.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2009 @ 1:04 am - September 29, 2009

  64. #61: “In one short sentence, you’ve made it clear: you are utterly devoid of morality.”

    It’s always such a treat to be condemned as immoral by a member of a political party that supports partial birth abortion and whose members have spent the day outraged that the L.A. District Attorney’s Office has dared to make efforts to bring a fugitive anal rapist of a 13 year old girl to justice.

    Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2009 @ 2:46 am - September 29, 2009

  65. Come on Sean, Roman Polanski was a visionary! He was 30 years ahead of his time.

    He was arranging for the use and abuse of minors long before ACORN did…

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 29, 2009 @ 7:10 am - September 29, 2009

  66. #65: Now that I’ve read my previous comment again, The Livewire, I’m embarrassed at how prudish and puritanical it sounds. You’re so right. What’s wrong with me? Clearly, Hollywood and the European elite have a far more developed and sophisticated sensibility regarding such matters.

    Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2009 @ 10:25 am - September 29, 2009

  67. Ok, looking up article 4 on wiki (yes I know how unreliable wiki is)
    Quote:

    “Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention… ” [Emphasis in original]

    So even with article IV, AQ members have no protections.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 29, 2009 @ 10:35 am - September 29, 2009

  68. Oh, and i stand corrected, we did ratify aritcle IV with reservations.

    Comment by The_Livewire — September 29, 2009 @ 10:38 am - September 29, 2009

  69. [...] his various comments to my post, The conservative violence in left-wingers’ heads, william (sic) [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Presumption of the Know-it-All LeftDemanding conservatives apologize for rhetoric on the right, they regularly ignore (if not excuse) on the left — September 29, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - September 29, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.285 Powered by Wordpress