Those mean spirited liberals (again)
Apr. 21st, 2005 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThis isn't really about liberals, unless it's the "liberal press."
Ann Coulter. I keep mentioning her when people tell me about how bad, mean and small minded, liberals are. I mention her because she ought to be poor. Why ought she suffer from a lack of money? Because the vitriol she poisons the national debate with is horrid.
I, of course, am mentioning her today because I just found out she was on the cover of Time. Ye gods and little fishes. I've been in the house all week, so it escaped me. What I've been seeing on the Web implies Time has been painting her as amusing, reasoned, in some way worthy of being on the cover of a national magazine, without being called to account for what she has said.
So what has she said?
Liberals ought to be killed.
That if one has to talk with a liberal (instead of just killing them), the best medium of communication is a baseball bat.
Tim McVeigh's real crime was not dropping his truck off at the NY Times building.
Being Liberal is treason.
That she wished the American military was killing reporters, by design.
That women are too stupid to vote.
That the real question about Clinton was, "whether to impeach, or assassinate."
Those who support her (and we now know that support is in the mainstream... not that most of us doubted it) have been on the side of Iraqis, the insurgents who killed an aid worker (if you can stomach it, the conversation here at Freep, is what I'm talking about. A sample.... "My bet, of course, is that she was so concerned about the decrease in US casualties that she misread the insurgents' orders of the day and forgat to avoid a place where she knew a blast would take place."). Great company she keeps.
On the flip side we hear how evil the Dems are. They actually think judges ought to be allowed to judge. The right is calling for them to be killed. Not just the kooks and the Militia types anymore, but the mainstream. At the recent confab they called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" a speaker quoted Stalin (you know, the guy the left is supposed to be guilty of not hating enough) Edwin Vieira, a lawyer and author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, went even further, suggesting during a panel discussion that Joseph Stalin offered the best method for reining in the Supreme Court. "He had a slogan," Vieira said, "and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'"
The complete Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Max Blumenthal in The Nation.
He said it twice. Just in case one has heard his explanation that he wasn't really trying to inspire another domemstic terrorist like Eric Rudolph, another attendee said something more explicit, Before I could introduce myself, he turned to me and another observer with a crooked smile and exclaimed, "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!" This was no inbred twit from the back of beyond, no this was Michael Schwartz the chief of staff for Oklahoma's GOP Senator Tom Coburn, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael Moore, the present bogey-man used to paint the left as mean-spirited pales to insignificance compared to that. He calls Republicans liars and thieves. Tom DeLay calls him a political hack.
But he didn't call for anyone to kill Bush, he asked us to look at the record and turn him out of office.
On the subject of the Supreme Court... he said they made a bad decision, and called on us to turn out Bush, so that when new appointments were made, someone else would be making them.
Yep, when you compare him to Coulter, the Left sure looks mean.
Ann Coulter. I keep mentioning her when people tell me about how bad, mean and small minded, liberals are. I mention her because she ought to be poor. Why ought she suffer from a lack of money? Because the vitriol she poisons the national debate with is horrid.
I, of course, am mentioning her today because I just found out she was on the cover of Time. Ye gods and little fishes. I've been in the house all week, so it escaped me. What I've been seeing on the Web implies Time has been painting her as amusing, reasoned, in some way worthy of being on the cover of a national magazine, without being called to account for what she has said.
So what has she said?
Liberals ought to be killed.
That if one has to talk with a liberal (instead of just killing them), the best medium of communication is a baseball bat.
Tim McVeigh's real crime was not dropping his truck off at the NY Times building.
Being Liberal is treason.
That she wished the American military was killing reporters, by design.
That women are too stupid to vote.
That the real question about Clinton was, "whether to impeach, or assassinate."
Those who support her (and we now know that support is in the mainstream... not that most of us doubted it) have been on the side of Iraqis, the insurgents who killed an aid worker (if you can stomach it, the conversation here at Freep, is what I'm talking about. A sample.... "My bet, of course, is that she was so concerned about the decrease in US casualties that she misread the insurgents' orders of the day and forgat to avoid a place where she knew a blast would take place."). Great company she keeps.
On the flip side we hear how evil the Dems are. They actually think judges ought to be allowed to judge. The right is calling for them to be killed. Not just the kooks and the Militia types anymore, but the mainstream. At the recent confab they called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" a speaker quoted Stalin (you know, the guy the left is supposed to be guilty of not hating enough) Edwin Vieira, a lawyer and author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, went even further, suggesting during a panel discussion that Joseph Stalin offered the best method for reining in the Supreme Court. "He had a slogan," Vieira said, "and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'"
The complete Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Max Blumenthal in The Nation.
He said it twice. Just in case one has heard his explanation that he wasn't really trying to inspire another domemstic terrorist like Eric Rudolph, another attendee said something more explicit, Before I could introduce myself, he turned to me and another observer with a crooked smile and exclaimed, "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!" This was no inbred twit from the back of beyond, no this was Michael Schwartz the chief of staff for Oklahoma's GOP Senator Tom Coburn, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael Moore, the present bogey-man used to paint the left as mean-spirited pales to insignificance compared to that. He calls Republicans liars and thieves. Tom DeLay calls him a political hack.
But he didn't call for anyone to kill Bush, he asked us to look at the record and turn him out of office.
On the subject of the Supreme Court... he said they made a bad decision, and called on us to turn out Bush, so that when new appointments were made, someone else would be making them.
Yep, when you compare him to Coulter, the Left sure looks mean.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-22 09:12 pm (UTC)You are insulted that Terry called you an apologist for Coulter, but you downplayed as a "generalization" Coulter's patently false and inflammatory quote how liberals are evil and think people should be allowed to kill babies during delivery. What am I supposed to think?
"You guys are more articulate, and you have more reliable link, but somehow... that condensation is almost more uncomfortable than the idgits calling me a racist, war mongering bitch who hates women for being... a christian."
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The fact that our documentation is reliable should tell you something.
"You ain't convinced me you don't treat the right with the same distain you find offensive it twigettes like Coulter"
I assume you meant "the left" in that sentence. In any case, that statement is false. For example, Christopher Hitchens, a self-proclaimed leftist, has tried to paint opponents of the British holocaust denier David Irving as being censors:
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/02/07/lipstadt/index1.html
I repudiate Hitchens and will be letting the Atlantic Monthly know that I don't appreciate his being on their masthead. Even so, Hitchens has never called on people to blow up buildings, as Coulter has.
"You object to her gross generalizations, but feel justfied using HER words to make them about the right."
That is another argument from assertion.
You have chosen to make assertions that you are completely unable to back up with facts, and you have gotten defensive and resorted to ad hominem statements when called on it. If you are unable to marshal a convincing argument to support your opinion, has it not occurred to you that your opinion may be incorrect? You have been shown example after example of ways that the far right has committed slander and poisoned public discourse. And I don't tar all conservatives with the same brush as Coulter. Actually, it is a misnomer to call her conservative. She is one of the most prominent examples of the neo-fascism that has taken root in our country in the past 30 years. I suggest you acquaint yourself with David Neiwert's excellent blog:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
If your previous comments in Terry's journal were anything like your statements in this post, then I am not surprised that you received a negative reaction.
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-22 09:44 pm (UTC)No hon - Im not gonna address the rest because it would put me in a foul mood. It's not a matter of can't do it - it's just a matter of inclination today.
I've not got the necessary motivation to go pull them up - even if they are right there in outlook.
Doing so would involve exposing myself to some pretty nasty comments about people who spent their time THIS WEEK finding out if they're a match: My little sister needs a kidney. We found out Tuesday that transplant isn't not a maybe anymore.
Funny thing is, the first people to pspend their lunch getting a lood test were mom's co-worker's at the church. You know, dead serious about giving a kidney to a girl they don't know, who doesn't go to church, and voted for Kerry.
Finding gross generalization about those people would only make me unfairly biased - so this is what the left thinks of the people who are willing to save my baby girls life? Lovely.
Forgive me, but proving what IMHO is an obvious point here is just not worth it. And your response tells me that even if I did? It would mean nothing anyway - if you cannot conceive even the hypothetical as being possible, than any evidence *I* might bring to the table will only be 'taken ot of context' or somehow not on the same level...
I'm afraid that finding them for teek might be worth it, because he's bothered to at least rad me once or twice. Instict tells me I'd only be unintentionally giving you more ammo.
Anyhow, have a nice weekend guys. All y'all. :)
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-22 09:46 pm (UTC)Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-23 01:16 am (UTC)I am truly sorry that your sister needs a kidney and wish her the best. I have no trouble believing that conservative folk would step up to the plate to help out someone they don't even know. I should know: my whole family is conservative.
If you had read my posts more carefully, you would see that I never called conservatives evil. Coulter is not conservative, she is a disguised neo-fascist whose ideas have filtered into the mainstream. I criticize her and the right-wing media that coddle her.
All you have done is put words in my mouth and utterly failed to support your arguments. Apparently you are incapable of recognizing that.
Nymphette is incapable of doing anything
Date: 2005-04-23 01:20 pm (UTC)I mean, who *doesn't* look after their own relatives? "Even the gentiles do as much," said Jesus, when speaking of the need to take care of *strangers* and *enemies* equally. This doesn't make conservatives superhumanly virtuous - ISTR the most important medals are given for going "above and beyond", as opposed to the ones you get for just showing up and not screwing up egregiously.
And whose life *doesn't* suck, in manifold ways, particularly among those of us who are poor? (I myself nearly died year before last from a jaw infection - my life was saved not by my conservative Xtian relatives, who were useless, but by athiest and agnostic friends.) Who doesn't have problems? Sometimes, yes, this is a legitimate excuse for discontinuing an argument. But for it to be consistent policy for nearly a year, that gets a little old. The day I can't go find a link or two, to back up a claim - bury me.
And if someone's going to keep playing this game, my personal opinion is that s/he shouldn't start arguments.
IOW - no, it's not you, ad_kay...
Re: Nymphette is incapable of doing anything
Date: 2005-04-23 02:54 pm (UTC)Gotta love the analysis of strangers though. "Ah, she has no wish to spend a workday & Friday evening searching for the nastiest liberal bigotray online? She has ceased to live!"
I try to forget that kind of thing when I come across it - it has no value but to bring prejudice and bias or worse to those who embrace it. and the way you people have respond certainly does not convince me there would be any value in finding it FOR you.
if I change me mind, I'll bring you some. But in the mean time, it's simply not worth it reading again. If there was any evidence here it might foster greater understanding and comradery between political opponents? Maybe. I see it from teeks, and I might send him some stuff via email. I kinda trust him not to go on the attack.
Ah well, you learn from everything, these sorta things too.
Re: Nymphette is incapable of doing anything
Date: 2005-04-23 02:58 pm (UTC)Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-23 02:45 pm (UTC)I did NOT try to put wors in your mouth - talk about reading posts more carefully. For the love of God, I did not feel like digging thru thirty 30 + op-ed that stereotype the right as ridculously as people like Coulter stereotype those on the left, after a nasty week - just to proove such nastiness even exists. What freaking planet are you on?
If it makes ya feel better to think I'm incapable of it, then by all means, abide by that analysis in the response below - whatever makes you happy dear. I thought you at least deserved a response saying "hey, I think it's pretty damn easy to find, but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I don't care enough about helping you find it to bother exposing myself to it - again - *this* week. Maybe later, if I remeber this conversation long enough to give two shits about it."
Thought the honest explanation would be the best - My bad. You're right. I didn't spend a few hours reading nasty exaggeration for effect to 'support' my 'arguement' with some stranger on line who isn't even particularly nice about things. If you can't believe that it's possible conservative out there read things they find just as insulting and over the top as you find Coulter, well, that's not axactly uncommon on either side, from this perspective. Just a bit more evidence that y'all both are far more alike than either of you will ever admit to being.
Teeks, I'll go back to lurking, thanks. You kids have fun.
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-23 02:55 pm (UTC)You are a troll, and I am done with you.
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-23 03:06 pm (UTC)But I gotta say - in a week where my family has just lost it, and I dont want to read horrible crap that will more than likely leave me intears again? You're the only one claiming it's a shamelss manipulation thing, and insulting me for it.
I was actually TRYING to be honest with you guys. Be a little bit real. You demanded I bring 'proof' of my opinion, and I said, maybe later, and y'all accuse me of being incapable of it or worse.
incoherant posts? Hon, if you have already made up your mind about what I am about, there was never a chance youd understand them anyway.
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-23 08:44 pm (UTC)Oh, for heaven's sake. If you're feeling emotionally fragile because terrible things are happening to your family, don't start fights on other people's journals. If you start a fight and then realize you're too emotionally fragile to finish it, just bow out - don't keep trying to have the last word. Accept that if you're not feeling able to prolong an argument, you're the one who needs to end it.
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-24 02:18 am (UTC)Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-25 03:11 pm (UTC)Surely if it is as easy as you say it is, you have spent more time and effort saying "nuh uh, not gonna" than you would have spent actually doing it in the first place?
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-25 04:19 pm (UTC)Last friday, I was at work. Got the impression TL was painting the right with the same braod strokes Coulter uses to paint the left.
While at work, I didn't feel like reading op eds to find equally henious things said about the right because, well, they're being wonderful to my fam lately. I know that reading that kind of imflammatory stuff would only upset me more. The assumptions made about me didn't exactly endear me to the task of trying to find common ground with folks here. Now I'm an Apologist for 'any abuser'? Please.
Your other reply even say 'If you on the right...' - did you mean me? That's not accurate either, hon.
Anyhow, this discussion has actually shed light on something that's been bugging me the last couple years. That word - incoherants. I've noticed it a couple times - it's used in discussion when someone can't - or won't - understand the perspective of the person they are addressing. It's the all powerful trump card - "I don't have to REALLY respond to you, and the issues you bring up, because your arugument is INCOHERANT."
Before the last election, I was part of a discussion on an extreemly left wing forum. That word kept kept popping up - and until this little exercize, I hadn't noticed what it's really used for:
I see a group of folks here totally unwilling to even hypothetically consider that there are equally outrageous liberal op-ed columnists out there that offend right wingers. Not unless I personally dig thru piles of it and find them *for you*.
Excuse me, I shared my opinion with Teeks - I'm not sure WHAT that means I owe him, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean that I need to get him piles of bigoted left wing 'evidence' within x number of hours.
It kills me, I tried to just be real and honest with you guy... hey, it's been ugly this week, can I take a rain check without 20 emails about my incoherance and incapability to *respond* pop up? Apparently not - honesty is SHAMELESS! Manipulative! Distainful! Even the troll word showed up. I actually chuckled at that - I'm almost afraid to POST in this LJ, because I'm such a softy. I cry at sappy commercials. I HATE the division in this country over politics. It's one reason I try to point out that hey - BOTH sides have reason to be angry at the other, these days. No one has a monopoly on nastiness anymore. : (
Anyhow, I wish it was in me to apologize for having better things to do. I spend my Friday working for the most part - instead of reading the NYT FOR you guys. I spent the weekend celebrating life with my family and friends, instead of appeasing the people in TK's LJ with links to shock-columnists who make a living being bigots.
I simply must get my priorities back in order... ; )
Re: From the middle
Date: 2005-04-26 03:20 am (UTC)I'm willing to admit that there are plenty of people on the left out there who talk terrible bullshit. There are also people who live in holes in the ground.
But I read the NYT, and I ain't seen anyone like Coulter. I've never seen anyone say that Conservatives should be killed, or that Ann Coulter should have been bombed by Tim McVeigh. I've watched Fox opinion slots and been struck dumb by the sheer level of rage, not to mention the distortions of fact and the outright audacious lies. I've listened to Limbaugh and had to turn off because he made me sick.
You don't even have to link to a column. Just give us a name and we'll let google do the rest if it doesn't ring a bell. Name a left-liberal pundit who's said that we should kill conservatives and who gets even half the screen-time Coulter does. Just one. If they're so common, that shouldn't be an arduous task at all, should it?