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: 2005-04-25 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?