Showing posts with label Right Blogistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right Blogistan. Show all posts

Thursday, July 28, 2011

How Many Responsible Counter-Jihad Bloggers Are Out There, Anyway?

In response to this list*, (the content of which seems pretty intelligent and nuanced to me, for the most part), I offer the following (three, currently, though I'll be glad to add more if anyone can point me to any) blog posts by right wingers that--at least in these posts--seem to have a handle on the difference between being opposed to violent muslim extremism (islamism, islamofacism), and being opposed to muslims and the Muslim faith (islam, itself).

1) A Responsible Anti-Jihadism? - Josh Travino - The New Nixon (From 2009, but prescient)

2) On Islamophobia and Right Wing Extremism - Rusty Shackleford - The Jawa Report (Unfortunately, not all of the writers at The Jawa Report share his thinking'... and if you REALLY want to be depressed about the nature of folks, read the comments of the post, where Rusty is accused of all manner of rightwing / muzzie-lovin' treasons, just for writing the post.)

3) Atlas Shrugs Blogger Pamela Geller an Inspiration for Terrorists - Dean Esmay - Dean's World (This post first appeared in the list cited above. A little rooting and reading on his blog showed that this "progressive" is actually not a progressive at all... Since I included this post here, I did not repeat it below.)

4) ...
(Because I'm really hoping there are more than three, out there...) ((To be fair, I have not done much of a search, as yet... These three kinda fell into my lap, and I was impressed enough to write this post acknowledging them. If/when I have one for #4, this blurb will become #5, and so on, until I find at least as many "responsible anti-jihad bloggers" (to coin borrow a phrase) as I have hateful ones.))
-------------------

*That list, in case you'd rather not:
In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Balloon Juice - “This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

Booman Tribune ~ Pam Geller Compares Herself to John Lennon

Little Green Footballs - NYT: US 'Counter-Jihad' Bloggers Heavily Influenced Oslo Terrorist

Daily Kos: Norway killer found inspiration in American anti-Islamism

Rightbloggers Discover the Real Victims of Norway Mass Murderer Breivik: Themselves - Runnin' Scared

Anders Breivik's Christian Terrorism in Norway: Are Pamela Geller and other anti-Islamist bloggers responsible? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

UPDATE: What I said above about these bloggers saying the right thing "in these posts, at least" was dead on... Josh Trevino, from the #1 link above, was the same asshole who advocated killing everyone--including American citizens, and even including a Jewish holocaust survivor--EVERYONE, who took part in the Gaza aid flotillas, likening them to Nazi sympathizers... Yes, REALLY!: Former Bush Speechwriter: Shooting People On Gaza Flotilla "OK" Because Participants Are Like Nazis. He's still an example of better rightwing thinking on Muslims in the post above, but it only goes to show that even a fucked up broken individual like him can have moments of clarity and a soul worth saving... But what a fucktard... (Just reading that shit he spewed about people who believe Israel has no right to blockade another country, makes me want to shower. Guess all that macho talk makes him feel more like a man... Which, if you've seen him... Well, let's just leave it at that...)

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Sarah Palin Accepts David Letterman's Apology for 'Coarse' Jokes - (Is it finally over?)

Sarah Palin has accepted comedian David Letterman’s apology made during Monday night’s broadcast of “The Late Show” for crude jokes made about her and her teen daughters last week.

Read the rest of the article HERE, and what others are saying about it at Memorandum

I'm as sympathetic as the next guy. The jokes were crude, rude, and unnecessary. But once he said he was sorry... the first time... that should've been the end of it.

No one was, say, tortured. It wasn't like anyone used a picture depicting the imminent death of a whole lot of innocent Americans to deliver a punchline.

Dave (& really, some writer, more'n'likely) was just foolishly insensitive. It happens, especially when someone is trying to be funny. It wasn't done maliciously, with the intent of hurting anyone or achieving some further political or social end. And, contrary to the rightwing spin, there is nothing to suggest that it was intentionally or knowingly aimed at a 14 year old. (Yep... along with telling a bad Joke, Dave got the facts wrong, and thought the person about whom he was telling the joke was of age. Is it better that the joke was aimed at an 18 year old? Well, only if it's worse that the joke aimed it at a 14 year old, I guess... These things swing both ways...)

The fact is, it was just a really bad, really insensitive, rude, crude, vaguely lewd joke. I hope everyone understands where I'm coming from, and that I'm in no way defending the joke, or the people responsible for it being told.

Now...

Is it finally over? Is our long national nightmare, with every reporter & right wing blogger following Sarah & Dave's every bloody word on the subject, finally ended? Is the campaign of intimidation, which caused one company, Embassy Suites, to buckle under and pull advertising from CBS.com--they never were Letterman Show sponsors in the first place, making their quick fall to their knees even stranger--(& I know where I'm never staying, anymore...) going to end--perhaps with Embassy Suites reversing their decision, after realizing how foolish they now look?

Or are we going to keep milking it for all it's worth, trying to squeeze every last drop of publicity for one's own side, and scorn for the other side out of this silly, stupid story? Palin's gonna need a new reason for people to keep talkin' about her, ya'know... Besides, Letterman still hasn't been fired, yet... ...and I bet he has one more big ol' apology in him, if he really strains for it...

Let us pray that if they must prey, they at least find new victims...

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Right wing nut Kathy Shaidle tries to link holocaust museum shooter to left wing

See UPDATE, below

Holocaust Museum shooter von Brunn a 9/11 "truther" who hated "neo-cons", Bush, McCain

Of course, Kathy & those citing her conveniently ignore his "creepy freeper" posts on the conservative site Free Republic, espousing the same "Obama is not a US citizen" birther nonsense as more than a few Republican/conservative loudmouths, talking heads, bloggers, and other assorted nutballs.

Does being a Freeper (or a birther, or a truther, or a hater of Bush, & Obama, & neocons, &/or all folks "not like you") make one a domestic terrorist? of course not. Crazy, perhaps, but not a terrorist. Anyone, right or left, who tries to tell you that a whole political/social/ethnic/religious/??? group is responsible for the actions of one of their nuttiest members is a lying weasel with snake oil to sell. Don't buy into their crap.

Like it or not, James W. von Brunn considered himself a part of the right wing, which is why he posted to Free Republic. From what I can tell, he was far from the typical freeper, but Freeperland is one of the places he supported, whether or not they supported him. (& until I see otherwise, I believe that his fellow freepers did not support anything more than his "birtherisms," & probably knew nothing of the rest...) Kathy Shaidle and those on the far right selling her "von Brunn as left winger nonsense" are just trying to protect themselves from the same guilt by association they so readily offer others. As so often happens with these types, there is nothing behind their baseless accusations, wild speculation, and childish name calling but more of the same empty words...

UPDATE: 6/11/09

So, I was rereading Shaidle's piece just now, and actually followed some of her links.

At one point she says
"As even some "progressives" such as the influential Adbusters magazine publically admit, "neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews"."
My question is WHERE?

Follow the link for yourself, and see if you can quote the line(s) where Adbuster admits that neoconservative" is often used as a derogatory code word for "Jews". Good luck.

Kathy Shaidle. Not just a rightwing nutjob, but a lying rightwing nutjob.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Runnin' Scared: Rightbloggers Angry Iowa is Making Them Get Gay-Married

Roy Edroso @ Runnin' Scared, New York, Daily News, Village Voice provides roundup and commentary of the early reactions from the wingnut blogs to the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. Some of my "favorite bloggers" are included.

The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously said a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. New York and California have not done so much for the cause of marriage equality.

Let's see how rightbloggers are celebrating -- ooh, they're all gathered in a corner, somberly nursing their drinks.

"One might think Iowa's leadership would let voters decide the issue at the polls," sniffs American Power; adds, "Gird your loins, conservatives!" -- whether for battle or because he's afraid they're get erections, we can't say.

---
Robert Stacy McCain grouses about "an elite that is about to impose its will on the reluctant masses... Notice how the rainbow armband accentuates their brown shirts. Splendid!" The reason they're Nazis, says McCain, is that people used to think being gay is sick -- and if Robert Stacy McCain has anything to say about it, they will again! -- and surely Iowa's founding fathers never "intended to make sodomy... a 'right' of a citizen." He's especially mad at libertarians who, for reasons he can't fathom, support gay marriage: "This entire way of thinking is contrary to the Anglo-American tradition that Hayek praised... The captives in the gulag did not spend their time arguing about gay rights, eh?" Finally, having exhausted his intellectual armament, he quotes Revelations and raves about "infamous anti-Christ, whose name is the mystery number '666.'" The man makes a powerful argument -- for involuntary commitment.


read more | digg story

Lots more reaction from memeorandum

Friday, January 16, 2009

Gay Butt-licking titillates Rightwing Blogosphere

TRUTH 101 said...

No offense to the guys I generally side with, but gang, this is hilarious. When will we ever see a University Professor do a post about gang buttlicking in a hotel conference room. And even add pictures. For a long time I thought I would hate it if one of my kids was stuck in a classroom with this stuck up blowhard. (Nothing tawdry meant by the word "blowhard" Don.) But now I see him for the fun loving guy he is. Bottoms up Professor!

January 15, 2009 8:14 PM

Truth ain't just whistlin' Dixie...

All across Right Blogistan, clear-eyed, moral, tradition-loving conservatives are posting photos and descriptions of gay sex acts, after this one single website--Americans for Truth (about homosexuality)--alleged that an organization was promoting a "pig sex" event for homosexual "leather boys," (if you don't know about "pig sex" or "leather boys," you'll have to use the google, or ask one of the Cons listed below.) taking place at a DC hotel the weekend of the inauguration. That's right, there might be gay sex taking place in Washington while Barrack Obama is in the same city!!! As Steve Doocy would say, "this. is. HUGE!!!" at least if one is to go by the reaction of some on the winged-N-nutty side the blogosphere.

Just a smattering of the Cons seemingly gettin' a happy from having an excuse to be licentious, and share it with their closest wingnut friends:

(As I said, all of these blogs take their cues from the same one unsubstantiated story on the same one website, and seem to enjoy the naughtiness of posting the pix & descriptions of this shocking behavior. These people need lives... or perhaps sex partners who ain't named "righty" or "lefty".)

American Power: Gay Activists Plan Obama Inaugural Celebrations

‘Pig sex’ orgy set for inaugural week - Say Anything: Reader Blogs

Inaugural Pig Sex - Giovanni’s World

Facta, Non Verba "Deeds, Not Words" Conservative Blog: Homosexuals Plan "Pig Sex" Orgy for Obama Inauguration to Celebrate the 'Election' of the Most Pro-Gay President Ever

Homosexuals To Celebrate Obama’s Inaguration With Sex Orgy - Aphiemi’s Weblog

And perhaps my favorite (Don't get jealous, Donald):

Big lick news: Sick, Sick, Sick!! Doubetree hotel in Washinton DC is allowing a "Pig party" in thier conference rooms as gay men "cheer" Obama's inauguation

(Great... An outfit called "Big Lick News" is going to explain why rimming is sick... Anyone else find that as funny as I do? And for extra Doocy-HUGE bonus laughs, check out the picture of the guy--perhaps ol' "Big Lick," himself--wearing the "Rimming... It's the shit" tee-shirt. Yikes!)

Thursday, November 13, 2008

"Utopian post-partisan alliegiance to "The One."?"

Is there anyone out there who knows, and can explain, what [this guy at his blog] is talking about?

He says,
"As readers know, many of the Obama cult shock troops are out surfing the web as PC commissars dictating demands of utopian post-partisan alliegiance to "The One."
By "many Obama cult shock troops," the author means me. By "dictating demands," one can only assume he refers to the post below, which discusses a bunch of red state folks & blue state folks who think respect for one another is more productive & generally better for this country than name-calling & silly labels that've ceased to mean anything through misplaced overuse. (See nihilist, socialist, radical, stalinist, nazi, fascist...).

It seems that [that guy] prefers to hate & demean others for not believing as he believes. The idea of Republicans & Democrats being civil to each other is foreign to him so, like a few of the others cited in the post below, he feels he must lash out, pretending to misunderstand, so he can attack those who posted to 52/48 as liberals (& traitors to the Con cause or fakes, one can only assume--Reading his diatribes--or indeed, any of the wingnut diatribes about this site--it's as though the Red voters who posted there don't exist) who want Republicans to roll over & play dead in the face of the Obama/Democratic victory.

The guy isn't stupid. He does understand the point of the site, and he has had folks explain it to him, just in case there was any point when he didn't. So why does he continue to pretend not to understand why it's there, and what all of the folks who've posted to it hope to accomplish? What does he think he'll gain from trashing the idea in several blog posts? What is so threatening to him, that he cannot allow these folks left & right who wish to get together to do so, even if he does not want any part of it?

What is it about some folks on the so-called freedom loving Right, that makes them want to control what you & I do? Why does gay marriage threaten them? Why is the idea of Red voters and Blue voters talking & getting along, rather than yelling labels & insults at each other, so scary that they must attack it?

If you don't want to do the things that others do, don't do them. No one is forcing anyone to go to or be a part of a gay marriage. If you prefer lashing out at others just for having different political views, go ahead & be as much of an ass as you feel you need to be... But if you believe in freedom, there's no reason under the sun to attack folks who are tired of all that lame partisan bullshit, & just want to get along as best we can, & perhaps try to work shit out WITHOUT calling each other names, or resorting to labels & talking points...

Join the rest of America, or stay in your tiny little online enclaves, bitchin' & moanin' about how much everyone who isn't drinkin' your flavor Kool-aid sucks... But if you choose the latter, please shut up about those who think your little bubble of like-minded, eternally angry folks is hurting the country, & wants to try it another way...

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

52/48: It's possible, but it ain't easy...

UPDATE: Here via Professor Douglas' link? Please look up. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------


Senator John McCain:
"I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited."


President Elect Obama:
"Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."


The offer: from52to48withlove :: zefrank.com

The reply, from a few of my wingnut reads: This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here: 48 to 52 (For real joy, read the comments...)

Flopping Aces: From the Desk of a 48er to the 52’s: (Again, comments)


MidnightBlue: 48 to 52 - With All Our Love:
"To every left wing moonbat who visited my blog over the past 4 years to spit your poison and is now demanding we unite behind Obama: Go F*** yourselves.

You taught us a very important lesson over the past eight years and I intend to repay the favor."

Mike's America | Homepage | 11.10.08 - 9:16 pm | #
-----------------------------------------

Wonder if that means we can expect ol' Mikey to come a-callin'? (Naah... That'd mean he'd have to leave the protective bubble of his own echo chamber... The chances of Mike ever leaving his own private America & coming out into the real world are pretty slim...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reply from zefrank:

angry:
"'Go f* yourself, kiss my a*, etc... I will treat you with the same respect that you have shown me'

Understood. This is the cycle that has to be broken."


It can be... We can disagree without being disagreeable about it... But it's going to take time & folks on all sides actively workin' at it.

This is the spirit around which Wingnuts & Moonbats was created. Now, I admit it hasn't always worked out that way, and some of my posts have been less than respectful of the other point of view (including this one, in some ways. I want to be feeling all kumbayah, but I can't say as I do...). But still, I know that it is possible to get along without giving in or giving up...

So, in the spirit... While I did give props to "the mission" asks: Is It possible? post a few days ago, I failed to note two more rightward leaning bloggers who showed real class, post-election.

Wordsmith, over on his blog, Sparks from the Anvil: Is it 2012 yet? :P (& x-posted at Flopping Aces. Yes, the same Flopping Aces as above.) He understood what McCain was saying, (and what zefrank is saying) & took it to heart. Kudos for him.

PatrickM, over at Sane Political Discourse: Aftermath 2008 also heard the call, and gets it. Kudos for him, too...

Neither of these guys are wimpy middle-of-the-roaders. They have ideas & ideals that are firmly on the right, and they do not intend to compromise much... Neither of them is afraid to fight back when hit, either... They can be nasty when the situation calls for it, and sometimes, they are... But they seldom if ever throw the first punch, and they don't make or take it personal, and that makes all the difference...

Maybe they'll dig the 52/48 project, or maybe they'll think it's stupid... But I have a feeling that whatever they think of it, they'll see it in the spirit in which it was offered, and not give in to the vindictiveness of their friends...

Sunday, September 28, 2008

In case Nero deletes it: Democrats destroying the US?

Nero sez:

Reppy: The "one post" then "one response" rule is still in effect. If you can't be concise, let it go. No double posting. Wait 'till I respond.

Now, here's what I said at the post:

"...one of the antiwar left's most common attacks on the Iraq war is the claim that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."

This is true, for example:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wm...0701- pipa01.htm

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/

Thus, it makes no sense for Farley to argue that an absence of terrorist threat explains declining public support. Dan and D don't dispute that. They pick nits by narrowing the case down to "operational." My argument still stands, and Farley's a hack.

The whole "Bush Lied, People Died" is based on the claim of no WMD in Iraq, and no Qaeda ties to Saddam. Just ask the radical Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline/

You're a fraud to deny it.

Other than that, you're dodging the other issues. I'm not changing the subject. I've made my point, and have made a second one: You are psychologically and ideological closed-minded to anything I write.

And you're a hypocrite: "Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..."

You concede these people are Democrats, then you deny that they don't want to destroy the U.S. (which doesn't have to be by force, but by undermining the conservative cultural model of the nation since the founding). As I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.

This debate's done. I'll continue the exchange elsewhere, but I stand by my point: You're a denialist. I mean, what does this even mean:

"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."

My posts are routinely picked up by right-wing activists AND folks in the MSM (especially RCP). The fact that I have so many detractors is evidence to me that I'm hitting close to home, and the American Power fan mail is a nice example of that.

To conclude: The Dems are the party of defeat, as Horowitz lays out. I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.

I'm moving on...
Americaneocon | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 8:47 am | #


-----------
My reply:

In fact, Donnie, nowhere in either link is the argument made by anyone that "...Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda..."

GlobalSecurity.org talks about a poll regarding the beliefs of Americans on the subject of "when the US government presented evidence of links between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda to justify going to war with Iraq," it was either "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" or was "presenting evidence they knew was false" (46% and 10% respectively). Just 39% said they thought the government was "being fully truthful."

Similarly, the Alternet story discusses the words of Bush vs the words of military & foreign policy agencies & think tanks, but never once mentions Saddam Hussain, let alone whether or not he had ties to AQ of any kind.

The ThinkProgress link has one mention, at least:

APRIL 6, 2007: Pentagon report criticizes Feith’s office, finds no Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides “all confirmed” that Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday. [Washington Post, 4/6/07]


Seems like the nihilists in that story are in the Pentagon, though... And again, they are not claiming NO ties whatsoever... Just nothing operational.

As for Farley, I've never even mentioned him...

Count me among those "pickin' the nits" (If by nits, you mean debunking your outlandish claim that many on the left believe Saddam Hussein had absolutely no ties to al Qaeda.) While you may (eventually) find one or two on the left saying that, it clearly isn't the widespread belief you say it is... ...and thus, the fruit of that tree is similarly debunked.

Other than that, you're dodging the other issues.

Speak up... If you specify the issue(s) you believe I'm dodging, in this post, I'll gladly reply... And, I invite you to do the same...

I'm not changing the subject.

Don, when you bring up a different post and the fact that I didn't reply to it--which is what you did--you're changing the subject. But believe as you will...

To be clear: Are you really saying that by opposing McCain Palin, those Democrats (& I assume ALL Democrats) ARE IN FACT trying to destroy America by opposing the cultural conservative model on which you believe this country was founded?
Classic. Absolutely classic.

As I'm not sure whether your declaration about being done & moving on means you will remove this comment, I'll stop here. If you really want to know what I meant about the Mel Morgan thing & your detractors, I'll post the explanation on my blog, so as not to take up any more of your precious space here...

repsac3 | Homepage | 09.28.08 - 10:15 am | #

----------

Now, to continue from where I left off...

First off, can anyone tell me why my saying ""Flippin' the bird at folks with whom I disagree is a bit over the top for my taste..." makes me a hypocrite? Is there a video somewhere of me flipping anyone off, or of defending that gesture when used against those with whom one disagrees, politically? I think not... Just more NeoCon NeroCon bluster, devoid of substance...

I've shown many times, and at the post, the hardline MoveOn, Palin-demonizing contingent IS the base of the Democratic Party. Brownstein says it at the link.


Sadly, no. Here's what Brownstein actually says:

National Journal Magazine - Born Fighting, MoveOn Isn't Letting Up: "The purposes to which MoveOn applies these vast resources are more debatable. The group has become a favored target for Republicans and a source of anxiety for some Democratic centrists, who worry that it points the party too far left. On domestic issues, it fits within the Democratic mainstream. But on national security, it defines the party's left flank."

It looks to me like Brownstein is not saying what Nero claims he is... Why am I not surprised?

I mean, what does this even mean:

"If you believe that having Melanie Morgan (&/or others) agree with you means that you're right, you might wish to consider whether there's any merit to the fact that a growing number of your detractors agree as to where your faults lie..."


It means that you should be intellectually honest. If you believe having others of your ilk agree with you is some kinda proof that you are correct (which is a belief I don't happen to subscribe to, but I can easily find five examples of your suggesting that you're correct, because "X" or "Y" posted the same thing), you ought to also at minimum entertain the possibility that when several of your detractors all say the same things about your style of argumentation, they may also be correct. If numbers don't lie on the right, numbers don't lie on the left.

I'm surprised you didn't understand that, the first time...

I call these folks nihilists; you don't like it, but haven't disproved my case.


You haven't even made your case, Donnie.

Define nihilist.
Show how the definition fits some/any/all Democrats.

When you do that (if ever you do--I've been asking for over a year), we'll talk about your case. Until then, it's just you waving your arms in the air & claiming to be flying...

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

There's a difference between denying a thing...

and asking for proof of its existence.

Nero has repeatedly claimed widespread infiltration of the Democratic party by radicals, Stalinists, antiestablishment types & other nogoodnicks, but is unable to provide much of anything in the way of proof, aside a few individual connections.

What I said before & will repeat again now, (& let's see if our friend Nero will even try to make his case this time, or once again distort what I say, & ignore what he cannot distort), is that there are very few "radicals" or "Stalinists" supporting Obama or the Democratic Party. William Aires-to the extent that he is anywhere near the radical crazy he once was, anyway--is one guy. Tom Hayden--(same caviat)--is one guy. There is no widespread support among radicals for either (any) status quo politician coming out of either status quo party. That's what makes radicals radical. Rather than supporting the status quo, &/or working within the system trying to make the incremental changes they seek, like McCain, Obama, & pretty much every other politician from either major party, they favor immediate & fundamental change, frequently through unorthodox means (violence, mass movements, revolution, ...)

Yes, there have been, are, & will be a few isolated "radicals" who buck that trend & support major party candidates. But they are few & far between, and usually are not (or do not remain) well respected within their "radical" community. One might say these former radicals grew up & out of their youthful ways, much the same way we Americans politely ignore a some elected folk's youthful drug use & whatnot...

The fact is, there are very few if any Communist, Socialist, or Anti-War groups or organizations supporting or promoting Obama for President or the Democratic party. Name your boogieman... UPFJ isn't. World Can't Wait isn't. ANSWER isn't. CodePink isn't. Commies & socialists have their own parties & likely there own candidates, too.

Yes, there are a few individuals who are work for/with one of those organizations who do support Democrats. Yes, there are people (probably alot of people) who attend rallies & marches organized by these groups who also support Democrats. For the most part, those people are Democrats, who also happen to be anti-war, or anti THIS war. Being anti-war or anti THIS war, and attending a rally is support of their beliefs doesn't make them radicals. It makes them good citizens.

AmericanNeoCon is playing on irrational fears.
AmericanNeoCon preaching to his own personal choir.
AmericanNeoCon is wrong.

American Power: The Democrats and the Antiwar Movement

Monday, July 14, 2008

The Politics of Fear




I guess I'm in the minority, Left & Right, because I see that cover as making fun of those folks who insist on stressing Obama's middle name & linking him to terrorists-- You know... Conservatives...

That the left (including Obama's campaign) is whining about this picture--& the right is celebrating it as though there is a shred of truth in it, (and as though the illustrator isn't pretty much calling the folks on the right who engage in these things idiots to their faces)--absolutely mystifies me...

The illustration is called "The Politics of Fear," people... ...& I think it hits the mark quite well. The fact that the very folks it's aimed at are the ones spreading it around most vociferously, is just icing on a very ironic cake.

At least I'm not the only one who sees it that way...

"I think the New Yorker is poking fun at the fantasies of the rabid right…

To be skewered and not even notice it takes a deft blade."


- alphie on July 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM

More here:
TheImproper.com: Barry Blitt Defends New Yorker Cover

TheImproper.com: Obama Camp Bashes 'Tasteless' New Yorker Cover

UPDATE: A blogger at Mother Jones gets to the heart of the problem with this satire not being understood by target & audience alike, and offers a possible solution.

"The current cover doesn't satirize the attacks on the Obamas so much as it merely combines them, and the real target of the supposed satire (Fox News?) is left unspoken. But here's how it could have worked: the exact same drawing, except with John and Cindy McCain in place of the Obamas."

-- The Riff: Holy Fist Bumps: New Yorker Obama Cover Features Turban, Afro, Flag Burning, bin Laden, Complete Lack of Concern for Humanity

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Lieberman Must Go!

Thanks to AmericanNeoCon and various other right wing sites for pointing out what a good Republican Joe Lieberman is. Please let Mr. Lieberman finish the transition and live as the NeoCon he was born to be. Like Zell Miller before him, Joe no longer speaks to or for American Democrats... Let him go.

Joe Lieberman is a war hawk who staunchly supports Bush and McCain's War in Iraq. He wants to star in the RNC, yet he still holds a top rank within the Democratic Caucus. The Senate Democratic Steering Committee needs to know just how much of a conflict of interest this is.

read more | digg story

Monday, May 26, 2008

D’oh Nuts

See UPDATES below.


Wingnuts: Saving the world from fried batter, one paisley scarf at a time....

Knuckleheads on the right boycott Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear. They don't run on intelligence, obviously...

read more | digg story

See more: Crooks and Liars Oh Noes! Is Meghan McCain A Terrorist Sympathiser Too?

UPDATE: A far better post on the subject than mine (warning: If you value your monitor, no drinking anything--especially coffee, I guess--whilst reading): Daily Kos: Indiana Malkin and the Slightly Scary Neckware of Doom

UPDATE: Photo montage, with a hat tip to James Poniewozik's "Tuned In" Blog at TIME

Friday, May 23, 2008

Disagree with a 'mercanNeoCon, support terrorism

American Power: Muslim Radicalism at UC Irvine: "You endorse this stuff ["this stuff" being Muslim Jihadis], you know, with all of your endless, unhinged opposition to my posts?"

Isn't that precious?

The Bush team must be exceedingly proud of their little brainwashed NeoCon soldier...

Friday, March 28, 2008

Replies to American Power blog (AmericanNeoCon)

American Power

Since Nero's limiting me to one reply/his post on his blog, I'm setting up this topic in an effort to keep the dialog flowing... He's welcome to post here, or I'll drop reply links over there... I don't take well to those who edit my posts for content, but I confess to enjoying the twisted NeoCon bullshit that comes out of his mind, sometimes...

Either this'll work, or it won't... But I figured I'd give it a try...

Thursday, March 27, 2008

AmericanNeoCon edits me out.

The post: American Power: Ecoterrorism and the Democrats: More on the Radical Left

My first reply, as originally posted:

I'm examing the nature of today's far left-wing movement in campaign '08, particularly the degree to which contemporary radicals are rallying to the Obama banner. So far, there some's evidence for this in Tom Hayden's call earlier this week for the left to unite behind the Illinois Senator, " Progressives for Obama."

There is?

Which radical(s) have rallied to the Obama banner?

Tom Hayden? (& the other authors of that piece, Bill Fletcher Jr, Danny Glover, & Barbara Ehrenreich)?

How can you claim there has been some evidence that contemporary radicals are rallying to the Obama banner, yet and not name any contemporary radicals who actually have rallied to the Obama banner?

Captain Ed's got an interesting post

I think that’s Malkin’s Hot Air.

Minor pick from the “Captain’s” post: Apparently, the sobriquet only applies if one actually kills people, at least in Salon’s eyes.

Actually, that was the law, up until recently… Is Briana Waters a terrorist? | Salon News: "Historically, the crime of terrorism has required civilian deaths. In fact, the State Department defined terrorism as 'premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants.' But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense 'calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government' or 'to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.' Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action."

At first glance, I hesitatingly support the change, as long as the courts apply the new laws fairly… Should wackos on the right start murdering “abortionists,” again, I want the same laws to apply… And I’ll be interested to see how broadly it’s applied to various interest groups.

Now, to be clear: There's no mention of partisan political ties between the ECL terrorists and the Barack Obama campaign.

So what you’re saying is, these radicals (& I agree that these are radicals) are not rallying to the Obama campaign.


Still, a quick link to the Earth Liberation Front homepage indicates (as of March 27, 20008) that some activists in the eco-liberation movement advocate closer ties to the Democratic Party, specifically the Al Gore global-warming ayatollah wing.

Please go back ASAP & explain that… Because from what I see,

Mentions of the word “democrat” on the homepage – 1 – from a 2006 Washington Post article:
“FBI Arrests 3 Suspected ELF Members In Placer Co.In Fire's Wake, Logging Study Inflames Debate University Study Challenges Cutting Of Burnt Timber
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post
February 27, 2006”

reprinted on the ELF home page.

Let’s try the word “Gore.” – 5 matches:

1) From what appears to be another reprinted news story, but has no byline: They say the environmental movement remains strong - building on the work of grass roots activists, or supporting mainstream advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore, or going deeper underground to avoid the fate of the 10 activists brought to justice in Eugene.
2) A banner link on the left side of the page: Did you Know that Al Gore Invented the Internet ? Find out the Truth about Al Gore Invented The Internet - we have Al to thank for the World Wide Web
3) Same ad as #2
4) Banner ad just below the previous one: It's time we make the Corporations pay for the damages caused by global warming. Read about the Global Warming Lawsuit- you might be eligible for a settlement check! President Al Gore has pledged to help clean up the environment and reverse the effects of Global Warming.
5) A letter written to the webmaster by a right winger: Recent Letter To Webmaster:
As a Marine, I find the worst form of coward to be one that does what you asses do on a regular basis. When you blow up a lot full of SUV’S how much damage are YOU doing to the environment? Talk about carbon! But I know “ don’t judge by our results , judge on our intent” What a bunch of left wing pussies. Well here is an open invitation to come get my SUV, but remember some of us are still armed , and well trained. Get a life. Your professors were wrong, ALGORE is not God , the earth doesn’t love you, God gave us the earth to use AND take care of . OH one more thing trees grow back, in case you missed that in school. Really the only way that you can not impact the earth , is to not exist! So do me and the rest of humanity , and mother earth, a favor and remove your unbathed hippy ass out of the equation! That ‘d be a true testament to Mother Earth. Ahhh I can feel the love now!!!!
Jim H.


So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”? Did I use the wrong words?
--------------------

But it seems that NeroCon had other plans: Here's what's there now, thanks to Nero's edit:

American Power - Comments: "So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”? Did I use the wrong words?
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 6:41 pm | #"

Cowardly, or what?

I'll update, as the debate continues.
------------------

While I was being edited, I was replying to Nero's comment, which said:

I linked to ECL, Repsac.

I was there, obviously... I brought back anything linked to Dems or to Gore. There was no there, there.

I'm asking you to be specific, not just claim there were unnamed folks advocating unnamed ties.
-------------

But while I was doing that, Nero was changing his reply, to read:

Me: "So where are these “activists in the eco-liberation movement advocating closer ties to the Democratic Party”?

I linked to ECL, Repsac, and added the quote. The site provides no link to the source:

"They say the environmental movement remains strong - building on the work of grass roots activists, or supporting mainstream advocates such as former Vice President Al Gore, or going deeper underground to avoid the fate of the 10 activists brought to justice in Eugene. “The environmental problems on the planet aren't getting any better, they're getting worse,” said Jim Flynn, former editor of the Earth First! Journal and a veteran of protests in Eugene. 'People will do what it takes to either try and stop environmental degradation, or draw attention to it.'"

---------

That quote is from a 2006 Washington Post article:
“FBI Arrests 3 Suspected ELF Members In Placer Co. In Fire's Wake, Logging Study Inflames Debate University Study Challenges Cutting Of Burnt Timber
By Blaine Harden
 - Washington Post - 
February 27, 2006”

I had already posted that info, before the edit. That's the only time the word "Democrat" appears on the ELF page.
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 9:10 pm | #
-----------

Obama doesn't need to endorse them, but the fact is that they prefer him.
Shoprat | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 7:45 pm | #
------------

Whether or not they prefer him (& perhaps, to who?) is what the professor is aiming to show... with examples eventually, I hope.

I see he's convinced one person, already... I hope you don't mind if I wait until he's actually linked a few radicals to the Obama campaign, before agreeing with you.

(If I'm feeling really charitable, I might give him Hayden, even though the guy hasn't actually done anything politically radical in a very long time... There was a time when his ideas were radical, but both the times, and he, have changed.)
repsac3 | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 8:44 pm | #
------------

Repsac3: My blog, my rules.

You're generating complaints and you're bothering me. I'll debate, but I won't be harranged. If you've got a lot to say, write it on your blog, and drop the link here, within my blog rules. Look how I've debated at Biobrain's, post and response, not obssess and obssess, like you're doing here.

Also, I carefully avoid sweeping generalizations at the ECL post, so you're critizing me for something I haven't done. ECL works through some mainstreams groups. I claim nothing more.
Americaneocon | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 9:35 pm | #
------

I thought I was doing pretty well, aside the html accident...

But as with everything else, I cannot force you to use a level playing field...

We'll give it a shot, but I think I'm going to post to my blog, with a link to yours, so that I know you cannot again edit my words after I've posted them. I find that most distasteful...

You're welcome to post at W&M, as long as you don't just drop your comments anywhere, as you did last week... Please stay on topic for the post... I intend to keep an open thread, just for you.

I never used the words "sweeping generalization" to describe your ELF post, did I? Where is the criticism?

And where are the mainstream groups through which ELF works? I didn't notice any listed...

Tactics of the right-wing noise machine - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Tactics of the right-wing noise machine - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Choice quote:

While Democrats are constantly forced by manufactured controversies generated by the right-wing noise machine and their media allies to "repudiate" and "renounce" a never ending carousel of "extremists" ranging from the moderate to the irrelevant (Michael Moore, MoveOn, Louis Farrakhan, Ward Churchill, etc. etc.), the GOP establishment for years has tied itself at the hip to hate-mongering extremists along the lines of John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Roberston, Ann Coulter, and all sorts of various Instapunks, with no repercussions or accountability whatsoever.

Friday, March 21, 2008

John Cole learns from his mistakes.

Balloon Juice:
My Iraq War Retrospective, by John Cole
:

I see that Andrew Sullivan was asked to list what he got wrong about Iraq for the five year anniversary of the invasion, and since I was as big a war booster as anyone, I thought I would list what I got wrong:

Everything.


(Follow the link for the rest of his post.)

It takes guts to admit to being wrong, and John has earned my respect for doing so... Far too many partisans of all stripes are never, never, EVER wrong about anything they utter...

Monday, September 10, 2007

Burkean Truth

It all started with the post: Burkean Reflections: Antiwar Forces Paint Petraeus as Lying Traitor

As I've noted many times on this page, the hard left has become desperate in its attempts to discredit the administration, the military, and any other pro-victory contingents in American politics determined to see our efforts through. Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos has even put up a post telling Petraeus to f--- off.

Isn't that great? Leading antiwar forces have nothing remotely substantive to add to this debate, so they resort to name-calling, allegations of treason, and vulgar profanity. Remember though, we're not talking about fringe groups. Moulitsas himself has proclaimed many times that his movement is the future of the Democratic Party, and Move0n.org has become one of the party's biggest sources of unofficial "issue advertising" attacks


So, I followed the Kos link, really expecting to find Markos telling Petraeus to fuck off, like Donald said. (I didn't doubt it might be true... From what little I know of Markos, he does occasionally tell folks off in no uncertain terms.) Here's what I found:

F.U.
by kos

Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:43:30 PM PDT

Six months. It's always six months.

(from NYT): The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.


And check out this graph. How many bets that Petraeus will show that one in his upcoming congressional testimony?

Update: After his congressional testimony, where will Petraeus go? Straight to Fox News for an "exclusive" one-hour interview, apparently to shore up the support of the dead-enders.

If he wanted to build credibility as a "serious" and "non-partisan" military leader, he'd have chosen legitimately non-partisan news outlets. But that's not what he is.


Nary a fuck anywhere in the post. Two references to six months, though... (Three, if you count the NYT quote.) ((& I suspect that Markos might've been trying to reference the line from Raiders of the Lost Ark : "Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?"))

So, I posted the following at Burkean:

Just a quick correction... The F.U. in Kos's post stands for Friedman Unit, that ubiquitous six month timeframe until "we find out...whether a decent outcome is possible" in the Iraq War. Thomas Friedman has been making these "six months more" predictions since 2003, and many others, particularly among those who support the occupation, have joined him in kicking the can just another six months (give or take) further down the road.
repsac3 | 09.10.07 - 12:09 pm | #


And Donald's reply:

Repsac3: No offense, but are you daft? FU stands for one thing for the majority of Americans who would see a post title like that. Of course it's a take on Friedman, but there's no doubt in my mind where Moulitisas would like Petraeus to stick his report.

These guys are the worst, and here you go defending this bull! I've said this many times in my exchanges with lefties, but this time takes the cake. Is there no low to which you'll stoop in defending the most vile activities and statments of the hard-left?
Donald Douglas | 09.10.07 - 1:59 pm | #


So then I says:

Of course it's a take on Friedman, but there's no doubt in my mind where Moulitisas would like Petraeus to stick his report.

In other words, you knew what he actually meant, but decided that he really would like to say FU (in the more offensive meaning) to Petraeus, so even though you knew his post refered to those Friedman Units, you made it seem otherwise in your post here...

That seems dishonest to me, Donald... You did nothing to correct the incorrect assumption of all those poor Americans who read Kos, but don't already know about FUs (I kinda doubt there are many. Those that read Kos've probably heard of FUs, and those that haven't heard of 'em probably don't read much Kos); in fact, you helped reenforce that misunderstanding... So much for truth...

Since when is clarifying the facts defending anyone? Both of us know that F.U. meant Friedman Unit. Seeing as how you knew what I said was true before you made the post, how is it "defending Kos" for me to say so? And why isn't it propaganda for you not to've said so in the original post?

(For the record, I actually thought you were making an honest error yourself, and would welcome the clarification, as you did when Tuggle corrected your Lincoln quote. I'm more disapponted to know you intentionally misunderstood, just to make your point.)

If telling the truth about what the guy actually wrote is stooping to any kinda low, you might want to rethink your relationship with the truth. No offense.
repsac3 | 09.10.07 - 2:31 pm | #


And Donald's rejoinder:

Repsac3: It doesn't matter what I knew. FU is FU, and you won't denounce it.

And you argue with me about truth? If Kos wanted to write a post about the "Friedman Unit" he should have. He's disgusting, and frankly, you're on the wrong side on this one.

Sheesh!
Donald Douglas | 09.10.07 - 2:39 pm | #


I tried to reply at Burkean several times, but could not wrap my head around the fact that Donald knows he intentionally left the actual meaning of F.U. out of his post, and instead wrote about that which he read from the mind of Markos.

(Donald seems big on reading into "the intent of the poster (or author)," particularly when criticizing those with whom he disagrees. It isn't always what you actually write, but what Donald believes was in your head when you did so that counts.)

Donald admits he knew what Markos meant by titling his post F.U.. If there was any doubt, those three references to six months in the Kos post are a big clue. Donald just doesn't care, and doesn't think anyone else should, either. Like he says, "FU is FU," so even though he was able to understand it for what it actually meant--puting the lie to that "If he meant Friedman Unit, he should've said Friedman Unit" spin. Donald read & understood it, perfectly--it was his duty to pretend otherwise, and denounce Markos for something he didn't say.

I'm gobsmacked, because I really thought Donald was an honest broker for his position, and have said so to other lefties. (Hell, I've been linking to him on my blogroll, claiming he is a part of "the rational right.") While he generally is more polite than many of the other right wing bloggers I've spent time reading, some of his recent posts have called other aspects of his character into question.

----------------------------------------

UPDATE: As is my habit--I prefer not to talk about others behind their back, I let Donald know I posted this:

I don't suppose this'll go over well, but I'm stumped as to how to get through that kinda "FU is FU (no matter what I know)" logic...

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Burkean Truth

I look forward to your reply.


I hope he doesn't ban me, but I can't say as I'm sure he won't. I'm finding him unpredictable, of late...