The Progressive climate of hate, a violent history of the recent past.

[~Rocktar~]

The Progressive climate of hate, a violent history of the recent past.

In the face of the Tuscon tragedy and the rising bile and vitriol from the Left blaming everyone and everything other than the deranged nut-job shooter, seems like a lot of people, especially verbal Liberal/Socialist pundits want to forget their own history of violence and hate. I can remember threads on out very own beloved PC boards here with the typical mish mash of mush headed commenters raving about how horrible Bush is and how he deserves to die and how people wished Cheney would have a heart attack and so on. Now I don't want to take the time to dig through the history of 2-3 years ago to find those threads because I don't live to cyber-stalk people here. We know others do and we know what kind of political leaning they have, so I am just going to move on from that.

On another board, I found this lovely gem and I know you will all love to read through the massive archive of Progressive Liberal/Socialist hate in recent years, documented in pictures, video and articles all across the web. So, here you go, your own bloody and violent RECENT past in regards to politically questionable tactics, speech and flat out incitement to violence. What Palin did was child's play in the political landscape and as I have said elsewhere, Liberal/Socialists are only trying to make some political hay to cover up their dramatically failed policies and sinking political ship. So, in the face of the facts, to all you Liberal/Socialist, dopamine addled, social deviants, do us a favor, shut the fuck up and clean up your own party/followers first. You should be embarrassed to be associated with these pieces of filth just as almost all Conservatives are appalled by the screwballs who thought it OK to shoot doctors and clinics.

Enjoy your irrefutable past in a lovely multimedia blog presentation format:

Progressive Climate of Hate (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/)

[Parkbandit]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1220269&postcount=143

[~Rocktar~]

Cool, passed over that, but still fun to rub their noses in it. After all, you teach young children through repetition.

Kudos to crb for finding it first.

[Cephalopod]

That's a pretty impressive compiliation. I think it's worthy of having it's own thread, if only to show that there truly are zealots and nutjobs on every side of the issues.

By my count, there are ~99 incidents... of those 99, how many are from prominent politicians and/or elected officials, not counting a city councilman here or there? This also begs the question: do you consider Sandra Bernhard and Madonna prominent political figures?

I'll give you the short answer, in case you didn't look at all of her examples. Two people involved in those are prominent politicians and/or elected officials. Obama and Pete Stark. Is Obama targetting anyone specific or doing anything other than using lexical idiom? Yeah, didn't think so.

Know who isn't on there spewing violent rhetoric? MSNBC commentators. CNN commentators. NPR commentators.

Know what else is funny about her list? Many of the people she lists are only 'liberal' and 'anti-war' and 'socialist' by virtue of stretching credible facts. Timothy McVeigh may have called himself an athiest -- does that mean he's a liberal, since many liberals are athiests? Malkin draws the same lines in her reporting.

You can cite nutjobs on both sides of the issues all day long, though.

False equivelance: Michelle Malkin has it.

http://i.imgur.com/8ZHvX.png

[Cephalopod]

Also, I want to reiterate this loudly and clearly:

1) I do not believe Sarah Palin is to blame AT ALL for the shooting.

2) I do believe the rhetoric from high level conservatives in the last years has been over-the-top incendiary and violent. People who should know better.

3) I do believe there are violent people on both the left and right sides.

The issue I think a lot of people have right now is that you have people like Glenn Beck musing -- on the air -- that he'd like to kill Michael Moore. Glenn Beck has a very large audience, and a lot of them are quite impressionable. All it takes is one person who is unhinged to latch onto his words and act on them. Does this mean that person wouldn't have done something equally horrible with Glenn Beck's incitement? Probably not, an unhinged person is still going to be unhinged and likely is going to cause damage in some way.

[Cephalopod]

One more comment...

Penn Jillette had this to say:


"Hyperbole, passion, and metaphor are beautiful parts of rhetoric. [The] Marketplace of ideas can not be toned down for the insane."


I believe this... to an extent. When you have party-backed candidates for national political office suggesting repeatedly that people should find '2nd amendment remedies' if they don't get satisfaction at the polls... you aren't guaranteed to only tip the balance of insane people.

[~Rocktar~]

Compensating much?

[Parkbandit]

Also, I want to reiterate this loudly and clearly:

1) I do not believe Sarah Palin is to blame AT ALL for the shooting.

2) I do believe the rhetoric from high level conservatives in the last years has been over-the-top incendiary and violent. People who should know better.

3) I do believe there are violent people on both the left and right sides.

The issue I think a lot of people have right now is that you have people like Glenn Beck musing -- on the air -- that he'd like to kill Michael Moore. Glenn Beck has a very large audience, and a lot of them are quite impressionable. All it takes is one person who is unhinged to latch onto his words and act on them. Does this mean that person wouldn't have done something equally horrible with Glenn Beck's incitement? Probably not, an unhinged person is still going to be unhinged and likely is going to cause damage in some way.

Your liberal bias is showing again.

If you believe this to be a problem from "high level conservatives", you should also believe this to be a problem from "high level liberals". Hate speech doesn't come from one side of the isle.

Your problem is.. you have no problem with "over the top incendiary" speech from the Rachel Madows, Keith Olbermanns of the world.. because you agree with their viewpoints... and far be it for a liberal to admit to their own issues on this subject.

[Warriorbird]

The Squiggle and FK (and friends) posting history would be an interesting study of a climate of hate.

[Keller]

Your problem is.. you have no problem with "over the top incendiary" speech from the Rachel Madows, Keith Olbermanns of the world..

I notice that you intentionally left out the word "violent."

Curious.

[Keller]

The Squiggle and FK (and friends) posting history would be an interesting study of a climate of hate.

Speaking of violence, what about Squiggles GOR?

[Warriorbird]

Speaking of violence, what about Squiggles GOR?

Gor is love. LOVE!

[Cephalopod]

Your liberal bias is showing again.

If you believe this to be a problem from "high level conservatives", you should also believe this to be a problem from "high level liberals". Hate speech doesn't come from one side of the isle.


Of course my liberal bias is showing, just like your conservative bias. It is a problem for both high level conservatives and high level liberals. (The DLC ad from 2004, for example, was irresponsible and in poor taste, although it clearly shows that liberals will bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight.) The challenge that Malkin's piece presents is that you can't find most high level liberals engaging in violent, over-the-top incendiary speech.



Your problem is.. you have no problem with "over the top incendiary" speech from the Rachel Madows, Keith Olbermanns of the world.. because you agree with their viewpoints... and far be it for a liberal to admit to their own issues on this subject.

Could you give me an example of "over the top incendiary" speech from Rachel Maddow?

[Parkbandit]

Of course my liberal bias is showing, just like your conservative bias. It is a problem for both high level conservatives and high level liberals. (The DLC ad from 2004, for example, was irresponsible and in poor taste, although it clearly shows that liberals will bring a bow and arrow to a gun fight.)

I didn't claim that the high level liberals were the ones responsible for all the over-the-top incendiary and violent rhetoric.


The challenge that Malkin's piece presents is that you can't find most high level liberals engaging in violent, over-the-top incendiary speech.

You mean like this:


“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”


or


"If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election -- then I think it's going to be harder.




Could you give me an example of "over the top incendiary" speech from Rachel Maddow?

Like most of Americans (given the ratings) I don't watch Rachel Maddow... so no. I just used 2 well "known" liberals. I take it you have no problem with the Keith Olbermanns andJaneane Garofalos of the world then?

[Cephalopod]

You mean like this:

Right, Obama and Pete Stark are the [only] two prominent officials included in Malkin's laundry list.

Looking for an honest answer: do you think 'punish our enemies and reward our friends' is an incitement to violence?



Like most of Americans (given the ratings) I don't watch Rachel Maddow... so no. I just used 2 well "known" liberals. I take it you have no problem with the Keith Olbermanns andJaneane Garofalos of the world then?

I think the Janeane Garofalos of the world need to shut up, but I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that she is a prominent left-wing figure on the same level as, say, Rush Limbaugh.

I do take issue with some of Keith's language, although he's not violent... just immature and insulting. (He called Michelle Malkin a big bag of mashed-up jackass, I believe?) There's a pretty big difference between violent language and juvenile insults, between musing about killing someone on the air and calling them a poopy-head.

[Keller]

There's a pretty big difference between violent language and juvenile insults, between musing about killing someone on the air and calling them a poopy-head.

Which is exactly why PB chose to include incendiary and remove violent from your list of adjectives.

[Keller]

Like most of Americans (given the ratings) I don't watch Rachel Maddow... so no. I just used 2 well "known" liberals. I take it you have no problem with the Keith Olbermanns andJaneane Garofalos of the world then?

You spelled, "I was just making shit up again" wrong.

[Cephalopod]

Henry Rollins: Don't Blame Sarah Palin, Just Stop Paying Attention (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/dont-blame-sarah-palin-just-stop-paying-attention.html)

I could be completely wrong here, but I think there is a much harder-core element in American society that doesn’t listen to these pundits, doesn’t care who is president, and has nothing but contempt and hatred for government in general. I don’t believe it mattered to Timothy McVeigh who was president or who his congressional representative was when he blew up the Murrah Building in 1995.

I know that Loughner had a history of extreme dislike for representative Giffords. I just can’t believe he got that from a map drawn up by Sarah Palin or the bug-eyed-baby ravings of Glenn Beck.

One thing I think we can count on is that no conservative radio personality will be toning down their rap at all. They are now almost forced to keep it up, to show that they are in no way a part of this case.

Again, you might not dig this, but I don’t want them to tone it down. I want them to have the same First Amendment rights that I enjoy. What I want is for everyone else to evolve and stop listening. I want for these talkers to have such low ratings due to non-interest that they are dropped from their contracts and fall into immediate and absolute obscurity. That would be the ultimate victory. The right people would win and the right people would lose. For Limbaugh and his ilk, it would be a defeat so totally crushing that they would never recover. Even if they did, no one would notice.

Immediately, what is to be done? Gun control? Too late. You can always get a gun in America. Censorship? Slippery slope. In my opinion, it always comes down to the same thing: education. You pump up the volume on the smart factor in America and this regrettable and tragic era would be in our collective rear-view with all speed.


A slightly different take from from a loud-mouthed liberal.

[Parkbandit]

Right, Obama and Pete Stark are the [only] two prominent officials included in Malkin's laundry list.

Looking for an honest answer: do you think 'punish our enemies and reward our friends' is an incitement to violence?


Not at all.. but I also don't believe that using a target on Palin's campaign material is an incitement to violence either.. yet, there are plenty on your side of the isle that do. And much like you, ignore the liberals who do the same if not worse.



I think the Janeane Garofalos of the world need to shut up, but I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that she is a prominent left-wing figure on the same level as, say, Rush Limbaugh.

There isn't a prominent left-wing figure on the same level as Rush Limbaugh.. so no matter who I suggest, you can play the "she's not prominent enough! Doesn't count!!"



I do take issue with some of Keith's language, although he's not violent... just immature and insulting. (He called Michelle Malkin a big bag of mashed-up jackass, I believe?) There's a pretty big difference between violent language and juvenile insults, between musing about killing someone on the air and calling them a poopy-head.

Who is musing about killing someone? What about hoping someone has a heart attack or "joking" about Cheney's heart health?

[Parkbandit]

You spelled, "I was just making shit up again" wrong.

Someone is crying for attention again...




5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p: 12a:

FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O’Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O’Reilly: Hannity:
335 420 360 536 355 277 276 175

MSNBC Matthews: EdShow: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Lockup: Lockup: Lockup:
113 129 109 207 223 145 231 270

CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: KingUSA: ParkerSpitzer: Cooper: Cooper: ParkerSpitzer: Cooper:
163 172 132 137 107 120 62 49

HLN Showbiz: Prime: Issues: Grace: Behar: Grace: Showbiz: Behar:
80 101 131 194 103 84 93 50

[Warriorbird]

There isn't a prominent left-wing figure on the same level as Rush Limbaugh.. so no matter who I suggest, you can play the "she's not prominent enough! Doesn't count!!"

Jon Stewart comes closest. Does he project violence?

[Parkbandit]

Which is exactly why PB chose to include incendiary and remove violent from your list of adjectives.

Really?


I didn't claim that the high level liberals were the ones responsible for all the over-the-top incendiary and violent rhetoric.



But hey, you got the attention you so desperately needed.

I await your next cry...

[Keller]

Someone is crying for attention again...


You should think of a new deflection for when I call bullshit.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds.

[Parkbandit]

Jon Stewart comes closest. Does he project violence?

Seriously? You think Jon Stewart is a liberal political commentator at the same level as Rush Limbaugh?

You do realize that Jon Stewart is the guy who does the Daily Show, a comedy show?

[Keller]

Really?



But hey, you got the attention you so desperately needed.

I await your next cry...

Weird. My post was at 12:38 and the post you're trying to convince people I responded to was at 12:55.

Are you retarded, or do just think so little of the people you're trying to fleece that you think being intentionally deceiptful will work?

[Warriorbird]

Seriously? You think Jon Stewart is a liberal political commentator at the same level as Rush Limbaugh?

You do realize that Jon Stewart is the guy who does the Daily Show, a comedy show?

If you were to judge real influence I'd suggest that he comes closest. I'd also suggest that a large part of Rush's appeal IS comic talent.

[Parkbandit]

You should think of a new deflection for when I call bullshit.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds.

Awe.. it's cute when you beg... in a creepy sort of way.

Seriously, are you going to actually get involved in the discussion with something intelligent to add.. or is this all you have (as usual)?

If you don't like my "deflection", why not at least try to be a part of the conversation?

[Keller]

Awe.. it's cute when you beg... in a creepy sort of way.

Seriously, are you going to actually get involved in the discussion with something intelligent to add.. or is this all you have (as usual)?

If you don't like my "deflection", why not at least try to be a part of the conversation?

Fair point.

I guess I just don't see much of a conversation.

Partisans bickering about whose side is more has more vitriolic rhetoric is not really a conversation.

Each side could post examples for days, neither side would change their mind, and we'd all be dumber for engaging in the activity.

Plus, who takes a Squiggles thread seriously? He's got fucking squiggles in his name!

[Cephalopod]

Not at all.. but I also don't believe that using a target on Palin's campaign material is an incitement to violence either.. yet, there are plenty on your side of the isle that do. And much like you, ignore the liberals who do the same if not worse.


So, to be clear: you believe saying 'punish your enemies and reward your friends' is equivelant to naming 'targets' and putting them on a map with their districts in target-sights (surveyor symbols!), coupled with a simultaneous tweet "Don't retreat, instead - RELOAD!"?



There isn't a prominent left-wing figure on the same level as Rush Limbaugh.. so no matter who I suggest, you can play the "she's not prominent enough! Doesn't count!!"


For all the statements about the all-encompassing 'liberal media', I'd think you could certainly find someone at the level of Rush Limbaugh. Obviously you can't draw a 1-to-1 comparison, but Janeane Garufulo is such a non-entity I'd think it'd be fairly obvious. How about any prominent left-wing radio host? Probably anyone from NPR would count, right? Glenn Beck says the violent rhetoric isn't coming from the right, it's coming from Frances Fox Piven. I don't even know who that is, but she must be a fount of left-wing rage, right?



Who is musing about killing someone? What about hoping someone has a heart attack or "joking" about Cheney's heart health?

I'm sure I've made jokes about Cheney's heart health before, but I'm not one of the highest-rated talk shows on Fox News. I was referring to Glenn Beck's "joking" on-the-air musing about killing Michael Moore:


Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.


Then there was Glenn Beck putting Charlie Rangel on a list of people "we'd like to beat to death with a shovel". Or when he joked about killing Nancy Pelosi by poisoning her wine.

But that's the same as Keith Olbermann calling Michelle Malkin a mashed-up bag of jackass, right?

[Cephalopod]

Each side could post examples for days, neither side would change their mind, and we'd all be dumber for engaging in the activity.


I know this, but I can't stop. I'm pretty sure it's BECAUSE of the squiggle-thread.

Is there someplace I can seek treatment?

[Parkbandit]

So, to be clear: you believe saying 'punish your enemies and reward your friends' is equivelant to naming 'targets' and putting them on a map with their districts in target-sights (surveyor symbols!), coupled with a simultaneous tweet "Don't retreat, instead - RELOAD!"?

No, I would say the President's vitriol is a bit stronger.. given that he is the President of the United States. I don't think I can remember a time where the President considered a large section of the US population his "enemy". Or that he wants to bring a gun to a knife fight.



For all the statements about the all-encompassing 'liberal media', I'd think you could certainly find someone at the level of Rush Limbaugh. Obviously you can't draw a 1-to-1 comparison, but Janeane Garufulo is such a non-entity I'd think it'd be fairly obvious. How about any prominent left-wing radio host? Probably anyone from NPR would count, right? Glenn Beck says the violent rhetoric isn't coming from the right, it's coming from Frances Fox Piven. I don't even know who that is, but she must be a fount of left-wing rage, right?

Janeane Garufulo has/had a political radio show and is a frequent liberal political pundit. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and is a frequent conservative political pundit.



I'm sure I've made jokes about Cheney's heart health before, but I'm not one of the highest-rated talk shows on Fox News. I was referring to Glenn Beck's "joking" on-the-air musing about killing Michael Moore:

Then there was Glenn Beck putting Charlie Rangel on a list of people "we'd like to beat to death with a shovel". Or when he joked about killing Nancy Pelosi by poisoning her wine.

But that's the same as Keith Olbermann calling Michelle Malkin a mashed-up bag of jackass, right?

What was the context of that quote? I don't listen to Beck very much.. but I'm going to guess it had very little to do with Michael Moore and more to do with making fun of something else happening in the world at the time. Let me guess... mediamatters is your source again?

And isn't it Keith Olbermann who nightly calls someone the "worst person in the world" or something along those lines?

[Cephalopod]

No, I would say the President's vitriol is a bit stronger.. given that he is the President of the United States. I don't think I can remember a time where the President considered a large section of the US population his "enemy". Or that he wants to bring a gun to a knife fight.


Except he was saying what Latino voters should be telling themselves, referring to their enemies; and the gun-to-a-knife-fight comment was an unambiguous reference to his election campaign, unless taken out of the context of his speech at the fundraiser. It was also before he was president, and was promptly seized on by the McCain campaign and the RNC as over-the-top.



Janeane Garufulo has/had a political radio show and is a frequent liberal political pundit. Rush Limbaugh has a radio show and is a frequent conservative political pundit.


Huh, I did not know that part. I just thought she was a comedian. What violent language has she used?



What was the context of that quote? I don't listen to Beck very much.. but I'm going to guess it had very little to do with Michael Moore and more to do with making fun of something else happening in the world at the time. Let me guess... mediamatters is your source again?


You care about context now? You didn't for those Obama quotes.

Context: What would people do for $50 million? (Source was Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck), which does link to MediaMatters, but the video with context is available elsewhere online.)



And isn't it Keith Olbermann who nightly calls someone the "worst person in the world" or something along those lines?

Is that violent?

[~Rocktar~]

. . .
Plus, who takes a Squiggles thread seriously? He's got fucking squiggles in his name!

That is the best you have? You are really slipping.

Someone once said you can measure a man by his enemies. If this is true, I need to go find a better set of enemies, you suck.

Just more of your drive by spewing, lots of posts, no value, stop wasting electrons.

[Warriorbird]

That is the best you have? You are really slipping.

Someone once said you can measure a man by his enemies. If this is true, I need to go find a better set of enemies, you suck.

Just more of your drive by spewing, lots of posts, no value, stop wasting electrons.


Lunn WindRider
Sr. Captain of Tarn Forces, Northern Isles
GWC Instructor/Lead Judge/Mentor


== Within the Great Hall ==

: says to tainted soul - - - - - -:.... ~looking to you and reachign to stroke your cheek~ I have not done well in bringing you into my household so I will correct that. I have slave kennels in the Inn, my lodge on Skjern and in the lodge that Rianna bought for us to live in. I expcet you to sleep in the kennels where I am staying. As will zetta. You can share a kennel or have a seperate one, as there is space to do such.

http://www.chatarea.com/LunnsGoreanScrolls.m4230955

I'm not sure you're even on the same level. The projection is intense though.

[Cephalopod]

This seems appropriate, if only because it makes me smile.



It is of course well known that careless talk costs lives, but the full scale of the problem is not always appreciated. For instance, a human (see Earth) named Arthur Dent who, because of a Vogon Constructor Fleet, was one of the last two humans in the Universe at the time, once said "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle." At the very moment that Arthur said this, a freak wormhole opened up in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried his words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant Galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle.

The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time.

A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'Hurgs, resplendent in his black jewelled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the the G'Gugvuntt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green sweet-smelling steam, and, with a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, challenged the vile creature to take back what it had said about his mother.

The creature stirred in his sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle drifted across the conference table.

Unfortunately, in the Vl'Hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries.

Eventually of course, after their Galaxy had been decimated over a few thousand years, it was realized that the whole thing had been a ghastly mistake, and so the two opposing battle fleets settled their few remaining differences in order to launch a joint attack on our own Galaxy - now positively identified as the source of the offending remark.

For thousands more years the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to the first planet they came across - which happened to be the Earth - where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.

Those who study the complex interplay of cause and effect in the history of the Universe say that this sort of thing is going on all the time, but that we are powerless to prevent it.

"It's just life," they say.

[Keller]

That is the best you have? You are really slipping.

Someone once said you can measure a man by his enemies. If this is true, I need to go find a better set of enemies, you suck.

Just more of your drive by spewing, lots of posts, no value, stop wasting electrons.

I am simultaneously slipping, but also giving you more of the same.

Can you make a single coherant post?

[Cephalopod]

I really want my own kennel.

[Parkbandit]

Except he was saying what Latino voters should be telling themselves, referring to their enemies; and the gun-to-a-knife-fight comment was an unambiguous reference to his election campaign, unless taken out of the context of his speech at the fundraiser. It was also before he was president, and was promptly seized on by the McCain campaign and the RNC as over-the-top.


Again.. you asked for violent rhetoric on a high level DNC member. I gave it to you from the highest member. Remember, it was you who initially claimed it was only on the Conservative side.



Huh, I did not know that part. I just thought she was a comedian. What violent language has she used?

If you really cared to find out, you have the means and the tools to do it. But that's not what you really care about, is it.




You care about context now? You didn't for those Obama quotes.

What are you talking about? Do you even know what taking something out of context means? The quotes of Obama are in full context.. the quote you gave for Beck was completely out of context.



Context: What would people do for $50 million? (Source was Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck), which does link to MediaMatters, but the video with context is available elsewhere online.)


So, when I asked where did you get that out of context quote, I was right when I guessed mediamatters. Shocking.



Is that violent?

No idea. Certainly hyperbolic. Obviously stupid. It would depend on who he's calling and how he's doing it.

[Cephalopod]

Remember, it was you who initially claimed it was only on the Conservative side.


When did I claim that?



If you really cared to find out, you have the means and the tools to do it. But that's not what you really care about, is it.


What do I care about?

Honestly, I spent about 3 minutes googling to see if I could find something she had said that was violent. All I found was stuff about some role she turned down because she thought it was too violent. It's odd, because I remember her being pretty caustic as a comedienne, but from my brief searching she is pretty tame as a pundit.




What are you talking about? Do you even know what taking something out of context means? The quotes of Obama are in full context.. the quote you gave for Beck was completely out of context.


Can you quote for me what Obama said right before “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"? Put the quote into context, as it were.

[Cephalopod]

Compensating much?

Haha, I just saw this. I probably am compensating, since I'm not a hypno-lacto BDSM trainer with top secret clearance.

Did you have any comment on my actual posts, or did you just want to single out Keller for your LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU KEEP BEING LAME response?

[~Rocktar~]

Haha, I just saw this. I probably am compensating, since I'm not a hypno-lacto BDSM trainer with top secret clearance.

Did you have any comment on my actual posts, or did you just want to single out Keller for your LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU KEEP BEING LAME response?

I read your spewings and you are speeding down the track on the fail train at break neck speed as usual. I thought PB was doing just fine pointing out your failings. You might want to slow down though, he might get carpel tunnel at the rate you are going.

[~Rocktar~]

http://www.chatarea.com/LunnsGoreanScrolls.m4230955

I'm not sure you're even on the same level. The projection is intense though.

And yours as well as others continued cyber-stalking reaches new levels of stupid. You clearly can't argue the facts because you are wrong, you can't defend your failed ideology because it is wrong headed and you certainly can't cope with the idea that you can't rule the interwebz with bullshit, so, in the end, you resort to the only tools in your arsenal that might have a chance, cyber-stalking and personal attacks. Good luck with that, the rest of us grew out of the 3rd grade playground mentality a long time ago.

I know it's hard but please try and grow up a little?

[Warriorbird]

And yours as well as others continued cyber-stalking reaches new levels of stupid. You clearly can't argue the facts because you are wrong, you can't defend your failed ideology because it is wrong headed and you certainly can't cope with the idea that you can't rule the interwebz with bullshit, so, in the end, you resort to the only tools in your arsenal that might have a chance, cyber-stalking and personal attacks. Good luck with that, the rest of us grew out of the 3rd grade playground mentality a long time ago.

I know it's hard but please try and grow up a little?

You pay no attention to facts. You started personal attacks the moment you entered. I'm just having fun. If you'd remove your personal attacks I might consider a real debate with you, but until then there is less point in investing in one with you than PB.

You get less credibility in a discussion of violent rhetoric when you're all over the Internet talking about enslaving people and raging out on your theoretical idealogical allies.

For the most part I don't attach emotion to my posts. The last time I was seriously bothered over something here involved somebody being a jerk to DCSL and that was years back. You, on the other hand, are raging 24/7.

[AnticorRifling]

Has dopamine been brought into the conversation yet? I feel that's important to making a point.

[Paradii]

Has dopamine been brought into the conversation yet? I feel that's important to making a point.

Only a raging liberal like you would bring that up. Go cultivate your hemp crop!!!

[Cephalopod]

Has dopamine been brought into the conversation yet? I feel that's important to making a point.

I just shanked an infant on the street to get my fix.

[TheEschaton]

A) I've heard Rush's show more than Garafalo's show, and I'm a diehard liberal. She's on like, XM satellite radio at 4 in the morning or something stupid, and last I knew, she isn't on any more. Calling her the same level as Rush is retarded.

B) Olberman actually stopped doing the Worst Person in the World bit, saying that he considered the feedback that it was too negative, and not adding to anything by calling people names. This was more than 2 months ago, I believe. Even with the segment, you'd be hard pressed to say Keith ever advocates violence. Ever.

C) Rachel Maddow inciting violence is hilarious. Have you ever watched her show? Of course you haven't.

D) Last I heard, ratings = we're telling the truth and/or have the least violent speech. Oh wait, no, that's not right.

E) You have one quote, from Obama, before he was President, at a fundraiser. Good job proving the "progressive climate of hate, a violent history of the recent past."

F) To address the first post in this inane thread, I'd love proof that any mainstream liberal on this board advocated killing George Bush. You can't just make shit up, Rocktard, and then claim that because you're not into "cyber-stalking" (IE, research?) that you can't be bothered to back that up with actual quotes.

[TheEschaton]

And lastly, can we address using Michelle Malkin as a source? The woman is worse than Ann Coulter, and Ann Coulter is psychotic.

[Parkbandit]

When did I claim that?



2) I do believe the rhetoric from high level conservatives in the last years has been over-the-top incendiary and violent. People who should know better.



Notice you singled them out?




What do I care about?

Honestly, I spent about 3 minutes googling to see if I could find something she had said that was violent. All I found was stuff about some role she turned down because she thought it was too violent. It's odd, because I remember her being pretty caustic as a comedienne, but from my brief searching she is pretty tame as a pundit.


Of course. Like all liberals, she never does anything wrong.



Can you quote for me what Obama said right before “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"? Put the quote into context, as it were.

It was a speech he was giving to a fundraiser, describing what they should do to counter Republican attacks. It's not out of context... it's meaning didn't change like your Beck quote did.

Oh, here's another one of Obama. "Get in their face". I included the speech and used a youtube video for fear you may think it's taken out of context again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

[Parkbandit]

Christ.. now Deathravin can use "PLAGERIST!!!!1111on1oneoneonee" when describing Palin now:


Liberals may be making the wild stretch of blaming Sarah Palin for Saturday's shooting of Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but one of the Internet's most popular progressive activist sites targeted Giffords for electoral defeat in 2008 in much the same way as Palin's "cross-hairs" map did in 2010 — with Daily Kos founder and publisher Markos Moulitsas even using the term "bull's-eye."

On the day of the shooting, the Hillbuzz.org website reproduced screen grabs of Moulitsas' posting, noting that "Daily Kos targeted Gabrielle Giffords with a 'bulls eye' back in June of 2008."

Moulitsas was incensed at Giffords and 104 other House Democrats
he accused of having just "sold out the Constitution" by voting for amending and enhancing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The legislative revision retroactively protected telecommunications companies from being sued for facilitating government monitoring of suspected terrorists' phone calls and e-mails.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Daily Kos 'Bull's-Eyed' Giffords for Defeat
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Daily-Kos-Bullseyed-Giffords/2011/01/10/id/382350

[Parkbandit]

And lastly, can we address using Michelle Malkin as a source? The woman is worse than Ann Coulter, and Ann Coulter is psychotic.

That's probably why it included pictures for simpletons like you... unless you somehow believe she photoshopped all of them?

[Back]

You guys all realize this narrative has been rejected by everyone at this point? Give up the ghost.

[Keller]

I know it's hard but please try and grow up a little?

So says Squiggles.

[Parkbandit]

You guys all realize this narrative has been rejected by everyone at this point? Give up the ghost.

Someone translate this for me please?

[Back]

Someone translate this for me please? I don't speak retardese.

You’ll never be accused of being an intellectual for certain.

[Parkbandit]

You’ll never be accused of being an intellectual for certain.

Awe.. I even edited mine out to attempt to be more "nice"...

So really, WTF are you talking about?

[Back]

To be Captain Obvious... that no one thinks the recent massacre is political in any way or that what anyone has said in any forum caused this one way or the other.

The guy was insane and thats it.

[Parkbandit]

To be Captain Obvious... that no one thinks the recent massacre is political in any way or that what anyone has said in any forum caused this one way or the other.

The guy was insane and thats it.

I wish that were true. There is still 32% of this country that are retarded.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html

[Parkbandit]

Oh yea.. remember this from the Late, Late Show?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/kilborn_0.jpg

[Paradii]

Are you suggesting that Craig Kilborn is a valid example of the liberal media supporting violence on political leaders?

[Warriorbird]

Oh yea.. remember this from the Late, Late Show?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/kilborn_0.jpg

Because Craig Kilborn is totally more influential than Jon Stewart and somehow not a comedian at the same time.

[~Rocktar~]

F) To address the first post in this inane thread, I'd love proof that any mainstream liberal on this board advocated killing George Bush. You can't just make shit up, Rocktard, and then claim that because you're not into "cyber-stalking" (IE, research?) that you can't be bothered to back that up with actual quotes.

Really? You make shit up all the fucking time and then immediately when called on it, begin personal attacks. How much feedback do I have between 2 accounts with "Bush needs to die" and so on does it take? Like I said in another thread to you, when you actually perform to the standard you want to hold others too, then I might indulge your idiotic rantings. As it stands, historically, when I have, you discount them out of hand and move to the personal attacks which is the only think you have any skill in.

[~Rocktar~]

You pay no attention to facts. You started personal attacks the moment you entered. I'm just having fun. If you'd remove your personal attacks I might consider a real debate with you, but until then there is less point in investing in one with you than PB.

In other words, you can't refute the historical evidence and your personal attacks have failed to cow the masses so you will now try the "high road". Gotcha.


You get less credibility in a discussion of violent rhetoric when you're all over the Internet talking about enslaving people and raging out on your theoretical idealogical allies.

Now see, I can distinguish the difference between a role playing venue and genre and real life. Apparently, you and others cannot, seek help, they call that delusional. Oh, and when is the last post on that board? Here, let me help you, 6/30/2009 8:26:47 AM, and previous to that one is one labeled 3/22/2009 7:16:07 AM. How many of you play in WoW, other online MMO's involving fantasy/vampires/werewolves/whatever? I bet you are Hentai man yourself, or maybe you are into Bukake? Is Two girls one Cup in your YouTube favorites? Seek help dude, seriously, role play online is one thing, real life is another.


For the most part I don't attach emotion to my posts. The last time I was seriously bothered over something here involved somebody being a jerk to DCSL and that was years back. You, on the other hand, are raging 24/7.

Uh huh. Me thinks you doth protest too much.

[Back]

Really? You make shit up all the fucking time and then immediately when called on it, begin personal attacks. It works for you and I am pretty sure isn't a patented process. Like I said in another thread to you, when you actually perform to the standard you want to hold others too, then I might indulge your idiotic rantings. As it stands, historically, when I have, you discount them out of hand and move to the personal attacks which is the only think you have any skill in.

Can you actually provide a quote from anyone on this board advocating the assassination of GW?

[TheEschaton]

Really? You make shit up all the fucking time and then immediately when called on it, begin personal attacks. How much feedback do I have between 2 accounts with "Bush needs to die" and so on does it take? Like I said in another thread to you, when you actually perform to the standard you want to hold others too, then I might indulge your idiotic rantings. As it stands, historically, when I have, you discount them out of hand and move to the personal attacks which is the only think you have any skill in.

I can think of only one time when I've ever repped you, and it's in your sig. And btw, the liberals posting "Kill Bush" on these boards is a far cry from anonymous rep supposedly saying "Kill Bush" which you can't verify to any credible amount.

Edit: It was in your sig on your old account. I believe it said "you make me want to throw up all over you."

[Warriorbird]

You posted agitprop from a conservative blogger who employs ghostwriters, Squiggle. There's no historical evidence around.

Let's pretend it's historical though. I'll do my best to take this and you seriously for a moment.

WARNING!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Michelle Malkin WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT

(somewhat legitimated points bolded)

1. blog comments have about as much historical value as the PC
2. a discussion of abortion when the only murders in the abortion debate have been performed by right wing wackos
3. a rarely read webcomic
a curiously non existent article
Madonna as a political source
a washed up comedian, aw snap
oh shit blog comments
I'm not sure a milk mustache somehow implies violence
4. she references her own blog and another rightwing blog with no sources
unlinked merchandise, awful convenient
unlinked images from her blog, mmm, wonder what those sources are

FINALLY! An actual piece of acceptable evidence. I thought the movie about the assassination of Bush was pretty sick. It did about as well as conservative comedies and got lambasted from every side of the political spectrum.

5. (Broader category, then I gave up on the numbers)

Republicans put up signs and tents on a guy's lawn without asking. He got pissed. He tore them down. Police were called by both sides.

I'm not sure that a monkey taking a dump on somebody is violent. Olbermann level immature, certainly.

Is saying that somebody is violent violent?

I'm not sure that an arsonist saying "Fuck the Rich" qualifies as a liberal.

...and another two-way civil suit.

ANNND we've got another legitimate example. A minor leftwing broadcaster said something inflammatory and pretty violent about Limbaugh. Only there's no actual proof other than a blog commenter.

IT LOOKS like another. "I hope Glenn Beck kills himself." This from a minor leftwing host who curiously enough got fired from Air America. Damn. Another Malkin ghostwriter fail.

Pete Stark actually is fucking nuts. Finally to three.

Then we get to the "New Black Panther Party." The actual Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam want nothing to do with these guys. The notion that they somehow represent something other than a convenient Fox News talking point is laughable.

And she attempts to compare anarchists to mainstream Democrats.

And people with no actual permitting to protest getting chased out of a community somehow counts as 'scary violent gay people.'

Vandalism apparently is only bad when gay people do it.

Curiously enough, she turns "Conservative Women We Hate to Love." to "Hatefuck." Got some issues there, Bachman ghostwriter?

A bunch of pointless nonsense with an admittedly violent tweet from a liberal reporter...who got fired. Noticing a trend here?

Montel Williams, not really who I'd call a liberal commentator, admittedly goes way over the line towards Michelle Bachman. Legitimate example number 4.

And Malkin again links her own blog with no actual violent references.

Joy Behar advocating violence would be legitimately troubling. Joy Behar suggesting that Bachmann doesn't support children because she doesn't support a children's insurance plan really isn't that extreme.

Laura Bush gets called boring. It's HATE!

...and she links herself again with nothing actually included. Weird. Historical evidence? Uhh.

A group that's been accused of murdering illegals got their speech broken up by college students. Unpleasant? Yes. A shooting? No.

Tom Tancredo gets, uh, "violently" disrupted by a banner. Scary.

A sit in as violent. What would Martin Luther King say?

Letting somebody back into their home is violent hate?

Tacky union jerks bothering a 14 year old. Legitimate example 5.

PETA and Earth First are not the Democratic Party. That'd be like suggesting that the Sovereign Citizens were really part of the Republican Party.

Creepy environmental wackos are not the Democratic Party.

Berkeley students attacking the home of the Berkeley chancellor (who's a big Democrat) really doesn't play to her idea either.

Violent protests by students at liberal institutions don't really work either.

Internal labor movement struggles from 17 years ago don't really apply.

Dude pushing a lady away from him is lucky that all he got was smacked.

And the Republican bumps a biker from behind. Healthy.

Reggaeton singers totally equal the liberal media.

Six. A protest for open borders turned into a small scale riot. Businesses were damaged.

Democrats != anarchists any more than Republicans = white supremacists.

Vandalism is again only apparently bad when Democrats do it.

Man. Blogging against the wars while you're in the reserves is super evil.

...and we end with a bunch of mugshots of people who went to jail. I don't recall the Democratic Party supporting that.

::::::::

There's about a hundred accusations tossed up here (I grouped a bunch of especially uninspired ones.) I'd accept about six as legitimate.

Her favorite historical source? Her own blog. Unimpeachable!

There you go.

[Parkbandit]

Are you suggesting that Craig Kilborn is a valid example of the liberal media supporting violence on political leaders?

No, Mr. Potato Head, I wasn't.

[Cephalopod]

In reading Andrew Brietbart's angry, angsty tweets (http://twitter.com/#!/AndrewBreitbart), I'm starting to wonder if the 'EVERYONE IS BLAMING PALIN' meme was generated by him to get people to support her via this event. I see more people on the right talking about Palin-blame than I see people on the left blaming her. I NOW THINK IT IS A CONSPIRACY AND WISH TO SUBSCRIBE TO HIS NEWSLETTER.

[Parkbandit]

In reading Andrew Brietbart's angry, angsty tweets (http://twitter.com/#!/AndrewBreitbart), I'm starting to wonder if the 'EVERYONE IS BLAMING PALIN' meme was generated by him to get people to support her via this event. I see more people on the right talking about Palin-blame than I see people on the left blaming her. I NOW THINK IT IS A CONSPIRACY AND WISH TO SUBSCRIBE TO HIS NEWSLETTER.

:rofl:

You might need to open your left eye once in a while. I realize that ignorance is bliss, but willful ignorance is retarded.

And Andrew Brietbart is still better than Bernie Sanders...

"Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at www.bernie.org. There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me. Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/Bernie.pdf

[Warriorbird]

And to the gutless GOP establishment who watches in silence the blood libel against @SarahPalinUSA. We will remember. #TeaParty

His own personal 9-11.

[Paradii]

No, Mr. Potato Head, I wasn't.

Then why post it. It only weakens your argument.

[Parkbandit]

Then why post it. It only weakens your argument.

Are you saying that Craig Kilborn is a conservative?

[Cephalopod]

And Andrew Brietbart is still better than Bernie Sanders...


I usually like Bernie (hey, he's a socialist!), but that was pretty tasteless. It's bad for an organization like Tea Party Express (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110110/pl_dailycaller/teapartyexpresssendsoutfundraisingletterinreaction toaftermathofarizonashooting) to fund-raise off of it, but a standing US congressman is a bit disgusting.

[Latrinsorm]

You could say that he's offering a public service, that by giving people a way to respond (however abstract and unrelated) he is helping to assuage their feelings of helpless impotence in the face of insane violence...

...but it would be kind of a stretch.

Incidentally, I was unfamiliar with the new fad phrase "blood libel", perhaps like most people. It turns out the origin of the phrase is from accusations that Jews murdered children to use their blood for religious rituals, so I think we can all agree that it is 100% appropriate for Palin supporters to appropriate it for this context.

[Cephalopod]

What is this, I don't even (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/fearing-tea-party-violence-arizona-republicans-resign/)...

[Paradii]

Are you saying that Craig Kilborn is a conservative?

If I am not mistaken, people were asking you to present information about high* ranking democratic leaders or respected* liberal pundits that were speaking with violent language.

Responding with something Craig Kilborn** did on his show at 1 am in the morning, which was immediately pulled and will never be re-aired, isn't really strengthening your argument.


* Within reason

** The skit was retarded and shouldn't have been aired

[Parkbandit]

If I am not mistaken, people were asking you to present information about high* ranking democratic leaders or respected* liberal pundits that were speaking with violent language.

Responding with something Craig Kilborn** did on his show at 1 am in the morning, which was immediately pulled and will never be re-aired, isn't really strengthening your argument.


* Within reason

** The skit was retarded and shouldn't have been aired

No, I was merely looking up a poll and this image came up and I decided to link it. You might have been able to decipher this by my use of the "oh yea.." start of my post.. or that I didn't quote anyone which means I wasn't responding to anyone's previous question.

Sorry you were so confused... but I am delighted that you actually followed a thread and attempted to post something about it. Sure this one was pretty fail, but do not stop trying!

[Cephalopod]

So, after posting that guy suggesting pot (http://www.frumforum.com/did-pot-trigger-giffords-shooting) as the reason for the shooting, I was looking through his site... he had this to say about Sarah Palin's initial response:



David Frum: What Palin Needed to Say After Giffords’ Shooting (http://www.frumforum.com/what-palin-needed-to-say-after-giffords-shooting)

Then, as Palin came under a barrage of criticism, Palin supporters stepped forward to offer defenses. The gunsights were not really gunsights. The criticism of Palin was unfair, even “obscene.”

And of course, Palin and her supporters had some justice on their side. Obviously, Palin never intended to summon people to harm Representative Giffords. There was no evidence that the shooter was a Palin follower, and in short order it became evident that he was actuated by a serious mental illness. Whatever you think about Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric, it could not be blamed for this crime.

So – argument won? No. Argument lost.

Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”

...

Of course, Palin has yet to give the answer called for by events. Instead, her rapid response operation has focused on pounding home the message that Palin is innocent, that she has been unfairly maligned by hostile critics. Which in this case happened to be a perfectly credible message. And also perfectly inadequate. Palin’s post-shooting message was about Palin, not about Giffords. It was defensive, not inspiring. And it was petty at a moment when Palin had been handed perhaps her last clear chance to show herself presidentially magnanimous.


Frum was apparently a speech-writer for GWB early in his first term. He gives a few bullet points of what Palin's 'better' response could have been.

So... having seen Palin's initial response and her later responses, does she look presidential?

[Warriorbird]

So, after posting that guy suggesting pot (http://www.frumforum.com/did-pot-trigger-giffords-shooting) as the reason for the shooting, I was looking through his site... he had this to say about Sarah Palin's initial response:



Frum was apparently a speech-writer for GWB early in his first term. He gives a few bullet points of what Palin's 'better' response could have been.

So... having seen Palin's initial response and her later responses, does she look presidential?

Leave Palin alone!!!!

Breitbart has a new meme.

Also because...

...Rojo loves her for her struggle (and totally not her large breasts)!

[Parkbandit]

So... having seen Palin's initial response and her later responses, does she look presidential?

What is she President of?

[Paradii]

A better question would have been "Does she appear statesmanlike?",

but no she didn't.

[Cephalopod]

What is she President of?

SarahPAC.