Who wants debate? Who wants silence?

[AztecWilliam]

The real significance of Journolist.

www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0726ak.html

AzWm

[aztecwin]

This quote says a lot!

"Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more."

Now, ask yourself why that would be? Could it be that the side that is not afraid to have all views voiced is right such a big majority of the time that the other side would rather have issues cloaked in darkness?

I hope every one will read that entire link.

[Yoda]

Jul 27, 2010 15:40:39 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

This quote says a lot!

"Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more."

Now, ask yourself why that would be? Could it be that the side that is not afraid to have all views voiced is right such a big majority of the time that the other side would rather have issues cloaked in darkness?

I hope every one will read that entire link.

Okay. I read it. And I'm dumber for it.

It is so full of assumptions, generalizations, flawed analysis and unsupported conclusions that anyone who reads critically is entirely confused; he or she doesn't know where to begin.

People actually believe that crap. Amazing. F*ing amazing.

You say, "Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more." Really? Seriously? All those tea party'ers who shouted down congressmen and anyone who didn't agree with them in town hall meetings are in favor of more voices and more information? It looked to me like it was a deliberate attempt to exert the very intimidation that your blogger says the right doesn't use but the left wing does.

And the right wants debate? OMG, the right won't stand for debate. Debate on Faux News consists of screaming the mantra louder and louder until your "opponent" gives up trying to even get a word in edgewise -- a discussion of ideas is entirely impossible at 110 decibels. But of course they don't want a reasoned discussion; they can't handle give and take. They are incapable of debate because they never listen -- they only speak.

Death to Limbaugh? Some idiot calls for that and the entire "left, centrist and not far enough right of center" is somehow to blame? When is the last time a left winger executed an abortion opponent for political reasons?

Your blogger speaks of a reporter who "wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor". But I would point out the frigging obvious:

1. the writer's accusation -- in the blog at least -- is entirely unsupported by even a hint of a fact. It is just an out-of-thin-air accusation. The reporter is unnamed. The other right wing commentators are not named. The blogger's accusation stands alone; there's not even a description of what the reporter supposedly said -- so we have no way of judging whether the unnamed reporter was being fair or was just out to smear Barnes, as your blogger claims. I guess they can't accuse your blogger of taking the reporter's words out of context if he doesn't give us his words and if he doesn't give us any context at all. But it must have been a doozy of an accusation because he got Barnes "and other right-wing commentators" all at once.

2. the writer obviously has no clue what motivated this unnamed reporter -- so he has absolutely no basis for attributing the motivation to wanting to distract the public from Jeremiah Wright. Well he has one motivation -- wanting to distract the public (and incite the right) by again using Jeremiah Wright. Again. As if Wright hasn't been discredited enough.

In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived.

I remember once attending a peace march in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. Most of the people there were not hard core. They just wanted to show their opposition to the war -- to chant "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war."

But there was another, much smaller group there. And you could tell that they had another purpose; I suppose at the time they were called outside agitators because that's what they did -- agitate. They had a scary level of anger and they tried to incite people to civil disobedience. To violence even. To me in my innocence, it was truly frightening. They only people shouting out the second line to that chant, "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state."

It was scary enough that I never went to another peace march. And I've got to tell you, the current right wingers remind me of those folks. Their rhetoric is just as hate filled. Their intolerance of dissenting opinion is every bit as strong. Their absolutism and unwillingness to compromise is virtually identical. And their goal -- to to smash the state under the patriotic guise of making it better -- is a dead on knock off what those extremists wanted to accomplish as well.

And they are every bit as scary for the same reasons.

Yoda out...

[aztec70]

Well said, Yoda.

[ptsdthor]

Jul 27, 2010 17:14:56 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Jul 27, 2010 15:40:39 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

This quote says a lot!

"Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more."

Now, ask yourself why that would be? Could it be that the side that is not afraid to have all views voiced is right such a big majority of the time that the other side would rather have issues cloaked in darkness?

I hope every one will read that entire link.

Okay. I read it. And I'm dumber for it.

It is so full of assumptions, generalizations, flawed analysis and unsupported conclusions that anyone who reads critically is entirely confused; he or she doesn't know where to begin.

People actually believe that crap. Amazing. F*ing amazing.

You say, "Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more." Really? Seriously? All those tea party'ers who shouted down congressmen and anyone who didn't agree with them in town hall meetings are in favor of more voices and more information? It looked to me like it was a deliberate attempt to exert the very intimidation that your blogger says the right doesn't use but the left wing does.

And the right wants debate? OMG, the right won't stand for debate. Debate on Faux News consists of screaming the mantra louder and louder until your "opponent" gives up trying to even get a word in edgewise -- a discussion of ideas is entirely impossible at 110 decibels. But of course they don't want a reasoned discussion; they can't handle give and take. They are incapable of debate because they never listen -- they only speak.

Death to Limbaugh? Some idiot calls for that and the entire "left, centrist and not far enough right of center" is somehow to blame? When is the last time a left winger executed an abortion opponent for political reasons?

Your blogger speaks of a reporter who "wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor". But I would point out the frigging obvious:

1. the writer's accusation -- in the blog at least -- is entirely unsupported by even a hint of a fact. It is just an out-of-thin-air accusation. The reporter is unnamed. The other right wing commentators are not named. The blogger's accusation stands alone; there's not even a description of what the reporter supposedly said -- so we have no way of judging whether the unnamed reporter was being fair or was just out to smear Barnes, as your blogger claims. I guess they can't accuse your blogger of taking the reporter's words out of context if he doesn't give us his words and if he doesn't give us any context at all. But it must have been a doozy of an accusation because he got Barnes "and other right-wing commentators" all at once.

2. the writer obviously has no clue what motivated this unnamed reporter -- so he has absolutely no basis for attributing the motivation to wanting to distract the public from Jeremiah Wright. Well he has one motivation -- wanting to distract the public (and incite the right) by again using Jeremiah Wright. Again. As if Wright hasn't been discredited enough.

In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived.

I remember once attending a peace march in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. Most of the people there were not hard core. They just wanted to show their opposition to the war -- to chant "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war."

But there was another, much smaller group there. And you could tell that they had another purpose; I suppose at the time they were called outside agitators because that's what they did -- agitate. They had a scary level of anger and they tried to incite people to civil disobedience. To violence even. To me in my innocence, it was truly frightening. They only people shouting out the second line to that chant, "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state."

It was scary enough that I never went to another peace march. And I've got to tell you, the current right wingers remind me of those folks. Their rhetoric is just as hate filled. Their intolerance of dissenting opinion is every bit as strong. Their absolutism and unwillingness to compromise is virtually identical. And their goal -- to to smash the state under the patriotic guise of making it better -- is a dead on knock off what those extremists wanted to accomplish as well.

And they are every bit as scary for the same reasons.

Yoda out...

What a load of crap! "While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived."

Here below is your real-world left wing silencing of debate (as opposed to confusing TV SHOWS with a set agenda (like Count-down, Rachel Maddow, Politically Incorrect, Real Time, Hardball, Hannity, Glen Beck, O-Reilly Factor, Daily Show, etc ) as places where real debate is held and free speech practiced by the citizenry.

www.chamberpost.com/2010/06/opposition-from-everywhere-to-the-disclose-act.html
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EBR6D00&show_article=1
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/ann-coulter-seeks-prosecution-over-speeches/
archive.glennbeck.com/news/10292007a.shtml
articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/world/fg-britain-list6
codepink.org/blog/2008/09/codepink-activists-interrrupt-sarah-palins-rnc-speech-at-side-of-the-stage/
cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2008/11/14/proposition-8-blacklist
townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2003/11/19/college_republicans_banned_from_campus
dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/it-has-begun-st-louis-u-bans-conservative-from/
www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/16/loc_col1bronson.html
catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_869.shtml
www.examiner.com/x-17412-Macon-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d10-Professor-fired-for-hate-speech
hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/seiu-protesters-descend-on-bank-execs-home-terrifying-his-son/

I can go on and on with examples of the left trampling free speech, intimidating opposition, etc. They are experts.

And why is it when you were yelling "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war." that was all polly-anna compared to citizen's getting into the grill of a congressmen who were intent on thwarting popular opinion to vote for Obama care? Remember, they were not Tea-Party events. Your sweeping generalization betrays your real agenda, that of trashing any one who dissents from the leftist agenda.

Now look at the Democrat's legislation with the DISCLOSE Act. Not only are these laws meant to silence opposition, with DISCLOSE, they add a new twist where they out the contributors of issue oriented groups in order to intimidate and black-ball as done in the wake of Proposition 8 here in California.

If ever a group would like to see a PRAVDA in America, it is the lovers of the New York Times. And just as rediculous that the Soviet's Newspaper was named "Truth", rest assured that any "Fairness" Doctine or "Disclose" Act would be nothing sort of the opposite when the Democrats get done with it.

And it is ironic you bring up the radicals in the 60's that chanted "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state." they were people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, heroes/mentors of the Anointed one. And it shows.

[AlwaysAnAztec]

Jul 27, 2010 20:19:43 GMT -8 aztec70 said:

Well said, Yoda.

+1000 from me.

And I've got to tell you, the current right wingers remind me of those folks. Their rhetoric is just as hate filled. Their intolerance of dissenting opinion is every bit as strong. Their absolutism and unwillingness to compromise is virtually identical. And their goal -- to to smash the state under the patriotic guise of making it better -- is a dead on knock off what those extremists wanted to accomplish as well.

I would say that there are more than a couple that meet this description on this board. Too bad.

[uwaztec]

Jul 28, 2010 8:32:53 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Jul 27, 2010 17:14:56 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Okay. I read it. And I'm dumber for it.

It is so full of assumptions, generalizations, flawed analysis and unsupported conclusions that anyone who reads critically is entirely confused; he or she doesn't know where to begin.

People actually believe that crap. Amazing. F*ing amazing.

You say, "Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more." Really? Seriously? All those tea party'ers who shouted down congressmen and anyone who didn't agree with them in town hall meetings are in favor of more voices and more information? It looked to me like it was a deliberate attempt to exert the very intimidation that your blogger says the right doesn't use but the left wing does.

And the right wants debate? OMG, the right won't stand for debate. Debate on Faux News consists of screaming the mantra louder and louder until your "opponent" gives up trying to even get a word in edgewise -- a discussion of ideas is entirely impossible at 110 decibels. But of course they don't want a reasoned discussion; they can't handle give and take. They are incapable of debate because they never listen -- they only speak.

Death to Limbaugh? Some idiot calls for that and the entire "left, centrist and not far enough right of center" is somehow to blame? When is the last time a left winger executed an abortion opponent for political reasons?

Your blogger speaks of a reporter who "wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor". But I would point out the frigging obvious:

1. the writer's accusation -- in the blog at least -- is entirely unsupported by even a hint of a fact. It is just an out-of-thin-air accusation. The reporter is unnamed. The other right wing commentators are not named. The blogger's accusation stands alone; there's not even a description of what the reporter supposedly said -- so we have no way of judging whether the unnamed reporter was being fair or was just out to smear Barnes, as your blogger claims. I guess they can't accuse your blogger of taking the reporter's words out of context if he doesn't give us his words and if he doesn't give us any context at all. But it must have been a doozy of an accusation because he got Barnes "and other right-wing commentators" all at once.

2. the writer obviously has no clue what motivated this unnamed reporter -- so he has absolutely no basis for attributing the motivation to wanting to distract the public from Jeremiah Wright. Well he has one motivation -- wanting to distract the public (and incite the right) by again using Jeremiah Wright. Again. As if Wright hasn't been discredited enough.

In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived.

I remember once attending a peace march in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. Most of the people there were not hard core. They just wanted to show their opposition to the war -- to chant "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war."

But there was another, much smaller group there. And you could tell that they had another purpose; I suppose at the time they were called outside agitators because that's what they did -- agitate. They had a scary level of anger and they tried to incite people to civil disobedience. To violence even. To me in my innocence, it was truly frightening. They only people shouting out the second line to that chant, "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state."

It was scary enough that I never went to another peace march. And I've got to tell you, the current right wingers remind me of those folks. Their rhetoric is just as hate filled. Their intolerance of dissenting opinion is every bit as strong. Their absolutism and unwillingness to compromise is virtually identical. And their goal -- to to smash the state under the patriotic guise of making it better -- is a dead on knock off what those extremists wanted to accomplish as well.

And they are every bit as scary for the same reasons.

Yoda out...

What a load of crap! "While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived."

Here below is your real-world left wing silencing of debate (as opposed to confusing TV SHOWS with a set agenda (like Count-down, Rachel Maddow, Politically Incorrect, Real Time, Hardball, Hannity, Glen Beck, O-Reilly Factor, Daily Show, etc ) as places where real debate is held and free speech practiced by the citizenry.

www.chamberpost.com/2010/06/opposition-from-everywhere-to-the-disclose-act.html
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EBR6D00&show_article=1
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/ann-coulter-seeks-prosecution-over-speeches/
archive.glennbeck.com/news/10292007a.shtml
articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/world/fg-britain-list6
codepink.org/blog/2008/09/codepink-activists-interrrupt-sarah-palins-rnc-speech-at-side-of-the-stage/
cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2008/11/14/proposition-8-blacklist
townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2003/11/19/college_republicans_banned_from_campus
dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/it-has-begun-st-louis-u-bans-conservative-from/
www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/16/loc_col1bronson.html
catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_869.shtml
www.examiner.com/x-17412-Macon-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d10-Professor-fired-for-hate-speech
hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/seiu-protesters-descend-on-bank-execs-home-terrifying-his-son/

I can go on and on with examples of the left trampling free speech, intimidating opposition, etc. They are experts.

And why is it when you were yelling "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war." that was all polly-anna compared to citizen's getting into the grill of a congressmen who were intent on thwarting popular opinion to vote for Obama care? Remember, they were not Tea-Party events. Your sweeping generalization betrays your real agenda, that of trashing any one who dissents from the leftist agenda.

Now look at the Democrat's legislation with the DISCLOSE Act. Not only are these laws meant to silence opposition, with DISCLOSE, they add a new twist where they out the contributors of issue oriented groups in order to intimidate and black-ball as done in the wake of Proposition 8 here in California.

If ever a group would like to see a PRAVDA in America, it is the lovers of the New York Times. And just as rediculous that the Soviet's Newspaper was named "Truth", rest assured that any "Fairness" Doctine or "Disclose" Act would be nothing sort of the opposite when the Democrats get done with it.

And it is ironic you bring up the radicals in the 60's that chanted "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state." they were people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, heroes/mentors of the Anointed one. And it shows.

Yep....us & "them", communists and Nazis, black / white .......pretty narrow World view. By the way, Yoda sounds central/Left to me. A lot of people think like he does who are not far left or communists.

[ptsdthor]

Jul 28, 2010 9:38:46 GMT -8 uwaztec said:

Jul 28, 2010 8:32:53 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

What a load of crap! "While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived."

Here below is your real-world left wing silencing of debate (as opposed to confusing TV SHOWS with a set agenda (like Count-down, Rachel Maddow, Politically Incorrect, Real Time, Hardball, Hannity, Glen Beck, O-Reilly Factor, Daily Show, etc ) as places where real debate is held and free speech practiced by the citizenry.

www.chamberpost.com/2010/06/opposition-from-everywhere-to-the-disclose-act.html
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EBR6D00&show_article=1
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/ann-coulter-seeks-prosecution-over-speeches/
archive.glennbeck.com/news/10292007a.shtml
articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/world/fg-britain-list6
codepink.org/blog/2008/09/codepink-activists-interrrupt-sarah-palins-rnc-speech-at-side-of-the-stage/
cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2008/11/14/proposition-8-blacklist
townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2003/11/19/college_republicans_banned_from_campus
dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/it-has-begun-st-louis-u-bans-conservative-from/
www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/16/loc_col1bronson.html
catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_869.shtml
www.examiner.com/x-17412-Macon-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d10-Professor-fired-for-hate-speech
hotair.com/archives/2010/05/21/seiu-protesters-descend-on-bank-execs-home-terrifying-his-son/

I can go on and on with examples of the left trampling free speech, intimidating opposition, etc. They are experts.

And why is it when you were yelling "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war." that was all polly-anna compared to citizen's getting into the grill of a congressmen who were intent on thwarting popular opinion to vote for Obama care? Remember, they were not Tea-Party events. Your sweeping generalization betrays your real agenda, that of trashing any one who dissents from the leftist agenda.

Now look at the Democrat's legislation with the DISCLOSE Act. Not only are these laws meant to silence opposition, with DISCLOSE, they add a new twist where they out the contributors of issue oriented groups in order to intimidate and black-ball as done in the wake of Proposition 8 here in California.

If ever a group would like to see a PRAVDA in America, it is the lovers of the New York Times. And just as rediculous that the Soviet's Newspaper was named "Truth", rest assured that any "Fairness" Doctine or "Disclose" Act would be nothing sort of the opposite when the Democrats get done with it.

And it is ironic you bring up the radicals in the 60's that chanted "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state." they were people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, heroes/mentors of the Anointed one. And it shows.

Yep....us & "them", communists and Nazis, black / white .......pretty narrow World view. By the way, Yoda sounds central/Left to me. A lot of people think like he does who are not far left or communists.

Does that mean you disapprove of someone going there in first place?

"In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived."

Is that a cental/left comment? If so, I can see why you think my facts a problem.

[Yoda]

Jul 28, 2010 9:50:14 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Does that mean you disapprove of someone going there in first place?

Is that a cental/left comment? If so, I can see why you think my facts a problem.

As I have said before, I consider myself to be "radically moderate" -- the "moderate" being a comment on my general position on the issues and the "radically" being a comment on my abhorrence of both the extreme left and the extreme right.

Extremism makes it virtually impossible to reach compromise -- to reach a middle ground and to move forward. Instead all we have are demagogues on both sides, with the right screaming for all they are worth and the left mostly -- but not completely -- having retreated to the fetal position -- horribly outnumbered by the opposition.

That's why I said, "In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived." The fact is, I can think of damn little that the right has said over the past several years that did anything other than run the institutions of the country, and the players in it, down.

The Congress is that. The courts are out to get us. Obama is a socialist, if not a communist. Help! Help! The paranoids are chasing me!!! Oh, we've got trouble -- right here in River City.

When is the last time a right winger said something positive about this country -- about the way it is now, not about the way it would be if only you had your way? I can't think of much -- at least not much that doesn't include, in the same paragraph, a damnation of the left and center.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between the extreme right and the Muslim extremists. The culture and the poverty are different -- so you don't have the violence. But the fervor is identical. The absolutism is identical. The lack of tolerance for the opinions of others is identical. The religious grounding is identical. God is always on the side of the extremists, you know -- never the centrists. It helps con the small thinkers out of their hearts and their money.

On the actual issues, I am probably a little to the left on social policy and the environment and a little to the right in terms of economics, foreign policy and military issues. But I doubt that I am far enough to the right on those issues to be considered anything other than a socialist by some of you.

Yoda out...

[ptsdthor]

Jul 28, 2010 10:23:24 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Jul 28, 2010 9:50:14 GMT -8 ptsdthor said:

Does that mean you disapprove of someone going there in first place?

Is that a cental/left comment? If so, I can see why you think my facts a problem.

As I have said before, I consider myself to be "radically moderate" -- the "moderate" being a comment on my general position on the issues and the "radically" being a comment on my abhorrence of both the extreme left and the extreme right.

Extremism makes it virtually impossible to reach compromise -- to reach a middle ground and to move forward. Instead all we have are demagogues on both sides, with the right screaming for all they are worth and the left mostly -- but not completely -- having retreated to the fetal position -- horribly outnumbered by the opposition.

That's why I said, "In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived." The fact is, I can think of damn little that the right has said over the past several years that did anything other than run the institutions of the country, and the players in it, down.

The Congress is that. The courts are out to get us. Obama is a socialist, if not a communist. Help! Help! The paranoids are chasing me!!! Oh, we've got trouble -- right here in River City.

When is the last time a right winger said something positive about this country -- about the way it is now, not about the way it would be if only you had your way? I can't think of much -- at least not much that doesn't include, in the same paragraph, a damnation of the left and center.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between the extreme right and the Muslim extremists. The culture and the poverty are different -- so you don't have the violence. But the fervor is identical. The absolutism is identical. The lack of tolerance for the opinions of others is identical. The religious grounding is identical. God is always on the side of the extremists, you know -- never the centrists. It helps con the small thinkers out of their hearts and their money.

On the actual issues, I am probably a little to the left on social policy and the environment and a little to the right in terms of economics, foreign policy and military issues. But I doubt that I am far enough to the right on those issues to be considered anything other than a socialist by some of you.

Yoda out...

Well, you should be sorry. What in the heck is the "extreme right" to you? A few members of the Aryan Brotherhood out on parole? Or is it the politically active pro-life Catholics and Protestants that are registered Republicans? Because, if in your mind, it is closer to latter, then consider yourself to be in the realm of the criminally gullible. If you are talking about a few individuals that are crazy and killed an abortionist, then include them with the radical left-wing environmentalists or G8 protesters whose actions have resulted in the loss of life and property as well.

Too funny, "so you don't have the violence (meaning the peacefulness), they are the same!? The left's intolerance of debate, hyper political activism, political revenge, etc., is documented in the links I posted above, why are they not in your basket of the loathed intolerant?

[The Great Aztec Joe]

The time to debate is essentially past us. The time for social upheaval and extreme violence is soon to arrive.

[aztecwin]

Jul 27, 2010 17:14:56 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Jul 27, 2010 15:40:39 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

This quote says a lot!

"Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more."

Now, ask yourself why that would be? Could it be that the side that is not afraid to have all views voiced is right such a big majority of the time that the other side would rather have issues cloaked in darkness?

I hope every one will read that entire link.

Okay. I read it. And I'm dumber for it.

It is so full of assumptions, generalizations, flawed analysis and unsupported conclusions that anyone who reads critically is entirely confused; he or she doesn't know where to begin.

People actually believe that crap. Amazing. F*ing amazing.

You say, "Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more." Really? Seriously? All those tea party'ers who shouted down congressmen and anyone who didn't agree with them in town hall meetings are in favor of more voices and more information? It looked to me like it was a deliberate attempt to exert the very intimidation that your blogger says the right doesn't use but the left wing does.

And the right wants debate? OMG, the right won't stand for debate. Debate on Faux News consists of screaming the mantra louder and louder until your "opponent" gives up trying to even get a word in edgewise -- a discussion of ideas is entirely impossible at 110 decibels. But of course they don't want a reasoned discussion; they can't handle give and take. They are incapable of debate because they never listen -- they only speak.

Death to Limbaugh? Some idiot calls for that and the entire "left, centrist and not far enough right of center" is somehow to blame? When is the last time a left winger executed an abortion opponent for political reasons?

Your blogger speaks of a reporter who "wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor". But I would point out the frigging obvious:

1. the writer's accusation -- in the blog at least -- is entirely unsupported by even a hint of a fact. It is just an out-of-thin-air accusation. The reporter is unnamed. The other right wing commentators are not named. The blogger's accusation stands alone; there's not even a description of what the reporter supposedly said -- so we have no way of judging whether the unnamed reporter was being fair or was just out to smear Barnes, as your blogger claims. I guess they can't accuse your blogger of taking the reporter's words out of context if he doesn't give us his words and if he doesn't give us any context at all. But it must have been a doozy of an accusation because he got Barnes "and other right-wing commentators" all at once.

2. the writer obviously has no clue what motivated this unnamed reporter -- so he has absolutely no basis for attributing the motivation to wanting to distract the public from Jeremiah Wright. Well he has one motivation -- wanting to distract the public (and incite the right) by again using Jeremiah Wright. Again. As if Wright hasn't been discredited enough.

In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived.

I remember once attending a peace march in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. Most of the people there were not hard core. They just wanted to show their opposition to the war -- to chant "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war."

But there was another, much smaller group there. And you could tell that they had another purpose; I suppose at the time they were called outside agitators because that's what they did -- agitate. They had a scary level of anger and they tried to incite people to civil disobedience. To violence even. To me in my innocence, it was truly frightening. They only people shouting out the second line to that chant, "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state."

It was scary enough that I never went to another peace march. And I've got to tell you, the current right wingers remind me of those folks. Their rhetoric is just as hate filled. Their intolerance of dissenting opinion is every bit as strong. Their absolutism and unwillingness to compromise is virtually identical. And their goal -- to to smash the state under the patriotic guise of making it better -- is a dead on knock off what those extremists wanted to accomplish as well.

And they are every bit as scary for the same reasons.

Yoda out...

My! My! It is very funny that you can't see any thing near middle road. There is a reason that Fox is a ratings success and that MSNBC is dying on the vine. People want to hear a discussion of an issue and not some dimwit like Maddow or Schultz shouting out venom. If you feel that you read that link and came out dumber, I am sorry to say that you must have went in the same way. You sound like Howard Dean and make even less sense.

I notice as well your lack of an extensive enough vocabulary to avoid profanity. Not an uncommon affliction among Obama voters.

[aztec70]

blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2010/07/rachel-maddow-mocks-bill-oreillys-big-ratings-bazinga-1.html

Maddow replys to O'Reilly.

[uwaztec]

Jul 28, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Jul 27, 2010 17:14:56 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Okay. I read it. And I'm dumber for it.

It is so full of assumptions, generalizations, flawed analysis and unsupported conclusions that anyone who reads critically is entirely confused; he or she doesn't know where to begin.

People actually believe that crap. Amazing. F*ing amazing.

You say, "Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more." Really? Seriously? All those tea party'ers who shouted down congressmen and anyone who didn't agree with them in town hall meetings are in favor of more voices and more information? It looked to me like it was a deliberate attempt to exert the very intimidation that your blogger says the right doesn't use but the left wing does.

And the right wants debate? OMG, the right won't stand for debate. Debate on Faux News consists of screaming the mantra louder and louder until your "opponent" gives up trying to even get a word in edgewise -- a discussion of ideas is entirely impossible at 110 decibels. But of course they don't want a reasoned discussion; they can't handle give and take. They are incapable of debate because they never listen -- they only speak.

Death to Limbaugh? Some idiot calls for that and the entire "left, centrist and not far enough right of center" is somehow to blame? When is the last time a left winger executed an abortion opponent for political reasons?

Your blogger speaks of a reporter who "wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor". But I would point out the frigging obvious:

1. the writer's accusation -- in the blog at least -- is entirely unsupported by even a hint of a fact. It is just an out-of-thin-air accusation. The reporter is unnamed. The other right wing commentators are not named. The blogger's accusation stands alone; there's not even a description of what the reporter supposedly said -- so we have no way of judging whether the unnamed reporter was being fair or was just out to smear Barnes, as your blogger claims. I guess they can't accuse your blogger of taking the reporter's words out of context if he doesn't give us his words and if he doesn't give us any context at all. But it must have been a doozy of an accusation because he got Barnes "and other right-wing commentators" all at once.

2. the writer obviously has no clue what motivated this unnamed reporter -- so he has absolutely no basis for attributing the motivation to wanting to distract the public from Jeremiah Wright. Well he has one motivation -- wanting to distract the public (and incite the right) by again using Jeremiah Wright. Again. As if Wright hasn't been discredited enough.

In my estimation, the right wing media is guilty of a sort of soft core treason. While claiming super patriot status, they have done more to undermine this country and it's political institutions, and to undermine free speech, than have all the Communists who ever lived.

I remember once attending a peace march in San Francisco during the Vietnam War. Most of the people there were not hard core. They just wanted to show their opposition to the war -- to chant "One. Two. Three. Four. We don't want your F'ing war."

But there was another, much smaller group there. And you could tell that they had another purpose; I suppose at the time they were called outside agitators because that's what they did -- agitate. They had a scary level of anger and they tried to incite people to civil disobedience. To violence even. To me in my innocence, it was truly frightening. They only people shouting out the second line to that chant, "Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Organize and smash the state."

It was scary enough that I never went to another peace march. And I've got to tell you, the current right wingers remind me of those folks. Their rhetoric is just as hate filled. Their intolerance of dissenting opinion is every bit as strong. Their absolutism and unwillingness to compromise is virtually identical. And their goal -- to to smash the state under the patriotic guise of making it better -- is a dead on knock off what those extremists wanted to accomplish as well.

And they are every bit as scary for the same reasons.

Yoda out...

My! My! It is very funny that you can't see any thing near middle road. There is a reason that Fox is a ratings success and that MSNBC is dying on the vine. People want to hear a discussion of an issue and not some dimwit like Maddow or Schultz shouting out venom. If you feel that you read that link and came out dumber, I am sorry to say that you must have went in the same way. You sound like Howard Dean and make even less sense.

I notice as well your lack of an extensive enough vocabulary to avoid profanity. Not an uncommon affliction among Obama voters.

People are concerned and people are angry and jittery on both sides. I think its because the US and the World situations are changing so rapidly .....and we have instant information now. Just 15 years ago, I was going to Baja with my wife and camped at spots along the Baja Highway I would never camp at now. The illegal immigration thing is blowing up like crazy, but just a few years ago we looked the other way while the same people were encouraged to come here to do things we didn't want to do. Our business paradigm is based on shipping labor to other countries. I won't even start on the environment, but there are very disturbing signs there as well. After the Right wins in 2012...and after the party is over...there will be some sobering realizations I beleive.

[OfficialAztecINSIDER]

Jul 28, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

My! My! It is very funny that you can't see any thing near middle road.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

[Yoda]

Jul 28, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I notice as well your lack of an extensive enough vocabulary to avoid profanity. Not an uncommon affliction among Obama voters.

1. I prefer to think that it takes a certain level of creativity to be able to include profanity in one's vocabulary. Unfortunately, I presume, you seem to pride yourself on your lack of creativity. Pity.

2. I voted for McCain. It was a tough call but in the end, I felt that having a president with limited experience was worse than having a vice president with no experience. So the strategy was to vote for McCain and then pray that he survived his presidency. And if my prayers went unanswered, to move to Afghanistan or some similar place where people would be safer than we would here if Palin ascended to the presidency.

Yoda out...

[monty]

psst, i'll tell you a little secret....shhhh, both 'sides' are the same, both use the same tactics, both receive most of their funding from the same sources, both have the same ends.

Hegel talks of human history and thought as a spiral of thesis meeting antithesis becoming synthesis and carrying with it both thesis and antithesis - the genius of late 20th century American politicians and their purse string holders was to convince people that thesis and antithesis were still in some sort of opposition -- we all fight over the mixture of something that has already congealed, we all point the finger at something that is just a shadow.

[AztecWilliam]

Jul 28, 2010 16:13:38 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Jul 28, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I notice as well your lack of an extensive enough vocabulary to avoid profanity. Not an uncommon affliction among Obama voters.

1. I prefer to think that it takes a certain level of creativity to be able to include profanity in one's vocabulary. Unfortunately, I presume, you seem to pride yourself on your lack of creativity. Pity.

2. I voted for McCain. It was a tough call but in the end, I felt that having a president with limited experience was worse than having a vice president with no experience. So the strategy was to vote for McCain and then pray that he survived his presidency. And if my prayers went unanswered, to move to Afghanistan or some similar place where people would be safer than we would here if Palin ascended to the presidency.

Yoda out...

Well, though it's academic at this point, your characterizations of Obama and Palin are laughably inaccurate.

It's Obama who had no, or at best exceedingly unimpressive, experience. What had the guy actually done, outside of promoting himself, before taking office? Oh, that's right, he had been an Illinois state senator for awhile, during which time he often and enthusiastically failed to take a stand on important issues. Then he spent less than one term in the U.S. Senate during which time he did. . . well, almost nothing but run for President. He never, as far as I can tell, had a real job in private industry (I don't count his time with a law firm as a "real job"), never started or ran a business, never served in the military. He never was responsible for the operation of any organization other than his campaign. (And I think others really did the organizing and made the important executive decisions. But we can't hold that against Barack. He was, after all, getting ready to look good in all the spotlights that were being readied as he toured the world to show how cool, hip, and un-Bush he was. Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Ah, yes, he did make time to write two autobiographies. Count 'em, two! Not that's impressive. . . two autobiographies by a guy under fifty who had never really done much. (Also, for what it's worth, Obama was not a law professor. He was a lecturer. There's a difference.)

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, actually had executive experience, both as a small town mayor and as a state governor. That kind of experience is invaluable when one is President. Obama's . . .shall we say . . . shaky performance so far in running the Federal Government tells me that he was and is deficient that that department.

Here's another fact which virtually no one knows. The only National Guard unit to be on active full time duty is in Alaska.(I think it has something to do with air defense.) As governor, Sarah had access to intelligence of a higher classification than his either McCain or Obama. I don't say that such experience made her super qualified in terms of national security. I do say that it gave her much better qualifications than Obama.

Reminder me again of why Obama was such a well qualified candidate for the office of President?

AzWm

[aztecwin]

Jul 28, 2010 13:13:03 GMT -8 uwaztec said:

Jul 28, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

My! My! It is very funny that you can't see any thing near middle road. There is a reason that Fox is a ratings success and that MSNBC is dying on the vine. People want to hear a discussion of an issue and not some dimwit like Maddow or Schultz shouting out venom. If you feel that you read that link and came out dumber, I am sorry to say that you must have went in the same way. You sound like Howard Dean and make even less sense.

I notice as well your lack of an extensive enough vocabulary to avoid profanity. Not an uncommon affliction among Obama voters.

People are concerned and people are angry and jittery on both sides. I think its because the US and the World situations are changing so rapidly .....and we have instant information now. Just 15 years ago, I was going to Baja with my wife and camped at spots along the Baja Highway I would never camp at now. The illegal immigration thing is blowing up like crazy, but just a few years ago we looked the other way while the same people were encouraged to come here to do things we didn't want to do. Our business paradigm is based on shipping labor to other countries. I won't even start on the environment, but there are very disturbing signs there as well. After the Right wins in 2012...and after the party is over...there will be some sobering realizations I beleive.

I think we should think of the illegal problem in terms of a "Bracero" type solution. Start by somehow getting the Feds to enforce current law. I also went fishing and dining in Mexico years ago and do not even consider it now. We do have a changing business environment that means we need to employ people in technical fields more and less in assembly line labor. Those things are just business reacting to conditions.

Would you expand your thoughts on the post 2012 results and resulting change in conditions? I understand the environment concerns and may agree on some levels.

[aztecwin]

Jul 28, 2010 16:13:38 GMT -8 Yoda said:

Jul 28, 2010 12:26:42 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I notice as well your lack of an extensive enough vocabulary to avoid profanity. Not an uncommon affliction among Obama voters.

1. I prefer to think that it takes a certain level of creativity to be able to include profanity in one's vocabulary. Unfortunately, I presume, you seem to pride yourself on your lack of creativity. Pity.

2. I voted for McCain. It was a tough call but in the end, I felt that having a president with limited experience was worse than having a vice president with no experience. So the strategy was to vote for McCain and then pray that he survived his presidency. And if my prayers went unanswered, to move to Afghanistan or some similar place where people would be safer than we would here if Palin ascended to the presidency.

Yoda out...

Ha Ha on the profanity! Somehow I don't believe your McCain vote or the reasoning behind it. Based on what you say and your inability to interpret current conditions, you are blowing smoke or are just role playing like AztecJoe.