More Right Wing Terrorism: Gunman attacks the Holocaust Museum

[Andrew Mayer]

DC Museum is attacked by a White Supremacist gunman. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/)

[Matthew Gallant]

Some guy on the Yahoo Group RonPaulforPresident liked to quote his screeds, a lot:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaulforPresident/msearch?query=vbrunn

[Eric P]

the WaPo comments on their article are pretty cringe worthy. Gun advocates, racists, anti-semetics, liberals and conservatives all trying to point fingers in an attempt to fit the tragedy to their particular worldviews.

[Tim James]

the WaPo comments on their article are pretty cringe worthy. Gun advocates, racists, anti-semetics, liberals and conservatives all trying to point fingers in an attempt to fit the tragedy to their particular worldviews.I blame the endless supply of open world third person shooters for the consoles. And MMOs, but I blame everything on them.

[cesare]

Christ almighty. Is this what we have to look forward to for the next 8 years?

[BlueJackalope]

According to the AP he is 89 years old.

Thats a lot of years of being a fucking idiot.

[Eric P]

I blame the endless supply of open world third person shooters for the consoles. And MMOs, but I blame everything on them.

i read that as Third World shooters and was really confused

[noun]

Christ almighty. Is this what we have to look forward to for the next 8 years?

Thanks to sites like FOX News cranking out the crazy without repercussions 24/7, the amount of potentially violent lunatics has increased dramatically. Remember the people screaming "KILL HIM!" during McCain's rally? The number of irrational, firearm-owning people who honestly believe Obama is a terrorist and/or the Antichrist is frighteningly high.

[Cubit]

the security guard that was shot today has died :(

[Eric P]

truly awful news

[jpinard]

Christ almighty. Is this what we have to look forward to for the next 8 years?

What are you trying to say?

[Huzurdaddi]

Thanks to sites like FOX News cranking out the crazy without repercussions 24/7, the amount of potentially violent lunatics has increased dramatically. Remember the people screaming "KILL HIM!" during McCain's rally? The number of irrational, firearm-owning people who honestly believe Obama is a terrorist and/or the Antichrist is frighteningly high.

I totally agree. There should be some action taken against FOX and its ilk for the crap they have put out over the last six months (and during the campaign). The action needn't come from the government, I would love to see, for example: "www.killglennbeck.com" and post about how famous a person would become for killing Glenn beck, and then post Glenn's personal information, also get people to tweet Glenn's location whenever they see him so that everyone knows where he is at all times.

[Eric P]

What are you trying to say?

i think he's saying that perhaps the DHS report wasn't so off base

[Tim James]

Way late on the ball regarding Glenn. A lot of extremists already want to kill him. I specifically remember some right-wing Truther types and some Muslim types.

[jpinard]

I totally agree. There should be some action taken against FOX and its ilk for the crap they have put out over the last six months (and during the campaign). The action needn't come from the government, I would love to see, for example: "www.killglennbeck.com" and post about how famous a person would become for killing Glenn beck, and then post Glenn's personal information, also get people to tweet Glenn's location whenever they see him so that everyone knows where he is at all times.

How would that help anything? Their conspiracy crap is bad enough already.

[Tim James]

I'm just setting myself up for a flame (ugh, not in the mood for them lately), but it actually kind of bugs me to see you guys reaching for a trend on right wing terrorism already. I can accept that it increases while Democrats are in power, and it disgusts me just the same, but the response to it leaves a taste in my mouth like I get from my annoying hyper-Republican car forum buddies that think the Muslims are out to get them. ("Remember what that guy said? OH NOES!")

It's the usual lack of threads like this that mean I'd rather read and discuss politics here than with them despite disagreeing with you guys on almost everything. Do I have to put up with 8 years of FUD due to a tribal agenda?

And since I'm about to head home for the day, I suppose I'll bite: do anti-Semites really increase activity while Democrats are in power, and what does a black President have to do with that compared to, say, recent D-Day celebrations?

[Malathor]

I totally agree. There should be some action taken against FOX and its ilk for the crap they have put out over the last six months (and during the campaign). The action needn't come from the government, I would love to see, for example: "www.killglennbeck.com" and post about how famous a person would become for killing Glenn beck, and then post Glenn's personal information, also get people to tweet Glenn's location whenever they see him so that everyone knows where he is at all times.

I really failing to see any connection whatever between Fox news and this attack by some 88 year old OG Nazi who tried to kidnap members of the Fed back in '81..

[BlueJackalope]

And since I'm about to head home for the day, I suppose I'll bite: do anti-Semites really increase activity while Democrats are in power

You might want to check the date on the Oklahoma City Bombing.

[unbongwah]

And since I'm about to head home for the day, I suppose I'll bite: do anti-Semites really increase activity while Democrats are in power, and what does a black President have to do with that compared to, say, recent D-Day celebrations?
Yes, because everyone knows that the Dems are nothing but puppets for the Zionists, unlike the stalwart white Christian Republicans, who proved it every day they were in power by doing whatever the hell Israel wanted.

Errr...hang on a sec...

[Mister Widget]

I'm just setting myself up for a flame (ugh, not in the mood for them lately), but it actually kind of bugs me to see you guys reaching for a trend on right wing terrorism already.

Why does it bug you? Have you counted the number of Americans who have died due to right wing terrorism vs the number of people who have died due to left wing terrorism? Spectacularly enough, for the year 2009, the ratio is infinite.

[Jag]

Rev. Wright (http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story) will fix this...

as soon as the Jews let him in to see the President.

[unbongwah]

Are there any left-wing terrorists left in America? It's been a long time since the days of the Weathermen and the Black Panthers.

[Eric P]

anti-g20 protesters, new SDS off shoots, eco-terrorists, etc

of course those are more left wing radicals which has a tendency to attract leftist violent direct action participants

[Mister Widget]

anti-g20 protesters, new SDS off shoots, eco-terrorists, etc

Yeah, but they are incompetent. Say what you will about the right-wingers: they know their guns. And guns are much better than nail bombs for successfully killing the people you hate.

[charmtrap]

Gee, why am I not surprised this guy is a freeper (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/10/740893/-FreeRepublic-pulls-thread-from-December-praising-James-von-Brunn-%5BUPDATES;-MSNBC:-JvB-a-FR-member-]).

[Anti-Bunny]

Looks like this shithead was on stormfront.org and wrote the typically reasonable discourse from such a person on jews controlling the world in book called 'Kill The Best Gentiles'

Here's just a peak from his personal bio:
James W. von Brunn holds a BachSci Journalism degree from a mid-Western university where he was president of SAE and played varsity football.
During WWII he served as PT-Boat captain, Lt. USNR, receiving a Commendation and four battle stars. For twenty years he was an advertising executive and film-producer in New York City. He is a member of Mensa, the high-IQ society.
In 1981 von Brunn attempted to place the treasonous Federal Reserve Board of Governors under legal, non-violent, citizens arrest. He was tried in a Washington, D.C. Superior Court; convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge. A Jew/Negro/White Court of Appeals denied his appeal. He served 6.5 years in federal prison. He is now an artist and author and lives on Maryland's Eastern Shore
The bolded part is referring to his arrest for bringing a shotgun to a federal building. no really.

There's a stormfront thread on him here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=122772

[quatoria]

Gee, why am I not surprised this guy is a freeper (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/10/740893/-FreeRepublic-pulls-thread-from-December-praising-James-von-Brunn-%5BUPDATES;-MSNBC:-JvB-a-FR-member-%5D).

Yeah. No reason whatsoever to link this to extreme right wing ideology, Tim. God, how will you endure these baseless speculations and accusations?

[Anti-Bunny]

Honestly, I think this just goes to show that if there's any organization that should be round up and tried preemptively, it's Mensa.

[bago]

I really failing to see any connection whatever between Fox news and this attack by some 88 year old OG Nazi who tried to kidnap members of the Fed back in '81..

If you were to believe this FreeRepublic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2268878/posts?q=1&;page=251) thread then Fox News is being irresponsible by not assuming there is a muslim connection.

[Jag]

At least the Government was aware of increased right wing terrorism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/dhs-report-warned-against_n_213920.html)...or was it?

[Matthew Gallant]

Freep:

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/EveryonesaSupremacist.jpg

[Eric P]

yes, i can see the connections

[Mister Widget]

yes, i can see the connections

They're all the same, see? The existence of Robespierre forever justifies the existence of all other terrorists.

[Matthew Gallant]

Freep:

"I don’t have time to read all the posts right now, any thought that this guy might be a plant of the DHS? I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past HolyO and his cronies to try to paint ALL veterans as crazies, and have them locked away in a concentration camp ‘just for their own safety and for the safety of all Americans’!"

[Rasputin]

Also from freep, but kinda cool since I'm a sucker for They Live callbacks:

http://www.secure-business-zone.com/dickfreely/obamatheylive.jpg

The only shining light in my utter and total boggling of how these people function.

[Flowers]

In order to bring some levity to an otherwise somber thread, I am willing to make a gentlemanly wager of the inside, outside sort. The stakes are thus; two whiskey sours. One person and one person only may accept the outside line. The bet is as follows;

I bet that in less than two months, if it has not happened already, someone will say that Jewish people have a way to control tornadoes. They will not be kidding, and they will state at least two facts to support their allegation.

[Matthew Gallant]

They will not be kidding
Aw, darn.

[BlueJackalope]

In order to bring some levity to an otherwise somber thread, I am willing to make a gentlemanly wager of the inside, outside sort. The stakes are thus; two whiskey sours. One person and one person only may accept the outside line. The bet is as follows;

I bet that in less than two months, if it has not happened already, someone will say that Jewish people have a way to control tornadoes. They will not be kidding, and they will state at least two facts to support their allegation.

I do love wiskey sours. And I'd take that bet, If it wasn't a known fact that Jews do control the weather.

Does any blog or messag board posting count or do they have to hold a press conference. Like that guy who had sex with Obama in the back of a limo on a pile of cocaine did?

[Mister Widget]

In order to bring some levity to an otherwise somber thread, I am willing to make a gentlemanly wager of the inside, outside sort. The stakes are thus; two whiskey sours. One person and one person only may accept the outside line. The bet is as follows;

I bet that in less than two months, if it has not happened already, someone will say that Jewish people have a way to control tornadoes. They will not be kidding, and they will state at least two facts to support their allegation.

It is common knowledge that L. Frank. Baum was Jewish, and that the escapades that Dorothy endured were a direct result of his ability to control tornadoes through the use of Dark Arts, fueled by the blood of human children.

I like my whisky sours extra cold.

[noun]

I'm just setting myself up for a flame (ugh, not in the mood for them lately), but it actually kind of bugs me to see you guys reaching for a trend on right wing terrorism already. I can accept that it increases while Democrats are in power, and it disgusts me just the same, but the response to it leaves a taste in my mouth like I get from my annoying hyper-Republican car forum buddies that think the Muslims are out to get them. ("Remember what that guy said? OH NOES!")

Well, let's see. The Seattle WTO riots happened during the Clinton administration, does that make you feel better?

Edit: Damn it, didn't notice that the thread was turning funny.

[russellmz00]

Also from freep, but kinda cool since I'm a sucker for They Live callbacks:

The only shining light in my utter and total boggling of how these people function.

HOLY CRAP, HIS TIE IS ACTUALLY RED! /vader nooOOOoOOOoO!

[cesare]

i think he's saying that perhaps the DHS report wasn't so off base

Basically. I was also thinking of the statistics (I think they were posted in the Tiller thread) that show that right-wing extremism tends to increase when there's a Democrat in the White House.

[Flowers]

It is common knowledge that L. Frank. Baum was Jewish, and that the escapades that Dorothy endured were a direct result of his ability to control tornadoes through the use of Dark Arts, fueled by the blood of human children.

I like my whisky sours extra cold.

You've got the bet flipped around. I like my whiskey sours extra whiskey.

[Jason McCullough]

To review the last time we had this perennial:

Left wing extremists exist but rarely cause as much damage.

Radicals usually are the opposite of who's in power.

The media doesn't legitimize the grievances of the nutty left wing, but they sure do for the right wing. Glenn Beck, Rush et. al are far less willing to acknowledge someone they disagree with won, so they tend to endlessly one-up each other and create a self-reinforcing environment of hostility without parallel on the left. They stop short of actively advocating revolution or murder, I guess, but that's about it.

This specific nut probably has nothing to do with any specific media, but that shouldn't keep Beck and company from feeling bad, and thinking that maybe they should tone it down a bit before they do set someone off. Not that they will; I'm sure in a few months they'll be right back at it, like after the OKC bombing.

[Mister Widget]

You've got the bet flipped around. I like my whiskey sours extra whiskey.

Fair enough, but I'd still like to be flamed, please.

[Anti-Bunny]

This specific nut probably has nothing to do with any specific media, but that shouldn't keep Beck and company from feeling bad, and thinking that maybe they should tone it down a bit before they do set someone off. Not that they will; I'm sure in a few months they'll be right back at it, like after the OKC bombing.

Uh, no. While you could definitely say Army of God cheerlead the last wacko, I think you'd have a very difficult time saying that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh cheerlead this one. Stormfront, maybe.

[Mister Widget]

Uh, no. While you could definitely say Army of God cheerlead the last wacko, I think you'd have a very difficult time saying that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh cheerlead this one. Stormfront, maybe.

They have sewn the wind. They reap the whirlwind.

[bago]

Turns out the suspect actually published a bit on FreeRepublic (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:niXSYG-nVO8J:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141655/posts+%E2%80%9CObama+is+missing%E2%80%9D+free+repu blic&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us).

[Anti-Bunny]

They have sewn the wind. They reap the whirlwind.

What exactly is it that Glen Beck is responsible for, here?

[Mister Widget]

What exactly is it that Glen Beck is responsible for, here?
I don't know... what do you got?

[Anti-Bunny]

I don't know... what do you got?

I've got a bottle of jack in the closet and lemon juice concentrate in the fridge.

[Mister Widget]

I've got a bottle of jack in the closet and lemon juice concentrate in the fridge.
Fair enough.

[Tim James]

Yeah in my well-qualified post I completely acknowledged that right wing extremists will probably increase their activity during this time and can see how that happens as Jason pointed out. It's just that after reading a few posts I had to check whether this was late 2002 and we were talking FUD about Muslims taking over the world or something.

If you guys were really on the ball you could say that I was also reaching for a trend by extrapolating from a few posts. :)

No big deal, I just had such a bad experience with the Republican nuts that I hope it doesn't go too crazy here. And now:

http://media-files.gather.com/images/d272/d848/d744/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg

[Mister Widget]

http://media-files.gather.com/images/d272/d848/d744/d224/d96/f3/full.jpg

That picture is so awsome that it makes me forgive you for all your facile libertarian dogma. Thanks for making my day, Tim James!

[Lorini]

I'm not sure that this person qualified as a 'right winger'. Is anti-semitism really something that right-wingers are identified with? Personally (and everyone knows I'm a liberal) I think blatant, virulent, racism is outside of any 'wing'. These people are crazy, they are not part of any political process here in the US at least.

[Dogar]

Are there any left-wing terrorists left in America? It's been a long time since the days of the Weathermen and the Black Panthers.

Huh? I know both groups were militant and extreme, but I've never heard of any terrorist acts that were directly attributed to these groups, that is if we're talking about attacks on innocent people.

[Mister Widget]

I'm not sure that this person qualified as a 'right winger'. Is anti-semitism really something that right-wingers are identified with? Personally (and everyone knows I'm a liberal) I think blatant, virulent, racism is outside of any 'wing'. These people are crazy, they are not part of any political process here in the US at least.
No, racism is definitely right wing. It was strongly associated with the Democratic Dixiecrats of the fifties through the sixties, but Nixon (followed by Reagan) was savvy enough to make it an essential part of the Republican appeal, and he built a long-lasting coalition based on it.

When Reagan wasn't in front of the press, he didn't just talk about "welfare queens in cadillacs", he also made a point to talk about "welfare bucks buying steaks with their food stamps". In case you are too innocent to realize it, the term "bucks" was originally used by slave owners to describe their male black slaves.

You might argue (and you might even be right), that modern Democrats suffer from the "soft racism of low expectations". But full-blown, ugly-as-sin, hates-anyone-but-white-Protestants? That's all Republican.

[Mister Widget]

Huh? I know both groups were militant and extreme, but I've never heard of any terrorist acts that were directly attributed to these groups, that is if we're talking about attacks on innocent people.

You need to review the history of the Weathermen. They were terrorists by any definition of the word.

[Tim James]

That picture is so awsome that it makes me forgive you for all your facile libertarian dogma. Thanks for making my day, Tim James!Freedom and liberty? Lame!

Huge novelty grill? Awesome! :)

[Hanacker]

In America, Republicans/conservatives are generally more pro-Israel than Democrats/liberals, yes? So do right-wingers only like Jews when there's a chance of them killing Muslims? I guess like Lorini I'm confused why you'd associate this act with a certain political leaning.

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, no. While you could definitely say Army of God cheerlead the last wacko, I think you'd have a very difficult time saying that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh cheerlead this one. Stormfront, maybe.

They're not cheering him on, obviously, but the mainstream right has busted out some seriously disturbed rhetoric recently that has this sort of thing as its logical next step. They really need to shut up and be civil before someone actually listens to them.

Just read the titles of actual quotes. (http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/glenn_beck) Yes, it's a partisan source, but they're making none of this up.

Beck claims "[t]his is empathetic fascism that's coming our way"

Beck compares car dealership closures to Nazis; warns "Gang, at some point, they're going to come for you"

Beck declares Ginsburg stay order in Chrysler sale to be "a slapdown for fascism"

Beck: "[I]f we don't have some common sense, we're facing the destruction of our country... it's coming"

Beck: "I'm not saying that Obama has an enemies list, but I wouldn't put it past him either"

Beck is seriously disturbing. Limbaugh is not as bad, but still irresponsible (http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/rush_limbaugh).

Limbaugh suggests Obama was really calling for "socialism," "fascism"

Limbaugh: "This is out of Juan Perón's Argentina. The only thing we're waiting on is for Michelle to become Evita"

Limbaugh on Obama: "We've got a miniature dictator in waiting here in his own mind"


Apparently Shep (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2706277) has had enough.

Shepard Smith Calls Out "More and More Frightening" Fox E-mailers

The difference this round is how disturbingly mainstream it's become. It always used to just be cranks, so there wasn't any legitimization to it.

[Lorini]

I dislike the Republican party intensely. However, nothing I see in the party platform or even the rhetoric of political representatives of the party (Congress people; even state legislatures) suggest that they condone racism.

Sure, we all know the political history of racism. But that's history. Long before Obama the political parties moved past supporting racism as a platform. Now naturally some members (probably of both parties) are racists. But that doesn't make the parties themselves support racism.

So yeah, I don't agree that this is a right-wing act. Absolutely a terrorist act but not one based on any current political parties or policies. The killing of Dr. Tiller was different; he was killed because he performed abortions. The Republican party is actively and admittedly anti-abortion, so there was a political linkage there.

Just so you know, in the book The Walls of Jericho, it's documented Nixon actually urged Eisenhower to adopt civil rights as a Republican platform because Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Eisenhower refused. Remember Nixon was raised as a traditional Quaker, who again historically supported civil rights for all.

[forgeforsaken]

It's easier to tie it to the right wing when you had Rush spouting off the below just days ago
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Rush-Nazis

[Hanacker]

Reverend Wright doesn't like the Jews either, and I'd assume he'd be similar politically to Obama. If a black guy had been the shooter would it then be left-wing terrorism?

[Jason McCullough]

Just so you know, in the book The Walls of Jericho, it's documented Nixon actually urged Eisenhower to adopt civil rights as a Republican platform because Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Eisenhower refused. Remember Nixon was raised as a traditional Quaker, who again historically supported civil rights for all.

....and he chucked that right overboard and created the Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy) of intentionally exploiting racial animosity to get elected President. And he discussed murdering journalists. And he tried to have his goons beat up Daniel Ellsberg. And firebomb the Brookings Institute. Nixon was probably the most evil President we've ever elected, and was quite happy to inflame racial tensions and pander to racists for a vote. Personally he was also plenty racist; he hired someone to count the Jews in the State department (http://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+jew+counter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) for him.

Eisenhower is actually the best GOP President on race going a ways back, considering his time, whatever platform he rejected.

[cesare]

So yeah, I don't agree that this is a right-wing act. Absolutely a terrorist act but not one based on any current political parties or policies. The killing of Dr. Tiller was different; he was killed because he performed abortions. The Republican party is actively and admittedly anti-abortion, so there was a political linkage there.

It's not a Republican act or a Republican-endorsed act, but this guy was clearly right-wing. Right-wing ideology doesn't just refer to the modern American Republican party.

[cesare]

Reverend Wright doesn't like the Jews either, and I'd assume he'd be similar politically to Obama. If a black guy had been the shooter would it then be left-wing terrorism?

Being a black guy that hates Jews doesn't necessarily make you left-wing. If it had been a white guy who was attacking the museum because of the alleged crimes of Israel against the Palestinian people it probably would have been left-wing terrorism, based on my personal pre-conceived notions.. If it had been a Palestinian attacking the museum for the same reason it wouldn't have been. I should go make a diagram.

[Anti-Bunny]

It must be great when you can just categorize people into either 'us' or 'right-wing'.

[Tyjenks]

I am confused, is this a thread to rail against Republicans who all hold right-wing ideologies or against Republicans in general or against just right-wingers. Or is it a way to imply a connection between Republicans and right wingers and this incident thereby being conservative people's fault while simultaneously saying, "What?!?! That's not what we are saying [but we really are, shhh]". Oh wait, I threw in conservative, now how does that apply to Republicans and right-wingers, are they all in the same big, evil pot?

I think I do need that diagram.

[Jason McCullough]

This thread isn't about your victim complex.

Interesting bit: the last time he flipped out (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11shoot.html?_r=1&hp) and tried to take the Fed board hostage was during the 1982 recession. Economic downturns really bring out the crazies.

[Tyjenks]

This thread isn't about your victim complex.Ooooh, it is a another "Rail against those who show the slightest disagreement with your take" thread. I think I have read this one before.

[Lum]

I am confused, is this a thread to rail against Republicans who all hold right-wing ideologies or against Republicans in general or against just right-wingers. Or is it a way to imply a connection between Republicans and right wingers and this incident thereby being conservative people's fault while simultaneously saying, "What?!?! That's not what we are saying [but we really are, shhh]". Oh wait, I threw in conservative, now how does that apply to Republicans and right-wingers, are they all in the same big, evil pot?

I think I do need that diagram.

Honestly, I came into this thread to post much the same thing, but it really does look like from reactions today that the wacko right (Freeper/talk radio/etc) is going, well, racist crazy.

I'd like a real conservative party, please. The English one looks nice. Maybe we could borrow it.

[Lorini]

I guess I'm just too tied in with the political parties defining wingness if I can call it that. For example, I had neighbors who were evangelical conservatives. I guess they might call themselves 'right wingers' vs 'left wingers' but there is no way they would condone racism. I never got the slightest wiff (and I'm pretty sensitive to wiffs) of racism in the many times I talked with them. To put them and many other conservative/evangelical people into the same category as virulent racists is not correct to me.

[Lum]

It's not. Many right-wing-leaning people vehemently oppose racism, especially evangelical Christians, who have a strong tradition of missionary outreach in the third world. It's like saying all left-wing-leaning people are Communists who want to confiscate everyone's guns and force your kids to turn gay.

But the extremists are turning pretty racist. The tea parties had plenty of ugly examples. Obama's election, as inspiring as it was for 99% of the planet, unfortunately is inspiring in an entirely different way for that wacko 1%.

Watch that Shepard Smith video Jason linked above... it's good that Fox played that, and speaks to the wacko fringe that sane conservatives are as frightened by as anyone else.

[Andrew Mayer]

There's tons of coded language being used. And the Sotomayor stuff is utterly about race, and attempting to continue to use the same strategy of "reverse racism" that was perfected with Reagan.

But the political response to the DHS report utterly ties them to these actions. The GOP were looking to gin up an issue, so they decided that these people were part of their base.

Now they get to own them.

[Eric P]

It's like saying all left-wing-leaning people are Communists who want to confiscate everyone's guns and force your kids to turn gay.



*checks pamphlet*

no, that's accurate

[SolomonGrundy]

I find it interesting that some of the Fox (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI)-ies are starting to see the monster they -maybe not created- but gave a voice to, and definitely helped stir up the bees nest.

There are people now, who are way out there on a limb. And I think they're just out there on a limb with the email they send us. Because I read it, and they are out there. I mean, out there in a scary place...I could read a hundred of them like this...I mean from today. People who are so amped up and so angry for reasons that are absolutely wrong, ridiculous, preposterous."

Well..DUH. if you 'report' dumb asses saying lies-er rumors- as facts people believe you.Oh whoops now our audience is flipping out and shooting people...And yes I do think they are responsible. It is like not holding any leader with a megaphone responsible for their horde's actions.

As a Jew, I can't say this act shocked me. This anti-Semite crap goes on all the time. It is sad and unfortunate that a life was taken. It is just a part of a jews life sadly.

[extarbags]

the WaPo comments on their article are pretty cringe worthy. Gun advocates, racists, anti-semetics, liberals and conservatives all trying to point fingers in an attempt to fit the tragedy to their particular worldviews.

I love this one:

Brandon, there is already a war on education, and judging by your post, your a causality.

[Angie Gallant]

Right-wingers only like Jews when they are facilitating the second coming of Jesus and the end of times.

[Mark Asher]

Honestly, I came into this thread to post much the same thing, but it really does look like from reactions today that the wacko right (Freeper/talk radio/etc) is going, well, racist crazy.

I'd like a real conservative party, please. The English one looks nice. Maybe we could borrow it.

You need to reanimate Barry Goldwater.

[Lenkenobi]

What happened to crazies just being crazy? Linking this guy's actions to "media pressure" is really a stretch.

Also, the terms left wing and right wing are really being thrown around here. To those who are trying to clarify it, thank you.

Put the PC on pause. This guy was a sick old man with a gun, even more messed up than the guy who killed Tiller*.

(*Note: Not condoning murder, nor measuring the weight of human lives/fetuses)

[alexlitel]

I'm just setting myself up for a flame (ugh, not in the mood for them lately), but it actually kind of bugs me to see you guys reaching for a trend on right wing terrorism already. I can accept that it increases while Democrats are in power, and it disgusts me just the same, but the response to it leaves a taste in my mouth like I get from my annoying hyper-Republican car forum buddies that think the Muslims are out to get them. ("Remember what that guy said? OH NOES!")

It's the usual lack of threads like this that mean I'd rather read and discuss politics here than with them despite disagreeing with you guys on almost everything. Do I have to put up with 8 years of FUD due to a tribal agenda?

And since I'm about to head home for the day, I suppose I'll bite: do anti-Semites really increase activity while Democrats are in power, and what does a black President have to do with that compared to, say, recent D-Day celebrations?It's a more complex issue, the economy and immigration are just as big a factor, I'd say.

It's not a Republican act or a Republican-endorsed act, but this guy was clearly right-wing. Right-wing ideology doesn't just refer to the modern American Republican party.Yes, it is the basic political spectrum espoused in introductory polisci classes.

[croman]

You need to reanimate Barry Goldwater.

Although I consider myself pretty far-left on the progressive side, I honestly Want a conservative base to engage with.

There's tons of progressives like me who want a Powell/Lugar base to bounce ideas off of. It's a shame Fox and Rush have shat upon conservatives and turned them into the 'opposite' party.

[quatoria]

In America, Republicans/conservatives are generally more pro-Israel than Democrats/liberals, yes? So do right-wingers only like Jews when there's a chance of them killing Muslims? I guess like Lorini I'm confused why you'd associate this act with a certain political leaning.

The unflinching support for Israel is more associated with courting the evangelical wing of Christianity that believes the holy land must be in Jewish hands as a necessary step for the resurrection of christ. I swear I'm not making this up. Please don't make me google for the editorials and articles telling the faithful that this is why they should support Israel without question. There are even ridiculous breeding programs to try and create the exact sort of calf that's apparently required for the second coming. This is seriously a real thing. I know it's hard to read this without laughing.

[Mox]

I'd like a real conservative party, please. The English one looks nice. Maybe we could borrow it.

Swap for your President?

[Tyjenks]

Honestly, I came into this thread to post much the same thing, but it really does look like from reactions today that the wacko right (Freeper/talk radio/etc) is going, well, racist crazy.

I'd like a real conservative party, please. The English one looks nice. Maybe we could borrow it.
I agree. They are being off the charts nutty about this issue. I have conservative views and liberal views depending on the topic. This guy was a mean-spirited, backwards prick. My point was more towards what the Qt3ers were trying to convey. If it is that there is a relatively large group of folks in the media that are spouting nonsense related to this issue, I agree. That's every day about a multitude of issues. I think sometimes these threads turn into scare-mongering that is no better than that in which the "Right/Conservatives/Republicans" engage.

[Hunty]

I'd like a real conservative party, please. The English one looks nice. Maybe we could borrow it.

I might well be talking out of bum here, but I was always under the impression that the Conservative Party, whilst pretty much Centre-Right by our standards (albeit heading more and more leftwards these days) were to the left of the Democrats, let alone the Republicans. Might not do much to help. We could send The Baroness over though!

[TheWombat]

Every time I read this stuff about Jews controlling this or determining that, I keep thinking, "damn, where's my share?" I mean, every time I go to the synagogue I keep looking around for the Hefty bags full of cash and the levers of power, but all I find is challah. And some kippahs.

[Tyjenks]

Every time I read this stuff about Jews controlling this or determining that, I keep thinking, "damn, where's my share?" I mean, every time I go to the synagogue I keep looking around for the Hefty bags full of cash and the levers of power, but all I find is challah. And some kippahs.
I think it is a vast Jewish conspiracy against their own. That is just how miserly "you people" are. You, my friend, are not an Inner Circle Jew.

[TheWombat]

I think it is a vast Jewish conspiracy against their own. That is just how miserly "you people" are. You, my friend, are not an Inner Circle Jew.

Damn. I KNEW I should have looked more closely at those scrolls in the Ark.

[Jag]

I think it is a vast Jewish conspiracy against their own. That is just how miserly "you people" are. You, my friend, are not an Inner Circle Jew.

Clearly you are no Ari Emmanuel (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/media/10emanuel.html?_r=1&hp). So we guard the gate to the President, are on the way to control Hollywood and have destroyed the banks. And people hate us why?

[Eric P]

you canceled matlock

[bago]

I think it is a vast Jewish conspiracy against their own. That is just how miserly "you people" are. You, my friend, are not an Inner Circle Jew.


In true Goldbergian fashion (http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmRiYjg0OWUxNzA0NjQ5YzBhZjBjMmUyZjMzZmI2MTg=): "The Outer Jew is the Jewed Jew in the circles of Inner Judaism."

[Tyjenks]

you canceled matlock
and possibly Murder She Wrote

[Eric P]

the TV Guide of the Elders of Zion

[unbongwah]

In America, Republicans/conservatives are generally more pro-Israel than Democrats/liberals, yes?
If by "pro-Israel" you mean "doing whatever the far-right Israeli hardliners (http://www.progressiverealist.org/blogpost/israeli-minister-proposes-sanctions-us) want, who even the sane Israelis dislike," then yes.

But I'm pretty sure the majority of Jewish Americans are Democrats, despite the GOP's "pro-Israel" stance.
I'd like a real conservative party, please. The English one looks nice. Maybe we could borrow it.
Aren't the British conservatives more liberal than American Democrats?
Swap for your President?
If you were us, would you trade Obama for the entire British conservative party? That hardly sounds like a good deal for US.

[Mox]

Liberal Democrats too, then?

[SolomonGrundy]

Israel government and Jew are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry I'm not letting the GOP or thier sounding board off the hook. This is part of their base. Have you heard anyone on the right condemn this yet?
No we get glen beck yeterday:
This afternoon Glenn Beck and two of his guests argued that Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party were "leftwing"; that "political correctness" led the committed white supremacist, James Von Brunn, to shoot a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC; and that ultimately President Barack Obama is the one responsible for the violence because his "bailouts" and "Socialistic" policies are engendering widespread anger. Beck denounced those who claim he is "churning the pot" because, he says, "the pot is already boiling."

When warned this is what right media did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL7iY5uarA8

[bago]

If anyone wants to try to make sense of the American Right's response to the events of yesterday, consider this: One of the leading magazines that is supposed to articulate modern conservative thought is the National Review.

It has such Legendary staff members such as...
Rich (We're Winning 2005 cover edition) Lowry!
http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2007/08/lowrywinning.jpg
Extra Tragic Note from 2008: Army Staff Sgt. Ronald Blystone, who was on the cover of NR in 2005 (it was my "We're Winning" story), was killed by small arms fire while patrolling in Baghdad.

Michael (The Ayatollah is Dead) Ledeen: This guy is a real piece of work.
First he starts out enmeshed in the Iran-Contra, helping to arrange the sale of weapons to Iran. Pay attention, this comes in handy, hold on, Later he is involved with the whole Yellowcake to Iraq bit in the run up to the second Iraq war. This plays a part in describing our next author...

Jonah Goldberg. He is Ledeen's colleague at National Review, coined the term "Ledeen Doctrine" in a 2002 column. This tongue-in-cheek "doctrine" is usually summarized as "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". How does such a pithy man become the editor at such a "prestigious policy magazine"? I'm glad you asked. In this particular case, our boy Jonah turns out to be the daughter of one Lucienne Goldberg, a central figure in the whole Lewinsky affair. That's not where this becomes absurdly off the rails hilariously epic though. This is but a mere stepping stone. From here he spends the next decade working at the national review, churning out mindless little columns filled with star trek references (at the tender age of 40, this also makes him the youth correspondent.) It is during this stint that he fashions the Ledeen Doctrine above. However wanting to prove his intellectual bona fides, begins to work on his Opus Magnus:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Liberal_Fascism_%28cover%29.jpg
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Understand that this is about the 6th subtitle he has chosen for this work, having gone through several versions in the 8 years it took to produce, usually involving Hillary Clinton. It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care. If you want to see it utterly demolished as a scholarly work, start here (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html). Understand it contains such amazing lines like "The white male is the Jew of Liberal Fascism", and DEEP new assertions, such as the fact that Mussolini, the founder of the Fascist party wasn't really a fascist, but more of a socialist. The kind he fought wars against.

Now, if it takes a few days for a Goldberg to process how a white male attacking a holocaust museum processes through the above filters of crazy, you might begin to understand. Lord knows, they don't. That's America. The outlined road-map to retardation is only beginning to scratch the surface of these people who regularly talk on TV.

[bago]

Hah, they're going with the Liberal Fascism left-right (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OThjY2RmMDU0NGI3NjA3ZGE5MWUyMzc4MjNkZTQ4MjY=) reversal!

An 88-year-old white supremacist of the Nazi bent (which somehow makes him a right-wing savage — a paradox Jonah has written a book about) who killed a guard with a shotgun at the Holocaust Museum.

[Flowers]

Mussolini was a Socialist at one time. That makes him the world's first true Neocon. Snap.

[Eric P]

Hah, they're going with the Liberal Fascism left-right (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OThjY2RmMDU0NGI3NjA3ZGE5MWUyMzc4MjNkZTQ4MjY=) reversal!

Have you seen the latest from the Obamedia

well i am not the target audience for this essay.

[Midnight Son]

I really hate those people that are hateful motherfuckers and hate everyone.

Uh.....

[unbongwah]

To the Qt3 conservatives: did you see the very first episode of The West Wing? If so, do you remember the scene at the end where the President storms into a White House meeting with a group of religious conservatives? Bartlet is pissed because some far-right pro-life wackos with ties to this group sent a thinly-veiled death threat to his granddaughter for being pro-choice. And when one of the conservative leaders weakly protests that they can't control these people, Bartlet calls BS and tells him that his group will publicly denounce these nutjobs as loudly and as often as they can and sever all ties with them; and until they do, they are no longer welcome in the White House.

I mention this scene because it kinda neatly summarizes the lefty attitude towards conservatives these days. It's not that we (or at least I) think all conservatives are right-wing nutjobs like James von Brunn. But when the more reasonable members of the GOP don't loudly disavow the far-right extremists in its ranks (not just the violent ones, but also the xenophobes, the racists, the homophobes, etc.) - in particular, when the public discourse about conservative values is dominated by attention-whoring assholes like Gingrich and Limbaugh (to say nothing of the more virulent braying jackals) - well, y'all start lookin' guilty by association to us liburuls. The rational conservatives are either failing to confront these jerks, getting drowned out by the angry mob, or simply silently assenting to their noxious views.

Just as the Palestinian cause is tainted by suicide bombers and other violent, often antisemitic extremists, so too is the U.S. conservative base tainted by the ugliest strains of the far right. I sincerely hope the U.S. conservative movement takes a long hard look at itself and realizes it's long past due for it to shed itself of these assholes. Friends like them you can do without.

[Tim James]

Mussolini was a Socialist at one time. That makes him the world's first true Neocon. Snap.Trotsky is generally considered to be the father of neoconservatism. (I saw a useful timeline chart of this but can't find it anymore.) What's interesting is I believe he was the one to coin the word fascist in terms of right-wing extremists, to differentiate "real" socialists from the command socialists that would go on to murder hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century.

unbongwah -- you are touching on what I ineptly was trying to get at. It sounds like what Republicans were bleating about in 2003 to moderate Muslim leaders! (Naturally, we heard very little about that for whatever reason, and I doubt you'll see anything different with conservatives.) So funny how how everything remains the same with different sides.

[bago]

I really hate those people that are hateful motherfuckers and hate everyone.

Uh.....

The succinct form is "I hate bigots".

[Lum]

To the Qt3 conservatives: - well, y'all start lookin' guilty by association to us liburuls.

As a Qt3 conservative (founding member, Bring The Tories To America! We already have Andrew Sullivan, come on!), I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Do you seriously believe anyone posting here has *not* 'disavowed' von Brunn, or the currently rudderless GOP for that matter?

I mean, I could understand if SeanHannity42 posted here or something, but I think the looking for strawmen is getting a little old. Yes, the current "opposition" is retarded and void, thanks. Yes, Fox News embarrasses everyone who watches it and some who work there, thanks. Do we really have to go through the ritual Washing Of The Hands every post? Can you guys not accept that people can disagree politically and NOT be demonic racist thugs?

[Mister Widget]

As a Qt3 conservative (founding member, Bring The Tories To America! We already have Andrew Sullivan, come on!), I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Do you seriously believe anyone posting here has *not* 'disavowed' von Brunn, or the currently rudderless GOP for that matter?

I mean, I could understand if SeanHannity42 posted here or something, but I think the looking for strawmen is getting a little old. Yes, the current "opposition" is retarded and void, thanks. Yes, Fox News embarrasses everyone who watches it and some who work there, thanks. Do we really have to go through the ritual Washing Of The Hands every post? Can you guys not accept that people can disagree and NOT be demonic racist thugs?

Lum, I think it's clear to everyone that you have washed your hands of the crazies once and for all, and you share no responsibility for their actions. The question is, where will you go next? Many of us, even on the left, wish there was a sane alternative to the Democrats... but where is it?

[Midnight Son]

It's never gonna end, this human condition. Players come and go but nothing really changes. Ennui wins.

[Lum]

Lum, I think it's clear to everyone that you have washed your hands of the crazies once and for all, and you share no responsibility for their actions. The question is, where will you go next? Many of us, even on the left, wish there was a sane alternative to the Democrats... but where is it?

Well, apparently the Tories aren't coming to America, maybe we could get the True Whigs rolling again.

More seriously, I suspect that after Obama wins in a landslide next election we might see some reaction on the GOP to return to some sort of reality-based politics. I don't hold out much hope until then.

[bago]

The conservatives have nothing until they can destroy the old institutions that keep Gingrich, any of the Cheney crew, the Heritage foundation, any of Kagans and Kristols around and able to show their faces in town. You can save a few kids like Balko and Healey from Cato, but a line needs to be drawn clearly on one side of torture, and almost everyone in power in the republican party sold out on the wrong side of torture. Anyone that didn't openly mock Cheney when he declared himself a fourth branch of government needs to go. The only problem is that they are the old money that keeps the thinktanks and party apparatus alive. They're the ones buying and pulping the books to make the NYT best-seller lists. Until the veneer of "seriousness" is stripped from the defenders of CHILD TESTICLE CRUSHING, conservatives have nothing but ideas, and those are a dime a dozen.

[Mister Widget]

Well, apparently the Tories aren't coming to America, maybe we could get the True Whigs rolling again.

More seriously, I suspect that after Obama wins in a landslide next election we might see some reaction on the GOP to return to some sort of reality-based politics. I don't hold out much hope until then.

A modern Whig party would be awesome. They could be truly fiscally conservative -- because debt left to our descendants is despicable -- and yet socially liberal -- because if I want to worship graven images and work on the sabbath, it's my own damn business.

But how could it ever get started? How could it survive past the first election cycle? I fear it couldn't be, and we are left with your suggestion: simply wait long enough, and some version of the Republicans will return to sanity.

[bago]

So now Malkin and RedState are on the neo-nazi == secret lefty frame. Want to know how the math works?
Killer hates Jews.
Leftists on dKos don't like neoCons.
Many neoCons are jews.

In order for the set theory to even be describable, all neoCons have to be all jews.

Therefore ("Leftists on dKos" don't like jews) like (Killer don't like jews)!

It's incredibly retarded, so you know it's true (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/06/11/has-anyone-checked-to-see-if-the-holocaust-museum-shooter-had-a-dailykos-account/).

I hate being so crude, but this is the message for the next 24 hours. It will be repeated non-stop. The fact that the killer had articles and comments on FreeRepublic (that somehow all got deleted yesterday, (but saved on google cache)) is totally going to be ignored.

[Lum]

It's like Jews are the philosopher's stone that ties the alchemy of extremism together!

(Actually, extreme leftists and extreme rightists have quite a bit in common, but that argument is a bit too nuanced for the MUUUSLLIMMMS EEEEEVIL crowd.)

[Jag]

It's like Jews are the philosopher's stone that ties the alchemy of extremism together!


I thought we were the canary in the coal mine for the breakdown of Western Civilization. Who's got that diagram?

[Tim James]

The conservatives have nothing until they can destroy the old institutions that keep Gingrich, any of the Cheney crew, the Heritage foundation, any of Kagans and Kristols around and able to show their faces in town. You can save a few kids like Balko and Healey from Cato, but a line needs to be drawn clearly on one side of torture, and almost everyone in power in the republican party sold out on the wrong side of torture. Anyone that didn't openly mock Cheney when he declared himself a fourth branch of government needs to go. The only problem is that they are the old money that keeps the thinktanks and party apparatus alive. They're the ones buying and pulping the books to make the NYT best-seller lists. Until the veneer of "seriousness" is stripped from the defenders of CHILD TESTICLE CRUSHING, conservatives have nothing but ideas, and those are a dime a dozen.ONLY ONE MAN CAN STAND UP TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

[bago]

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tappertwitter061109.jpg
Oh look, it's going to be a major story, now with that extra spicy wright-jew sauce.

Lum, that only gets re-enforced by a lazy media that likes to have handy equivalences. Person X says X, but Person Y says Y. Well, that's a tough one people, be sure to tune in tomorrow! *phew* (journalism dodged).

[Tim James]

Finally decided to read a bit about this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_us/us_holocaust_museum_shooting) now that a few facts are out. Couple things that caught my eye:
De Nugent said von Brunn complained that his Social Security benefits had been reduced, and he suspected that his white supremacist views were the reason.Even right-wing extremists want their Social Security checks!
Johns, the security guard, opened the door for von Brunn. Before von Brunn even got into the building, he pointed his gun at Jones' heart and pulled the trigger. Johns later died at a hospital.It really bugs me when AP articles fail to go into detail about glaring holes in the story that people want to know about, like why a security guard was holding the door open for someone carrying a rifle. Was he hiding it behind his back? Do they get weirdos trying to donate their rifles? I hope this isn't being insensitive, but I want to know what happened, not what his neighbors thought of him.
On Wednesday, von Brunn parked his 2002 red Hyundai in the middle of traffic outside the museum, according to an FBI affidavit. He grabbed a .22-caliber rifle and walked toward the building..22, the most popular single caliber for shooting and killing someone. In this case it's kind of frustrating that a single shot of that "weak" round to the heart was enough to kill the guard, while 8 shots of (presumably) 9mm from handguns were not enough to kill this oxygen thief.
Investigators found 10 rounds in von Brunn's rifle and a signed, handwritten screed in his car. "You wanted my weapons — this is how you'll get them," von Brunn wrote.Crap, don't let Andrew Mayer see this.

[Matthew Gallant]

That article doesn't include the part of the note that asserts Obama is the Jewish Serpentor.

"You want my weapons -- this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."

[Saiban]

(Actually, extreme leftists and extreme rightists have quite a bit in common, but that argument is a bit too nuanced for the MUUUSLLIMMMS EEEEEVIL crowd.)

Unfortunately, it also seems a bit too nuanced for this board, lately, with all the "OMG WHY HASN'T THE GOP DENOUNCED RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM ALREADY!?" BS. God damn, what does it actually matter if von Brunn can be classified categorized as belonging to the 'far-right'? I'd say when some motherfucker walks into a museum and starts blasting away at security guards, the time for academic debate about which side of the political spectrum his views fall on has pretty much passed. Something that would be really refreshing, in the case of the murder of Dr. Tiller, von Brunn, and the Muslim-convert guy who murdered two soldiers in the article that LK linked, would be if people on both sides would say, "Hey, you know, killing people to make a political point is kind of reprehensible! Lets not do that, guys!" instead of using the incident as some sort of club to beat the other side of the head with.

Besides, when the Democratic president preserves a large portion of the national security policy and other disgusting aspects of his GOP predecessor's administration, this crap rhetoric about the Republicans supporting racism or whatever sound pretty hollow. Last I checked, young black men are still way more likely to get completely fucked by the judicial system than whites, and we're still illegally holding hundreds of brown people in Gauntanamo Bay.

[Anti-Bunny]

Created by jews? Like, in a vat?

[Tim James]

That article doesn't include the part of the note that asserts Obama is the Jewish Serpentor.

"You want my weapons -- this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."As I was driving home, I remembered that the Nazis were the ones that were doing firearms confiscation (though IIRC it was pretty late in the cycle rather than as a first step). I suppose most Jews as a bloc are probably anti-gun, though groups like JPFO are trying to change that.

Still, it must be really hard to maintain that worldview given all its glaring inconsistencies.

[Anti-Bunny]

Still, it must be really hard to maintain that worldview given all its glaring inconsistencies.

Since when do crazy people need to be consistent?

[Tim James]

They don't need to be, I'm just saying it must be hard, that's all. Like you really have to work at it for a while.

[Eric P]

That article doesn't include the part of the note that asserts Obama is the Jewish Serpentor.

"You want my weapons -- this is how you'll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."

I bet Bibi is looking for the remote as we speak

[Lum]

The Muslims stole it

[Anti-Bunny]

So apparently this guy was a 9/11 truther that hated the GOP (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Holocaust-Museum-shooter-von-Brunn-a-911-truther-who-hated-neocons-Bush-McCain). IIRC, wasn't he a RONPAUL supporter, too?

[bago]

I bet Bibi is looking for the remote as we speak

Fumbling towards the sanction button (http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/09/israeli-minister-eyes-sanctions-against-us/).

[Jason McCullough]

"Hey, you know, killing people to make a political point is kind of reprehensible! Lets not do that, guys!" instead of using the incident as some sort of club to beat the other side of the head with.

Do we really have to explain this to you?

[Anti-Bunny]

Whether the guy was right-wing or not (apparently not), the right-wing figureheads are still fucking retarded (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906110030).

[Cubit]

Whether the guy was right-wing or not (apparently not), the right-wing figureheads are still fucking retarded (http://mediamatters.org/research/200906110030).

god, that is ridiculous. i think shep is the only guy i like over at Fox.

[Andrew Mayer]

So let me get this straight. Obama has to disavow Ayers, who took actions when he was a child, and that he had no genuine ties with, but the GOP can foment and stoke extremist anger for months, and then are instantly absolved of any ties once they act on their eliminationist rhetoric because they are so crazy.

BONUS:
Here's a greatest hits video of the GOP getting angry at anyone who would dare to call extremist nut-jobs anything but rock-ribbed conservatives being put-upon by liberals. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL7iY5uarA8&feature=player_embedded)

You bought them, GOP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfffjkTieo&feature=player_embedded). Now you own them.

[Chuck]

But it is great to watch them eat each other. Watch out for that bus, Shep!

[Anti-Bunny]

the GOP can foment and stoke extremist anger for months

Hey, Idiot. You can stop now. The guy apparently hated the GOP and especially fox news. (http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=537)

[Andrew Mayer]

Hey, Idiot. You can stop now. The guy apparently hated the GOP and especially fox news. (http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=537)

That doesn't absolve anyone of anything. Of course the extremists are going to hate all authority. That doesn't mean they weren't getting the message.

"You know, I you don't like FOX news, but they've been saying pretty much what you've been saying. Someone sure needs to do something."

After all the accusations of "moral relativism" we've heard from the right over the years, now they're trying to run away from the monsters that they've created.
An environment of radical action and racist rhetoric has been fostered and endorsed by the highest levels of a party in power, along with complete disregard for the rule of law, our elected officials, and the processes of government.

[Lizard_King]

So let me get this straight. Obama has to disavow Ayers, who took actions when he was a child, and that he had no genuine ties with, but the GOP can foment and stoke extremist anger for months, and then are instantly absolved of any ties once they act on their eliminationist rhetoric because they are so crazy.

The fact that the GOP was full of shit about the Ayers connection does not make doing the same thing in the opposite direction something worthwhile.

[Andrew Mayer]

The fact that the GOP was full of shit about the Ayers connection does not make doing the same thing in the opposite direction something worth doing.

I'm just pointing out how low they set the bar.

I don't see it as equal at all.

[Tim James]

So let me get this straight. Obama has to disavow Ayers, who took actions when he was a child, and that he had no genuine ties with, but the GOP can foment and stoke extremist anger for months, and then are instantly absolved of any ties once they act on their eliminationist rhetoric because they are so crazy.YES HEHEHEHEHHE!!11

[Jason McCullough]

Hey, Idiot. You can stop now. The guy apparently hated the GOP and especially fox news. (http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog/?p=537)

Here's the model for why I don't think that matters.

1. You have mainstream figures going on sotto voice about overthrowing the government because it's not legitimate, how there's shadowy forces out to get you, and begging the question of what, exactly, they expect their followers to do if not engage in violence. Watching Beck is incredibly unsettling for these reasons.
2. This creates a climate for political partisans to one-up each other, and normalizes ever more radicalized behavior.
3. The farther out you go from the political median, they more radicalized the political actor will be.
4. People take their cues on acceptable behavior from the bounds of debate.

Using this model, you'd actually expect the nuts who happen to be so far to the right they think Fox is a bunch of sellouts to be the ones that finally flipout and kill people - they're already way outside the norms, so if the norms move they'll go even farther. But part of the reason they finally act on it is that they take their cues on what's acceptable and what isn't from the bounds of debate - when that shifts, they go with it.

I now exit in a blaze of Amateur Sociology!

[bago]

Called it (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/latest_right-wing_meme_von_brunns_a_lefty.php). Everybody decided on the "von Brunn is a lefty" story. Even rounds up Anti-Bunny's link.

[RyanMichael]

1. You have mainstream figures going on sotto voice

Sotto voce.

[Lum]

How did it happen that you look at people that are Nazis and you say that those are right wing? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

It all becomes clear now - von Brunn was a National Bolshevist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party)!

http://www.geocities.com/h_marroquin/lubitvas.jpg

Wow, I never knew Beck and Fox News were so clued into obscure post-Soviet Russian extremists.

[Anti-Bunny]

This thread is for arguing about the political affiliation of a homicidal, insane person.

[Andrew Mayer]

This thread is for arguing about the political affiliation of a homicidal, insane person.

It's about who was courting his vote.

[Sarkus]

It's about who was courting his vote.

Who do you think the people who support the views of Rev. Wright voted for?

People who start shooting are far beyond the political boundaries of either major US political party, regardless of what your left of center perspective tells you.

[Saiban]

Do we really have to explain this to you?

Yes, I'd love to hear you explain why you explode with self-righteous anger every time you see an opportunity to pin some heinous act on the Republican party, as opposed to every other heinous act that uncounted other organizations on this incredibly fucked up planet of ours commit on a day to day basis. What the fuck makes the Republicans so special? In case you didn't notice, they lost the last election, resoundingly.

And as if that weren't enough, you don't even have the intellectual clarity, clouded as your mind is by this idiotic crusade you seem to be on, you're not even focusing on the dozens of far more legitimate complaints about the GOP -- like, for example, how their commentators on Fox and AM radio have taken it upon themselves to absolutely shit on anything resembling truth any time they get a chance, to pervert the political dialogue into something that can actually fit their incredibly broken policies and world views.

So, yeah, I'd be fucking thrilled to have you explain this to me.

[Saiban]

And just for the record, I hate the Republican party and most of what they stand for, and I eagerly supported Obama over the alternative. For all intents and purposes, I consider myself firmly on the "Left" -- but that doesn't mean I don't think the Left also has its own problems to face honestly, or that my political affiliation makes it alright for me to demonize the other side because I can't win an argument using facts or clearly presented and logical opinions.

[Anti-Bunny]

It's about who was courting his vote.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2356/1549040798_ef818a09c8.jpg

[Tim James]

Aww, what a cute doggie!

[Anti-Bunny]

Aww, what a cute doggie!
The dog is speaking to us! It says... abolishing the gold standard was a zionist trick!

[Tim James]

Oh, you cosmopolitan libertarians love those cheap shots about the poor vagina-examiner from Texas!

Libertarianism is sure to become respected this time! I just know it!

[rhinohelix]

It's not. Many right-wing-leaning people vehemently oppose racism, especially evangelical Christians, who have a strong tradition of missionary outreach in the third world. It's like saying all left-wing-leaning people are Communists who want to confiscate everyone's guns and force your kids to turn gay.

But the extremists are turning pretty racist. The tea parties had plenty of ugly examples. Obama's election, as inspiring as it was for 99% of the planet, unfortunately is inspiring in an entirely different way for that wacko 1%.

Watch that Shepard Smith video Jason linked above... it's good that Fox played that, and speaks to the wacko fringe that sane conservatives are as frightened by as anyone else.

I weep for Lum, Finlandized by QT3.

Extremists aren't "turning" racist. Those people are always there. Its just that like the scenery on a long drive, we notice it/them as the context makes them more obvious. Like the shark attack summer that didn't have any more shark attacks than any other summer but far more coverage, the media attention creates these trends in the zeitgeist. Not to say there isn't an ebb and flow to those on the fringe but the numbers aren't statistically significant at all.

Blaming this on Fox News is completely ridiculous and says more about you than it does anything owned by Rupert Murdoch; in fact, its just as stupid as blaming the MSNBC for the shooting of the American soldier in Arkansas. We just came through 8 years of a responsibility-free zone in relation to rhetoric about the previous administration; where was all of this concern about the poisonous nature of the discourse then?

Finally, there is racism throughout the political spectrum, in both wings and the center, in every region of the country, harbored by members of every religion, socio-economic, class, and ethnicity. Racism isn't about ideology, although it makes for a wonderful kludge for those who seek power through exploiting race and gender. American society has come so far in the last 50 years as to almost defy belief. The ingrained reflexive indoctrination against racism of any sort is so powerful that what passes in many cases for hateful racism today would have been considered marginal 25 years ago.

The term "racist" so overused and its meaning so diluted that when we actually encounter the real thing like we do in this case, it doesn't seem to be appropriate or severe enough to cover the ugliness on display here.

[Andrew Mayer]

Blaming this on Fox News is completely ridiculous and says more about you than it does anything owned by Rupert Murdoch; in fact, its just as stupid as blaming the MSNBC for the shooting of the American soldier in Arkansas. We just came through 8 years of a responsibility-free zone in relation to rhetoric about the previous administration; where was all of this concern about the poisonous nature of the discourse then?

Spin the bullshit all you want, but there were no elected members of the Democrats that called Bush the equivalent of a Socialist, or publicly threatened that he would "soon destroy the country".

The GOP is shrinking, and as it shrinks it is becoming radicalized. Those elected officials that remain are finding it necessary to use more and more thinly coded language to try and court the remaining elements of their party because that's the only chance they have to remain in power.

If a few people get shot along the way, well, they clearly have the rhetoric to deal with that.

There's no balance here, fair or otherwise.

[bago]

Brietbart is Butthurt (http://gawker.com/5287371/andrew-breitbart-holocaust-museum-killer-was-a-multiculturalist).

[Jason McCullough]

Yes, I'd love to hear you explain why you explode with self-righteous anger every time you see an opportunity to pin some heinous act on the Republican party, as opposed to every other heinous act that uncounted other organizations on this incredibly fucked up planet of ours commit on a day to day basis. What the fuck makes the Republicans so special? In case you didn't notice, they lost the last election, resoundingly.

I think the problem here is that you're going off an attempted mindreading. Nothing I've said has anything to do with your post, and reviewing the thread I don't think what anyone else has said does either.

One, it's not the Republicans; it's specific conservatives in the media who aren't even politicians - Beck, Hannity, Rush, etc., with the possible exception of Gingrich and Palin. Two, there's not too many people all but telling their followers to go overthrow the government. So I think that does make them a little bit special.

The last few months have seen a creepy escalation of rhetoric on the right. In retrospect, this all started around the "tie Obama to Ayers" timeframe in the campaign; that got out of control and invigorated the wingnuts to the point you had attendes at McCain/Palin rallies screaming out "kill him" (Obama), that he's a Muslim, and that he's a terrorist. McCain tried to put a lid on it, but Palin kept stoking it. Then since the election they've all been one-upping each other with overheated rhetoric about how Obama will destroy the universe; it's gotten to the point that calling him a socialist is the "reasonable" conservative opinion.

They really need to stop whipping up the hysteria before someone else gets killed.

[Sarkus]

Spin the bullshit all you want, but there were no elected members of the Democrats that called Bush the equivalent of a Socialist, or publicly threatened that he would "soon destroy the country".


How's that different then the radical lefties (and not so radical ones) who referred to Bush as a fascist and talked about how we were heading towards some sort of dictatorship? Isn't that as likely to incite the whackos, when you compare the sitting president to Hitler?

We live in a society where both sides are very happy to use extremist rhetoric to make the other side look like they are the worst thing in a long time.

[dermot]

The funny thing is that in Europe the parties on the left are socialist or at least lean that way and the word isn't used as an insult (despite the bloody history of socialism in our part of the world). In fact there was a weird political exchange in Ireland a few years ago wherein the Prime Minister at the time - leader of one of the main centre-right parties - claimed that there were only two true socialists in the House and that he was one of them.

[TheWombat]

How's that different then the radical lefties (and not so radical ones) who referred to Bush as a fascist and talked about how we were heading towards some sort of dictatorship? Isn't that as likely to incite the whackos, when you compare the sitting president to Hitler?

We live in a society where both sides are very happy to use extremist rhetoric to make the other side look like they are the worst thing in a long time.

Good points, but I think you're setting up an equivalency that might not be quite accurate. Do we really think that what pass for "leftist" wackos are pretty much interchangeable with "rightist" loonies? When worked up, the former (with the exception of a few very marginal groups like environmental terrorists or radical animal activists, perhaps) hold meetings, light candles, and wring their hands along with thier sometime strained rhetoric. The latter are far more likely to pick up a gun, make a bomb, or gather some friends and beat someone up. At least, that's my perception.

The rhetoric of the "right" it seems is much more likely to logically and inexorably push people towards violence than the rhetoric of what passes for the left in this country. We don't have a real "left" in the sense of the Bader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction/Red Brigades that bedevilied Europe in the '70s, thankfully, but we do have fringe elements on the other side of the spectrum (which as has been noted shares eerie similarities with their arch-enemies) who do resemble that sort of violent expression of political angst, albeit most of the time without the organization, intent, or ability to actually blow stuff up and kill people, for the most part.

Then again, as rhino points out, maybe it's just that we're focusing on it more now. But I really do think there is a qualitative difference between the rhetoric from both sides, and the effects of that rhetoric.

[Matthew Gallant]

Blaming this on Fox News is completely ridiculous and says more about you than it does anything owned by Rupert Murdoch; in fact, its just as stupid as blaming the MSNBC for the shooting of the American soldier in Arkansas.
1. MSNBC supports the military.
2.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3445535150_425bec3721.jpg?v=0

[Anti-Bunny]

Oh, you cosmopolitan libertarians love those cheap shots about the poor vagina-examiner from Texas!

Libertarianism is sure to become respected this time! I just know it!

Oh bull fucking shit. You and I know what's going on here, because we aren't so blinded by retarded tribalism. There was only one candidate using 'coded' messages last campaign, and it wasn't McCain.. Saying the GOP is even capable of coming up with coded messages is giving them far too much credit.

There's a reason Stormfront was such a big campaign contributor to Ron Paul. Why the hell else would Paul refuse to disavow his own racist newsletter, spouting crap like 'Libertarians are incapable of being racist!' while posing for pictures with Stormfront's founder?

Libertarians aren't ever going to be respected unless the LP stops trying to court Ron Paul and instead completely disavow him and treat him like a loon, just like the big boy parties do.

[Kraaze]

Libertarians aren't ever going to be respected unless the LP stops trying to court Ron Paul and instead completely disavow him and treat him like a loon, just like the big boy parties do.

Yeah, that would be a big step forward for them.

[John Many Jars]

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/the-wages-of-hate/

[Lorini]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/levin.hate/index.html

What's interesting is that the other article says that "white supremacist groups are vastly expanding" this article says the opposite. Who to believe, NYT, or CNN?

[wahoo]

In the NY times corner about the author: "Judith Warner's book, "Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety" (excerpt, NPR interview), a New York Times best-seller, was published in February 2005. "Domestic Disturbances" appears every Friday."

Representing CNN's author: Brian Levin is director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism and an associate professor at California State University, San Bernardino. He is the editor of the recently published book: "Hate Crimes: Understanding and Defining Hate Crime" (Praeger, 2009) and was a 2004 Summer Seminar Scholar at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.


One of these writers seems to have a wee bit more expertise in this area.

[unbongwah]

Do you seriously believe anyone posting here has *not* 'disavowed' von Brunn, or the currently rudderless GOP for that matter?
Of course not. I was mostly replying to Tim's question about why liberals paint conservatives in such broad strokes every time a right-wing nutjob like von Brunn or Roeder pops up. IMHO, it's largely because conservatives - as both a political party and a social movement - do such a poor job of policing their own ranks. I'm not talking about the fringe wackos, I'm talking about mainstream conservative outlets - like Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter, and on down the food chain - which create a social petri dish from which more virulent strains are cultivated.

It's like there's this Crazy Train of conservative thought which starts with stupid shit like the GOP's "recovery plan" and renaming the Democratic party "Socialists," gets exhorted by Fox News, chugs along through neocon territory, picks up the shrill hate-screeds of Coulter and her ilk, and just goes barreling downhill from there. I don't hold them solely responsible for where the Crazy Train winds up, but I do think they get the snowball rolling.

Having a former vice president defending torture as a legitimate tool of national security is bad enough. Having major conservative groups treat him with velvet gloves rather than like tainted goods is far worse, though, because it legitimizes views which ought to be abhorrent.
Created by jews? Like, in a vat?
"We can make him better. Stronger. Kosher."
How's that different then the radical lefties (and not so radical ones) who referred to Bush as a fascist and talked about how we were heading towards some sort of dictatorship?
They're nowhere near as well-organized and well-funded, for one thing: strictly Keystone Kops compared to some of their far-right counterparts.

[Eric P]

They're nowhere near as well-organized and well-funded, for one thing: strictly Keystone Kops compared to some of their far-right counterparts.

have you ever sat in on a left-wing radical meeting? they are hell on earth where getting stuff done is secondary to making sure everyone feels comfortable.

and the egos.

my god, the egos.

[magnet]

Spin the bullshit all you want, but there were no elected members of the Democrats that called Bush the equivalent of a Socialist, or publicly threatened that he would "soon destroy the country".
How's that different then the radical lefties (and not so radical ones) who referred to Bush as a fascist and talked about how we were heading towards some sort of dictatorship?
That's how.

[unbongwah]

have you ever sat in on a left-wing radical meeting? they are hell on earth where getting stuff done is secondary to making sure everyone feels comfortable.
No, but I always have "Life of Brian" flashbacks when I try to picture them. ["Are you the Judean People's Front?" "Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea!"]

So in short: the Far Right is evil; the Far Left is just incompetent.

[Eric P]

about accurate.

[unbongwah]

What's interesting is that the other article says that "white supremacist groups are vastly expanding" this article says the opposite. Who to believe, NYT, or CNN?
Actually, they say the same thing, but Levin provides more context. Warner says, "Hate group membership had been expanding steadily over the course of the past decade." Levin concurs, saying, "Today, a somewhat resurgent hate movement has grown to a record 926 groups -- up more than 50 percent alone this decade, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center," but adds that "The increase comes off of a historic low and appears to be caused in part by a splintering of large groups and the emergence of smaller, less effective ones." EDIT: Levin also suggests they feel more desperate in part because of their dwindling numbers and influence, thus are more prone to extremism and violence.

So, hate groups: not as numerous or as powerful as they once were; but on the rise over the last decade nonetheless. Hate glass half-full or half-empty?

[Lum]

How's that different then the radical lefties (and not so radical ones) who referred to Bush as a fascist and talked about how we were heading towards some sort of dictatorship? Isn't that as likely to incite the whackos, when you compare the sitting president to Hitler?

The difference is that I can't think of any elected/mainstream Democratic political figures who did the Bush fascist dictatorship cant. Plenty of rank and file of course (just check qt3p&r!) but it was centered around DailyKOS, DU, HuffPo, blogs, etc.

Whereas with the right, it's being stoked by the 'mainstream' (which is now quite extreme in comparison, most even angrily disavow McCain as too moderate). No figure of great visibility on the left angrily took to the airwaves, accused Bush of destroying the country and demanding a revolution like Hannity and Beck have done, for example.

So the rhetoric is not that different, but the embrace of it by what used to be the mainstream GOP is.

[Matthew Gallant]

The difference is that I can't think of any elected/mainstream Democratic political figures who did the Bush fascist dictatorship cant.
I think the closest it got was Kucinich and his impeachment attempts on Cheney and Bush (which he continues to pursue in the form of attempting to appoint a special prosecutor). But the language surrounding that was related more to the Bush administration doing a host of illegal things rather than conspiracy theory-esque assertions of actively trying to sabotage the American government for the benefit of foreign influences.

[unbongwah]

Why do you gay commie pinko Islamosocialists keep harping on the rule of law?! The Constitution clearly states the President can do whatever the hell he wants, as long as he's not a black gay commie pinko Islamosocialist!

[Jason McCullough]

Do de do (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/11/was-james-von-brunn-a-right-winger.aspx).

Second, a certain strand of conservative thought is comfortable with most of the tenets of Republican doctrine with the exception of free trade and, especially, Jews, Israel, and neoconservative influence. Pat Buchanan is the emblem of this brand of conservatism. Buchanan is generally a Republican partisan except for Jewish/Israeli/Middle Eastern issues where he takes strong exception. Von Brunn is pretty clearly a violent and more extreme adherent of Buchanan's basic worldview. That he would detest a neoconservative institution like the Standard isn't "complicating" or surprising at all.


Third, it's somewhat apparent from Von Brunn's writing that he did identify with the Republican Party on some basic partisan questions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/james-w-von-brunn-holocau_n_213864.html). He cheered conservatives for getting Dan Rather fired, believed Sarah Palin was unfairly hounded by the media, and so on. Indeed, if there's anything surprising and disturbing about Von Brunn's beliefs, it's that he identifies more closely with the Republican Party than I would have thought a radical white supremacist would. This may be a sign that the GOP has become more appealing to radical right-wingers than it once was, but it could also be an anomaly.


Paleocon, basically.

[Sarkus]

The difference is that I can't think of any elected/mainstream Democratic political figures who did the Bush fascist dictatorship cant. Plenty of rank and file of course (just check qt3p&r!) but it was centered around DailyKOS, DU, HuffPo, blogs, etc.

Whereas with the right, it's being stoked by the 'mainstream' (which is now quite extreme in comparison, most even angrily disavow McCain as too moderate). No figure of great visibility on the left angrily took to the airwaves, accused Bush of destroying the country and demanding a revolution like Hannity and Beck have done, for example.

So the rhetoric is not that different, but the embrace of it by what used to be the mainstream GOP is.

Hannity, Rush, and Beck aren't elected. Olberman has gone pretty far off the path of "civil" discussion of politics himself, to the point where he can be said to be generally the liberal equivalent of the Fox crew. Naomi Wolf is an example of someone with a lot of mainstream exposure who went down the "Bush=Nazi" path. And MoveOn.org created a controversy back in 2004 when it ran some Bush/Hitler web ads during that election season. Plus, Howard Dean certainly played to the left extreme crowd during his presidential run in 2004 and is the same guy who lead the Dems general campaign in 2008. So lets stop pretending it's only the right that has adopted this tactic of trying to paint the other side as "extremists", at least in recent years.

[unbongwah]

But the difference is you guys really are extremists...HA!

[BlueJackalope]

So lets stop pretending it's only the right that has adopted this tactic of trying to paint the other side as "extremists", at least in recent years.

There are plenty of elected Republicans who are just as nutty as Beck, Hannity et al. (Hi Michelle!)

There is no way, no uhh uhh way you can make a one for one comparison between the left and the right's rhetoric.

I'd give you example after example but I'm lazy and have zero accountablity.

[magnet]

Hannity, Rush, and Beck aren't elected.

That's right. Here are a few people who are.

The stimulus, the omnibus, the budget--it's all one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment

Earlier this week, we heard the world's best salesman of socialism address the nation

With all due respect, the man is a socialist.

I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views (Thanks for the reminder BJ!)

Sarkus, you can try to resuscitate your equivalency argument when you find comparable quotations from elected Democratic politicians. Here's a clue:

Even in the darkest days of the Bush-Cheney administration, I don't think there was any reason to call George Bush a fascist.

[Sarkus]

So you guys think that elected Republicans calling Dems "socialists" is the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence?


Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of the House, says Bush administration actions following 9-11 remind him of the way Adolf Hitler's government expanded his power after the burning of Berlin's Reichstag--that was the parliament building--in 1933.

Ellison told a gathering of atheists recently "It's almost like the fire, kind of remind me of that. After it was burned they blamed the communists for it, and then put the leader of that country, that would be Hitler, in a position where he could, basically, have the authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is I'm not saying that September 11th was a U.S. plan, or anything like that, because you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you."

[Anti-Bunny]

So you guys think that elected Republicans calling Dems "socialists" is the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence?

This is pretty hilarious, considering several posters here happily call themselves socialist.

[Matthew Gallant]

So you guys think that elected Republicans calling Dems "socialists" is the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence?
Yes, in a climate where the word 'liberal' has the connotations it has, 'socialist' ratchets that up to new levels of demonization.

[Sarkus]

Yes, in a climate where the word 'liberal' has the connotations it has, 'socialist' ratchets that up to new levels of demonization.

Just like how some people have "demonized" being an outspoken Christian?

[Saiban]

That's right. Here are a few people who are.







(Thanks for the reminder BJ!)

You can try to resuscitate your equivalency argument when you find comparable quotations from elected Democratic politicians. Here's a clue:

Those people are all trying to link Obama to Western European governments, and their supposedly "socialist" nature and extortionate tax rates. That's a huge difference from calling someone a modern-day Hitler. That's something that happened frequently to Bush, and it was ridiculous then, and it's something that I've seen conservative protesters and voters saying about Obama, and it's ridiculous now.

Rehashing this stupid argument does everyone a disservice. Stop going after this shit just because it's easy, because it's not true. No one's talking about what is really going on when people call Obama a socialist -- one side of the political spectrum exploiting the ignorance of the electorate, because they're completely out of ideas on how to govern. The right isn't trying to mobilize extremists to assassinate their enemies; they're trying to regain power by capitalizing on the fears and passions of their base. Call it what it is, because even though it's not as morally clear as one side condoning terrorism and murder, it's still pretty god damned terrible for the entire political process.

[Jason McCullough]

Plus, Howard Dean certainly played to the left extreme crowd during his presidential run in 2004 and is the same guy who lead the Dems general campaign in 2008.

Really? How?

[magnet]

So you guys think that elected Republicans calling Dems "socialists" is the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence?

I think it has no parallel among elected Democrats. It legitimizes the idea that Obama does not love America. And the wackos take it from there.

[magnet]

That's a huge difference from calling someone a modern-day Hitler. That's something that happened frequently to Bush, and it was ridiculous then.

You are confused. No elected Democrat ever called Bush a modern-day Hitler, or for that matter even questioned his patriotism.

[Malathor]

Yes, in a climate where the word 'liberal' has the connotations it has, 'socialist' ratchets that up to new levels of demonization.

And? The day Americans can't "demonize" the president is the day freedom of speech in this country is dead. "Inciting violence" is always the excuse of totalitarian shits everywhere for breaking out the gags, and its a very very slippery slope down.

[magnet]

And? The day Americans can't "demonize" the president is the day

Americans can say whatever they like. But in a healthy democracy, we expect our political leaders to keep to a higher standard.

[Adam B]

Who was talking about "breaking out the gags?" Calling people irresponsible, evil douchebags is as far as I've seen this thread go.

[Saiban]

You are confused. No elected Democrat ever called Bush a modern-day Hitler, or for that matter even questioned his patriotism.

I wasn't referring to elected Democrats.

[Anaxagoras]

"Inciting violence" is always the excuse of totalitarian shits everywhere for breaking out the gags, and its a very very slippery slope down.

No it's not. It's the excuse of totalitarian shits everywhere who are already on top. As they're climbing to the top, they do the inciting as a way to increase instability & make their "law & order" message more appealing.

One of the reasons they clamp down on "inciting violence" is because they know just how effective it is, and how impossible it is to reason with someone who is espousing such violence.

The fact that the Conservatives clamped down on it when they were in power, and are now inciting it, shows them behaving in exactly the pattern of totalitarians the world over. The track record of the left is much more sloppy & inconsistent, which is to their credit.

[Matthew Gallant]

Just like how some people have "demonized" being an outspoken Christian?
Yeah, I'm sure somebody could do that and get elected/re-elected. So, NO, NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.

[Saiban]

I think it has no parallel among elected Democrats. It legitimizes the idea that Obama does not love America. And the wackos take it from there.

Sure it does. Democrats legitimized the idea that Bush didn't love large swaths of the American electorate and many aspects of American society. Just because you agree with one and not the other doesn't make it okay.

[magnet]

Democrats legitimized the idea that Bush didn't love large swaths of the American electorate

"Loving America" and "loving every American" sure do sound alike, but they are not even remotely similar. For instance, a lot of people love America.

I wasn't referring to elected Democrats.

Of course not. Democratic officials have never stooped to the same level as their elected GOP counterparts.

That's why the GOP is partially responsible for lunatics like von Brunn and Roeder, whereas the Democratic party is not.

[Lum]

So you guys think that elected Republicans calling Dems "socialists" is the kind of rhetoric that leads to violence?

To the hard right who forgot the Cold War ended and think that socialism and communism are the same thing, yes.

Do we REALLY need to find old YouTubes of those Palin rallies?

[Sarkus]

Really? How?

By positioning himself as the "anti-establishment" candidate. I'm not saying that he specifically adopted any really radical positions, just that he tried to position himself to the left of Kerry and the other major potential nominees, effectively making himself the alternative closest to the far left. Which is the same strategy many Republicans have used, and thus have ended up associated with the far right. That said, I overstated Dean's strategy in the post you quoted.

The use of what should be benign words that describe the political left as examples of "extremist rhetoric" seems to me to tell us more about the failure of the left to defend their own territory and allow the right to define those terms in negative ways.

[Matthew Gallant]

The use of what should be benign words that describe the political left as examples of "extremist rhetoric" seems to me to tell us more about the failure of the left to defend their own territory and allow the right to define those terms in negative ways.
Yes, and that completely absolves the right of any wrongdoing. Also, if Sarah Palin stabs Hillary Clinton and she dies, it's Hillary's fault for not applying a joint lock to Sarah's arm.

[Flowers]

You are confused. No elected Democrat ever called Bush a modern-day Hitler, or for that matter even questioned his patriotism.

Nobody in their right mind would compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler actually delivered on his campaign promises.

[Sarkus]

Yes, and that completely absolves the right of any wrongdoing. Also, if Sarah Palin stabs Hillary Clinton and she dies, it's Hillary's fault for not applying a joint lock to Sarah's arm.

Yeah, sure, that's exactly what I was saying.

Rather then complain about "socialist" and "liberal" being turned into bad words, how about just owning those words proudly and making sure the idiots that didn't pay attention in government class are reminded of what they really mean? It's worked before.

[Flowers]

Trying to convince people who didn't pay attention in Social Studies class that they aren't really just special geniuses with unique insight is a fool's errand. Trust me.

[quatoria]

Just like how some people have "demonized" being an outspoken Christian?

Wow, keep moving those goalposts, shifting the subject, and looking for new ways to draw false equivalencies. Sooner or later, I'm sure it will give you the win!

[Sarkus]

Wow, keep moving those goalposts, shifting the subject, and looking for new ways to draw false equivalencies. Sooner or later, I'm sure it will give you the win!

How is that "moving those goalposts" when the debate here is whether the right has gone further then the left in the use of labels? Pointing out how the left has also used those tactics seems a fair point to make in such a debate.

[Lum]

This newsletter is relevant to my interests (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/weekend-opinionator-is-racist-hate-republican-or-democratic/).

[Sarkus]

This newsletter is relevant to my interests (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/weekend-opinionator-is-racist-hate-republican-or-democratic/).

That's a nice look at the varied reactions to this.

[Matthew Gallant]

Pointing out how the left has also used those tactics seems a fair point to make in such a debate.Quote a single Democrat in Congress that has said anything about Christianity ruining America. Go ahead. Until then, shut up about that total pile of crap you have the temerity to call a point.

[William Harms]

How is that "moving those goalposts" when the debate here is whether the right has gone further then the left in the use of labels? Pointing out how the left has also used those tactics seems a fair point to make in such a debate.

The fact that Dick Cheney has been going on TV week after week and essentially saying that Obama wants nothing more than for bin Laden to tap dance through the White House while chucking C4 at injured vets takes things to an entirely new level. No other former VP has been this vocal in his criticism of a new administration.

For better or worse, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity have much, much greater reach than anyone from the left. The things they say carry real weight, especially with the conservative movement in such disarray/tilting so far to the right. There is no counter-weight. Hell, they even make it sound like Colin Powell likes to eat babies.

[Andrew Mayer]

How is that "moving those goalposts" when the debate here is whether the right has gone further then the left in the use of labels? Pointing out how the left has also used those tactics seems a fair point to make in such a debate.

The debate is about whether elected officials, and people directly endorsed and involved with the party are stoking violence.

So far not only has anybody failed to find equivalence on the left, but every accusation has been backed up by nothing. No quotes, no links, just a lot of "Olbermann does it too!"

Disagreeing is not a crime. Implying your opponent is sub-human, and a danger to your country that "something needs to be done about", is. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/doctor-was-target-of-oreillys-rhetoric/)

[Saiban]

Rather then complain about "socialist" and "liberal" being turned into bad words, how about just owning those words proudly and making sure the idiots that didn't pay attention in government class are reminded of what they really mean? It's worked before.

But...that requires actually educating people! And not just any people -- AMERICANS! We can't do that! Are you mad?!

Look at this thread; these people understand! You can't educate the other side. You have to imply that they condone murder and racism!

[Andrew Mayer]

But...that requires actually educating people! And not just any people -- AMERICANS! We can't do that! Are you mad?!

Look at this thread; these people understand! You can't educate the other side. You have to imply that they condone murder and racism!

A larger danger is, I think, intentionally misrepresenting other people's opinions just to try and score political points.

True ignorance is being totally unaware that you're doing it.

Don't you agree?

[Tyjenks]

This newsletter is relevant to my interests (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/weekend-opinionator-is-racist-hate-republican-or-democratic/).

That's a nice look at the varied reactions to this.
Wow, that is a lot of opposing viewpoints spread across a wide spectrum of folks. Good points all around. Thanks for the link, Lum.

[bago]

The point is that for some reason it is even slightly debatable as to the "wingness" of a:
neo-Nazi from stormfront;
who was writing articles on freerepublic.com;
that opened fire on a black security guard at the holocaust museum;
who said on his website:
“The American Right-wing with few exceptions is totally Pacifist. The [right wing] does NOTHING BUT TALK."

And I've had it up to here with the lame false equivalences. As soon as some MSNBC host starts hosting 1-21 parties while crying on the air, when some host starts calling individuals baby-killers, we can talk.

[magnet]

Rather then complain about "socialist" and "liberal" being turned into bad words, how about just owning those words proudly and making sure the idiots that didn't pay attention in government class are reminded of what they really mean?

Whether or not "idiots" learn what those words "really mean" is irrelevant. The national debate is not a vocabulary quiz. It's a question of ideas and how they are presented most effectively.

So when you finally achieve your dream and 100% of American respondents correctly define "socialism", the GOP will simply switch to a different label to frame the debate in terms to their political benefit. In fact, that's precisely what happened last year when they decided that calling opponents "liberal" had lost some of its effectiveness. It would take 15 minutes to send out the new talking points that Obama is a "Stalinist". And while you play their semantic game - "Socialism good!" "No, Socialism bad!" - the substance of the debate stagnates.

[Lorini]

Liberals care about people, GOP cares about money and ideology. Thus the reason why the two sides are not equal in fanaticism.

[Joe M.]

The GOP cares about money. Let's not pretend they use ideology for anything but to achieve their primary goal: having one powerless rabble take potshots at the other powerless rabble while they take care of number one.

[Doug Erickson]

Liberals care about people, GOP cares about money and ideology. Thus the reason why the two sides are not equal in fanaticism.

the gop cares about people, as long as said people have an ideology that values money uber alles

[Saiban]

A larger danger is, I think, intentionally misrepresenting other people's opinions just to try and score political points.

True ignorance is being totally unaware that you're doing it.

Don't you agree?

I don't agree. My point is that I think the larger danger is the fact that so many people readily believe those misrepresentations, just because they don't possess the requisite knowledge to understand and participate in the debate that is happening.

I'm reminded of Clinton trying to appear 'tough on crime' to erase the stigma of liberals being 'weak' and allowing criminals to run rampant. Would it have been better if people had believed the Clinton was actually just as willing as Republicans to execute mentally ill people, or would it have been better if people started to believe that it wasn't necessary for their elected officials to endorse the execution of the mentally ill?

[magnet]

I don't agree. My point is that I think the larger danger is the fact that so many people readily believe those misrepresentations, just because they don't possess the requisite knowledge to understand and participate in the debate that is happening.

I'm reminded of Clinton trying to appear 'tough on crime' to erase the stigma of liberals being 'weak' and allowing criminals to run rampant. Would it have been better if people had believed the Clinton was actually just as willing as Republicans to execute mentally ill people, or would it have been better if people started to believe that it wasn't necessary for their elected officials to endorse the execution of the mentally ill?

The issue regarding capital punishment was clear-cut. Nobody was using to semantics to obscure the idea of executing the mentally ill. And Clinton, along with the majority, decided he was comfortable with that. The left did not fail to educate. They failed to persuade.

In contrast, Obama wants to spend money on infrastructure and temporarily prop up large companies. Regardless of whether you agree or not, his solution has nothing to do with long-term public ownership of these industries, and therefore has nothing to do with socialism. Call it "Keynesian" if you want, but when they right blathers on about "socialism" they are simply spreading FUD.

The real issue is government spending, and this issue is intentionally obscured by the GOP - probably because their record is miserable. Using this as an opportunity to "educate" people about the benefits of socialism is pointless. That issue isn't even on the table.

[Anti-Bunny]

In contrast, Obama wants to spend money on infrastructure and temporarily prop up large companies.

I'm pretty sure that is socialism. I mean, not that Bush wasn't doing the same thing, but just saying.

[magnet]

I'm pretty sure that is socialism. I mean, not that Bush wasn't doing the same thing, but just saying.

I'm pretty sure it isn't. Come back when Obama nationalizes a successful company.

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm pretty sure it isn't. Come back when Obama nationalizes a successful company.

Why does it matter if they are successful?

[magnet]

Why does it matter if they are successful?

Nationalizing a successful company signals the state's interest in a public role in that industry.
Nationalizing a failed company signals the state's interest in protecting a group of stakeholders.

The former is socialism. The latter is typical special-interest democracy.

[Andrew Mayer]

Krugman makes a point:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html)
Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

[Anti-Bunny]

Nationalizing a successful company signals the state's interest in a public role in that industry.
Nationalizing a failed company signals the state's interest in protecting a group of stakeholders.

The former is socialism. The latter is typical special-interest democracy.

No, the later is simply disaster socialism.

[magnet]

No, the later is simply disaster socialism.

Whatever. The point is that it rarely occurs in openly leftist regimes.

If we really need to invent a terminology for the practice, then I propose "Laissez-faire denouement".

[Andrew Mayer]

No, the later is simply disaster socialism.

That is one of the silliest attempts at spin I've ever read.
It's like something straight out of the mouth of Cheney.

Congrats!

[Lum]

Um, how is nationalizing a company *not* socialist?

[Andrew Mayer]

Um, how is nationalizing a company *not* socialist?

Because it isn't part of some larger fantasy *evil* political strategy.

Conservatives need to pull their heads out of the ass of the Chicago School, and figure out that governance and economics aren't based on magic and unicorns.

That goes for their politics in general. Right now all the "clap harder" strategy is doing is riling up a bunch of gun-toting extremists to go out and kill people in the name of Tinkerbell.

[bago]

How is buying stock in a company nationalism? Is not trading money for ownership less coercive than ownership by fiat?

Anyways, beyond the idiocy in redefining words in a sophomoric attempt to win a debate without following the logical implications of such actions, let's talk about Jonah Goldberg.

“From what I can tell,” explained Jonah Goldberg, the author of the 2008 bestseller “Liberal Fascism” and a writer for National Review, “his hatreds echoed the kind of stuff we hear from the Kos crowd, Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan et al.” Goldberg called Von Brunn “objectively crazy,” but argued that “his hatreds would be easier to find at an ANSWER rally than at CPAC.”

This is the kind of commentary that is infecting our discourse as evidenced by Jake Tapper. Nobody who allows for this kind of idiocy to go unchallenged is allowed to make a moral equivalence argument without being laughed out of the room for being a brain melting moron.

Mr. Goldberg, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Jason McCullough]

Um, how is nationalizing a company *not* socialist?

The company is about to fail anyway? Taking over failing companies is done across the political spectrum, under every ideology that's held power that I can tell; the only difference is what kind of companies get it and what don't. For example, Reagan (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.longman.html) bailed out the railroads; Bush I bailed out the S&Ls.

[Anaxagoras]

Um, how is nationalizing a company *not* socialist?

Socialism is usually defined either as the redistribution of wealth, as the ownership of the means of production by the government, or some combination of those two. When the government is only nationalizing a failing company, it's pretty clear that neither of those two conditions apply; the government is trying to save a "means of production" that would have otherwise disappeared. Presumably, the government will sell back the means of production once they're viable again.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or a bad one. But it seems pretty clear (to me) that it's not socialism.

[bago]

Socialism is usually defined either as the redistribution of wealth
By that definition Adam Smith is a socialist. Don't give in to the framing of the Club for Growth.

[Trashcan]

Um, how is nationalizing a company *not* socialist?

Not to join the dog pile or anything, but I think for it to be considered socialism the nationalization would have to be part of a broader plan to bring the US economy under state control.

[rhinohelix]

Because it isn't part of some larger fantasy *evil* political strategy.

Conservatives need to pull their heads out of the ass of the Chicago School, and figure out that governance and economics aren't based on magic and unicorns.

That goes for their politics in general. Right now all the "clap harder" strategy is doing is riling up a bunch of gun-toting extremists to go out and kill people in the name of Tinkerbell.

Based upon the Obama economic plan, I don't think that the magic and unicorn brigade is sitting on the right side of the aisle.

Trying to silence those you disagree with based upon dubious linkage with extremists is detestable.

[rhinohelix]

Not to join the dog pile or anything, but I think for it to be considered socialism the nationalization would have to be part of a broader plan to bring the US economy under state control.

Would it have to be a conscious, organized effort to merit that label? Or could it just be the logical outcome of believing the best arbiter of all issues is a massive centralized federal bureaucracy? Call it "If your only tool is a hammer" socialism. Well, don't call it that, because wow what an unwieldy name. But you get what I mean.

[Matthew Gallant]

Based upon the Obama economic plan, I don't think that the magic and unicorn brigade is sitting on the right side of the aisle.
How soon we forget the GOP budget "plan".

[magnet]

Or could it just be the logical outcome of believing the best arbiter of all issues is a massive centralized federal bureaucracy? Call it "If your only tool is a hammer" socialism.

I think I'll call it by its actual name, "totalitarianism."

[Andrew Mayer]

Trying to silence those you disagree with based upon dubious linkage with extremists is detestable.

Trying to silence the discussion with monocle popping isn't going to help you much. Not anymore, anyway.

[bago]

I think I'll call it by its actual name, "totalitarianism."

You beat that straw-man, you beat it hard. You beat it all Saturday night long. In a world where buying a majority of stock in a public company is totalitarianism, only the one neuroned man is king.

[Lum]

Because it isn't part of some larger fantasy *evil* political strategy.

Conservatives need to pull their heads out of the ass of the Chicago School, and figure out that governance and economics aren't based on magic and unicorns.

That doesn't make nationalization of companies any less socialist. It's not a pejorative label or mark of Cain or anything like that, or even necessarily a bad thing - though I would have far rather a Chrysler-like deal been found for GM instead of the government taking it over. It's simply the movement of government into the private sector, which is what socialism is. And traditionally, it has not worked out well in the long run; let us hope GM's current owners divest it as quickly as possible.

[bago]

That doesn't make nationalization of companies any less socialist. It's not a pejorative label or mark of Cain or anything like that, or even necessarily a bad thing - though I would have far rather a Chrysler-like deal been found for GM instead of the government taking it over. It's simply the movement of government into the private sector, which is what socialism is. And traditionally, it has not worked out well in the long run; let us hope GM's current owners divest it as quickly as possible.

Just curious, how is a company agreeing to sell its stock to a buyer at market rates and changing the majority stake in the stock-holders nationalization? I'd like to know. Is it creeping nationalism every time a municipal fund buys a stake in a private corporation?

Name one company that has been nationalized in the past 8 months.

[Lum]

Just curious, how is a company agreeing to sell its stock to a buyer at market rates and changing the majority stake in the stock-holders nationalization? I'd like to know. Is it creeping nationalism every time a municipal fund buys a stake in a private corporation?

Name one company that has been nationalized in the past 8 months.

Do you REALLY want the US Treasury as the majority stockholder of *any* company not called the US Treasury?

I'm sure Rick Wagoner would argue a bit strongly that the Treasury has not being acting in a passive capacity.

[bago]

Do you REALLY want the US Treasury as the majority stockholder of *any* company not called the US Treasury?

I'm sure Rick Wagoner would argue a bit strongly that the Treasury has not being acting in a passive capacity.

Do you really want the City of Mayfield owning a majority in any company that is not the majority of Mayfield? In order to enforce that you would have to enact anti-free market rules saying who can own what and why. Sounds downright commie to me.

Lame dodge from my initial question, which was "How is it nationalization to pay stock price for stock"? Seriously. If you are a government entity your money doesn't count for as much? Free market says what?

[Joe M.]

I'm pretty sure Hannity, O'Reilly AND Beck have called him a socialist, so it must be so.

Incidentally, Maher's closing remarks on Real Time this week are what I view as valid criticism of Obama from a liberal PoV. He left out the illegal detention stuff but he did a good job nonetheless.

[magnet]

Because it isn't part of some larger fantasy *evil* political strategy.
That doesn't make nationalization of companies any less socialist.

To the contrary, ideologies are defined by their intentions. Buying a company with no intention of keeping it is not socialism, just as letting people cast ballots with no intention of counting them is not democracy.

[bago]

That doesn't make nationalization of companies any less socialist.
If buying stock in a company is socialist, what isn't? Just curious.

[SolomonGrundy]

Back on thread: Weee another one!
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090613/NEWS01/706139922/-1/RSS02

"Shawna Forde, 41, and two associates in her Minuteman American Defense group are charged with two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree burglary and one count of aggravated assault, according to the Pima County Sheriff's Department in Arizona.

The May 30 killings were believed to be premeditated and part of a plan to steal money and drugs to finance the Minuteman group she leads. Forde's own family said that the woman weeks ago had discussed using robberies to raise money for her cause."

or here (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=53040): DOH

[rhinohelix]

That doesn't make nationalization of companies any less socialist. It's not a pejorative label or mark of Cain or anything like that, or even necessarily a bad thing - though I would have far rather a Chrysler-like deal been found for GM instead of the government taking it over. It's simply the movement of government into the private sector, which is what socialism is. And traditionally, it has not worked out well in the long run; let us hope GM's current owners divest it as quickly as possible.

The Chrysler deal was horrible, though. It actually is a great poster child for not having the government in the form of bureaucrats make those kinds of decisions. It would have been much better and cheaper to just let both companies go through normal bankruptcy earlier this year, or at worst some type of government-backstopped receivership.

It is a shame that the political usage of words interferes with their use in a more academic or generalized conversation, like "socialist" in this instance but I guess that is part of the wages of our democracy.

[Anti-Bunny]

If buying stock in a company is socialist, what isn't? Just curious.

When it's not done at the expense of the taxpayer?

[Andrew Mayer]

When it's not done at the expense of the taxpayer?

I'm starting to think the term for a modern conservative is "Anarchist".

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm starting to think the term for a modern conservative is "Anarchist".

No, but the term for a modern liberal is 'socialist, but please don't call us that!!!'

Also, not doing bailouts is anarchy? o_O