Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Knoxville Shooting: The Liberals Made Him Do It
Had it not been liberals, it would have been something else. Let's grant that from the beginning.
Broken people, after all, can always find some equally broken rationale for the carnage they cause. And the brokenness of 58-year-old Jim Adkisson can hardly be doubted after he walked into a Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville, Tenn., on Sunday and, according to police, shot eight people, killing two.
He might as well have said he did it because he didn't like the color of the building, a black cat crossed his path or the voices in his head thought it a good idea. Except, he didn't. Police say that, according to the four-page note he left, he went on the rampage because he couldn't find a job -- and because he hates gay people and liberals.
Even through the brokenness of the man, that reasoning resonates.
From the days the first President Bush branded it ''the L word'' -- i.e., the ideology that dare not speak its name -- conservative politicians and media figures have been relentlessly effective in selling the idea that ''liberal'' is the brand name for every wrong thing they see, every opinion they disagree with, every change they fear. They have not been hampered by excessive devotion to nuance.
As in the pundit who claims ''liberal'' is a mental disorder. And the politician who says liberals are in league with Satan. And the preacher who said Sept. 11 was caused by liberals. And the other preacher who says liberals cause natural disasters.
It has reached the point where I no longer have the faintest idea what liberal -- or, for that matter, conservative -- even means.
Oh, I know what they used to mean. To be conservative was to be suspicious of change and federal oversight, to embrace minimalist government, fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense. To be liberal was to be welcoming of change, suspicious of militarism and committed to activist government that worked to protect and uplift those who are shoved to the margins of American life.
That's what they meant then. What they mean now seems to depend on the needs of a given moment.
Your humble correspondent has never been much for ideology. I find it hard to believe liberals have a monopoly on truth. Same for conservatives. And frankly, as far as I'm concerned, any worldview that can be summed up in a word probably isn't much of a worldview.
But it is increasingly the case that what we are being presented isn't a debate between competing worldviews so much as it is a morality play: righteous good versus unholy evil. Conservatives have cast themselves in the former role, leaving liberals the latter. It's a libel to which liberals have responded as the bug does to the windshield: splat.
Unable to say what they believe or to frame it any compelling way, they have allowed themselves to be defined instead from without, standing ineffectual in a mudstorm of invective. They are, the propaganda goes, effete, unpatriotic, unstable, un-American, anti-God, evil, and the source of a voter's every problem, down to and including the death of his goldfish and the breakup of his marriage.
It is so over the top, so patently ridiculous, it's almost funny. Until you remember that dehumanizing people inevitably has consequences.
That's what Knoxville is, a consequence.
No, conservatives did not cause this bloodbath. Jim Adkisson allegedly did. But in telling him ''liberals'' were the source of his every disaffection and woe, conservatives certainly validated the hatred and madness that drove him.
It would be a fitting tribute to those who were lost in Knoxville if this tragedy gave the authors of the ongoing morality play cause for pause -- and reflection. Or is accountability yet another lost conservative value?
--Leonard Pitts Jr.
Copyright 2008 Miami Herald Media Co.
140 Comments so far
Show AllYou Americans, you winge and wail about the high bullet-hole statistics in your body politic, but do nothing about it.
After the Port Arthur massacre, John Howard, our glorious extreme right-wing prime-minister, got rid of most of them. Now only the criminals are shooting each with guns ilegally obtained from the United States.
Do us all a favour, get rid of them.
"Well Jake, it's highly obvious that you're just a little boy "
More name calling. That's all you can do when you are confronted by someone who disagrees with you? A sign of stupidity.
"he does not understand logical thinking "
*You* are the one who suggested a completely arbitrary test by which we are supposed to understand whether a speaker literally means what he says. Logic. Ever hear of George Boole? Or logical fallacy, which I have already demonstrated you have committed?
"You made no response to my comments worth any reply."
Than you should just shut your pie hole if that's what you think, but you will be leaving my arguments on the table unscathed.
Remaining on the table, for anyone else interested: People often don't mean exactly what they say. It would be perilous and illogical to always assume their statements are meant literally. Discuss.
miftin, I have encountered jakenewton's type many times, and trust me in this: JUST IGNORE HIM! No response whatsoever is the only way to treat with his illogical inanity.
There is no possiblity of any discussion with his delusional ilk, and they will clog up a forum to the point of uselessness. Though a few of its terms have been mastered, he does not understand logical thinking or even simple dialog, and will claim victory regardless of obvious defeat. Any attempt to reason with such a person is a wasted effort.
To jakenewton, as I know you still lurk: You made no response to my comments worth any reply. Please don't over-estimate your abilities, as it will bite you hard in the behind eventually ......... like whenever you move out of your mother's basement and try to live in the real world.
Well Jake, it's highly obvious that you're just a little boy looking for love and the only way you know is to run around the living room grabbing at the lamps and threatening to pee your pants.
"You're not discussing any actual subjects."
Utter nonsense. In this thread I was in fact discussing the issue as to whether we should always take the things people say literally. The fact that I need to point this out to you indicates that you are stupid.
"Interjecting yourself into any thread at any point by saying "source, please?" "
More nonsense. The very idea that I should simply accept that what someone says is true even though they don't provide a source for it stupid. That you hold to this idea is another indication that you are stupid.
"Look up the sources yourself. "
It is incumbent upon those who make a claim to provide references or other information or reasoning that supports that claim. Period, end of story. The fact that you don't know this is yet is another indication that you are stupid.
"That's part of the reason I earned a graduate degree in Library/Information Science. "
I think it's an outrage that any institute of higher learning would bestow such credentials upon you.
"Practically everyone on this CD board understands that you are a right-wing trolling idiot."
Your idiocy speaks for itself, though I am just happy to be able to explain it to anyone who may not be sure. OTOH, you have refused to make the case that I am an idiot even after challenged to do so. As for your use of the the term "trolling", you obviously don't have the first idea what it means.
You're not discussing any actual subjects. Interjecting yourself into any thread at any point by saying "source, please?" doesn't constitute discussion. Look up the sources yourself. That's what I do. That's part of the reason I earned a graduate degree in Library/Information Science. Practically everyone on this CD board understands that you are a right-wing trolling idiot.
You're "stupid" miftin, and I will explain why. Let's look at some of your posts here:
" if anyone on this site sounds like Ted Kaczynski, it's jakenewton."
Ad Hominem, stupid.
"At first I thought they were numerous typos, but this guy just can't spell. And his syntax is similar to a Ritalin addicted 10th grader. "
Assumes Spelling and Grammer Police authority. Always irrelevant to the subject. Stupid.
"This guy converses at the level of a street cop."
Ad Hominem, smears police officers for no reason, stupid.
"The subject on the table is your stupidity."
A sudden change of subject. Stupid. The desperation from the inability to discuss the actual subject is palpable.
You are also stupid in the "We're Losing the Ability to Think" thread, which is ironic in the truest sense. Go check.
"The subject on the table is your stupidity."
Brilliant! Fine, make your case as to why I am stupid. It's subjective of course. I happen to think that *you* are stupid for making a claim and refusing to back it up.
Actually, your last post is an indication of your defeat.
The subject on the table is your stupidity.
miftin is incapable of arguing the subject on the table, and insults police officers to boot. *shrug*
miftin is incapable of arguing the subject on the table, and insults police officers to boot. *shrug*
This guy converses at the level of a street cop. Except in here he can't call three or four of his buddies to come surround you while he checks your papers and wags his tail at the prospect of trying to break your wrists.
"Man, I'm starting to really wonder about your state of mind and how someone could be so damn wrong-headed about so many things."
While you are "wondering" about it, see if you might be able to actually *articulate* it here on this forum. If you can't, maybe *you* are the one who is wrong headed. Give it a try.
Jake. Man, I'm starting to really wonder about your state of mind and how someone could be so damn wrong-headed about so many things. Either that, or you're just an asshole. Not sure which.
"jakenewton, by that last response is now clear that whatever I post on this subject will not be understood by you."
I understood you perfectly, and was able to identify flaws in your logic.
"I have encountered others just like you on forums and in the real world, and have learned the hard way that once identified, it is best to simply avoid them "
And doing so leaves their arguments on the table untouched. Whatever floats your boat.
jakenewton, by that last response is now clear that whatever I post on this subject will not be understood by you.
I have encountered others just like you on forums and in the real world, and have learned the hard way that once identified, it is best to simply avoid them ......... as there is nothing to be gained by the further waste of ones time.
Our UU congregation is still in shock. Who would have thought that loving your neighbour and acceptance for other people's points of view is such a dangerous idea that people would blame you for their ills and shoot you for it?
To stave off the obvious response, the majority of "Christians" will agree that the UU (Universalist Unitarian) is not Christian because we don't believe in the ressurection and ascendance of Jesus, nor the supremacy of God, at least not as a doctrine of the religion.
Craig
"which most of the offensive Rightie comments does not meet "
Subjective.
" also said that most of these Righties seldom are humorous in any way, so these statements are unlikely to be "Jokes" "
Subjective.
"and you may cite any example of their jokes to refute that comment, if such come to your mind?"
I think all of them are funny. I don't, but it's simply a matter of opinion.
"one supposes that you are blessed with mind reading abilities to somehow know what these Righties really mean,"
Since this is *not* the case, for any of us, we have to instead look for reasonable evidence, such as numerous repetitions of the statement, or the positive verification of what was meant, as opposed to the absense of such statements as you wished to use as a test.
"BTW, the basic purpose of a forum like this is for people to make ipse dixit posts, aka their 'opinions'."
Agreed, but opinions are supposed to be built on facts and reasoning. When they are not, they are inferior.
Libertarians are the crazy ex-wife of Republicans whom they keep locked up in the tower. When they let her out she whizzes on the carpet, barks some kind of free association political statement, then sets fire to the house. The GOP (God's Own Party) has a new trophy wife that they took up with after the death of FDR. She's a foreigner who had claimed to be a relative of Socialism, but she's had a face lift and went under the name of Free Enterprise until the 1980s when she changed her name to Free Markets. Everyone knows that the Democrats sleep with her, too. That other foreign lady, Socialism, is never a bride and her very name is used as a curse word, but she knows that the floozy sleeping with both parties and claiming to be Free For All is really her old enemy Fascism.
My post cites the definition of "hyperbole", which most of the offensive Rightie comments does not meet ......... ergo they can not be hyperbole.
I also said that most of these Righties seldom are humorous in any way, so these statements are unlikely to be "Jokes" ......... and you may cite any example of their jokes to refute that comment, if such come to your mind?
As to you questioning my "reasoning" ability, one supposes that you are blessed with mind reading abilities to somehow know what these Righties really mean, despite the otherwise quite clear meaning of the words they utter?
BTW, the basic purpose of a forum like this is for people to make ipse dixit posts, aka their 'opinions'.
Notice, how I did not call "quousque" a bad name, even though that post was lacking in facts and sound reasoning.
"If supposed hyperbole is not obviously extravagant exaggeration, then it is not hyperbole. "
Why?
"Their comments must mean precisely what the words chosen say, unless they themselves correct them."
Just because *you* say so? This fails basic Critical Thinking, where you are recklessly disallowing other possible explanations for something based on some arbitrary narrow test you dreamed up.
If supposed hyperbole is not obviously extravagant exaggeration, then it is not hyperbole.
Many of the quoted Rightie statements do not pass this test ......... and as most of those people are rarely humorous, that they otherwise might be deemed jokes is dubious.
Their comments must mean precisely what the words chosen say, unless they themselves correct them.
Let's not blame Goebbels and others for the brownshirts, either. Helping transport folks to the ovens was a matter of choice, the market at work.
Making you feel that your are not only correct but justified in believing your woes depend upon the dirty deeds of a given group is just free speech and should not affect anyone.
You don't have to follow them or even listen to them; you can turn off your radio or tv or close the newspaper or magazine.
That most of them say similar things at the same time is coincidence or just them following what the public is already thinking. Liberals, get over it! You are not only control the media, you are paranoid.
"Hyperbole" from the comments under "Karl Rove's Media Birds Chirp About Obama's 'Arrogance'"
wcdevins July 31st, 2008 1:16 pm
"No Republican is worth a shit"
Goebbels sez July 31st, 2008 1:45 pm
"Psst, Karl … your penis envy is showing again."
wilmoor July 31st, 2008 4:00 pm
"With that shriveled up little raisin, it must be terribly difficult not to let that envy show."
RichM July 31st, 2008 2:30 pm
"The first stage of political consciousness is recognizing that Republicans are the scum of the earth."
kivals July 31st, 2008 4:11 pm
"Obama is a jerk, a conservative, a liar, and a conniving politician. However, McCain is a ghoulish cretinous monster who is willing to risk our lives and those of our children to fulfill his backers wet dreams of enslaving most of the world,"
wcdevins July 31st, 2008 5:39 pm
"No Republican is worth a shit."
All hyperbole I'm sure.
Here's some classy performaces by some of the participants here:
otto756 July 30th, 2008 8:43 pm:
"jakenewton you moron. "
otto756 July 30th, 2008 9:59 pm
"Jake you freaking moron."
opeluboy July 30th, 2008 10:35 pm
"And of course you are an idiot."
mina July 30th, 2008 11:23 pm
"How many excuses for your sick ideology are you going to make on this board?"
elmysterio July 31st, 2008 6:09 pm
"Here we have jakenewton being nothing but an ignorant asshole AGAIN"
"Jake… why is it that you never present any evidence yourself?"
It is incumbent upon those who claim something to be true to present evidence it is true. How many timews do I have to tell you that Stupid?
"Here we have jakenewton being nothing but an ignorant asshole AGAIN"
Why, because I disagree wth you? Your stupid quote mining, I already covered that stupidity and ignorance when someone else did the same thing. That makes you ignorant an and asshole to just repeat the move and pretend I didn't. Most of those qoutes aren't that bad anyway, and we can find plenty worse here on this very forum, and you know it. Just look at the name calling I get simply for disagreeing. I don't start any of that crap.
"The voices in his head were from..."
You have absolutely no idea what was going on in his head, asshole.
Truth_Forward July 31st, 2008 8:04 pm
I think there arec always some sicko's that take pleasure in things like this.
Don't know what websites are saying but I do read Articles. Most say how bad it was, but some are as E said I think, privately smiling.
Umlaut, stop being so dense. Here is a fact: When people talk, they are not always deadly serious. They sometimes, joke, exaggerate. and use hyperbole. For better or worse, this is particularly true with people who have talk shows. To see if they are serious, you look for evidence of that. As an example, Bill O'Reily *never* said anything to indicate that he was serious about stringing up Michelle Obama, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Therefore it is much more reasonable to conclude that when he said lynch mob he was referring generically to a group of people who are angry about something.
Stereotyping and blanket statements are fantasy but unfortunately he himself took on the conservative label. I usually don't check out con websites so I honestly don't know what the right has to say about this. However whatever the public pronouncements are, one can't help but think they are privately finding pleasure in this.
See elmysterio above for their own statements of hate. It's not a far jump for someone who is metally ill to glom on to them and take them to their logical extreme.
ezeflyer July 30th, 2008 3:54 pm
"One can't say all conservatives are stupid people, but one can say that all stupid people are conservatives".
One can't say all liberals are stupid people, but one can say that all stupid people are liberals.
One is as true as the other.
..................................................
I saw above wher people were saying all conservatives are this or all the hate is from right wingers.
That seems a bit extreme to me since if you get me a quote from one I'll get you aquote from the other. Both sides have some truth on their side. Liberals just have more.
Sterotyping and blanket statement are always fantasy.
This poor deranged soul was just that. He could have just as well dusted Trinity church and said he hated racists or First Baptist because they were Conservatives.
Theres a bit of hate thrown from each side as I see and hear it.
A sure sign that one is in Middle America. Wrote a letter to the editor (nice, not crude) and they wouldn't publish it. However they will publish letter after letter by an angry fundie woman throwing "Godly" curses on gays and liberals.
Welcome to flyover country.
Here's some more lovely quotes that'll warm your cold, black heart Jake.
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." -- Ann Coulter
"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot." -- Ann Coulter at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference
"I'm more of a man than any liberal." -- Ann Coulter
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -- Ann Coulter on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media." -- Ann Coulter
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole." -- Ann Coulter
"There are a lot of bad republicans; there are no good democrats." -- Ann Coulter
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots." -- Ann Coulter
"You want to have two guys making out in front of your 4-year-old? It's OK with them. A guy smoking a joint, blowing the smoke into your little kid's face? OK with them. And I'm not exaggerating here. This is exactly what the secular movement stands for. " -- Bill O'Reilly September 12, 2003
"Evil cannot be "treated" -- nor should it be. Evil has to [be] confronted and destroyed and it matters not why the evil is in play. Society has no obligation to try to rehabilitate evil." -- Bill O'Reilly
"You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less." -- Bill O'Reilly
"You know, look, if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can't." -- Bill O'Reilly of people who criticize him, The Radio Factor, September 27, 2007
"Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." -- Bill O'Reilly 19 January 2005
Jake... why is it that you never present any evidence yourself?
Here we have jakenewton being nothing but an ignorant asshole AGAIN... status quo I guess... Here's some lovely hateful quotes to warm your heart Jake... Think that someone who is already unstable would take these literally??
"I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity
"To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." — Michael Savage
"Liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces." — Rush Limbaugh
"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O'Reilly
"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could." — Glenn Beck
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too." — Ann Coulter
"I don't see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis." — Bill O'Reilly
"The Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba -- Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points." — Rush Limbaugh
"There are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the [House] speaker." — Sean Hannity
Adkisson did not open fire in that church because he was obeying imaginary voices in his head and did not know right from wrong. The voices in his head were from the likes of Savage, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh, and they were telling him exactly what was right (conservatives) and what was wrong (liberals, gays, minorities, Democrats) and who he should blame for all his and the nation's hardships.
Yeah it's obvious he was joking that's why we made a joke about it.
You'll have to re-read my post though, i never said i wasn't serious, just said i was having fun indulging you.
Now that we have that settled, let's hear the answer.
P.S. you could also add to "and if it was directed at groups such as christians or conservatives?" lets say blacks and jews, just for argument's sake.
"I know you couldn't answer my last questions,"
You admitted that you weren't serious in asking the questions.
It's so obvious Reagan meant exactly what he said, right? He wasn't joking, right?
jakenewton July 31st, 2008 4:02 pm
I know you couldn't answer my last questions, but you've outdone yourself as the expert on hyperbole on that last one.
Reagan obviously was literally advocating the nuclear bombardment of the USSR. I mean it's so obvious. Only a moron would say otherwise.
"We begin bombing in five minutes."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos
Good thing a wack job didn't go postal in a Russian Orthodox Church
@Umlaut who wrote: "...one can advocate killing you as long as they're joking."
I guess this trend was started by that other retarded war-monger Ronnie Raygun when he joked in Aug 1984: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
"(sorry the rest of you, this guy is just too fun to play with)"
I see.
*plonk*
jakenewton July 31st, 2008 11:42 am
and if it was directed at groups such as christians or conservatives?
"If it came consistantly from a particular source, it's not hyperbole anymore."
So it's no biggie if there were multiple threats or advocations of killing christians or conservatives as long as it didn't come consistently from a particular source?
"the speaker is not joking or exagerating. It applies to everyone, wise up."
so there it is, one can advocate killing you as long as they're joking.
(sorry the rest of you, this guy is just too fun to play with)
I don't blame the right wing media for the recent Knoxville shootings. To hold them responsible for the actions of a crazy man, is insane. But they are responsible for a culture that blames liberalism for all its evils. Given the polarization of our media, it's not surprising that crazys shoot people for being liberal. After all, the media justifies these crazies in thinking that their very livelihoods and civilization lies in the balance.
The Knoxville shooter thinks that liberals are taking his jobs away. Well, "liberal" Democrats have been responsible for outsourcing jobs but certainly not any more than Republicans.
The truth is the right wing media is able to connect with down and out folks for any number of psychological reasons that have been defined by people smarter than myself.
I have come to see that liberals really are elitists. They are much more likely to go on about the environment than issues of workers rights, providing jobs, etc. Not that they shouldn't be concerned about the environment, but what is the perception when you want to save owls and not jobs? Of course I think we can have both.
People are turned off by what they see as political corectness by liberals. Why? Because it's a false political correctness and it doesn't emphasize equality or fairness. We get civilized elitism and not racial justice.
I don't think the left should necessarily cave to include racists and bigots, but I think we could win some people who adopt racist views, if they see that liberals will bring results that matter to their lives.
Conservatism has utterly failed the United States, the world, and all of humankind as its devotion to fossil fuels incinerates the Mid-East and overwarms the globe. No progress has ever been made in the name of conservatism as it is today. Conservatism is the religion of those who have much, want more, and don't care who dies so they can get it. Conservatism and Soviet-style communism are the same - a system to keep the powerful rich and the worker enslaved. War in the name of patriotism is murder, and is the ugliest of things. Inability to discern what is worth fighting for and how to battle is a hallmark of one-dimensional conservative thinking. No conservative is worth a shit.
"It seems to me what jakenewton is saying is that when a Conservative speaks they really do not mean what they say and thus their words should be ignored."
We were discussing what some see as "outrageous" comments by others. Basic critical thinking would require that you would look for evidence that the speaker is not joking or exagerating. It applies to everyone, wise up.
It seems to me what jakenewton is saying is that when a Conservative speaks they really do not mean what they say and thus their words should be ignored.
jakenewton July 31st, 2008 11:02 am
Then it's no biggie those mentioned including you be threatened in an equal amount or at all, as long as it's hyperbole?
"Then it's no biggie those mentioned including you be threatened in an equal amount or at all, as long as it's hyperbole?"
If I were in the public eye, I think I would get used to it. If it came consistantly from a particular source, it's not hyperbole anymore. That's what's missing with the quote mining that was presented earlier.
I would add that the nation's collective psyche is a lot like dry wood awaiting just a singular spark to ignite. The weather events, the increases in food & gas prices, the good jobs being exported, the corrupt at the top getting away (daily) with theft, murder and all kinds of deceit... it is a recipe for disaster, but of course Naomi Klein has already pointed out how profitable that is to those who merchandise in chaos and depraved indifference to human well being.
FRESH 1: Excellent post!
DOOM & GLOOM: Right on! It's that way on the roads, too. Used to be that ONE idiot would speed and throw off everyone else's driving "rhythm." Now the honest drivers who make some attempt to adhere to speed limits are the minority, as maniacs speed in the slow lanes! And I mean speed! There's no allowance for the possibility their arrogant egos may not have full control of the situation, i.e. an anomaly emerge that would cause the need for an IMMEDIATE slow-down where momentum would not allow it. And then the insurance rates go up, and everyone pays for this. There used to be tickets for tail-gating, but now often I feel someone up my vehicular ASS while I drive, and I generally go about 5 over the speed limit or hover near to it. The same insanity is felt on rural country roads, as if they are interstates... kids play on bikes, animals cross (often to their rapid demise), just this fury about getting there fast, and seeing/feeling/experiencing NOTHING along the way.
"barraged daily in the media with death threats "
Gross overstatement. No one is barraged as you say. As always, I am willing to look at your very best evidence though.
Hyperbole?
So I take it, that it's no biggie if the likes of you, or right wingers, or christian fundamentalists be barraged daily in the media with death threats as long as it's just hyperbole?
And so it goes. And after years of Lou Dobbs frothing over immigrant workers...we have a group of white high schoolers kick a young Hispanic father to death and avoid any arrest for well over a week. If these incitements to violence through innuendo from the MSM were aimed at our Jewish compatriots - there would be federal indictments against the hate-mongers. Instead we have the propagandists for ethnic and ideological violence laughing all the way to the bank.
" this guy just can't spell. "
EXCELLENT POINT! GREAT!!! YOU GET A STAR!!!!!!!
"you're just a tiny gnat that is born and immediately flies directly into an open flame and nobody even notices."
Right. like no one notices me in this thread.
"Every man for himself?"
I beleive in some safety nets like I said, and I also think there are some limited roles for government outside those that would satisfy a strict libertarian or conservative. OTOH, I think socialism severely limits innovation and crushes the creative human spirit. I have *never* heard satifactory arguments that these points are not true and are the main weakness for those supporting socialism.
Socialism is Communism's Fugly sister
There used to be moments in life where peace and reason were shattered, now, it's becoming the norm.
"I'm sorry, *you* are the one saying everything is hunky dory? I assumed you meant certain conservatives say that."
No, I say that it's the conservatives who make the system out to be perfectly natural and normal, the one that leaves the majority behind.
"As provided by the government, yes, not so much. Myself, I beleive in a bit more than that but I don't like socialism."
What do you like then? Every man for himself? That doesn't seem to be working out too well for most of us.
At first I thought they were numerous typos, but this guy just can't spell. And his syntax is similar to a Ritalin addicted 10th grader.
Hey jake, you claim you don't like socialism. Have you ever read anything by Trotsky? Didn't think so. Ever read anything by any actual socialists? Didn't think so. Ever been to a socialist country? Nope again. Hey jake, some of the most profound thinkers in history have been socialists. Compared to them, you're just a tiny gnat that is born and immediately flies directly into an open flame and nobody even notices.
You're sorry?
I doubt that very much. Or else you wouldn't be making lame attempts to justify your ideology. You've spent more time justifying and excuse-making with everyone on this board than expressing your condolensces to the families who lost their loved ones.
And there's nothing "complex" about it. Those two people were killed because they were liberals.
But, go ahead, Mr. Jake, keep stinking up the message board with your excuses and rationales. I'm sure the diarrhea is flowing from Sean Hannity's and Ann Coulter's mouth right now as well.
"The fact is, Jim Adkisson killed those people because they were liberal, and for no other reason. "
A simple analysis for what was obviously a complex situation. Always wrong. I am not the only one here that disagrees with you.
"Just keep making excuses and rationales. "
I never made an excuse for Adkisson. He is a murderer, and if a jury says he should fry I'll lose no sleep over it. I am sorry for the victims and families, who wouldn't be?
"I make the argument."
I'm sorry, *you* are the one saying everything is hunky dory? I assumed you meant certain conservatives say that.
"It's relevant because it's obvious that you're on the wrong team."
Well, it's only obvious to me that we disagree on some things, such as how you chose characterize certain issues earlier.
"The Right isn't real big on safety nets. "
As provided by the government, yes, not so much. Myself, I beleive in a bit more than that but I don't like socialism.
Dear Mr. Jake:
How many excuses for your sick ideology are you going to make on this board?
The fact is, Jim Adkisson killed those people because they were liberal, and for no other reason. And he felt he had the absolute right to do so, merely because he was a conservative.
Go ahead, Mr. Jake. Just keep making excuses and rationales. Keep making excuses while while those two people he killed lie dead in the morgue. Keep making excuses while their loved ones weep over their cold bodies.
If I had a dime for every excuse and rationale made by every so-called conservative, I'd be a f**king billionaire by now.
Not one of you has done anything to benefit anyone in your sorry, miserable lives. All you do is destroy. Destroy and waste. Hundred of billions of dollars down the drain for your war in Iraq, and tens of thousands of soldiers returning mutilated and dead.
And now, two more people are dead in Knoxville. Just keep making excuses.
"Who makes this argument, and why is this point relevent to our present discussion?"
I make the argument. It's relevant because it's obvious that you're on the wrong team.
"I appreciate that. I tend to think I would have a lot to do with whether that would happen though."
You can do all the "right" things, it can still happen. Even if you screw up here and there, it doesn't mean that you or anyone else deserves to go splat on the pavement. The Right isn't real big on safety nets. Sink or swim, that's what they're all about, and look at what good that's brought.
Unitarian-Universalism provides a perfect touchstone for discussing alternative roles of religion in America. I'm not going to say its the quintessential American religion, because there has always been an equally American alternative of bible-thumping fundamentalists. Both strains of religion have a deep and very American history, with pre-American roots in the reformation. The fundamentalist strain was present in the Puritan colonists and the witch-burning fanatics of Massachusetts. The UU strain goes back to deism and the principles of the Enlightenment. The enlightenment, as you might guess from its name, used to be thought of as a good thing, as an emergence from the darkness of superstition.
Right now it seems like the fundamentalists control the playing field of religion in American life, and the fundamentalists like to claim that it was always this way, but as a matter of historical fact, it wasn't. The fundamentalists didn't want separation of church and state, and they still don't. They wanted, and they still want, a partial theocracy. We only have separation of church and state because the enlightenment rationalists fought for it and won the political battle. The fundamentalists came back later and put "In God we Trust" on our money, in the late 19th century-- they are more into symbolism.
The UU denomination stands for fundamental American principles of equality and democracy. It has roots in American movements of deism and transcendentalism. It is the contemporary religion that most closely resembles the beliefs of key founders such as Adams (a Unitarian) and Jefferson. Its what Christianity looks like after you subject it to critical analysis and take out the theistic hocus-pocus, leaving the ethical principles. Thomas Jefferson was this kind of "Christian", accepting Jesus as a great ethical teacher, not divine. He produced a version of the New Testament that took out references to divinity that Jefferson (and many modern scholars) believe were added by later to make a good story. This "Jefferson bible" is still handed out to every new congressman when they arrive in Washington. Thats strange.
The author of this article seems afraid to say it out loud, but UUs welcome gays and lesbians. UU churches also include pagans-- the same kind that used to be burned at the stake by the fundamentalists. As many other people have noted, the fundamentalists still want to burn religious liberals at the stake. I guess its very threatening to them.
"All evil is done by conservatives."
Right, the millions killed by communists, that was done by conservatives. Wise up. Your little bumper sticker there is just a bit shallow.
"The only people I see arguing that everything is hunky dory are those who cheerlead for or benefit from the status quo. "
Who makes this argument, and why is this point relevent to our present discuaaion?
"I hope the rug never gets swept out from under you. "
I appreciate that. I tend to think I would have a lot to do with whether that would happen though.
iwarrior said:
"Also, I'm cool with the Good Vs. Evil game. Like everything else I have said, it bears repeating…
War is evil.
Pollution is evil.
Poverty is evil.
Inequality is evil.
Imperialism is evil.
Disenfranchisement is evil.
The kind of world that The Right wants to perpetuate and strengthen is actually thoroughly Satanic."
Have you made the connection? All evil is done by conservatives.
"I imagine most of the readers here are laughing as they read your pathetic posts or slapping their foreheads in disbelief at your stupidity."
But not a single one can put up a cogent argument as to why. You sure haven't, maybe you should just quit. OTOH, here is why *you* are stupid: When you read a comment that you think is outrageuos, the default position isn't to just beleive it, but to consider that it may be hyperbole or a joke. You should only then beleive it to be intended just as stated when there is some additional evidence to support that.
That is *why* you are stupid. You started it, don't blame me.
"This is an example of Begging the Question. Are you so ignorant or disengenuous as to not recognize that the above statements refer to issues around which there is wide spread disagreement and ongoing debate, are largely a matter of opinion, and that the way you chose to frame these statements is, well, Begging the Question? Look it up."
The only people I see arguing that everything is hunky dory are those who cheerlead for or benefit from the status quo. You have to have your eyes and ears closed not to see that this world is heading in the wrong direction. Or you're one of THEM, and I doubt you truly are.
They're gonna screw you too Jake. I hope the rug never gets swept out from under you.
God, when I was 7 years old, I could see it. I've lived it.
jakenewton - I imagine most of the readers here are laughing as they read your pathetic posts or slapping their foreheads in disbelief at your stupidity.
I know I am.
"I have heard right-wing jocks say all the above and more. "
And what is your *very best* evidence that any of these comments were serious and meant to be taken literally? I should think if you had such evidence you would already have posted it, but you just don't seem to get it.
"And of course you are an idiot."
Back at ya, with evidence provided above.
jakenewton - I have never heard Malloy suggest the building housing Free Republic be blown up, that a judge be killed, that it's a good thing to slaughter millions of innocent civilians or incite any of his listeners to act in a violent manner.
I have heard right-wing jocks say all the above and more.
I hate Republicans, too. I don't want to kill them. I don't want anyone else to kill them. I just want them to die off on their own.
And of course you are an idiot.
"Who's in favor of burning the Earth and choking the air we all breath? Who's in favor of maintaining the status quo and widening certain gaps of opportunity? Who's in favor of bringing entire nations to their knees for the interests of a wealthy few?"
This is an example of Begging the Question. Are you so ignorant or disengenuous as to not recognize that the above statements refer to issues around which there is wide spread disagreement and ongoing debate, are largely a matter of opinion, and that the way you chose to frame these statements is, well, Begging the Question? Look it up.
"Of course there are also liberal radio hosts that are pretty aggressive in their speech. Malloy comes to mind, and several others."
Quote:
"Have I mentioned yet tonight how much I hate these people?"
Listed as an oft repeated catch phrase in reference to right wingers.
The above is hyperbole, see?
I've said it before, this is a poor, sick misguided man who attacked people who are more on his side than anyone of the Right persuasion will ever be. That's one reason why this incident is so sad.
Again, if we had universal free health care, and the guarantee of a job for everyone, I doubt this man would have harmed anyone. It's the monied elites who create the despair that working people often endure and then exploit them, pushing them into hating and hurting fellow workers through mass libel and slander.
Also, I'm cool with the Good Vs. Evil game. Like everything else I have said, it bears repeating...
War is evil.
Pollution is evil.
Poverty is evil.
Inequality is evil.
Imperialism is evil.
Disenfranchisement is evil.
The kind of world that The Right wants to perpetuate and strengthen is actually thoroughly Satanic.
Mr. Adkisson's life is already over. People need to reserve their hate for the people and interests he mistakenly served.
jakenewton...
"Is there anyone here who would say with a straight face that there isn't anyone on the left, here on CD for example, who expresses hatred for certain individuals and groups?"
Guilty as charged. There are lots of people I hate, but they are mostly people in power who make life difficult for the rest of us, along with certain other nasty people I've personally run across. I just don't base that hatred on skin color, gender, religion, or sexuality.
Who's in favor of burning the Earth and choking the air we all breath? Who's in favor of maintaining the status quo and widening certain gaps of opportunity? Who's in favor of bringing entire nations to their knees for the interests of a wealthy few? I could go on and on.
Do I hate the average worker who considers him or herself a conservative? No. Because I know they are just misguided, seduced and lied to by the Right, sometimes even because they are alienated by the Left in some ways.
The agenda of the Right has absolutely NOTHING to offer someone like me, let alone the vast majority of people in this nation and abroad.
"Respond to the Michael Reagan and Michael Savage remarks."
Also hyperbole. You actually beleive that they *literally* advocate the violence as stated? If so, why?
"Jake you freaking moron. " Back at ya. Although I am sure you aren't always a moron, it baffles me how otherwise smart people are so willing to forego their critical thinking skills when things seem to nicely mesh up with their defective world view.
Jake you freaking moron. Why do I let you drag me into your stupid straw man games? Here I go again: Respond to the Michael Reagan and Michael Savage remarks. Do you defend them too? Are you going to parse words and split hairs over what they said too? Go ahead. They're your boys, just like O'Reilly. They can do no wrong and certainly had no role in what the Knoxville nutcase did.
Ted Rall usually verifies the over the top statements he is famous for.
"I don't have to do the research. You do. "
Actually, you do. You make a claim, you have to back it up. In the case of the lynch mob statement all you have so far is one sentence.
Obviously Adkisson is responsible for his actions, but it is equally obvious that listening to hate jocks all day could send someone teetering on the brink completely over the edge. Think crimes against Muslims and Arabs have increased dramatically in this country because the thugs that do these things are reading the WSJ or the Weekly Standard?
Many of these slime do advocate violence. Just recently Limbaugh came very close to suggesting violent rioting at the Dem convention.
Are most people, however hopelessly Republican, going to act on these urgings? No, but some will.
Of course there are also liberal radio hosts that are pretty aggressive in their speech. Malloy comes to mind, and several others. But while they don't mince words as to their utter contempt for Republicans, they do not advocate violence, or smear entire racial or religious groups. The worst thing a listener to these liberal jocks might do is buy a Prius, go to a protest or vote.
Hate radio attracts people who hate. Go figure.
The Unabomber is an anarchist not a leftist. If you read his ramblings he was always criticizing political leftists. Green Anarchists have no use for the political left. They insist that no progress is possible in the political sphere and that socialism is just another form of state tyranny. The FBI can label Ted Kaczynski any way they want to suit their purposes. Anarchists are not leftists. Just ask any self-respecting anarchist from John Zerzan on down.
"Did not one of your more obnoxious preachers advocate the assassination of Hugo Chavez?"
Which was later retracted. I am an agnostic, I have no preachers.
Do you guys not understand what "hyperbole" is? The original point was that this murderer had *books* by certain right wingers. What is stated in books usually passes the muster of some amount of careful reflection as well as an editor. The kind of speech on a radio or TV show is much more off the cuff. The quotemining on the site linked by jake123 is all of this sort of thing, and in one Ann Coulter quote she even states that she is joking. Wise up people.
"Your boy O'Reilly absolutely talked about lynching when he spoke about Michelle Obama."
What is your very best evidence that when he said "lynch mob" that he was not speaking figuratively? What quotes can you provide before or after he used the term "lynch mob" that confirm that he truly meant that Michelle Obama should be literally hunted down, have a rope tied around her neck, anf hung? Or are you so ignorant or disengenuous as to deny a colloquial use of the term "lynch mob" meaning roughly "a group of people who are angry about something"?
jakenewton you moron. Of course right wing haters advocate violence. Michael Savage said Stephanie Miller should be "hung" (note to Mr. Savage: the expression is "hanged"). Michael Reagan said "liberals" who sent 9/11 truth videos to troops in Iraq should be shot and he offered to "pay for the bullets." Your boy O'Reilly absolutely talked about lynching when he spoke about Michelle Obama.
Don't do your normal troll line of "Citations please." I don't have to do the research. You do. You're the apologist for war criminals and their hateful minions. Not me.
Just as BUGLIOSI has taken on the case for impeachment, perhaps a lawyer like Morris Dees could make a good case for Hate Crimes incitement aimed at all the right wing radio shock jocks who make a financial windfall from stirring up sick minds, some so close to the edge that they're ready to pop on scant provocation. Mr. Dees has won civil suits where the burden of proof is less than that required to establish guilt in trials focused on criminal charges. Hmm...
Excellent posts: ANGRY KRAUT, YOU DECIDE, WHAT FOOLS, WJM, WILMOOR & KARLOF 1.
FRANK: Thanks for the quotes.
hmmmm...you're right
but didn't ANOTHER obnoxious preacher say the Government released the AIDS virus to commit genocide on people of color?
(Hell...everybody knows they did it to eliminate Homo's...*LOL*...geez...I crack me up!)
The unspeakability of liberalism is one of the more surreal aspects of American politics (and that says much!). America must be the most liberal country on Earth. The dominant political quarrel in America is between what one might call Benthamite liberalism (the belief that there should be the greatest personal liberty, and the means to exercise it, for the greatest number) and what was historically called Manchester liberalism (laissez-faire industrialism, or the belief that there should be the greatest economic liberty for those who can seize it). One can caricature these positions as the liberty to make love with whom you will versus the liberty to make money off whom you will. Even the "theocons", whose mentality is more suited to the Thirty Years' War than to the modern age, operate within a recent and radically individualist form of Protestantism. Their one goal is personal salvation, and their sole prescription is personal holiness. (For the body, they have little to offer.) The only conservatives -- that is to say, people who believe that individual behaviour should be restrained in order to protect the social fabric and the environment -- are the progressives!
By the way, in answer to jakenewton's question "Which [right wing hate mongers] urge people to go out and shoot liberals?" (comment #5): Did not one of your more obnoxious preachers advocate the assassination of Hugo Chavez?