• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Michelle Malkin: Progressives and Hate Speech

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
Pathetic? I think it's pathetic no conservatives can cope with the fact it is conservatives, and not liberals, who are showing up at political rallies armed to the teeth with pistols and assault riffles.

What is the thing Liberals have done that is morally equivalent to the guy who set out with his guns to murder people at the Tide Foundation after listening to Glenn Beck? Please tell me. You who have such a fine moral sense that you think the two sides are equivalent.

Time after time the liberal media rushes to judgement whenever there is a madman with a gun, screaming that he is reacting to right wing "hate speech". (Hate speech being defined as anything from right wing talk radio they do not agree with, yet fail to provide any examples of.) And time after time, they turn out to be wrong.

Loughner (for example) is a registered independent. He is an atheist. He did not vote in the last election. He was reading Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, and loved marijuana so much he thought it should be used as the currency of the USA. This was not a guy who identified with the Tea Party.

However, if you are asking for a liberal equivalent to the Tide guy? How bout this?
ThinkProgress » Last year there was a story about a guy who knifed a NYC cab driver, and it was widely reported to have been a hate crime by a conservative. Turns out the guy who did the crime was an interfaith filmmaker and blogger who was a NY Mosque supporter, named Enright. The fact he was not a right wing crazy has not been widely reported, and no apologies or retractions have been issued.

Then there is this guy, Chris Powers who firebombed a democrat politician's office. The media blamed the Tea Party, then found out it was one of the politican's own workers. Suddenly the media shut up.
Maggie's Notebook: Russ Carnahan's Office Firebombed by Employee - Blamed on Tea Parties
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Phil, Jesus himself could point out that one political side has more violent (among other) tendencies than the other, and the majority of them still wouldn't accept it. Fact of the matter is, politics in this country is plagued by this "sports team" mentality and their fans are going to back them up or point fingers in the other direction to deflect any accountability, no matter what. Some people just refuse to accept certain realities, because if they do the "other team" wins.

I think you're right.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Time after time the liberal media rushes to judgement whenever there is a madman with a gun, screaming that he is reacting to right wing "hate speech". (Hate speech being defined as anything from right wing talk radio they do not agree with, yet fail to provide any examples of.) And time after time, they turn out to be wrong.

Loughner (for example) is a registered independent. He is an atheist. He did not vote in the last election. He was reading Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, and loved marijuana so much he thought it should be used as the currency of the USA. This was not a guy who identified with the Tea Party.

However, if you are asking for a liberal equivalent to the Tide guy? How bout this?
ThinkProgress » Last year there was a story about a guy who knifed a NYC cab driver, and it was widely reported to have been a hate crime by a conservative. Turns out the guy who did the crime was an interfaith filmmaker and blogger who was a NY Mosque supporter, named Enright. The fact he was not a right wing crazy has not been widely reported, and no apologies or retractions have been issued.

Then there is this guy, Chris Powers who firebombed a democrat politician's office. The media blamed the Tea Party, then found out it was one of the politican's own workers. Suddenly the media shut up.
Maggie's Notebook: Russ Carnahan's Office Firebombed by Employee - Blamed on Tea Parties

So, what's your point? Are you trying to say that no one has apologized for two or three instances in which someone blamed conservatives for violence and it turned out that the violence wasn't politically motivated? So, go find who blamed the conservatives and ask them to apologize if it upsets you so much.

But I don't see how either one of your examples stacks up against the guy who was on his way to shoot up the Tide Foundation. After all, that guy admitted he was inspired by Glenn Beck's demonization of the Tide Foundation, didn't he? It seems to me you are comparing two or three non-politically motivated acts of violence to one politically motivated act of violence and saying they are equivalent. But apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Phil, Jesus himself could point out that one political side has more violent (among other) tendencies than the other, and the majority of them still wouldn't accept it. Fact of the matter is, politics in this country is plagued by this "sports team" mentality and their fans are going to back them up or point fingers in the other direction to deflect any accountability, no matter what. Some people just refuse to accept certain realities, because if they do the "other team" wins.

I think both sides have a history of placing partisanship before principles.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think both sides have a history of placing partisanship before principles.

There's great truth in that. But while there is an equivalence in that respect, there is no real equivalence in the levels of violence condoned by the two sides. The Right is currently more violent than the Left in this country. Go back a few years, and it's the other way around. But today's reality is the Right is more violent than the Left.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
There's great truth in that. But while there is an equivalence in that respect, there is no real equivalence in the levels of violence condoned by the two sides. The Right is currently more violent than the Left in this country. Go back a few years, and it's the other way around. But today's reality is the Right is more violent than the Left.

Well, yeah, one side is obviously more guilty of it than the other. ;)
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Well, yeah, one side is obviously more guilty of it than the other. ;)

I was opposed to Left wing violence 30 years ago. I'm opposed to Right wing violence today. And when it swings back to the Left in the future -- as it surely will -- I will be opposed to Left wing violence again.
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
I was opposed to Left wing violence 30 years ago. I'm opposed to Right wing violence today. And when it swings back to the Left in the future -- as it surely will -- I will be opposed to Left wing violence again.

Thats the thing, Phil, you seem to be turning a blind eye to who is doing the violence and the hate speech. The majority of it is coming from the left. I cited two examples out of many. You so far have cited one, and keep going back to it. Is it because its the only one? You talk about guns at rallies, etc. but give no evidence?
 
Last edited:

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Thats the thing, Phil, you seem to be turning a blind eye to who is doing the violence and the hate speech. The majority of it is coming from the left. I cited two examples out of many. You so far have cited one, and keep going back to it. Is it because its the only one? You talk about guns at rallies, etc. but give no evidence?

You and every conservative in America knows very well the majority of the hate speech and violence these days is coming from the Right, Mike. Anyone who doubts it has merely to use Google. I think it is preposterous of you to pretend otherwise, and I have no understanding of why you would do so except to think this must be some kind of game to you.

Last, you haven't even bothered to cite two examples of violence coming from the Left, despite your claim that you have. Instead, you have merely cited examples of violence that was originally thought to be political in nature and was then discovered to be apolitical in nature. That's not the same as demonstrating the violence was from the Left.
 
Last edited:

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
Its not a game, my friend, it is very serious. Just look at the example you gave, the Tides Foundation shooter. You keep talking about how he was motivated by listening to Glenn Beck. Are you going to make the claim that talk radio causes people to go commit murder? Or are you willing to accept the fact he was crazy, and would have acted crazy whether he listened to Glen Beck or not?

I suppose then you would have to agree that the Columbine shooting was caused by the movie, "The Matrix"??? Perhaps we should simply ban all violent movies? Wasnt that the claim made by the liberals, that there can be no causal relationship between violence in movies and violence in real life? So how can you make the claim now that anything Glen Beck says (despite the fact he NEVER encourages anyone to commit violence) is going to directly cause someone to run out and shoot somebody?

My point has been the media has rushed to judgement time and again, and claimed violent acts were motivated by right-wing talk radio. When it turned out they were just plain old crazy people (or even left wingers), the media fell silent. But in the one instance where it turns out the guy DID have a right-wing view, and says he was motivaed by Glen Beck, SOMEHOW this one incident become the proof that talk radio causes people to commit murder? Are you freakin serious?

Phil, you have got to realize that if we permit the media to label anything conservative as "hate speech", then we are criminalizing thought. We cannot allow a dissenting view to be labeled as hate speech just because we disagree with it. And I am sorry, but Glen Beck never calls for someone's death, like the jihadists do, but you never hear people on the left calling for death to the jihadists? Just Glen Beck and Sarah Palin? How insane is that?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The link mentions people like Maddonna to point towards liberal violence and yet I've seen clips of Beck talking of poising Pelosi.

I think there is a clear difference between explicit violence espoused from many right wing commentators then the left, but if you have any examples feel free to link them.
How about vaunted liberal commentator, Barack Obama....."If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun...." (2008)?

I was opposed to Left wing violence 30 years ago. I'm opposed to Right wing violence today. And when it swings back to the Left in the future -- as it surely will -- I will be opposed to Left wing violence again.
It's so much simpler to just oppose violence & inflammatory rhetoric...without having to consider partisan leanings.


Breaking news.....more tea party event violent rhetoric:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Thats the thing, Phil, you seem to be turning a blind eye to who is doing the violence and the hate speech. The majority of it is coming from the left. I cited two examples out of many. You so far have cited one, and keep going back to it. Is it because its the only one?

The majority? Are you high? Did you even read that Malkin article? Three quarters of the crap she was moaning about wasn't even violent rhetoric, it was just unflattering portrayals of her wing-nut heroes, like this:

1ajgblood.jpg


On top of that, almost none of it was demonstrably generated by recognized representatives of the political left - people who have attained similar stature, fame and credibility in the left to Beck and Palin. It was an incredibly incoherent collection of "random crap Michelle Malkin found around the internet and didn't like", interspersed with links to her own shrill and boring archived posts. It certainly was not the probing retrospective of violent rhetoric by Democrats and their supporters she introduced it as.

You talk about guns at rallies, etc. but give no evidence?
AGUNSGALORE_P1.jpg_full_380.jpg
art.obama.gun.pool.jpg


this guy said:
"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," the protester identified as Chris told Hancock in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNXV. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."

ff0dfd9a4f768ce7e686432ce4ab1cce.jpg


Tea_Party_Rally_2010.08.14.06_Gun.jpg




Restore-The-Constitution-founder.jpg
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
How about vaunted liberal commentator, Barack Obama....."If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun...." (2008)?


It's so much simpler to just oppose violence & inflammatory rhetoric...without having to consider partisan leanings.


Breaking news.....more tea party event violent rhetoric:
Tucson victim detained at taping of TV special - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

It never ceases to amaze me that many Americans appear to consider Obama a "liberal".
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Poor Alceste.....you think that merely openly carrying weapons by peaceful citizens is somehow violent.

It never ceases to amaze me that many Americans appear to consider Obama a "liberal".
In a limited & modern sense, he is....& I was going with the flow of the conversation.
But I prefer the term "leftist". "Liberal" should really belong to us libertarians, but I don't get to make the rules or definitions.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
The majority? Are you high? Did you even read that Malkin article? Three quarters of the crap she was moaning about wasn't even violent rhetoric, it was just unflattering portrayals of her wing-nut heroes, like this:

That's what I was thinking to...


I can't decide what is dumber, the blog or this thread.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
"In March 2005, Western Michigan University police arrested Samuel Mesick and charged him with a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace after Mesick threw a cup of salad dressing on Pat Buchanan. Buchanan chose not to press felony assault charges. Click here to see video footage of the attack. (Credit: Kalamazoo Police Department.)"


Wowser, who knew if my date, for example, poor a glass of water on me, I could charge her with disturbing the peace, and possible felony assault charges.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Poor Alceste.....you think that merely openly carrying weapons by peaceful citizens is somehow violent.

No, I only think it's stupid and dangerous and probably makes many other people at the rallies (mums, for example, with kids at their heels) pretty uncomfortable, so it's also inconsiderate and pathetically macho. But that's not the point. Troublemane asked for evidence that conservatives are showing up at rallies with guns. I gave him some. Case closed.

In a limited & modern sense, he is....& I was going with the flow of the conversation.
But I prefer the term "leftist". "Liberal" should really belong to us libertarians, but I don't get to make the rules or definitions.
Yeah, Obama as a "leftist." Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but that just doesn't play. Obama's administration is about two hundred leagues Nor-East of even our most passionately devoted free market authoritarian-conservatives.

The only "leftist" in America who bothers running for anything is Ralph Nader.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Mike, if you want me to provide evidence of something, you are going to need to ask me to provide evidence of something you cannot find in a six second search by Google. For instance, anyone --- anyone --- can find ample evidence of Right Wingers showing up at political rallies armed with pistols and assault rifles -- and even carrying threatening signs while doing so. Asking me to do your foot work for you on something that is as well known in this country as the blue color of the sky is pathetic. You can only be doing it to harass -- and I'm not going to play along with your game. IF you manage to come up with a legitimate request for evidence, I will be pleased to provide it. But to ask me to come up with something 290 million out of 300 million Americans know for a fact is simply lame. What would be next? I should give you a link that the sun is the center of the solar system? That day follows night?
 
Top