[QUOTE=CJJ*]
The lazy assumption that “liberals are just as extremist” is belied by the facts.
[/QUOTE]
I have no problem admitting my laziness, however in this situation, it is not the primary reason for my POV. I infrequently listen to talk radio. If Rush Limbaugh is on, I sometimes agree with what he is saying for a minute or two before he looses me. If Randi Rhodes is on the air, the same exact thing happens. I listen and agree for a short time, then she looses me.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
You missed the point entirely. The claim was not that Barack Obama voted “present” on a bill he felt was a back-door attempt to regulate abortion (a more pressing issue at the state level since abortion is regulated by the states), or even the simpler truth that Obama voted to support abortion rights. The exact claim was that Barack Obama voted three times to “allow doctors and patients to murder babies.”
.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, according to what I posted, that’s exactly what he did. I don’t know about the 3 times part because I only count 2 but that is what the voting record shows. His website dances around it saying that the first version did not have the neutral clause in it (2002?).
According to The Right to Life Committe links he voted to insert the language into the 2nd version and then voted it down. This was after the federal version was voted in (2003). His statement that he would have voted for the federal version had he been Senator at the time is a complete lie. And if you followed my instructions in post 18 to look at Obama’s response you will see that it has been shut down. Here is his website and if you click on “Learn” and then “know the facts” you get a blue screen with his crest on it. The entire “know the facts” section has been pulled down.
Sorry, here is his website.
It’s working again, maybe it was overloaded (can you overload part of a website?).
[QUOTE=vetbridge]
I have no problem admitting my laziness, however in this situation, it is not the primary reason for my POV. I infrequently listen to talk radio. If Rush Limbaugh is on, I sometimes agree with what he is saying for a minute or two before he looses me. If Randi Rhodes is on the air, the same exact thing happens. I listen and agree for a short time, then she looses me.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve already been granted Randi Rhodes, although she is not in the same league ratings-wise as Limbagh or the Fox gang.
But if you’re going to maintain the Al Franken and Rachel Maddow are just as extreme and unfair-minded as Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, et. al., you’ve got an uphill case to make.
[QUOTE=vetbridge]
Well, it is difficult to ascribe motive to crazies, and I do not know if I can come up with a liberal agenda murder for every stated conservative agenda murder, but I would offer Squeeky Fromme’s attempt on Gerald Ford and Arthur Bremmer’s shooting of George Wallace as a starting point.
[/QUOTE]
In the '60s LW violence got more press but RW violence was actually much more prevalent. At least, that’s how Rick Perlstein tells it, with lotsa cites.
And on the left side, all that pretty much went out with the Symbionese Liberation Army. (Today, American LW “terrorists” do nothing worse than spike trees and smash windows.) Whereas on the right side . . . remember Oklahoma City?
There is a difference between anti-government and right-wing.
Don’t lump Timothy McVeigh in with right-wing politics because he shares some of the same views. Timothy McVeigh did not commit his crimes in the name of the Republican party or any kind of right-wing movement.
From Wikipedia:
He began harboring anti-government feelings during which war again? Who was the president during that war?
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
There is a difference between anti-government and right-wing.
Don’t lump Timothy McVeigh in with right-wing politics because he shares some of the same views. Timothy McVeigh did not commit his crimes in the name of the Republican party or any kind of right-wing movement.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: He had at least as much to do with the American radical right as the Weathermen had to do with the New Left. Remember, there’s the whole militia movement out there, and a bunch of white-supremacist hate groups, and while they have little to do with the Republican Party they are “right-wing” by any reasonable standard.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
He began harboring anti-government feelings during which war again? Who was the president during that war?
[/QUOTE]
The one the radical right blames for the “New World Order.” Which does not mean they are not “right,” it just means they regard Bush I (and II, I’m sure) much as the radical left in the 1960s regarded LBJ.
[QUOTE=vetbridge]
I think the media people you’ve mentioned are whackjobs. However, I also think that Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, and Rachel Maddow are whackjobs.
For every crazy person who kills people who have a liberal agenda there is a crazy person who kills people because they have a conservative agenda.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt it.Franken and Madow ct with humor not hate,.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
In a delicious bit of irony, it was Roseanne Barr who actually called for riots in Chicago on Air America, Rush just said he “dreamed of riots” because it would ensure that a Democrat was not elected.
[/QUOTE]
Roseanne Barr is a mainstream liberal pundit now?
[QUOTE=vetbridge]
For someone like myself who does not feel comfortable with the discourse from either the right or the left, yes, those who are vehement that their view is correct are extremist in their point of view. I think that it is easier to accept someone whose views are close to yours as being wise, but for someone with my views, those espousing either end of the spectrum appear equally crazed.
[/QUOTE]
Just because someone is convinced their position is correct doesn’t make them an extremist. Expressing a strong desire for justice, equality, and simple human decency, and decrying when sexism, racism, bigotry, and outright lies are not only exhibited, but lauded, is not extremist, and is exactly what Rachel Maddow does, and that within an intellectual framework.
Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, and Limbaugh proudly traffic in ignorance. Without it they’d have no audience, and they know it. The base of the conservative wing of the Republican party is comprised of probably the most incurious people in America, happily sucking down a pablum of talking points and other propaganda on a daily basis so they can know what inanities to regurgitate when questioned, even if they don’t truly understand them.
You do have one thing right though. It is easier to accept someone whose views are similar to yours. It’s just a shame that so many Americans still accept, and are comforted by, the false notions that blacks are inferior to whites (and national legislation should be enacted to reflect it and resources made available to enforce it), that women were created to be subservient to men in all things, that a moral society will never allow Gay people within it (Sodomites should be treated and cured, and failing that killed), that if a community is comprised of brown people (e,g,: Mexicans, Native Americans, Arabs, etc…) it’s okay to take what they have and justifiable to destroy their lives if they resist, and that a secularist pursuit of knowledge makes baby Jesus cry.
Erm, why not? Isn’t sharing “some of the same views” precisely what makes up “right-wing politics”, or indeed any other kind?
[QUOTE=Askance]
Erm, why not? Isn’t sharing “some of the same views” precisely what makes up “right-wing politics”, or indeed any other kind?
[/QUOTE]
No because there are plenty of anti-governement wingnuts on the left.
Rachel Maddow, BTW, is getting her own show.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I doubt it.Franken and Madow ct with humor not hate,.
[/QUOTE]
“Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”
Yeah, that’s funny non-hate filled stuff there.
*And * it’s at best a half-truth. Rush Limbaugh is only an idiot in the colloquial sense of the word.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
No because there are plenty of anti-governement wingnuts on the left.
[/QUOTE]
And Timothy McVeigh would have shot them on sight if he could get away with it.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
“Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot”
Yeah, that’s funny non-hate filled stuff there.
[/QUOTE]
True . So you read it.
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
Just because someone is convinced their position is correct doesn’t make them an extremist. Expressing a strong desire for justice, equality, and simple human decency, and decrying when sexism, racism, bigotry, and outright lies are not only exhibited, but lauded, is not extremist, and is exactly what Rachel Maddow does, and that within an intellectual framework.
[/QUOTE]
No, but assuming your side has a monopoly on a desire for justice, equality, and simple human decency does tend to make you an extremist.