Um, What? McVeigh was attacking the US government in response to Waco. Are you suggesting he’s anti-anti-government or are you suggesting there are no left-leaning anti-government wing-nuts?
We are really debasing the term “hate” if a schoolyard insult is equivalent to blowing up a government building.
There don’t seem to be a lot of left-wing militias toting guns around the Arizona border. I don’t think armed liberals are shooting up Tennessee churches or killing the Republican chair in Arkansas. The evidence seems pretty clear that a side effect of the rhetoric associated with conservative/Republican philosophy results in a disproportionate level of violence.
Let me be clear: This is by no means an indictment of the core values of conservatism (that is a different argument). I’m arguing that mainstream right-wing punditry capitalizes on the ignorance of their audience and uses alarmist rhetoric far more often than mainstream liberal punditry, regardless of the factual content. This, in turn, leads to more violence among the base.
Except I don’t think you’ve actually shown that these shootings had political motivations.
I disagree. The gents in Tennessee and Arkansas don’t appear to have done their deeds based on a political agenda, but a personal one.
Who said anything about a monopoly? There are fair minded and decent people of every stripe. Although I’d like to believe Limbaugh (et al) is a decent fellow, the unmitigated glee he expresses when purveying or fostering hatred, sexism, racism, and bigotry, and the sought-after idolatry expressed by a receptive audience eager to have their irrational, anachronistic biases not only accepted but considered correct, precludes it in my book.
Did you ever watch the View? They had to get rid of her because she’s such an obnoxious cow about her opinions. They were fine with her views but she has delivery issues.
I think we should add the 2001 Anthrax attacks to our list of right-wing terrorism since two of the targets were Democratic Senators.
No, I’m suggesting a man like McVeigh hates left-leaning anti-government wing-nuts almost as much as he hates the government – the latter being something he hates mainly for its perceived enforcement of a left-wing agenda.
Did you? It was Rosie O’Donnell.
I can understand why some of you are in denial. Having extremists of your political stripe going around shooting your political opponents is a bit embarassing. It makes recruiting fence-sitters that much harder.
I used to be a Republican, back when it was the more intellectual party. Now it seems that most of its media people are either hacks like David Brooks, bald-faced liars like Sean Hannity, or crazed harpies like Ann Coulter (I don’t consider that to be a personal attack).
To paraphrase an old hero, I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.
whoops! Sorry. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of the New Hampshire incident, last November.
You’ve just accused Limbaugh and the Republican party of “purveying or fostering hatred, sexism, racism, and bigotry”, and that Limbaugh’s audience has "irrational, anachronistic biases " and you don’t see why I’m saying you assume your side has a monopoly on virtue?
I don’t say, or believe, my side has a monopoly on virtue. I do, however, believe there’s a controlling element in the Republican party that revels in the abrogation of human rights based upon gender, race, nationality and sexual orientation. It is this element, assisted by incendiary rhetoric cast with abandon by their surrogates in the right wing media, that helps give rise to a mindset in its constituency in which acts of violence and terror are justified against those who resist what they perceive as the natural order of things.
:smack: Barr was on the short list to replace her and yes I confused the two. How I could confuse their 2 sweet voices serenading the public is beyond me.
Your “no” makes no sense, you aren’t responding to what I said. I said nothing about the balance of right- or left-wingnuts.
I was disputing the statement that sharing (some of) the same views doesn’t mean you are on the same side of politics; I’m pointing out being on the same side of politics is, surely, defined by sharing at least some of the same views.
Do you believe that has to be the reason the Republican party holds the views it does?
(??) I apologize, but I’m unclear on your question. Can you please rephrase? Thanks.
Well, you’re saying “I do, however, believe there’s a controlling element in the Republican party that revels in the abrogation of human rights based upon gender, race, nationality and sexual orientation.”
That seems to me that you’re saying that the Republican party takes the positions it takes not because they think these positions are best for the country or will help people, but because they’re a bunch of sexist, racist, anti-gay xenophobes who have decided to screw women, blacks, foreigners, and gays over out of pure hatred and nastiness.
I wanted to make sure I wasn’t misinterpreting what you were saying there.
Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying.
It is a hatred, possibly borne of a desire for an idyll that never actually existed in a recent mythic past, but hatred just the same.
Ask your average self-identified conservative on the street what they feel about Mexicans, or gays, or even blacks. I can take you to places in Pennsylvania where the responses will knock your socks off. Ask them if they believe violence against doctors or even women who perform or contemplate abortion is justified and see how animated they become. These are not few-in-number lunatics who live somewhere beneath a darkened bridge. These are millions of citizens, many of whom live right next door to all of us throughout the US. Many of these folks have never seen a Mexican other than on TV, couldn’t recognize a homosexual even if they worked with one, have never had any negative interaction with black people, and would drive their 14 year old daughter to the clinic themselves if she became pregnant.
Under normal circumstances these issues don’t personally touch them, so why all the vitriol, all the hatred? People are not born hating Mexicans, or anyone else. This hatred has to be learned. Someone has to convince them that an element they’ve never encountered is somehow critically harmful to them and must be stopped. The social architects of the Republican party and their surrogates in the media are the impetus and catalysts, respectively, for the dissemination of propaganda that fosters these extremist views in receptive segments of society.
Like it or not, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, and those who believe it’s right to subjugate women (or control their biology at the very least) know they have a home and a voice in the Republican party, and some of them believe violence is justified to ensure that voice is not only heard but obeyed.
Having said all that, I believe there are Republicans who don’t ascribe to a philosophy of bigotry and hatred, and are politically affiliated for what they believe are the positive aspects of Republicanism. But even if that’s so, what confuses me about this type of Republican is if one examines readily available data it’s easily determined that traditionally Republican ideals, such as fiscal prudence, are, for the most part, not actively practiced by the party or its representatives in Congress. Oh, the Republicans SAY they want to decrease spending and the debt and deficit, while they increase it. They SAY they want a smaller government, while enlarging it. They SAY they want the government out of our personal lives, while passing sweeping legislation giving them the right to poke their pointy, prurient noses into anything they want. The Republican party SAYS a lot of things, but what they do, consistently, and very well, is demonize.
Could there be a reason the party actively demonizes those who are different other than hatred? Certainly. Fear, which is another powerful and effective weapon in the Republican arsenal. Other than that, I got nothin’.
I think saying stuff like that does make you an extremist, though. You’re willing to demonize your opponents, and not consider that they might have good reasons for believing the stuff they do. You assume that it’s just because of racism, homophobia, sexism, or whatever.