What difference would it make? I never said those M.P.'s were Republicans. But orders to mistreat prisoners came down from the top levels of the DOD. I say Abu Ghraib was “no aberration” because we’ve still got Guantanamo Bay, etc. Mean.
Good lord! I MUST have that book!
As I pointed out above, the Clinton Death List was started by Rep. William Dannemeyer.
Not that I think either side is any better than the other.
The issue as a whole is a complex one with, perhaps, no provably right answer. But this claim here (that Franken + Moore = Coulter + Savage) is just RIDICULOUS.
Let’s take them at their own words.
Here’s the introduction to Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. (It’s a quick read… I recommend it to all and sundry).
What do we have there?
Certainly, we have some partisanship, most notably these two paragraphs (Al is explaining how God chose him to write this book, mocking Bush’s belief that God chose him to be president):
Yeah, that’s pretty harsh. But note that it is entirely directed at a single public figure (Bush). At no point is he making comments about Republicans as a whole. Also, he’s basically just making factual claims (which he spends the book backing up). Sure, he throws in a few weighted words (“cynically” “panders”). But basically he’s just making negative statements about an individual public figure, which he later attempts to back up. He’s not attacking Joe GOP. Nor is he getting even remotely vicious with his language concerning Bush himself.
(Later on in the introduction, he mentions a few other conservatives by name, specifically Bernard Goldberg and Anne Coulter.)
Also in this intro, we find such scathing and fuming partisan attacks as:
and
Wow. He sure socks it to those right wingers at the Harvard Faculty Club. What a hatemonger.
Let’s compare that, shall we, to Anne Coulter’s Treason, chapter 1, page 1.
Wow. That’s quite a paragraph. In it we learn that, in absolutely black and white terms:
-Liberals don’t love America
-Liberals always side with America’s enemies (it’s their essence!)
-People from the third world are savages (OK, it’s not clear she means all of them)
-“McCarthyism” is a fraud
-Liberals have a nearly unblemished record of rooting against America
I’m a liberal. Anne Coulter hasn’t just claimed that the leaders I support are making bad choices. She’s claiming that they, and I, are traitors who hate America.
Would any right winger like to stand up and claim that Franken >= Coulter, when it comes to hate?
Michael Moore is somewhat worse than Al Franken, I’ll admit. As a liberal, I’m proud to have Al Franken be considerd a spokesman for me. I’m made a bit more nervous by Michael Moore. I believe his heart is in the right place, but I think he’s often some combination of egotistical and sloppy with his facts. I’m glad his voice is one that is heard, and I think it adds to the national discourse, but I’m certainly not going to put him up on a pedastal. At his absolute worst (2 or 3 pages out of a book, one or two scenes out of a movie), I think he approaches the level of the average Anne Coulter.
The first few pages of the first chapter of Dude, Where’s My Country can be found on Amazon.com. It doesn’t seem to contain anything particularly partisan, although I have no doubt that there are more attacks on Bush later in the book.
As for Michael Savage… well, he makes Anne Coulter look like a cross between Miss Manners and a Nun. First of all, let’s not forget that this is a man whose cable show was cancelled when he told a gay caller “I hope you get AIDS and die”. (I think I have that quote right). Honestly, I’ve run out of energy (and I don’t have the firm stomach necessary) to dig up quotes from him. Unless anyone has the temerity to question my claims about him, in which case the floodwaters of filth will be opened.
As roughly said in two separate posts in this thread (too lazy to look for the exact lines again):
- The farther from center, the meaner, on either side.
- The Dems are generally close to the center, whereas the Republicans generally are not.
Throw in some election-year loudspeakers for each side. Plenty of jackasses on both, but of course the Republicans will be louder and meaner; you have to look up fringe loonies like LaRouche to get similar absurdity from the other side.
Well, not entirely . . . look at the left side of the spectrum. Please bear in mind that Al Franken is a liberal, not a leftist. And he’s not mean. Michael Moore, who, I will admit, is a bit meaner in tone than Franken (but nothing close to Coulter!) is arguably a leftist, but it’s a close call. Ralph Nader is a genuine leftist, and he is not mean – righteously outraged at times, but not mean. Dennis Kucinich is a genuine leftist, and he is anything but mean – I’ve heard him speak several times. Jim Hightower is gentemanly and kindly in tone, even when he is methodically roasting the right wing and the corporations over a slow fire; the worst thing you can call him is sarcastic, and even that he manages to pull off with grace. The Greens are not mean – at least, I’ve never heard any of their spokespeople say a really mean thing. Even the Socialist Party is not mean. It is impossible to imagine any of these people talking even in jest about lining up their enemies and shooting them. Based on posts above, not only do the right-wing spokescreatures talk in that vein at times, but you can’t be entirely certain they don’t mean it. You have to look into some of the really revolutionary Marxist microparties to find a genuinely mean American leftist. There’s always Lyndon LaRouche, of course, but is he a leftist? I know he started his career back in the '60s as a Marxist of some sort (he even used a pseudonym, “Lyn Marcus,” incorporating the names of Lenin and Marx), but since then he’s drifted . . . well, not exactly rightward, more in a direction that is completely off any political map.
This thread has changed my opinion, for the good of the left.
If you’re teaming up Anne and Mike vs. Al and Michael…
Michael Moore may be a windbag who is as happy to distort facts to make his point as he is not to, but I don’t recall him wandering around calling citizens of developing nations “savages” or wishing death on Christians. They just spew hatred and vileness whenever they open their mouths. Anyone who opposes them is evil and a traitor, everyone who is different than them is disgusting filth…
Your point on Kosovo is another apt one. I recall the summer of '98 well. It was the year of my first great love, so it has mcuh personal meaning to me. But it is also a benchmark. I was a Republican that year, for the last time.
At a time when there was so much in the country that could be discussed - so many changes and threats, so much policy going on, and a sitting second term president out to do as much change as he could. There was SO MUCH that the GOP could have focused their efforts on! There was SO MUCH ammunition to use in the actual policies, mistakes, and failures of the Clinton administration.
But in the end, they chose not to use it. They virtually ignored piles of it. They seemingly refused to touch it. Instead, they focused all of their energies into what? A SMEAR CAMPAIGN. That’s right. They took all of their power and focused it on one extramarital affair. Out of everything that they could have chosen to focus on, they chose that. They spent millions of dollars, countless manhours and energy, nearly drove the Federal government to a standstill - for what? TO SMEAR A SITTING SECOND TERM PRESIDENT. There was no chance of him serving again! There was no point smearing the man! At best, they would make Gore President, and let him be incumbent in 2000! Yet still, with relentless insistence, they pursued this straw man, set him ablaze while the world (and most of America) yawned.
Then something amazing happened. Hillary forgave Bill. Just like that. Then… America stopped caring. The GOP, left with its chance to deal a pointless deathblow, was left holding an empty noose blowing in the wind while Clinton rode into the sunset, remembered as one of the most mediocre presidents in history.
And you know what? With all the ammunition liberals have about Bush - all of the drinking, whoring, drug doing, military evading, company wrecking, deblilitating personal history, what do liberals usually focus on? His disastrous policies. Yea, occasionally those issues come up, they always do, but look at the absolute smear rubbed around against Kerry! Hooo-boy! They found something worse than draft-dodger to rub in his face, war protester! He wasn’t even nominated before he began being disaffectionately known as “Lurch,” because we all know tall and lanky people are evil and bad leaders.
Come on. I thought “sick” when the Dems started ripping out Dole’s guts when he tripped that one time on stage. How naive. If only I had known what kind of acid the next four years would hold, I would have campaigned even harder for Mr. Dole, rather than see my beloved nation become a pit of vipers.
Well, to be fair, they have to be careful in areas like that, since their international fellows… well, you know. 
Seriously, they spend 99% of their energy fighting to be taken seriously. What do you expect other than calm professionalism?
Fair comment, but by “any of these people” I didn’t mean just the Socialists, I meant the whole lot on the non-revolutionary American Left – the Socialists, the Greens, Nader, Kucinich, arguably Hightower and Moore – all of them acerbic at times, none of them mean or potentially homicidal, not even in theory or in rhetoric.
Ted Bundy was a Republican. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if statistically, most serial killers are conservatives, due to sexual repression.
:dubious:
You mean like the time that notorious leftist radio/tv host said, “here’s a picture of the White House dog!” and then showed a picture of the Republican president’s 13 year old daughter?
Yeah. Like that.
And that left-wing broad who says that conservatives are traitors, immoral, mentally unbalanced, etc?
Then there were those two liberal televangelists who blamed the conservatives, the Christians, straight people and two-parent house holds for September 11, because God was punishing them.
Yup, us lib’rals sure is mean!
:rolleyes:
What distinction are you trying to make here? In America liberals are leftists and though not all leftists are liberals there are so few socialists that the terms are nearly synonymous.
Which party had to add the word compassionate to its label to get more votes?
Which party members are so known for their sympathy for the down-trodden that they are referred to (sneeringly) by their political opponents as “bleeding hearts”?
But what you don’t know about is how many liberals at SDMB deliberately refrained from saying anything negative about President Reagan, especially during the period of mouring.
I am defining a “leftist” as, not necessarily a socialist, but somebody who is genuinely concerned with reversing the drastic and increasing wealth inequality in this country (greater than that in any other industrialized nation) and with breaking the disproportionate political power of the rich, the major corporations and the big-business interests. That is a very important distinction. Nader and Kucinich meet that description (and I’ve never heard anybody call Kucinich a socialist). Kerry and Dean do not.
While Bundy may very well have been a Republican, I think that taking this discussion in this direction is a bad idea. There are a hell of a lot of sexually repressed Democrats, too. And I would be willing to bet that at least some of the serial killers that have existed identified as Democrats.
/me starts an egg timer until someone brings up Manson
“Yeah, but everybody’s a jerk. You, me, [points at man in next booth] this jerk. That’s my philosophy.”
Perhaps, but I’m a much bigger jerk than you and the yutz in the booth put together. And some people are much bigger jerks than others.
Unfortunately that term doesn’t convey the distinction you are trying to make. I would say you would have better luck getting your point across by substituting something like “limousine liberal”. “Sell out” also comes to mind. I believe these people generally started out as genuine liberals then moved right to justify their own place among the elite or to gain such a place but perhaps that is just my class prejudice showing. Us working class types tend to have a chip on our shoulder.
There is no maybe about Bundy; he campaigned for Republican candidates.
No doubt there are; but at least the popular view from the Right is that Democrats are sexual libertines (Clinton, Kennedy, MLK), and Republicans are in control of thier sexual urges (though J. Edgar Hoover might have been an exception). It is not unreasonable to extrapolate that, among the sexually repressed, the elephants outnumber the donkeys. To suggest otherwise is to want to have it both ways; Democrats have loose morals, and are sexually repressed. Make up your mind.
I am sure there is at least one, if only to prove that the Right hasn’t cornered the market on serial killing.