Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs) - Page 4

I've never watched Friends, therefore it can't have been that popular.

aaaaaaaanyway, back on topic?

Here's some heartwarming right wing rhetoric-- Bill O'Reilly thinks it would be appropriate if al Qaeda attacked San Francisco and blew up coit Tower.

In the aftermath of the city's Tuesday vote to ban military recruiting in public schools, O'Reilly said:


Cute, huh? And, of course, liberals are in the habit of calling for the destruction of say, Omaha, for being wrong about gay rights, or the fire bombing of Kansas in retaliation for teaching ID in public schools, so it all balances out, right? Oh, wait....

Interestingly, the article in the SF Chronicle even takes a stab at the "parity" game, asking if shouldn't O'Reilly be afforded the same latitude as Bill Maher:


Two things: after being belittled by the White House Maher was forced to apologize, which you know O'Reilly will never do, and, consonant with the topic of the thread, there is a fundamental difference in kind between the characterization Maher made, which is making an analytical (albeit very controversial) point, and O'Reilly's bellicose call for the isolation and execution of his fellow countrymen by terrorists.

Makes the point of the thread precisely. Just imagine the outrage and constant bellowing on cable scream fests if a "liberal" called for a terrorist attack on a conservative city as payback for supporting the Iraq invasion, using the logic that that conflict has worsened our security status.

They would denounced from a hundred bully pulpits and hounded from the airwaves. It would be paraded about as further evidence of the degeneracy and insanity of the left.

But this? Just par for the course. And, you know, San Francisco.... just a bunch of fags and liberals, fruits and nuts, right? My friends and loved ones, but they have it coming, right? To die screaming?

I wait, I know, he was just joking! Oh, so that's OK then! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I should just lighten up!

Hey, here's a joke: let's nuke Texas! Let's nuke Texas so they can die burned and bleeding in their own piss and shit, so parents can watch their children drown in their own liquified lungs and the living can envy the dead! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

Why? Because I disagree with many Texans politcally, which makes them subhuman scum which I can happily level any atrocity at because they brought it on themselves!

Aren't you proud of yourselves, right wing thugs? And you never have to stop because the "left does the very same thing!"

I got news for you: the day the left starts responding in kind you'll be screaming for martial law and detention camps. You just can't repress that special brown shirt feeling.

Bill O's point was pretty simple. If you don't want to support the military of this nation, you don't deserve to be protected by it.

All of the ant--military folks are safe and sound because our military is keeping those who want to kill us at bay. Remember, they won't ask you if you voted for Bush when they blow up your bus or train or office.

The two oceans don't hurt.

Really? O'Reilly's "point"? Prohibiting recruiting in public schools as a response to ever more aggressive tactics by the military (tactics brought on by sagging numbers, themselves brought on by the unpopularity of the Iraqi war) renders a city not a part of the United States?

If you vote against a tax hike to pay for more police does that mean the cops don't have to come to your house when you call? If the State of Texas sends delegates to Congress who vote against a big spending measure that includes big increases for the military (you know, because they're all about fiscal responsibility, does that mean ya'll are in the same boat?

Moreover, does that make it cool for me to say "Well, Moe apparently doesn't support the police, I think it would be fair if criminals broke into his house and raped his mom and murdered his dad and you know what? We should just sit back and let it happen, because he voted against the money that would have helped the brave boys in blue keep you and yours safe from harm". You're good with that, right?

I know you're just a dumb kid who parrots what he's been told, but this my fucking home, so watch your goddamn mouth.

Better yet, put your tender ass on the line and head on over to Iraq. I hear the Army is willing to look the other way of you're not old enough.

He's not serious box.

BO? Not serious? You're kidding.

What O'Reilly said is what any right winger would call treason had it escaped from the mouth of a lefty. A little intellectual honesty please?

You wouldn't buy that argument from a lefty so don't bullshit us with it here.

And yet you immediately moved to endorse his "point", that failure to comply with the big book of right wing lunatic aggression equals no rights as a citizen and forfeiture of one's life.

The "joking" defense is bullshit. If Michael Moore went on the radio and opined that he would like to see some of those dumb fuck midwesterners murdered for being so endlessly stupid, he would be killed. Straight up shot down like a dog in the street, and it wouldn't matter how many times he said he was "joking". People on the right would be knocking each other out of the way for the chance to get off a clean shot, and every one of them would feel absolutely fully vindicated for doing so.

Why? Because the useless motherfucking assholes of the right have legitimatized the most extreme, brutalizing language imaginable by repeating it endlessly, to the point that they can casually call for a terrorist attack on an American city as punishment for getting politically out of line and it's treated as goofy hyperbole. "Oh, that crazy Bill, he'll say anything!"

And then, of course, the same viciousness allows them to call for the pummeling of anyone on the left who gets out of line and says something intemperate.

You don't think O'Reilly wouldn't be leading the pack of braying jackals if Moore actually said something along the lines of what O'Reilly has made his bread and butter?

And of course, the distinction being that it's correct to call for the death of liberals because, I mean come on! they deserve it, whereas any backtalk from the left is an attack on America itself, which of course O'Reilly simply embodies in all his rampant glory.

Again, the entire point of the thread. The response of the right to which is "Yeah? Well? They do deserve it, and we do embody America, and, uh, oh yeah, liberals say mean things too".

"The "joking" defense is bullshit"


He wasn't joking. He was being sarcastic.

BTW: He would have said the same thing if it were Lincoln Nebraska and not SF.

Trent Lott was being sarcastic when he made that comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. I swear!

I don't think you know what sarcastic means.

If O'Reilly said "Ooh, SF voted against military recruitment, I guess now they're fair game for al Qaeda", that would be sarcastic commentary on right wing rhetoric.

If he said "Ooh, SF etc, I guess they figure they can always throw in with the French when the bombing starts", that would be a sarcastic commentary on San Francisco's position.

There isn't any way for what he did say to be "sarcastic".

And even is Lincoln were mysteriously transformed into a liberal redoubt that would vote to restrict military recruiting, O'Reilly knows where his bread is buttered and which whipping boys can be safely trotted out to stimulate the bloodlust of his listeners

Why are you defending this bullshit?

Whoa. You just used "redoubt" correctly. On the internets! Has this ever happened before?

"Why are you defending this bullshit?"

I'm not. I just don't think what he says really matters and is worth getting wound up about. He is just a guy on the radio with a big mouth. AQ will not attack you on his command.

Wouldn't it be funny if BO was OBL?

With all of the PS experts here, I bet we will see the evidence before too long.

Are you absolutely blind to the hypocrisy of your statement? When any other guy on the radio with a big mouth who happens to be a lefty says something remotely villifying the right THIS IS NOT THE REACTION THAT THEY RECEIVE FROM YOU!

Consistency. Integrity. Honesty. Get Some.

Always timely Hunter over at Daily KOS has a post up spanning O'Reilly and Liberals Suck tomes.

Apparently O'Reilly has commenced with "they're trying to take Christmas from us" holiday festivities:




Booya!

"The Rebel Jesus"
Jackson Browne

All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
Theyll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all gods graces
And the birth of the rebel jesus

Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But theyve turned the nature that I worshipped in
From a temple to a robbers den
In the words of the rebel jesus

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For Ive no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel jesus.

o'reilly needs to spend more time in the south. we have a 50-50 representation of religious and non- everywhere. i have to say that, trying to ignore why christmas is christmas is just dumb... you build an implied resentment that gets taken out in all the wrong ways eventually. and when iw as doing design in toronto, the level of political-correctness can get nauseating at times, especially for clients who don't want to offend ANYbody (i.e. banks). why can't we just, i dunno, get along and just be concerned with our own business?

Because history has shown that, generally speaking, we don't do that very well.

I'm moved!!! Sorta...

Thanks for your honesty BRussell. I appreciate it because I did the exact same thing. I just started with lying liars and went from there. I didn't even try to replicate all the areas and titles you covered because I didn't think certain parties were so hung up on say.. Amazon sales rankings or their own personal criteria that they have yet to reveal.

Nick

Meanwhile... back at the ranch....

On topic, we have the latest eliminationist invective from Jimmy Carter talks about "Our Endangered Values." Who are the evil-doers that we should watch? Christian fundimentalists.


Amazon sales rank #3

Nick

Yeah, so. That is a statement of truth.

Stalin would be so proud of you.

Nick

Just like passive Muslim moderates failed to see the rise of fundamentalist Islam as a threat to their society, passive Christian moderates are failing to see the rise of fundamentalist Christianity as a threat to their society.

Stalin would have liked it if there were no Christians and no Muslims, I have never condoned the dismantling of organised religion, just organised religion that is at turns violent and blind.

If you honestly want to go the route of a fundamentalist Christian nation, know that those of us who aren't Christian are warning you now that your pleasant little society cannot handle such a transition. It is from our eyes that we can see how close this society is to being so Christian Centric it represses any religion or belief system that isn't Christianity. This vantage gives me and others the sense that a little more of a push and this country established on the principle of free practice will be a shadow of the one that held this ideal close to heart.

Are you suggesting that, because Carter is himself an evangelical Christian, we should watch him?

Interesting. So you didn't use historical sales rank or the NYT bestseller list. That's too bad, and it shows why you only came up with obscure books.

BRussell, on the other hand, came up with bestsellers by celebrity authors. While you both used a shitty method, the fact that he used the shitty method and didn't come up with obscure books drives the point home that much more.

right. That's exactly what that is. Maybe you can point out where he calls christian fundamentalists terrorists, fascists, evil, etc, or says that terrorists should attack them.

Interestingly, according to the Publishers Weekly blurb, his criticism is of "their open hostility toward a range of sinners."

We are discussing Carter at Lonestartimes


"While hawking his new book, Our Endangered Values: Americas Moral Crisis, at a signing, former president Jimmah Carter let slip the dogs of malaise."



http://lonestartimes.com/2005/11/12/...-book-signing/

http://lonestartimes.com/2005/11/14/carter-legacy/

Actually there is no point you can drive home since you refuse to actually disclose your methodology. Until you show your own search criteria you should be ignored.

Nick

Hmmm. Still trolling by lying. Doesn't it at least bother you that your lie is exposed by the quote you include with your lie? Grow up already. Seriously.

Do you guys find it tiring to be that angry and hateful all the time? Or is it invigorating to be fueled by invective and slur? I've always wondered.

We try to keep the left accountable. The mainstream media sure won't do it.

Nick, dear.

Carter's book criticizes three central features of fundamentalism: "rigidity, domination, and exclusion." I would think it's fairly sophisticated of you to point out how a book arguing against exclusion is itself eliminationist. Even if that's true, such a subtle criticism is definitely not the same as the right-wing books explicitly advocating the elimination of liberals...

Yeah, but do you find that it tires you to be so angry all the time? Or do you find that that kindof seething rage at a large chunk of the population/world keeps you fueled?