Shooting at Holocaust Museum

[El Mudo]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/?iref=mpstoryview)

A private security guard and the shooting suspect were wounded, according to officials of the D.C. police.

Sgt. David Schlosser, a spokesman for U.S. Park Police, told reporters a man armed with a "long gun" entered the museum at 12:50 p.m. and fired at a security officer, and both were wounded in the exchange of gunfire.

"My understanding is that two other security officers at the museum returned gunfire at the man that had entered the museum," Schlosser said.

Schlosser said he didn't know exactly what kind of firearm the man had and whether the shooting was before or after he passed through a metal detector.

He said the security guard that was initially shot and the gunman have been transported to George Washington University Hospital and he didn't know their conditions.

Emergency vehicles converged on the scene near the National Mall.

[CurseoftheBambi]

the right wing nut jobs are at it again!!!!!!:blink:

[angrymissy]

Shooter was 89 years old...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/

[angrymissy]

the right wing nut jobs are at it again!!!!!!:blink:

He was apparently a big-time white supremacist.

James Wenneker von Brunn... googling his name brings up some lovely sites.

[WampusCrandle]

Shooter was 89 years old...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/

i really hope that as he is close to flat lining - someone smothers him to death.

[topless_mike]

http://irestidelcarlino.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/david-hasselhoff-07.jpg


Das Auto(matic weapon)

[KnoxHarrington]

Holy shit, the Fark headline on this story is brutal.

"6,000,002" (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4439972)

[KatPw]

Holy shit, the Fark headline on this story is brutal.

"6,000,002" (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4439972)

Is there a lot of trolling going on over there in the comment thread? There are times I'm actually afraid to look now. I must have to change my batteries in my sarcasm meter. Bad enough I was insane enough to go look over on free republic. Those people scare me.

[boosterp]

Man, that hate built up over the years.

[~Katja~]

Shooter was 89 years old...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/

with his name I really expected him to be born in Germany... or Europe, but it seems he is an American... at least he was born here in 1920...

My grandpa was born the same year... I wonder if he even could hold a gun anymore... he certainly can turn any microwave into an explosive device though.

[razorboy]

Whatever happened to murder at the Super Bowl?

[KnoxHarrington]

Is there a lot of trolling going on over there in the comment thread? There are times I'm actually afraid to look now. I must have to change my batteries in my sarcasm meter. Bad enough I was insane enough to go look over on free republic. Those people scare me.

Not on Fark...the discussion there has turned into pretty much a flamewar between leftists and rights screaming at each other. There are a lot of leftists gleefully bringing up the DHS study of threats of violence on the right that right-wingers attacked as a political smear.

I'm sure places like Free Republic are horrible, though.

[CurseoftheBambi]

missy look over at huffingtonpost.com's stuff about this guy...and americablog lots of stuff coming out too...

I wonder if he was one who wanted to see a Birth Certificate...

I wondeer also was he a teabagger who called Obama a Nazi...

and Jeeze is Fark wackbag????

[angrymissy]

Not on Fark...the discussion there has turned into pretty much a flamewar between leftists and rights screaming at each other. There are a lot of leftists gleefully bringing up the DHS study of threats of violence on the right that right-wingers attacked as a political smear.

I'm sure places like Free Republic are horrible, though.

Well I mean, it is kind of ripe for "I told you so". Everyone flipped out over that report about RW extermists, and then we get the shooting of an abortion doctor, and a shooting at the holocaust museum. I kind of do want to give off a "nanny nanny poo pooh".

[KnoxHarrington]

missy look over at huffingtonpost.com's stuff about this guy...and americablog lots of stuff coming out too...

I wonder if he was one who wanted to see a Birth Certificate...

I wondeer also was he a teabagger who called Obama a Nazi...

and Jeeze is Fark wackbag????

Pretty good story on this piece of garbage here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2009/06/details_on_white_supremacist_s.html

Here's a quote from his bio:

He claims to be a member of Mensa, "the high-IQ society," and in 1981 was convicted in D.C. Superior Court for an offense that is not made clear. He was "convicted by a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys, and sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge. A Jew/Negro/White Court of Appeals denied his appeal. He served 6.5 years in federal prison."

If this scumbag lives and the guard he shot dies, you can pretty much close the book on there being a God.

[KatPw]

Not on Fark...the discussion there has turned into pretty much a flamewar between leftists and rights screaming at each other. There are a lot of leftists gleefully bringing up the DHS study of threats of violence on the right that right-wingers attacked as a political smear.

I'm sure places like Free Republic are horrible, though.

Fark has gotten so crazy polarized. I still get enjoyment out of laughing at Bevets at least.

[KnoxHarrington]

Oh, and by the way, it appears that the offense that got him thrown in prison was a crazy-ass conspiracy to kidnap several members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Jesus, it gets better and better with this piece of shit.

On edit: he apparently actually did show up at the HQ of the Federal Reserve Board with a gun.

[CurseoftheBambi]

Maybe anthony will have him over for one of his home based radio broadcats...

[EliSnow]

Oh, and by the way, it appears that the offense that got him thrown in prison was a crazy-ass conspiracy to kidnap several members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Jesus, it gets better and better with this piece of shit.

On edit: he apparently actually did show up at the HQ of the Federal Reserve Board with a gun.

You say kidnap, he says "citizen's arrest." Tomato, tomatoe-nutbar..

[badmonkey]

Well I mean, it is kind of ripe for "I told you so". Everyone flipped out over that report about RW extermists, and then we get the shooting of an abortion doctor, and a shooting at the holocaust museum. I kind of do want to give off a "nanny nanny poo pooh".

People weren't upset about being warned about RW extremists. They were upset about being labeled as possible RW extremists due to having served in the military, supporting 3rd party presidential candidates, support of the 2nd amendment, anti-illegal immigrant, and/or dislike of the UN.

I don't think you'll find anybody that doesn't agree that today's shooter at the holocaust museum qualifies as a RW extremist and should have been closely watched.

[CurseoftheBambi]

People weren't upset about being warned about RW extremists. They were upset about being labeled as possible RW extremists due to having served in the military, supporting 3rd party presidential candidates, support of the 2nd amendment, anti-illegal immigrant, and/or dislike of the UN.


That part was explained but they Bachman and others didn't listen. they just didnt want themselves to be labeled that way because of what they say against Obama.

and oh it's confirmed...he was one of those who didnt believe Obama was born in america.

[badmonkey]

That part was explained but they Bachman and others didn't listen. they just didnt want themselves to be labeled that way because of what they say against Obama.

and oh it's confirmed...he was one of those who didnt believe Obama was born in america.

I'm sure he doesn't believe he was born in America, but I doubt that Obama's birthplace is influencing this guy more than Obama's skin color.

[topless_mike]

If this scumbag lives and the guard he shot dies, you can pretty much close the book on there being a God.

speaking of...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/shots-fired-national-holocaust-museum-dc/

[TheMojoPin]

People weren't upset about being warned about RW extremists. They were upset about being labeled as possible RW extremists due to having served in the military, supporting 3rd party presidential candidates, support of the 2nd amendment, anti-illegal immigrant, and/or dislike of the UN.

That was a ridiculous strawman to being with. The idea that any significant (or even insignifcant) number of conservatives or people on the Right would be lumped into such a report by mistake was just fearmongering paranoia for the sake of having sensational talking points. It wasn't any kind of new policy or investigation: it was an extension of monitoring and investigations that had been in place for decades.

[TheMojoPin]

I keep seeing this guy being called a "neo-nazi."

I think at 88-years-old you're just a straight up nazi.

[EliSnow]

I keep seeing this guy being called a "neo-nazi."

I think at 88-years-old you're just a straight up nazi.

Call me old school, but I don't think you can be a Nazi unless you were a member of the Nazi party in Germany.

[topless_mike]

I keep seeing this guy being called a "neo-nazi."

I think at 88-years-old you're just a straight up nazi.

he just sounds like an old bitter bastard.

[boosterp]

People weren't upset about being warned about RW extremists. They were upset about being labeled as possible RW extremists due to having served in the military, supporting 3rd party presidential candidates, support of the 2nd amendment, anti-illegal immigrant, and/or dislike of the UN.

I don't think you'll find anybody that doesn't agree that today's shooter at the holocaust museum qualifies as a RW extremist and should have been closely watched.

You really do have a tin foil hat.

RW extremest? How about extremest and nothing else?

[~Katja~]

I keep seeing this guy being called a "neo-nazi."

I think at 88-years-old you're just a straight up nazi.

he was born here, why would you consider him a straight up Nazi? My grandpa was never a Nazi... not even all Germans were part of that.

[PerryWinkle]

he was born here, why would you consider him a straight up Nazi? My grandpa was never a Nazi... not even all Germans were part of that.

now is "here" germany or is "here" here?

[CurseoftheBambi]

I'm sure he doesn't believe he was born in America, but I doubt that Obama's birthplace is influencing this guy more than Obama's skin color.

Don't you know by now the birth certificate thing is code for Skin Color? Has any other president or presidential canadiate been asked for his birth certificate??

[~Katja~]

now is "here" germany or is "here" here?
well I meant America... even though I am in Germany right now

[badmonkey]

You really do have a tin foil hat.

RW extremest? How about extremest and nothing else?

WTF are you talking about? I responded directly to missy's post about the dept of homeland security report on "RW extremists". So you can stick your tin foil hat comment up Mojo's strawman.

[PerryWinkle]

well I meant America... even though I am in Germany right now

I'm still confused :huh:

[~Katja~]

I'm still confused :huh:
I know:dry:

[TheMojoPin]

he was born here, why would you consider him a straight up Nazi? My grandpa was never a Nazi... not even all Germans were part of that.

Because if he actually lived through when the nazis were doing their thing, there's nothing "neo" about him.

[~Katja~]

Because if he actually lived through when the nazis were doing their thing, there's nothing "neo" about him.
not if he did not start following them until the beginnings of neo-nazi movements.

[DarkHippie]

I blame the jews

[TheMojoPin]

not if he did not start following them until the beginnings of neo-nazi movements.

You're WAY overthinking my joke about old people being nazis.

That said, I highly doubt the guy wasn't swayed by nazi rhetoric the first time around if he's still clinging to it when he's pushing 90.

"Yeah, the snappy uniforms and national unity really didn't get to me, but when I saw those ugly kids with shaved heads and suspenders listening to shitty music, I WAS HOOKED!"

[~Katja~]

You're WAY overthinking my joke about old people being nazis.



nah, you are usually the history buff here.. so I was not expecting a joke from your end


oh, and don't underestimate the almost 90 year olds... my grandpa is an avid supporter of Obama... hehe just based on his favorable reports in German news alone...

[styckx]

Is there a lot of trolling going on over there in the comment thread? There are times I'm actually afraid to look now. I must have to change my batteries in my sarcasm meter. Bad enough I was insane enough to go look over on free republic. Those people scare me.

Fark threads are quite literally some of the worst things ever to read. Great place for news, awful place to discuss it.

[keithy_19]

The way I look at this story is simple. A man, full of hate, with a record of hate, decided to act on his hate.

[TheMojoPin]

nah, you are usually the history buff here.. so I was not expecting a joke from your end


oh, and don't underestimate the almost 90 year olds... my grandpa is an avid supporter of Obama... hehe just based on his favorable reports in German news alone...

http://madisonshortsales.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/banging-head-on-wall.jpg

[epo]

The way I look at this story is simple. A man, full of hate, with a record of hate, decided to act on his hate.

You certainly do look at the world differently than most.

[SatCam]

Apparently Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has come out denying the shooting ever happened

[epo]

His ex-wife thought he was groovy: (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/10/2009-06-10_holocaust_museum_shooter_james_von_brunns_exwif e_says_his_racism_ate_him_alive.html)

The ex-wife of the racist who stormed the U.S. Holocaust Museum described him as an abusive alcoholic whose hatred against Jews and blacks "ate him alive like a cancer."

"It's all he would talk about," the ex-wife said of James von Brunn, 89, who was wounded in a firefight with museum guards.

"When I questioned him, he would get very angry and abusive."

---------------------------------------------------

"He used to make the statement that he was going out with his boots on," she said.
"I took it to mean that he wasn't just about to lay down and die of old age. That he was going to go out and try to take some people with him."

She married von Brunn in the mid-1960s and they divorced 10 years later. She said he sipped red wine all day and frequently lashed out with verbal assaults.

"He would talk about what the world would become in 20 or 30 years - that most of the country would be governed by black governors and that the Jewish people owned the media," the ex-wife said.

[TheMojoPin]

Sounds like the plot for Gran Torino II.

[KnoxHarrington]

Just think...we'll be reading this story again in about 30 years, but we'll be seeing the phrase "ex-shock jock" in it.

[epo]

Shephard Smith on DHS report and Holocaust Museum shooting:

"It was a warning to us all, and it appears now they were right"

<object width="320" height="260"><param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/06/10/studiob-20090610-dhswarn.flv"></param><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/mediaplayer316.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg?flv=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/video/2009/06/10/studiob-20090610-dhswarn.flv" width="320" height="260"></embed></object>

[keithy_19]

Shephard Smith on DHS report and Holocaust Museum shooting:


I'm an avid Fox News watcher. Shep is probably the most balanced. In the sense that he basically just calls it as he see's it.

[CurseoftheBambi]

the old guy was so popular on freerepublic...lots of posts with him there. and those guys on that page disgust me.!

[paracetamol flanders]

Apparently this is already being optioned as Night At The Museum III: Shootout at the not-OK Corral.

[earthbrown]

the right wing nut jobs are at it again!!!!!!:blink:


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm



K

[TheMojoPin]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm



K

http://galatiansc4v16.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/strawman2.jpeg

Fuckin' hysterical, like one justifies or excuses the other or that they have anything to do with each other.

[brettmojo]

Did he really have to go all the way to the Holocaust Museum to shoot a bunch of Jews?

Why didn't he just go down to his local .99 cent store? :thumbup:

[topless_mike]

http://galatiansc4v16.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/strawman2.jpeg

Fuckin' hysterical, like one justifies or excuses the other or that they have anything to do with each other.

archive this.
play this only when needed.

[CurseoftheBambi]

yeah what did that link have anything to do with 1)the abortion doc and the holocaust museum...are you telling me the guy was a muslim????????????:thumbdown:

[The Jays]

I'm an avid Fox News watcher. Shep is probably the most balanced. In the sense that he basically just calls it as he see's it.

Shouldn't the entire staff, in theory, be just as balanced? It seems most of them are off balance.

[TheMojoPin]

yeah what did that link have anything to do with 1)the abortion doc and the holocaust museum...are you telling me the guy was a muslim????????????:thumbdown:

He's trying to say that nobody needs to care about or condemn Right Wing extremists because non-white people also use violence to support their ideologies as well.

[keithy_19]

yeah what did that link have anything to do with 1)the abortion doc and the holocaust museum...are you telling me the guy was a muslim????????????:thumbdown:

I think he was trying to show that it's just not 'right-wing' extremists who do these kind of things.

[TheMojoPin]

I think he was trying to show that it's just not 'right-wing' extremists who do these kind of things.

Which nobody argued anywhere at any time. Hence a strawman. It was a moot point that had nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

[CurseoftheBambi]

yeah sorta what Glenn Beck is doing with bringing up rev wright yesterday

[keithy_19]

yeah sorta what Glenn Beck is doing with bringing up rev wright yesterday

Beck was bringing up that only one side of antisemitism is being covered. I know that what Wright says and the actions Bronn are completely different and thus should be treated differently.

Wright is anti-semetic and preached to Obama, married him, and baptized his children. I'm sure that somewhere in the time Obama sat in the pews that Wright said things out of line. Truth is, Obama needed the votes in Chicago. So he sat at a popular church. At least that's what I think.

[The Jays]

Wow, somehow you have managed to turn a thread about a crazy anti-Semite killing people into a way to smear Obama.

[TheMojoPin]

Beck was bringing up that only one side of antisemitism

Yeah, it's nuts that the kind that results in an old man opening fire in the national Holocaust Museum is the focus right now.

[keithy_19]

Yeah, it's nuts that the kind that results in an old man opening fire in the national Holocaust Museum is the focus right now.

So, you're ok with people on the left blaming people on the right for 'inciting' this shooting?

[TheMojoPin]

So, you're ok with people on the left blaming people on the right for 'inciting' this shooting?

That's pretty broad and is basically the type of loaded question that pundits like Hannity and Beck thrive on. Of course nobody is "OK" with something like that, but it's a moot point that completely diverts from what actually happened and the larger concern of Right Wing extremists. It's creating a false issue that wants people to think that your average conservative is somehow at risk of being condemned or worse because a guy who falls WAY Right on the spectrum did this.

[keithy_19]

That's pretty broad and is basically the type of loaded question that pundits like Hannity and Beck thrive on. Of course nobody is "OK" with something like that, but it's a moot point that completely diverts from what actually happened and the larger concern of Right Wing extremists. It's creating a false issue that wants people to think that your average conservative is somehow at risk of being condemned or worse because a guy who falls WAY Right on the spectrum did this.

So the likes of Olberman aren't saying that conservatives caused this? Just tell me when Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh said to use violence.

[TheMojoPin]

So the likes of Olberman aren't saying that conservatives caused this? Just tell me when Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh said to use violence.

You're trying to expand Olbermann's comments to cover all conservatives. They don't. They're targeted at pundits specifically like Beck, Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Savage et al who have made a career in recent years out of dancing along the fringe of the extreme Right with their rhetoric and have the ability to reach huge amounts of people and have a responsibility because of that. They don't need to be explicitly calling for violence to arguably be culpable in fostering a national mindset that has emboldened extremists to feel that they have to act or at least that the time is ideal for them to do so. When certain people make their money very loudly condemning large segments of the population and the people they elect as being "traitors" who are "destroying America" and other very inflammatory pseudo-doomsday rhetoric there's a good chance that it can contribute to people taking that kind of fearmongering too far.

[The Jays]

Conservatives do not come out and say "do violence", but it us fool hardy for them to fan the flames of hatred that exists on the extreme right. When they say that Obama is going to take your guns away, when they constantly associate Obama with being terrorist-friendly, when they selectively edit his speechs to Muslims to make it seem that he is ok with 9/11, when they make it seem that Democrats in power is on par with the country falling apart and turning into a communist nation, when they go so far as to harken back to revolutionary war days and incite the mimicry of the events which led to the revolution, it seems to want to give the right wing wackos the extra push they need.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Looking for some sort of remedy that’s being loosely referenced here and I’m thinking: “pundits should watch what they say”, “they should be socially responsible”, “they should be cautious about the feelings they stir up”, or some such. I’m trying to distinguish those kinds of remedies (admittedly I have paraphrased them myself), from censorship and am having a hard time doing so.

[The Jays]

Ah, so in your world, Radio Rwanda was the essence of free speech.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Inflammatory, yet ineffective. This statement really makes no sense.

[TheMojoPin]

Looking for some sort of remedy that’s being loosely referenced here and I’m thinking: “pundits should watch what they say”, “they should be socially responsible”, “they should be cautious about the feelings they stir up”, or some such. I’m trying to distinguish those kinds of remedies (admittedly I have paraphrased them myself), from censorship and am having a hard time doing so.

Then you're not trying hard at all. I'm not saying anyone should clamp down on them for what they say. My point is that they shouldn't act all shocked and insulted when they're considered an extension of Right Wing extremism when they willfully use cleaned up Cliff's Notes versions of a lot of extremist rhetoric to get attention. In short, ye reap what ye sow.

But please, go ahead and twist a suggestion of common sense and personal accountability as "censorship."

[SonOfSmeagol]

So they shouldn’t act shocked and insulted when YOU consider them an extension? Says YOU? I have twisted nothing. Please - go ahead and promote a personal view of “common sense” and “personal accountability” and claim it as reasonable and plausible – a standard if you will. That is your prerogative. As it is to my prerogative to say that I disagree, that to say, once again, they are entitled the the view of their choice.

Why shouldn’t they act and say as they please? That’s the bottom line - You just don’t like what they say and you don’t like that they have it “both ways", so to speak. But too bad! They can if they want to! It's really very basic and quite well articulated in the Bill of Rights.

[TheMojoPin]

So they shouldn’t act shocked and insulted when YOU consider them an extension? Says YOU? I have twisted nothing. Please - go ahead and promote a personal view of “common sense” and “personal accountability” and claim it as reasonable and plausible – a standard if you will. That is your prerogative. As it is to my prerogative to say that I disagree, that to say, once again, they are entitled the the view of their choice.

Why shouldn’t they act and say as they please? That’s the bottom line - You just don’t like what they say and you don’t like that they have it “both ways", so to speak. But too bad! They can if they want to! It's really very basic and quite well articulated in the Bill of Rights.


And once again freedom of speech is interpreted completely wrong.

Freedom of speech does not make one free from other citizens disagreeing with someone or countering what was said. Freedom of speech ONLY prohibits the government from hindering one's right to express themselves.

Nowhere did I say or even imply that I expect or want the government to clamp down on these pundits. Nowhere did I say these people can't say they want when it comes to political rhetoric.

What I did say is that just as these people are free to say these things they are also subject to the repercussions that comes from the public perception of what they say as well as what is said and done by people that share similar viewes OR extensions of their views. What I am saying is that they can't have it both ways: they can't expect to be able to push the limit of conservative punditry and dip their toes into vague touchpoints of fringe extremist rhetoric and then act appalled when it's suggested that this ideological shift they've chosen to undertake further to the Right in recent years has put them uncomfortably close to echoing the really dangerous extremist talking points.

Are they at the explicit points of calling for violence and being TRULY extremist? Of course not. But they are very clearly dancing around the edges for the sake of seeming sensational and getting attention.

If they want to stay on this path, hey, that's their call. I'm just expressing my opinion that it's just going to make them look worse and worse as they drift further down the political spectrum for the sake of ratings and media attention. It makes them hypocrites to act indignant when people start getting uncomfortable with how relatively more and more extremist these pundits are getting when many of their talking points are being echoed by these hardcore extremists that are out there.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I still say that they can have it both ways, or any way when it comes to expressing views that don’t cause immediate danger to others. Anyone can say what they please, when they please. I soundly dispute the cause and effect that is implied that such discourse actually causes violence, and/or “ripples such views into the populace”. Responsibility for action remains with the individual and no other. Echoes, or resonance of views does not displace responsibility. I actually don’t see any drifting down any sort of spectrum, I think it is relatively stable. Especially with all the political power where it is right now! This is a basic disagreement.

[TheMojoPin]

I still say that they can have it both ways, or any way when it comes to expressing views that don’t cause immediate danger to others. Anyone can say what they please, when they please. I soundly dispute the cause and effect that is implied that such discourse actually causes violence, and/or “ripples such views into the populace”. Responsibility for action remains with the individual and no other. Echoes, or resonance of views does not displace responsibility. I actually don’t see any drifting down any sort of spectrum, I think it is relatively stable. Especially with all the political power where it is right now! This is a basic disagreement.

It's not, because you're diasgreeing with things I'm not saying if your post was directed at mine. I'm not saying these pundits are in any way causing this violence. What I am saying is that they have to realize that them expressing similar rhetoric to these extremists is going to result in negative responses from large segments of the public. If they don't want to change that's their call, but it mkaes them look ridiculous to act indignant when other people see these things happen and then react negatively to the pundits because they hear watered down versions of extremist rhetoric coming from some of them.

[SonOfSmeagol]

It's not, because you're diasgreeing with things I'm not saying if your post was directed at mine. I'm not saying these pundits are in any way causing this violence. What I am saying is that they have to realize that them expressing similar rhetoric to these extremists is going to result in negative responses from large segments of the public. If they don't want to change that's their call, but it mkaes them look ridiculous to act indignant when other people see these things happen and then react negatively to the pundits because they hear watered down versions of extremist rhetoric coming from some of them.

The very statement that “it mkaes them look ridiculous to act indignant when other people see these things happen and then react negatively to the pundits because they hear watered down versions of extremist rhetoric coming from some of them” soundly implies a cause and effect, which as I’ve said is just not a supportable position. Also, it wasn’t only you, but the cause and effect thing comes up time and again, and I have pointed it out as ridiculous. Also, “them expressing similar rhetoric to these extremists” is also a stretch. Where are these mass audience personalities calling for “killing all the jews and blacks” or any such thing even remotely similar. Watered down rhetoric is a wide open statement that implies deviousness.

As I’ve said, the whole thing is a convergence of entertainment, journalism, and free speech/press and it has been that way for a long long long time. That pundits look ridiculous to you, that you don’t like it, does not change those facts. I think you are implying that it’s somehow in some sort of downward spiral, that more and more people will stand up and call them ridiculous, and also that they have some sort of social responsibility to act differently, that they’re somehow becoming more and more dangerous, and that’s just not the case. You’ve put the price on them that they risk looking ridiculous. That opinion from you and others is not going to change, and as I’ve said it’s a price they’re more than willing to pay - that they actually embrace it!. And finally I’ll say that the mere fact that you and others are addressing them at all, over and over, up and down, and inside out, makes them more than happy. Controversy is king in the business - and it is about business after all. Personally, I pay them no mind and am quite amused that so many take such pains to dismiss them.

[The Jays]

When they say shit like our country is falling apart, our country is being taking over by communists, they want to take your guns away, that Democrats are the leftwing and so was Hitler, that our President isn't really an American, that our President wants to be friendly to terrorists... that shit is irresponsible, it's not even reporting, nor is it insight.

[SonOfSmeagol]

that shit is irresponsible, it's not even reporting, nor is it insight.

Ok, so you can say that you don't like that they say what you claim. I think that’s clear from soooo many here and other threads. That drum has been beat over and over and over and over again. The question is what more can you do about it?

[The Jays]

So it's apparent that you have no problem with what they say. Do you agree with what they say? You believe our country is turning into a communist nation? That Obama is taking our guns away? That the Democrats are on par with Hitler?

[TheMojoPin]

The very statement that “it mkaes them look ridiculous to act indignant when other people see these things happen and then react negatively to the pundits because they hear watered down versions of extremist rhetoric coming from some of them” soundly implies a cause and effect, which as I’ve said is just not a supportable position.

That's your opinion. I can do nothing except assure that that's not what I'm saying. I've been as clear as possible on that.

Also, it wasn’t only you, but the cause and effect thing comes up time and again, and I have pointed it out as ridiculous.

Actually, it wasn't me at all. I think blaming pundits for these attacks is futile and a fool's errand. It's not their fault.

Also, “them expressing similar rhetoric to these extremists” is also a stretch. Where are these mass audience personalities calling for “killing all the jews and blacks” or any such thing even remotely similar. Watered down rhetoric is a wide open statement that implies deviousness.

It's a wide open statement because I was intentionally being broad. My point is that extremist rhetoric covers a lot of ground. It's not just explicitly racist and violent rhetoric. Certain conservative pundits have very obviously cherrypicked and molded many of the broader extremist tenets in an attempt to get more attention by being sensational and edgy because that stuff plays on fears and anger and those emotions get people watching news programs. That is in no way saying that they are actually extremists themselves or that they are preaching the more virulent and specific extremist dogmas.

As I’ve said, the whole thing is a convergence of entertainment, journalism, and free speech/press and it has been that way for a long long long time.

Once again, free speech is a strawman argument here. I am not saying that the government should silence these pundits. Until I or suggest that or something along those lines, constantly bringing up the idea of freedom of speech is moot in responding to my points.

That pundits look ridiculous to you, that you don’t like it, does not change those facts.

Your opinions are not facts.

I think you are implying that it’s somehow in some sort of downward spiral, that more and more people will stand up and call them ridiculous, and also that they have some sort of social responsibility to act differently, that they’re somehow becoming more and more dangerous, and that’s just not the case.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I am not saying the pundits are dangerous or that they inspired these attacks. I've said nothing about a "downward spiral." I do think that more and more people will call them out on their selective shifts to the far Right if events and people such as the extremists make themselves known. Whether that actually changes anything, I don't know.

You’ve put the price on them that they risk looking ridiculous. That opinion from you and others is not going to change, and as I’ve said it’s a price they’re more than willing to pay - that they actually embrace it!.

I agree, to an extent.

And finally I’ll say that the mere fact that you and others are addressing them at all, over and over, up and down, and inside out, makes them more than happy. Controversy is king in the business - and it is about business after all. Personally, I pay them no mind and am quite amused that so many take such pains to dismiss them.

I am not "pained" nor am I dismissing them.

[The Jays]

This isn't a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of calling yourself a news network and then reporting that shit as if it was news. It's not, it's crazy opinion. Now, you say you're entertained, but you're also a smart guy so you can tell what's a pundit and what's a news anchor. There are people in this country that take all of those opinions of Hannity and Beck and think it's actually happening, that it is news. Beck says FEMA is building concentration camps. Hannity says that Obama wants to embrace the 9/11 terrorists. When a news network goes and broadcasts that shit, and calls it news, it's irresponsible, but you say it's all good for them to be telling other Americans this shit and calling it news, you think it's fine and dandy for a news network to feed Americans lies, to feed them their crazy opinions and GOP talking points and pawn it off as news, you think that's totally fucking cool to have America's #1 news network to feed Americans right wing propaganda.

[SonOfSmeagol]

So it's apparent that you have no problem with what they say. Do you agree with what they say? You believe our country is turning into a communist nation? That Obama is taking our guns away? That the Democrats are on par with Hitler?
To be precise, I think I have been clear that I don’t care what they say. That it really doesn’t matter what they say. They have less real power than ever, and have in fact never been in any sort of decision-making role. I DO care what the decision makers say and do and am not shy about that, because they have a real impact.

Since you asked. Turning into communist? No, but turning towards bigger and more influential Federal government, yes. Taking away guns? No, but tending towards thinking that they can help you know what’s best for you, yes. Dems=Hitler? Absurd, but… maybe Trotsky.

[SonOfSmeagol]

This isn't a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of calling yourself a news network and then reporting that shit as if it was news. It's not, it's crazy opinion. Now, you say you're entertained, but you're also a smart guy so you can tell what's a pundit and what's a news anchor. There are people in this country that take all of those opinions of Hannity and Beck and think it's actually happening, that it is news. Beck says FEMA is building concentration camps. Hannity says that Obama wants to embrace the 9/11 terrorists. When a news network goes and broadcasts that shit, and calls it news, it's irresponsible, but you say it's all good for them to be telling other Americans this shit and calling it news, you think it's fine and dandy for a news network to feed Americans lies, to feed them their crazy opinions and GOP talking points and pawn it off as news, you think that's totally fucking cool to have America's #1 news network to feed Americans right wing propaganda.

Actually, all that you say is exactly what free speech is all about. I wonder if you have some sort of remedy in mind for all the irresponsible opinion and propaganda out there.

[The Jays]

Do you even bother to read Mojo's posts? That's not what free speech is about.


Someone can't yell fire and have the police and fire department come only to find the guy was lying, and then have the guy say "hey, it's was freedom of speech."

[SonOfSmeagol]

Do you even bother to read Mojo's posts? That's not what free speech is about.

Someone can't yell fire and have the police and fire department come only to find the guy was lying, and then have the guy say "hey, it's was freedom of speech."

Uh, yeah, it is exactly what it is about. You now contend that the items you mentioned are the equivalent of "fire"? If so, that is simply not supportable.

[styckx]

I've seen enough Freedom Of Speech rebuttals in here to last a life time.

Yes, you do have a freedom of speech and the press have the freedom of press.

Sure, you have the Freedom to say whatever the fuck you want, that Freedom though no where states that you can't be held accountable for what actions those words may cause. Also the Freedom Of Press thing. Do you even really know what it means? It has nothing to do with the right to go on TV and say whatever the fuck you want to say. That falls under freedom of speech. You should go Google freedom of the press and educated yourself a bit.

What news network guy is preaching freedom of speech? This has to be a parroting of someone.

[SonOfSmeagol]

It's a wide open statement because I was intentionally being broad. My point is that extremist rhetoric covers a lot of ground. It's not just explicitly racist and violent rhetoric. Certain conservative pundits have very obviously cherrypicked and molded many of the broader extremist tenets in an attempt to get more attention by being sensational and edgy because that stuff plays on fears and anger and those emotions get people watching news programs. That is in no way saying that they are actually extremists themselves or that they are preaching the more virulent and specific extremist dogmas.
To say that the pundits have cherrypicked extremist views kind of implies that they’re following some sort of extremist lead, are driven and set upon by extremist views, and this comes across a bit one-sided. Another way to look at it is that extremists adopt and corrupt the more moderate views of the pundits and others, carrying them into the extremes. Probably balanced and realistic to consider a little of both.
Once again, free speech is a strawman argument here. I am not saying that the government should silence these pundits. Until I or suggest that or something along those lines, constantly bringing up the idea of freedom of speech is moot in responding to my points.
Not arguing free speech here, just pointing out the drivers and enablers that sparked and sustain that particular phenom in this country.
Your opinions are not facts.
The facts I was referring to were the drivers and enablers I mentioned, not your opinion. You split up the sentences and thus lost the overall point.
You're putting words in my mouth again. I am not saying the pundits are dangerous or that they inspired these attacks. I've said nothing about a "downward spiral." I do think that more and more people will call them out on their selective shifts to the far Right if events and people such as the extremists make themselves known. Whether that actually changes anything, I don't know.
Which is why I clearly said “I think you are implying…” so you could retort, as opposed to me claiming a view on your behalf. I put no words in your mouth.

[styckx]

Uh, yeah, it is exactly what it is about. You now contend that the items you mentioned are the equivalent of "fire"? If so, that is simply not supportable.

You are insane

[SonOfSmeagol]

You are insane

Oh am I? Then I look forward to your proof that those items mentioned are the equivalent of "fire", should you care to humor a lunatic. A good place for solid proof would be the justice system and the related rulings that have penalized the very specific situations mentioned. Go for it.

[The Jays]

Uh, yeah, it is exactly what it is about. You now contend that the items you mentioned are the equivalent of "fire"? If so, that is simply not supportable.

News network has Bernard (oops,wrong Goldberg I said Jonah) Goldberg on and says 'this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's all the liberals fault.' Jim Adkisson then goes into a Unitarian church, kills seven people, and tells the police he did it because pf Goldbergs. He even had a four page manifesto. (http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf)

""Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them...."

"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."

"I thought I'd do something good for this Country Kill Democrats til the cops kill me....Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals. "

FIRE!

[TheMojoPin]

To say that the pundits have cherrypicked extremist views kind of implies that they’re following some sort of extremist lead, are driven and set upon by extremist views, and this comes across a bit one-sided. Another way to look at it is that extremists adopt and corrupt the more moderate views of the pundits and others, carrying them into the extremes. Probably balanced and realistic to consider a little of both.

I never said that the pundits are motivated or driven by extremits ideals. What I do think is that they've willfully pushed the limits of their rhetoric to come across as sensational. What they have taken advantage of is the expension of the Right wing political spectrum by the extremists, not vice versa. The pseudo-extremist rhetoric that the pundits have picked up on are just variations of extremist dogma that have been around in different variaitions for decades. It's not logical to say that the pundits begat the extremists since a significant number of the mainstream pundits have been going down this for only around a decade or so.

Besides, what you're seemingly suggesting is that the pundits have motivated/inspired the extremists, which is exactly what you've been accusing me of doing.

It's also redundant to point out that the extremists have corrupted the politics of the Right. What's a stretch is calling the rhetoric of the pundits "moderate." That's simply not the case. They're obviously more moderate than the extremists, but that's much of an achievement.

Not arguing free speech here, just pointing out the drivers and enablers that sparked and sustain that particular phenom in this country.

The point is that all you references to free speech have had nothing to do with the discussion taking place here. You were using it in an attempt to sideswipe points that you disagree with.

The facts I was referring to were the drivers and enablers I mentioned, not your opinion. You split up the sentences and thus lost the overall point.

Your "drivers and enablers" were just broad strawmen that hinged on a free speech rant that nobody was arguing.

Which is why I clearly said “I think you are implying…” so you could retort, as opposed to me claiming a view on your behalf. I put no words in your mouth.

Then your assumption was incorrect.

[SonOfSmeagol]

News network has John Goldberg on and says 'this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's all the liberals fault.' Jim Adkisson then goes into a Unitarian church, kills seven people, and tells the police he did it because of Jonah Goldberg. He even had a four page manifesto. (http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf)

FIRE!

If it were the equivalent of fire, then this “John Goldberg” (who?) would have been convicted. Was he?

You are in effect saying that this John Goldberg was responsible for the actions of Jim Adkisson. A flawed opinion at best. Because – now listen carefully - Jim Adkisson was responsible for the actions of Jim Adkisson.

[IamFogHat]

Did the maniac shooter die yet, that's really all I give a shit about.

[The Jays]

If it were the equivalent of fire, then this “John Goldberg” (who?) would have been convicted. Was he?

You are in effect saying that this John Goldberg was responsible for the actions of Jim Adkisson. A flawed opinion at best. Because – now listen carefully - Jim Adkisson was responsible for the actions of Jim Adkisson.


I corrected myself, I meant Bernard.

You obviously are willing to be blissfully ignorant that this lunatic, who proclaimed he wanted to kill liberals, who had Goldberg's book in his truck at the time of the shooting, found zero inspiration for his killings from the ideas and opinions expressed by the people featured on Fox News.

[TheMojoPin]

If it were the equivalent of fire, then this “John Goldberg” (who?) would have been convicted. Was he?

You are in effect saying that this John Goldberg was responsible for the actions of Jim Adkisson. A flawed opinion at best. Because – now listen carefully - Jim Adkisson was responsible for the actions of Jim Adkisson.


So you don't think it would behoove some to step back from the over the top, hatemongering rhetoric they've been using to condemn huge segments of the population as traitors, criminals and terrorists?

This is what I'm talking about with personal accountability: why would any sane person want to be so explicitly associated with this garbage if people like these extremists are just spouting slight variations of a lot of the same things (or even ranting almost verbatim)?

[TheMojoPin]

I corrected myself, I meant Bernard.

You obviously are willing to be blissfully ignorant that this lunatic, who proclaimed he wanted to kill liberals, who had Goldberg's book in his truck at the time of the shooting, found zero inspiration for his killings from the ideas and opinions expressed by the people featured on Fox News.

That's tricky territory. You could essentially make the same argument about Catcher in the Rye. Goldberg's book was something he latched onto, but odds are he would have just found something else to "justify" what he was feeling that he had to do.

[Cyber Trucker]

When a pundunt on the left or right say some fucked up shit it should be veiwed as bullshit.

[SonOfSmeagol]

You obviously are willing to be blissfully ignorant that this lunatic, who proclaimed he wanted to kill liberals, who had Goldberg's book in his truck at the time of the shooting, found zero inspiration for his killings from the ideas and opinions expressed by the people featured on Fox News.

So what if he had “inspiration”? And again with the FNC. Tiring. You want to explicitly blame some external influence for a tragedy and it just doesn’t hold up. The killer remains responsible for his own actions, and that is that.

[The Jays]

I don't want to blame anyone but the killer for killing people, but I'd like a place that calls itself a "news channel" to have some fucking balls and tone down the propaganda that fuels the fucking crazies.

All news networks know there are wackos out there. They oughta be more responsible when reporting news, not trying to blame a group of people (liberals) for the downfall of society.

[Cyber Trucker]

Fuck them all. That asshole that did the shooting been mad at the US gov for a long time. He did not like anyone that did not look like him. He is a part of the far right that hardly any one agrees with, but when someone from the far right dose something like this it hurts all of the right.

[The Jays]

I can't even win with you. You have no problem with your favorite news network reporting irresponsibly because you probably think that is news. Go on believing that what they are telling you is the truth, that they're not manipulating you one bit.

[TheMojoPin]

He is a part of the far right that hardly any one agrees with, but when someone from the far right dose something like this it hurts all of the right.

Which is unfortunate and unfair.

[Cyber Trucker]

I don't want to blame anyone but the killer for killing people, but I'd like a place that calls itself a "news channel" to have some fucking balls and tone down the propaganda that fuels the fucking crazies.

All news networks know there are wackos out there. They oughta be more responsible when reporting news, not trying to blame a group of people (liberals) for the downfall of society.

You right the big news networks don't tell the news anymore. It's like waching TMZ

[SonOfSmeagol]

So you don't think it would behoove some to step back from the over the top, hatemongering rhetoric they've been using to condemn huge segments of the population as traitors, criminals and terrorists?

This is what I'm talking about with personal accountability: why would any sane person want to be so explicitly associated with this garbage if people like these extremists are just spouting slight variations of a lot of the same things (or even ranting almost verbatim)?

May sound cold, but I think people from the full spectrum of views should continue to push the envelope. They should say and write what they want, when they want, where they want, within the limits of immediate harm to others – whatever that legally established line is. So what if I hear a lot of things “I don’t like” from across the spectrum? I will place MY personal feelings about “what’s best for society” second to the rights of EVERY individual, every time.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I can't even win with you. You have no problem with your favorite news network reporting irresponsibly because you probably think that is news. Go on believing that what they are telling you is the truth, that they're not manipulating you one bit.

Not sure you’re talking about me but I never said it was my favorite network, or even that I ever watch it or any other cable news. Which, by the way, I don’t. My point was that once again FNC was weaved into the blame stream. And it is also tiring and insulting to hear the manipulation thing again – this is quite stale and comes from both sides of the aisle – where it’s insinuated that people are just not smart enough to gather basic information and form their own views.

[TheMojoPin]

May sound cold, but I think people from the full spectrum of views should continue to push the envelope. They should say and write what they want, when they want, where they want, within the limits of immediate harm to others – whatever that legally established line is. So what if I hear a lot of things “I don’t like” from across the spectrum? I will place MY personal feelings about “what’s best for society” second to the rights of EVERY individual, every time.


Yet again, this has nothing to do with rights. No rights are being challenged. This is not a "free speech" issue.

"Pushing the limits" sounds like a romanticized way of justifying the willful demonization and villifying of millions of people simply for money, press and ratings.

[TheMojoPin]

Not sure you’re talking about me but I never said it was my favorite network, or even that I ever watch it or any other cable news. Which, by the way, I don’t. My point was that once again FNC was weaved into the blame stream. And it is also tiring and insulting to hear the manipulation thing again – this is quite stale and comes from both sides of the aisle – where it’s insinuated that people are just not smart enough to gather basic information and form their own views.

FNC isn't being "weaved" into anything. It's the source of exposure (or at least the biggest outlet) for most of these pundits.

And the problem is that basic information is not being offered.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Yet again, this has nothing to do with rights. No rights are being challenged. This is not a "free speech" issue.

"Pushing the limits" sounds like a romanticized way of justifying the willful demonization and villifying of millions of people simply for money, press and ratings.

Once again, it has everything to do with rights. And “justifying the willful demonization and villifying of millions of people” is pretty much a raw inflammatory statement with no backup. Overall, all of this would seem to be a “social consciousness” issue to you. Which is fine, you’re entitled. But the fact is that you cannot do anything about it other than rant against what you don’t like, because the line is drawn and that line is the rights you so dismiss as irrelevant. If this is not so, then offer up a solution to the “problem” you stated once and for all and stop dancing around.

[TheMojoPin]

Once again, it has everything to do with rights.

Your refusal to acknowledge the reality of what the right to free speech means in this country makes this afutile argument. It's been explained to you repeatedly how that right applies and yet you insist that somehow someone's right to speech free of government interference or censorship is being infringed.

And “justifying the willful demonization and villifying of millions of people” is pretty much a raw inflammatory statement with no backup.

How is something "raw inflammatory" as opposed to just inflammatory?

And there's plenty of backup towards the idea that most of the most prominant Right wing pundits thrive off of the villification of the Left to extreme degrees. They don't hide it. It leads their news pieces and it's on the cover of their books and in the titles of their editorials. Please don't play dumb like that.

Overall, all of this would seem to be a “social consciousness” issue to you. Which is fine, you’re entitled. But the fact is that you cannot do anything about it other than rant against what you don’t like, because the line is drawn and that line is the rights you so dismiss as irrelevant. If this is not so, then offer up a solution to the “problem” you stated once and for all and stop dancing around.

I already have. Again, the "solution" is simply common sense. If the pundits don't want to be lumped in as an extension of the extremists then they need to choose to back off from the over the top fearmongering that they base their careers on these days. It's their call. They can do as they wish.

[The Jays]

Mojo, you can't win with him. He's a filthy liberal. He's on the side of evil. His whole attitude about free speech sounds alot like those stupid hippies, which were liberals, btw.

[IamFogHat]

Fuck them all. That asshole that did the shooting been mad at the US gov for a long time. He did not like anyone that did not look like him. He is a part of the far right that hardly any one agrees with, but when someone from the far right dose something like this it hurts all of the right.

Anytime someone gets dosed someone gets hurt.
Way to prove your point.

Can we get back on track here in terms of this being a thread dedicated to an important news story, what the fuck has happened in the last day with this shit?

[styckx]

I have no idea where Mojo and Jays got the patience they did in this thread the last few pages, but god damn I wish I had it.

[The Jays]

I have no idea where Mojo and Jays got the patience they did in this thread the last few pages, but god damn I wish I had it.

Neither do I. In the past I got my patience herbally, but I'm reformed.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Your refusal to acknowledge the reality of what the right to free speech means in this country makes this afutile argument. It's been explained to you repeatedly how that right applies and yet you insist that somehow someone's right to speech free of government interference or censorship is being infringed.

I already have. Again, the "solution" is simply common sense. If the pundits don't want to be lumped in as an extension of the extremists then they need to choose to back off from the over the top fearmongering that they base their careers on these days. It's their call. They can do as they wish.

Save the patronization. The whole discussion is interrelated, yet you once again choose to break it up and pick at it piecemeal, thus ignoring the big picture. The big picture being well beyond your personal opinions. Your solution is “common sense” to you maybe, but the lumping in thing is a big stretch. Yes, they can so do as they wish, and all you can do is complain. I’m done with this.

[TheMojoPin]

Save the patronization. The whole discussion is interrelated, yet you once again choose to break it up and pick at it piecemeal, thus ignoring the big picture. The big picture being well beyond your personal opinions. Your solution is “common sense” to you maybe, but the lumping in thing is a big stretch. Yes, they can so do as they wish, and all you can do is complain. I’m done with this.

That's good, because I have absolutely no response to the big heaping helping of meaningless nothing you just dumped all over us. You're REALLY bad at this.

[styckx]

So I have a question.

Let me say first what pushed me to ask this is after just getting done watching a clip of Glenn Beck and Goldberg sitting down and coming to the conclusion that the Holocaust shooter was a lefty. Which you can watch here (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/beck-and-goldberg-team-claim-james-v)

So. My question is this. What was the time frame in this country we stopped calling this types of people freaks, psychos, and scum of society, etc etc etc and suddenly cared if they were left, right, or conservative?

It seriously sickens me to no end. This guy who is obviously a fucking mess walks in to that place, starts shooting people and all these faggots can think of is what side of politics he is on. It's also all done in a way to give some pseudo allegation that people on the "left" have been having fund raisers for this guy and have been wholeheartedly endorsing his plans like he's part of some lefty fraternity and this was his initiation stunt.

OMG HE SHOT PEOPLE? QUICK! WE MUST FIND OUT WHAT SIDE HE'S ON TO ATTACK SOMEONE OTHER THEN THE SHOOTER HIMSELF!!

[The Jays]

That what the conservative movement has framed the entire country, either your conservative, or you're a lefty, and if you're not conservative, you are ruining the country and bringing communism home and hugging terrorists.

[badmonkey]

This isn't a matter of freedom of speech. It's a matter of calling yourself a news network and then reporting that shit as if it was news. It's not, it's crazy opinion. Now, you say you're entertained, but you're also a smart guy so you can tell what's a pundit and what's a news anchor. There are people in this country that take all of those opinions of Hannity and Beck and think it's actually happening, that it is news. Beck says FEMA is building concentration camps. Hannity says that Obama wants to embrace the 9/11 terrorists. When a news network goes and broadcasts that shit, and calls it news, it's irresponsible, but you say it's all good for them to be telling other Americans this shit and calling it news, you think it's fine and dandy for a news network to feed Americans lies, to feed them their crazy opinions and GOP talking points and pawn it off as news, you think that's totally fucking cool to have America's #1 news network to feed Americans right wing propaganda.

The news shows report the news. The comment shows give a commentary on the days events. There's a huge difference. FOX doesn't try to trick anybody into thinking that Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc are reporters just reporting the facts. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly point out regularly that they are giving their opinions. Just because you think that all the people watching them are stupid and falling for it as if its "news" does not make it so.
I'd like to see you back up the statements you just made about Beck and Hannity.
Beck actually had a show where he debunked the FEMA concentration camps crap in detail. That's right. He went out of his way to prove that there are no FEMA concentration camps. Guess that's one down. Now you've only gotta back up the one on Hannity.

[The Jays]

The news shows report the news. The comment shows give a commentary on the days events. There's a huge difference. FOX doesn't try to trick anybody into thinking that Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc are reporters just reporting the facts. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly point out regularly that they are giving their opinions. Just because you think that all the people watching them are stupid and falling for it as if its "news" does not make it so.
I'd like to see you back up the statements you just made about Beck and Hannity.
Beck actually had a show where he debunked the FEMA concentration camps crap in detail. That's right. He went out of his way to prove that there are no FEMA concentration camps. Guess that's one down. Now you've only gotta back up the one on Hannity.

Wow, so Beck made shit up, and then went on to debunk it. That's awesome.

On Hannity?

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906090028

Yes, it's a "lib" site, but tell that the video isn't true?

[angrymissy]

The news shows report the news. The comment shows give a commentary on the days events. There's a huge difference. FOX doesn't try to trick anybody into thinking that Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc are reporters just reporting the facts. Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly point out regularly that they are giving their opinions. Just because you think that all the people watching them are stupid and falling for it as if its "news" does not make it so.
I'd like to see you back up the statements you just made about Beck and Hannity.
Beck actually had a show where he debunked the FEMA concentration camps crap in detail. That's right. He went out of his way to prove that there are no FEMA concentration camps. Guess that's one down. Now you've only gotta back up the one on Hannity.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/izjfdfDHjWQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/izjfdfDHjWQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Only claimed to "debunk" them after he got a hell of a lot of shit for claiming he tried to research them and could not prove they didn't exist.

[badmonkey]

Wow, so Beck made shit up, and then went on to debunk it. That's awesome.

On Hannity?

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906090028

Yes, it's a "lib" site, but tell that the video isn't true?

Are you kidding? It's not even a video from Hannity's show. It's a video "From the June 8 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show". If you'd like to use video to back up your accusations, you should use unedited video from the show in context, not some clip that's been chopped up for comedy central.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/izjfdfDHjWQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/izjfdfDHjWQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
Only claimed to "debunk" them after he got a hell of a lot of shit for claiming he tried to research them and could not prove they didn't exist.

It never ceases to amaze me how the people constantly bitching about the "propaganda" on FOX News use obviously biased videos that have been edited to show these guys in the worst possible light, to prove their point as if they are somehow reliable unbiased sources of fact. Is that video somewhere unedited? The first part of it is one clip of him sitting in on fox and friends and the part where he talks about the FEMA camps is cut up. There's no context to it. He was being asked questions and he was answering them. This clip jumps right into the center of him answering the question Why not show the whole clip? The next clip is from his show where he says he's trying to debunk it and doesn't believe they exist. Then there's the clip where he debunks it. I'm not really seeing where Glenn Beck is running around telling everybody "FEMA is building concentration camps for you." 8 minutes of video that doesn't back up the weak accusations against Beck.

We get it. You guys don't like FOX News. We are reminded of that in every other post where you mention FOX news as if they are running the country. Everytime somebody with a conservative viewpoint on a subject dare to voice his opinion, we hear about how it has been spoonfed to them by FNC. There's an entire THREAD about it here for fucks sake. It's getting rediculous. Between that and the new popular "strawman" that comes up in every political thread now, it's becoming pointless to even try and have a conversation here. For all the hate and vitriole you all say FNC is spewing, you should read some of your own posts and see if you can recognize it there. Open-minded liberals my ass.

[angrymissy]

Are you kidding? It's not even a video from Hannity's show. It's a video "From the June 8 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show". If you'd like to use video to back up your accusations, you should use unedited video from the show in context, not some clip that's been chopped up for comedy central.

It never ceases to amaze me how the people constantly bitching about the "propaganda" on FOX News use obviously biased videos that have been edited to show these guys in the worst possible light, to prove their point as if they are somehow reliable unbiased sources of fact. Is that video somewhere unedited? The first part of it is one clip of him sitting in on fox and friends and the part where he talks about the FEMA camps is cut up. There's no context to it. He was being asked questions and he was answering them. This clip jumps right into the center of him answering the question Why not show the whole clip? The next clip is from his show where he says he's trying to debunk it and doesn't believe they exist. Then there's the clip where he debunks it. I'm not really seeing where Glenn Beck is running around telling everybody "FEMA is building concentration camps for you." 8 minutes of video that doesn't back up the weak accusations against Beck.

We get it. You guys don't like FOX News. We are reminded of that in every other post where you mention FOX news as if they are running the country. Everytime somebody with a conservative viewpoint on a subject dare to voice his opinion, we hear about how it has been spoonfed to them by FNC. There's an entire THREAD about it here for fucks sake. It's getting rediculous. Between that and the new popular "strawman" that comes up in every political thread now, it's becoming pointless to even try and have a conversation here. For all the hate and vitriole you all say FNC is spewing, you should read some of your own posts and see if you can recognize it there. Open-minded liberals my ass.

No need to get pissy, you asked people to prove it, and now we are. The unedited version of the Beck interview is all over youtube if you wish to find it. It starts at 2:00 in the video below. He is not prompted to speak about FEMA camps, he brings it up out of nowhere. It was kind of big news after that guy shot those cops, it turns out he uploaded Beck talking about the FEMA camps to stormfront prior to the shooting. Can't we admit it's kind of hypocritical on Beck's part to say something about "not being able to prove FEMA camps don't exist" (which is a nutjobs DREAMMM, right or left, they both eat the FEMA camp shit up with a spoon), and then turn around and say otherwise after being called out on it?

Honestly, there is only one poster here where I have said they were parroting FNC, and that's because they were really parroting word for word exact phrases I heard on the show.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuPttI8uRyM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuPttI8uRyM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[angrymissy]

Here is a clip of Hannity's clip re: Obama 9/11 terrorist lover

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906040053

Has the direct clip from Hannity, where he cuts off the speech before Obama makes his point.

Hannity stops the clip right after Obama says ""I am aware that there are still some that would question or even justify the events of 9-11."

does not include the fact that Obama then IMMEDIATELY says:

"But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

Can we admit that's a little shady?

[badmonkey]

No need to get pissy, you asked people to prove it, and now we are. The unedited version of the Beck interview is all over youtube if you wish to find it. It's at 2:00 in the video below. It was kind of big news after that guy shot those cops, it turns out he uploaded Beck talking about the FEMA camps to stormfront prior to the shooting. Can't we admit it's kind of hypocritical on Beck's part to say something about "not being able to prove FEMA camps don't exist" (which is a nutjobs DREAMMM, right or left, they both eat the FEMA camp shit up with a spoon), and then turn around and say otherwise after being called out on it?

Honestly, there is only one poster here where I have said they were parroting FNC, and that's because they were really parroting word for word exact phrases I heard on the show.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuPttI8uRyM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuPttI8uRyM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He said he wanted to debunk it and couldn't. Then on his show he had people on that he hoped could debunk it there. Then he continued to pursue it and did debunk it on his show. All he said there was that he couldn't debunk it. He did not say they existed. If you were trying to debunk something like that and couldn't, wouldn't it bother you a little? He could have said "this is happening! I tried to debunk it and I can't because it's TRUE!" and that would have been hypocritical, but he didn't say anything remotely similar. The guy that shot those cops didn't shoot them because of Glenn Beck. He shot them because he's a psychotic lunatic. I think we can all agree that insane people with guns are likely to shoot cops on their property regardless of any other outside stimulus.

[Serpico1103]

"But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

Can we admit that's a little shady?

What a douche. Anyone with a bit of intelligence would see through his gimmick.
Even the clips he used do not support his premise.
Obama said- I have banned the use of torture in US. Hannity says that means that Obama thinks we have tortured in the past. That is not what the clip says.
Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of choice. Not sure what point Hannity is trying to make, since it was obviously a choice. Iraq did not declare war, we choose to fight a war that was premised on a perceived threat.
Obama said- There are people who sympathize or justify 9/11. Hannity tries to use this to say that Obama supports that idea. I am not sure how you can arrive at that conclusion even from that edited clip. Is anyone not aware that there are people that support the events of 9/11?
What was Hannity's point? Is his audience this dumb? Is he this desperate?

[badmonkey]

Here is a clip of Hannity's clip re: Obama 9/11 terrorist lover

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906040053

Has the direct clip from Hannity, where he cuts off the speech before Obama makes his point.

Hannity stops the clip right after Obama says ""I am aware that there are still some that would question or even justify the events of 9-11."

does not include the fact that Obama then IMMEDIATELY says:

"But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."

Can we admit that's a little shady?

Yeah... I would agree with that one having seen it in context. He shouldn't have used that.

[Serpico1103]

He said he wanted to debunk it and couldn't. Then on his show he had people on that he hoped could debunk it there. Then he continued to pursue it and did debunk it on his show. All he said there was that he couldn't debunk it. He did not say they existed. If you were trying to debunk something like that and couldn't, wouldn't it bother you a little? He could have said "this is happening! I tried to debunk it and I can't because it's TRUE!" and that would have been hypocritical, but he didn't say anything remotely similar. The guy that shot those cops didn't shoot them because of Glenn Beck. He shot them because he's a psychotic lunatic. I think we can all agree that insane people with guns are likely to shoot cops on their property regardless of any other outside stimulus.

You don't see what he was trying to do by saying "I tried to debunk it, but I couldn't?"

He puts into your head that there may be FEMA camps, than tries to make it seem like he is credible by saying he is "trying" to debunk them.
Is he trying to debunk whether Obama is Satan?
If he had said, "I am trying to debunk the idea that Obama is Satan, but I can't," don't you see that 1) of course he can't prove Obama isn't Satan 2) he has now planted in your head that maybe Obama is Satan 3) he protects himself by not saying directly "Obama is Satan."
It is childish scare tactics.
How about instead of debunking the idea of FEMA camps, you show real proof that they are a real threat.
Instead of debunking that Obama is Satan, show me real proof that he is Satan.
See the difference.

[badmonkey]

You don't see what he was trying to do by saying "I tried to debunk it, but I couldn't?"

He puts into your head that there may be FEMA camps, than tries to make it seem like he is credible by saying he is "trying" to debunk them.
Is he trying to debunk whether Obama is Satan?
If he had said, "I am trying to debunk the idea that Obama is Satan, but I can't," don't you see that 1) of course he can't prove Obama isn't Satan 2) he has now planted in your head that maybe Obama is Satan 3) he protects himself by not saying directly "Obama is Satan."
It is childish scare tactics.
How about instead of debunking the idea of FEMA camps, you show real proof that they are a real threat.
Instead of debunking that Obama is Satan, show me real proof that he is Satan.
See the difference.

That doesn't make any sense at all. If he could show real proof that they are a real threat, he wouldn't need to debunk them because he'd have the proof that they existed. The reason he decided to debunk them in the first place is because some wacko called his show and brought it up and he thought that if he debunked it he'd never have to talk about it again.

[Serpico1103]

That doesn't make any sense at all. If he could show real proof that they are a real threat, he wouldn't need to debunk them because he'd have the proof that they existed. The reason he decided to debunk them in the first place is because some wacko called his show and brought it up and he thought that if he debunked it he'd never have to talk about it again.

Again, you are missing the gimmick. Do you not think that he knows what the callers are going to talk about. He guides the show. Again, he makes you think it is something America is concerned about.
The fact that he can't prove they exist is debunking them. You only have to debunk something that someone else has shown proof of.

You don't have to debunk that I am a god, because I have shown you no proof that I am.
If I brought you some video of me performing a "miracle", then you would have to debunk my proof.

He is trying to seem legitimate while fanning the fires of panic.
Example. "I heard from someone that Russia is training Al Qeada terrorists. But, so far I haven't seen any proof."
Now, I have put the idea in your head, without claiming any ownership of it. If I repeat this little trick over and over, you will forget the part about no proof, and only remember the part about Russia training terrorists.
Mind games.

[badmonkey]

Again, you are missing the gimmick. Do you not think that he knows what the callers are going to talk about. He guides the show. Again, he makes you think it is something America is concerned about.
The fact that he can't prove they exist is debunking them. You only have to debunk something that someone else has shown proof of.

You don't have to debunk that I am a god, because I have shown you no proof that I am.
If I brought you some video of me performing a "miracle", then you would have to debunk my proof.

He is trying to seem legitimate while fanning the fires of panic.
Example. "I heard from someone that Russia is training Al Qeada terrorists. But, so far I haven't seen any proof."
Now, I have put the idea in your head, without claiming any ownership of it. If I repeat this little trick over and over, you will forget the part about no proof, and only remember the part about Russia training terrorists.
Mind games.

Holy crap! You're never gonna believe this shit. On his show he debunked what the wackos on the internet have claimed as "proof" that the FEMA camps do exist. They looked at the so-called pictures of these camps that have been put all over the internet and then explained what the pictures actually were and showed more pictures of the same area. Some of these pictures aren't even of places in the United States. Again, you're point is ridiculous. Your quote about Russia and Al Qaeda sounds more like "I'm not buying it" than "this is something you gotta worry about".

[angrymissy]

Holy crap! You're never gonna believe this shit. On his show he debunked what the wackos on the internet have claimed as "proof" that the FEMA camps do exist. They looked at the so-called pictures of these camps that have been put all over the internet and then explained what the pictures actually were and showed more pictures of the same area. Some of these pictures aren't even of places in the United States. Again, you're point is ridiculous. Your quote about Russia and Al Qaeda sounds more like "I'm not buying it" than "this is something you gotta worry about".

I'd be with you on that, except he didn't do his "debunking" until after he got majorly called out for his "I can't disprove them" statement on that show.

[badmonkey]

I'd be with you on that, except he didn't do his "debunking" until after he got majorly called out for his "I can't disprove them" statement on that show.

He was intending to do the debunking on his show that day. That's what it says in your video. He interviewed Ron Paul on the subject that afternoon. That's what it shows in your video. He got the guy from Popular Mechanics to investigate and debunk it and then had him on the show to explain what he found. It also shows that on your video. He said in the first clip of the video that you posted that he was trying to debunk it but somehow you seem to think that he wasn't trying to debunk it until he was later called out?

Here's a source you like. Read the transcript of what Glenn Beck actually said about all of these things on his show. Ignore the bullshit commentary from Media Matters "staff" and just read what the guy says. http://mediamatters.org/research/200906120029 I'll even make it easy for you. Here's whole sections of it. Set aside your dislike for all things FOX News for a second and read his words in context.

BECK: Do you ever just listen to the news and go, "Good God almighty"? There's just so much to deal with. I got up this morning after a very long night of tossing and turning. If you watched Fox & Friends this morning or listened to my radio show, I told you that I was going to tell you about the FEMA camps, or the FEMA prisons, today.

This is something that I snapped on the air, because somebody called me up and said, "Why don't you to talk about the FEMA prisons." And I said, "Can we just settle the FEMA prison thing?" I don't believe in the FEMA prison. If you don't know, I'll tell you about it in a couple of days.

I was going to talk about it today, but as I came in -- I came in and did the show this morning, and then I went in to my office, and I was looking at all the research that are being compiled, and it wasn't complete.

And I am not willing to bring something to you that is half-baked. If these things exist, that's bad, and we will cover it. If they don't exist, it's irresponsible to not debunk this story.

This program is not beholden to anybody. We answer to ourselves. I answer to me. I lost sleep last night worrying about this story, thinking about this story, and wanted to make sure that I got it right. The only thing that I answer to is myself, and I just want to be able to look at myself in the mirror and also sleep at night.

We have an independent group on this program looking into it, turning over every stone. I am going to bring you this story. This program is not beholden -- this is going to drive the conspiracy theorists crazy [unintelligible] -- they're making me say this. Help.

BECK: All right. A little over a month ago, I had a call. It was like the one billionth call from a woman who asked me about FEMA prison camps. And I said to my producer, I said, "Can we just please debunk this or prove it to be accurate?" I kind of snapped on the lady because, honestly, I'm sick of seeing the emails about the FEMA camps. I got something from friends that was about Nancy Pelosi, and it was completely bogus.

Look, let's just stick to the facts. There is enough truth out there that pisses people off. We don't need all the lies.

The basic idea is that FEMA is setting up evil concentration camps to be used against U.S. citizens. Now, along with the 9-11 truthers, this is one of the most pervasive conspiracy theories on the Internet, because it comes with supposed video -- there's the video proof, right there. That video now has had over -- well over a million views on YouTube.

So we set out to get the truth. And quite honestly, I don't believe that there are FEMA concentration camps. I think that sounds kind of nuts. But if there are, I'll show them to you. If there aren't, I'll show that to you.

We set out to get the truth on it. And after our initial research, I came in and I said, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We can't debunk this?" Well, no, I thought we had done enough research to get the video. I wanted to line up video side by side.

Apparently, there hadn't been any debunking done at all. And there was no video side by side. Well, predictably, the media started claiming that somehow or another I believed in these conspiracy theories, even though I said on the air a million times I don't, and I've said that for years.

Not to mention the entire time they were running their mouths, we were working with an independent group to debunk them or to prove them. I also said that on the air over and over and over again. But who listens to context?

The one guy that can actually set the record straight here is James Meigs. He's the editor-in-chief of that independent group I was talking about, otherwise known as Popular Mechanics. They did an incredible job in the writing of the definitive debunking of the 9-11 conspiracy that everybody knows now is not true because of Popular Mechanics -- except Rosie O'Donnell. James is here now to do the same with the FEMA camps.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Save the patronization. The whole discussion is interrelated, yet you once again choose to break it up and pick at it piecemeal, thus ignoring the big picture. The big picture being well beyond your personal opinions. Your solution is “common sense” to you maybe, but the lumping in thing is a big stretch. Yes, they can so do as they wish, and all you can do is complain. I’m done with this.

That's good, because I have absolutely no response to the big heaping helping of meaningless nothing you just dumped all over us. You're REALLY bad at this.

Well now this really is too tempting. Other than your belittling remarks, you have no response? You?! That in itself is kind of amazing, but not surprising since I mentioned first (kind of blandly without the cheap shots you chose) that I’d to move on from this around and around non-discussion. You come across as a last-word kinda guy, and that one was a doozy. And I’d like to point out that this is not the first time by any measure that have you offered belittling and insulting remarks in my direction, but I have never, ever done so equivalently to you, until now. Some mod you are.

So let’s back up and review, because - an admitted flaw - I too am a last-word kinda guy.

Your last real point, the very same, in essence, as your first: “…the ‘solution’ is simply common sense. If the pundits don't want to be lumped in as an extension of the extremists then they need to choose to back off from the over the top fearmongering that they base their careers on these days. It's their call. They can do as they wish.”

You yourself acknowledged that there is no harm from the pundits, that they are not to be blamed for violence.

You yourself acknowledged that the price to pay is that maybe more people will react negatively to them. To which is was pointed out that, hey, that is what they thrive upon and have for many many years. And you chose to dismiss my observation that it really is a unique congruence of many factors in this country – which you dismissed as strawmen and sideswiping. Really quite crude on your part – since I dared to expand upon the discussion in related sidewise directions you just didn’t like or care to think about.

Now, you’ll note that, from the start, I neither agreed nor disputed the actual opinions of the pundits, because from the start I stated that the topic was much bigger than your opinion. Hence the big picture. At some point you then tried to just get me to just admit that they should step back, thus trying to get me back on track to your opinion. But I didn’t bite, because my point was that is was much more important to allow this type of speech to the max, as long as no harm is done. Now, here you will say that no one ever said they wanted an infringement upon rights, and/or you will say that I don’t understand citizenry vs govt infringement, but I can assure that that I do. Again, not the point, as I pointed out more than once. Because, as I alluded to, you pretty much stated that you would like others to tone down their speech, even though you admitted that no harm was done by that very speech. Talk about backed into a corner – not a legal corner, but rather a “social position corner” if you will.

This discussion is important because it really points to your whole MO time and time again – to state some opinion or outlook of yours as pretty much a statement of “fact”. And when challenged you say it’s obviously an opinion, but curiously you rarely use the terms “I think”, or “in my opinion” when it counts. Moreover, you like to include “common sense”, “what a sane person would think”, “personal accountability”, or some such other “reasonableness doctrine” of yours, which striped of all the flowery words, remains solely your opinion. In short, you are a master pontificator who challenges others to counter your so-called “well-established”, “common-person-backed” point of view. Your “social consciousness” agenda may have a lot of people nodding “yes I agree”, but it remains your agenda alone.

In this particular discussion you were left in the end with what you started. And the end is best stated as (as I have said before): “Yes, they can so do as they wish (with no harm as you acknowledged), and all you can do is complain.” And that is what you are left with – your personal complaints and gripes. Which is fine – I never, ever disputed that, as you so dismissed what I had to say.

Now, if you choose to respond, I’m sure you will probably break this up into sentences convenient to you and attack the words piecemeal, because that is another of your MOs. Kind of a “bifurcation” that dilutes the message while allowing you to hone in on bits and pieces that you decide how you will respond to that best meets your needs. Whatever. Think for once you could try to make a series of responsive points without doing so? You’re a very smart guy, and I have to say that I enjoy your sense of humor. Maybe that’s something we can see eye to eye on once in a while. But, these pissing matches with you that involve those that don’t come around to your point of view frequently seem to turn out the same way, with your haughty dismissal. Save it for the next guy. Now I’m done.

[The Jays]

Your use of bifurcation is incorrect.

[The Jays]

Are you kidding? It's not even a video from Hannity's show. It's a video "From the June 8 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show". If you'd like to use video to back up your accusations, you should use unedited video from the show in context, not some clip that's been chopped up for comedy central.


OMG, so sorry I couldn't find the video so I used the one from TDS thinking you could come to a conclusion for yourself on what the Hannity video that he used said. Thank you missy for finding the actual video.

Thank you, badmonkey, for actually agreeing that it was not smart of Hannity to do. Please don't jump on me when I can't find the actual video and have to expect you to draw some conclusions from a secondary source.

With the FEMA thing, no one knew shit about these camps until Beck brought it up. Then he goes and debunks it. A responsible reporter would verify the thing he reports because he tells them to the public, but why should we expect someone on a news channel to be a reporter? We should know before hand that he's a pundit, and that he's going to talk about whatever pops into his head or into his inbox, because that the responsible thing to do on the #1 news network in the country.

[TheMojoPin]

Now I’m done.

That was obvious from the start. All you did was attempt to make the discussion about the discussion itself. You've done little but criticize HOW things are being said as opposed to WHAT'S being said. The closest you came to anything else was creating the phony free speech issue and attempting to make every response about that.

[SonOfSmeagol]

That was obvious from the start. All you did was attempt to make the discussion about the discussion itself. You've done little but criticize HOW things are being said as opposed to WHAT'S being said. The closest you came to anything else was creating the phony free speech issue and attempting to make every response about that.

It’s all been excruciatingly laid out already with respect to the details of this discussion. Your original point was really a non-starter – i.e., you want others to pile on about what’s being said and about how much you and others don’t like it, OR, you want someone to respond/challenge your personal views so you can respond with your “reasonable everyman” agenda. To what end? With you it frequently turns out the same way – you set the stage at the beginning and then direct the play. Pontification. That is a “discussion”? And the comment about “Discussion about the discussion itself”? It means nothing really other than you just don’t like that your points, approach, and MOs are being challenged outside of where you want the “discussion” to go. Moreover, you introduce the “phony” and “make every response” stuff in a lame attempt to, once again, insultingly dismiss any sort of sidewise expansion of the original point – such as it was. Quite interesting, since you have many times accused others, including me, of “narrowing” the discussion and attempting to rebuff related points as irrelevant.

[The Jays]

You two should just fuck and get it over with.

[TheMojoPin]

It’s all been excruciatingly laid out already with respect to the details of this discussion. Your original point was really a non-starter – i.e., you want others to pile on about what’s being said and about how much you and others don’t like it, OR, you want someone to respond/challenge your personal views so you can respond with your “reasonable everyman” agenda. To what end? With you it frequently turns out the same way – you set the stage at the beginning and then direct the play. Pontification. That is a “discussion”? And the comment about “Discussion about the discussion itself”? It means nothing really other than you just don’t like that your points, approach, and MOs are being challenged outside of where you want the “discussion” to go. Moreover, you introduce the “phony” and “make every response” stuff in a lame attempt to, once again, insultingly dismiss any sort of sidewise expansion of the original point – such as it was. Quite interesting, since you have many times accused others, including me, of “narrowing” the discussion and attempting to rebuff related points as irrelevant.

Same as it ever was. Thanks for proving my point. No need for me to rehash it again at this point.

[A.J.]

The shooter has died. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/holocaust-museum-shooter-has-d.html?hpid=topnews)