When liberals act like...well...liberals, it behooves us to put a bright a light on it as possible. What has been happening with Michelle Malkin over the course of the last couple of weeks is a prime example of the hypocricy of the left on holy-shit issues like racism, free speech, tolerance, and civil discourse. Let's face it, what has become of classic liberalism, of which I used to be a proud supporter, is a pathetic example of a political doctrine's implosion.
It started when Malkin posted excerpts from a public press release from the free-speech haters at UC Santa Cruz who forced the removal of a military recruiter from campus. The excerpts included the names and phone numbers of Students Against War (SAW) leadership. SAW promptly removed the contact information from the press release and proceeded to lie about making it public in the first place.
Based on that lie, SAW proceeded to recruit the hate-o-sphere to engage in civil discourse with Malkin over the issue. Here are some excerpts:
From: Joe Smith joejoe90211@yahoo.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: You belong in prison.You are a disgusting waste of oxygen.
You WILL burn in hell you disgusting cunt.
***
From: NorthCentralGuy@aol.com NorthCentralGuy@aol.com
Mailed-By: aol.com
Date: Apr 17, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: TIP
Someone ought to sew your cunt up with barbed wire. Not that it gets any use, you facist, hate spewing, disgraceful piece of shit.
***
Michael McPherson michaelmc123@comcast.net
6:42 pm (1 hour ago)
You are a fucking slanty-eyed cunt.
Have a nice day
***
From: outorsafe@adelphia.net outorsafe@adelphia.net
Mailed-By: adelphia.net
Date: Apr 17, 2006 6:31
you miserable cunt... too bad your parents were not killed in a war...
It's always refreshing when someone shows their true self isn't it? Or for that matter, when an entire movement displays its stripes.
In retaliation for posting information from a public press release available to all on the internet, the hate-mongers have been spreading very personal information about Malkin online. Malkin responds:
...if you think I'm going to stop blogging/writing/making a living because you've plastered my family's private home address, phone numbers, and photos and maps of my neighborhood all over the Internet to further your manufactured outrage and pathetic coddling of a bunch of lying, anti-troops punks at UC Santa Cruz...
...you better think again.
The left hates free speech. They hate any speech that doesn't jibe with their world view. Any speech they disagree with they shout down by having it removed from our midst or intimidating it into silence. In order to do this they have no problem using racism - "slant eye" - sexism - "cunt" - or wishing violence and even death upon you.
It isn't a political doctrine, it's an army of dimwitted jackbooted thugs who can't get elected and have decided to force their message down our throats by any means necessary.
The rate of deterioration over the last four years has been staggering. Really. At this rate it won't be long before they are resorting to terrorist acts. Than again, they kinda already are.
Nice party they got there, don't you think?
17 comments:
I'm glad that's what you think of me, and everyone like me. That makes me feel really good about trying to engage in rational debate with you.
I don't see that you were named personally Dave. But you can't be too proud to call yourself a liberal if this is what the party seems to be representing. Which also seems to be a growing trend with the liberals I might add. Resort to violence and nasty name calling. Maybe you should create a new breed of liberals so that you don't have to be associated with these extremists? I don't find you to be of this outrageous caliber but like there are those extremist on the right that I'm sure you have read about, there are those like this that make it harder and harder to ignore just how childish the left has become.
My stance has always been that we should not define a movement by its extremes.
There is a distinction between Sean Hannity and most Republicans, in the way there is a distinction between Randy Rhodes (or whatever that crazy lady on Air America's name is) and most Democrats. As a brilliant television show interview last night put it,
Author: "The Christian right has a big megaphone and scares the far left. But the secular left has a megaphone, too, and scares the right. So it goes both ways."
Interviewer: "Well, I guess the important thing is that all of us in the middle lose."
DaveJ,
You ought not flatter yourself so quickly.
You aren't lumped into this 'class' of people because of the things you do, but because of how silent you remain while the people you freely associate with engage in that kind of behavior.
To suggest, however, that Hannity is an "extremist" the same way that Malkin's haters are extremist simply shows your complete lack of objectivity... and leaves you standing amongst the crowd of "non"-extremists you claim to be no part of...
So, continue ignoring the left-sided extremists and remain the source of your own bewilderment. We're used to the kind here...
So in your stance Dave does that ultimately mean that you too will become like this? That you will become so hateful and nasty? That you will resort to this sort of behavior when another doesn't agree with something that you are very passionate about? That would really be disappointing because you seem like a decent person.
Sorry but I have to say it, Armand summed it up really well, shit or get off the pot!
Perhaps Dave, you should worry less about Sean Hannity and more about what the extremes of your own party are doing.
First of all, you can't give me one example from Hannity that is even in the same ballpark as this kind of sordid racist "commentary."
Somehow I knew you would bring him up though. You do every time somebody focuses on leftist extremism. Like the time I came to your blog to comment on someone calling Ann Coulter a "cunt."
Face it Dave, the extremists are running your party now. Perhaps they wouldn't be if people like you and others denounced this kind of activity.
Unfortunately, you would rather focus on Sean Hannity. Sooner ot later though, those of us on the right start to assume that, since you don't have the energy to denounce it, it's okay with you.
Take your party back if that's a problem for you. But please, spare me the whiny baby crap about Sean Hannity. You're better than that.
Spotts we seem to be on the same page, I just blogged on this issue today.
What I find difficult to comprehend in Dave's reponse, is how he can say what he says.
Sure there are some crazies in the right. Those assh*les that go to military funerals with signs saying that " gods hates f*gs". Nutty as they come.
But, you hear about them every once in a while, while the list of one sandwhich short lefties grows all day long.
I mean, to me,the "C" word is as low as you get.
If Dave needs an example with more "prominence," how about Cynthia McKinney?
She was willing to call the Capitol police "racists" just to deflect attention away from her own breach in security and subsequent tantrum.
How about all of the food throwers of the last year or two?
Howard Dean said Republicans are "evil."
How about the professor that ruined the pro-life display out of pure rage?
All of these are examples of leftists trying to squash free speech.
Dave would like to exist in a fantasy where the "extremism" on the left is isolated incidents. While his head is in that warm sand though, it has become de rigeour for the Democratic Party, which is now led around by the nose of those extremists.
But hey, none of that matters I guess because SEAN HANNITY SEAN HANNITY SEAN HANNITY SEAN HANNITY!
yall suck ass. i hope ya all rot in hell assfucker fj. dont go to the end of da line i enjoy hot and bloeorghg
How about a quote Dave. Show me exactly how Hannity is anything more than a legitimate pundit.
Personally I could give a crap about him. I don't watch him on TV or listen to him on the radio. In fact, his television show has got to be one of the worst out there as far as I am concerned.
I am not jumping to his defense but rather pointing out how, whenever someone brings the disgusting behavior of the left into the light, you and other leftists cry HANNITY instead of denouncing the behavior of your compatriots.
So let's hear it. Provide me examples of how Hannity is unhinged like your little buddies on the left. Let's see the quotes where he attacks people personally, uses racial slurs and a filthy mouth. Documented and linked if you please. Let's see how he measures up against your pals at SAW.
And in case you don't quite remember how infantile and idiotic is the behavior we are talking about, please check the comment directly above this one.
You really have to stop being such an apologist for hateful bigots Dave. It doesn't become you.
I'm not a fucking apologist. I don't understand how saying, "These people represent a distinct minority that has a megaphone" is being an apologist. What I am saying is that I try not to give credit to the crazies who say we should kill all the homosexual people and forget the poor and conquor the world, and neither should you give credit to a few uncreative people. Realize that when people can't think of anything better to say that "disgusting cunt" or "hate spewing" "slanty-eyed cunt," then these are a) not creative people and therefore b) not intelligent people.
If they added anything new to the Malkin question - if instead of attacking her vaguely with obscenities they struck at her with facts and calm rational reasons why she's absolutely wrong about whatever she's absolutely wrong about, then they'd be worth talking to.
Like Hannity, from who I will now provide quotes. Sean doesn't have the advantage of being uncensored by the decency of the airwaves, so take heed that these are not filled with cunts and racial slurs, but these are bad nonetheless.
"Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of its greatness?
Sean Hannity "
-inability to distinguish between dissent and hatred
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/sean_hannity.html
"Congressman Moran, a couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one.
And then we go back to Henry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/202851/3778
-inconsistency, suddenly a Republican has no exit strategy and we need to support our troops and President indefinitely?
"My question to you is from all reports that I have been able to dig up, 2,000 killed in Kosovo in the last year. We keep hearing the president refer genocide, ethnic cleansing, comparisons to Adolf Hitler. Is the president purposefully using propaganda and hyperbole to garner the American public for support?"
- Hannity, March 26, 1999
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/202851/3778
see above
"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."
- Hannity, April 1, 1999
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/202851/3778
Only when he decides it is not his kind of war is it acceptable to criticize? Now let's get on to why these quotes matter:
HANNITY: "You could explain something about your magazine, [the Nation]. Lisa Featherstone writing about the hate America march, the [anti-war] march that took place over the weekend..." (1/22/03)
HANNITY: It's more than that. I think it's also the leaders in the Democratic Party that, from the very beginning, have undermined this war. If I were to give you a quiz, Mr. Speaker, and if I would say to you, "You know, was it [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA], [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], [Rep.] John Murtha [D-PA] who said, 'George Bush gives continuous, deliberate misinformation. Polls reveal that we want to withdraw from Iraq.' " You would have guessed either of -- any of those. Well, it was bin Laden who said that.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200009
this has a nice collection
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603130004
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509270006
when the going gets tough, silence the critic
In the interest of full disclosure I've had trouble finding a number of quotations where he says "Doesn't this (completely rational) criticism undermine our President and our Troops?" but I will keep looking. I used to watch the show when I didn't have work and have heard that line a bajillion quadrillion google plex times.
But you can just go to http://www.hannityisamoron.com/ or http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-97930.html and read how he lies and takes things out of context and does other awful things. This is the trick of FOX news, and a lot of Republican strategists - To take one sound byte removed from the next. Yeah, the Daily Show does it to - the difference is, the Daily Show is satire, comedy. And yes, CNN does it and MSNBC does it and the TV does it, but it doesn't make it right.
Here's a response that doesn't have anything to do with Hannity.
I touched on this above, but it is very clear that the people who dominate the political arena are not people like me, and not some of the people who post on this webpage. The people who dominate the PUBLIC political arena, on both sides, tend to be either inflamatory partisans or unyielding talking pointers. At least, that's how it looks from my point of view. I love getting involved on blogs because it's a chance to see how difficult it is to maintain any sort of moderation and not be inflammatory and not use the talking points. And it IS tough.
I very strongly believe that homosexuality is not immoral. I believe it's exactly the same as heterosexuality, as far as it affects me. But that is not the realm of the political discussion. I understand the reasons that people think being gay is immoral or wrong, and I understand that these are reasons as deeply rooted in them as anything else they believe. But the minute we start talking about denying people rights - whether its anti-sodomy laws that were struck down in Texas or gay-marriage restrictions - that's when its a political question. Just because I don't approve of something does not mean I have the right to regulate it. This is not a liberal idea - that is a conservative idea. Conservatives believe in small government, in letting people live their lives. I can see nothing less Conservative than saying that two people cannot have sex in a way they enjoy. The issue of gay marriage is more complicated, but its the same thing. We're not talking about saying the Catholic Church has to change the Bible. We're not saying you can't think it's morally wrong. But what we are saying is that there are certain benefits and legal differences between being married and unmarried, and restricting those benefits because we want to regulate social behavior is wrong.
Now.
Some people on the left will say, "Anyone who is a homophobe is a(n) [expletive] and they shouldn't be allowed to [random right here]." These people are wrong. I am not going to tell you who you can hate and who you can love. I don't think you should hate someone because of whom they love, but that's your decision. However, what right do you or I have to take away social security benefits from partners? We can discuss these things rationally.
On topic - Slashing tires, calling people murderers, being irrational - these things do nothing to further your cause. These are hateful, wrong tactics. Any rational person can see this. There is a difference between the military recruiting on campus and a draft being instituted. A draft may require riots, may justify disobedience. But the fact is, we live in a country protected by the military and it is a federal institution, a part of the same federal government that we liberals want to be providing that free education, that some of us want to have help the poor, that we want to pay our taxes to. There are logical, calm, peaceful ways to protest and deal with things we do not support, and there are things like want the Santa Cruz people did.
Then, there are intelligent ways to respond to what they did and intelligent ways to respond to these kinds of people, and unintelligent ways to do so. The unintelligent thing to do is say, "Liberals are unhinged," and other clever little things like that. How about, "Look at how stupid and uncreative these people are," or "Hey, wow, look at how they respond to criticism!" These are crazy people doing crazy things - of COURSE they are going to do more crazy things when their crazy ideology is questioned.
We see these touchy issues and the easy thing to do is blow up, and assume that this is a fair representation of the majority. It's not. The internet and the television allow people to seem strong who are not. It has taken me a long time to separate the bullies on T.V. and radio from the majority of conservatives who just want to enjoy their money and feel safe and not see another 9/11. It is difficult because I run into people who think and talk like the bully pundits, but I know they're a minority, and I know they are not rational and cannot be dealt with. We have to try to deal with the rational people.
Lovely novel Dave, but I fail to see how any of your quotes rise to the level of the hate speech so prevelent on the left.
Agree or not, Hannity is taking a policy position in most of the quotes. Or a contrarian one for the sake of TV. You know...show hosts do do that. Or, maybe I missed the part where he called people cunts and wished their genitals to be bound in barbed wire.
That is the crucial flaw in your thinking here. You may believe Hannity is a liar or a partisan, but that was never the issue in this post.
The issue was the hatred and vitriol of the left. Many of the things Hannity said I would agree with actually. I've seen plenty of posters from "anti-war" marches. Those people will usually be the first to tell you that they don't like America. We're imperialist, war mongers, planet killers, and Nazi's. Remember?
There are striking resemblences between what unhinged Democratic party leadership and Bin Laden say. I'm suprised you haven't noticed ever. Of course, you don't read about that at Kos or media matters.
And frankly, with those as your sources your whole argument becomes quite suspect. Are you really suggesting that quoting those sources is somehow an antidote to the partisanship of Hannity? Give me a break. I visited the links and it is a joke. They "expose" Hannity with a stronger dose of partisanship than Hannity himself. Most of their arguments are semantic and empty.
Hannity is somehow on the level of the idiots you defend because he "doesn't care" about someones opinion on Iraq?
Huh?
Is that how you battle partisanhip Dave? With your own?
After reading your "evidence" that Hannity is a hate monger worth mentioning in the same breath as the rubes quoted above, I am ever more convinced you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
The fact that you can't tell the difference between what Hannity does and what SAW does should be personally embarassing to you.
Incidentally, in case you thought it was just me noticing the hate, please refer to Susan Estrich's column posted under the heading "don't take my word for it." Not only does she notice exactly the same things I do in regards to the hate, she also notes that the Dem's have no agenda.
And she can be trusted Dave. She's a Democrat, so she is automatically nonpartisan, like Kos and media matters.
You are being dense.
You are comparing the language itself as opposed to what they are saying. There are ways to incite people and be hateful without using a single four letter word or talking once about binding someone's vagina. It's called taking quotes out of context and repeating one talking point over and over and saying false things and saying things that further distrust and dislike of a certain group. I was trying to argue that, not that Hannity has sent letters calling Harry Reid something awful. You are right that the post wasn't talking about being a liar or a partisan hack or a bad person, it was about uncreative naughty words and uncreative hateful ethnic slurs.
I can tell the difference, and if you noticed, I said "Sean doesn't have the advantage of being uncensored by the decency of the airwaves (should read THANKS TO the decency of the airwaves), so take heed that these are not filled with cunts and racial slurs, but these are bad nonetheless." I try to focus on people who have the power to shape decisions and who have the appearance of credibility. I generally try to have a broader sense of context, of who matters and who doesn't.
Look.
If you see calling people who criticize THIS war unAmerican, unpatriotic, etc. etc., while eight years ago he was saying similar things about the Kosovo engagement a "semantic and empty" argument, then I don't really think it's worth discussing it with you. The entire foundation of our country is that we all have different beliefs and we have to understand that reasonable debate is fine. Saying the war is a mistake is fine. Saying the President was wrong is fine. Saying "Kill the President," or "The President is just a dumb Texan drunk," is not fine, and it's useless and people who do it should be ignored like dolphins. A person can't flip-flop, though, and say when he disagrees it's legit, but when others disagree it's not. It's not partisanship on my part. Read anything I write. I defend my party but I've always said, "The crazies are crazy."
I don't think it's necessarily fair to say I have no idea what I'm talking about. I clearly do. Maybe my opinion is wrong? Maybe I've come to the wrong conclusion? But no, darling, I do have a fucking clue.
Interesting article. It's from FOX news, though, so because I am left anything out of FOX news must be wrong, and her FOX status outweighs her Democrat status. The partisan in me refuses to bend, I guess.
There are ways to incite people and be hateful without using a single four letter word
Is that what he is doing? Inciting people? I'd love to see some evidence, not paranoia, for this accusation.
It's called taking quotes out of context and repeating one talking point over and over and saying false things and saying things that further distrust and dislike of a certain group
So you would include Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Paul Krugman, and Dick Durbin in the group of inciters as well? That's good to know. Last I checked they all "matter" and routinely repeat one talking point and take things out of context in order to further distruct and dislike.
This is why your argument is so ludicruous. You are taking traits of both parties and attributing them only to Republicans. Could you be more brainwashed? I think not.
If you see calling people who criticize THIS war unAmerican, unpatriotic, etc. etc.,
Not all, just some including some party leadership. And I am perfectly capable of making that distinction. You see that's how it works. People say things and then others get to characterize those remarks based on intelligence and experience. If the shoe fits they should wear it.
As to your last, what an idiotic point. The article was written by Susan Estrich, a Democratic strategist. A diehard liberal and passionate advocate of the party. FoxNews is not a person. It does not write articles. FoxNews is a thing. An entity.
What you are saying is that if the exact same column appeared at Kos you would give it more credence. That is stupid. Speaking of which, coming over here and blasting Fox (every kneejerk Liberal's favorite game) and then sourcing Kos and Media Matters. Do you not see that you are acting in the very same way you accuse the right?
I don't watch much FoxNews. You, apparently, spend alot of time at Kos and MM. I guess that makes you the blind partisan and me the reasonable middle.
This is why I think you do not have a clue. You are routinely guilty of what you accuse, and you are apparently completely unaware of it.
But now I have given you a clue. Let's hope it blossoms.
When Howard Dean says the Republicans are the rich White party, that's inciting. That's using language that shouldn't be used in political debate. Maybe Republican policies do benefit rich White people, but it's really divisive to say things like that. I don't know, however, of specific examples off the top of my head where they've taken things out of context in comparison with some Republican pundits and leaders.
I don't think I've said that my side is peachy perfect. In fact, I think I continually say there are examples on both sides. But maybe I'm just having illusions.
My last point was a joke. Next time I will refrain from any clearly obvious sarcasm. If my last point had been serious, it would have been like accusing a murderer of being immoral as I'm strangling a baby.
Thank you for enlightening me, it's a good thing your shining brilliance has cast a light on me instead of a shadow. Oops. There I go again.
Incidentally, "clearly obvious" sarcasm only really applies to things that aren't so close to your actual opinion.
Should I assume that all of your barbs at FoxNews are sarcasm? Or just this one?
Spottswoode
Post a Comment