How much violence will the ultraright have to commit?

Post Reply New Topic

If Glenn Beck is so out there, why was the White House so afraid of him that they fired someone pre-emptively because they were afraid of what he would report. Also why did they go after Fox News so often and why is a billionare spending millions just to go after Fox News if they are so out there?

I'm not saying everyone is actively involved in a conspiracy, but there were some conspiracies that unraveled recently... Does JournOlist ring in bells to you?

The "facts" in all probability won't turn out in favour of media talking heads like crybaby Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Even if specific facts turn out to be correct, the overall framework (as with most conspiracy theories) would be much more oversimplified than the reality.



I reject your conspiratorial nonsense namely because association doesn't imply guilt. John McCain was "aquainted" with Storm Thormond as both were Senators, that doesn't mean John McCain was in league with Thormond. In the same way I'm sure you could find a shoot-load of one-time people Obama vaguely knows or has spoken to, who are radical because he worked for a University, and given that Universities have a lot of tolerance for eccentric ideas, some people there will obviously be politically eccentric.

But I'm guessing, on the basis of so much of the nonsense ultraconservatives like you peddle and uncritically accept that the "radicalism" of his acquaintences is probably more in preception than reality. Bill Aeyers was certainly a former radical, but most others aren't.



You're factually wrong about Nixon not calling people enemies, as he called the Press, the Professors, the Media, and the whole establishment "the enemy" inbetween spewing out antisemitic garbage. Just listen to the recently released Nixon tapes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdnvhfNN8D8[/youtube]

The fact of the matter is that Republicans and ultraconservatives like Bachman have been insinuating that the Democratic congress was full of "Anti-Americans" who wanted to destroy the United States. Even if the word "enemy" isn't used, that implies a lot more than them being political enemies (it's rather trivally true that the Republican Party, whose stated goal is the ensure the President isn't re-elected in 2012, is a political enemy to Obama).



The problem isn't just memorizing events (though that, too, involves reconstruction based on prior knowledge and prejudice), it's how you interpret the events. And I'm sure your a man who sees conspiracies where others see dull reality.



You do know that corporations have given a few million to Accuracy in Media over the years, which is an organization that tries to discredit imaginary leftwing bias in the media?

Bill Clinton's office threatened to cut off access to DemocracyNow! over Amy Goodman being "combatitive" in an interview with him (which was ironic, as DemocracyNow! practically had no access aside from that one time interview) as well as even threatening to ban Goodman from the White House. Bush ostraticized MSNBC in his last term. It's really run of the mill politics.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qczXNnxV5I&feature=related[/youtube]

Inuyasha, you have something of a persecution complex - perhaps not clinically pathological, but you've indicated in the past that you view snide comments or conversational intolerance equivalent to oppression. I think all the cognitive distortions that go along with any argument you make means I should be especially sceptical of any future "validation of my views" claims you make, given how poor your standards of evidence are.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 11 Nov 2010, 9:04 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Political prima donnas are notorious for their easily bruised egos. The take steps to protect themselves from criticism and to avenge any bad mouthing they recieve.

ruveyn

Okay I was wrong about Nixon, but look at the fact the press were on to something, he had to resign.

Clinton ended up being impeached (just not convicted).

Seriously when you have Democrat Pat Kaddel (sp?) comparing Obama to Richard Nixon then excuse me there is a problem.

Patrick Caddell hasn't been a Democrat for years, at least in anything other than name.

Being a career "Democrat who bashes Democrats" doesn't make him right.

Maybe he puts integrity above Party? He was the youngest person on Nixon's enemies list. I don't think that is something he would say idly.

Or he puts money (given to him as a Faux News contributor) over integrity. Chomsky (who was on Nixon's Enemies list) has dismissed it's importance, noting that nothing really happened to the people on it, so I do think Caddell would use the threat idlely or he mit just be delusional enough to see it as reality.

Either way, he's wrong.

I really don't get what all these long speeches are all about. Do I endorse some forms of terrorism while rejecting others - HELL NO. I reject all forms of terrorism and view them as a plight upon humanity. But the fact of the matter is that some are less harmful and I'm sure the legal authorities rightly give people who destory only property lesser sentences than terrorists who kill hundreds or thousands of people.

Just cause they happen not to kill someone doesn't mean they aren't still a terrorist.

I believe I asked this question and no one answered me. How many radical acquaintances does one have to have before it is no longer a coincidence? How many before it is no longer a series of random dots but actually connects into a picture?

Personally, I would far rather encounter a 'terrorist' who burned my car and all the other cars on my block, than a terrorist who blew up a bunch of people in a bus.

That's completely irrelevant, ast the debate wasn't whether both were instances of terrorism, it was which instance of terrorism was more harmful.



So you're basic question is how many times can someone commit the guilt by association fallacy before it becomes a sound argument?

In terms of reality, you might have a case that Obama's overly connected to radicals if you could verify that more of his friends are radical than would be expected for your average Hyde Park professor.

I'd rather not encounter either.

I am trying to find the videos of segments with Sean Hannity naming them and giving history.

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/w ... aides.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 64289.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... wmjuuce2BO

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/ ... 5761.shtml

Btw, the mainstream media deliberately tried to deliberately ignore it.

Another blog with a list of them in Alphabetical order and it isn't complete.

http://eagleviews.org/2008/10/27/obama- ... ssociates/


I'm going to try to find Hannity's special on it he had a whole list and spent more than one night on Obama's "friends."

If the Alphabetical Order list is any indicator of the rest of your "evidence", than I'm not expecting much. How can Obama be an associate of "Alinsky" if Alinsky died when Obama was one? Furthermore, ACORN isn't a radical organization, it's a decent civil rights group that's be besmirched by vile extremists on the right and dumbasses who distort video footage. Go to an actual Ghetto and observe the good work ACORN does.

Honestly, this is the best you can do? It looks like anybody who disagrees or does anything against your far-right agenda is a "radical".

Incorrect I was arguing that degree should be irrelevant when condemning terrorists. Because attempting to rule people by terror is abhorrent and should be treated as such regardless of method. Honestly I don't see how you can attempt to insult my comprehension skills and morals when you can't even understand the point I'm trying to make which was clearly stated. Wheres you have stated that because they have not physically harmed human life they are somehow better terrorists. While I have stated repeatedly now that their method is irrelevant as both are trying to accomplish the same thing, compliance through fear.