Political Discussions
Militia Movement
Posted by clioandme • 8/15/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: militia movement, politics, rhetoric, town hall meetings, violence
I pointed out on the thread called "Town Hall War?" that the angry rhetoric was swinging over to threats of violence in a few cases. (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/town-hall-war#comment_1078457) Some days before that I mentioned how the angry rhetoric even reminded me of the militia movement. (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/town-hall-war#comment_1068721) Well, it turns out that militia groups are indeed getting more active (www.csmonitor.com/2009/0814/p99s01-duts.html). While most angry town hall participants are not militia types, we did have the example of a militia-type openly carrying a loaded pistol in Portsmouth, NH. (www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/12/william_kostric/)
Now there is a difference between rhetoric and actions, but it seems to me that rhetoric can inspire actions. Uncivil, open mocking of our political institutions and politicians is an American tradition, but it seems to be getting uglier these days. At what point does such activity foster the development of individuals and groups willing to use violence?
Should politicians and opinion-makers address this issue head on? I'm thinking more about them using the bully pulpit than any censorship.
What are your thoughts on the militia movement more generally?
User Comments
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "militia movement" per se, but there are probably various groups and even more individuals that fall into that blanket term.
Out west, we don't think of any particular "movement" per se. In small cities and town, as well as in rural areas, a good segment of the population hunts. The generally believe in the right to keep their rifles as well as whatever handguns to protect themselves... and perhaps a little less prevelent but still a significant number believe that they have the descretion to decide whether or not they want to own "assualt weapons" etc.
I would not want to limit the "movement" therefore to those who are right wing. I used to live in a mill town (or rather a small metropolitan area whose economy is largely based on a few lumber milling and paper producing companies, and the accompanying port). Many of my classmates in high school were the sons of union workers, who would go hunting on the weekends and, in political class discussions, sided with gun-rights overwhelmingly. On the other hand, the community generally voted for Democrats, for instance their representative Brian Baird
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Baird
There was the Minutemen Militia up in MT in the 90's, but they were at least as much about tax-dodging as they were about guns.-
For want of a better term, I was using the 1990s designation. Certainly the term lends more coherence to the individuals and groups than is warranted at any broad organizational level.
I am thinking about those groups willing to threaten or use violence, and that could include tax protesters. Many probably found the Republicans too implicated with the modern state for their taste.
That is my take.
Here's the full report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which was linked to in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) article that I referenced above: www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=392&loc=interstitialskip The CSM article, by the way, includes reactions in the media, including Fox. It also notes that the SPLC was warning about this phenomenon not too long before the Oklahoma City bombing. -
Oops. That link was to the summary. Here is the full report (PDF, 24 pages), which is also available through that page: www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/main/The_Second_Wave.pdf
-
I understand that there are some real wackos out there, but i think the article went a bit far by lumping in the Iowa incident and even in an offhand sort of suggestion the Tea Protesting Americans*
*the new politically correct term for 'em -
Which piece are you referring to? The CSM article? The SPLC article? Or the full SPLC report?
Seems like there are more than "some" wackos out there. Seems like there are a lot of 'em. The law enforcement connection at the level of individual officers is also worrying. So is the new racist accent now that there is not only a black president, but there are also high levels of non white immigration and a downwards trend of percentage of whites in the overall population.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a lot of the tea partying and angry town hallers are a part of this. But there is at least some overlap in rhetoric. Fox would have a point if this correspondence were used to stifle legitimate dissent, but their turning a blind eye to the problem isn't right. -
By the way, the SPLC article seems to be out of order. It makes more sense read in this order, with the "second" page first:
www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?pid=415
www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?pid=414
www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?pid=416 -
I was referring to this article:
www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?pid=416
I do note that right wing media is often sympathetic or propagating sympathy for what are obviously scofflaws (Freemen, the Neo-Know-Nothings, etc).
-
-
In another thread regarding the honesty of the current President polybore invited csiunatc to go further and level his accusation at essentially the whole apparatus of government in the US, past and present.
The point that polybore was trying to get across is that all though it is healthy to disagree with the President there has to be a line in the sand. It is a matter of respect for the office of President of the United States of America and all that represents.
At what point do attacks on a President become attacks on the actual office of President, the mechanisms of State and democracy that it represents?
If you don't agree with the person one should still respect the office that they hold. They have been democratically elected are under oath and hold the responsibility of the history of their nation.-
That was always my feeling about former President Bush.
-
It is an inevitable side effect of having personality driven Presidential politics.
What might be a good alternative would be to have a head of State beyond reproach and outside politics. Then have, maybe a Prime minister and cabinet who take the flack. That way at least you don't have the same danger of the whole system of government being tarnished by personal attacks on the Head of State/ President.
sniker, sniker
Seriously though in regards to the militia question. Assuming that Obama manages to get the reforms through (and he had better or lame duckdom beckons). It is not a huge stretch of the imagination to envisage direct action attacks on buildings associated with the reforms (clinics, government buildings?). Just remains to be seen how violent they will be.
-
-
Actually the UK refused entry to a US White Supremacist, Preston Wiginton, who was on his way to a British National Party "festival" event this weekend.
British fascists don't like Obama as the picture and report here indicate www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1206618/Extremist-banned-enterin...
White supremacists and facists in general like to grab hold of hot political items for their own purposes.-
At first glance, that almost looked like a Nixon mask...
-
-
IMHO, the reason the protests are getting "uglier" as you say would have their roots in the fact that Congress went to the well too many times with the out of control spending. The Republicans did it under Bush and the Democrats came in on a wave of promising to undo what the Repubs did, but they just spent even more. At some point the American public is going to say, "Enough!"
-
Your reaction to the outrageous things right-wing extremists are doing as reported by the SPLC: "At some point the American public is going to say, 'Enough!'" By that you mean, enough of the legitimate policies decided by our duly elected officials.
So you're justifying the threats of violence. Nice. So much for respect for the democratic institutions of this country.
Good to know where you stand. And you help make a nice link between the regular right-wing rhetoric and the violent potential of these guys. I would have figured you'd have rejected them out of hand. But you didn't.
Just like you expressed understanding for the death threats: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/healthcare-debate-fuels-death-th...
Good to know exactly where you stand. -
mark, have you always been this much of a drama queen?
I addressed ONE POINT in your OP. Just because I didn't jump up and down saying, "mark is right!!! mark is right!!!," you get all pissy.
What problem did you have with me saying this about death threats?
"I did not realize that his death threats were that high. I know every President gets death threats and I would not want to have the responsibility of determining the "real" ones from the nutjobs.
His socialistic stance on health care is sure not winning him many friends..."
Crap, I am surprised you didn't say something about my saying that Obama mask looked like a Nixon mask...
Dude, seriously get out more. -
Nice redaction. But that thread is dead anyway.
How about the topic at hand? -
You are the one who brought it up...
As for the topic at hand, I already posted on it, which you took completely out of context as you are prone to do. Must be a hell of a teacher, but I am beginning to have my doubts about that. You seem to be as much of a teacher as daily hand j...errr, I mean daily mind job is a doctor.
At any rate, what I said was: ""At some point the American public is going to say, 'Enough!'"
To which you retorted: By that you mean, enough of the legitimate policies decided by our duly elected officials."
How do you know what I meant? Maybe if you read my post again you will see that when I said the public would say "Enough!" I was referring to the fact that our Congress has been spending money almost as fast as you get your feelings hurt. In other words - A LOT - EXTENSIVELY - COPIOUSLY - EXPANSIVELY - VOLUMINOUSLY and I am sure you will love this last adverb - LIBERALLY.
-
-
Hey, don't get me wrong, there are some scary f---ers out there... like these guys:
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stormfront&aq=f&oq=&aqi=n1g8
but I think it gets a little too easy to lump others in with them, that's all.-
I dunno. Those things about people's courts bothered me. So did the threats on judges. So did the murder of a Mexican for resources to start a group. There were just an awful lot of details. And try the part of the long PDF document called "75 plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since Oklahoma City." The white supremacists are only one variation.
-
yeah, those guys would fall under the heading "scary f---ers"
I just wanted to clarify that not everyone who has more guns than family members is a militia-man, per se. -
then there are these guys
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=alaska+independence+party+wikipedia&btnG=Sear...
-
-
Well.... when you've got CRAZY people like these on the airways, it's no surprise why the ignorant and misinformed sometimes resort to violence.
Glenn Beck's Obama Derangement Syndrome
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNIQG7WXpSM
Are Fox News & The Republicans Trying To Get Obama KILLED?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJkNtDNl7jE
100 Days of "Fair & Balanced
www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0-
I still need to watch the videos, but I do know that Fox & Co. say that any link we would draw is nothing more than an effort to stifle dissent. Only I don't want to stifle anything. I just want people on the right to be more self-aware of their rhetoric.
I know, I know. Like *that's* gonna happen.
Still, I keep thinking that at least conservative politicians will man up, though maybe they're too afraid for their jobs. After all, they need these votes.
Maybe it's an age thing, but I remember the rhetoric during the Clinton years. And I remember the militia movement and Oklahoma City. -
"Maybe it's an age thing, but I remember the rhetoric during the Clinton years. And I remember the militia movement and Oklahoma City."
I remember it well and I also recall the paranoid chatter about 'lost freedoms and liberties' before the despicable act.
Definitely watch the 2nd video. Frank Schaeffer talks about our resident troll beginning around the 7:25 point. -
That first video is great. Just Beck, nothing else. And there's no way you could justify that language, no matter what the broader context of each peace, though that context is pretty clear too.
The second video is right on in terms of the implications of such rhetoric. Whether it's intentional or not is another matter. It depends on how stupid one believes they are. I think they only pretend to be stupid. I also believe they're moral cowards who would never admit even to themselves the implications of their rhetoric.
The third video contains all the stuff I've heard from right-wingers here. The exact same language. No wonder the wingnuts online think they can make such outrageous assertions themselves. If it's on TV, it must be okay, as if they grew up with no moral grounding about what is right and wrong, and as if they had been given permission to stop thinking or checking their facts. -
There's been pressure on advertisers to drop support for Glen Beck's show. Now even Walmart has pulled out. Writes Wisco, "When you lose Walmart for being too crazy-rightwing, you're just plain too crazy-rightwing." gripernews.blogspot.com/2009/08/glenn-beck-expensive-but-worth-money-to.htm...
-
-
The Guardian is running this story. Fears for Barack Obama's safety as healthcare debate fuels extremism.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/16/obama-rightwing-extremist-fears-
It's an accurate assessment of what has been going on. It points to the clear links among right-wing extremism, the Fox hate machine, and those GOP politicians who are willing to pander to fear---and stoke it---in the hopes that they can gain some tactical advantage. And in all of this, anything could happen.
-
GOP need to show some leadership and civilise the debate. What has happened to their leadership, seem to have disappeared?
-
-
You have to love that Mark keeps bringing Oklahoma into the "militia" movement. Where McVeigh was kicked out for being too agressive, violent and generally considered dangerous. A movement that didn't want him around.
Then he'll support the president being friends with other terrorists who bombs the pentagon.
I guess lefty terrorists are ok...-
You also have to love how the liberals continue to about people they don't agree with in derogatory terms. Yet we are the ones who attack. They name you and me a lot, csi. I guess they don't like our point of view.
-
Yeah, he and ruin concocted that whole 'when is it better not to engage' thing to hide behind. They should have called it 'better not engage when proven wrong.'
-
Mark,
You start a thread and post 13 replies in it. Then you point to "Better not to ENGAGE!?!?"...
What's that phrase i'm looking for??? Oh yeah. LMAO!
-
-
Way back on February 22nd on salon.com, Glen Greenwald wrote about the appearance of these groups of men after Clintion's election in 1992
> hordes of overwhelmingly white, middle-aged men from
> suburban and rural areas who convinced themselves they
> were defending the American way of life from the
> "liberals" and "leftists" running the country by dressing
> up in military costumes on weekends, wobbling around
> together with guns, and play-acting the role of
> patriot-warriors.
The anger of these posturing white men helped bring a similar group of showmen to to Congress in 1994, "Newt Gingrich and his band of federal-government-cursing, pseudo-revolutionary, play-acting tough guys."
And then Bush 43 was elected.
> What was most remarkable about this allegedly
> "anti-government" movement was that -- with some isolated
> and principled exceptions -- it completely vanished upon
> the election of Republican George Bush, and it stayed
> invisible even as Bush presided over the most extreme and
> invasive expansion of federal government power in memory.
> Even as Bush seized and used all of the powers which that
> movement claimed in the 1990s to find so tyrannical and
> unconstitutional -- limitless, unchecked surveillance
> activities, detention powers with no oversight, expanding
> federal police powers, secret prison camps, even massively
> exploding and debt-financed domestic spending -- they
> meekly submitted to all of it, even enthusiastically
> cheered it all on. . . .
By supporting Bush's expansion of government power, these groups
> revealed themselves as motivated by no ideological
> principles or political values of any kind. It was a
> purely tribalistic movement motivated by fear of losing
> its cultural and demographic supremacy.
Only weeks into the Obama administration, though, and these people have come out of the woodwork again.
> the mere threat of an Obama presidency was enough to
> revitalize them from their eight-year slumber, awaken them
> from their camouflaged, well-armed suburban caves. The
> disturbingly ugly atmosphere that marked virtually every
> Sarah Palin rally had its roots in this cultural
> resentment, which is why her fear-mongering cultural
> warnings about Obama's exotic, threatening otherness --
> he's a Muslim-loving, Terrorist-embracing,
> Rev.-Wright-following Marxist: who is the real
> Barack Obama? -- resonated so stingingly with the rabid
> lynch mobs that cheered her on.
But none of this is the strange part. You know what Glen Beck did on his show? He invited some experts to war game "for the coming Civil War against Obama-led tyranny."
See the article for a detailed look at the war-gaming, including both text and videos: www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/
Simply amazing.
No wonder Walmart and other companies have felt enough heat to drop their sponsorship of this show. As Wisco blogged, “When you lose Walmart for being too crazy-rightwing, you’re just plain too crazy-rightwing.” (gripernews.blogspot.com/2009/08/glenn-beck-expensive-but-worth-money-to.htm...)
Before Greenwald ever gets into the war-gaming, however, he adds an important caveat, in case anyone missed the point of the militia's appearance during the Clinton administration, disappearance during Bush's administration of expanded federal reach, and reappearance at the very beginning of the Obama administration:
> There is nothing inherently wrong or illegitimate with
> citizens expressing extreme anger towards the Government
> and the ruling political class. There isn't even anything
> wrong or illegitimate with citizens organizing themselves
> into a movement that -- whether by design or effect -- is
> threatening to entrenched elites. If anything, we've had
> too little of that. In fact, it's only a complete lack of
> fear of a meek, passive and impotent citizenry on the part
> of political and financial rulers -- a certainty that
> there will be no consequences no matter what they do --
> that could have given rise to the endless corruption,
> deceit, lawbreaking, destruction, and outright thievery of
> the last eight years. A political and financial elite
> that perceives itself as invulnerable from threat or
> consequence will inevitably vest itself with more power
> and more riches. That's what we've had and, largely,
> still have.
>
> But this Rush-Limbaugh/Fox-News/nationalistic movement
> isn't driven by anything noble or principled or even
> really anything political. If it were, they would have
> been extra angry and threatening and rebellious during the
> Bush years instead of complicit and meek and supportive to
> the point of cult-like adoration. Instead, they're just
> basically Republican dead-enders (at least what remains of
> the regional/extremist GOP), grounded in tribal
> allegiances that are fueled by their cultural, ethnic and
> religious identities and by perceived threats to past
> prerogatives -- now spiced with legitimate economic
> anxiety and an African-American President who, they were
> continuously warned for the last two years, is a Marxist,
> Terrorist-sympathizing black nationalist radical who wants
> to re-distribute their hard-earned money to welfare queens
> and illegal immigrants (and is now doing exactly that).
Source again: www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/
Have a look at the whole piece, including Fox's war-gaming show. Talk about encouraging the rabble. Even his caveat at the beginning is inflammatory.
It really need surprise no one on these boards that those on the right make light of the militia phenomenon. To them it's just politics as usual. -
I should note that one of the places generally associated with "Militia Movements"--the state of Montana--did show a deep suspicion of Bush. They currently have 2 Democratic U.S. Senators, and a Democratic governor.
-
Good for them. (Edited to add: But did militia types themselves go Democratic?)
I think NH's more liberal tint these days can also be attributed to their "live free or die" attitude, which was not written as a slogan to attract militia types. -
yeah, idk. I wonder what percent of the population gets these army fatigues on and all that. Also I wonder if they huddle up in a "war-room" and watch Glenn Beck. I just have no data to draw on here : [
-
Be that as it may, don't you think Greenwald has a point?
-
I do remember the rhetoric in the 90's, it was pretty similar. Hopefully Ryder Truck Rentals does background checks now : [
-
-
"I wonder what percent of the population gets these army fatigues on and all that"
I wonder how many of them Blow up the pentagon and then wish they had done more?-
who "blew up the pentagon"?
Osama? -
CSI is apparently trying to justify a need for militias because of what William Ayers did in the 1960s. He also never tires of trying to link Ayres to Obama. He did this repeatedly during the campaign. (www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html)
It's the old bait and switch. But it also fits into the worldview that Greenwald describes above.
It should be noted by the way, that the Pentagon is actually still standing. -
My worldview has nothing to do with either of the two "gentlemen".
What is clear however is that you want to attach people who have done nothing so far. Except of course kick McVeigh out for being too violent.
Yet you defend the Ayers conenction and minimize it.
You sir, are transparent. -
Oh, and i love that you use the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION FACTCHECK> to show some kind of "proof" on Obama and Ayers connections..
Talk about choosing sources that agree with you, as opposed to reliable ones. -
I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the "right" comes up with their own fact-checking entity to combat the rampant propaganda of the "far-left" Annenberg Foundation
-
And it will be just as crooked when it does.
But for now, the lefty movement will have to bear that cross of shame on their own. -
"Oh, and i love that you use the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION FACTCHECK> to show some kind of "proof" on Obama and Ayers connections.. "
You and antics keep saying FactCheck.org is left biased, but neither of you have been able to show any proof of that when challenged.
I think you both say that since it debunks so many of the falsehoods introduced on these boards. -
www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.h...
OMG! THE BIAS IS OVERWHELMING!!! -
"who "blew up the pentagon"?"
I believe Ayers did it first. You all know him? He helped Obama get started in politics...
"The Weather Underground placed a bomb in the women’s bathroom in the Air Force wing of The Pentagon. The damage caused flooding that devastated classified information on computer tapes. Leftist groups worldwide applauded the bombing, illustrated by German youth protesting against American military systems in Frankfurt."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Organization
But antics, there never was more than a "fleeting" connection from Obama to Ayers...
"I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”
Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.
Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported."
www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
And from page two of this article...
"In political circles in Chicago, where Obama rose in politics and Ayers is now a college professor, an Ayers-Obama connection has been known for years. In January 2005, in a progressive liberal blog called "Musings & Migraines," a Chicago-based blogger named Maria Warren - whose writing suggested she was to the left of Obama - recalled watching the candidate give a "standard, innocuous little talk" in 1995, in the living room of Ayers and his wife, former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, when Obama was running for the state Senate.
more stories like this
"They were launching him," she wrote, "introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/18/how_obama_and_the_radical_be...
Nope, nothing but a "fleeting" connection there. -
Still confused about the relevance of any of this to the topic at hand, unless it is as a justification for the "need" for right-wing militias.
-
Well, holier-than-thou mark, I was rebutting ruin's inane and inept attempt to say that El Presidente and Ayers were just acquaintances. So if you are getting all pissy about the sub-topic, blame yourself for you brought up the so called lack of connection between the two.
"CSI is apparently trying to justify a need for militias because of what William Ayers did in the 1960s. He also never tires of trying to link Ayres to Obama. He did this repeatedly during the campaign. (www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html)
It's the old bait and switch. But it also fits into the worldview that Greenwald describes above.
It should be noted by the way, that the Pentagon is actually still standing."
That last line really stands out mark. Evidently you think it is okay that Ayers and Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon because it is still standing. Fascinating that you are able to justify their terrorism in such a trite manner. -
Your inferences are incorrect. My comment about the Pentagon still standing was in reference to the inaccurate phrase "blew up."
See no. 2: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blow up
Still not seeing the relevance to this thread. Didn't see it when CSI brought it up. Not seeing it now. Why not just address the militia movement head on? -
""I wonder what percent of the population gets these army fatigues on and all that"
I wonder how many of them Blow up the pentagon and then wish they had done more?"
Hmmm, well let's see. Maybe, just maybe csi was trying to point out that generalizing the hate and militia crowd as only right wing nut jobs was inaccurate.
This is similar to the debate we had when Dr. Tiller was murdered and some lib bloggers on BC tried unsuccessfully to link the actions of that clearly insane attacker with the right and right wing media.
Follow me for a moment.
Of the four Presidents we have had that were assassinated, three of the killers were leftists.
John Wilkes Booth who killed Lincoln was a leftist and upset at Lincoln's "tyranny."
Leon Czolgosz who killed McKinley was an anarchist and a socialist.
JFK's killer, Lee Harvey Oswald was a would be defector to the Soviet Union and adulated Castro.
My point? Is it that leftists or left leaning politics create murders? No. It is that crazy people who take to violence are themselves responsible. They didn't play the Led Zepplin record backwards and get messages from the devil saying to kill someone.
Sometimes you just have to accept that insane people do insane things.
This is from an excellent article by Jeffery Lord in the American Spectator. Great piece that points out how BOTH sides utilize rhetoric.
spectator.org/blog/2009/08/17/frum-refuses-to-call-out-moyer -
well all of those examples are nice and current... o_0
-
*noting anticsrocks continued downplaying of significance of right-wing militia movement*
*wondering if that stance is the result of an ideological affinity* -
*looks up from cleaning his assault rifle*
What?
Jeez mark, yeah my not speaking to your OP, but to the sub thread means that I am in favor of militia movements.
You have a gift, mark. It is the inane ability to totally miss the point in nearly every post made by anyone who isn't a lefty. I believe that I was making the point that crazy people do violent things and that they, themselves are to blame. Not the media. Not cable news. Not talk radio. Just the insane people themselves.
Now I will address your OP that is just a pathetic attempt to equate a few groups of crazies with conservatives; which goes to my point above, insane people come from both sides of the aisle, okay? Those militia groups tend to be extremists with racist tendencies. They do pose a threat to society, but for lawmakers to tackle said groups is stupid. That is what the FBI is for. Let them do their job, mark. They are good at spotting crazies on the right AND the left.
-
-
Ah, well then we can assume that the insurance companies aren't biased either, just because they support someone. Without proof that is...
BS, The bias is in the language. The intent and visible in the presentation.
Compare their "factcheck on Obamas Speech" And McCain
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
m.factcheck.org/2009/02/fact-checking-obamas-speech/
Obamas end with the section, "things he got right"
Nothing such on the McCain side.
You won't be able to see it, becuse only a critical eye without Obama-blinders on will. But it's there for the rest of us as plain as day.
When you run a shill site masquerading as "unbiased", you would do better running the same setup and the same sections when analyzing two candidates speeches.
But that would mean that they either WOULDN'T have been able to tell the people what Obama got right, or they would have to tell the people What McCain DID get right.
Again, in the end, what we really need to determine bias is to check who they are... Oh yeah, Annenberg foundation....-
*trying to figure out what any of this has to do with the resurgence of right-wing militias*
*thinking maybe this is more bait and switch*
*noting right-wingers refusal here to distance themselves from said resurgence* -
Because the resurgence has nothing to do with us.
You're the one making the fallacy when assuming that there is. Which of course is generalizing beyond normalcy.
Apart from that, why would anyone distance themselves from a movement that is in favor of protecting the constitution, has caused no harm, (as a whole at least, i can't say for sure if any small faction has) and is in general peaceful?
It's not hard to see why people wold distance themselves if your carricature of the militias was the whole truth, but as always, your statements rarely contain anything but the viewpoint of an Obamaite.
-
-
Good article on the relative silence of journalism in the face of rising hatred in this country: Charles Davis, "Unhealthy SIlence," www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/aug/18/unhealthy-silence/
-
Some are certainly speaking out...
blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/08/07/1007117/more-jewish-critics-of-li... -
Of course, but Davis is suggesting that newspapers and other major media outlets dedicate one of their reporters to the topic. Of course, this is a tall order in this day when the very existence of newspapers is under threat and other media outlets are also feeling the advertising pinch.
Edited to add:
By the way, the piece you reference makes the GOP's small tent look even smaller now.
-
-
Glad to see there is a discussion about this sort of thing. Don't think for a second that it isn't on the minds of conservatives. Problem is, I just found a thread discussing a "civil war" and members of that particular forum have put so much spin on it from the start. They are under the impression that Obama is intentionally trying to cause a civil war. Is this a new talking point that is spreading?
I think the last time I stopped by BC, I said the goose stepping on fishing forums was what triggered me to start my blog. If you want to get inside the minds of the far right, just start paying attention to the fishing and hunting community. Talk about scary.
texasfishingforum.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3844452/1/Is_Obama_inten...
Of course, it's a forum based in Texas and we've seen what's been coming out of Texas lately. I will give a few members there some credit. Not all of them are hankering for a fight. Not all of them are completely nuts. -
A desperate Hummer dealer is offering weapons for sale at the same time. www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/08/22/dnt.mo.hummer.guns.ksdk
Now I realize that just because someone wants a big, aggressive vehicle and a bunch of weaponry to go with it, they are not necessarily part of a militia movement. They might just be disturbed or overcompensating or something.-
so you can feel like the governor of CA
-
-
According to the Glenn Beck program, there are now left-wing Militias as well, which (appearently because they are darker) are much scarier than the right wingers
crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/obamas-army-glenn-beck-sees-scary-bl-
Oh brother.....
*headdesk*
The stupid...it hurts.... -
that's why his viewers need those tin-foil hats...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
