Conservatives aren't the extremists

[shagdrum]

Conservatives aren't the extremists
by David Limbaugh

Mainstream conservatives are routinely mischaracterized as extreme by liberals and squishy Republicans, when it is America's liberals who are, by any fair measure, more extreme.

Conservatives are not the ones who sermonize about tolerance yet demonstrate intolerance toward conservative and Christian thought; support exterminating babies in the womb; apologize the world over for America; or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States.

Conservatives aren't the ones who have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government; judge people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character; pit economic groups against one another, stoking the flames of envy and greed; punish success, reward failure and promote mediocrity; side with the world's tyrants and dictators; slavishly attach themselves to leftist propaganda about impending environmental catastrophes; promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition; or morally equate the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques to save innocent lives with that of beheading innocent people.

Conservatives aren't the ones who seek to criminalize policy differences and – like a thuggish Third World dictatorship – prosecute previous administration officials for implementing EIT that their party's leadership was briefed on and approved; whose party leader falsely accused the CIA of lying concerning those briefings; or who voted to give President George W. Bush authority to attack Iraq because they believed, based on our best intelligence at the time and that of the intelligence agencies of every other major nation, that Iraq had WMD and then spent the next five years attacking Bush for attacking Iraq and lying about Bush's alleged lies – saying a man they painted as the dumbest president in history duped them into believing WMD existed.

Conservatives aren't the ones who actually blocked military ballots and falsely accused the other party of suppressing black voters, with absolutely no evidence; publicly declared that President Bush delayed the federal response to Katrina because of his alleged racism, with utter disregard for the abominable lie it was and the untold damage that message would do to race relations; aren't honest about their beliefs, fearful the voters would reject them outright if they were; are using government money we don't have to fund community organizing groups to manipulate the census, gerrymander districts and register illegal voters by the thousands; or consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky to target, freeze and demonize private citizens who dissent from their policies.

Conservatives aren't the ones who seek to silence the opposition on talk radio and college campuses, support eliminating secret ballots for union membership to intimidate workers into joining the unions, and then have the audacity to call it free choice; oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools; reverse welfare reform despite its proven successful record; believe it's kosher for judges to twist the Constitution into whatever judges want it to say and consider foreign law in interpreting it; favor nationalizing health care instead of implementing market reforms in the face of overwhelming evidence that socialized medicine has been a disaster everywhere and every time it's been tried; glamorize the world's tyrants and the conditions in their thugocracies; ignore the verdict of history that socialism destroys the human spirit and cannot work in the real world – assuming it would be desirable if it could, which it most certainly would not; promote wide-open borders and universal amnesty for illegals; or believe government should be the primary arbiter of philanthropy in the United States.

Conservatives do want to restore constitutional principles, knowing we owe our liberties to our uniquely structured government and the Judeo-Christian principles undergirding it; recognize evil in the world and favor a strong national defense and peace through strength; believe in the individual and want to unleash his entrepreneurial spirit and provide him equal protection under the law; protect the lives of the unborn; defend traditional values – values that have been instrumental in making this the freest and most prosperous nation in history.

Republicans must cease this self-destructive tendency to emulate Democrats, grow more comfortable in their own political skin, and return the party to its conservative roots by articulating, without apology or reservation, mainstream conservatism. They must quit allowing the left to define them and the terms of the national debate. This is a war whose outcome will determine whether our children will live in freedom and prosperity, so let's answer the call.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What a stinking pile...........

:bsflag:

You really want to bank on the credibility of anyone w/ the last name Limbaugh?? :bowrofl: How pathetic.

Right Wing Extremism: Alive And Well

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5078760.shtml

At this point it's little consolation, but Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano turned out to be more prescient about domestic extremism than many of her critics.

In April, she got an earful from conservative bloggers and radio pundits after DHS issued a nine-page report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," which warned of the potential for violence from rightwing fringe groups.

In part, the critics' distemper was connected to language which they said unfairly singled out returning veterans and conservatives. Here's what the report said:

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A (Office of Intelligence and Analysis) is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

Napolitano soon backtracked from that particular paragraph and sought to defuse the mini-controversy by making the larger point that department's job is to monitor the risks of domestic violent extremism.

"We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence," she said.

But in the last month, the nation has been rocked by two instances of violence committed by suspects linked to the sorts of extremist movements to which the report pointed.

Scott Roeder, the man being held in custody for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, was a member of the anti-government group, the Montana Freemen, according to an interview his father granted to the Topeka Capital-Journal after the arrest.

And on Wednesday, Stephen Tyrone Johns, who worked as a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., died after James von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist and military veteran, reportedly opened fire. Police are questioning von Brunn, and his motivations are yet unclear. But on his Web site, van Brunn touts a book he wrote as "a new hard hitting expose of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the White gene-pool."

Connecting the dots is guaranteed to be a contentious, if not fraught exercise. But as the news filtered out, some liberal bloggers did not hesitate to draw conclusions.

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen put it this way:

"The Republican hysteria over the DHS report -- which was, by the way, initiated by a Bush administration official -- was always based more on a partisan scheme than reality, but the incessant complaints look especially misguided today," he wrote.

For Matthew Yglesias, the grisly aftermath of the Tiller and Holocaust Museum shootings left little ambiguity about where to look.

"I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern about this kind of thing feel appropriately ashamed of themselves," wrote Yglesias.

 

[fossten]

JohnnyBz00LS
This message is hidden because JohnnyBz00LS is on your ignore list.

***

Vinny Gambini: Uh... everything that guy just said is bull:q:q:q:q... Thank you.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Ah, another 4-y/o punk hiding behind the ignore list. You've obviously confused me with someone who gives a crap about what you think.

shagdum gets *owned*
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=533740&postcount=35

Intelligence Report
Summer 2009

Editorial
Resurgence on the Right
By Mark Potok, Editor

As the first months of the Obama Administration unfold, a growing consensus is emerging that a resurgence of right-wing hate groups and radical ideas is spreading across the United States. Law enforcement officials, civil rights groups, and many others have all expressed worries about this troubling trend.
This February, in the last issue of the Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported on the continued growth of hate groups, whose numbers have risen by more than 50% since 2000. It attributed that growth mainly to fears about non-white immigration, but pointed out that the rise of a black man to the White House also appears to have contributed. And it said the ongoing economic meltdown, which some have already blamed on racial minorities and undocumented Latino immigrants, could well add to a worsening situation.

Two months later, a Department of Homeland Security report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," was leaked to the press. Dated April 7, the report mirrored many of the conclusions of the SPLC and added that "rightwing extremists [could] attempt to recruit and radicalize returning [military] veterans." (The Report has written extensively about the problem of extremists in the military.)

Already, there is evidence of the violence that an expansion of the radical right may portend. Some of it is chilling.

- In late April, a man shot to death two Okaloosa County, Fla., sheriff's deputies responding to a domestic disturbance call. Officials said Joshua Cartwright was interested in militia groups and that his wife told police that he was "severely disturbed" by Obama's election.

- Three days before the DHS report was issued, a gunman in Pittsburgh killed three police officers. Internet postings by the suspect in the months before the murders suggest the man was motivated by racist and anti-Semitic ideology, antigovernment conspiracy theories, and a fear that Obama would pass confiscatory gun laws.

- Around the same time, a Marine who had earlier been arrested for armed robberies near Camp Lejeune, N.C., was indicted for threatening Obama. Kody Brittingham's journal allegedly contained neo-Nazi propaganda and a plan to assassinate the then president-elect.

- On Jan. 21, the day after Obama's inauguration, a white man in Brockton, Mass., allegedly murdered two black people and planned to kill as many Jews as he could that night. Police said the man told them he'd been reading white supremacist websites and believed that whites were facing a genocide.

- Last December, a woman who had just shot her husband to death in Belfast, Maine, told police that James Cummings was "very upset" with Obama's election, had been in touch with white supremacist groups, and had talked of building a "dirty bomb" chock full of deadly radioactive materials. Police found many of the components for that bomb, along with an application for the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement filled out by Cummings.

- And in late October, two racist skinheads were arrested in Tennessee and charged in connection with an alleged plot to murder more than 100 black Americans, beheading some of them, and then to assassinate Obama.

We might as well add Scott Roeder and James von Brunn to the growing list of radical right-wing terrorists.

The government report was met with howls of outrage from pundits, politicians and others on the right who characterized it as an attack on conservatives and veterans — an absurd contention for anyone who actually read the document.

Televangelist Pat Robertson, the gay-bashing founder of the Christian Coalition, even said the DHS report "shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question."

These expressions of anger were disingenuous at best. The reality is that many of these same people have done their best to pour fuel on the flames of incipient antigovernment fury, feeding the same kind of white-hot popular anger that animated the militia movement of the 1990s, with all its violence.

MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan recently said Obama would face a "bloodbath" if he legalized undocumented workers. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) fears Obama will set up "re-education camps for young people." U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) warns there are 17 "socialists" in the Congress. FOX News' Glenn Beck calls Obama a fascist, a Nazi and a Marxist, and even refloated militia-era conspiracy theories about secret concentration camps for patriots.

People like Beck — who described himself as a mere "rodeo clown" when he was called out on such statements — may be craven opportunists pandering for ratings. It really doesn't matter. Their lunatic rants, planted in the rich soil of social discontent, make it that much harder for our country to advance toward a better future.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1052

 

[Black87LSC]

This message is hidden because JohnnyBz00LS is on your ignore list.

Ahhhhh..... That's better.

 

[hrmwrm]

:bsflag:

You really want to bank on the credibility of anyone w/ the last name Limbaugh?? :bowrofl: How pathetic.

Right Wing Extremism: Alive And Well

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5078760.shtml

At this point it's little consolation, but Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano turned out to be more prescient about domestic extremism than many of her critics.

In April, she got an earful from conservative bloggers and radio pundits after DHS issued a nine-page report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," which warned of the potential for violence from rightwing fringe groups.

In part, the critics' distemper was connected to language which they said unfairly singled out returning veterans and conservatives. Here's what the report said:

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A (Office of Intelligence and Analysis) is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

Napolitano soon backtracked from that particular paragraph and sought to defuse the mini-controversy by making the larger point that department's job is to monitor the risks of domestic violent extremism.

"We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence," she said.

But in the last month, the nation has been rocked by two instances of violence committed by suspects linked to the sorts of extremist movements to which the report pointed.

Scott Roeder, the man being held in custody for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, was a member of the anti-government group, the Montana Freemen, according to an interview his father granted to the Topeka Capital-Journal after the arrest.

And on Wednesday, Stephen Tyrone Johns, who worked as a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., died after James von Brunn, an 88-year-old white supremacist and military veteran, reportedly opened fire. Police are questioning von Brunn, and his motivations are yet unclear. But on his Web site, van Brunn touts a book he wrote as "a new hard hitting expose of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the White gene-pool."

Connecting the dots is guaranteed to be a contentious, if not fraught exercise. But as the news filtered out, some liberal bloggers did not hesitate to draw conclusions.

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen put it this way:

"The Republican hysteria over the DHS report -- which was, by the way, initiated by a Bush administration official -- was always based more on a partisan scheme than reality, but the incessant complaints look especially misguided today," he wrote.

For Matthew Yglesias, the grisly aftermath of the Tiller and Holocaust Museum shootings left little ambiguity about where to look.

"I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern about this kind of thing feel appropriately ashamed of themselves," wrote Yglesias.

that's better.

 

[MediumD]

I guess the 'ignore list' comments in this thread should be enough to disprove the "Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!" thread.

If you're going to ignore someone, why would you post that you're ignoring them. Kinda defeats the purpose of ignoring, doesn't it?

 

[shagdrum]

I guess the 'ignore list' comments in this thread should be enough to disprove the "Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!" thread.

If you're going to ignore someone, why would you post that you're ignoring them. Kinda defeats the purpose of ignoring, doesn't it?

It also makes the point that this guy is being ignored by a few; likely for a good reason. In this case, it is because he is nothing more then a troll who comes in here and baits then never backs up his distortions and lies.

 

[fossten]

hrmwrm
This message is hidden because hrmwrm is on your ignore list.

That's better.

I guess the 'ignore list' comments in this thread should be enough to disprove the "Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!" thread.

If you're going to ignore someone, why would you post that you're ignoring them. Kinda defeats the purpose of ignoring, doesn't it?

I only ignore four people in here at the moment, and one of them isn't you. So go find something else to assert.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What shagdum really means is that, unlike himself, I acutally have a life outside this little internet board where he likes to spend his pitiful life wasting more bandwidth arguing over debating techique than discussing actual topic substance. I rarely come here anymore and waste what little spare time I have debating technique w/ his ilk because I'd much rather spend it with my wife and kids at home. Sure, polemicist (thanks foxpaws) like shagdum and "Percy-piss-his-pants-Wetmore" fossten will try to paint me as a "troll" since I make only rare visits. They'll also try to paint me as a "christian hater" because I've repeatedly called them on their self-rightous, holier-than-thou, "Liberals are the root of all EVIL" BS and have made them eat their words numerous times over the years, and you KNOW how much they hate losing an argument!

But as many of you have discovered yourselves, as long as nobody calls them on their BS, they'll think they are rightious and will resort to crying "foul" if you deviate from their "rules" of debate, while ignoring the fact they routinely violate their own "rules" (just read any thread within which shagdum replies, and it won't be 3 posts into it before he's cried "foul" and begins to explain his "rules" rather than stay on topic discussing substance). Debate either of them into a corner, they'll resort first to personal attacks, then when they've sucessfully made an arse out of themselves, WHOOPS ... they'll stomp their little feet and put you on their ignore list. Its just heartbreaking, I know.

 

[fossten]

Go crawl back under your mom's porch where you belong.

 

[hrmwrm]

What shagdum really means is that, unlike himself, I acutally have a life outside this little internet board where he likes to spend his pitiful life wasting more bandwidth arguing over debating techique than discussing actual topic substance. I rarely come here anymore and waste what little spare time I have debating technique w/ his ilk because I'd much rather spend it with my wife and kids at home. Sure, polemicist (thanks foxpaws) like shagdum and "Percy-piss-his-pants-Wetmore" fossten will try to paint me as a "troll" since I make only rare visits. They'll also try to paint me as a "christian hater" because I've repeatedly called them on their self-rightous, holier-than-thou, "Liberals are the root of all EVIL" BS and have made them eat their words numerous times over the years, and you KNOW how much they hate losing an argument!

But as many of you have discovered yourselves, as long as nobody calls them on their BS, they'll think they are rightious and will resort to crying "foul" if you deviate from their "rules" of debate, while ignoring the fact they routinely violate their own "rules" (just read any thread within which shagdum replies, and it won't be 3 posts into it before he's cried "foul" and begins to explain his "rules" rather than stay on topic discussing substance). Debate either of them into a corner, they'll resort first to personal attacks, then when they've sucessfully made an arse out of themselves, WHOOPS ... they'll stomp their little feet and put you on their ignore list. Its just heartbreaking, I know.

yeah, but for them ignorance is bliss and truth.

 

[Black87LSC]

We put people on our ignore lists who are too immature to have an intelligent conversation with. Johnny blah blah blah $hitpants brownmore is the perfect example of a troll. I blocked him only because I tried to have intelligent conversation with him and it was like talking to a wall, NO LOGIC AT ALL. I don't want to even waste my time since he's just going to be ignorant.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

We put people on our ignore lists who are too immature to have an intelligent conversation with. Johnny blah blah blah $hitpants brownmore is the perfect example of a troll. I blocked him only because I tried to have intelligent conversation with him and it was like talking to a wall, NO LOGIC AT ALL. I don't want to even waste my time since he's just going to be ignorant.

LOL, your very first post directed at me contained personal attacks and minimal attempt at intellegence OR logic, and YOU call ME immature? Sure, whatever dude, thanks for adding me to your ignore list, you've saved me a bunch of bandwidth. You've definately set a new record though for spinelessness ducking behind the ignore list after so few exchanges. You fit in nicely w/ shag and foss, have fun in your little circle-jerk of a "politics forum" here, hiding from truth and reality. Don't worry, my last day of vacation is tomorrow and I won't be wasting much more time here for awhile. You three have given me enough entertainment to last for a few months. :bowrofl:

 

[foxpaws]

So, about this 'ignore' list - it does seem odd that the right uses it and the left doesn't. So if we go back to the Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?! thread - this type of behavior would seem to indicate just the opposite. I think it is only conservatives on this site that block other members - therefore less likely to read opinions by others...

 

[hrmwrm]

So, about this 'ignore' list - it does seem odd that the right uses it and the left doesn't. So if we go back to the Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?! thread - this type of behavior would seem to indicate just the opposite. I think it is only conservatives on this site that block other members - therefore less likely to read opinions by others...

a perfect observation. makes that headline and the headline of this thread obviously false.

 

[Black87LSC]

So, about this 'ignore' list - it does seem odd that the right uses it and the left doesn't. So if we go back to the Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?! thread - this type of behavior would seem to indicate just the opposite. I think it is only conservatives on this site that block other members - therefore less likely to read opinions by others...

The left is ignorant to begin with, so they don't have to use the ignore button.

 

[fossten]

So, about this 'ignore' list - it does seem odd that the right uses it and the left doesn't. So if we go back to the Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?! thread - this type of behavior would seem to indicate just the opposite. I think it is only conservatives on this site that block other members - therefore less likely to read opinions by others...

Yawn. First of all,you're off topic. Second, is that really the best you've got? The fact is that some of us aren't willing to suffer fools. The people being ignored are typically haters and flame baiting trolls.

You'll note that I read your posts. Sorry, your attempt fails.

 

[fossten]

We put people on our ignore lists who are too immature to have an intelligent conversation with. Johnny blah blah blah $hitpants brownmore is the perfect example of a troll. I blocked him only because I tried to have intelligent conversation with him and it was like talking to a wall, NO LOGIC AT ALL. I don't want to even waste my time since he's just going to be ignorant.

Johnny is all hate and flame, no philosophy. He comes around every 6 months or so and trolls through here, probably in sync with his latest divorce or his latest encounter with one of the hated Christians. I've ignored him since long before people like fox came here.

 

[shagdrum]

So, about this 'ignore' list - it does seem odd that the right uses it and the left doesn't. So if we go back to the Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?! thread - this type of behavior would seem to indicate just the opposite. I think it is only conservatives on this site that block other members - therefore less likely to read opinions by others...

Catty...snarky...an attempt to perpetuate a stereotype about conservatives here that you know is false. Most would call that rude and inappropriate. I would call it propagandizing to marginalize.

There is a difference between seeking out and reading well thought out opposing viewpoints and getting distracted by trolls. One actually educates you, contributes to the debate and is worth your time (a positive) and the other only frustrates, gets you off topic, is not aimed at contributing to the debate and wastes your time (a negative). To ignore that distinction (which your comment does) is dishonest.

 

[fossten]

Catty...snarky...an attempt to perpetuate a stereotype you know is false. Most would call that rude and inappropriate. I would call it propagandizing to marginalize.

Fox needs to go shopping for some batteries.

 

[foxpaws]

Catty...snarky...an attempt to perpetuate a stereotype about conservatives here that you know is false. Most would call that rude and inappropriate. I would call it propagandizing to marginalize.

There is a difference between seeking out and reading well thought out opposing viewpoints and getting distracted by trolls. One actually educates you, contributes to the debate and is worth your time (a positive) and the other only frustrates, gets you off topic, is not aimed at contributing to the debate and wastes your time (a negative). To ignore that distinction (which your comment does) is dishonest.

shag - do you think that hrmwrm or Johnny B or whomever else you have on your 'ignore' list, might never bring forth an interesting idea? Aren't you ignoring the fact that quite often very polarizing viewpoints are a great way to explore where middle ground might lie? By removing them from your 'mix' you are in effect narrowing your scope, and therefore your arguments will be weaker for it. And addressing extremist points of view, such as yours, are often a great way to point how impotent the opposing side's arguments are.

Fox needs to go shopping for some batteries.

Foss - batteries? AC is ever so much better...

 

[Calabrio]

Foss - batteries? AC is ever so much better...

Have you tried it in the bath tub yet?

 

[foxpaws]

Wow Cal - you are full of yourself today - undies in a bind?

 

[shagdrum]

shag - do you think that hrmwrm or Johnny B or whomever else you have on your 'ignore' list, might never bring forth an interesting idea? Aren't you ignoring the fact that quite often very polarizing viewpoints are a great way to explore where middle ground might lie? By removing them from your 'mix' you are in effect narrowing your scope

Oh, I have you to more then make up for any "extreme perspective" they may offer, and you do it more articulately then they ever could hope to.

Whether or not they may, in rare instances, bring up an good point, it is far overshadowed by their habitual dishonesty, harassment and attempts to frustrate any honest explanation of opposing points of view and/or examination of the issues. In any cost/benefit analysis, they take away from the discussion much more then they ever contribute to it.

Also, what is so important in finding where the "middle ground" is? Is the "middle ground" somehow determinate of where the truth is?