Sen. Coburn: Pres, Congress "earned" death threats.

[Elfdart]

Crooks and Liars

Tom Coburn tried to rationalize the threats of violence and the anger at these town hall protests on Meet the Press today and was called out by Rachel Maddow for it. Dick Armey chimed in as well and tried to say that MoveOn.org was just as bad for running an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. As Rachel points out, they never ran that ad, not that it stopped Dick Armey from trying to say it again a bit later in the show. Coburn's statement was far enough over the top that even David Gregory refuted him.

MR. GREGORY: All right. But let’s talk about the tone of the debate. There have been death threats against members of Congress, there are Nazi references to members of Congress and to the president. Here are some of the images. The president being called a Nazi, his reform effort being called Nazi-like, referring to Nazi Germany, members of Congress being called the same. And then there was this image this week outside of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a town hall event that the president had, this man with a gun strapped to his leg held that sign, “It is time to water the tree of liberty.” It was a reference to that famous Thomas Jefferson quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That has become a motto for violence against the government. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, had that very quote on his shirt the day of the bombing of the Murrah building when 168 people were killed.

Senator Coburn, you are from Oklahoma. When this element comes out in larger numbers because of this debate, what, what troubles you about that?

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): Well, I’m, I’m troubled anytime when we, we stop having confidence in, in our government. But we’ve earned it. You know, this debate isn’t about health care. Health care’s the symptom. The debate is an uncontrolled federal government that’s going to run--50 percent of everything we’re spending this year we’re borrowing from the next generation. You...

MR. GREGORY: That’s—but wait, hold on, I want to stop you there. I’m talking about the tone. I am talking about violence against the government. That’s what this is synonymous with.

SEN. COBURN: The, the—but the tone is based on fear of loss of control of their own government. What, what is the genesis behind people going to such extreme statements? What is it? We, we have lost the confidence, to a certain degree, and it’s much worse than when Tom was the, the, the leader of the Senate. We have, we have raised the question of whether or not we’re legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests. And that’s the question. The, the mail volume of all the senators didn’t go up based on the healthcare debate, the mail volume went up when we started spending away our future indiscriminately. And that’s not Republican or Democrat, that has been a problem for years. But it’s exacerbated now that we’re in the kind of financial situation and economic situation.

Every excuse this fucktard of a senator made applies in spades to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

By the way, this is the same Tom Coburn who thought it was "a new low" when Schindler's List was shown on network TV. Why? Mainly because of the tits! He also didn't like the violence and bad language, of course.

[Samuel]

But we’ve earned it. You know, this debate isn’t about health care. Health care’s the symptom. The debate is an uncontrolled federal government that’s going to run--50 percent of everything we’re spending this year we’re borrowing from the next generation. You...

Is he really this stupid or is he a complete sociopath?

[Axis Kast]

Reading that transcript, it appears that Senator Coburn was speaking about the loss of confidence in government, not specific acts of violence, intimidation, or despicable political theater. Millions of Americans are opposed to Obama's health care agenda (many of them because they are opposed to Democrats for reasons that do not have any basis in fact). It isn't surprising that Coburn wants to spin, "Let's talk about the nuts on your side," into, "Let's talk about the millions of people who think Obama's taking this country down the toilet."

Nobody but the lunatic fringe believes that death threats, violence, or intimidation of any kind constitute acceptable behavior - even those who have a malfunctioning concept of what "dialogue" looks and feels like. Bush didn't deserve comparisons to Hitler. Obama doesn't deserve them. It was pathetic then; it's pathetic now.

The Obama White House has badly bungled this political fight. Republicans aren't going to do any hard soul-searching because militia nuts are hungry for camera time. They aren't going to show remorse for opposing Obama - and not because the Democrats bashed "their guy," with or without cause, but because, like so many others in this world, they've identified the other side of the issue, feel that it's the wrong one, and have decided that "fools" merit no mercy from a sharp tongue. It's fun. It's invigorating. The media is helping them "win" the argument: Republicans aren't discouraged when they see arrests of people "testing" their gun rights; but everybody has to take notice when we hear about the "failure" or the "stumble" of "Obamacare" and the complete lack of preparedness for such outcomes by the White House.

[Darth Wong]

It isn't surprising that Coburn wants to spin, "Let's talk about the nuts on your side," into, "Let's talk about the millions of people who think Obama's taking this country down the toilet."

It's the same people. I think that's the subtext his interlocutor missed: the fact that the people spouting all of this "Obama is taking us down the road to communism" nonsense are the very same deranged hate-filled lunatics we're looking at in these videos. Nobody wants to admit that the Republicans have willingly thrown their hat in with the Tim McVeighs of this world. They are encouraging them, praising them, inciting them, and glorifying them.

[Axis Kast]

It's the same people. I think that's the subtext his interlocutor missed: the fact that the people spouting all of this "Obama is taking us down the road to communism" nonsense are the very same deranged hate-filled lunatics we're looking at in these videos.

And what evidence can you provide to sustain this kind of argument? By the same specious logic, you and other self-described liberals have been accused of sympathy for terrorists.

The train of thinking you have used, while wrong, is very simple: "I am an intelligent person. I only believe things that are objectively true. I am not special: if I can find objective truth, nobody else has any excuse not to do the same. The only reasons one would miss these objective truths, which are self-evident and therefore undeniable even to the most ignorant, is if one has dark, ulterior motives."

Nobody needs to be "hate-filled" to adhere slavishly to assumptions that soon become "the conventional thinking." People who accuse Obama of private designs on the free-market ethos that is often seen as a defining hallmark of this country aren't necessarily mean and spite-filled and evil - they're just opinionated, and often obstinate.

Republicans, rank and file, have not "willingly thrown their hat in with the Tim McVeighs of this world." Every time a Republican doesn't rush out to spit calumny on somebody with extreme right-wing views, we hear this nonsense. Republicans can no more be expected to mount ideological purity or apologetic ass-covering campaigns against hate-mongers than you can be expected to do the same for left-wing groups than can Democrats.

Republicans mustn't all agree with whomever they don't denounce. I recall that you once argued long and hard to substantiate the position that Rush Limbaugh was the essentially undisputed leader of the Republican Party. Months ago, a U.S.A. Today poll revealed that only thirteen percent of Republicans considered him to be that leader - a mere fraction of the people who tune in each broadcast. Meanwhile, upwards of thirty percent of party members were disappointed in the direction that they felt the party was headed.

[Darth Wong]

It's the same people. I think that's the subtext his interlocutor missed: the fact that the people spouting all of this "Obama is taking us down the road to communism" nonsense are the very same deranged hate-filled lunatics we're looking at in these videos.

And what evidence can you provide to sustain this kind of argument?

It's a valid inference. If they honestly do believe that Obama is turning the US into the USSR, they have a patriotic duty to oppose him angrily, vehemently, perhaps even violently. Anything else would be cowardice.

By the same specious logic, you and other self-described liberals have been accused of sympathy for terrorists.

Bullshit. You're just adopting your tired old method of trying to equate everything on the right to something on the left.

The train of thinking you have used, while wrong, is very simple: "I am an intelligent person. I only believe things that are objectively true. I am not special: if I can find objective truth, nobody else has any excuse not to do the same. The only reasons one would miss these objective truths, which are self-evident and therefore undeniable even to the most ignorant, is if one has dark, ulterior motives."

Your worthless assumptions and ridiculous attempts to play armchair psychoanalyst have no bearing on my argument or my character, and I'm quite frankly tired of your bullshit. This is not the first time you've tried pulling this completely evidence-free armchair psychoanalyst bullshit, and I've had enough of it. You will either produce some kind of credible source for your bizarre inferences about all people who hold opinions similar to mine on this issue or you will concede. Your idiotic assumption about my reasoning completely ignores the possibility that I simply think they're morons: a doubly idiotic assumption because my opinion of the low intelligence of the average person is well-known here.

Nobody needs to be "hate-filled" to adhere slavishly to assumptions that soon become "the conventional thinking." People who accuse Obama of private designs on the free-market ethos that is often seen as a defining hallmark of this country aren't necessarily mean and spite-filled and evil - they're just opinionated, and often obstinate.

Bullshit. These people think Obama is Hitler and/or Stalin. If they're sincere in this beliief, they should be hate-filled. The next Hitler or Stalin would deserve no less.

[Axis Kast]

It's a valid inference. If they honestly do believe that Obama is turning the US into the USSR, they have a patriotic duty to oppose him angrily, vehemently, perhaps even violently. Anything else would be cowardice.

It is not a valid inference at all. You try to substantiate it with an enormous hypothetical - and a subtle shifting of goalposts. Many people do honestly believe that Obama's healthcare package would be inefficient, ineffective, inconsistent with established national values, influenced by social agendas they oppose (namely, abortion, but also, by extension, tolerance of euthanasia), and prohibitively expensive. Nowhere has it been proven that most Republicans believe that Obama has begun transforming us into a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. People do contend that he is sympathetic to "European socialism," in which context they mean a nanny state that stifles private industry and innovation. They sometimes make political hay by calling this communism, which is an evocative, and, in American colloquial usage, loaded, term. No matter how wrong any of those attitudes are, they are not what you have described.

Bullshit. You're just adopting your tired old method of trying to equate everything on the right to something on the left.

You aren't speaking about a fringe minority, or stealing snippets of soundbites and trying to force words into other people's mouths in order to accuse them of the ridiculous? Let us see the survey evidence you've amassed, then, in order to justify your impression of the attitude of Americans at large.

Your worthless assumptions and ridiculous attempts to play armchair psychoanalyst have no bearing on my argument or my character, and I'm quite frankly tired of your bullshit. This is not the first time you've tried pulling this completely evidence-free armchair psychoanalyst bullshit, and I've had enough of it. You will either produce some kind of credible source for your bizarre inferences about all people who hold opinions similar to mine on this issue or you will concede. Your idiotic assumption about my reasoning completely ignores the possibility that I simply think they're morons: a doubly idiotic assumption because my opinion of the low intelligence of the average person is well-known here.

You have provided no evidence for your opinion. All you have done here today is boldly - and baldly - pronounce that millions of Americans are "deranged, hate-filled lunatics" who identify as members of the militia. You have done this be referring to hysterics and elaborate political theater involving specific personalities on a television screen. Rush Limbaugh's is an eloquent case study of why your assumptions about who believes what, based on television appearances or lack of active condemnation, cannot be accepted at face value. What else shall one conclude except that you cannot imagine that so many people could be wrong "in good faith," and must impute to them some kind of literally evil agenda?

Bullshit. These people think Obama is Hitler and/or Stalin. If they're sincere in this beliief, they should be hate-filled. The next Hitler or Stalin would deserve no less.

Prove it.

[Samuel]

inconsistent with established national values,

What does that mean?

You aren't speaking about a fringe minority, or stealing snippets of soundbites and trying to force words into other people's mouths in order to accuse them of the ridiculous? Let us see the survey evidence you've amassed, then, in order to justify your impression of the attitude of Americans at large.

The fact these people exist and are not immediately laughed off the stage or speak to crowds that cheer certainly helps reinforce the impression. Remember the "he is not an American citizen"?

Bullshit. These people think Obama is Hitler and/or Stalin. If they're sincere in this beliief, they should be hate-filled. The next Hitler or Stalin would deserve no less.

Prove it.

Prove that taking out Hitler or Stalin is a good deed or that people think he is Hitalin?

[Patrick Degan]

Republicans, rank and file, have not "willingly thrown their hat in with the Tim McVeighs of this world." Every time a Republican doesn't rush out to spit calumny on somebody with extreme right-wing views, we hear this nonsense. Republicans can no more be expected to mount ideological purity or apologetic ass-covering campaigns against hate-mongers than you can be expected to do the same for left-wing groups than can Democrats.

Republicans mustn't all agree with whomever they don't denounce. I recall that you once argued long and hard to substantiate the position that Rush Limbaugh was the essentially undisputed leader of the Republican Party. Months ago, a U.S.A. Today poll revealed that only thirteen percent of Republicans considered him to be that leader - a mere fraction of the people who tune in each broadcast. Meanwhile, upwards of thirty percent of party members were disappointed in the direction that they felt the party was headed.

Then why aren't these Republicans doing anything to take back control of their party from the freaks? Why do they still put up with Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, and Palin as their public face? Why haven't they tossed Yukon Barbie under the bus for spewing lunacy about death panels? Why doesn't the GOP leadership do anything to put leashes on the rabble-rousers? Why instead did we have the spectacle of Michael Steele bowing and scraping before the altar of Limbaugh to take back just one little statement of criticism? Why haven't leading Senate and House Republicans denounced the stage-rioters at townhall meetings? Why aren't they boycotting FoxNoise? It's been going on for years and years now, they've had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that they will not embrace or tolerate the whack-a-loon fringe and yet they've not done so. We have not seen mass-exoduses, or mass-purges, from the GOP over principles of democratic tolerance. Some random poll taken a few months ago is meaningless as an indicator of anything.

Years ago, when Jerry Falwell said on TV that "every good Christian" should oppose Sandra Day O'Connor's ascension to the Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) shot right back saying that "every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell in the ass". By their own actions, or lack thereof, today's Republicans, from rank-and-file to top-brass, have demonstrated themselves as quite comfortable or at the least quiescent with the frothing-at-the-mouth insanity which is the Rightard conception of "political discourse".

[Phillip Hone]

Bullshit. These people think Obama is Hitler and/or Stalin. If they're sincere in this beliief, they should be hate-filled. The next Hitler or Stalin would deserve no less.

Prove it.

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and a large variety of other popular right wing media people believe Obama-Hitler or Obama-Stalin comparisons are completely valid. Steve Malzburg has referred to Obama's future army of "brown shirts" and believes that the Obama administration is leading America to fascism. All of these people have very large and fairly devoted audiences. There is a huge part of the Republican party, far beyond a mere fringe group, that considers Obama the "next Hitler". Anyone who denies this either doesn't own a radio or has never watched FOX.

Unfortunately, I inadvertently soak up about an hour of right wing talk radio per day, if not more. For this reason I am pretty well versed in the beliefs of the Republican movement.

[Darth Wong]

Nowhere has it been proven that most Republicans believe that Obama has begun transforming us into a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I am really getting tired of your godddamned lies about other peoples' statements, you fucking dishonest piece of shit. This is what I said, remember?

the people spouting all of this "Obama is taking us down the road to communism" nonsense are the very same deranged hate-filled lunatics we're looking at in these videos.

I did not say that "most" Republicans belong to this group. What I did say is that this group, however large a proportion of Republicans they are (and while it might not necessarily be "most", it is certainly a group powerful enough for the leadership to refuse to offend them), is the same hate-filled lunatics we see at these events. I have explained why they should logically be hate-filled if they are sincere in their claims about Obama, and you have failed to refute that logic.

You are shifting goalposts by altering my argument, you worthless piece of shit. And I am really getting tired of the way you casually strawman my arguments in order to attack them, asshole. It is time for you to admit that you misrepresented my argument, and quite frankly, I suspect you did so intentionally, because you're just trying to score points any way you can.

[Axis Kast]

What does that mean?

It's typically code-speak for the prominence of "free market values" or the "capitalist ethos" in visions of the imagined American community. Republicans will often tell you that America is - and has been - synonymous with that kind of marketplace behavior. As Mike has said elsewhere, these are assumptions, rather than testable theories. The people who hold these views almost uniformly ignore the cultural impact of long-running and popular programs such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. When somebody suggests federal intervention in the marketplace, either for regulatory purposes or to optimize social outcomes, these individuals can usually be relied upon to express a vaguely-articulated fear that any "unnatural" adjustment of the marketplace will diminish the incentive for people to do hard work nationwide.

The fact these people exist and are not immediately laughed off the stage or speak to crowds that cheer certainly helps reinforce the impression. Remember the "he is not an American citizen"?

The fact that these people exist at all is not evidence that they represent most Americans.

The assumption that somebody else - anybody else - is responsible for their behavior is unsound. An individual's political values cannot be measured as a function of "push back" against the attitudes of talking heads whose opinions they can dismiss at will, and who are often selected to appear as analysts or spokespersons based on whether or not they can be relied upon to say something incendiary.

Rush Limbaugh, again, is the case-in-point. He's got, what, thirty or forty million listeners at last count? Maybe more? Only thirteen percent of Republicans considered him the leader of the Republican Party - and then during a time when the spat with Michael Steele was front-page news.

Prove that taking out Hitler or Stalin is a good deed or that people think he is Hitalin?

I asked him to prove that the typical Republican, or the typical opponent of "Obamacare," believes that Obama is going to institute either a Fascist dictatorship, or a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Then why aren't these Republicans doing anything to take back control of their party from the freaks? Why do they still put up with Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, and Palin as their public face? Why haven't they tossed Yukon Barbie under the bus for spewing lunacy about death panels? Why doesn't the GOP leadership do anything to put leashes on the rabble-rousers? Why instead did we have the spectacle of Michael Steele bowing and scraping before the altar of Limbaugh to take back just one little statement of criticism? Why haven't leading Senate and House Republicans denounced the stage-rioters at townhall meetings? Why aren't they boycotting FoxNoise? It's been going on for years and years now, they've had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that they will not embrace or tolerate the whack-a-loon fringe and yet they've not done so. We have not seen mass-exoduses, or mass-purges, from the GOP over principles of democratic tolerance. Some random poll taken a few months ago is meaningless as an indicator of anything.

This isn't evidence of people's political beliefs; it's a list of things over which you, personally, are bitter. Like Samuel, you rely throughout on the reader's implicit agreement with your governing assumption - that his or her political beliefs can be known based on the battles he or she chooses to fight, the time, place, content, and significance of which are chosen arbitrarily, by you.

You lead off with the assertion that the Republican Party has been hijacked, and everybody knows it. Ergo, it must be "rescued" by the well-meaning. You don't even admit of the possibility that many Republicans believe that it is simply leaderless - or that one-third are displeased with the current state-of-affairs. What about people of a particular persuasion who simply choose to remain silent? American political parties aren't nearly as responsive as European political parties, which require at least a small degree of active participation. Many Democrats and Republicans can place themselves on the spectrum, specify the "big issue(s)" that keeps them going, and turn up on Election Day. They aren't interested in much else. You've come along and insisted that they must be - for, if they are not, you can label them as haters.

Did it ever occur to you that they simply don't care what Savage or Palin have to say? Limbaugh is clearly received more readily as an entertainer than a political leader: he commands only a fraction (and not a very big one) in any kind of leadership rack-and-stack. Palin's numbers are, to put it only mildly, pathetic. Why should anyone feel compelled to reply to what she says? Your arguments, again and again, revolve around a concept of political engagement that is simply alien to most Americans. Many of them might ask, "What good would it do?" You run into collective action problems at every next breath.

I can only imagine why Senate and House Republicans haven't condemned the town hall nonsense - if indeed they haven't. Perhaps, however, you should think about the kinds of things they expect to have to answer for to their constituents. Come election time, are Republicans thinking, "I am really going to stick it to my elected representative at the ballot box because I think he approves of those whackos"? Like Mike, you haven't any evidence to back up your theory that Republicans even feel ownership of, or responsibility for, these people. You simply assign it to them, and then expect action.

Why boycott Fox News? Are you going to regale us with evidence that people who watch Fox News are extremists, or support the militia movement?

Mass purges from the Republican Party? Most Republicans interact with the Republican Party precisely once in their lives: when they register at the appropriate voting age. The average American will not engage in political activity more strenuous than polling, if they do indeed go beyond merely voting.

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and a large variety of other popular right wing media people believe Obama-Hitler or Obama-Stalin comparisons are completely valid. Steve Malzburg has referred to Obama's future army of "brown shirts" and believes that the Obama administration is leading America to fascism. All of these people have very large and fairly devoted audiences. There is a huge part of the Republican party, far beyond a mere fringe group, that considers Obama the "next Hitler". Anyone who denies this either doesn't own a radio or has never watched FOX.

Who the fuck is Steve Malzburg? Why should I care, for one single moment, what he's got to say to the airwaves? How does Steve Malzburg affect my life? How does he endanger my values in any tangible way?

All of the people you've mentioned have large audiences. So do train wrecks. People tune in to see fur fly. I refer you, for the third or fourth time, to the USA Today poll which determined that Rush Limbaugh is considered a leader of the Republican Party by only thirteen percent of Republicans.

I am really getting tired of your godddamned lies about other peoples' statements, you fucking dishonest piece of shit. This is what I said, remember?

Did you, or did you not, say that "these people," referring to most Republicans - the same group that you said was in sympathy with militia types like McVeigh - believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin?

I did not say that "most" Republicans belong to this group. What I did say is that this group, however large a proportion of Republicans they are (and while it might not necessarily be "most", it is certainly a group powerful enough for the leadership to refuse to offend them), is the same hate-filled lunatics we see at these events. I have explained why they should logically be hate-filled if they are sincere in their claims about Obama, and you have failed to refute that logic.

I said that Coburn wanted to move from talking to "nuts" to talking about the millions of Americans who also found Obama's policies objectionable - he identified the common strain of thought, such as it existed. You then replied, "It's the same people." I understood you to be arguing that the number of Republicans who identify with militia types number in the millions.

A large number of folks in the Republican Party think that Obama is taking us "down the toilet" - which is not the same as saying that he's turning us into the U.S.S.R. I think more Republicans are concerned that he's taking us toward a staggering tax burden and a "broken," innovation-starved healthcare system that once resemble gourmet buffet, yet will ultimately resemble a slops line. Again, I think that's grievously flawed, but represents folks' honest convictions.

I'd also be interested to hear you address why you believe that Republicans have avoided focusing on the lunatic fringe as a function of secret agreement or approval, or else fear of being attacked, instead of fear of being "trapped" into talking about that when what they want to be seen doing is attacking Obama or emphasizing that their "number is legion." No Republican is going to lose points for saying, "I think the debate needs to be civil. I think the other side is wrong, and we can't let them forget it, but there's no place for violence."

[Phillip Hone]

Who the fuck is Steve Malzburg? Why should I care, for one single moment, what he's got to say to the airwaves? How does Steve Malzburg affect my life? How does he endanger my values in any tangible way?

All of the people you've mentioned have large audiences. So do train wrecks. People tune in to see fur fly. I refer you, for the third or fourth time, to the USA Today poll which determined that Rush Limbaugh is considered a leader of the Republican Party by only thirteen percent of Republicans.

So the opinions stated in the main stream right-wing media do not at all reflect the opinions of right-wingers? It doesn't matter if people consider Limbaugh a leader of the party - the important thing is that a lot of people listen to him. Same goes for Glenn Beck. You can't just write off their audiences as only listening to them out of morbid fascination.

[Darth Wong]

I am really getting tired of your godddamned lies about other peoples' statements, you fucking dishonest piece of shit. This is what I said, remember?

Did you, or did you not, say that "these people," referring to most Republicans - the same group that you said was in sympathy with militia types like McVeigh - believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin?

No I did not, you lying sack of shit. I said that "these people", referring to the extremists, believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin, and that the Republicans have thrown their hat in with them, ie- they are perfectly willing to be aligned with them and are not willing to repudiate their bullshit.

I said that Coburn wanted to move from talking to "nuts" to talking about the millions of Americans who also found Obama's policies objectionable - he identified the common strain of thought, such as it existed. You then replied, "It's the same people." I understood you to be arguing that the number of Republicans who identify with militia types number in the millions.

Yes, they number in the millions. There are three hundred million people in the United States, remember?

A large number of folks in the Republican Party think that Obama is taking us "down the toilet" - which is not the same as saying that he's turning us into the U.S.S.R. I think more Republicans are concerned that he's taking us toward a staggering tax burden and a "broken," innovation-starved healthcare system that once resemble gourmet buffet, yet will ultimately resemble a slops line. Again, I think that's grievously flawed, but represents folks' honest convictions.

I'd also be interested to hear you address why you believe that Republicans have avoided focusing on the lunatic fringe as a function of secret agreement or approval, or else fear of being attacked, instead of fear of being "trapped" into talking about that when what they want to be seen doing is attacking Obama or emphasizing that their "number is legion." No Republican is going to lose points for saying, "I think the debate needs to be civil. I think the other side is wrong, and we can't let them forget it, but there's no place for violence."

Who gives a shit what internal justifications they give for their behaviour? The fact is that they know perfectly well that they are aligned with these lunatics, and are making no effort to disavow that alliance.

It never fails; with each new post, you attempt to put yet another made-up or distorted argument into my mouth. The sheer consistency with which you employ this tactic, when you aren't playing armchair psychoanalyst, says volumes about the intrinsic quality of your debating position.

[erik_t]

Who the fuck is Steve Malzburg? Why should I care, for one single moment, what he's got to say to the airwaves? How does Steve Malzburg affect my life? How does he endanger my values in any tangible way?

All of the people you've mentioned have large audiences. So do train wrecks. People tune in to see fur fly. I refer you, for the third or fourth time, to the USA Today poll which determined that Rush Limbaugh is considered a leader of the Republican Party by only thirteen percent of Republicans.

So the opinions stated in the main stream right-wing media do not at all reflect the opinions of right-wingers? It doesn't matter if people consider Limbaugh a leader of the party - the important thing is that a lot of people listen to him. Same goes for Glenn Beck. You can't just write off their audiences as only listening to them out of morbid fascination.

The question of the day, of course, is the following: is Axis being intentionally dishonest or unintentionally retarded?

Limbaugh, at 13%, got more responses than any other individual.



Mind you, that's the question of the day every day.

[Darth Wong]

It's amazing that Kast can actually use that 13% figure in defense of his position with a straight face. If 13% of Republicans consider Rush Limbaugh a fucking LEADER of the Republican party, that's a breathtakingly large number, because that's a very extreme position to take. The number of people who are merely sympathetic to his opinions must be much larger than the number of people who actually consider him a leader of the party.

[Axis Kast]

So the opinions stated in the main stream right-wing media do not at all reflect the opinions of right-wingers?

Do you listen to radio, Mr. Goose? I'm going to assume that you do. Has a DJ ever said something that you found tasteless, or with which you strongly disagreed? I'm going to assume so. Obviously, he or she did not reflect your opinions. You chose to listen for reasons not having to do with seeking validation or thought-guidance.

Opinions stated in the main stream right-wing media are broadly consistent with right-wing thought. Limbaugh is going to resound more often with the crowd that favors deregulation, single-payer healthcare, and abortion than with those who do not. His opinions may seem stilted or severe, but the dissonance will be less. However, Limbaugh is an entertainer, first and foremost. Like the television news media, he chooses topics and guests with an eye toward provocation of listeners.

One obvious, if imperfect, test of whether his opinions reflect those of right-wingers generally, and whether he is seen as an important figure beyond the airwaves (i.e., in the political arena), is to see how many Republicans count him a leader of their party - which is what you think he is, too. The number is rather unimpressive. The Gallup poll provided by erik_t sustains this: 47% of Republicans couldn't come up with a name when asked for a cold response about the primary spokesperson for the Republican Party. When offered a list, 10% of Republicans identified Limbaugh as that spokesman.

No I did not, you lying sack of shit. I said that "these people", referring to the extremists, believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin, and that the Republicans have thrown their hat in with them, ie- they are perfectly willing to be aligned with them and are not willing to repudiate their bullshit.

Prove it. Silence is not proof of interest in affiliation. I have argued that they gain nothing from getting into discussions of whether or not they approve of the behavior of nuts - they have much more reason to want to use any air time they get to call out Democrats and Obama, not admit that people who identify as Republicans, or conservatives, are doing despicable things.

Yes, they number in the millions. There are three hundred million people in the United States, remember?

Prove it.

Who gives a shit what internal justifications they give for their behaviour? The fact is that they know perfectly well that they are aligned with these lunatics, and are making no effort to disavow that alliance.

There is an "alliance" only according to their political opponents. Once again, silence cannot be construed as approval or endorsement - especially not when these people are conducting political theater for the benefit of the cameras. You are the one concerned about seeing some repudiation. Where is your proof that Republicans actually think about these people? That Republicans feel, or are, responsible for them? You've imputed responsibility because you want the Republican Party to do something. That doesn't make it credible.

It never fails; with each new post, you attempt to put yet another made-up or distorted argument into my mouth. The sheer consistency with which you employ this tactic, when you aren't playing armchair psychoanalyst, says volumes about the intrinsic quality of your debating position.

You just admitted that you're talking about millions of people - and haven't provided a shred of evidence. In fact, all you've done so far is insist that the measure of a man's political beliefs ... is his relation to somebody whom he doesn't know personally, and whose behavior is unlikely to affect his life in the least.

It's amazing that Kast can actually use that 13% figure in defense of his position with a straight face. If 13% of Republicans consider Rush Limbaugh a fucking LEADER of the Republican party, that's a breathtakingly large number, because that's a very extreme position to take. The number of people who are merely sympathetic to his opinions must be much larger than the number of people who actually consider him a leader of the party.

The number is actually 10%, including people who are not actually members of the Republican Party, and responding to a given set of options. Nearly 50% of Republicans declined to offer a name when left completely to their own devices.

Please do provide some data proving the claims you've made in this thread regarding the popularity of the militia movement within the Republican Party, and among Republican politicians. Please substantiate your argument that one can know a man's political beliefs by evaluating his response to people he's never met.

[Darth Wong]

No I did not, you lying sack of shit. I said that "these people", referring to the extremists, believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin, and that the Republicans have thrown their hat in with them, ie- they are perfectly willing to be aligned with them and are not willing to repudiate their bullshit.

Prove it. Silence is not proof of interest in affiliation.

Oh right, silence means nothing from the same party which said Obama had to forcefully reject Reverend Wright's teachings or else be accused of agreeing with them by default?

I have argued that they gain nothing from getting into discussions of whether or not they approve of the behavior of nuts - they have much more reason to want to use any air time they get to call out Democrats and Obama, not admit that people who identify as Republicans, or conservatives, are doing despicable things.

Bullshit. They could prove that the left is wrong and that the Republican party is not aligned with the nutjobs. The problem is that they obviously don't see that as a net gain, or they would do it, wouldn't they?

Yes, they number in the millions. There are three hundred million people in the United States, remember?

Prove it.

You are suggesting that less than 1% of people in America believe in this? Even though almost a third of people take this deranged "Birther" bullshit seriously in polls? Even though the right-wig media pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have millions of fans? You're just being an evasive little shit now.

Who gives a shit what internal justifications they give for their behaviour? The fact is that they know perfectly well that they are aligned with these lunatics, and are making no effort to disavow that alliance.

There is an "alliance" only according to their political opponents. Once again, silence cannot be construed as approval or endorsement - especially not when these people are conducting political theater for the benefit of the cameras. You are the one concerned about seeing some repudiation. Where is your proof that Republicans actually think about these people? That Republicans feel, or are, responsible for them? You've imputed responsibility because you want the Republican Party to do something. That doesn't make it credible.

Two words: Reverend Wright. By the Republicans' own repeated declarations, failure to forcefully repudiate such hate (and this is far too widely disseminated to ignore as "obscure") is tacit approval. They were very vehement about this last year, and they must know how it looks if they refuse to repudiate this movement.

<snip repetitions>
Please do provide some data proving the claims you've made in this thread regarding the popularity of the militia movement within the Republican Party, and among Republican politicians.

See above.

Please substantiate your argument that one can know a man's political beliefs by evaluating his response to people he's never met.

Don't be an idiot. Meeting someone in person has absolutely nothing to do with the importance of your response to his views. If someone declares that Hitler was right about the Jews and you nod and say "Hmmm, I would prefer not to voice an opinion on that at this time", you know perfectly well how people would react, and you know that they would have good reason to.

PS. Perhaps you've forgotten that this entire thread is about a Republican senator who is publicly making excuses for these nutjobs. If more than 99% of Republicans reject this thinking, would he not be insane to do this?

[Axis Kast]

Oh right, silence means nothing from the same party which said Obama had to forcefully reject Reverend Wright's teachings or else be accused of agreeing with them by default?

Tu quoque.

You are, in fact, agreeing with me, unless it is your contention that in failing to repudiate Wright, Obama was expressing agreement.

Bullshit. They could prove that the left is wrong and that the Republican party is not aligned with the nutjobs. The problem is that they obviously don't see that as a net gain, or they would do it, wouldn't they?

That's quite right: they don't see a net benefit. Would there be social benefit? Absolutely. Are they more concerned with the political benefit of time to rally and rant? Seems so. The course of action you proscribed would be refreshing and, from my point of view, welcome. Do please explain, however, why Republican politicians' failure to do this represents agreement, rather than a conscious strategy of playing attack politics.

You are suggesting that less than 1% of people in America believe in this? Even though almost a third of people take this deranged "Birther" bullshit seriously in polls? Even though the right-wig media pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have millions of fans? You're just being an evasive little shit now.

I am suggesting that if you hold the position that millions of Republicans are sympathetic to, or identify with, anti-government militia, you should be able to muster some statistics to prove it.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh does not mean that one identifies with a guy who blew up a federal building.

Two words: Reverend Wright. By the Republicans' own repeated declarations, failure to forcefully repudiate such hate (and this is far too widely disseminated to ignore as "obscure") is tacit approval. They were very vehement about this last year, and they must know how it looks if they refuse to repudiate this movement.

Dealt with above.

Don't be an idiot. Meeting someone in person has absolutely nothing to do with the importance of your response to his views. If someone declares that Hitler was right about the Jews and you nod and say "Hmmm, I would prefer not to voice an opinion on that at this time", you know perfectly well how people would react, and you know that they would have good reason to.

Proximity has everything to do with it. Who is declaring a necessity of responsibility? You? Why do you matter? This very argument may be a study in uselessness. If it is hopeless even to fight for a better understanding, one political affiliation of another, in spite of the disagreements that proliferate between them, then who can be expected to spend time crusading for ideals on the doorsteps of strangers? Are you really asking for letter campaigns to nameless interns? For phone-ins to news media most people have lost faith in?

Furthermore, why, identifying as a Republican, should I take any pains at all - and not just great ones - to speak to anyone about my opinion of the people showing up with guns to these town hall events? Why does my disapproval matter? Who will it affect? If a politician went on TV and made such an appeal, what kind of results would it generate? I could fault them for cynicism if they answered, "Well, I wouldn't have anything to gain. They wouldn't listen, and I might be misunderstood as supporting Obama, or saying we shouldn't argue passionately." It's a selfish, highly instrumental argument, but sound - especially if one doesn't believe that the lunatic fringe will back off just because a politician advised it, or called their behavior unacceptable and wrong.

PS. Perhaps you've forgotten that this entire thread is about a Republican senator who is publicly making excuses for these nutjobs. If more than 99% of Republicans reject this thinking, would he not be insane to do this?

As I read it, the Senator was referring to a loss of confidence in government, not the lunacy of the militia.

[Patrick Degan]

Then why aren't these Republicans doing anything to take back control of their party from the freaks? Why do they still put up with Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity, and Palin as their public face? Why haven't they tossed Yukon Barbie under the bus for spewing lunacy about death panels? Why doesn't the GOP leadership do anything to put leashes on the rabble-rousers? Why instead did we have the spectacle of Michael Steele bowing and scraping before the altar of Limbaugh to take back just one little statement of criticism? Why haven't leading Senate and House Republicans denounced the stage-rioters at townhall meetings? Why aren't they boycotting FoxNoise? It's been going on for years and years now, they've had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that they will not embrace or tolerate the whack-a-loon fringe and yet they've not done so. We have not seen mass-exoduses, or mass-purges, from the GOP over principles of democratic tolerance. Some random poll taken a few months ago is meaningless as an indicator of anything.

This isn't evidence of people's political beliefs; it's a list of things over which you, personally, are bitter.

Appeal to Motive Fallacy, as well as rank bullshit. How typical of you.

Like Samuel, you rely throughout on the reader's implicit agreement with your governing assumption - that his or her political beliefs can be known based on the battles he or she chooses to fight, the time, place, content, and significance of which are chosen arbitrarily, by you.

You lead off with the assertion that the Republican Party has been hijacked, and everybody knows it.

Demonstrable observation, not "assertion". Learn the difference.

Ergo, it must be "rescued" by the well-meaning. You don't even admit of the possibility that many Republicans believe that it is simply leaderless - or that one-third are displeased with the current state-of-affairs. What about people of a particular persuasion who simply choose to remain silent? American political parties aren't nearly as responsive as European political parties, which require at least a small degree of active participation. Many Democrats and Republicans can place themselves on the spectrum, specify the "big issue(s)" that keeps them going, and turn up on Election Day. They aren't interested in much else. You've come along and insisted that they must be - for, if they are not, you can label them as haters.

I can label, and have labeled, them as people who have either acquiesced in the takeover of their party by extremists or have actively supported and abetted the takeover of the party by extremists (such as the very GOP senators and congressmen who, on floor debates, cheerfully repeat Sarah Palin's "death panel" bullshit instead of dismissing it for the obvious insanity that it is). Your strawmandering does not erase that, no matter how much you really really really wish it did.

Did it ever occur to you that they simply don't care what Savage or Palin have to say? Limbaugh is clearly received more readily as an entertainer than a political leader: he commands only a fraction (and not a very big one) in any kind of leadership rack-and-stack. Palin's numbers are, to put it only mildly, pathetic. Why should anyone feel compelled to reply to what she says? Your arguments, again and again, revolve around a concept of political engagement that is simply alien to most Americans. Many of them might ask, "What good would it do?" You run into collective action problems at every next breath.

Odd, isn't it? The very party which can organise itself to win elections and generate block-opposition to Obama suddenly cannot organise itself to slap down the very extremists who are now defining the party. How convenient, as it allows you to dodge the issue and absolve Republicans of either their apathy or their complicity in the rise of Right Wing extremism within their ranks.

Why should anybody feel compelled to reply to Sarah Palin's horseshit? Because lies must be challenged. They cannot simply go unanswered. Especially when they bear upon debate which affects the future lives of millions of Americans. Are you really so far gone that this basic equation is beyond your dimmest comprehension?

I can only imagine why Senate and House Republicans haven't condemned the town hall nonsense - if indeed they haven't. Perhaps, however, you should think about the kinds of things they expect to have to answer for to their constituents. Come election time, are Republicans thinking, "I am really going to stick it to my elected representative at the ballot box because I think he approves of those whackos"? Like Mike, you haven't any evidence to back up your theory that Republicans even feel ownership of, or responsibility for, these people. You simply assign it to them, and then expect action.

I have observation on my side. I'm sorry if this eludes your feeble intellectual grasp.

Why boycott Fox News? Are you going to regale us with evidence that people who watch Fox News are extremists, or support the militia movement?

I see. You're going to play your "absolute evidence NOW or no-proof" game yet again. Seven years of getting your sorry ass kicked in these forums and you still haven't learned a fucking thing:

Linky

June 12, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Big Hate
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in April, there was a huge fuss over an internal report by the Department of Homeland Security warning that current conditions resemble those in the early 1990s — a time marked by an upsurge of right-wing extremism that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased.

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News’s new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news — and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

But let’s not neglect the print news media. In the Bush years, The Washington Times became an important media player because it was widely regarded as the Bush administration’s house organ. Earlier this week, the newspaper saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama “not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself,” and that in any case he has “aligned himself” with the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. His rants today aren’t very different from his rants in 1993. But he occupies a different position in the scheme of things. Remember, during the Bush years Mr. Limbaugh became very much a political insider. Indeed, according to a recent Gallup survey, 10 percent of Republicans now consider him the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today,” putting him in a three-way tie with Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. So when Mr. Limbaugh peddles conspiracy theories — suggesting, for example, that fears over swine flu were being hyped “to get people to respond to government orders” — that’s a case of the conservative media establishment joining hands with the lunatic fringe.

It’s not surprising, then, that politicians are doing the same thing. The R.N.C. says that “the Democratic Party is dedicated to restructuring American society along socialist ideals.” And when Jon Voight, the actor, told the audience at a Republican fund-raiser this week that the president is a “false prophet” and that “we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, thanked him, saying that he “really enjoyed” the remarks.

Credit where credit is due. Some figures in the conservative media have refused to go along with the big hate — people like Fox’s Shepard Smith and Catherine Herridge, who debunked the attacks on that Homeland Security report two months ago. But this doesn’t change the broad picture, which is that supposedly respectable news organizations and political figures are giving aid and comfort to dangerous extremism.

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

And:

Hate speech and the mainstreaming of extremism
The First Amendment protects the media or web messenger, but the message can have murderous consequences.
By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Atlanta

Violent suggestion posed as commentary has long been part of the tactic known as "leaderless resistance" popularized by Ku Klux Klan leader Lewis Beam in the early 1990s and co-opted by groups ranging from the Aryan Nations to the Earth Liberation Front.

Since there's no direct incitement, the First Amendment protects the messenger. That the message is a suggestion, however, is often clear for anyone to see.

Such strategies have for a long time concerned those who study the politics of extremism in America.

But in the wake of several high-profile and deadly attacks by anti-abortion, anti-government, and anti-Jewish extremists in recent weeks and months, the focus of the debate is shifting from the darker corners of the Internet and shortwave radio to the halls of some of the country's most successful and popular media networks and web sites.

A new factor that is "causing us even more concern than in the past is the mainstreaming of the extremism by people who should know better," said James McElroy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, in a speech given before a string of deadly, politically-motivated attacks this year, including the alleged shooting of a Holocaust Memorial Museum guard by white separatist James von Brunn on Wednesday.

Critics point to popular mainstream cable figures like Lou Dobbs on CNN, who once falsely claimed that illegal Mexican immigrants are spreading leprosy in the US, and Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly, who repeatedly referred to "Tiller the Baby Killer" when talking about Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, who was gunned down two weeks ago in his church.

Commentators say they are simply offering analysis based on facts. And the demagoguery flows both ways on the political airwaves, with constructive debate being replaced on both the left and the right with venom and invective.

Fox News' Dan Gainor tut-tutted the criticism in a column yesterday, calling it partisan hackery. "It's now the big theme in the media with the New York Times, ABC, CNN and lefty outlets like Salon joining a rising media chorus that conservatives are dangerous," Mr. Gainor writes.

To be sure, there have been far more violent times in America, long before the advent of the Internet and increasingly partisan media. What's more, there's another counter-argument: The First Amendment, especially in angry times, can be a peaceful vent for pent-up social frustrations – surely part of the Founders' intent.

Yet social observers like Thomas Palaima, professor of classics at the University of Texas in Austin, are discomfited – and conflicted – by the sheer growth and ratings power of hate-tinged speech. He specifically points out the reams of coded homophobia, racism, and sexism found in the comment sections of major national sports web sites.

"It's a moral swamp," he says in an interview. "After studying war and violence, I do not have a romantic idea about human nature. But historically almost all societies are based on redirecting individual desires and turning them into things that are social goods. I don't think by suppressing expression of these strong, violent emotions, hatreds, prejudices, that you do society a service. Yet I agree that somehow having them out there is also a problem."

Barring Canada-style hate speech regulations, which make it a crime to even snarkily critique people based on their race or creed, the US is unlikely to curb the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech for everyone.

But absence of legislation doesn't bar media firms and bloggers from taking a closer look at the effect of their stories, commentaries, and comment sections on viewers and readers.

And to an extent, that's happening. MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann said in the wake of Dr. Tiller's death that "we need to separate television from terrorism." Hate-filled e-mail from viewers caused Fox News commentator Shepard Smith last week to call out those who fill chat rooms and comment sections with "hate not based on fact."

"More and more it seems like people are taking the extra step and taking a gun out," he warned.

Indeed, even in the cantankerous, open forums of the US media, it is possible to go too far.

Last week, Connecticut blogger Harold Turner was arrested and charged with inciting violence against lawmakers by warning on his blog: "Obey the Constitution or die!" He was angry over a law that would give lay Roman Catholic parishioners more power over church finances.

Mr. Turner defended the post as "crude political hyperbole." He is to appear in court on June 22.

Mass purges from the Republican Party? Most Republicans interact with the Republican Party precisely once in their lives: when they register at the appropriate voting age. The average American will not engage in political activity more strenuous than polling, if they do indeed go beyond merely voting.

Which is actually no excuse, no matter how much you dearly wish to believe it is, since political phenomena do not occur in a vacuum. Nor does it defeat the observation that the party itself —active membership and leadership both— has either acquiesced in or encouraged it's extremist tilt.

[Darth Wong]

Oh right, silence means nothing from the same party which said Obama had to forcefully reject Reverend Wright's teachings or else be accused of agreeing with them by default?

Tu quoque.

No it isn't, and you're just being a lying douchebag yet AGAIN. The argument here is not that silence necessarily proves approval in all conceivable cases; it is that conspicuous silence from a party which claims silence proves approval is a particular case where it should be interpreted as approval. And don't tell me that these nutjobs are so far removed from the Republican mainstream rhetoric that the Republicans have no perceived connection to them; that's an outright lie and you know it. What are you going to claim next? That FOXNews has nothing to do with the Republican party either, even though they're a virtual mouthpiece for the GOP and they have on far more Republican rep commentators than anyone else?

As I read it, the Senator was referring to a loss of confidence in government, not the lunacy of the militia.

He was using the former as an explanation for the latter, when it is nothing of the sort. That is why I described it as "making excuses" for them, and you have said absolutely nothing to refute that. Moreover, one must ask why he thinks "the people" (by which he refers to the angry people he was specifically being questioned about) have "lost confidence" in the government when it has not done anything to harm anyone yet, and there is no concrete evidence that it intends to. The only reason for this "loss of confidence" is his own party's fear-mongering and hate-stirring.

You talk of "proximity" and ask how Republicans can be blamed for the hate-mongering speech of extremists: have you forgotten that Sarah Palin, the recent vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party, has been running around saying that Obama wants to create "death panels"? I suppose she lacks the "proximity" to the GOP to be used as evidence against them too, right?

Tell me Kast: do you honestly believe that Republican lies about health-care reform are totally unrelated to the death threats received by Democrat legislators over the health-care reform bill? These people would have been just as angry and prone to making death threats if the Republicans had never told them that they would be turning the country into Soviet Russia and killing senior citizens? No "proximity", right?

[Axis Kast]

Appeal to Motive Fallacy, as well as rank bullshit. How typical of you.

Very impressive, the way you sidestep any requirement of evidence by simply launching an ad hominem attack.

If you're telling me you're not bitter, then how is it that you can't even hold a civil conversation, but rush beyond judgment to fling verbal excrement? You can't even behave in a civil manner, but you want me to believe that you aren't antagonistic. Fat chance.

Demonstrable observation, not "assertion". Learn the difference.

Determined using what metric? Deviating from what baseline? Even Michael Steel, chairman of the Republican National Committee, barely ranks among registered Republicans and right-leaning Americans in polls inquiring who speaks for the Republican Party.

You're clearly defining "hijacked" as "advocating positions and policies that I, Deegan, dislike quite a lot." The idea that a party has been "hijacked" presumes that there is, in fact, a position that it must, or ought to hold.

I can label, and have labeled, them as people who have either acquiesced in the takeover of their party by extremists or have actively supported and abetted the takeover of the party by extremists (such as the very GOP senators and congressmen who, on floor debates, cheerfully repeat Sarah Palin's "death panel" bullshit instead of dismissing it for the obvious insanity that it is). Your strawmandering does not erase that, no matter how much you really really really wish it did.

Once again, you insist that every Republican has a personal responsibility to toe the line precisely as it suits you. People have better things to do than call into radio shows and tell somebody their behavior is childish or disgusting. You yourself routinely prove that there is no Republican lawmakers' monopoly on acting the bile-driven ass. I don't regularly don armor to come and play your nanny.

Also, let the record show that you've failed - at all - to speak to the point that all of these television and radio appearances are a form of public theatre in which participants are selected precisely because of the outrageous things they are likely to say. Spectacle sells. I'm not going to waste my breath with FOX News.

I've explained before how it is that people have come to believe, honestly, that death panels will be a natural outgrowth of government-run healthcare: a combination of false assumptions about what will emerge at the nexus of cost-cutting and liberal views toward end-of-life solutions.

Odd, isn't it? The very party which can organise itself to win elections and generate block-opposition to Obama suddenly cannot organise itself to slap down the very extremists who are now defining the party.

You're repeating yourself - and dodging the point completely. It isn't a question of organization; it's a matter of whether a man in Pretoria is responsible for the ten seconds of idiocy spouted by a man in Seattle. You insist that some moral requirement exists compelling the former to take up intellectual arms against the latter -- even when he can see no reason to think it matters.

Why should anybody feel compelled to reply to Sarah Palin's horseshit? Because lies must be challenged. They cannot simply go unanswered. Especially when they bear upon debate which affects the future lives of millions of Americans. Are you really so far gone that this basic equation is beyond your dimmest comprehension?

Lies only matter when they are significant. Fear of death panels? That's real. Sarah Palin? A light-weight with virtually zero credibility even among her own party - a tabloid sensation.

Millions of Republicans don't believe that "death panels" are lies. Once again, we go back to this sad situation in which you seem unable to accept that people who hold opinions different from your own have actually come to different conclusions after looking at the same set of facts.

How convenient, as it allows you to dodge the issue and absolve Republicans of either their apathy or their complicity in the rise of Right Wing extremism within their ranks.

Arguments you continue to make by assertion, ignoring the possibility that these Republicans may see nothing wrong, or else dismiss the militia types as wackos who wouldn't be dissuaded by their disapproval in the first place.

I have observation on my side. I'm sorry if this eludes your feeble intellectual grasp.

Observation of what?

I see. You're going to play your "absolute evidence NOW or no-proof" game yet again. Seven years of getting your sorry ass kicked in these forums and you still haven't learned a fucking thing.

I certainly agree with Mr. Krugman's position. Fox News, The Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh are irresponsible. I agree that statements like those could, and do, inflame violent extremists. In Beck's case, a boycott, then, would have merit. However, my question was two-fold. Have you got statistics proving that the average viewer of Fox News is in sympathy with the armed "solution" purveyed by militia organizations?

Interesting, too, that Krugman's evidence regarding actual Republican leaders. Many Americans do count Obama's policies to be a flavor of socialism. They think he's interested in doing more along those lines. I see no reason why the RNC shouldn't say that. It's political exaggeration - the same kind of thing that Democrats did when they called Bush "fascist." Orwell would be rolling in his grave. But is there importance in conveying things the way people see them? Yes, there is. One shouldn't purvey blatant falsehoods. However, the art of politics is exaggeration. I'll criticize your characterization of George Bush as fascist. Will I ask you not to say it so that you don't agitate the lunatic fringe? That's going too far toward framing our discourse to benefit people who aren't anchored in reality in the first place. Voight's speech was full of hyperbole, too. It's no different than on this board. Should Mike go off-line so we don't inflame radicals?

Critics point to popular mainstream cable figures like Lou Dobbs on CNN, who once falsely claimed that illegal Mexican immigrants are spreading leprosy in the US, and Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly, who repeatedly referred to "Tiller the Baby Killer" when talking about Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, who was gunned down two weeks ago in his church.

Dobbs' statements appear more like an honest mistake than racist fearmongering. O'Reilly's characterization of Tiller, while crude and pathetic, isn't anything new or unusual from opponents of abortion. "Baby killer" has lost much of its "oomph" since Vietnam. Otherwise, Jonsson's article is without the evidence required to make your case.

Which is actually no excuse, no matter how much you dearly wish to believe it is, since political phenomena do not occur in a vacuum. Nor does it defeat the observation that the party itself —active membership and leadership both— has either acquiesced in or encouraged it's extremist tilt.

It's every excuse, unless we're going to start organizing our political behavior around your every whim. One of the principles of political organization in this country is that people can opt out. That's exactly what quite a few of them choose to do. It also means that talking about "the Republican Party," and people supposedly in sympathy with FOX News and the like, is never a science.

it is that conspicuous silence from a party which claims silence proves approval is a particular case where it should be interpreted as approval.

No - it's you trying to tell me that the Republican Party is hypocritical (they are), and then that this somehow makes your argument more valid (it doesn't). Two wrongs do not make a right. You haven't the tools to make the case either way that silence is approval.


You yourself insist that we always provide evidence for our assertions. If you think that most Republicans are in sympathy with violent extremism, I expect you to be able to prove it if you'd like me to agree.

He was using the former as an explanation for the latter, when it is nothing of the sort.

It certainly is. These people are obviously afraid of what the Obama administration will do. They want no part of it. They're nutjobs. Fanatics. Fools. The Senator simply didn't heap enough calumny on them to satisfy you. He wasn't making excuses - he was dodging the question like any politician would.


People have lost confidence in Obama's administration because he hasn't provided them with a quick fix yet.

You talk of "proximity" and ask how Republicans can be blamed for the hate-mongering speech of extremists: have you forgotten that Sarah Palin, the recent vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party, has been running around saying that Obama wants to create "death panels"? I suppose she lacks the "proximity" to the GOP to be used as evidence against them too, right?

According to the polls, she absolutely does. She's a dying star - and a discredited one. Moreover, the "death panels" idea is something that people honestly believe. I'm not going to call them assholes or evil for believing it. I will call them stupid. I have.

[Darth Wong]

it is that conspicuous silence from a party which claims silence proves approval is a particular case where it should be interpreted as approval.

No - it's you trying to tell me that the Republican Party is hypocritical (they are), and then that this somehow makes your argument more valid (it doesn't). Two wrongs do not make a right. You haven't the tools to make the case either way that silence is approval.

In other words, you can't read and don't intend to start trying. I did not say that two wrongs make a right. I said that if someone espouses a particular interpretation of silence and then is conspicuously silent himself, then he should know perfectly well how that looks and would logically take steps to avoid that interpretation unless he has no problem with being seen that way. Which we both know is the case, despite your evasions.

You yourself insist that we always provide evidence for our assertions. If you think that most Republicans are in sympathy with violent extremism, I expect you to be able to prove it if you'd like me to agree.

I think most Republicans know perfectly well that they're in bed with radical extremists and have no intention of ending this alliance. You know it too, which is why you keep trying to change the subject with all these strawman distortions of yours.

It certainly is. These people are obviously afraid of what the Obama administration will do. They want no part of it. They're nutjobs. Fanatics. Fools. The Senator simply didn't heap enough calumny on them to satisfy you. He wasn't making excuses - he was dodging the question like any politician would.

By making excuses.

According to the polls, she absolutely does. She's a dying star - and a discredited one. Moreover, the "death panels" idea is something that people honestly believe. I'm not going to call them assholes or evil for believing it. I will call them stupid. I have.

Bullshit. Even if Palin is no longer a rising star in the GOP, it is an outright lie to say she has no "proximity" to the GOP, and an incredibly laughable one at that.

So why don't the Republicans correct this glaring error on the part of their vice-presidential candidate? Are they all so stupid that they honestly can't see the difference between "end-of-life counselling" and "death panels"? Bullshit. They know they're using lies to undermine the Obama administration, and they always intended to.

This equation is simple: violent extremists who are being incited by manipulative Republicans intent on disrupting anything the Obama administration does, in order to increase their chances of winning in the mid-term elections. You keep pointing out that the two groups are not completely identical, as if I was ever claiming they were, because you don't want to admit that the Republicans are knowingly in bed with the extremists.

Once again: tell me Kast: do you honestly believe that Republican lies about health-care reform are totally unrelated to the death threats received by Democrat legislators over the health-care reform bill? These people would have been just as angry and prone to making death threats if the Republicans had never told them that they would be turning the country into Soviet Russia and killing senior citizens? No "proximity", right?

Your whole argument seems to boil down to "plausible deniability".

[Axis Kast]

I said that if someone espouses a particular interpretation of silence and then is conspicuously silent himself, then he should know perfectly well how that looks and would logically take steps to avoid that interpretation unless he has no problem with being seen that way. Which we both know is the case, despite your evasions.

My very point is that Republicans couldn't be expected to have a problem with it. Why should they regard it as a problem within their ambit of personal responsibility in the first place?

I think most Republicans know perfectly well that they're in bed with radical extremists and have no intention of ending this alliance. You know it too, which is why you keep trying to change the subject with all these strawman distortions of yours.

That isn't evidence; it's another ad hominem.

By making excuses.

By attacking Obama, instead of trying to defend people whom he doesn't want to take responsibility for.

Bullshit. Even if Palin is no longer a rising star in the GOP, it is an outright lie to say she has no "proximity" to the GOP, and an incredibly laughable one at that.

That horse is already walking out the barn door. Nobody feels compelled to help it. Once again, you are applying a personal standard of responsibility designed to compel outcomes only you and yours have a stake in. Many Republicans, as I said before, aren't even clear that it's a falsehood.

So why don't the Republicans correct this glaring error on the part of their vice-presidential candidate? Are they all so stupid that they honestly can't see the difference between "end-of-life counselling" and "death panels"? Bullshit. They know they're using lies to undermine the Obama administration, and they always intended to.

Because many Republicans find the logic persuasive. Some can't be hassled. Others are probably lying. Have you evidence speaking to the actual breakdowns?

This equation is simple: violent extremists who are being incited by manipulative Republicans intent on disrupting anything the Obama administration does, in order to increase their chances of winning in the mid-term elections. You keep pointing out that the two groups are not completely identical, as if I was ever claiming they were, because you don't want to admit that the Republicans are knowingly in bed with the extremists.

What bed? Other people are titillated by the same issues. Some of them are lunatics. They appear in public, and on TV, and get attention far out of proportion to their numbers. Mike Wong and Patrick Deegan tell me that I've a moral duty to educate, or oppose them. I don't; I have better things to do - like go to work, and play computer games. Later, I move to Fiju and take harmonica lessons to escape the unbearable burden of an unsatisfied conscience.

Once again: tell me Kast: do you honestly believe that Republican lies about health-care reform are totally unrelated to the death threats received by Democrat legislators over the health-care reform bill? These people would have been just as angry and prone to making death threats if the Republicans had never told them that they would be turning the country into Soviet Russia and killing senior citizens? No "proximity", right?

Republicans do believe that Obama wants to introduce socialism and will create a healthcare program trending toward bureaucratic management of end-of-life issues, according to a "liberal agenda." These are actual - if ridiculous - fears. They deserve to be addressed. Do I think they relate to death threats? Absolutely. Do I think frank and sometimes heated dialogue like this ought to be prohibited because there are people out there who can't behave rationally? No.

[Darth Wong]

You know what? Your last post contains your entire argument summarized neatly in one sentence.

Why should they regard it as a problem within their ambit of personal responsibility in the first place?

As I said, your argument boils down to "plausible deniability".

At the end of your post you admit that their rhetoric has incited this hatred and fanaticism. But you mock the idea that people should take responsibility for the predictable results of their hatemongering, or even admit that it's hatemongering even when people like Grassley and Palin are running around openly promoting this "death panel" bullshit and no Republican will stand up and contradict them.

Frankly, I'm not even going to waste time on all the horrible misuses of logical fallacy names that you attempted in your last post. I've shown time and time again that you're deliberately misinterpreting arguments in order to accuse them of being fallacious, and you always quietly move on when caught.