quote:

Original: FirmhandKY

Dissent ISN'T the highest form of patriotism, after all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Men are so simple and so ready to follow the needs of the moment that a deceiver will always find someone to deceive.

your sig line says all that needs to be said on the subject of these right wing talking heads and their listeners Firm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

if you really cant discern between the tone they use and the tone used by their political opponents...... not the substance of each side but the tone, then further discussion must become rapidly more fruitless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

it is pandering, pandering to the lowest common human denominators, bereft of any higher thought or principle save for the craft employed in its fashioning and delivery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

there is nothing whatsoever wrong with Nationalism - or Republicanism as its known over there, except when instead of appealing to the Nation as a whole, it seeks by division to set a Nation against itself. And on this count, the Republican party must be found guilty by negligence, in allowing such dividers to gain such a strong voice and so much influence. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

throw them out. throw them all out. rebuild what ought to be the natural party of America into that mould. much of the reason for the appeal of such talking heads lies after all in the absence of any decent, well thought out counter argument to the Democrats, not in any real anger or hatred that exists. The longer this castrated Republican party continues in such empty rhetoric, the more anger and hatred will be generated in the vacuum and find expression in those most susceptible to its influence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

Original: FirmhandKY

Dissent ISN'T the highest form of patriotism, after all?

Dissent against injustice and the failure of a government to act for the benefit of its constituency is, indeed, the highest form of patriotism. Dissent just to be disagreeable, short-sighted, and obstructive, on the other hand, isn't any kind of patriotism... it's just being an ass.

Dame Calla

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's not an article. It's a commentary.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between commentary and "news" as well, since you are trying to compare political commentary from Rush et al to news coverage of NBC, CBS et al.

quote:


The air waves aren't really "free" btw, and regardless of what you've heard, they are actually controlled by the government. That's why illegal transmitters get you fines and jail time, and why the FCC can fine a broadcast network for something like the Janet Jackson-Superbowl-costume malfunction.

quote:


The "airwaves" are a government monopoly, and as the talk we have seen over the last few years have shown, if you piss off the government, the chances of you staying off the airwaves grow exponentially.

The difference between "inflammatory nonsense to pander to your listener's biases" and "dissent" is which side which side of the toast your butter is on, and often times as not, the government's control of the airwaves gives them the ability to place someone's comments on the side most helpful to their agenda.

quote:


Your (and Krugman's) political biases are currently "in". Doesn't make them right, nor does it make them accurate.

In fact, I could easily make the argument that you and Krugman are contributing to defining political dissent as a criminal act, and are therefore more dangerous than Rush et al to the health of our republic.

quote:


And, as far as the quoted portion of the commentary directly above ... did you actually see Glenn Becks show and exactly what he said? Did Krugman? Or are you - and he - interpretating something third hand, or leaving it out of context (a common ploy, btw)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Unholy Alliances

quote:

The core of today's radical left consists of the ideological descendents of the communist/progressive left that wanted the West to lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union. They are the well-organized and immensely influential driving force behind the contemporary peace and civil liberties movements. Upon the foundation of its hatred for the United States, the radical left has forged an alliance with radical Islam, whose wellspring of anti-American hatred runs just as deep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's not an article. It's a commentary.

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between commentary and "news" as well, since you are trying to compare political commentary from Rush et al to news coverage of NBC, CBS et al.

Thank you for your attempted clarification, but if you looked at either link you would have seen that it was clearly labeled "opinion", and a commentary or opinion article is still an article.

article
–noun
a written composition in prose, usually nonfiction, on a specific topic, forming an independent part of a book or other publication, as a newspaper or magazine.


Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

quote:


The air waves aren't really "free" btw, and regardless of what you've heard, they are actually controlled by the government. That's why illegal transmitters get you fines and jail time, and why the FCC can fine a broadcast network for something like the Janet Jackson-Superbowl-costume malfunction.

Only because the Christian right finds titties offensive. Meanwhile we get to hear about good old church-going dad's erectile dysfunction on every other commercial.

Talk about hypocrisy.

quote:


The "airwaves" are a government monopoly, and as the talk we have seen over the last few years have shown, if you piss off the government, the chances of you staying off the airwaves grow exponentially.

The difference between "inflammatory nonsense to pander to your listener's biases" and "dissent" is which side which side of the toast your butter is on, and often times as not, the government's control of the airwaves gives them the ability to place someone's comments on the side most helpful to their agenda.

Totally inaccurate propaganda. 

The airwaves are only regulated to the degree allowed by Congress.

Regulated does not mean owned nor does it mean the First Amendment does not apply.

quote:


Your (and Krugman's) political biases are currently "in". Doesn't make them right, nor does it make them accurate.

In fact, I could easily make the argument that you and Krugman are contributing to defining political dissent as a criminal act, and are therefore more dangerous than Rush et al to the health of our republic.

You could huh?

Is there something stopping you? 

I mean other than your sidetracks into the definition of an article, the FCC's authority, and what seems to be your belief that the government dictates what we hear in the media.

quote:


And, as far as the quoted portion of the commentary directly above ... did you actually see Glenn Becks show and exactly what he said? Did Krugman? Or are you - and he - interpretating something third hand, or leaving it out of context (a common ploy, btw)?

Yeah, I actually watch him all the time. 

Who needs Comedy Central when you have Glenn Beck.

And he said it more than once, much more than once.  In fact, it was a regular segment for several weeks.

FOX News personality, Glenn Beck, has been using his airtime to broadcast a right-wing conspiracy theory about the Obama administration setting up 'concentration camps,'part of a secret plot to establish totalitarian rule.......


......While Beck claims he is not 100% certain that the camps exist, he has proclaimed repeatedly that the Obama administration's economic policies are pushing the country into "totalitarianism' and that he "cannot debunk" the existence of the camps, which are supposedly being set up under the auspice of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), but which Beck claims will be used soon for mass imprisonment of American citizens with right-leaning political views.


In a recent spot on FOX and friends, Beck claimed that he had conducted "research on" the so called  concentration camps being built by the Obama WH as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America and the he could not "debunk them."   According to Beck, "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out.  There is something happening in our country and it ain't good."

(From Daily Kos, with a video clip in his own words)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Ken ... all I'll say is that you have a habit of reading and taking things out of context, to confirm your own biases.

In the context of my discussion with Panda, the link was a perfectly valid illustration of why it would be difficult, if not impossible to actually arrive at a scientifically valid conclusion about left vs right acts of political violence.

Which is why I included it as an "interesting link".

I suspected that if Panda wanted to get into the discussion, that he'd come back with a KKK link, to rebut my Weathermen link, and something else to rebut the Unholy Alliance link.

Again ... kinda proving both our points.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Ken ... all I'll say is that you have a habit of reading and taking things out of context, to confirm your own biases.

You posted it as an interesting link supporting your claims about left wing violence. The problem is it is simply an attack against people the author doesn't like.

Since I then simply pointed out how completely wrong it was and how impossible it is to bridge the divide between people like that I'm unclear how I took anything out of context. I realize it is embarassing that the link you provided turned out to be extremely hateful but I wasn't attacking or insinuating anything about you.

As to rebutting the link why would anyone even bother? Are you actually arguing the article has any validity?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Ken ... all I'll say is that you have a habit of reading and taking things out of context, to confirm your own biases.

You posted it as an interesting link supporting your claims about left wing violence. The problem is it is simply an attack against people the author doesn't like.

Since I then simply pointed out how completely wrong it was and how impossible it is to bridge the divide between people like that I'm unclear how I took anything out of context. I realize it is embarassing that the link you provided turned out to be extremely hateful but I wasn't attacking or insinuating anything about you.

As to rebutting the link why would anyone even bother? Are you actually arguing the article has any validity?

I didn't try to support any claims about "left wing violence". At All. I didn't even claim that "left wing violence" was more prevalent than "right wing violence".

Panda and I were openly and truthfully discussing our own biases. Neither of us decided to try to "prove" our biases, and we both acknowledged our biases.

Kinda what men of good faith should be able to do, in my opinion.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It's always funny how quickly you retreat to sophistry.

Please explain how a man of good faith could present that link as "interesting?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It's always funny how quickly you retreat to sophistry.

Please explain how a man of good faith could present that link as "interesting?"

Its sad when open and honest discussion is labeled "sophistry".

Perhaps you just have a blind spot.

Firm

quote:


What is the relationship between feeling politically disempowered and committing acts of political violence; and, relatedly, will fringe right-wingers feel more or less politically disempowered over coming months?

First off, I’d say there’s a fairly direct relationship between political disenfranchisement and political violence. While we have a tendency to look at people who commit these crimes and declare them “crazy,” they can, in fact, be acting quite rationally — even if motivated by beliefs we consider beyond the pale.

...

Still, as hard as that hurdle is to overcome, political violence does — like most rational acts — respond to incentives. Take this paper, for instance, which argues that political violence responds in an inverted U curve to repression (that is violence will be low with low repression, and low with extremely high repression, but will grow then fall in between). If political violence were merely the act of nutjobs, it shouldn’t correlate in any meaningful way with political repression.

...

Paradoxically, the worst thing the government could do is crack down on right-wing organizations (unless they’re plotting actual violence) or suppress dissent in any other way. That would only further the feeling of disenfranchisement and make people more likely to resort to violence.

For the most part, our open society is our best defense against extremist violence. But the cost of that open society is some tragic incidents of extremist violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In RE: Panda and my flirting with the discussion about ideologically based violence in the US:

I found this article ... ahhh ... interesting.

The Rationality of Political Violence
Ryan Sager
Jun. 11 2009 - 4:35 pm

Extracts:

quote:


What is the relationship between feeling politically disempowered and committing acts of political violence; and, relatedly, will fringe right-wingers feel more or less politically disempowered over coming months?

First off, I’d say there’s a fairly direct relationship between political disenfranchisement and political violence. While we have a tendency to look at people who commit these crimes and declare them “crazy,” they can, in fact, be acting quite rationally — even if motivated by beliefs we consider beyond the pale.

...

Still, as hard as that hurdle is to overcome, political violence does — like most rational acts — respond to incentives. Take this paper, for instance, which argues that political violence responds in an inverted U curve to repression (that is violence will be low with low repression, and low with extremely high repression, but will grow then fall in between). If political violence were merely the act of nutjobs, it shouldn’t correlate in any meaningful way with political repression.

...

Paradoxically, the worst thing the government could do is crack down on right-wing organizations (unless they’re plotting actual violence) or suppress dissent in any other way. That would only further the feeling of disenfranchisement and make people more likely to resort to violence.

For the most part, our open society is our best defense against extremist violence. But the cost of that open society is some tragic incidents of extremist violence.

Food for thought.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

So, what do you see as the solution? Do we unplug Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reily? (That sounds unbelievably logical to me).  What about the books they have written? Do we burn those? (Yes....truly excellent idea). Do we search out all information that is similar to these ideas and block that content from being read on the internet? (Only if they're from similarly fucked up people).  Do we burn more books that may echo the same ideas?  (See previous).

What promotes this kind of violence, and similar one's, is when an individual become disenfranchised with the world. They see many wrongs, and see no other recourse to try and vindicate or right these wrongs. This can be seen in many areas of violence, where it is promoted by an actual or perceived injustice. So even if you remove these voices, burn these books, and block this content, there will still be people that are extreme in their views (they should probably be removed to an island...I think this could be a workable idea), and feel there is no other recourse. The responsibility lies with the individual.

Now if these voices, books, and content specifically say that you must act in a criminal fashion, they are not Free Speech. They may be profane, or repugnant ideas to the majority, but Free Speech was written to protect the most repugnant speech there is with a few exceptions (criminal acts, inciting riots, and endangering public safety).

So it seems that you are saying their voices, ideas, and content endanger public safety?

Well, no, I wasn't saying exactly that....just that stupid people (more particularly, Rush Limbaugh) should be given an ice cream stand in Alaska to produce his income with, when the snow is at least 4 feet deep, a minimum of 12 miles from the nearest electricity source, and with sea birds shitting on his head.