What scares right wingers to the bone? Freedom.

[Avatar4321]

Those are hardly the words of an extremist. Do you think of yourself as a right winger? (If so do you think right winger is the extreme right?)

yeah Im a right winger. The only reason we are "extreme" is because those on the far left are so far out there that anyone right of them is extreme.

 

[Avatar4321]

The current crop of "conservatives" would have left Barry Goldwater cold. They aren't conservatives, and even the label "neo-con" is deceptive. What passes for conservatism these days is little more than fascism.

Which is exactly why our idealogy is the exact opposite of fascism.

 

[ErikViking]

We all have a self image. Generally a positive on matters of good/evil. Not even the most rabid muslim bomber would think of himself as evil. We are all experts in filtering, justifying and explain why exactly we are right and others are not. Anything is valid in that process: science, religion, "common sense", history or culture.

So why am I right? How can I be sure? Of course I can't. But I do try to re-think and understand others. Not necessarly by their arguments since those generally are so colored by the need of a perfect self image. This uncertainty is a safety valve. This puts me in akward situations at times. In Nazi Germany it would have gotten me killed if I had courage enough to speak up. I can't swear I would have had though.

The fear and insecurity coupled with hate and unwilling to understand and pure dehumanization on display here - and not only here - is my primary concern. I feel that I am doing something. Maybe someone here read this and starts to think about "the others" from another point of view - neglecting all the predefined arguments and what we "know".

Honestly I think true extremists are rare. But people can still be useful tools for true extremists. This isn't easy to prove in a few lines of text, but we only have to take a look around us to see it is there.

 

[ErikViking]

yeah Im a right winger. The only reason we are "extreme" is because those on the far left are so far out there that anyone right of them is extreme.

Okay.

 

[red states rule]

The current crop of "conservatives" would have left Barry Goldwater cold. They aren't conservatives, and even the label "neo-con" is deceptive. What passes for conservatism these days is little more than fascism.

nothing like liberal love and tolerance..........


libs want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to silence conservative voices who offer a different opinion

libs want to censor people like Ann Coulter who other conservatives and not have their work published

libs assualt, or try to assualt, conservative speakers at college speaking engagements because conservatives engage in hate speech

libs can openly call for the death of conservatives because it would be in the best interest of the common good


yes, liberal love and tolerance is a sight to behold

 

[red states rule]

how liberals support free speech


Anarchy at Columbia: Protestors Storm Minuteman's Stage
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 05, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Protestors stormed the stage at Columbia University Wednesday night, yelling, waving banners and ending the speech from Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrest minutes after it began.

As Gilchrest started to deliver his remarks at a speech sponsored by the CU College Republicans, members of the audience began yelling and cheering. He watched quietly as students rushed the stage with fists raised and displayed banners proclaiming, "No One Is Illegal."

According to a statement released by Columbia University College Republicans President Chris Kulawik, protestors took control of the stage for "fifteen chaotic minutes" before security personnel ended the event.

Video of the event posted online shows the protestors rushing the stage. It also shows members of the audience cheering them on and chanting "Minutemen, Nazis, KKK ... racist fascists go away."

According to reports in the student newspaper The Spectator, at least one student was injured in the mayhem.

In a statement released by "those who occupied the stage" and posted on a student magazine's blog, the protestors said they "celebrate free speech: for that reason we allowed the Minutemen to speak, and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and spoke ourselves."

"The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration," the protestors said. "They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3,000 deaths on the border."

The school's Chicano Caucus, which organized demonstrations against the Minuteman group before the speech, distanced itself from those who disrupted the speech in a statement Thursday. "While we were the chief organizers of the protest outside Roone Arledge [Auditorium], we were not responsible for any of the actions that led to the termination of the event," caucus President Adhemir Romero said.

"While we do not agree with Mr. Gilchrest and his organization's views," Romero said, "we respect everyone's right to freedom of speech and regret that his opinion was not heard."

According to its website, the Minuteman Project is "a call to voices seeking a peaceful and respectable resolve to the chaotic neglect by members of our local, state and federal governments charged with applying U.S. immigration law."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCampus.asp?Page=/Campus/archive/200610/CAM20061005a.html

 

[ErikViking]

libs can openly call for the death of conservatives because it would be in the best interest of the common good

So basically you say roughly half of the American population wants the other half dead?

 

[red states rule]

So basically you say roughly half of the American population wants the other half dead?

Ia m speaking about a elected Dem in NY state who said he would like to shoot Pres Bush right between the eyes

After the failed attempt to kill VP Cheney, Bill Maher expressed his disappointment over the failed attempt

and, Rep Barney Frank (D-NY) said it was a wasted bomb

On Air America, the lib hosts openly hope terrorists would cut Pres Bush's head off

Need more?

 

[ErikViking]

Ia m speaking about a elected Dem in NY state who said he would like to shoot Pres Bush right between the eyes

After the failed attempt to kill VP Cheney, Bill Maher expressed his disappointment over the failed attempt

and, Rep Barney Frank (D-NY) said it was a wasted bomb

On Air America, the lib hosts openly hope terrorists would cut Pres Bush's head off

Need more?

No,
that will do.

Some pople can openly call for the death of some others because it would be in the best interest of the common good.

A true lack of class and tact. Bad spokesmen.

 

[red states rule]

No,
that will do.

Some pople can openly call for the death of some others because it would be in the best interest of the common good.

A true lack of class and tact. Bad spokesmen.

That is pretty much what I was saying. Liberals claim to be the party of tolerance, love, acceptance of others, and supporters of free speech

In reality they are the party of intolerance, hate, rage, and suppressors of speech they do not like

 

[red states rule]

Randi Rhodes has used this rhetoric before. From May 2004:

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "
Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.


Is this her cheap, sick attempt to boost those pathetic ratings?

The MSM will no doubt follow-up with sympathetic profiles of Rhodes, as the Washington Post did last fall--check out how the writer nonchalantly mentions the Fredo/assassination skit. Now, compare that treatment with the fate of conservative talk show hosts punished or canned for controversial speech.

 

[ErikViking]

That is pretty much what I was saying. Liberals claim to be the party of tolerance, love, acceptance of others, and supporters of free speech

In reality they are the party of intolerance, hate, rage, and suppressors of speech they do not like

Thanks!

I couldn't tell from "outside" if the liberal party says one thing and do another (not to an extent uncommon for any politician anyway).
But as with everyone with good intentions things can get out of hand. Like: "I want freedom of speech and I am ready to kill anyone saying otherwise"

But in a political debate, like this - where you only talk about libs in a negative manner and libs talk about you in the same fashion - do you (personally) think there is ay room for debate? I mean, well, are there areas in which the political belonging hasn't already made the mind up for everyone? Can compromises be discussed at all?

 

[red states rule]

Thanks!

I couldn't tell from "outside" if the liberal party says one thing and do another (not to an extent uncommon for any politician anyway).
But as with everyone with good intentions things can get out of hand. Like: "I want freedom of speech and I am ready to kill anyone saying otherwise"

But in a political debate, like this - where you only talk about libs in a negative manner and libs talk about you in the same fashion - do you (personally) think there is ay room for debate? I mean, well, are there areas in which the political belonging hasn't already made the mind up for everyone? Can compromises be discussed at all?

Unlike my liberal counterparts, I do not hate them or wish anything bad will happen to them.

One my main complaints with liberals is, they lecture people on how THEY shoiuld live their lives, how THEY should lower their standard of living, how THEY should raise their kids, how THEY should be willing to pay more in taxes, how THEY should not be so racist in their views

However, libs seldom walk the walk

 

[ErikViking]

Randi Rhodes has used this rhetoric before. From May 2004:

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "
Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.


Is this her cheap, sick attempt to boost those pathetic ratings?

The MSM will no doubt follow-up with sympathetic profiles of Rhodes, as the Washington Post did last fall--check out how the writer nonchalantly mentions the Fredo/assassination skit. Now, compare that treatment with the fate of conservative talk show hosts punished or canned for controversial speech.

It sounds terrible. Can't imagine an official person asking for someones death, not even as a joke or something. I mean those things DO happen. For real.

But this behaviour isn't restricted to liberals is it?

 

[red states rule]

It sounds terrible. Can't imagine an official person asking for someones death, not even as a joke or something. I mean those things DO happen. For real.

But this behaviour isn't restricted to liberals is it?

We have our nuts as well, but given the liberal media, and how they 'report' the news - the left has many more hate filled people the the right has

A movie was mad showing the murder of Pres Bush, and libs defended it. Can you see the outrage if a movie was made about the murder of Bill Clinton?

Libs had a cow over the 9-11 movie showing how Clinton fialed to kill OBL when his administration had a chance

 

[ErikViking]

We have our nuts as well, but given the liberal media, and how they 'report' the news - the left has many more hate filled people the the right has

Yes media. Do media in the US tend to persue power or do you think they are constantly slanting to the left?

A movie was mad showing the murder of Pres Bush, and libs defended it. Can you see the outrage if a movie was made about the murder of Bill Clinton?

Libs had a cow over the 9-11 movie showing how Clinton fialed to kill OBL when his administration had a chance

Here I must fail you, I haven't the slightest idea. My knowledge is very limited. I do remeber that I thought the Clinton/Lewinsky stuff was embarresing. You let the world have a laugh on USA because of internal political ambitions. I guess it is sort of the same situation now too?

 

[red states rule]

Yes media. Do media in the US tend to persue power or do you think they are constantly slanting to the left?


Here I must fail you, I haven't the slightest idea. My knowledge is very limited. I do remeber that I thought the Clinton/Lewinsky stuff was embarresing. You let the world have a laugh on USA because of internal political ambitions. I guess it is sort of the same situation now too?

The media is VERY liberal. Every once and awahile they slip up and admit it

Recognition of the obvious. The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic” and “there’s going to be this glow about” them, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington over the weekend. He should know. His magazine this week sports a smiling Kerry and Edwards on its cover with the yearning headline, “The Sunshine Boys?” Inside, an article carrying Thomas’ byline contrasted how “Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine.” The cover story touted how Kerry and Edwards “became a buddy-buddy act, hugging and whispering like Starsky and Hutch after consuming the evidence.”


or...........

Eason Jordan falsely claimed that the soldiers were deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq. After his evasions failed to get him out of his self—inflicted scandal he was forced to resign his senior management position at CNN. Nevertheless, this urban legend of military targeting journalists seems to live on: the President of the Newspaper Guild just last week repeated this egregious allegation. . Apparently, the efforts to help journalist by embedding them with troops has resulted in few foxhole conversions into Ernie Pyles. Much more aptly, too many journalists may have become Dan Rathers.

The recently allegation of the flushing the Koran down the toilet made by Newsweek was also a false report. It may be a tipping point in terms of media credibility and public perception. Hugh Hewitt interviewed Terry Moran of ABC News who was brave and honest enough to admit that the media did have an anti—military bias born of the Vietnam War. Moran stated,

"There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti—military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous."

Moran has it right. This anti—military attitude dates to the Vietnam era.

 

[red states rule]

Sandy Berger in trouble? Send in the media!


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Need another example of media bias?

First, credit goes to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, who, once again, acknowledged media bias. "Let's talk a little media bias here," Thomas said, "The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox — but they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that . . . collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Attorneys call things like this "admissions."

Earlier in Bush's term, Thomas also acknowledged the media's "pro-environment" bias: "Certainly the press is pretty green . . . pretty pro-environment. And I don't think there's any question that they, as a body, feel that Bush is wrong on the environment, with varying degrees of willingness to give him credit. And I'm excluding the conservative press. . . . But generally, the rank-and-file press is pretty green, and they're gonna use the Europeans to take the Bush's to task."

Consider the way the media treats the missing paper scandal involving former national security advisor Sandy Berger. In preparing for his appearance before the 9/11 commission, Berger, at former President Clinton's request, spent three days at the National Archives. Investigators now think Berger illegally took papers from the archives. But Berger calls his removal of the documents an "honest mistake." A key advisor to presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, Berger promptly resigned from Kerry's campaign. The day the story broke, The New York Times online placed it on page 17. On television, CBS's Dan Rather cautioned viewers that the story "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger, and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence."

Now examine how the media — on its own — lowered Berger's stature in the Kerry campaign.
Way back in May 2004, The Washington Post called Berger "a top Kerry advisor." After the scandal, the Post busted him down to "informal advisor." Similarly, the Los Angeles Times in May called Berger a "Kerry foreign policy advisor." It now tags him as an "unpaid consultant." The Boston Globe in May called Berger a "top advisor." Now the paper relegates him to "informal advisor."

Still in denial about media bias?

 

[ErikViking]

Can you recall how media reported during the last democratic leader?
Can it be measured...? And I only know about the Lewinsky stuff.

I have a feeling that media usually take the role of against whom is in power and for underdogs of any kind.

Latley media has started to keep an eye on media, which is great.

By the way, does media and politicians have mutual economical interests? Like in Italy where Berlusconi owned most newspapers and TV channels?

 

[mattskramer]

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. People have a bias. Those people will find things that support their bias and add more weight to those examples. They will fail to notice, ignore, or discredit examples that run counter to their preconceived biases.

People on the left who think that they are reasonable moderates will complain when they see news, which is actually balanced, appear to them to be pro-right. People on the right who think that they are reasonable moderates will complain when balanced news will appear to them to be liberal.

The bottom line is that people (liberals and conservatives) are good at finding what they want to find to support their own pre-established opinions.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias#Claims_that_media_in_the_United_States_show_liberal_bias

Liberal point of view:
Media Matters for America
Fairness and accuracy in reporting
The myth of the liberal media

Conservative point of view:
Accuracy in Media
Media Research Center
Fairpress.org