Forums | MacLife

I grow progressively more disgusted with the fruits being borne by the irresponsible, asinine actions of a section of the right wing in this country.  Unfortunately, the main stream media of the right (Beck, Hannity, et al) and their willing lackeys (a ready example comes to mind...) appear to consider incidents like this as acceptable collateral damage---so long as their idiotic vitrol keeps their coffers filled, smurf the consequences.

They me put it this way.

Would it be fair for me to claim that those who support an independent Palestinian state and/or sanctions against Israel find it acceptable for Palestinians to blow themselves up on a bus full of civilians?

Then don't say that "main stream media of the right" finds this kind of action acceptable. They don't.

daemon wrote:

Busloads of civilians aren't federal workers.

Kentucky is not an oppressed occupied region (well, unless Kentucky were to secede).

I'm sure there are other ways that analogy fails, but I'd rather note that it would seem that lynching is not just hi–tech anymore.

Do you know what an analogy is?

The point is that those who lawfully express a political point of view are not responsible for illegal actions done in the name of that point of view that they do not condone and in fact disapprove above.

Mainstream "right wing" media does not condone of this action anymore than NPR approves of terrorists blowing up Israeli civilians.
Mainstream "right wing" media in fact strongly disapproves of this action just like NPR disapproved of terrorists blowing up Israeli civilians.

Get it?

NPR's listerership (and therefore influence on the terms of debate) is the same as Beck/Hannity/Drudge/FOX/Oxymoron?

Please, let me see where The Nation has such power.

Here's an analogy:

Right–tilted media is Windows, and NPR/The Nation et al ("liberal") is Mac/Apple in the late Nineties; and still today, in many ways.

As you just pointed out elsewhere, it makes sense that FOX should be on in doctor's offices and other public areas because

it is the most popular cable news channel.

Last edited by daemon (2009-09-24 5:48 am)

resedit wrote:

It is against the law for Sean Hannity to call right wingers to arms against the government.
It is against the law for the pro life advocates to call for violence against abortion clinics.

After months of stoking their base with disinformation about death panels, socialism/fascism/communism, youth indoctrination camps, secret muslim upbringings, unlawful occupation of the executive branch, and other ridiculous nonsense about the federal government, conservative talking heads definitely have culpability if their listeners start lynching census workers. It falls along the lines of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater.

Leave it to the god fearin' righties to not only off an innocent census worker, but then diminish his death and openly mock it on message boards.  PRAISE!

Either way, there's a Steve Earle song in there somewhere.

Didn't this Beck character urge his viewers or listeners to leave their guns at home, as it were? He knows his audience and he knows his rhetoric's likely effect, or he wouldn't have made the plea.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-09-24 7:27 am)

Ribtorus wrote:

Didn't this Beck character urge his viewers or listeners to leave their guns at home, as it were? He knows his audience and he knows his rhetoric's likely effect, or he wouldn't have made the plea.

No, he just wanted some cover/plausible deniability.

Michele Bachmann wrote:

If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the census bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations, at the request of President Roosevelt, and that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the Administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the census bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up.

bedstuy wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Didn't this Beck character urge his viewers or listeners to leave their guns at home, as it were? He knows his audience and he knows his rhetoric's likely effect, or he wouldn't have made the plea.

No, he just wanted some cover/plausible deniability.

Um, the things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the latter is pretty much an extension of the former.

Thankfully this is only the least-visited board on the internet, so the damage should be minimal.