Hal Turner, a radio talk-show personality who appeals to conservatives who don’t like “mainstream” media, had previously stated Judge Lefkow was “worthy of being killed,” adding that “it wouldn’t be legal, but in my opinion it wouldn’t be wrong.” I wonder when Ann Coulter is going to weigh in on this. You can check out Turner’s website at http://www.halturnershow.com/ to see his crowing over the murders.
From the perspective of this American, it is purely disgusting.
The silence from the GOPsters says a lot. Apparently they are unable to issue even a single word of condemnation for what happened to Judge Lefkow and her family and are content to allow this Hal Turner guy to speak for them.
Is it because it was a Clinton-nominated federal judge? Is it because a brutal attack on the family of a federal judge is considered “mainstream media” propaganda by the right wingers? Not even an ounce of concern from the “law and order” Republicans on this one?
Judges should not be targets in a civil partisan political debate. We need to stand united on the principle that our American democracy works best when there is a fair and reasoned opportunity for ideas to sink or swim in the marketplace of ideas.
Sure it’s disgusting and on Sunday, that man may be in church praying to Jesus, saying thank you for one more libral being gone from America. The downside of freedom of speech… :fume:
I don’t know about others, but the reason I have not replied to this thread is that I thought your post was borderline offensive. Certainly it was in poor taste.
Starting with the title, continuing with your reference to Coulter, and again with your follow-up post here today, there is a foul and unpleasant implication that somehow these neo-Nazi a**holes are in some way connected to Republicans or conservatives. The truth is (and I know that you understand this – because you wrote it) that hateful, violent extremists are on the other side of the “political circle”, where the fringes swing back and become indistinguishable in their contemptibility.
The idea that “GOPsters” should have to answer for these idiots any more than Democrats should, is repugnant and insulting. It really is not worth answering, and I only bother doing so now because I believe that if you step back and reflect on your post with a neutral eye (when you are calm, and not in “Forum Gladiator mode”) you will probably understand how insulting it was.
[quote=“mofangongren”]
Hal Turner, a radio talk-show personality who appeals to conservatives who don’t like “mainstream” media…[/quote]
And your partisan bile is pathetic. Hal Turner doesn’t represent the mainstream right anymore than Michael Moore does. He hates Bush, fer crissakes!
You can’t honestly expect that anyone with even the most pedestrian acquaintance with the American political landscape would agree with your spin. Do you?
So who has been arrested? Anyone? Suspects? Maybe it was the same person/people who butchered the Coptic Christian family in New Jersey. We haven’t heard anything more about that, have we?
No there is a difference Richardm. I point to the corruption of the UN which many on the left claim to support and ask why this and the corruption of the French and Russians is not a cause for outrage when every base motive has been attributed to Bush and his administration with charges targeted at Halliburton and every other company that might have any contact with the Bushes. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the left strongly opposed the Bush plans while looking to France, the UN and Germany for support. Many professed their solidarity with the views of these nations. That makes them fair game then for a bit of examination. If the US is being criticized because it is acting and doing so because it is all about oil, what if, in fact, someone like me can show that on the contrary, it was the nations who opposed the invasion that were far more likely to have their actions affected and influenced by “oil?”
Second, when I attack Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, I am attacking figures which have the support and admiration of many on the left. If I point out that their actions or the people that they support have even worse records than those of the governments that the Republicans and Bush have supported, does this not in fact somewhat counter the thrust of their claims? Is there not a method to challenging them on the very grounds that they claim to care most about?
Third, when women’s groups and gay groups and minority groups attack Bush for racism, sexism and for condemning war as most strongly affecting the innocent victims: women and children, should we not then look to see if this is actually the case? If in fact women and children and gays and minorities actually benefit from greater freedom and protection and that these newfound freedoms are accorded to them by more democratic governments with their greater respect for human rights and if in fact Bush and his team have been responsible for delivering those democratic governments or at the very least enabling them to emerge, then must we not ask tough questions of these groups to find out why they are supporting policies that run directly counter to the aims that they claim to support?
How does that compare with the total lack of support on the right for this ONE deranged individual? He does not speak for the right. No one on the right is identifying with his aims and no one here has said that they want to understand his “root causes.” Therefore, I for one chose to ignore this post as more MFGR nonsense, but now that these charges are being raised by more sensible people, well, at least by more people anyway, I have chosen to address them.
Surely, even you can see that there is a major difference there?
I read the article. It says White Supremicist. How do you know that he was Republican? a Bush supporter? OH I see all racists and white supremicists are Republicans? Is that what you are trying to say?
Well, let’s see now which party does the one member of Congress who used to be a member of the KKK belong to? No not the Democrats. Senator Byrd from West Virginia simply MUST be a Republican. Oh? He’s not. Hmmmmm
It was a horrific crime. Poor woman – she comes home from work and her husband and mother are lying there dead. To make matters worse, they’re probably dead as a result of her performing her job. Worse yet, it wasn’t even a job she asked to perform – a case involving some wacko hate-monger was arbitrarily handed to her. But the thing that really gets me is how far out of touch that wacko hate-monger was. Apparently he attempted to get the judge killed because she tried to enforce a ruling against him concerning copyright infringement, of all trivial things. Moreover, she hadn’t even ruled against the wacko in his lawsuit; she had ruled in his favor but her decision was reversed by a higher court and she was just doing her job in trying to obey their order. What a crazy world.
[quote=“fred smith”]I read the article. It says White Supremicist. How do you know that he was Republican? a Bush supporter? OH I see all racists and white supremicists are Republicans? Is that what you are trying to say?
Well, let’s see now which party does the one member of Congress who used to be a member of the KKK belong to? No not the Democrats. Senator Byrd from West Virginia simply MUST be a Republican. Oh? He’s not. Hmmmmm[/quote]
And what US president almost came very close to joining the klan?? Another Democrat – Harry S. Truman…Was going to join it, but the Pendergast machine in Kansas City influenced him not to join – Tom Pendergast hated the Klan for its anti-Catholic activities.
[Personal attack removed by moderator. Please read the rules.]
First, it wasn’t outrage I expressed; it was empathy. I feel badly for the poor woman coming home to find her loved ones dead in her house (just as I empathize with the poor French reporter who is being held captive in Iraq and whose terrified photo has been in the news lately). Second, there’s nothing biased about my position. I also empathize with the family of the dead girl whose photo you posted, but I resented your snap judgment (and incitement of religious hatred and bias) that the crime was committed by religious extremists, when the authorities had stated no such conclusions should be made and they stated taht many of the allegations you printed were false.
All humans should feel disgusted and empathetic concerning all of the above crimes. I do and I was simply expressing that feeling. I was not playing any petty games as you are.
Richardm, you got it pegged. The typical Republican thing thus far has been to associate the vast majority of moderate Dems with whatever far-left wacko they can find in a given week while denying that their end of thought has a far-right group of wackos. Thus, the regular attempts to demonize all Democrats as socialists (or, as Fred Smith has tried to imply in the past, kin to “national socialists”), traitors, Chomskyites, or whatever the hell, do wear a bit thin. It is interesting to see how the callouses built up from years of their own mud-slinging seem to do them not an ounce of good in handling a discussion of their own exteme end. Basically, we can see from the screeching that the Republicans emphatically do not like the taste of the bile they dole out daily.
Hobbes – Why on earth should Coulter be left out? Don’t think for a second that Coulter won’t try at least a baker’s dozen statements against Democrats within the coming week far more outrageous and unfair than anything I can imagine. Would I really need to provide a laundry list of the things she has written and said? I do agree with there being a political spectrum circle as to behavior, but I have also been clear to point out the differences in power structure underlying right-wing and left-wing movements. No amount of Fred’s smoke-blowing is going to change that the tree-hugging whale-watchers are going to be deemed on the “left” and the machine-gun toting advocates of super-small government and no taxation living in compounds spouting off against the “mainstream media” are going to be deemed on the “right”.
No maoist rebels currently reside within America yet, but if that ever changes y’all can let me know and we can hunt them down at the same time as the skinheads. As a moderate centrist, I frankly don’t like the extremists of either sort. I’m a gunowner selling timber from our farmland this year, so perhaps I don’t fit into Coulter’s or Rush’s simplistic categorizations.
Fred – Bless you for mentioning Chomsky and also for trying to characterize a network of skinhead and white-supremacy groups operating under the “World Church of the Creater” banner as “one deranged individual”. In the article originally posted on this topic, it was mentioned clearly that the group has grown to 16 chapters and that sympathizers abound. Your willingness to bend facts in all circumstances is noted.
How many Democrats and liberals support Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore? Ho Chi Minh? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Ortega?
How many Republicans support this crazed individual? and why do we even need to ask this? How do you even know that he is a Republican? It is precisely this kind of smear that you do so well. I did not see any mention of Republicanism. How do you know he is not a Democrat? Why aren’t you asking the Democrats to justify this man’s actions?
Therefore your comparison is once again simply wrong. Michael Moore and Chomsky represent a significant segment of the left and its “thought.”
If you want to argue about Bush, Coulter or Krauthammer, you have a point. I fail to see what this man has to do with anything that I believe in or stand for. I fail to see that any Republicans or Democrats for that matter have supported him. Do you have any proof that Chomsky, Moore and Barbara Boxer approved of this many’s action? I mean no doubt Democrat Senator Byrd and former KKK member might. Why don’t you ask him?
Remember, the phrase is “extreme right-winger.” The group most likely involved has 16 chapters and has been growing. They tried to kill this judge previously. Now her family has been gunned down.
If you’re going to compare murder to one guy who directs movies and another guy who writes books, I think it’s about time you re-evaluated your values.
Michael Moore is generally thought of as an “entertainer” (the excuse regularly used by Republicans for the multi-hour rants by Rush Limbaugh), not a political philosopher. He is not particularly thought to be violent, although I would not want to get between him and a box of doughnuts.
Chomsky may be a linguist masquerading as a philosopher, but frankly he doesn’t even come close to the Democrat mainstream. My bet is that Chomsky would not ever identify himself as affiliated with or supporting either of the major parties, condemning them both. Again, he is not particularly thought to be violent, although his books would likely bore me to death.
Neither Moore nor Chomsky appear to be in a league with murderers. Do you have some sort of information showing that they are conspiring to commit violent acts? If so, please post it.
No. 4, below, would be a very typical Republican debate tactic.
For the record, Ann Coulter has not necessarily distanced herself from those machine-gun totin’ compound-dwelling folks who attack federal government officials and bureaucrats:
The downside of freedom of speech… :fume:
