Fred – Funny how fast the facts arise. I’m a great predictor of GOP behavior, and perhaps my name should be changed to “The Great Mofani” when I am in the groove as I am now.
PP – I’m not sure that Moore or Chomsky are advocates of violence. I would see them, generally as advocates of “less” violence. Have you found any examples in which Moore has put up rewards for the deaths of federal judges? Where Chomsky has urged people to shoot for the head?
The only thing great about you MFGR is your ability to generate fertilizer. So then there is nothing to this case? There was no crazed Republican (even though the first person you pointed to was I believe a White Supremicist but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?) so what exactly is this thread all about? Once again, you have ranted about something that when it comes down to it is not in any way based on fact (what a surprise!).
Well, the FBI thinks that there are something to those “pro-life” efforts to give rewards for the killing of Michael Schiavo and the judge. Mr. Meywes, as he sits in a jail cell, may be wondering what Fred must be smoking to think that there is “nothing to this case.”
It would also appear that Coulter is unrepentant in her support of Tim McVeigh’s actions – apparently the Republicans who she’s got buying her books and quoting her all the time have no problem with somebody who apparently was quite happy to see those 162 people in Oklahoma City die.
Of course, the GOP already made Liddy a guest of honor for a program recognizing talk radio personalities – apparently his comments about how to shoot federal agents in the head are just the sort of thing the GOP rank and file love.
What are you talking about. The original mother and husband of the judge killed in Chicago were found to have been caused by a robber. What are you on about now? You lose one debate and immediately go but what about this? what about that? The truth is that this thread is about the judge’s family killed in Chicago. You were wrong as usual. No Republican did it. You were wrong from the very beginning because even the suspect was a White Supremicist NOT a Republican.
Show me the link to this. I don’t believe you.
Show me the link. I am glad however if you are turning over a new leaf to condemn violence. Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore all seem most supportive of efforts to cause more 911s cuz we deserve it. Let’s throw them all in jail. I don’t mind losing G. Gordon Liddy.
Fred – This thread is about efforts by the extreme right to kill judges, so please explain what your problem is with discussing Meywes’ apparent effort to have a judge killed in this Schiavo case. It’s been reported by plenty of media, so I don’t think you can really stick your head in the sand and pretend the FBI didn’t arrest a guy named Meywes for trying to have a judge killed.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ sfl-0326schiavohit
www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/ news/breaking_news/11232655.htm
newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/ story/2253286p-8633301c.html
By the way, did you know why it was originally thought that the murder of Judge Lefkow’s family was by extreme rightists? It was because a neo-nazi leader (Matthew Hale) is currently stuck in jail for a long term for… you guessed it! Planning to kill Judge Lefkow. When did her family get murdered? After right-wing radio personality Hal Turner (broadcasting to 70 countries) spent plenty of on-air time telling his audiences that she was “worthy of being killed”. Turner has regularly been a guest of Fox News, which shows exactly where Roger Ailes’ mind is.
Now, regarding the Ann Coulter, there’s no real denial that she said the following:
Dog’s Breakfast was kind enough to provide further context in which Coulter added the following.
So Coulter has absolutely no regrets about the 162 who died in Oklahoma City as a result of the bombing? Perhaps she and Hal Turner could have a radio show together.
Regarding Liddy, the info was already put up earlier in this thread. Regarding Moore, Noam Chomsky, etc. – you still have no links to support the idea that they support violence, do you? Thanks for playing. Run along, now…
Ah but that is just it MFGR.
The man is a neo-Nazi. Now what party do you think most closely resembles the nazis in America? I will give you a hint Nazi means socialist workers party in a certain language. AND given that the Nazis were fond of treating people as racial groups not individuals, guess which party you get? The Democrats.
Now, obviously Ann is not suggesting that she is glad that people died in Oklahoma. She is using a snide and sarcastic tone to suggest that she would have preferred that the NY Times building had been blown up instead. Is she actually calling for someone to do so? I don’t think so. It’s what is known as humor.
You have tried to pull another fast one. Coulter is clearly not as you suggest relishing the deaths of anyone in Oklahoma but laughingly suggesting that the staff at the NY Times deserves such a fate in a sarcastic way.
Sorry, denial ain’t a river in Egypt. The “right” gets stuck with the Nazis on their far end of the spectrum (remember that despite their name their biggest initial crackdowns and an entire invasion was aimed at wiping out the communist socialists). Don’t you find it troublesome that Fox has Hal Turner as such a regular guest? I do.
But if we go to the current Schiavo murder case you don’t even get a neo-nazi… you get a plain, ol’ rank-and-file right wing wacko offering up his unique brand of “pro-life” advocacy. Can’t explain that one away, can you? I find it a bit sad that the far-right is so determined to kill our judges.
You’re making up words she used. She didn’t suggest that the NY Times be targeted “instead” in any way, shape or form. I think you’re simply so embarrassed by Coulter’s anti-federal-government bloodlust that you’re stuck with no option but to add words that go far beyond even her later clarification. If she had wanted to say (as you claim she wanted to) the Times building should be targed in place of the Oklahoma federal building, then she could easily enough have said: “Of course I regret it. I should have added, ‘instead of the Oklahoma City federal building.’”
By the way, suggesting that the only thing wrong with a guy who kills 162 men, women and kids is that he didn’t continue his rampage by killing more people at a different location is not humor.
Thanks for playing, but you’ve been measured and come up short again. The good news is that you’ve come up so short that you get to ride the MRT free again today.
I do not need to defend Ann. She can manage that on her own but how many people actually believe that she was for the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg? Perhaps, just you MFGR. One of my ex-bosses warned me never to use sarcasm or irony since it is a type of humor that requires a certain amount of sophistication. I guess you lack that, so thanks for playing yourself, denial ain’t a river in Egypt and you get a free ride on the subway to the paranoia clinic. Just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not out to get you. haha
Let me get this straight – Coulter could at anytime have said that “The only thing wrong with Timothy McVeigh was that he didn’t target the NY Times instead.”
She did not say that.
When she had a chance to explain her previous statement, she didn’t clarify this point at all. She instead stuck to her little “joke” about blowing up the NY Times editorial staff.
Using her words, its quite clear that she felt it would be humorous to be flippant about the Oklahoma City bombing – that by expressing something outrageous (i.e., that there was nothing wrong with attacking a federal building but that she wished McVeigh had gone on to destroy the NY Times while he was at it). Exaggerations are often used as a device in humor, however perhaps it would be an unwise idea for her to use this particular one around Oklahoma City or people who respect human life and the law. The fact that this sort of “humor” appears so popular in Republican circles makes my point – the GOP world is one in which the deaths of federal workers and their children is taken lightly.
In order to defend her, you’ve had to make up things she didn’t say. Pathetically, you’ve had to make up these things despite Coulter herself having plenty of opportunity to offer further explanation. So, if Coulter can “speak for herself,” why are you making up words for her?
Thanks for playing… you can go back to the baby pool now.
Like I said MFGR:
I do not get that impression of her remarks any more than anyone else did (excepting you of course). Fine. If you want to deliberately misconstrue her remarks, no one can stop you. Or, alternatively, we will have to believe that you really believe that Ann seriously wanted to see the Oklahoma City building bombed and admired Timothy McVeigh. You also believe that she wanted to see the same thing REALLY happen to the NY Times Bldg. I am sorry but it is very difficult to explain sarcasm to the simple-minded. Thanks for playing but don’t you have to be back in your kindergarten?
Fred,
So, I guess we get down to a very root difference in values.
The “right” end of the spectrum cares about life when it’s a woman on a feeding tube. IMO “pro life” drops off their radar screen when it comes to capital punishment, implementing reasonable gun-safety rules or protecting police officers from “cop killer” bullets. Pro-life also drops off the radar when it comes to federal judges. Tim McVeigh’s murder of 162 in Oklahoma City’s federal building is a gag – the only thing Coulter regrets is that McVeigh didn’t continue his rampage to blow up the NY Times. ATF agents come to your door? G. Gordon Liddy thinks you ought to aim for the head.
Meanwhile, centrist value-oriented Democrats support police officers, support funding for emergency services and for keeping cop-killer bullets out of the hands of criminals. Democrats feel genuine concern when federal judges are targeted by neo-nazi groups, when killers like McVeigh blow up officer workers and kids, when “pro life” extremists offer up rewards for killing Mr. Schiavo and the judge handling the case.
Which standpoint seems more “American”? There’s no question that it’s the Democrats who seem more in keeping with traditional American values.
[quote=“mofangongren”]So, I guess we get down to a very root difference in values.
The “right” end of the spectrum cares about blah blah blah…
Meanwhile, centrist value-oriented Democrats support …
Which standpoint seems more “American”? There’s no question that it’s the Democrats who seem more in keeping with traditional American values.[/quote]
Are you serious? Do you think that comparing the far extreme right to the centrist left will allow you to arrive at some sort of a valid conclusion?
April Fools, eh? 
:bravo:
The funny thing is that when people in this thread so far have come up with what they evidently think are the most “dangerous” figures on the left side of the spectrum, they come up with Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. Neither one of them seems to be putting up a bounty for the death of any federal judge, neither one of them seems to be telling how to shoot federal agents in the head. It would appear that the “far left” isn’t even all that far away from the center.
Yeah, riiiight. What’s the name of that asshole who wrote a book about killing President Bush?
Is he a centrist Democrat? 
Do you even have a point to make?
What book about killing Bush? Are you saying that Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have written books about killing somebody? Please post links!
Thus far, I’ve been able to show conclusively that:
Coulter (still very, very popular among Republicans) has no problems with McVeigh other than that he did not continue his rampage and kill people at the New York Times in addition to those workers and children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Liddy (still very, very popular among Republicans) has no problems with the idea of shooting federal agents right in the head.
Hal Turner (broadcasting to conservatives in 70 countries) said that Judge Lefkow deserved to be killed. A right-wing extremist is serving a hefty sentence for trying to accomplish Turner’s dream.
Michael Schiavo and at least one of the judges involved with the Terri Schiavo case have had bounties placed on their heads by right-wing extremists.
There is a novel called “Checkpoint” by Nicholas Baker that features two men carrying on a lively debate about assassinating Bush. However, as this is a novel (a work of fiction), it may not be the book of which you’re thinking. Here’s an excerpt from a review:
[quote]Jay’s argument swings wildly from an insane rant to caustic political analysis. Though most of his weapons - Bush-seeking bullets and a giant uranium ball - are clearly delusional, his final plan is pedestrian and deadly. While largely agreeing with his friend’s recitation of Bush’s sins, Ben struggles to calm Jay and get him to abandon his illegal plot.
“There are really strict legal standards on what constitutes a threat, and certainly a fictional conversation between fictional characters - it’s almost impossible to imagine that that could rise to the level of a legal threat against the president,” says Larry Siems, director of the Freedom to Write Program and of international programs for the PEN American Center. “Characters in novels don’t kill presidents.”[/quote]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0730/p11s02-bogn.html
It would appear from the review that the character thinking of assassinating a sitting president is not thinking clearly and that the other main character is providing good arguments against his delusional friend’s plan. Doesn’t look like a book I’ll be picking up anytime soon however, as I think all that debating back and forth would be a bit tiresome. Doesn’t seem like the sort of “beach book” I’d want for this summer.
If Baker is the author you’re thinking of, can you explain more about why you think he’s an “a**hole”? Have you read his works or know him personally? Do you know something about him that I don’t know?
Looks like books and articles will have to come with warning signs now as welll so that people like MFGR understand when sarcasm and irony are being used. It is precisely these types of people who did not realize before that lighting matches near propane or gas was dangerous nor did they understand that you should not shake a bottle of pop and that open it with the top pointing directly at the eye or that irons can be “hot” as can coffee. Talk about the shallow end of the gene pool, but anyhow denial ain’t a river in Egypt, thanks for playing now take a ride in the kiddie pool. Careful for the blow up sharks. They are not real. Do they need to have labels as well so you “understand” that they are not real?
MFGR,
Nice illustration of a double standard:
[quote=“MFGR”]Liddy has no problems with the idea of shooting federal agents…
Hal Turner said that Judge Lefkow deserved to be killed…[/quote]
These are bad, I agree.
But, I also think that Baker’s dramatization of a fact-based argument about killing Bush… i.e., a book about the idea of killing Bush… is bad.
Well, I guess I really didn’t expect you to be consistent. :bravo:
I stand firmly against the idea of any killing of anybody. I’m one of the last genuine pro-lifers.
However, even you can tell that Liddy, Turner and Coulter are people who are widely accepted providers of commentary within the conservative world. There’s a big difference between the fact of these people’s statements and off-color humor and the Baker’s fiction. It seems that Baker stacks the deck against the guy who is thinking of trying to kill the president – the author makes him delusional and provides a rational counterpart. If novelists were held personally accountable for all the deaths, love affairs, Ludlumesque plots, etc. in their books, there would be some serious problems indeed.
I still think that the bloodlust simply ain’t among the lefties, while to all appearances we have quite a few guys from the extreme right ready and willing to see a few deaths among the judiciary.
That’s interesting.
So, you’re firmly against the killing of anybody? A genuine pro-lifer?
Yet, you see nothing wrong with the Democratic support for abortion. Yes, that’s very interesting.
Note: I am a real pro-life advocate. I am against both abortion and capital punishment.
It seems that once again, you are for or against something when being so is politically convenient for you.
Whatever.
I am pro-life and am both against abortion and capital punishment as well.
However, I realize that there are people who disagree for various reasons with when life begins. Thus, I don’t have a problem with the Democratic party being pro-choice. A party can be a “big tent” that includes people with different views … sorry to see that the Republican Party has evidently decided that everybody has to be perfectly lined-up on issues.