Is Right-Wing Media Responsible for Right-Wing Violence?

[Philbert]

Tell us how you really feel, ProfV!!!:rofl:
What you said, is why so many people are upset with the new boss, those who are equally upset with any BS politician who continues the status quo.
I was outraged by the Repubs during the Clinton Admin for wasting so much time on infighting...and now I'm furious at the Dems for the biz as usual crap that puts personal and Party gain ahead of the American Future.
There is no hope of good change as long as millions of hornswoggled O-Zombies refuse to see where the current threat/damage is coming from...not GW, he's not in the building.
The 40s and 50s showed how far out there the American Experience can get, as long as enough people support a Leader who has an agenda.
Ask the Jews who lost millions of family in Europe, how much help Roosevelt was; ask the interned Japanese, or the Nisei (since most of the older Japanese are dead now), or anyone who remembers "Colored" waiting rooms at the bus station and "colored" water fountains; anyone here remember the race wars of the 50s and 60s and how bad things were before the American people decided enough was enough? ...there are many evil actions taken by every admin since the beginning of American History, and both parties have been culpable.
Only the American people can effect the course of the Country, and letting the politicians lead us instead of serve us is the standard course the world has followed for hundreds of years...we were somewhat different in that respect, and I see the weaknesses of "followers" manifesting itself now more than ever.
There is no Messiah for the US of A...just good sense and good will to depend on.
And anyone seeing in only one direction is as good as blind.

Thanks for the insights, ProfV!:thumbsup:

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: And you still have not ...

What are you talking about?? Again, you fail to realize that I'm responding to a question. If you have a problem with one of my responses being off topic, take it up with the person who posed the off topic question in this thread.

To the question. Since we know or are fairly certain there is no person in the right wing media who has given a direct order, orchestrated a conspiracy or provided material support to any of these individuals who have committed these acts, it's understood (or should be) the question relates to the effect or effectiveness of inflammatory statements and rhetoric in influencing some of these individuals.

Now EVERYONE KNOWS (or should know) that it is possible to influence behavior using words or images that communicate below our normal sensory perception thresholds through suggestive thought provocation or as it's commonly referred to, subliminal influence. We know that it is a real phenomena and we know that it can be more or less influential depending on the person. ESPECIALLY in cases of the mentally unstable.

The ENTIRE concept of marketing and advertising is based on it.

I don't know what you would accept as a credible case in which it's plausible to believe extremist rhetoric played some contributory role in some of these incidents. Certainly if expect some direct link by way of direction, orchestration or material support from someone in the media to one of these individuals it's doubtful something like that will be demonstrated. But I also doubt that is what the OP was trying to illicit by asking the question.

Here's excerpts from a story in April 2009;



Here are some statements from leading right wing voices previous to the above incident;

Lars Larson


Ann Coulter
"

(Never mind the fact that the "Lib" Senate JUST voted to allow firearms in our national parks. Upholding a Bush policy. But again, let's never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.)

Those are just a couple of examples (from many) of the type of shrill rhetoric that can in some cases ignite the impetus to action in some unstable people.

We know we enjoy a right to free speech and as with many other rights we enjoy we know such rights if abused or irresponsibly exercised can and will lead to serious consequences.

The question is, can our mainstream media voices discuss issues, argue opposition and express dissent without echoing the same shrill, inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric used by extremists when doing so effectively legitimizes these extremists??

If it's the case that these people actually believe as they state and they ARE representative of those extremist views...the question now becomes how are they mainstream in the GOP??

He was administratively seperated for being mentally unfit for duty. That admin sep comes so early in his career it's like he was never in the Marine Corps. Actually he was discharged during Recruit Training, so technically he never was in the military. I think Right-Wing violence maybe influenced by Right-Wing media..if the person is crazy. Like I said, it's difficult to say Rightwing media, most of these people are so rightwing that they start to soundlike the far left. They're extremists.

 

[Ceska]

...somewhere, deep in the deepest layers of the internet....:dunno:

The internet is not stacked layers my friend :nono: ... it's a series of tubes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs

Craig has been link to homosexual rumors for along time....Where there's smoke....

Whuuuut? Rumors on the internets!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKTH6f1JfX8


Seriously, I thought the Democratic Party believed in tolerance regarding homosexual behavior.
So why the witch hunt?

Could it be politically motivated?

...it is because democrats don't do an effective job of counter-spin ...

Really? Is that what is really needed? - more mud slinging? Rush is filling the airwaves with biased incendiary crap so the solution is to fill it with more biased incendiary crap?

The left does a fine job of this already. Listen to Olbermann characterize Sarah Palin as a terrorist and a racist...

[3:30 onward]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFAdpeTI3w


Rush, Olbermann and others may be divisive, incendiary, assholes - but that is their right.

Better to educate listeners to change the channel than to challenge a person's right to free speech, simply adding fuel to pointless fires.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: And you still have not ...

He was administratively seperated for being mentally unfit for duty. That admin sep comes so early in his career it's like he was never in the Marine Corps. Actually he was discharged during Recruit Training, so technically he never was in the military. I think Right-Wing violence maybe influenced by Right-Wing media..if the person is crazy. Like I said, it's difficult to say Rightwing media, most of these people are so rightwing that they start to soundlike the far left. They're extremists.

I don't know what the nature of his discharge was and I didn't intend for the mention of his military background to have any particular relevance to the post.

When you say, "I think Right-Wing violence maybe influenced by Right-Wing media..if the person is crazy."

Wouldn't that be the point though since the machinery that is our society has enough loose screws floating around in it? And that these loose screws are highly susceptible to taking action when they are virtually bathing in an "echo chamber" of inflammatory rhetoric....THEN their perspective is legitimized by so-called "mainstream" GOP personalities who all but suggest it is their right if not duty to take the law into their own hands?

What's my remedy? I think these people who in some cases, fan the flames with extremist rhetoric ought to maintain their right to do so as free speech is paramount.

I do think in as many ways as possible these nutjob personalities ought to be shown for who they are high and low. What they say ought to be directly lined up side by side with the almost exact same language and insinuations some of these extremist groups and people say.

The dresses ought to come off of these sheep herders and people ought to identify this nonsense with the appropriately consistent outrage necessary to marginalize them to the narrowest, extremist corners of our political dialog that so desperately aspire to.

 

[Hot Mega]

Whuuuut? Rumors on the internets!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKTH6f1JfX8

Seriously, I thought the Democratic Party believed in tolerance regarding homosexual behavior.
So why the witch hunt?

Could it be politically motivated?

What are the odds a man who's been battling rumors of being gay since the late '60s would find himself arrested for appearing to proposition an undercover cop for gay sex then cop to it? Only to deny the charges after it becomes public...I mean really, what are the odds?? Just one of those days guess.

Now I probably care more about the price of tea in China than whether or not he is gay. The gripe for the gays in their minds would likely be his hypocritical stances on gay issues.:dunno:

Really? Is that what is really needed? - more mud slinging? Rush is filling the airwaves with biased incendiary crap so the solution is to fill it with more biased incendiary crap?

The left does a fine job of this already. Listen to Olbermann characterize Sarah Palin as a terrorist and a racist...

[3:30 onward]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFAdpeTI3w


Rush, Olbermann and others may be divisive, incendiary, assholes - but that is their right.

Better to educate listeners to change the channel than to challenge a person's right to free speech, simply adding fuel to pointless fires.

Since the right wing echo/spin chamber has been up and running for nearly two decades now and isn't going away anytime soon, I think it's a good idea to at least have those who can challenge the previously unchallenged tripe that floods the public and private "airwaves" daily. That's all...

 

[Ceska]

What are the odds a man who's been battling rumors of being gay since the late '60s would find himself arrested for appearing to proposition an undercover cop for gay sex then cop to it? Only to deny the charges after it becomes public...I mean really, what are odds??

Probably pretty high. Many people don't need more than "appearances" to confirm "rumors" they are already inclined to believe.

Now I probably care more about the price of tea in China than whether or not he is gay. The gripe for the gays in their minds would likely be his hypocritical stances on gay issues.:dunno:

Why aren't his positions on gay issues what is being attacked instead?

Isn't it hypocritical for a gay rights advocate to attack a man for alleged homosexual behavior? (even if his homosexual behavior contradicts some other things he may have said)

For instance, is a gay man allowed to be opposed to gay marriage without being ridiculed for his homosexual behavior? Don't gay hypocrites deserve to be defended? Can't the gay rights advocate criticize his positions on the issues without ridiculing him for his homosexual behavior?

It would seem a gay rights advocate would want to defend the rights of all homosexuals not just "non-hypocrites" - otherwise they themselves become a hypocrite (and lose their right to be defended).

Since the right wing echo/spin chamber has been up and running for nearly two decades now and isn't going away anytime soon, I think it's a good idea to at least have those who can challenge the previously unchallenged tripe that floods the public and private "airwaves" daily. That's all...

The question isn't whether or not to challenge it, but how.
With more tripe?
With biased liberal spin?
Wouldn't biased liberal hogwash provide just the ammunition and motivation that right-wing radicals are looking for?

kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?...

Perhaps radical liberal media is also partly responsible for right-wing violence...

 

[Hot Mega]

Probably pretty high. Many people don't need more than "appearances" to confirm "rumors" they are already inclined to believe.



Why are aren't his positions on gay issues what is being attacked instead?

Isn't it hypocritical for a gay rights advocate to attack a man for alleged homosexual behavior? (even if his homosexual behavior contradicts some other things he may have said)

For instance, is a gay man allowed to be opposed to gay marriage without being ridiculed for his homosexual behavior? Don't gay hypocrites deserve to be defended? Can't the gay rights advocate criticize his positions on the issues without ridiculing him for his homosexual behavior?

It would seem a gay rights advocate would want to defend the rights of all homosexuals not just "non-hypocrites" - otherwise they themselves become a hypocrite (and lose their right to be defended).

Uh, the point wouldn't be attacking him for being gay...as he asserts he's not. I imagine gay activists would be upset with him (or anyone) voting against their interest while pretending to be and under the guise of being straight.

The question isn't whether or not to challenge it, but how.
With more tripe?
With biased liberal spin?
Wouldn't biased liberal hogwash provide just the ammunition and motivation that right-wing radicals are looking for?

kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?...

Perhaps radical liberal media is also partly responsible for right-wing violence...

Since you posted it, what is the "biased liberal spin" from the link you provided? From what I saw, Olbermann attacked Palin on hypocrisy. What did you take from that (specifically)?

 

[Ceska]

I imagine gay activists would be upset with him (or anyone) voting against their interest while pretending to be and under the guise of being straight.

Uh, the point wouldn't be attacking him for being gay...as he asserts he's not.

Then it should not be relevant.

Please answer 1-4:

1) Should the homosexual behavior of a gay hypocrite be defended like any other?
2) Should the homosexual behavior of gays "under the guise of being straight" also be defended?

If you answer yes to either of the above, then why not Senator Larry Craig?


Even if an attempt to sidestep this is offered ...
"We are attacking his hypocrisy not his homosexual behavior"

3) How can we accuse him of hypocrisy without also accusing him of being gay? (which supposedly is not important to you)
4) Assume we are right, he is a gay person who doesn't believe as most other gays do. Is it ok to ridicule him then? What value does it add?

Antagonists will have found a homosexual hypocrite (who knew) but would be no closer to helping their position.

Regardless of his other beliefs, to ridicule him makes the accuser a hypocrite.

Since you posted it, what is the "biased liberal spin" from the link you provided? From what I saw, Olbermann attacked Palin on hypocrisy. What did you take from that (specifically)?

Olbermann, in trying to attack Republicans for using underhanded tactics, uses the same tactics.

Olbermann accuses Republicans of perpetuating the unsubstantiated Obama=Ayers=Terrorist connection based on loose evidence. Then he does the same with respect to Palin.

Does he clarify, "The accusations I have made against Palin are also loose associations and do not mean that Palin is a terrorist. I am making the point that they have no more relevance than the Ayers charges"? No. He asserts them directly and passionately.
Underlying point: Palin's associations are worse than Obama's

Does this "balance" anything? No. Now we have more biased exaggerated accusations, not less.

Balanced?
With the most sarcastic sneer possible he says things like (4:30) "Your opponent's guy Ayers wound up on a volunteer anti poverty committee in Chicago but your guy Vogler founded a group wanting to rip one of the stars off the American Flag"

(hmmm no mention of how "in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway" .... "Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant in the Weatherman group from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970, stated that "Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Vogler and Moothy did not do anything this extreme (even per Olbermann)
Even if they had, the point (as in Obama's case) isn't only about "how bad is the bad guy" but "how close is the relationship."

In any case, this is not responsible news reporting (even for an opinion piece).
It is biased and incendiary, no different than the type offered by radicals in the right-wing media.

We do not refute unsubstantiated "friendships" with terrorists by perpetuating more unsubstantiated "friendships" with terrorists.

Olbermann does not set things right, he makes himself a hypocrite.


Please tell me, why does one kind of hypocrisy and bias seem to excite you while the other kind upsets you?

 

[Hot Mega]

Then it should not be relevant.

Please answer 1-4:

1) Should the homosexual behavior of a gay hypocrite be defended like any other?
2) Should the homosexual behavior of gays "under the guise of being straight" also be defended?

If you answer yes to either of the above, then why not Senator Larry Craig?

Even if an attempt to sidestep this is offered ...
"We are attacking his hypocrisy not his homosexual behavior"

3) How can we accuse him of hypocrisy without also accusing him of being gay? (which supposedly is not important to you)
4) Assume we are right, he is a gay person who doesn't believe as most other gays do. Is it ok to ridicule him then? What value does it add?

Antagonists will have found a homosexual hypocrite (who knew) but would be no closer to helping their position.

Regardless of his other beliefs, to ridicule him makes the accuser a hypocrite.

Huh??
First of all, what you're missing is the accusations are not mine. I said I imagine gays feel a certain way about the guy based on the way most people would think of a person whom they perceived to live one way in public and a different way in private. I'm not gay I can only surmise or speculate what their problem with Craig would be based on common sense.

With respect to your first two questions, who attacked Craig for being gay?

With respect to your second two questions, I never accused him of anything. Gays and others have apparently accuse him of being gay...which I IMAGINE only matters to them in so far as he's voted against gay interests. AGAIN, in that case I assume their problem quite naturally is what they perceive as his phony lifestyle being the motivation for his voting pattern.

The only thing I accused Craig of is sounding like an idiot in trying to explain his actions in that bathroom. If what he said passes your common sense smell tests then more power to you. To me, he sound like a guy who fucked up and got caught then started to make up asinine explanations for actions the cop apparently recognized as tell-tale signs propositioning.

Olbermann, in trying to attack Republicans for using underhanded tactics, uses the same tactics.

Olbermann accuses Republicans of perpetuating the unsubstantiated Obama=Ayers=Terrorist connection based on loose evidence. Then he does the same with respect to Palin.

Does he clarify, "The accusations I have made against Palin are also loose associations and do not mean that Palin is a terrorist. I am making the point that they have no more relevance than the Ayers charges"? No. He asserts them directly and passionately.
Underlying point: Palin's associations are worse than Obama's

Alas, you still don't get it. Olbermann wouldn't likely be making those claims against Palin but for the claims Palin and GOPers were attempting to make against Obama. Olbermann posits if we are to be consistent and go by the standards GOPers and Palin herself were using to assail Obama's "associations"...then Palin's 1.) Ought to be considered worse and 2.) Why isn't anyone raising questions about Palin's "associations" to anti Americans?

Does this "balance" anything? No. Now we have more biased exaggerated accusations, not less.

Balanced?
With the most sarcastic sneer possible he says things like (4:30) "Your opponent's guy Ayers wound up on a volunteer anti poverty committee in Chicago but your guy Vogler founded a group wanting to rip one of the stars off the American Flag"

(hmmm no mention of how "in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police. The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway" .... "Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant in the Weatherman group from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970, stated that "Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Vogler and Moothy did not do anything this extreme (even per Olbermann)
Even if they had, the point (as in Obama's case) isn't only about "how bad is the bad guy" but "how close is the relationship."

In any case, this is not responsible news reporting (even for an opinion piece).
It is biased and incendiary, no different than the type offered by radicals in the right-wing media.

We do not refute unsubstantiated "friendships" with terrorists by perpetuating more unsubstantiated "friendships" with terrorists.

Olbermann does not set things right, he makes himself a hypocrite.

Please tell me, why does one kind of hypocrisy and bias seem to excite you while the other kind upsets you?

The hypocrisy you're missing is how Palin, her husband and her son get a pass for having a contemporanous relationship/membership with an organization founded on the premise of seceding from the US by a staunch anti American.

Todd and Track Palin were members of this party as recently as 2001!!! Palin herself had just spoken on behalf of the party!!! All this knowing full well the platform was still anti American and the founder Vogler is still canonized by this group.

Contrast that to the fact that while Ayers was committing his acts, Obama was 8 and not even in the US!!! Is it even clear Obama knew what this guy did 30 or 40 years ago let alone being "associated" with it??? The guy was a professor when Obama met him...they happened to be appointed to the same board of more than 30 or 40 other people. They knew each other and talked in relationship to that function. How is what Ayers did 30 or 40 years ago remotely connected to Obama??

The question Olbermann demonstrates is, if it's relevant for Palin to assert all kinds of nonsense based on a flimsy, laughable case like that, how is it not just as relevant if not more so to make assertions about Palin based on her more substantial, recent and intimate connect to a group founded on anti American secessionism???

The whole point was to use her stupid, specious arguments to illustrate how hypocritical and laughable she sounded and how there's the double standard of allowing Palin to run around making all these assertions re: associations while no one asks her about hers?

 

[Member2019]

Keep in mind we're talking about what he said he would do, not what you and others think he should be doing.

You're joking, right?

Oh, for starters ...
- No lobbyists (anyone with half a brain knew that was a flat out lie)
- Close Qitmo and end the tribunals (my God that's my favorite)
- Press access to countless things (from pictures to detainees)
- Wire tapping on international calls to/from domestic phones (now expanded)
- Fiscal responsibility (spending now expanded into areas beyond just W.'s "damage")

Should I keep going?

In all honesty, I'm done at this point. You have more than proved, just like hypocritical left and right wingers, that this is about unevenly apply civil liberties, and censoring people you disagree with.

And to top all that off, nothing at all here remotely blames the right wing media for violence. The "rumor" and the "they deserve what they get" from the left is no different than what I see from the right." This has been 100% rhetoric over and over.

It's really sad to see people argue to take away rights for whatever justified reasons. It really comes down to a simple question ...

"Is a media personality asking you to blame someone for your troubles?"
"Or is a media personality asking you to question if you are losing yoru rights?"

I see a lot of people in the left media preach -- and I mean preach -- that rich people are the source of all our problems. And I see a lot of people in the right preach that people are trying to take away your individual freedom and fiscal rights.

I'm not saying that the right is "more correct" than the left, or that the right is even accurate on what rights are being taken away.

I'm just saying that people like myself, who tell anyone to stop blaming others for their problems and start worrying about people who actually do want to take away rights, are labelled a right-winger. That's ironic because my worries are aligned with my rights being taken away, not who I should blame for my problems.

And says a lot if that is what a "right winger" is.

To me, any rights are not left or right. And to me, blame is more about lack of personal responsibility.

 

[Hot Mega]

You're joking, right?

Oh, for starters ...
- No lobbyists (anyone with half a brain knew that was a flat out lie)
- Close Qitmo and end the tribunals (my God that's my favorite)
- Press access to countless things (from pictures to detainees)
- Wire tapping on international calls to/from domestic phones (now expanded)
- Fiscal responsibility (spending now expanded into areas beyond just W.'s "damage")

Should I keep going?

"No lobbyists."
While Obama has authored the strictest WH ethics reforms with respect to access to his WH in to date, he has hired former lobbyists in about 8 cases.

"Close Qitmo (sic) and end the tribunals"
The day he was sworn in, he directed prosecutors to file a motion to suspend legal proceedings against the suspected terrorists held at GTMO. Two days later, he issued an executive order to review the disposition of the prisoners and ordered that the facility be shut down within a year.

"Wire tapping on international calls to/from domestic phones (now expanded)"
Obama hasn't "expanded" wire tapping. He "expanded" the defense argument in a lawsuit against government agencies by a civil liberties group. Obama's administration argued under "sovereign immunity" that a government agency can only be sued if there is a "willful disclosure". During the campaign Obama voted for the new FISA act so there is no reversal after he's become POTUS.

"Fiscal responsibility"
The bailouts to industry are largely loans. Congress has pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO) which congress routinely ignores. Obama want's to strengthen PAYGO and make it a law.

I count about 115 promises that have been either kept, in progress, compromised or started then stalled as compared to about 6 that can be called broken so far and nearly 400 that have see no action so far.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

In all honesty, I'm done at this point. You have more than proved, just like hypocritical left and right wingers, that this is about unevenly apply civil liberties, and censoring people you disagree with.

And to top all that off, nothing at all here remotely blames the right wing media for violence. The "rumor" and the "they deserve what they get" from the left is no different than what I see from the right." This has been 100% rhetoric over and over.

It's really sad to see people argue to take away rights for whatever justified reasons.

Find on this thread where I argued that their right to do so ought to be "taken away". I'm not sure I've read in this thread where anyone asserts that.

Point of fact this is what I specifically said,

What's my remedy? I think these people who in some cases, fan the flames with extremist rhetoric ought to maintain their right to do so as free speech is paramount.

I do think in as many ways as possible these nutjob personalities ought to be shown for who they are high and low. What they say ought to be directly lined up side by side with the almost exact same language and insinuations some of these extremist groups and people say.

The dresses ought to come off of these sheep herders and people ought to identify this nonsense with the appropriately consistent outrage necessary to marginalize them to the narrowest, extremist corners of our political dialog that so desperately aspire to.

So again, where did I argue for censoring people I disagree with??

As far as not proving anything, I've given several examples. From the lies perpetuated about Ruby Ridge and Waco and the potential role they played in influencing the acts in Oklahoma City, to the shrill myths about Obama coming for your "guns" and the very same statements from a Pennsylvania cop killer. Now if you don't buy those circumstances as corollary then you don't buy it. But don't contend "nothing "remotely blames". Which I'm not sure what is meant by "blames" in that context as MANY have blamed them but I thought people like you were looking for cases that back up those claims. Which if you go back and read through the thread, you'll find.

 

[pool_hustler]

very well said :hatsoff:

I just wanted to share with the freeones community that the member named Philbert actually gave me negative reputation for posting the above three words, and ONLY the above three words - "very well said" - in post 86 of this thread.

:rofl:

His accompanying comment was, "Great...another fool joins FreeOnes..."very well said"? You gotta be shitting me...learn to read and think."



In searching this Philbert persons posts I see that they are very frequently abusive, displaying what might best be described as a serious Napoleon complex. Perhaps this Philbert person has a very small penis, or is compensating for some other physical or characterological shortcoming by behaving as he does. If that is the case, and it certainly appears to be, he has my sympathy.

I am curious, however, if the members and moderators of this forum consider Philbert's behavior appropriate, particulary as a form of "welcome" to new members who have done absolutely nothing to offend either the community or this Philbert person himself.

 

[Facial_King]

^^^ No, I don't think Philbert's behavior is appropriate. It's almost always a problem. He's constantly polluting the threads I start with similar ad hominem and irrelevant, off-topic rants.

His reputation power is a mystery to me - unless he's registered some other usernames and gives himself positive rep on a regular basis.

 

[georges]

^^^ No, I don't think Philbert's behavior is appropriate. It's almost always a problem. He's constantly polluting the threads I start with similar ad hominem and irrelevant, off-topic rants.

His reputation power is a mystery to me - unless he's registered some other usernames and gives himself positive rep on a regular basis.

Ok let me in chime in. You think some leftist liberals behavior is appropriate here???? The most significant and heaviest liberals got banned on this board, so what's your point? To evilize right wing members by saying they are at the basis of all aches of America is senseless. During 2003 to 2008, I have only heard Bush bashing, perhaps it is time to reverse the steam and give a serious slap in the face each time Obama lies or promises too much. People can be very good at this game. I am all for constructive criticism but I am not going to tolerate the intolerance of leftists (no matter the website where I am member), on that trust me.
I am not making praises for someone who made a budvase of lies and who is unable to fullfill all of his promises (let alone the fifth) and who is kissing the arab nations asses as well as the UN's ass. At last but not least, I have very little sympathy for someone who is trying to implement a social security system losely based on the social security system of bankrupted european countries but that is another subject.
You shouldn't care about one's rep power, I personally don't care what the person's rep is. I simply care that the person who is posting is realistic and is down earth. Also as a simple reminder before making assumptions that a member has multiple accounts, be sure that you get your facts straight and they can be proved. Targeting a member and implying by saying that he has multiple accounts when he hasn't, is somewhat opposed to the guidelines.

 

[Hot Mega]

Ok let me in chime in. You think some leftist liberals behavior is appropriate here???? The most significant and heaviest liberals got banned on this board, so what's your point? To evilize right wing members by saying they are at the basis of all aches of America is senseless. During 2003 to 2008, I have only heard Bush bashing, perhaps it is time to reverse the steam and give a serious slap in the face each time Obama lies or promises too much. People can be very good at this game. I am all for constructive criticism but I am not going to tolerate the intolerance of leftists (no matter the website where I am member), on that trust me.
I am not making praises for someone who made a budvase of lies and who is unable to fullfill all of his promises (let alone the fifth) and who is kissing the arab nations asses as well as the UN's ass. At last but not least, I have very little sympathy for someone who is trying to implement a social security system losely based on the social security system of bankrupted european countries but that is another subject.
You shouldn't care about one's rep power, I personally don't care what the person's rep is. I simply care that the person who is posting is realistic and is down earth. Also as a simple reminder before making assumptions that a member has multiple accounts, be sure that you get your facts straight and they can be proved. Targeting a member and implying by saying that he has multiple accounts when he hasn't, is somewhat opposed to the guidelines.

You think it's an appropriate to neg rep someone just for merely agreeing with another poster?

(And please, let's just stick to answering that narrow question without a diatribe about what you think Obama is promising.)

 

[georges]

You think it's an appropriate to neg rep someone just for merely agreeing with another poster?

(And please, let's just stick to answering that narrow question without a diatribe about what you think Obama is promising.)

I will be honest, it is not necessarily appopriate to neg rep someone because he is merely agreeing or not with another poster. But keeping the same more or less threads, with Obama did this or Obama did that is not bringing much positive. Same comment can be said about the constant whining Bush threads made in the past.

Just my two very modest :2 cents:

regards

georges

 

[Facial_King]

Here's a great, detailed analysis of the recent right-wing domestic terrorism, that is a must-read for anyone who's been reading or participating in this thread.

"Mythbusting Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism":

http://crooksandliars.com/node/29079

 

[titsrock]

Prof,
Congratulations to you for using Larry Craig not only as a personal comparison but a crutch for the same ol' civil liberties rant. In having read many, many posts by you on topics (usually political or economical) I must confess that the Larry Craig "stuff" feels very phony to me. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I offer this assessment after laughing my ass off for the past 10 minutes having just read that you actually introduced men's suits and public bathroom stall configurations into a "serious" debate:hatsoff: I will be giving you positive rep for that, not any of the *famous* negato Philby rep that's been recently floating around these parts:1orglaugh

However, these statements seem worthy of closer inspection...

Right-wing media is very in-your-face sensationalism with name calling. It's direct. It's the one thing I don't like about it and the main reason I don't watch it.

Was this style of direct sensationalism/name-calling a pre-Obama phenomena too? It sounds like you, admittedly, don't watch wacko media anymore so we'll just have to go with your best judgment. My judgment is that Wacko media has gone from cheerleading Dubya's policies to this sensationalistic name calling that you've identified.

I'd much rather have Bill O'Reilly telling me is overbearing opinion straight up than what Dan Rather did night after night, because at least I know O'Reilly admits he's purposely being offensive and direct.

I've watched BillO plenty of times, and I've never watched him call himself offensive or direct?:dunno: Does anyone, other than Howard Stern, view an offensive nature as a benefit? How does your appreciation of BillO square with your apparent dislike of Wacko media? Hmmm. That seems like a contradiction.

As for Obama continuing the legacy of Dubya...well, since you don't support any of the changes that Obama campaigned on, this Obama disappointment should be something you're happy about, right?

Or, do you actually, in all this time, support Gitmo, the Phone Co. Immunity, the censure of the torture photos, etc.?

It seems like you are having it both ways--criticizing Obama for wanting to bring "change" in the first place and then criticizing him for not bringing about the "change"? Shouldn't open Obama supporters be the ones to criticize him at this point in his nascent first term?

 

[Philbert]

I just wanted to share with the freeones community that the member named Philbert actually gave me negative reputation for posting the above three words, and ONLY the above three words - "very well said" - in post 86 of this thread.

:rofl:

His accompanying comment was, "Great...another fool joins FreeOnes..."very well said"? You gotta be shitting me...learn to read and think."



In searching this Philbert persons posts I see that they are very frequently abusive, displaying what might best be described as a serious Napoleon complex. Perhaps this Philbert person has a very small penis, or is compensating for some other physical or characterological shortcoming by behaving as he does. If that is the case, and it certainly appears to be, he has my sympathy.

I am curious, however, if the members and moderators of this forum consider Philbert's behavior appropriate, particulary as a form of "welcome" to new members who have done absolutely nothing to offend either the community or this Philbert person himself.

You should fit right in here...plenty of whiny babies on the site already; F-K has a constant tear in his eye from all the hurt he feels from my posts...:rofl:
(Hey, F-K...care to man up and make a direct accusation to the mods about me having multiple accounts?)
You said nothing but you agree with a large pot of steaming BS; as a new member who obviously hasn't bothered to read the site rules and jumps into a discussion with no contribution but 3 words, I can tell there isn't much thought behind the keyboard.
You deserved neg rep, and will get more as time goes by, I'm sure.
If embarrassing yourself is ok with you, don't change a thing.
Just be yourself and keep on whining...

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

Is time up? ​