Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The bile is strong
Published on March 21, 2004 By Draginol In Democrat

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_03_14.PHP#001868

The hatred towards George Bush and Republicans in general has certainly increased since the 2000 election. I visit a lot of websites during the week and while I see a lot of idealogues on the right, there is no right-wing equivalent to Democratic-underground.

Even here on JoeUser, the tolerenace for the right by those on the left seems to be problematic, at best. I have seen people argue that this site is right-wing. Why? It's pretty easy to demonstrate that as being false. Just look at the top 20 blog sites on this site (right of page) and you'll see that there are more that are left of center than right of center.

Here's an excerpt John Hawkins found on Democratic underground:

SCRUBDASHRUB: OK, this is juvenile but this is how fed up I am. I need to watch it because I don't want to wind up getting shot, but I was driving to work and some idiot drove by me on the expressway whose license plate read 1GOP1 (I might add, he was driving completely arrogantly (no signalling, etc...typically of the party he's so proud of).

I waited until he got far enough ahead of me and promptly flipped him the one finger salute, then gave him three fingers to spell "W" and the thumbs down symbol.

Jack @ss...

boobooday: "Don't get shot. But really, he deserved it. It's like smoking. We have to make it socially unacceptable to be a Republican.

That's what they tried to do to the word "liberal." Time to ATTACK BACK!!"

nicecakes: Sure thing. Time to go beyond politics and get personal to start a new civil war! After enough victories we will be the only party and one party rule will rool!

MadProphetMargin: "That's not juvenile. Juvenile would have meant following him to a gas station, and "improving" his license plates when he went in to pay.

Try this one: On a Friday, after working hours, put a crack & peel sign on your local republican headquarter's (8.5X11 crack & peel inkjet paper is available at any major office supply company) front door. Have the sign read "Whites only - Blacks please use rear entrance."

With any luck, it will remain up until Monday. For additional fun, call the local papers and complain about what you "just saw".

MPM,
Master election prankster."

lastknowngood: "Call DMV with tag # and get his address then send off for some gay porn to be shipped to his house. Just one of my little evil ideas to use on arrogant christens and prudes."

Now, maybe this kind of hatred and vitriol exists on the right but I can't find it. This isn't some lone kook here, this is several people all wanting to do harm to someone simply because his license plate has the words GOP on it (which may or may not have anything to do with being a Republican).

This is the kind of intolerance Bakerstreet made note of in his article http://bakerstreet.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=10659 .

 

 


Comments (Page 3)
on Mar 22, 2004
Saint I can totally see people who are genuinely concerned, but many people when asked why they dislike Bush , their reply is always "Because he's stupid" and will not elaborate....because they can't. Now many people on these boards will actually give reasons, and that I completely respect, what annoys me are the people who really have no reason.
on Mar 22, 2004
I believe that the rank and file left wingers are much more militant than the rank and file right wingers.


And I disagree. Your only proof is a few websites. There are websites by "rank and file" republicans condemning homosexuality. That kind of talk, is as much actual violence as the left wingers you wrote about. Playing pranks is different than saying "Stupid faggots" or "All Queers are going to hell". By the way, I can provide plenty of examples of websites that spout that kind of language.

Your premise is wrong, but I doubt you'll admit that.

Cheers
on Mar 22, 2004
Saint Ying: Trent Lott , Jerry Falwell, and Paul Wolfowitz are conservatives. Their values are "traditional". "Militant" doesn't even apply. Have they promoted civil disobedience or anything like what is cited above?

There is no comparason between Trent Lott calling himself Conservative and Moby calling himself Liberal. One is the truth, one isn't.
on Mar 23, 2004
Saint Ying: Trent Lott , Jerry Falwell, and Paul Wolfowitz are conservatives. Their values are "traditional". "Militant" doesn't even apply. Have they promoted civil disobedience or anything like what is cited above?

There is no comparason between Trent Lott calling himself Conservative and Moby calling himself Liberal. One is the truth, one isn't.


Paul Wolfowitz is a neoconservative, essentially an American imperialist. They aren't very concerned with domestic issues such as small government, tax cuts, traditional values, etc. Their entire interest and ideology is based around the use of force. You are free to define that as you like, but I'll define that as a militant in the 'statist' sense.

Jerry Falwell and Trent Lott are fundamentalist Christians whose rhetoric and activism promote intolerance and division. Tolerance, however, is a fundamental principal of good democracy, and allows people to work together with a certain degree of common interest, while putting their differences aside. So while they are conserving their own values, they are not working to conserve common values.

If you want to call them conservatives, go ahead. Let's just agree that they're conserving and liberalizing things that you value, while threatening things that I value, while liberals are conserving and liberalizing things that I value while threatening things that you value.

We could go on with this all week, but it will go nowhere, and I really don't care to hear about Moby or Jane Fonda or some other freelance media personality with wealth, fame and voice, and how they made audacious political comments that might be conceived as extreme and hateful by people that don't agree with them. I'm much more concerned with ideology and its sources and impacts than with the talk-radio game of blaming so-and-so for saying or doing such-and-such and being unpatriotic, immoral, or extreme. Perhaps I am just more comfortable with people saying what they think so long as they aren't provoking violence.


However, on the original topic, there is the recent case of Michael Heath, the leader of the Maine Christian Coallition, who decided it might be a nifty idea to do some investigation into the personal lives of Maine legislators to determine their sexual orientation, and then publish a list, for the sake of public awareness, containing the names of all the rumored gay legislators. It was funny in a grotesque, twisted way. The day after he announced this, all the members of the senate, republicans and democrats alike, wore armbands with purple triangles in a show of solidarity against Heath's plan. The arm bands resembled those worn by homosexuals in nazi concentration camps, where people were categorized and labeled to point out their 'undesirable' qualities. Heath wasn't promoting violence, but he was promoting division, prejudice, and an emphasis on uncommon over common values. Heath has been a leading figure in the fight against gay rights here in Maine, but his reputation took a serious hit after this incident, and it might not recover. To his credit, he did apologize and agree to forget about his little plan.
on Mar 23, 2004
Saint Ying: for your benefit:

con·ser·va·tism
1 the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Jerry Falwell, Trent Lott, and Paul Wolfowitz are espousing the same ideals that have been prevalent in the US for centuries. You may call opposing homosexual rights "intolerant", but the fact remains that the US has been traditionally "intolerant" of homosexuality, and the majority of Americans remain "intolerant" with regards to many of the rights being demanded, notably gay marriage. If Trent Lott started espousing gay rights tomorrow, he wouldn't be conservative, he would be Liberal, at the very least.

The trouble I find with many of your posts is that you call attention to your views as if they were traditional, and therefore to be "conserved" by conservatives. On the contrary, the nation is being dragged kicking and screaming toward your stance, often against its will. What else would conservatives do but resist that kind of change?
on Mar 23, 2004
lib·er·al·ism [ líbbərə lìzzəm, líbbrə lìzzəm ]

1. politics progressive views: a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters

2. politics political theory stressing individualism: a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property

3. economics free-market economics: an economic theory in favor of free competition and minimal government regulation

4. christianity Christian theological movement: a movement in modern Protestantism stressing intellectual freedom and the moral content of Christianity over the doctrines of traditional theology

IG
on Mar 23, 2004
con·ser·va·tism
1 the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change



So in recent years, Republicans have been pushing for change since they control all branches of government. In particular, they've made big changes in tax policy and foreign policy. Democrats have generally resisted those changes. Are Democrats conservatives, and Republicans not conservative? Is pushing for, say, a flat tax a "liberal" thing to do, or at least not a "conservative" thing to do?
on Mar 23, 2004
And I disagree. Your only proof is a few websites. There are websites by "rank and file" republicans condemning homosexuality. That kind of talk, is as much actual violence as the left wingers you wrote about. Playing pranks is different than saying "Stupid faggots" or "All Queers are going to hell". By the way, I can provide plenty of examples of websites that spout that kind of language.
Being against homosexuality is not the same as putting together plans to harm someone based purely on their philosophy. Rank and file conservatives don't get together on websites and plan to harm other people. If they do, then please point them out.
on Mar 23, 2004
Actually, the kind of pranks you describe are exactly the same thing as condemning homosexuality. It's a question of philosophy yes? I have pointed out websites that planned acts of petty vindictiveness against Clinton. Since you are unwilling to accept my evidence this will be my last post on this subject.

Cheers
on Mar 23, 2004
Wow I hate arguing....or love it....I'm not sure. Anyway, it's always fun to watch the progression of these threads. They always morph into the same thing over time. Good stuff.
on Mar 23, 2004
"Actually, the kind of pranks you describe are exactly the same thing as condemning homosexuality. It's a question of philosophy yes?"

So you are saying that if I state a belief that homosexuality is unacceptable behavior, that it is the same thing as putting a racist sign on your front door and calling the newspapers and reporting you to them for it? I wonder if you would have that opinon after seeing your name in the newspaper.

"I have pointed out websites that planned acts of petty vindictiveness against Clinton. Since you are unwilling to accept my evidence this will be my last post on this subject."

No, you pointed out websites and accused them of plotting acts of petty vindictiveness against Clinton. You didn't offer any evidence that I saw, even after we asked you for it.

on Mar 23, 2004
So you are saying that if I state a belief that homosexuality is unacceptable behavior, that it is the same thing as putting a racist sign on your front door and calling the newspapers and reporting you to them for it? I wonder if you would have that opinon after seeing your name in the newspaper.


Don't be stupid. You are totally bluring the lines. The act that we are comparing the anti-gay statement to is not the act of putting a racist sign on someone's front door, it's the act of suggesting it. Plenty of hateful people, conservative, liberal or neither, say they would 'kill a fag', and I've met a few myself, but rarely do they actually do it. Likewise, the internet is full of the kind of gibberish that you're all making a big deal about. In our liberal society, and especially on the internet from the security of one's home, nobody has to take personal responsibility for the things they express. Political expression and 'political action' manifest themselves differently and serve completely different purposes. Expression is just as frequently used to relate emotions, fantasies, and impressions as it is to relate intent or planning, so unless you can provide me with evidence of some underground socialist planning board behind this, or some how/what/where details to go along with it, or if you can show me how it leads directly to REAL fear, violence and division BEYOND the usual mundane political back and forth, I am not inclined to agree with your 'gotcha' conclusion that the article cited is dangerous, reprehensible, or exclusive to liberal positivism.

The trouble I find with many of your posts is that you call attention to your views as if they were traditional, and therefore to be "conserved" by conservatives. On the contrary, the nation is being dragged kicking and screaming toward your stance, often against its will. What else would conservatives do but resist that kind of change?


Again, you aren't gonna win this game, because they're my values against yours, and neither will change any time soon. 'Toleration' is a 18th and 19th century term refering to the belief that differences of religion could be put aside, allowing the political conversation to shift to more pertinent and pressing issues, like taxes and laws. Bloodshed between different religious associations had been a fact of life in Europe, and the doctrine of 'tolerance' challenged people to put those differences aside for the common good. In the sense that it was a Jeffersonian principal too, I can make a good argument that it IS traditional, and that sexual preference is very much the same kind of personal, incendiary issue that religious preference was then and still is today. Likewise, since 'free-market culture' was a value of the the classical liberals, todays libertarians, I can also say that that is part of our tradition. And yes, perhaps homophobia is part of our tradition too. Could it be that there is one giant paradox in our tradition that is causing all these clashes, or are you going to continue to play the fool and 'blame the liberals' for pulling us in the wrong direction, as if there is a RIGHT direction and you know it.
on Mar 23, 2004
I just remembered this example of conservative misbehavior, which seemed to me to be worse than that linked from DU. As described by the New York Times' ombudsman:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E7DE1E3EF937A25750C0A9629C8B63http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E7DE1E3EF937A25750C0A9629C8B63

"Now I'm going to pick on the worst habits of certain anti-Times critics lurking on the Web. Last Sunday, an item appeared on FreeRepublic.com under the headline ''FReeper Call to Action! Help make N.Y. Times correct the phony setup outrage story of Bush ads.'' Posted by ''Doug from Upland,'' it exhorted readers of the self-described ''Premier Conservative News Forum'' to call Washington correspondent Richard W. Stevenson and demand that he ''correct the record.'' Stevenson's apparent offense was a March 5 story he and Jim Rutenberg had written about negative reactions to Republican ads invoking the events of 9/11. Stevenson's telephone number was reproduced in the posting in large black letters.

Soon Stevenson's phone was ringing like an alarm clock, his voice mail filling up, he told me via e-mail, with ''messages that impugned my professionalism and patriotism.'' Only one person, he said, bothered to leave a name and a phone number.

Had they all done so, Stevenson might have called them back and told them neither he nor Rutenberg had written what Doug from Upland had attributed to them. An Australian newspaper had run a story that included details from several different news services but left the Times writers' bylines in place. The material that provoked the posting and the calls had never appeared in The Times; informed that this was the case, Doug replaced his earlier exhortation with an apology to Stevenson.

I've been through several escapades like this one, launched from various ideological precincts scattered around the Web. They all conclude with the same lesson: It's all right to knock The Times. It's even your privilege to hate it. But it's always useful to read it first."


The DU people planned pranks and never executed them, as far as we know. These conservatives performed real harassment of a reporter just trying to do his job.

Of course, I'm not going to generalize anything about conservative versus liberal behavior--a sample size of one is not enough. I would suggest that no one else do so either.
on Mar 23, 2004
Saint Ying: I'm not being stupid. The exact words were "the kind of pranks you describe are exactly the same thing as condemning homosexuality.". He didn't say 'suggesting pranks'. This is a grand example of how the Left believes that the mere expression of an 'unprogressive' belief is somehow inciting violence.

The word "homophobia" itself is a subjective term implying that there is something wrong with people who refuse to be accepting of homosexuality. If you have a deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are branded a homophobe. Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? How liberal is it to tell people that they can't believe or express their distaste with something, no matter what it is?
on Mar 24, 2004
Oh sheesh. Calling someone a homophobe isn't attacking their right to freedom of expression. Calling someone a homophobe doesn't mean you think he has no right to speak, it just means that you find what he says or does distasteful. There's a huge and obvious difference.

It's just like calling someone a racist, or an anti-semite. If I had a deeply held religious belief that Jews were evil, you'd call me an anti-semite, and rightly so.

Words like homophobe (when used pejoratively as opposed to descriptively) expressions are ways to "express distaste with something," as you put it.
Meta
Views
» 3962
Comments
» 55
Category
Sponsored Links