Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
What does it say about your philosphy when it attracts these guys?
Published on June 9, 2004 By Draginol In Current Events

Luckily, most vile people on this earth don't pick up on an ideology. And of those that do, few of them are well spoken enough to gather any attention.  Unfortunately, that still leaves us with a number of vile human beings that manage to get their despicable world views broadcast to the world. And most of these vile creatures tend to be from the far left.

I don't pretend to know why most of them are left wingers. Maybe it's because there are simply fewer nasty creatures on the right that are capable of putting thoughts and ideas together in a coherent form to earn any attention. Or maybe it's because the media, already sympathetic to the left, tends to be more willing to distribute nastiness that comes from left wingers and sewage from the right.

The fact is that while there are a few right wing ideologues that manage to get out there a lot (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh to name two), there is no right wing equivalent to Michael Moore, Al Franken, or Ted Rall.  Feel free to disagree with me and name someone on the right that is remotely as nasty and hateful as any of three who get anywhere near the kind of coverage they do. The Christian Coalition can be pretty ideological but they get no where near the attention that kooky Hollywood celebrities get.  Jerry Falwell will occasionally say something nuts but over and over movie stars and singers such as Barbara Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc. manage to get air time with their half-baked ideas and hatemongering.

The vile left can be summed up best by one of its own members, Ted Rall whose belief is simply that he and his kind are more enlightened than the rest of us and therefore he has a duty to try to educate us knuckle-draggers. His mission, like those of his peers, is to let others know that they're not alone. For they are convinced that their number are legion and if they can get the word out, they can change the course of this nation to follow a more enlightened course.

They seem to believe:

  • They are intellectually superior to everyone else
  • They are personally enlightened
  • The average American is "sheep"
  • Their cause is righteous and therefore any distortions to the facts are acceptable because they serve a higher purpose
  • People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools.
  • You can't trust corporations but you can trust big government (as long as they're in charge anyway)
  • The will of the "masses" doesn't matter. They know better and so any means necessary should be used to pursue their agenda.
  • They see the courts and public media as more effective outlets to exercise their will than the ballot box.
  • Conservatives aren't just incorrect, they're evil.
  • Liberalism isn't just correct, it's more civilized, more humane.

They're more common than you may think. They're the smug guy in a political debate on-line who, instead of debating the issue will take time out to correct a misspelling or grammar error -- believing that in itself demonstrates their superiority. Or the guy who will selectively use "facts" in a debate to push their agenda believing a) it's okay to mislead because they're trying to lead us on the proper path and we're all too ignorant to realize that we're being fed BS.

But what bugs me isn't that they exist. Every news group or forum always has a few of these guys. What bugs me is that some of them manage to get so much attention. How does a guy like Michael Moore manage to get so much coverage when his material is so blatantly fabricated or misleading? No scandal over Bowling for Columbine where he misrepresented everything from the basic thesis (why gun violence in the US is so high) to little things like implying he got a gun at a bank. And yet people are ready to believe what's in Fahrenheit 9/11? No wonder he probably thinks people are sheep. Except maybe it's not all people who are sheep, maybe just his customers...

Al Franken is the same kind of thing. I saw him on Tim Russert spouting off left wing talking points as if he really believes that BS. Same sort of thing though, because he's better than us, smarter and us and dog gone it, people like him, he feels a license to crap on all those who don't share his ideology. I mean really, what kind of guy is so full of hate that he names his show to antagonize someone else (The O'Franken Factor, very classy)? As Palpatine put it, "Let the hate flow through you.."

Ted Rall of course is on record thinking that people like Pat Tillman are saps and idiots. He wrote this stuff after he was killed in combat btw. So I guess it's no surprise that he wrote this week his belief that if there is a hell, Reagan is there.

And again, I ask you, are there right wing versions of these guys who are remotely as well known?  Most people who are left of center are good decent people just like most people on the right are. A nut like Ann Coulter doesn't mean right wingers are a bunch of extremists. But on the other hand, Ann Coulter isn't wildly popular.  Meanwhile, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Ted Rall have large followings. It should make one wonder of the intellectual and moral character of your ideology when guys like these are increasingly being seen as the face of the left.


Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jun 09, 2004
"People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools."

man, that al franken is really sneaky, thinking patriotic people are mindless saps but still going out on three uso tours (eagle base in tuzla, bosnia, camp able sentry in macedonia, camp bondsteel, kosovo). damn sneaky, those vile lefties, doncha think?

ted rall is a prick though.

i don't know why you think limbaugh is less nasty or hateful.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&lr=lang_en&q=rush+limbaugh+white+house+dog&spell=1
----------------
"Did you know there's a White House dog?" {puts up photo of chelsea clinton)
---------------

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
--------------------------
However, a helpful reader provided us with a copy of that Newsday article (from the 8 October 1990 edition), and that article does report Rush Limbaugh as admitting he felt guilty for once having told a difficult-to-understand black caller to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back." (This incident occurred not on Rush Limbaugh's now-familiar talk and political commentary radio program, but at the beginning of his broadcast career back in the early 1970s when he was hosting a Top 40 music show under the name "Jeff Christie" on either WIXZ or KQV in Pittsburgh.) The same article also quotes Limbaugh as confirming that he did utter another line commonly mentioned in tandem with the "bone" quote: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
--------------------------

you can have a fun time on finding examples of your opponents being a jerk on this site: spinsanity.org

michael moore:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

sean hannity:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020826.html

al franken (rich lowry and him critique each other in a series of articles)
http://www.spinsanity.org/debates/20040315-lowry.html

ann coulter
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

on Jun 10, 2004
when you say something against the grain, you get attacked. often people attack you personally rather than the content of what you said. you may then develop a big chip on your shoulder and start to fight back harder. it's tit-for-tat, and this article is a perfect example. it's not exactly balanced, is it? limbaugh's outbursts are fine because he's on the right, but moore's are not because he's on the left. you even use the hoary old myth about liberal bias in the media. i suppose this is the bias which led to moore's most recent film having its release blocked.
on Jun 10, 2004
I wonder about those people that try to feel superior by "helping" others and insulting them the same time.

I recommend book called "Mask of benevolence".
on Jun 10, 2004
Go Michael Moore you legend !!!
on Jun 10, 2004

I went and checked out Ted Rall's site.....that guy is a complete ass. I had some choicer words for him but this is Draginol's thread so out of respect I'll try and keep it clean.  I'll just say that he exhibits some of the worst traits humanity has to offer and leave it at that.


I liked the litany of liberal beliefs...it's very true. 

on Jun 10, 2004
bill o'reilly
pat robertson
geraldo rivera
oliver north
g gordon liddy

in transition...
dennis miller

members emeritus
walter winchell
father coughlin
on Jun 10, 2004
Actually, you're quite wrong - and here's a stunning example as to why. Osama Bin Ladin is not a liberal, he's a right wing, religious fanatic. He believes that even you right wing "Christians" (who can't seem to follow the tenants you attempt to beat into the craniums of us on the left) are not worthy. I'm guessing there are more religious fanatics in the world right now than there are liberals. So, keep promoting your intolerance and keep attempting to force conformity into your narrow view of what is "right" -- and you'll continue to see other religions promote fanaticism and warfare. It's about time that people like you - and indeed all of my fellow Americans - recognize that we do not live in a bubble in North America. We must respect the rights, customs and cultures of other countries - as well as difference within our nation. I'm sure you didn't think your invitation suggest names on the vile right would yield such a response - but that's just it - I don't feel that people on the right think beyond their own set of selfish and greedy needs. Religious intolerance breeds religious fanaticism. If you think you're not headed down that path - think again. Your indifference and intolerance to the rights of others is exactly what's wrong with this country - and this world. I'll pray for you.
on Jun 10, 2004
Personally I think extremists at either end of the spectrum are nuts.
on Jun 10, 2004
bill o'reillypat robertsongeraldo riveraoliver northg gordon liddy


Do you really think O'Reilly is on par with Michael Moore? Robertson, North, Liddy all have media outlets, but they don't get anywhere near the "big media" news coverage that Moore does.
on Jun 10, 2004
Well done Brad, we have these types in Britain but unfortunatley they are gaining much more influence as political correctness takes hold. A perfect example of this would be former Labour party member George Galloway who accepted bribes from Saddam Hussein to raise questions in parliament which would attempt to upset any anti-Iraq feeling in the UK. Galloway is a traitor but what has happened to him, he has not been punished, he has set up his own political party called Respect. The aim of this party is to encouarge anyone who disagrees with our noble Prime Minister Mr Blair to cause as much havoc to the UK as possible! Galloway called our British boys in Iraq "dogs" an urged muslims to slaughter them and disregard the laws of war by torturing and killing prisoners! Yet this man is still free to preach anti-Western rhetoric on British television screens during this time of European elections, it is the weakness of our democracy.
on Jun 10, 2004
Okay, I've kept quiet about this for a while now - I know in America you call 'em Liberals, but please let's call a spade a spade - there is absolutely nothing 'liberal' about these people.

dictionary.com:

\Lib"er*al*ism\ (-[i^]z'm), n. [Cf. F. lib['e]ralisme.]
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
3. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
4. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
5. Liberalism - A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

\Lib"er*al*ism\ (-[i^]z'm), n. [Cf. F. lib['e]ralisme.] Liberal principles; the principles and methods of the liberals in politics or religion; specifically, the principles of the Liberal party.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

liberalism

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform
2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

--

Not one single definition comes to within a parsec of describing the people in question. They are, and should rightly be called: pinkos, leftists, marxists, maoists, stalinists, sandinistas, trotskyites, class-baiters, communists, anarchosyndicalists, socialists, social democrats or tin-foil-hat-brigaders.

Calling them Liberals makes them look better than they are - to a right wing American, 'liberal' might be a curse word, but starting from a carte blanche position (such as a young person from an apolitical family, or a foreigner like myself, for instance), one would take 'liberal' to mean - surprise, surprise - what the dictionary says it does. The word itself implies a 'live and let live' mentality, and I think it'd be highly beneficial to nip that illusion in the bud. Collectivists are antithetical to 'live *and* let live', their moral axiom is 'live *to* let live'.
on Jun 10, 2004

KingBee: Are you trying to demonstrate the narrowmindedness of the left or are you being facetious? Is anyone who isn't left in your mind vile? Is that your litmus test? A bunch of content free, evidence free name listing?

bill o'reilly
pat robertson
geraldo rivera
oliver north
g gordon liddy

in transition...
dennis miller

1) Since when is Geraldo Rivera right wing? Did you ever watch his show on CNBC? He very left. And secondly, he's no where near the same level of Michael Moore or Rall or Franken.

2) So Bill O'Reilly, who's not even particularly conservative (pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty) is on par? This says more about your view on the world than about them.

3) Gorden Liddy I would totally agree wiht you if he got anywhere near the kind of coverage that Franken and co get.  Or are you saying that the mere existence of extremist right wingers, regardless of how obscure enough to offset massive, in your face, at every book store, movies, etc. people on the left?  What's next? Going to list MarvinC as a counter to say Alec Baldwin? (ditto Oliver North, he has what? an obscure cable TV show?).

4) The Dennis Miller example is the key example you give though. It implies to me that ANYONE who is right of center is vile. How can anyone argue that Dennis Miller is vile and hateful? When he puts out a "documentary" with fabricated evidence and selective editing to make his enemies look awful or when he puts out a book with titles like "Lying liars.." let us know.

If that's the best you can do then there's no much to debate. The truly vile ideologues out there who get massive media attention on a regular basis are almost exclusively left.  There are vile ideologues on the right who would love to get that kind of attention (Ann Coulter springs to mind) but don't.

on Jun 10, 2004
Personally I think extremists at either end of the spectrum are nuts.
Extremes are usually negative just look at Timothy McVeigh.
on Jun 10, 2004
You're actually trying to say that Ann Coulter isn't as "nasty" as someone like Micheal Moore?!

Quotes from Ann coulter :

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')"

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
on Jun 10, 2004
No, I am saying that Ann Coulter IS JUST AS NASTY as Moore but doesn't get anywhere near the publicity as Moore.  Which part of "There are vile ideologues on the right who would love to get that kind of attention (Ann Coulter springs to mind) but don't." isn't clear?
5 Pages1 2 3  Last