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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Jun 11, 2004
Of course the basic problem with this argument is that liberals need everything spelled out for them. When you spend your entire life getting in touch with your emotions it becomes very difficult to understand logic, reason, and rhetoric.
Case in point, John Kerry, along with most of the Democratic party believe that the U.N. must be involved in all international affairs. That is where conservatives disagree. The United States of America is responsible for it's own protection and prosperity. Relying on an international body of bureaucrats is not in the best interest of the United States of America.
The United Nations is a catastrophic failure! Liberals of course would not admit this, but one only need to look at the plight of Rwanda, Zimbabwe, ad infinitum... The United Nations is only one example of the soft politics of the left, they believe that all problems in the United States and the World are directly attributable to "Whtie men", of course the fact that white people aren't actually white is lost on them, I prefer to be called European American.
As a another poster mentioned the left is not rightly categorized for, they are not liberal they are Marxist, communist, steal from the have's and give to the have not's... Recently I have wondered why main stream media types love tales such as, Robin Hood, Shrek, ad infinitum... And I came to the following conclusion all recent mythology supports the Marxist position that all wealth is stolen from the proletariat. Nothing could be further from the truth or facts. Many people have come from very humble beginnings and overcome there economic disadvantages. One need look no further than William Clinton. A favorite of the democratic party.
The basis of this thread is valid, of course we all know this instinctively. Consider this most Marxist's have only this to offer in a debate; We should all get an equal share of the pie. Now of course if ask Al franken or Michael Moore to give us several thousand dollars without justification, they would laugh all the way back to the bank. I stopped concerning myself with the Al Franken's and Michael Moore's of this world once I realised they were using there ideology purely for profit and could care less about the people they pretend to know so much about.

BTW... Conservatives have been harshly critical of G.W. Bush as of late. Government spending has increased ~25% under Bush and of course there was the initative to legalize all illegal immigrants. Before the Marxists crawl out of there troll holes for this one remember all of us "Whtie aristocrats" where immigrants at one time. We immigrated legally as any person who desires the prosperity that representative reupblics offer should.
on Jun 11, 2004
"When you spend your entire life getting in touch with your emotions it becomes very difficult to understand logic, reason, and rhetoric"<---cukoo cukoo
on Jun 11, 2004
Cuckoo is for cocoa puffs silly.
on Jun 11, 2004
The title of this thread is valid. And I have not seen anyone refute it.

The simple fact is that the members of the media on the left use hate and vitriol to denigrate the validitiy of the right. Some people say Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. But they never spew hate, and not a single poster has been able to offer a single instance when there was hate!

Denigration of ideas? For sure! Condemnation of statements? Absolutely. But Hate? Not a single one. Outrage? Daily at the le4ft's hate. but no reciprocation.

Debate the Right spokespeople if you want. They are very sure of their facts, but willing to debate. Let anyone on this thread show me a single instance (Except Ann Coulter, who I have not read, and know very little about) of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, Glen Beck saying anything like Ted Rall, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi (ashimed to even be remotley related to that person), Al Franken, or Randy Rhodes?

Guess what! You already lose! There aint none. Why? because the left has lost their capacity to debate on facts and now resorts to emotion. The Right (both in stance and in fact) can debate all day on the facts.

No Aids funding? Try 5.7 BILLION. NO sympathy for the poor? Name a program that got sabotaged by him. Clinton kiled the Welfare Queens, not Reagan. The Cold War? Why does the living principals (Thatcher and Gorbachev) acredit him?

facts are the anethma to the vile left. It always will be as they cannot argue from them or against them, so they invent them!

This week was a great exercise in the part of the left doing just that. Thankfully, the sane part of the left did not take up the stupidity of that fringe. Altho they have in the past.

"the seriousness of the charge, regardless of the lack of evidence, merits an investigation.".

If they were running police departments, no crimes would be solved!
on Jun 11, 2004
Madine,

Sorry, but what you claimed he said, doesn't jive with what he actually said. The UN consists of way more countries than "UN=France"

Perhaps sticking to the facts is too much to ask - what did Dragger say about the left??? ... "Their cause is righteous and therefore any distortions to the facts are acceptable because they serve a higher purpose". Seems to me, those on the right can engage in the same type of "BS".

As my mother would have said, we call these type of distortions, "lies". The UN doesn't "=" France, no matter how much it may serve some neo-conservative argument.

DD

on Jun 11, 2004
"As my mother would have said, we call these type of distortions, "lies". The UN doesn't "=" France, no matter how much it may serve some neo-conservative argument."

So admit then that 40 nations is not unilateral. Or is this just another obfuscation and twisting of the facts?

Given the choice of destiney in our hands and destiny in UN hands (who has Sudan on the Human rights commission), I chose our hands. I dont want to redefine Human rights to not include slavery (pervalent and documented in the Sudan). But I guess Our left thinks that is excusible since it is Black on Black.

Kind of like the crime problem they have not fixed yet, even thos being in control of the areas that suffer from it most.

Of course that is not their fault.
on Jun 11, 2004
re: #49

"The house of Saud wanted to rid themselves of the nasty Hussein."


Huh? Then would you mind explaining why they were the strongest voice against toppling hussein during the gulf war and why they were adamantly against us invading Iraq recently? Or are you saying that that was all a front?

They were very convincing...
on Jun 11, 2004
"The UN doesn't "=" France, no matter how much it may serve some neo-conservative argument."


Functionally, when France can veto US initiatives, no questions asked,, and delights in doing so as often as possible, the idea that the UN=France is functionally true. Their veto in the security council pretty much requires us to kiss their derriere every time we want UN support. France is a has-been nation with a flagging economy and double digit unemployment. They have barely the international significance of a single US state, but they have the power to veto the will of nations to exert economic influence.

Twisting human rights and security issues for covert economic interest... isn't that what Liberals hate the most these days?

They were happy to make billion dollar deals with a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and fought like mad when those deals were threatened by a movement to remove him from power. I can't think of anything that more epitomizes the word "vile".

Even if we pretend the Bush team made billions from removing Hussein, it is immensly more ethical than making billions supporting his activities.
on Jun 11, 2004
AWSpacer,

While 40 nations isn't unilateral in name, the action is probably close to unilateral in actuality. Why?

1. Many of the nations are pretty obscure (we'll label those as "sucking up to the USA for profit and pleasure");
2. For the ones that aren't, their support is pretty tepid, at best. Few troops committed, few dollars;
3. The only western nation that has really provided support showing they're truly behind this thing is Britain. And their government may well get trufed from office, so unpopular and divergent is the government position from that of the electorate.

So I'd say that it's pretty close to a unilateral action (although I never suggested it was in the first place).

I'd even go so far as to suggest that some of the western nations providing support were somewhat bullied into it ... "If you're not with us, then you're against us", was some of the rhetoric spewed forth at the time. Yes, you can bully your friends into doing things they don't think are wise, but there's always a cost associated with that.

BakerS,

Well, using your logic regarding the veto position of a security council member, then let's just "say" the UN = United States. The US can veto other countries initiatives, "no questions asked" too. Does that make my statement "functionally" true?

Odd, I remember that it was the US that armed Iraq to the teeth, when the US was against Iran. And I believe that occured primarily under Reagan ... so it wasn't really the liberals who supported Hussein - it was those crazy, crazy, crazy neo-conservatives. Aren't they more fun than a barrel of monkeys!



on Jun 11, 2004
by draginol:
------------
are you trying to argue that Ann Coulter is in the same league in terms of popular support as say Michael Moore or Ted Rall?
------------

no i am arguing that the following is wrong:

by draginol:
-------------------
Anyway, the left seems to be oblivious to how vile some of their biggest advocates are. Michael Moore gets a standing ovation.

A scumbag like that wouldn't receive that kind of reception on the right even if he did agree with us. We'd be ashamed.
-------------------

ann ""Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do" coulter did indeed get standing ovations. from the right. agree/disagree?


btw, i mentioned franken did three uso tours. do you still feel that he should get lumped in with: "They seem to believe:...People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools"?

Reply By: Awedin Space(Anonymous User)
---------------
Some people say Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. But they never spew hate, and not a single poster has been able to offer a single instance when there was hate!
---------------

i posted TWO for limbaugh in the -first- post of this thread.

-------------------
Let anyone on this thread show me a single instance (Except Ann Coulter, who I have not read, and know very little about) of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, Glen Beck saying anything like Ted Rall, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi (ashimed to even be remotley related to that person), Al Franken, or Randy Rhodes?
--------------------

again in the very same FIRST post i listed several links one of which detailed hannity's writings.
on Jun 11, 2004

And would you agree with a prevailing opinion (and not just from Democrats) that America's higher moral position has been eroded under the Bush presidency - circa WMD, acting without more European/World support, prisoner abuse scandal, etc. Seems like to me John Kerry would have to shave his head and proclaim himself surpreme leader of the white race to do more damage internationally than Bush has. Sorry for the mental picture of John Kerry that way. But I am curious to know specifically what policies of John Kerry you think are so "dangerous".

What does "more" world support mean? France and Germany? The US has the support of UK, Australia, Japan, MOST of the European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Czech, Bulgaria, Italy, etc.).  If you're getting your moral compass from Germany and France then you have my sympathies.  I don't define who I support based on what France wants but that's just me.

As for making things more dangerous, yes, John Kerry will make life more dangerous for Americans. I don't worry about snooty Frenchman attacking. I worry about Islamic fundamentalists attacking though. And Kerry just doesn't strike me as someone who wants to solve these problems. He'd rather go back to the Clinton-era policy of making nice with the Europeans and hope the problem goes away.  France is on record as believing Iraq is culturally incapable of handling a democracy. That's the kind of crap that I fear Kerry will buy into. 

I want a President who is going to make the tough decisions and take out these terrorists and make a serious effort to democratize the region. I think Bush is more likely to pursue that than Kerry because I think Kerry is mroe concerned about what his elitist liberal friends in Europe think than worrying about dealing with terrorism as a practical matter.

on Jun 11, 2004
Russel: Ann Coulter would not be able to draw anywhere near the kind of crowds that Michael Moore can. Most people have heard of Michael Moore. How many people even know who Ann Coulter is?
on Jun 11, 2004

Jay: How can you lable the 40 countries that support the US as obscure?

Let's get down to the brass tacks here:

A sample of countries that supported the United States action in Iraq:
Great Britain
Poland
Italy
Japan
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Hungary
Kuwait
Israel
Czech Republic
Pakistan

A sample of countries who were against it:
France
Germany
Russia
Belgium

A sample of countries that took no specific position:
Turkey
China
India

So on the "Against" side you have France and Germany and Russia basically. Those are the 3 "big powers" who were against it.  China didn't really care much either way. And on the for it you had the United States, UK, Italy and Japan.

It's so transparent that the left has cooked up this mythology that the "world" was against it.  France isn't "the world". France, who invaded the Ivory Coast at the same time the US was going into Iraq is not a viewpoint I consider particularly important.  And what exactly does Germany's support mean anyway? It's not like they can send forces outside their country in significant numbers so who cares. I'll gladly take Japan's support who not only put up billions of dollars to help but sent troops over to help afterwards.

France and Russia were so in Saddam's back pocket that their objection to a US invasion has to be seen for what it is. But that's really not the point, the whole thing demonstrates the egotism of some western Europeans who think they are the whole world.  Only Germany had a GDP greater than a single US state (California). I worry about France's opinon about as much as I worry about Ohio's viewpoint.

on Jun 11, 2004
"A nut like Ann Coulter.."
I haven't read much by Ann, but I read "TREASON" and found it facinating. What say you?
on Jun 11, 2004
"Odd, I remember that it was the US that armed Iraq to the teeth, when the US was against Iran."


Yet another liberal myth. France, Russia and China sold exponentially more armament to Iraq.

The Iraqi choice of fighters? - French Mirage, Russia Migs, Chinese Chengdu.
The Iraqi choice for missiles? - French Exocet, Chinese Silkworm, North Korean/Russian SCUDs,, Euromissles. Russian SA-3, SA-2, SA-6, etc.
The Iraqi choice for Helicopters? - Russian HINDs.
The Iraqi choice for tanks? - Russian T-72 and Chinese Type 59.

What armament can you point to, if you don't mind, did Iraq use that was American made? Can you name anything? The only interesting US equipment found in Iraq so far was fiber optic equipment sold to China by the Clinton administration, and was being (ab)used in anti-aircraft equipment.

During the 1980's up to 40% of French arms exports went directly to Iraq, far more than the US. A relationship fostered, I might add, by Chiraq himself as Prime Minister in 1975 when he visted Iraq. Russia and China sold far more to Iraq than even France did.

So, as we were trying to work against Saddam Hussein in the UN, he was supported by France, Russia, China.

When we invaded Iraq whose armament we were up aganst? Was it American? Nope, more hardware from France, Russia, China...

Get your facts straight Jay, it was Chiraq who armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth, along with the other UN 'peacemakers'.
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5