On 09/06/2010 02:34 PM, Ross Sauer -> All wrote:

What's good for the goose, is good enough for the gander, Jeff.

That's what Jeff's point was, moron.

Well, at least we're getting somewhere: Up until that nutcase domestic terrorist, James Lee, walked in and threatened to blow up the Discovery Channel, the standard response from folks on the right to acts of domestic terrorism -- which predominantly involve right-wing politics -- was to claim that these were simply the acts of nuts, and that the incendiary political rhetoric that inspired them had no role in their violent

behavior

whatsoever.

But once Lee went on his rampage, supposedly fueled by environmentalist rhetoric, that all went away: Why of course it was all Al Gore's fault.

Really? James Lee is the very first? Your idiotic source needs to check their facts.

Lee was a follower of Daniel Quinn the purveyor of ishmael.org and author of the book titled "Ishmael." It was through Quinn's book and "teachings" that Lee
got his anti-human population views. Lee said that watching Gore's propaganda-mentary gave him an epiphany. Whether Gore's rhetoric inspired him or not isn't the point, though. The point is that this guy was a left-wing nutcase and yet the talking heads on the left tried to make him out as some sort of right-winger before they had any information. It's the left who are trying to tie any and every nutcase in with the right so they can indict the entire right as out of touch with reality.

(snip)

Its appearance on the right, however, is not merely pervasive, it is wielded by prominent national opinion leaders and public figures. Reynolds may want to blame Al Gore for James Lee's eliminationist rhetoric, but he is unable to point to a single instance of anything Gore has written or said that would lead to or even remotely suggest that eliminationism. On the other hand, we can point to any number of major right-wing pundits, politicians, and cultural leaders who not only have used the kind of hateful rhetoric that inspired Lee, but a number of other violent acts -- ranging in the recent past from Jim David Adkisson's hateful assault on a liberal church in Knoxville, to Scott Roeder's assassination of Dr. George Tiller, to the recent shootout in Oakland with a gunman inspired by Glenn Beck to go attack the Tides Foundation -- can all be directly and concretely tied to major-media right-wing pundits.

The Oakland guy had a long and violent criminal history that had nothing to do with politics. Here we have your source doing exactly what I pointed out. They are trying to indict anyone on the right as being dangerous.

Those "right-wing pundits" you and your source try to indict espouse personal responsibility and reject the idea of group-think. You and your source totally miss that point and mindlessly try to paint all right-of-center pundits as insincere and their listeners as mindless rubes. You can't accept the fact that
others might honestly have a different perspective than you.

http://tinyurl.com/22qv4b2

Now make sure you give the people in the second paragraph your usual

denial

and excuses.

The only denial and excuses so far are from you and your source.

Ed

--
"A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, part 2, 1792

Blogs: http://edsramblings.wordpress.com | http://woodcaringnsuch.wordpress.com http://edsscrollsawbits.blogspot.com | http://eds-omnium-gatherum.blogspot.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ed.hulett | Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/yaesu

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunder
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)