Bill Clinton: Tim McVeigh Hated the Guv'mint Too

|

Filming and interviewing at yesterday's Tea Party rally in DC with my Reason.tv comrade Meredith Bragg, we met some perfectly normal, clever, interesting people (including a black goth kid from West Virginia who really, really wanted to "end the Fed") and a cluster of weirdos not entirely convinced that President Obama was a Christian or that he wasn't born at a madrassa in Swaziland. There were limited government types, libertarians, conspiricist kooks, and a handful of people who desperately need someone to elucidate the differences between liberalism, social democracy, socialism, and communism. One attendee, who was incredibly well informed on a number of issues, nevertheless explained that we were seeing an incrementalist approach to a Stalinist state. Interrupting, I said with sarcasm, "but, ya know, without the genocide." Oh you naive young lad, he sighed, just wait and see.

Now, I usually preface all discussion of the Tea Parties with links to my criticism of some of the nonsense I have come across interviewing, to clarify that I find some of the rhetoric I've come across when reporting from various Tea Party events to be deeply problematic. But most of it, though, is simply a canned case against government spending. As Tunku Varadarajan writes at the Daily Beast, commenting on a recent poll of Tea Party participants, "It is now safe for metropolitan Americans to say—without fear of pillory, or of being waved away as wing-nuts—that the Tea Partiers are not a bilious, lunatic, unschooled, racist rabble out to sabotage our first African-American president, but are, instead, passionate, educated, middle-aged, middle-class and relatively prosperous critics of the Obama administration."

I think this is largely right, though there are clearly a helping of bilious lunatics milling about too. Then again, if someone tasked me with collecting offensive, racist, misspelled signs from International ANSWER rallies, I suspect I could cobble together a pretty terrifying display from "the other side." (This isn't entirely accurate, for many of the people at the Tea Parties are staunch anti-interventionists; indeed, Glenn Beck is drifting towards a Ron Paul-type foreign policy).

So after the Frank Rich "they-are-all-Bull-Connor" arguments, we are back to the "they-are-all-potential-Tim-McVeigh" arguments, this time courtesy of Bill Clinton. Is there evidence to substantiate such a claim? Well, no. But there is, after all, "the rise of extremist voices on talk radio…[and] you have a billion Internet sites." Potential fertilizer bombers, all of them.

And while the hard-core, anti-government radicals are still a minority, "they can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before. The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already there was enough use of the Internet that if you knew how to find a Web site—and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb"….

"There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do," Clinton told the newspaper—pointing out that McVeigh and his conspirators "were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line."

Advertisement

NEXT: The Fightin' Side of Tea

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And Bill Clinton was a imperial, power-lusting, amoral shitbag who thought there should be no limits on his authority. Just like the two guys who followed.

    Coincidence?

    1. Don’t matter if he’s been out of office for ten years, I think he can still make his presidency look like it sucked even more, based on the things he does while he’s still alive, or that we find out after he’s dead.

    2. Agree — coincidence.

    3. Not to mention whose ‘words’ were orders to burn a bunch of children alive.

      Clinton, words do matter, you fuckbag piece of shit. I can’t wait to see your soul roasting in hell.

  2. I did not have sexual relations with that man, Timothy McVeigh.

    1. Stay, gassy Bill, stay gassy.

    2. It’s not like you didn’t try, bubba.

  3. a black goth kid from West Virginia who really, really wanted to “end the Fed”

    …I must meet this person.

    1. Just admit that it was you, Art.

      1. Ha ha, I really think I’d get along with that person. It’s sort of like how whenever you go to a goth club or goth concert there’s always one other black person there. But only one. I actually saw a documentary about that sort of thing once.

        1. I’m going to make sure I see that film.

          I’m pretty sure that my girlfriend was the only black goth chick in Chapel Hill when I lived there.

        2. So when you came in did the other guy have to leave so if another black guy came in, there’d still be just one black guy there?

        3. I blame these single blacks on a lot of unnecessary racism.

          There is always some white asshole who ends up being friends with these guys and so they drop N-bombs and and other racist atrocities and justify it because they are friends with Ralph the token black guy.

          It is bullshit!!

          If you are going to colonize white society fucking bring friends and family!! The one odd ball just fucks the whole program up.

        4. An Indian friend of mine used to look pretty hard for other Indians at metal shows. He didn’t have much success.

          1. There are metal shows that don’t have a ton of Indians in attendance?

            Not in Arizona or California there aren’t.

            1. I’m going to be the guy who has to top what every body else has to say because in this case it is irresistible.
              It was a half Navajo/half Indian (Bombay) chick who turned me on to Tool way back in the 90’s.

              Yes, at least back then, she was very good looking.

          2. Just for clarification, would that have been Indian from the south Asian subcontinent, or Indian from the New World?

            (And, having lived in California all my life with all sorts of people, anyone have any good stories about a mixed couple going to meet some parents who have been told for months, “Oh, don’t worry, s/he’s Indian.”?)

            1. Dot, not wah-wah. There’s a definite shortage of Indian metalheads in Ohio.

        5. My brother went out with a black girl who listened to metal – and not even the lighter stuff – she was into grindcore, death metal, etc.

          1. No shit? Got he number?

            (Unless she’s a fatty in which case forget I asked.)

            1. What do you want his brother’s number for?

        6. If you have to make race an issue at all, you’re the racist.

    2. I just hope that Moynihan remembered to ask him if he ever felt uncomfortable.

      Failure to do so could jeopardize his future ability to get press credentials.

  4. So we need to invent a new word for this. It is sort of Godwinish. If you hate your government, you are a terrorist.

    1. Only if you’re right-of-center, troy. It’s okay for liberals to hate government when they’re not in charge.

      1. Liberals never hate government. They just hate having the “wrong” people in charge.

    2. I propose “Reno” after the mass murderer Janet Reno.

      1. I like that.

      2. Fuck. Yes.

      3. This thread is pegging the needle on my RenoMeter.

        1. That’s your penis, Jan.

  5. Perhaps calling Tea Partiers “unhinged” adds fuel to those few who are unhinged.

  6. How many private sector jobs has Bubba “I fuck only ugly women” Clinton ever had?

    1. Hey! Hey! Hey! I was hot when bubba was cheating on the harpy with me!

  7. Most of them seem fairly hinged.

      1. If someone is gruntled does that mean the person is content?

        1. Now that I think about it, maybe so.

  8. “social democracy, socialism, and communism”

    I feel that these terms (and progressivism) all fit just fine under the broad category of socialism. We all get the general gist of what people are referring to when they talk about socialism.

    Liberalism, of course, does not mean what most democrats and republicans think it means.

    1. Liberalism, Socialism & Communism all want income redistribution. Obama is the distributionist in chief.

      1. Liberalism does not mean what you think it means, either.

        1. A term coopted by Roosevelt because Corporativismo would sound too foreign?

          1. Touche. I just prefer the word liberal to be used to refer to individual liberty.

            1. Yeah, it would be nice to take it back after they stole it.

              Progressives have always been shitbags; they can have that one.

              1. Apparently the term “liberal” was taken by leftists after the term “progressive” developed a bad reputation after Woodrow Wilson et al. Then, after the term “liberal” became negative in the 1960s, leftists readopted the term “progressive.”

                1. Oh, it’s so, like, important to distinguish between socialism and communism. It’s, like, good versus evil. Any self-respecting lunatic fringer knows that.

                  1. Yeah. We’ve covered this before. Socialists are ‘Murcan allies. Commies are socialists with their nukes pointed at the US. The French will always be their own category.

  9. a handful of people who desperately need someone to elucidate the differences between liberalism, social democracy, socialism, and communism.

    Once again, MM could use a refresher on the differences in the connotative and denotative meaning of words.

    Should you stop using the word ‘socialist’ to describe a member of an explicitly named socialist party like Parti socialiste de France because its typical modern adherent is closer to what we would describe as a corporatist? Should we stop using the word ‘corporatist’ because modern usage varies quite a bit from its historical origin?

    As far as i’m concerned Von Mises wrote the book on Socialism and knew it inside and out, pound for pound its flaws and fallacies better than any man, and yet he once told the Mont Pelerin Society they were a bunch of socialist. Did he mean it literally? No. But if you did not get his point, the ignorance is on you instead of the man who made it.

  10. “intellectually honest about what certain words might do to people who are less stable.”

    That is a loaded sentence. Not to mention that the words intellectually honest should never be uttered by anyone that while trying to lie about getting a blowjob from a fat chick uttered, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    1. Masterfully done, hmm. I also think people write for their audience, which I assume for most writers is dominated by the mentally sound. I don’t even begin to know how to write a speech, article or book that will set off the unhinged.

      1. …without making myself sound unhinged.

        1. Kill John Lennon…

          1. Catcher in the Rye|4.16.10 @ 8:02PM|#

            Kill John Lennon…

            I’ve scrolled down on three different occasions now, and every time I see that, I laugh out loud all over again. Thank you, catcher.

            Kill John Lennon, indeed.

            1. BTW, recall that advertising campaign where some company bought the rights to ‘All You Need Is Love’. Whenever it came on, my stomach would grow nauseous with every choral repetition of that hideous line*, and I would wonder how the Egyptians managed to suppress the historical memory of Ikhnaton for thousands of years, and how their methods could be applied to John Lennon and everything he represented (phoniness to infinity squared, even unmatched by Bono).

              * Where was the remote? Commercial ran during football season. Football season means enduring other people’s audio visual set ups and aesthetic abnormalities most weekends.

  11. Interrupting, I said with sarcasm, “but, ya know, without the genocide.” Oh you naive young lad, he sighed, just wait and see.

    I always liked Wolfe for saying fascism is always descending on America but only ever lands in Europe. great quote.

    Still it is not beyond reason that things could turn in the US. We did have slavery we did put Japanese americans into camps and we do imprison pop smokers.

    That said i do not think Obama is going to start building gas chambers any time soon. But i do see him giving the US government enough power and destabilizing the economy enough so the guy after him or the guy after that doing just that.

    1. ” . . .i do see him giving the US government enough power and destabilizing the economy enough so the guy after him or the guy after that doing just that.”

      You know, that’s exactly what I thought about Bush. Maybe Big O is the next guy?

      1. Obama is just wrong…not Hitler.

        1. BAH! He is but a rank amateur.

          1. Hitler got the Olympics.

            1. At least he is different from Obama in THAT respect.

          2. Well, Hitler was a rank amateur, until he wasn’t. Not to invoke a Godwin violation or anything.

        2. Mr. Corning, may G-d, if he exists, bless you.

          1. Why worry about using His full name if He doesn’t exist?

        3. I’m liking this Obama.

    2. “we do imprison pop smokers.”

      But HFCS is unhealthy!

  12. And many repressive states have tried to characterize dissent as “dangerous”. What this country doesn’t need to is more people using the absurd extremes to try and discredit views they don’t agree with.

    I am not a tea party supporter, but people should argue issues rather than try and attack people they don’t agree with.

    1. Our founding fathers set out to create a stably unstable system. Using rigid crossmembers as underpinning, they built a flexible framework that’s meant to flip or flop every 2nd year.

      Dissent is specifically designed in. You seethe for two years, organize, fundraise, and send your own guy into congress to straighten all those other idiots out. In the meantime, of course, the other contingent does the same.

      With an uncanny appreciation of human nature, our founding fathers figured that two years of a time horizon to keep people from going completely off the rails.

      When the party in power rigs votes, sanctions voter fraud or intimidation, gerrymanders, or otherwise tinkers with the stable instability that the founders set in motion, then there is truly a risk of a blowup. Just like a boiler without a pressure-relief valve, political frustration without biannual clean elections can peg the danger needle.

      1. The other problem is when an increasing proportion of people feel alienated from both major political parties — then there isn’t any pressure valve to begin with. The good feeling from a useless punishment vote (against the GOP in 2008, probably against the DNC in 2010) doesn’t last as long, because the feeling of actual power only lasts until the lesser evil begins to actually do things.

  13. Devious and dishonest. Just like Clinton as President. This guy is obviously discrediting legitimate and patriotic protest. Why won’t he just take the issue on? I remember his wife feeding the unhinged during his campaign when she wondered aloud about assassination…where was his commentary then?

  14. A guy flew a plane into an IRS building. The antigovernment fringe that produced McVeigh hasn’t disappeared. Nobody’s saying all tea partiers are potential terrorists, but the rightwing fringe in this country is scary enough without actual politicians and media figures demagoging at them, the Internet connecting them, and the president not being their race.

    No cause for concern people? As an Oklahoman I beg to differ. I don’t recall aliens beaming up all the lunatics in this country in the past 10 years.

    Oh, but just to fit in to the sane, rational political discussion going on here, Bill Clinton was an evil Nazi, etc.

    1. The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building included a lot of Marxist crap in the writings he left behind. So, he was as much left wing moonbat as right wingnut.

    2. That “anti-government fringe” is being misrepresented in size by way of including the anti-BIG-government types.

      But hey, why be honest about reporting as such, when Chris Matthews can just pretend they’re one and the same?

    3. A guy flew a plane into an IRS building. The antigovernment fringe that produced McVeigh hasn’t disappeared. Nobody’s saying all tea partiers are potential terrorists, but the rightwing fringe in this country is scary enough without actual politicians and media figures demagoging at them, the Internet connecting them, and the president not being their race.

      We got tim and you got stalin hitler Mao Pol pot Che, Costro, Kim yong ill and the list goes on and on and on.

      The 20th century taught us that The Left kill their opponents their allies and people just trying to get by…the right tend to be weak and resign like Heinrich Br?ning and let the murderous left beat their bloody path to power.

      1. Okay even if I accept your comparison of those figures with the American left, how much leftist terrorism has happened in this country recently? Now compare that to the rightwing antigovernment terrorism. They’ve already got the 2nd worst attack in our history, and the worst attack was by rightwing lunatics from another country. I don’t even know of militant leftist groups in this day and age. The most radical leftists I’ve ever heard of are pacifists.

        1. They’ve already got the 2nd worst attack in our history, and the worst attack was by rightwing lunatics from another country.

          Al Qaeda is left wing.

          Imperial Japan is not anti-government.

          I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. The only Guy you got is Tim that can be compared remotely with the tea party. Plus he was more libertarian then right wing.

          You are on this blog. you read it every day. you read our comments. Where are the racist calls to lynch Obama? where are our plans to violent overthrow of the government? where is this unseemly murder in our speech and writing? Why are the right wing terrorists not here in the center of our anti-government screech? We talk of legalizing pot and stopping cops from being fucks and yell about government spending. Hell we are full fucking blown right wing to the extreme radicals!!

          Where are the terrorists among us?!?!

          huh tony? where are they? where is the talk of murder and death and blowing shit up?!?!

          Where the FUCK IS IT!!!

          the airplane/irs guy was a nut of seemingly all political stripes mashed together.

          1. Al Qaeda is left wing.

            Um, source? They are religious fundamentalists, they are by definition right-wing.

            Where are the terrorists among us?!?!

            Highly doubtful that anyone here would resort to violence or even slightly empathize with anyone who would.

            But there are a lot of people here spouting the same demagogic hyperbole that is the same stuff the crazies are hearing. It only takes a few, or one, and there is going to be someone who takes the absolutist paranoid rhetoric you see here every day and not be a pussy blogger about it but just might load one of those guns that have been whipped around in public gatherings.

            1. Um, source? They are religious fundamentalists, they are by definition right-wing.

              So the Iranian revolution against its monarchy was right wing?

              What wing does Al Qaeda represent when it opposes Saudi Arabia?

            2. It only takes a few, or one, and there is going to be someone who takes the absolutist paranoid rhetoric you see here every day and not be a pussy blogger about it but just might load one of those guns that have been whipped around in public gatherings.

              I hear listening to rock music makes you worship Satan and playing video games makes you drown your sister.

              Highly doubtful that anyone here would resort to violence or even slightly empathize with anyone who would.

              Why are we so magical? Why are we so stable? Drug users and gun owners and drunks all of us….how are we so very different then the unstable unwashed masses?

              1. Hell i even think a few of us might actually idolize revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson.

                1. Ahem!!

            3. AQ isn’t right wing. They believe in islamic socialism. They just also happen to be religious fundamentalists. They don’t really fit into the left/right American mould.

            4. They are “fundamentalist” so obviously they are “right wing”… This is the sort of statement that just blows my mind. The only distinction that really matters in politics is the degree to which individual autonomy is respected. “Left/Right” “Fundamentalist/Communist” “Red/Blue” are differences in rhetoric and marketing.

              1. italics fail…

        2. “…and the worst attack was by rightwing lunatics from another country.”

          A foriegn “right-wing”(militant islam does not really fit into the Americam political spectrum in any sensible way) our domestic leftists are terrified of offending for various reasons, particularly multicultural relativistic sensibilities.

          1. particularly multicultural relativistic sensibilities.

            Is that you, Osama?

          2. A foriegn “right-wing”(militant islam does not really fit into the Americam political spectrum in any sensible way) our domestic leftists are terrified of offending for various reasons, particularly multicultural relativistic sensibilities.

            That is why tony has to call them Right wing first. If they classified as “right wing” then for a left winger you get a pass on breaking those relativistic sensibilities.

            1. Of course al-qaeda isn’t analogous to the American right, I’m just saying. But your guys’ lunatics still have the 2nd worst terrorist attack, that’s nothing to sneeze at.

              1. One nut over decade ago does not make a growing threat of right wing extremism spurred on by the likes of Glen beck.

                Admit it Tony this is all a white wash to distract from criticism of Obama.

                1. No, it’s justified fear of right-wing violence in a country that has experienced it. Glenn Beck sounds like one of these nuts and he is on tv 4 hours a day. The Obama criticism industry is in no danger of going away. I do wish the criticism were based in reality and not hyperbole and demagoguery.

                  1. I do wish the criticism were based in reality and not hyperbole and demagoguery.

                    Right, because that’s how it was with all of Bush’s critics.

                    *barf*

                    1. Nice one, sage.

                    2. What’s with the short memory? The Bush administration was one fucked up time. There may have been crazy rhetoric but it was universally treated as such in the media. There was nowhere near the mainstream outrage against the Bush administration as what was justified.

                      I usually think talking about media bias is pointless, but I do think it tends to treat Republicans as the rightful rulers of the country and Democrats as the occasional usurpers. In the best case there is created a false equivalence, which is better than outright advocacy for one party, but is still intellectually lazy.

        3. I would not classify SEIU members, Black Panthers, Greenpeace, PETA, and The Nation of Islam as pacifists. And there are others, I’m sure, using your logic that are lunatics behind every tree.

          In fact, leftist leaders, past and present, don’t have a history of pacifism either.

          1. Actually, Jimmy Hoffa peacefully buried himself under the field of Giants Stadium.

        4. I guess you’ve never heard of the Earth Liberation Front or the Animal Liberation front, then.

          1. Oh yeah, and that Unabomber guy. He was pretty right-wing, though, huh?

      2. General Pinochet and I would like to have a word with you, young Anglo.

      3. You forgot Bill Ayers ect…

    4. No cause for concern people? As an Oklahoman I beg to differ. I don’t recall aliens beaming up all the lunatics in this country in the past 10 years.

      Painting with a pretty broad brush there Tony.

      As an Oklahoma resident as well, you know as well as I do that families recently went to OKC because they were SURE there were others involved. One woman claimed as many as “50 people were in on it”, (the woman’s grandson perished in the tradgedy).

      Where are the people denouncing them as conspiracy nutjobs?

      And IIRC, there hasn’t been any other acts of terror in OK in 15 years Tony.

      To blame every single “fringe group” you whose ideology you disagree with is intellectually lazy, at best.

      Quite frankly, you ARE saying that tea partiers are potential terrorists.

      Janet Napalitano and Reno have done their evil work well.

      1. Behind American terrorists stands FBI or ATF.

        1. Behind the FBI and ATF stands the power of the Federal Government, which has demonstrated over and over it cannot operate within its prescribed and enumerated limitations.

    5. “The antigovernment fringe that produced McVeigh hasn’t disappeared. ”

      Crazy isn’t an ideology. As long as the government is a distant, inscrutable, powerful force that unstable people can blame (correctly or not) for their personal woes, there will be an antigovernment fringe.

      If we’re going to blame gasbag right-wing bloviators for setting them off with rhetoric clearly not aimed at crazy people, why can’t we blame government officials themselves, who actually created or exacerbated major stressors in these peoples’ lives? It might not have been intentional or malicious, but the Joe Stack attacked the IRS because his life was fucked due to his dealings with the IRS. The Holocaust Museum shooter had been a hatemonger for a while, but (IIRC) finally went off the deep end when his Social Security was cut. McVeigh was motivated to kill a number of government employees and their children because he believed that government employees had killed a number of other people and their children. Why is blowback something we only talk about when the terrorists and murderers are foreign?

      Government is big, powerful, and lumbering — even when it operates with the best of intentions, it’s going to hurt some people (and deliberate abuses of power still happen as well). And some subset of those people are crazy enough to try to hurt back. There really isn’t a damn thing you can do about it aside from normal counterterrorism and security work.

  15. The IRS kamikaze was hostile to capitalism and sympathetic to communism. In what alternate reality does this describe a right-winger?

    1. Vince, you beat me to it. In Tony’s world though, every act of violence can only emanate from the right wing.

      1. Well, yes, don’t you know, no true left winger would be violent, as the left wing is by definition pacifist, so they must be right wingers. /Sarcasm.

  16. Nobody’s saying all tea partiers are potential terrorist

    Nobody as in “nobody has ever said that”?

    1. Isn’t it obvious? Anyone who openly criticizes government and happens to reside one curly hairs’ width of the exact middle of the political spectrum, should be put on no-fly lists AND be subject to IRS audits. Oh, and they all have guns, beat their wives, molest their kids, and burn crosses in black people’s yards.

      Don’t you watch MSNBC?

      1. I don’t come out and say stuff like that… I just kinda hint at it.

        1. I’d bitch about how MSNBC only runs my show once a day, but it might alienate my viewer.

        2. To us, everyone who isn’t a Democrat, is in a white-supremacist terror cell.

          It’s just easier that way.

          1. Hey, we’re ALL like this!

            1. When we blow shit up, it’s only property, not people, so it’s not the same as terrorism.

              Just ask the commenters over at MediaMatters. They’ll back us up.

              1. Exactly what I was saying to Bill and Bernadette at Gloria’s the other night over arugula and sushi.
                “Bill”, I said, “there is a difference between the shit we blew up and the OK City bombing. Axe that nice Tony fellow that comments at Reason. He can explain it to the proles”.

                1. Arugula… It’s a VEG-ih-ta-bill.

  17. The point isn’t what Clinton said, it’s that Clinton said something. I wish the hell he would shut up.

    1. I agree, but he is not as bad as Carter. Jimmie needs to retire entirely, grow some peanuts, build a few low-income houses,etc, but shut the fuck up.

  18. It’s not as if this is the first time Clinton has tried to tie his political opposition to McVeigh. He did it almost before the dust settled in Oklahome City. This is one of Clinton’s ugliest MOs.

  19. If you expand the frame to just the past four decades the left was responsible for many violent acts (think the Weathermen, Black Panthers, and various marches that turned into riots). The right’s violence came with opposition to civil rights (that’s right, bitch and moan all you want, but the guys who stood out in front of those schools, when the Dems moved away from them, they went to the right). There have been several right wing cranks who have opened up on others lately, but I don’t see any connection to the tea party. It’s been a peaceful social movement. Sure they are angry, but the civil rights marchers were angry…The left should love the tea party, they love that citizens hitting the street stuff usually…

    And for those guys who site Stalin as leftist (this was the same Stalin who encouraged nationalism, militarism, and cracked down on abortion rights and homosexuals, yeah, real left wing that guy) we can cite Hitler. Yes, yes, bitch and moan about the “national SOCIALISTS” all you want, but Hitler offered his brand of “socialism” as a to-the-right-of-communism alternative (at the time pretty much every major political party everywhere was moving towards some type of large scale intervention; capitalism had failed). And Hitler’s militarism, jingoism, nationalism, massive morals censorship and racism are things the left has opposed pretty vehemently for a long time. The dude was a figure of the right.

    Lastly, many of you have no idea of scale. Health care reform does not equal corporatism, much less socialism/communism. Most people will still wake up and have to go to work for some private party tomorrow or else starve, so don’t you authoritarians worry your pointy lil’ heads…

    1. I see your still showing your ignorance of Russian history and culture. Stalin only encouraged nationalism as a way to save his ass from Hitler. His early days were anti-Russian.

      All dictators love the military, it is what keeps them in power. Suggesting that is right wing just shows your bias.

      1. Militarism is a staple of the right (remember the “loathe the military” charge hurled against Clinton often).

        1. MNG,

          I oppose the draft. The draft is a form of slavery in fact. But he HIMSELF stated that he loathed the military. It was not an unjustified statement. He wrote a letter around the time he was drafted that stated this. Had his views changed? I had never heard him say so. You can argue that loathing the military is justified if you like, many people I greatly respect who work for the LvMI probably also loath the military but just understand the claim Clinton loathed the military is very much justified.

    2. The right’s violence came with opposition to civil rights (that’s right, bitch and moan all you want, but the guys who stood out in front of those schools, when the Dems moved away from them, they went to the right).

      By right you mean southern democrats…who do you call all those republicans who voted for Civil rights legislation and what do you call Nixon who saw many of those reforms through?

      And what do you call Kennedy who opposed Civil rights on the grounds that we were fighting a cold war which civil rights would distract from?

      Anyway regardless of all your examples when you say i am right wing you mean i am a guy who believes in small government and individual liberty. So as long as you lump me and others (large portions of say the tea party) as right wing your examples will always be severely fucked up.

      Hitler was not small government, Stalin was not small government but tea party people are small government.

      How are they in anyway fitting your definition of right wing?

      Plus i belive in abortion rights and i think Fags should be able to get married…yet i am right wing.

      If i can believe those things and still be right wing then can’t Stalin be against those things and be left wing?

      1. “who do you call all those republicans who voted for Civil rights legislation”

        I call them liberals who are now mostly Democrats. Look at the districts with GOPers who voted for Civil Rights: those districts go blue now.

    3. “…Hitler offered his brand of “socialism” as a to-the-right-of-communism alternative…”

      Communism is pretty much as left wing as you can get. Being to the right of Communism therefore does not necessarily put you on the right (unless you are a communist). And really, questioning whether Stalin, of all people, is all that left just beggars the mind and wrecks your credibility.

      1. Well, I made my evidence that Stalin cannot just be assumed to be a “man of the left” above. Argue against them if ye can.

        1. That’s funny. By the definition you are using, I don’t think any communist regime that actually held power for any length of time could be considered on the left, from Lenin, Mao, and Castro on.

          Communsisms on the left in theory, but not practically has to be vecause it only works in theory.

          When exactly did supporting abortion and homosexual rights become THE defining policies of the Left? Such that, anyone who does not hold those views is not of the Left?

          1. By your definition every dictator becomes the Left and every regime everwhere becomes tyrannical.

            1. MNG is correct people. Just look at the Nolan chart. Statism is neither on the left or on the right. Statists can only be right or left in the sense of right or left libertarians.

              1. No, he’s not. MNG tried to read Stalin out of the left side of the spectrum because Stalin was not shy about using the Soviet military to advance his goals.

            2. That’s lame. Saying those dictator’s are on the left side of the political spectrum is not saying that they comprise the entirety of the Left.

    4. (that’s right, bitch and moan all you want, but the guys who stood out in front of those schools, when the Dems moved away from them, they went to the right)

      The Southern Bloc was 99% Democrats. If you want to play the historic game, historically slavery was opposed by what would be considered religious right-wing zealots. Using awful religion as a moral basis to oppose slavery.

      You spin so well you should start a poli sci spin class for fat people.

    5. Health care reform does not equal corporatism

      bullshit

      1. We need to stop accepting the Democrats terminology. It was NOT Health care reform at all. Actual health care reform would be allowing people to buy policies across state lines or something like that. This is a take-over of the health care system by the federal government.

  20. Besides I’ve seen this silly observation made here a lot: Mussolini regulated business, Obama regulates business, therefore Obama=Mussolini!

    What’s silly is that it is not the regulation of businesses that make people shudder at the mention of Mussolini or Hitler. It’s all that pouring castor oil down the mouths of political opponents and concentration camps. If all there was to fascism or Nazism is business regulation then they were pretty unobjectionable things. But of course these were not the defining features. FDR was regulating businesses at the same time and Americans were not having castor oil poured down their throats or being sent off to gas chambers…By this kind of logic I can say: Hitler hated communists, libertarians hate communists, dear god libertarians=Hitler!

    1. Howzabout Obama =/= Mussolini OR Hitler?

      But he’s still a socialist.

      1. “you authoritarians”

        Jesus. Tony calls us fascists, MNG calls us authoritarians… the left certainly loves to use labels that don’t fit.

        1. Like “liberal” or “anarchist” or “freedom” or “slavery”.

        2. If the label fits then wear it…

          1. What’s authoritarian about libertarianism?

            1. Dude, libertarianism is TOTALLY authoritarian. I’m a smart guy who knows what’s best for everybody else even though they’re too stupid to figure it out for themselves. I have the right–nay, the DUTY–to protect people from themselves, but you libertarian blackboots would FORCE me to stand idly by while the masses ignorantly destroy themselves. That’s the definition of “authoritarian” in my book.

              1. That’s some convoluted logic, Club.

                Either that, or you’re a very slick troll impersonator.

          2. The glove does not fit. You must acquit.

        3. Jesus. Tony calls us fascists, MNG calls us authoritarians… the left certainly loves to use labels that don’t fit.

          The Left likes to engage in psychological projection.

      2. I also said he was a socialist during the campaigns, but I think ‘corporatist’ or fascist fits better. He doesn’t seem to want the state to own all property, but he wants the state to control all of its utilization.

    2. What’s silly is that it is not the regulation of businesses that make people shudder at the mention of Mussolini or Hitler. It’s all that pouring castor oil down the mouths of political opponents and concentration camps.

      Well you have to admit that socialism and left wing politics has a pretty fucked up track record. Though it is not the only reason i oppose it. It also screws up the economy and limits individual liberty.

      But i ask you this libertarianism which is a right wing ideology is fundamentally based on limiting what government can do to people and limiting what it can make them do.

      Socialism or left wing ideology has no bases to where the limits of government are in regards to individual liberty and the scope of government in regards to its ability to control people.

      Now which of these two systems if followed is more likely to pour oil down peoples throats?

      1. “Socialism or left wing ideology has no bases to where the limits of government are in regards to individual liberty and the scope of government in regards to its ability to control people.”

        This is because you equate the left with communism. Most liberals find works like On Liberty to be far more instructive than Das Kapital, and it has pretty clear limits on government vis-a-vis individual citizens.

    3. I am so not worried about Obama making the trains run on time.

    4. “Besides I’ve seen this silly observation made here a lot: Mussolini regulated business, Obama regulates business, therefore Obama=Mussolini!”

      It’s more complicated than that. The way Obama tries to use regulation to make business serve government policy is more reminiscent of how the corporatists see the relationship between government and business. Look at what Waxman was trying to do with the CEOs about the health care bill. The companies were performing a legal requirement that made the State’ new policy look bad, and Waxman looked to intimidate the executives. It was only after someone made Waxman realize that the hearings would not play out that way did the Dems cancel. But constantly, Obama’s message to business interests has been “do X” or else.

      If all you find objectionable about about Fascism is the political violence the party used to achieve and maintain power, and not the ideology behind it, the you are far gone. Particularly the idea that the State owned all resources and the private sector was only allowed rights in usufruct that could be taken away whenever the State required. It seems to me that this is close to the model of goverment Obama subscribes to.

      1. “If all you find objectionable about about Fascism is the political violence the party used to achieve and maintain power, and not the ideology behind it, the you are far gone.”

        Liberals would find the ideology behind fascism to be anathema (and they did, look at a Fellini movie that involves the fascist days for an example). Liberals clearly want invididual power vis-a-vis the state limited in many areas (rights of the accused, reproductive rights, sexual rights, etc) in ways that run directly counter to fascist ideology.

        See, the problem your having is that you think the corporatism was the evil of fascism, noone else thinks that about it.

        1. Liberals did not find the ideology of fascism to be anathema and do not. They find the name of Mussolini anathema because of his alliance with Hitler. The New Republic, for instance, was rather enamored of the fascists in the ’20’s and early ’30s.

          “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made here, an experiment in reconcling individualism and socialism, politics and technology. It would be a mistake to allow feeling aroused by contemplating the harsh deeds and extravagant assertions that have accompanied the Fascist process (as all immense historical changes) to obscure the potentialities and lessons of the adventure-no, not adventure, but destiny riding without and saddle and bridle accross the historic pennisula that bridges the world of antiquity and our modern world.”- Charles Beard

          As the post on Geoffrey Stone article on Wednesday points out, liberals do not see things in terms of inherent rights, but power relationships and the “right” people losing on a case by case basis. I have no trust in what liberals believe as far as rights go as that changes depending on which group is out of favor.

          1. He’s got you there, MNG.

          2. Liberals were appalled by what everyone was appalled by: the repression. THAT’S what gives fascism a bad name with most people.

            1. Which at best means that progressive liberals objected to the methods the Fascists used to enforce their ideology, not so much the policies themselves. And the Beard quote shows that the American left was fairly sanguine about the methods until the Axis showed signs of contemplating another general European war.

            2. You are moving your goalposts here. If liberals merely objected to the repression, then Fascist ideology was NOT anathema to them.

  21. “?we must ask them why they do not dissociate themselves from the swollen irrationalities of such as Mr. Baldwin*.

    The trouble is?and this is brilliantly recorded in the forthcoming book by Mr. Theodore White on The Making of the President, 1964?that they dare not do so. For fear that they would thus suggest a lack of militancy in their own approach to the problem. It was exactly so in the twenties, when many of the socialist-humanitarians who back the Bolshevik Revolution found themselves endorsing the enormities of Lenin, and Trotsky, and subsequently of Stalin?because they feared to alienate themselves from the leadership of the revolutionary protest.”

    *James Baldwin

  22. “Left” vs. “right” is useless in determining political beliefs. Political beliefs are better measured by how much control you believe the government should have – in all aspects – of your life, and the lives of others.

    By that measure, Mussolini believed in a great deal of control, as did Hitler. And the National Socialists were Socialists. So was Mussolini, who was the son of a prominent Italian communist, and a former communist himself. In Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer recounts how Goebbels stated that communists and Nazis often stole votes from each other, and that the communists were the easiest voting bloc to convert to NS voters.

    The only reason Hitler did not nationalize all businesses was 1) it would have pissed off the army, whose support he needed, and 2) the leading Nazis were pragmatic enough to realize that it would be easier and more efficient to leave businesses in the hands of their “owners”, and simply tell them what to do.

    1. With respect to dictators, “left/right” is a problematic distinction.

      The only real distinction is, “what is the primary means by which the dictator deals with entrenched elites?”

      Plan A: Co-opt them. Caesar’s method. Didn’t work out so well for him.
      Plan B: Kill (or thoroughly purge) them all, or enough of them that the rest cause you no trouble. Octavian’s method. Worked out well for him.

      Hitler was something of a hybrid, but relied a great deal on Plan A. Nearly cost him his life in ’44.

      Stalin was a Plan B guy to the core.

      1. As was Saddam.

  23. Oh, and while it is somewhat hyperbolic to compare Obama with Mussolini or especially Hitler, I have to ask: in what areas does he believe government has no place in a person’s life? Where does he think people should simply be left alone?

    I don’t like the answer that comes to my mind.

    1. Bingo

    2. But, to be fair, there have been a paltry few politicians/judges that would have gotten a passing grade in the last 100 years.

    3. First, answer “Who does he think should simply be left alone?” Answer that, and the “Where?” will answer itself.

    4. Liberals like Obama would be better than the right on many areas of possible government intrusion into the individual lives of its citizens: reproductive rights, pornography, gambling, medical marijuana use, etc., etc., etc.,

      This “he clearly knows no limits to government” is a silly meme. With this kind of thinking how do you distinguish him from the Dear Leader of North Korea (actually many here seem to hilariously equate them at times)? And what can be said of a viewpoint that cannot see a distinction between their rule, or even aims?

      1. By “reproductive rights” do you mean mothers killing their own children?

        1. No, I mean abortions.

          1. Like I said, mothers killing their own children.

            1. Did you know that a single ejaculation kills 50-500 million children? Please help me outlaw the genocides known as masturbation and sex. Fathers killing their own children is wrong.

              1. Sperm does not have a complete DNA that is separate from the father. This is not a good comparison.

                1. Any line you draw is arbitrary. A large proportion of embryos are aborted spontaneously, and nobody’s calling that a humongous natural disaster.

                  What constitutes a person can’t be decided by science, so it must be done by convention. Prolifers are the ones who want to defy social and legal convention by radically redefining personhood.

                  Now, there’s nothing wrong with that, I just want you to own up to it. Maybe give some thought to why the conventions exist in the first place, and how any line you draw is basically arbitrary–so maybe other considerations than the fate of the embryo should be taken into account.

                  1. Link to Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS)

                    large proportion of embryos are aborted spontaneously

                    Got a link Tony OB/GYN?

                    nobody’s calling that a humongous natural disaster

                    Apparently you have had neither a miscarriage nor a D&E; a woman who has experienced this will very much disagree with you.

                    1. Not a woman who never knew she was pregnant. Spontaneous abortions are part of nature. This is why it’s never been practical to confer personhood on embryos. We’d never have the technology to prevent this vast loss of life.

                      Outlawing abortion harms women. Decreasing women’s liberty “for their own good” is not something I’d expect to hear a libertarian advocate.

                    2. Physician, Tony. I’m well aware of the likelihood and risk factors of an SA.

                      I never advocated outlawing abortions Tony. I merely pointed out that there is emotional fallout after either an SA occurs (less likely but depends on the week of development) and almost definitely after a D&E.

                      As for the personhood issue, strong arguments for conferring such on a human embryos exist on both sides. And without such objections to using human embryos, finding that umbilical blood and iPS cells can be viable in their own right forced science to look for creative, science based methods for viable solutions.

                  2. “What constitutes a person can’t be decided by science, so it must be done by convention.”

                    This is exactly the sort of thing that science exists to define. A person is a noun, not an idea, not a god, not a religion. The irony with some radical born again fundamentalists is that they try to do in the world of “creation science” what the radical pro-abortion people try to do in the field of abortion. They try to redefine what a person is. They will be shown the skeleton of Homo Neanderthals and they will claim it is simply a human being. They try to warp science. I support science and do not believe in “creation science”. The definition of a person is the sort of thing that needs to be defined by scientists, not by clergy.

                    1. What constitutes a person is not a scientific question. It’s a legal one.

                      You can say an embryo is a person, I can say nobody’s a person until they’re born. Neither of us is right objectively, because there is no objective definition of a person. It is determined by legal convention.

      2. Hmmm, where exactly has Obama cdone anything differently in those areas than Bush? The only one remotely different is medical marijuana, since he changed federal policy, but only after the states started legalizing it. So yeah, Obama has probably lessened intrusion on medical marijuana users. How about the rest of us?

    5. Gays and abortion are about all Obama doesn’t want to control, BP.

      Not that they should be controlled, mind you, I’m just sayin’ those are the two verboten activities when it comes to liberal intervention.

      Now, what we drive, the food we eat, light-bulb construction, smoking… THOSE are just the tip of the iceberg Obama wants under his domain.

      1. Ummm, don’t see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed.

        Liberals are all about “We’re gonna help Teh Gaiz as soon as we … hey, look, we gotta go deal with that other thing right now!

        1. Gays : Democrats :: Libertarians : Republicans

  24. Just talking numbers, how many more did McVeigh kill at Oklahoma City than Reno did at Waco? That is an odious tactic the the impeached one likes to use.

    1. How many did he kill in Somalia hunting down warlords?

  25. *sigh* Ya know, MSG? Every once in a while, you will say something rational, lucid, and well thought-out that I completely agree with.

    And then you revert back to your usual haughty, pissy, insulting language pattern, which just reveals you as someone with a deep-seated complex of some sort.

    1. Let me be clear here Kant, as I said upthread I think the idea that the tea party is dangerous is nonsense and dishonest baseball, period.

      But I do tire of the silly reflexive tying of Obama and the left in America to Fascism, Stalin, Hitler, etc. It’s amazingly oversimplified hyperbole imo.

      1. Dangerous?

        What utter bullshit.

        1. Is English your second language or something?

      2. I agree MNG.

  26. Why do they hate us?

  27. Wow, if Clinton is right then there are going to be a lot of terrorist acts from the 58% of the population that is anti-Obamacare. Can 58% be considered extreme?

    Check out this hilarious parody using actual tax day Tea Party footage. Did they actually catch the n-word?: http://www.funnyconservatives.com/?p=842

  28. “the Tea Partiers are not…bilious”

    But Mr Clinton certainly is.

  29. I say the MSM and the dems have totally screwed themselves with the TP bashing. Not a day after the NYT/CBS poll comes out Nora (dufus) ODonell asks a black man if he ever feels uncomfortable at a TP event and he replys “No, these are my people, Americans”. Well, that man should be a hero to all but the progs clearly think he is a sucker. Shame on them.

    Obama and the MSM are pouring gasoline on a fire. Practically everyone knows TP’ers…disgruntled YES! Terrorists? NO.

    I have personally made a pledge to never watch non-FNC TV. (Except of course Final Four, Super Bowl, Masters, etc etc).

    1. the dems have totally screwed themselves with the TP bashing

      TP for my bunghole!

  30. Proving that even an idiot like Limbaugh can make a good point once in a while, today he asked why it’s okay for Clinton to try to paint the teapartiers as terrorists based on McVeigh, but it’s not okay to use the term “Islamic Terrorist.”

    I think the guy does WAY more harm than good in trying to stand up for conversative politics, but it’s a good question.

    I actually had occasion to walk through the crowds at two tea party events on April 15 and another one a few months back when they did the July 4th thing. I saw lots of moms and grand mothers, some middle aged white guys, way too many kids and even a (very) few 20 somethings.

    What I didn’t see was any skinhead, white supremist types, and I live in the Pacific Northwest where we have a shitload of these dumbasses.)

    It’s time for the dems to quit trying to pretend Grandma and Dad are going to try to bomb the white house and maybe come to terms with the idea that if they want to run the government like Nixon did, they’re going to be treated like Nixon was.

  31. Bill Clinton himself caused the Oklahoma City bombing by sending his Gestapo-wannabe minions to murder dozens of innocent women and children in a church by burning them to death. There have been no repeats of such massacres since McVeigh’s reprisal attack.

    1. So killing innocents in reprisal for killing innocents is justifiable, ray?

    2. The only difference between Jonestown and Waco is Jim Jones used kool-aid to martyr his nut job followers while David Koresh used fire to martyr his.

      Yeah, the DoJ fucked up the Branch Davidian thing horribly. Koresh and his lieutenants burned all those people alive.

      1. Yup. The children were innocent, but the adult psychos certainly reaped what they sowed. Not that extreme Christian apocalyptic splinter groups don’t have the same rights as mainstream Baptists. Craziness is just a matter of degree, after all.

        1. I give the Heaven’s Gate nutjobs credit for not involing any children or government agencies other than the coroner’s office.

      2. … burned all those people alive.

        I recall reading that most of them had been shot in the head first.

  32. Ray nailed it. McVeigh’s bombing was intended as revenge for Clinton/Reno’s Waco massacre, and he said so explicitly. Even the date of the bombing was chosen for that reason.

    McVeigh killed to teach Big Government a lesson: you can’t massacre Americans with impunity. I don’t agree with what he did, but I can certainly understand why he did it.

    One of the most insightful comments I ever read about that incident came from an Oklahoma sheriff at the close of the investigation. His comment: “You want more McVeighs? Just keep pushing.”

    If there isn’t a major, MAJOR change in political power in 2010, you’ll see more McVeighs, and it won’t be just one or two. I’m an old man now who has followed politics closely for the last fifty years. In that time I’ve NEVER seen so many competent, capable, responsible Americans so angry at, and deeply alienated from, the American government.

    You see a lot of hot air about soapbox, ballot box, ammo box, etc. Never before have I ever thought the country was within miles of the ammo box solution. Now, I’m just hoping that Obama doesn’t do anything stupid between now and November like legalize a lot of illegal immigrants. If he does that and the Dems don’t suffer a major-league butt kicking in the election, all bets are off.

    Bottom line is that the country is much more fragile than it used to be because so many of the ties that once united it are gone. Add to that the increasingly strong centrifugal forces that are inherent in a multicultural society and it makes for a situation where the design margin of national stability is running damned slim.

    1. Sadly, I think there’s a lot of truth to this. And there will be a major political shift in November. Before the ’94 elections emotions seemed far less stirred up, and look what happened then.

  33. Should we really listen to a guy who wasn’t smart enough to inhale?

    1. Speaking of inhaling: I wonder whatever became of Clinton’s coke-snorting brother after he pardoned him and expunged his record. Never hear anything about him anymore.

  34. Only two more days till my paranoid, angry and insane expose of the Tea Party movement through the eyes of American terrorist (and Tea Party Founder?) Tim McVeigh. Be there!

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/04…..xtremists/

    1. Could anyone really care what this sick individual thinks?

      As we all know homosexuality is a mental disorder so let’s get Rachel some help.

      Rachel spent too much time taking it up the arse from daddy while growing up so she hates men. What a surprise, a liberal male abuses his daughter…

  35. White Trash President vomits his opinions again and as usual they stink.

    When will this vile excuse for a man leave the world stage?

  36. Well, gee, Bill, if words are that disturbing, what do you imagine the unnecessary cremation of women and children because some ATF idjit wanted to play with his SWAT gear rates as a motivator? You and Janet Reno are the proximate cause of Oklahoma City. Period. End of sentence. Own it.

    1. How are things on Ruby Ridge, SDN?

      1. But I’m not on Ruby Ridge. I’m your next door neighbor. Which means that the next bonfire can spread to your house.

  37. Capital Execution for : Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Jack Hunter, Fox News, All company ever involved in talk radio, Cato Institute, Mises Institute, Heritage Foudation ….

    I could also sentence Reason for execution …. but then were could I read about the moronic commentaries of Bill-Grab-the-Girls-Clinton ?

    1. You could continue to listen to the voices in your head.

      1. Unfortunately, they’re all speaking Sith.

        1. Something… something… daaark side… something… something… complete.

  38. Clinton ignores the reason for McVeigh’s action against the Federal Government. McVeigh was retaliating against the Government for the FBI tank attack on the Branch-Davidians, which happened under his administration.

  39. And while the hard-core, anti-government radicals are still a minority, “they can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before. The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already there was enough use of the Internet that if you knew how to find a Web site – and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb”….

    I read this in 1975. I’m pretty damned sure there were no intertubes back then.

    Amazingly enough, civilization (and government) still stands.

    1. Went and clicked on the link. Now I’m probably on some kind of watch list. 😉

      1. Nah. The Anarchist Cookbook was a radical leftist thingee. Obamas colleague Bill Ayers probably had a copy. You’re good to go with this administration.

        Just don’t get caught with a copy of the Federalist Papers. 😉

        1. “Had” a copy? I’d bet $3.50 he still does.

          1. Don’t you go givin’ that tree-fiddy to no Loch Ness Monster!

  40. Hey, Bill, many Arkansas governors owned slaves, too.

  41. Michael:

    (This isn’t entirely accurate, for many of the people at the Tea Parties are staunch anti-interventionists; indeed, Glenn Beck is drifting towards a Ron Paul-type foreign policy).

    Seriously. Even if that’s true (which it really isn’t, ask them about Iran) so what? They’re warmongers when a warmonger Republican is President and peaceniks when a warmonger Democrat is President. It’s not the content of the foreign policy that matters, just the party i.d. of the sitting President.

  42. Go through the survey carefully, sort out the possibly legitimate grievances and you’ll find it’s not about taxes or deficits or the economy–about which most Tea Partiers are extremely badly informed. Then deduct 30 IQ points for too much exposure to Fox News and you are left with this:

    “The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites ? compared with 11 percent of the general public.

    “They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.”

    The simple fact is that it IS about race. There is nothing Obama could do that they would approve of. They believe there is a black, Muslim family living in THEIR White House and America will not be safe until they’re gone.

    1. I’m guessing your knowledge and use of statistics, modeling, and surveying has lead you to such conclusions. I guess since I dislike Obama’s policies I’m racist, which is incredibly uncomfortable given my circumstances.

      There is no such thing as a “simple fact.”

      L2troll

      1. OMG! You’re Korean? LOL

    2. …you’re kidding, right? I get what this is. This is an elaborate parody of left-wing thinking. Good job!

    3. I wouldn’t like Obama if he were as white as Edgar Winter, so fuck off, “Jerry”.

      I’m not the only one to think along those lines, either. The segment you are trying to portray in your last paragraph, is a very tiny percentage of the population. Not “half of America”.

      1. Oh, and Jerry, since you’re as stupid as I think you are… Edgar Winter is an albino.

        Now, why don’t you and “Vinny” go peddle your half-of-Americans-are-racist horseshit in your left-wing echo chambers? DU is but a click away!

    4. “They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.”

      And they are more likely than the general public to be correct in their conclusions about this, too.

  43. You know what makes me laugh? The right-wing racist hate-mongering Republicans that say to this day McVeigh and Nichols were agents of al-Qaeda. I ask them what their evidence is, and they always respond that they traveled to Manila despite not having any money or jobs. Americans with no money or jobs travel to Islamic countries all the time, with no money or apparent mean. That doesn’t mean they are terrorists.

  44. The racism conclusion is mine but the key finding–that Tea Partiers are more than twice as likely as the general populace to feel that black people are getting special attention from the Obama administration and that too much is made of their problems–is lifted straight from the New York Times/CBS survey. I assume that they have some knowledge of statistics, modeling and surveying. Are you saying those widely held Tea Party beliefs are based on Obama’s “policy” decisions? I can’t think of a single thing Obama has done, other than be black himself, that has favored black people over other races. Can you?

    1. He and his Congressional buddies have turned unemployment compensation into a permanent, open-ended welfare program. Does that count?

    2. Try Pollster. The NYT and CBS are left-leaning consistently. Pollster will at least give you a damn average.

      1. Here’s a stat: we’re all gonna get there fat.

    3. I’m saying you are reading survey data from one place and drawing some outright “fact” as if it is the end of the discussion. That is your analysis. the NYT and other outlets have their bias as well. Your motive appears to be to use racism more as a tool to prove your point than as a conclusion of a survey, which isn’t a study, but just a simple survey. I can think of some things he has done to screw them, like increasing a regressive tax.

      You’re using race to make a point, which is a pathetic way to go about making a point when there is nothing overtly stated in either direction. You draw the conclusion that since the administration has made no overt claim of helping one community there is no proof, then turn around and claim that vague data from one source points to overt racism that hasn’t been seen outright. Interesting game. I’d ask how the cognitive dissonance plays out in your head, but I fear you don’t even recognize it.

    4. How about canning the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, against the wishes of DoJ prosecutors?

  45. There were limited government types, libertarians, conspiricist kooks, and a handful of people who desperately need someone to elucidate the differences between liberalism, social democracy, socialism, and communism.

    I don’t know the difference between socialism and communism. I thought they were two words for the same thing. Mr. Moynihan, do you know the difference between the two? If so, please explain.

    1. Socialism and communism are cousins, not twins. The latter is more evil than the former, but only by a few degrees’ difference.

      That’s all you really need to know.

      1. I was taught that the only essential difference is that socialism gets voted in and communism takes over by revolution or coup. They both involve the abrogation of property rights and the subjugation of the individual to the state. And both are built upon the Marxist premise of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

    2. In much older usage that goes back before even Marx, no private property existed in Communist societies (communes), whereas a state socialist society, the state owns the means of production. In the syndicalist form of socialism, workers own the means of production, hence it is often referred to as Anarcho-Syndicalist because the state isn’t the dominant actor.

      Personally, given the history of legal thought, and the development of utilitarianism, I would also extend Socialist to define those that believe in positive legal rights over negative legal rights no matter what their beliefs may be in accordance to property given you can’t have one without weakening the concept of the other.

  46. The right’s violence came with opposition to civil rights (that’s right, bitch and moan all you want, but the guys who stood out in front of those schools, when the Dems moved away from them, they went to the right).

    Some moved to the Republican side, but the more common practice was to bribe recalcitrant Democratic officials with grants to run poverty pimping programs to shut them up and keep them in the fold.

    In spite of predictions to the contrary made at the time of the CRA’s passing, the Democratic party did not fold in the South. Your typical white Democratic official in the South was and is no more racist or anti-racist than his Republican counter part.

    Also, as a matter of voting practices in the South, yes, Nixon beat McGovern in 72, as would be expected even without a race factor, but they also elected Jimmy Carter in 1976. That voting block did not solidify until Reagan came to office.

    1. Just double checked to make sure I wasn’t taking a fact for granted, the red/blue distribution from ’76.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..76.svg.png

      Amazing the voting demographic shifts you see there compared to 1980 and onward. The only constant seems to be California and Massachusetts (no racist Democrats there! cough cough).

      1. Whoops, something I didn’t realize, H. Bush was able to carry California in 1988. I assumed Reagan was the exception to the rule given he was a former governor.

        1. In November of 1988 H. Bush had not yet broken his “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” promise.

  47. Dear Tony-

    Most people that commit violent crimes are—–

    Most people that are in prison are———-

    The Symbionese Liberation Army, The Black Panthers, the Weatherman were————

  48. Silly beyond all words. Carter and Clinton were reviled even more than Obama, and they were both “crackers”.

    What’s so hard to understand? The 53% who are paying for the buffet are sick and tired of the 47% who get a free ticket hogging all the shrimp cocktail.

    The “racist” angle was easy to anticipate, and once that lost steam, the “violent” angle was as well. But for the life of me, I can’t seem to get a handle on their next meme when the “violent” angle is debunked.

    Any takers?

    1. Obviously, the protesters just hate poor people.

  49. Moynihan, I define communism as the government controlling more than 50% of GDP spending.

    France has been there for some time, Britain just joined them, and the US is nearing 45%.

    The government may not control the means of products, but it is increasingly controlling the fruits of it.

    1. *means of production*

  50. government controlling more than 50% of GDP spending…the US is nearing 45%.?

    Really? The government controls over $6 trillion in “spending”?
    You’re just saying that for a lark, right?

    1. Look at near future projections.

      Don’t forget federal, state, and local government spending. It will be at 40-50% in the next 3 years.

  51. The 53% who are paying for the buffet are sick and tired of the 47% who get a free ticket hogging all the shrimp cocktail.
    I thought some of the early comments were full of crap, but I see Kant is in the lead for the stupidest comment here.
    Now see, if Kant had said federal income tax, he would have at least had a point but he didn’t, he’s just stupid and wrong.
    Kant, go here and follow the link to the PDF but as an example:
    those averaging 66K a year pay 28.5% of their income in taxes, while those averaging $1.3 million a year pay 30.8%

    I hope you’re in the top 1% of earners, because just carrying water for the rich can be back-breaking work.

    1. I hope you’re in the top 1% of earners, because just carrying water for the rich can be back-breaking work.

      Yawn. Class warfare makes me very, very sleepy.

      If Kant made the stupidest comment here, than you get the medal for the most boring.

      But try running your own business sometime, and see how many forms double taxation can take (hint: those tax law reforms that went through during the 60’s and 70’s, so beloved and hugged by liberals were purposefully designed to discourage self employment, and the latest batch compounds many of the same corporatist loving mistakes, so your little factoids do not resonate with me in the least, hippie).

    2. I did, in fact mean federal income tax, sorry that I wasn’t more specific.

      I am, however, terribly excited to be in the lead at something. What’s my prize?

  52. the stupidest comment here…

    …is a moving target. It can never be.

  53. Tony: Nobody’s saying all tea partiers are potential terrorists

    Oh, good. So you’re just implying that most or at least many of them are potential terrorists?

    Moderate of you.

    I went to a Tea Party rally on 4-15. Decent people pissed off at the growth of government, not the terrorists in Tony’s mind.

    1. I’m saying virtually no tea partiers are potential terrorists. But they are a group of people whose rhetoric is just not based in reality. It’s fed to them by a network of rightwing media that lunatics might also be listening to.

      If you are getting factual information and those facts are driving you to revolutionary rhetoric, then there’s probably something seriously wrong. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s just vague angry rhetoric aimed at imaginary bogeyman with the faces of real politicians. What happens when someone decides not to be a pussy about the violent rhetoric and takes it from being not-so-subtly implied to being actualized?

      1. What happens when someone decides not to be a pussy about the violent rhetoric and takes it from being not-so-subtly implied to being actualized?

        For this nation, a war for independence from England, Tony.

        Then there’s France’s revolution, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, and a host others. Granted the results have for the latter examples have been less than stellar.

        1. If a paranoid fringe groups thinks it gets to decide for the rest of us when it’s time for revolution, and calls that freedom, at the bare minimum could they not claim to be supporters of the constitution they’re trying to overthrow?

          1. They could claim this and tautologically that would be correct, provided their is individual freedom as result.

            Such as: abolitionists, which led to the 13th amendment, a score for individual freedom. Not a paranoid group, but certainly not the majority opinion of the country at the time.

            The US war of independence, which led to our freedom, and was also not in the majority when the war was declared.

            Except we can show this is invalid for revolutions that do not end in individual freedom, such as well, the French Revolution, a la Napoleon.

            Or Gavrillo Princip, who shot the Archduke Ferdinand, and how did that end for Austrio-Hungary?

            And Mao Zedong, an idealistic fellow whose “permanent revolution” has not led to freedom for all there ,unless you are fortunate enough to live in Hong Kong, the freest area in China.

  54. This is coming from one of the most corrupt shitbags ever to soil the Oval Office. Bubba, Hillary, and Al Gore used the White House as a conduit for an illegal,immoral,unethical, and treasonous crime spree. Filegate, Chinagate, Travelgate, and perjury under oath, should have sent all three of them to Leavenworth.

    The only response to any of the terrorist attacks on his watch, was a disastrous wag-the-dog foray into Somalia. He also cemented his place in history for refusing to allow the Army or the CIA to pull the trigger on Osama Bin Laden when they had him in the crosshairs.

    This mutherfucker needs to fade into obscurity.

    1. Did he bite his lower lip when he said all that?

  55. “There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,”
    Yeah, like the example Clinton burned into the consciousness of every teenage boy about how to treat female subordinates? What a stain on the nation (and who knows how many skirts).

  56. “we are back to the ‘they-are-all-potential-Tim-McVeigh’ arguments, this time courtesy of Bill Clinton.”

    Sounds like fun! Can I play?

    “The DEMOCRATIC People’s Republic of Korea is a communist state run by the tyrant Kim Jong-Il.

    “Therefore, every DEMOCRAT is a potential communist tyrant.”

    Wow, not only fun, but educational, too!

  57. Could we just cut the BS and tell Clinton to stick to the TRUTH – the bombing in OKC was retaliation by McVeigh for what Clinton and Reno did in Waco and Ruby Ridge?!

    Why are we allowing Clinton to twist OKC at all? We KNOW why McVeigh did it because he told us.

    The tea party movement has nothing to do with revenge or violence. It is about making congress represent their constituents and voting out the ones who don’t and/or won’t!

  58. What’s so wrong with being Timothy McVeigh? He had a reasonable target (considering how much tactical info is possible for a civilian to gather on a government building), it just wasn’t being used how he expected it to be. (FBI building = daycare center? Talk about a body shield!) Collateral damage, it happens. It’s telling that he regretted not focusing on assassinating police/government officials instead.

    The US military kills more civilians than T.McV. did every week they’re in Iraq.

    Oh never mind, It’s OK. They’re Arabs, not civilians! My bad.

    1. Sorry, ATF/DEA building.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.