GOP: Special Victims Unit - The Ultimate Conservative Hypocrisy?

[Formaldehyde]

Schlussel is also an attorney and has a wide audience of those who believe everything she says.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/3303...ypts-peaceful-moderate-democratic-protesters/

The reaction of the left to this article is funny in its predictability. Sooo damn predictable. Of course I don’t support “sexual assault” or violence against Lara Logan, and I said that nowhere here. RIF–Reading Is Fundamental. Your premature articulation is a problem. I did say that it warms my heart when reporters who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people. And yet they still won’t admit that THIS. IS. ISLAM. Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about.

I’ve received many moronic insults and threats of violence from the left in the hours since I posted this, showing me more and more that there is very little difference between the left and the dominant, violent, fanatical forces in Islam. In fact, there’s really no difference at all. They are all in need of rehab. My favorite part of all of the responses is their common claim that the “real rapists” of the world are white males and American soldiers. Uh-uh, you keep telling yourself that, as you live here under the protection of American soldiers. Riiiight–It’s not Muslims who don’t respect women and treat them as baby factories, sex toys, and property. It’s America and the West. You keep tellin’ yourself that, morons.****

As I’ve noted before, it bothers me not a lick when mainstream media reporters who keep telling us Muslims and Islam are peaceful get a taste of just how “peaceful” Muslims and Islam really are. In fact, it kinda warms my heart. Still, it’s also a great reminder of just how “civilized” these “people” (or, as I like to call them in Arabic, “Bahai’im” [Animals]) are:

http://smearcasting.com/smear_schlussel.html

As long as we continue to hire Muslims to be translators and analysts, as long as we continue to give money to Arabic and Muslim schools to teach their kids Arabic instead of non-Muslim, non-Arab Americans, as long as the FBI (and ICE) continues to turn down Sephardic Jews and Maronite Lebanese Christians who speak Arabic and who've applied for jobs in favor of extremist Muslims...the result we will get is...spies, spies and more spies.

Schlussel's columns have been published by the Wall Street Journal (6/24/05), the New York Post, and the Jerusalem Post. She has appeared on Fox News, CNN, ABC, Howard Stern and ESPN, and, in 2002=03, her own radio show on a CBS-owned Detroit station. Her blog Debbie Does Politics appears on the websites Townhall.com and PoliticalUSA.com, has she has also been quoted by Rush Limbaugh and in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone and USA Today.

Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachmann aren't much better and profess essentially the same nonsense. But if you criticize their "wingnut" views, it is:

...the last acceptable form of misogyny in this country. Hatred and prejudice towards conservative females.

 

[Cutlass]

"This guy isn't a serious Christian. He's a devoted New York Times reader, and he's an extremely well-read guy."
— Mark Steyn on Anders Breivik

 

[Oerdin]

It is fun to laugh at all working class conservatives.

It's not so much that it is fun to laugh at working class people so much as it is fun to laugh at stupid people. Anyone who still doesn't understand that Fox News is propaganda is a stupid person who deserves to be laughed at.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Berzerker]

some of the same people claiming this guy aint a Christian would howl if people accused them or their political allies of not being Christian - why, it aint our place to decide who is or isn't a Christian blah blah blah...

 

[useless]

Link to video.

I just think this whole "He's not a Christian" think is an attempt to deny that these pundits and writer's frankly vitriolic writings and rants, have little impact of affect on people and society.

Almost like a "Oh crap I just got caught" situation.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm guessing Labor is pro-Palestine.

Which makes you anti-Semitic in some crazy views, and I guess Schlussel is one of those crazy views.

Furthermore, even IF Labor was some horrible, evil regime planning the destruction of Israel every moment of the day, whatever happened to the mantra of don't blame the son for the sins of the father? These were innocent children, for goodness sake.

---

Schlussel exposed Hannity as a crook, but she's just as bad.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I just think this whole "He's not a Christian" think is an attempt to deny that these pundits and writer's frankly vitriolic writings and rants, have little impact of affect on people and society.

Almost like a "Oh crap I just got caught" situation.

It is even apparently far worse than that.

Geller and Richard Spencer, owner of the "Jihad Watch" website, both referred to specifically by Breivik as being direct contributors to his own wacky views, are now asking for donations to protect themselves from the supposed anti-Semites and Muslim lovers aka "liberals". Some of them are supposedly drawing the same sort of parallels which sent many fundamentalist Muslim clerics scurrying into hiding in various predominantly Muslim countries while GWB was in office, so they weren't kidnapped and tortured, or even mysteriously ended up dead:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/01/pamela_geller_norway

As a writer, it sure sucks when someone murders a bunch of people based on your ideas. (I mean, I assume that sucks. Weirdly, it's never happened to me.) So you can understand why right-wing anti-Islam bloggers are all being kind of defensive, these days.

Anders Breivik, the anti-Islam terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway on July 22, read a lot of American anti-Islam bloggers, many of whom he cited in his lengthy manifesto. Breivik's favorites included Robert Spencer, a self-proclaimed expert on Islam whose "Jihad Watch" blog was quoted and cited in Breivik's manifesto, and Spencer's ally and collaborator Pam Geller, whose "Atlas Shrugs" was similarly recommended by the killer.

So some people have been like, "hey, wow guys, a crazy person took everything you write so seriously that he murdered a bunch of people, in the name of protecting his nation from the creeping 'Islamization' of Europe that you guys constantly crow about, maybe you guys should stop and think for a minute about the horrible, hateful things you all write, all the time." And Spencer and Geller have basically screeched back, "CENSORSHIP!!!!!"

They are now actually fundraising on the fact that they helped inspire a massacre. Or more accurately, they're begging for money to protect them from the imaginary witch hunt that they claim the liberals will mount. (Is this part of the witch hunt? I am always confused about whether I'm witch-hunting or not, when I call people horrid hateful bigots.) Spencer also signed Geller's fundraising blog, and if you donate more than $500 to Atlas Shrugs, ThinkProgress reports, they will send you a signed copy of Geller's book, "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance." (I assume a coordinated terror attack against radical Islam's liberal enablers is written off in the pamphlet as impractical.)

People are not responsible for what crazy people do after reading their blog posts for years, obviously (though inciting fear of and hatred for ethnic and religious minority groups tends to be the sort of speech with the bloodiest track record), and Pamela Geller never called on anyone to go out and murder some liberals, to save us from the Islamists. But she has now stopped just short of justifying the attacks, after the fact!

Adam Serwer notes the strong 'they had it coming' vibe in Geller's latest on Norway. From Geller's post:

But the more that is revealed about that youth indoctrination center, the more grotesque the whole story becomes. Of course, the genocidal leftists will twist what I write here; I am not condoning the slaughter in Norway or anywhere. I abhor violence (except in regard to self defense). But the jihad-loving media never told us what antisemitic war games they were playing on that island. Utoya Island is a Communist/Socialist campground, and they clearly had a pro-Islamic agenda.

Only the malevolent media could use the euphemism summer camp and get away with it.

The slaughter was horrific. What these kids were being taught and instructed to do was a different kind of grotesque. There is no justification for Breivik's actions whatsoever. There is also no justification for Norway's antisemitism and demonization of Israel.

It may surprise you to learn that Geller feels any shame, ever, but she did delete the blatantly racist photo caption that originally accompanied the post. The faces of the camp attendees look, to Geller, "more Middle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian." (!) In other words: I abhor violence, but these pro-Islamofascist soldiers were being trained by the Commie-Nazis to destroy Israel, also they look sorta Arab, right?

So! Please remember how horribly these guys are reacting to what should be a moment of shameful self-reflection for them, the next time you see them cited in some newspaper editorial or interviews on Fox or something.

The "youth indoctrination center"? The euphemistic summer camp? "Antisemitic war games"? "Communist/Soclalist playground"? This is an apt description of those children and young adults who were the victims of this terrible travesty?

 

[GoodGame]

Stewart:

See the difference? That guy printed up "Soldier of Allah" business cards.The other guy only printed up an "Army of Christ" manifesto. I guess the only connection is that both psychos spent the day at Kinko's.

Maybe the connection is they both exercised their freedom of speech as well?

 

[BasketCase]

Strange that you cannot back up your own statements.

This thread itself does. It's full of people calling Fox News reporters and viewers "cancer", "idiots" and the like. Pot calling kettle black. Several of those posts have red flags on them--forum rules say not to quote red flags. You're just going to have to read the thread yourself.

Lots of people have done the same thing the OP accuses Fox News of, just the other way around: pointing out various sins by Christians and ignoring identical actions by Muslims. Pointing out sins by Fox News and ignoring the same sin in reverse by somebody else is, ironically, the same kind of hypocrisy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When those people you mention get a tv-station or a show on one, you will have a point.

 

[classical_hero]

I just think this whole "He's not a Christian" think is an attempt to deny that these pundits and writer's frankly vitriolic writings and rants, have little impact of affect on people and society.

Almost like a "Oh crap I just got caught" situation.

So are you going to say that the words of Thomas Jefferson are used to insight violence? He quoted from Jefferson far more than he ever quoted from the Bible.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants.”

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [...] It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Thomas Jefferson stated that “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good
thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” He also said that “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
We would do well to heed those words.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

There are many more if you ever want to look up his "manifesto". As you can clearly see he is using the words of others to make him feel better about what he did.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Jefferson was referring to a specific moment in history where he and others felt that tyranny and oppression must be fought so they could bring their own aristocracy into power. So yes, in a real sense he did deliberately incite violence and used that rhetoric to rationalize it. If his side had lost the war, he would have likely faced charges of being a traitor unless that was part of the settlement to end the war.

But who is the "he" you are referring to here? O'Reilly specifically? Or all the Fox News talking heads quoted in the OP who have echoed the same sentiment? Or Breivit himself? If it is Breivit, I don't think Useless was referring to him. I believe he was referring to those who are trying to distance themselves from him.

I really don't watch O'Reilly that much, much less Fox News in general. But they seem to quote whatever they think would make the best propaganda for the given argument, regardless of source. And I certainly didn't read much of Breivit's rants outside of a few paragraphs quoted in this forum.

But in general, I don't think you can very well use Jefferson's rhetoric to overthrow any legitimate sovereign government against the wishes of the majority of the citizens themselves, no matter how much that government may restrict liberty when compared to previously. A case in point would be GWB after 9/11.

Nor can you really use it to rationalize gun ownership in any western European country which has far stricter gun laws than Norway does, and where so many residents do own guns. The level of tyranny is simply not high enough, and the will of the general population has not been subverted sufficiently to even consider revolution, much less try to justify it. Most of the citizens of Western Europe seem to be quite happy with the governments they now have.

 

[classical_hero]

Well since this about how people are calling the so called hypocrisy of the conservatives for pointing out that Brevik, the "he" who I was pointing to, since if the people are right that he is not a Christian in the first place, then there is no hypocrisy to be pointed out. The fact of the matter is that people have not properly understood what he said and how he twisted so many things out of context for his own gain.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Don't many Fox News talking heads, and other similar spokesmen like Geller, Spencer, and Schlussel who voice quite similar opinions, also twist many things out of context for their own gain, without the actual bloodshed of course?

Didn't the US government, as well as other governments, specifically target Muslim clerics they felt were inciting terrorism in a very similar way?

I think it should all be protected under freedom of speech myself. But that also must mean that people have the right to publicly point out the real hypocrisy here, as Jon Stewart so admirably did.

And once again, the hypocrisy that Stewart pointed out is not in claiming that Breivit can't possibly be a Christian for violating so many Christian principles. It is in also claiming that Muslim terrorists must be adherents of Islam when exactly the same caveats has been violated. And it is in insinuating that conservatives are the victims here instead of those who actually died.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well since this about how people are calling the so called hypocrisy of the conservatives for pointing out that Brevik, the "he" who I was pointing to, since if the people are right that he is not a Christian in the first place, then there is no hypocrisy to be pointed out. The fact of the matter is that people have not properly understood what he said and how he twisted so many things out of context for his own gain.

Not "the conservatives", Fox. We've got to make a clear distinction between Fox and conservatives. Fox is not the spokesperson for conservatives.

And if you have watched the segment, you'd notice that the Daily Show is off the same opinion. Brevik does not represent Christianity. What they pointed out is O'Reilly reasoning the Hood bomber was Muslim because he carried a card with the acronym for Soldier Of Allah. The Hood bomber self-identified as being muslim, so according to O'Reilly's reasoning, he's Muslim. Now this Brevik feller wrote a 1.500 page book about crusades and stuff, but for some reason O'Reilly does a 180.

The point of the segment is to use the same criteria, which Fox in the case of Brevik used correctly, for more than one religion.

Now, what I find odd is that the people who share Fox's ideologies also feel the need to incorporate their means of discourse. Just because they agree with you politically, that doesn't automatically mean you'd have to agree with their conduct. Conservatism and right wing ideologies have lots of merit. The same goes for progressivism and left-wing ideologies. When you start characterising the two sides, you stop exchange of ideas and create conflict. Conflict is great for news stations (Fox is not the only one who set their mind to highlight the differences) but when the public expects the kind of conduct they see on their television from their politicians that kills the most important aspect of politics. Debate. How to debate an America hating Bolshevik? How to debate Homophobic Racist Bigots? Why do you think the US government is more and more into deadlock (see last default debacle)? If a republican says, "hey maybe we should have some tax hikes" he's done for. When a democrat says: "The universal healthcare is a bad idea", the same.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I really miss the days when Wiliam F Buckley was the unofficial spokesperson for conservatism, and people like Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite were reporting the news. Back when the network news departments weren't supposed to be profitable, and nobody even thought of calling them media outlets instead.

It has had a major impact on this country and its reputation in the world.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I really miss the days when Wiliam F Buckley was the unofficial spokesperson for conservatism, and people like Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite were reporting the news. Back when the network news departments weren't supposed to be profitable, and nobody even thought of calling them media outlets instead.

It has had a major impact on this country and its reputation in the world.

Nostalgia much? lol

There were less pundits back then too. And the lucky ones that were assigned to the jobs, were a byproduct of a good education.

Now we get all sort of rubber ducks thrown at us.

 

[useless]

Link to video.

You see, it's not the LGBTers that are being opressed.. it's the conservatives.

 

[Traitorfish]

Interesting that he describes young conservatives as "the weakest members of our society", given how keen the Right usually is on presenting itself as ruggedly ubermasculine. Is there some logic that I'm missing, there, or is this just the typical doublethink of a hack commentator?

 

[JollyRoger]

Interesting that he describes young conservatives as "the weakest members of our society", given how keen the Right usually is on presenting itself as ruggedly ubermasculine. Is there some logic that I'm missing, there, or is this just the typical doublethink of a hack commentator?

I think it is an admission of the truth - the rugged ubermasculine portrayal is more their ideal of a dating partner.