We already know the hate-filled bag of right-wing goatfuckery, Rush Limbaugh, wants the head of state of the USA to "fail". There was a lot of argument from idiots about what that meant. The excuses were flying: "fail" meant his "socialist agenda", not his goal of saving the US from this recession, and other such nonsense. But the meaning was clear. If we are to climb out of this recession, Rush very much cares how we do it, and would rather we fail as a nation rather than have his putative anti-Christ carry the mantle of success. But he never said he wanted Obama to drop dead.
That honor was left to former presidential candidate Alan Keyes' running mate from last fall, one Wiley Drake, a Southern Baptist Minister. In an interview, he rendered Fox's Alan Colmes nearly speechless:
"Are you praying for [Obama's] death?" Colmes asked.
"Yes," Drake replied.
"So you're praying for the death of the president of the United States?"
"Yes."
[...]
"You would like for the president of the United States to die?" Colmes asked once more.
"If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that's correct."
I know the wackaloon trolls will be coming by any minute to say how Chis Matthews or whomever is just as bad as Rush et al, but really, how deeply must you deceive yourself to believe that? They'll also say that the killer of Dr. Tiller, or the Holocaust memorial shooters were "loners", but how many "loners" makes a crowd? In a different economic or political atmosphere, these wackaloons would be practicing a bitter but lonely Onanistic exercise in hate. But in this climate, people are listening. And they are acting.
The Responsible Right (if such a thing still exists) needs to show itself, needs not to distance itself from hate, but to acknowledge it, then condemn it. Instead, the mouthpieces of conservatism are finding excuses.
But they don't get a pass for their excuses, for being "patriotic" or whatever else. They don't get to use tu quoque arguments to justify their own bigotry. They need to remember one of their favorite buzzwords: "responsibility". They will be held accountable for their words and actions one way or another, so they might as well own up to them.
But I don't really care if the right manages to crawl out of the gutter and reclaim the mantle of legitimacy. That's their problem.
- Log in to post comments
Especially when these 'loners' suggest they're not loners at all, but part of large-scale cells with plans to intimidate and kill to achieve their illegal goals. Now, who else do we know who says things like that, hmm?
Funny that the right isn't screaming for Roeder's torture under the ticking time bomb scenario? Wait, did I say funny? I meant to say 'bigoted, hypocritical, and evidence that they're all full of shit'.
Oh, and for the record: a quick search on Google shows most lefties aren't all that into torturing Roeder either.
I guess it just goes to show that we can move on, past our partisanship, to roundly agree, conservative and liberal alike, that torture is wrong. At least as long as the suspect isn't the wrong colour or religion, of course.
huh, I thought for a minute that I stumbled into another PhysioProf guest post gig.....
Well, I'll just pray that Obama doesn't die. Problem solved.
He didn't specify when
There were more than a few Democratic party members who wished for Bush's death in conversations with me during his term in office. One was an ordained minister. It isn't just the right.
Well isn't that nice and unsourceable
Worst hit-and-run tu quoque evah.
By the way PalMD... someone has me confused for you on the Rush thread. For no reason whatsoever.
Airedalelover: What? and get Cheney?
And speaking of the fatassed chief goatfucker: Rush is now blaming the health care crisis on people that exercise. You know, all those broken bones, sprained ligaments, road rashes, shoulder separations and such are the real factors in putting a strain on the health care system. Now he's the national epidemiologist.
[made 2nd on Olbermann's WPitW]
natural cynic: I'm speechless. Exercising and being in shape is more expensive than being sedentary, fat, and out of shape? I really have nothing I can say to such monumental stupidity.
By the way PalMD... someone has me confused for you on the Rush thread. For no reason whatsoever.
Well, no reason except that he appears to have the brains of a kumquat.
Normally when people say they're going to pray for something nasty to happen (god to send an earthquake to destroy San Francisco to get back at teh gays, etc) I just think, "Should be as effective as most prayer." and go on. But this is different. God won't hear Drake but Man might...specifically, men like Roeder or von Brunn. Obama is better protected than Tiller, but if there is an assassination attempt-or FSM forbid, an assassination--occurs, I hope someone brings Drake's little comment to the attention of the Secret Service.
Please note that "right" no longer has any relationship to conservatism, just as "left" no longer has any relationship to liberalism.
Anyone who would wish for the death of another based on political differences is a fringe nutcase. Period. Really, no ideological debate is needed.
The choice to take the excrement from one to smear on another is supported how? Because their hair color is the same or they voted for the party you opposed during the last election? Is there any real difference there?
Hatred makes intelligent discussions of differences of opinion impossible. How do those who hate benefit (regardless their supposed political affiliations) by this lack of discussion?
I have come to the conclusion that the politics of hate is to gain power over both "sides" as if there were really two sides. Reasonable people tend to agree on important matters. Proponents of hate do not want agreement or advancement. They merely want power.
The power of hatred will not treat any of us well.
@natural cynic: Don't forget drug addiction. Opiate addiction doesn't cost the anything at all. Good grief, cigarettes alone probably cost the health care system more than everything Rush listed combined.
@Donna B.: That's kinda what everyone's bitching about. These most certainly are *not* fringe nutcases. They're the leaders of the Republican party. Anyone that claims Rush isn't one of the major leaders of the Republican party care to explain the bowing and scraping Michael Steele had to do after insulting His Holiness? Yeah, I didn't think so.
What about Bachmann, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Malkin, Jindal, Palin, etc? All crazier than hell, all absolutely adored by the Republican party.
I've pretty well lost my sympathy for conservatives. If the leaders of your club are batshit insane, you find another club to join. If none of the existing clubs appeal to you, then you make a new one with less crazy people. Or you kick the crazy people out or make them be quiet. Or you can be lumped in with your nutjobs. I honestly don't think I could possibly care less.
Donna B: I have to call you on this one. Conservatives have been running the "southern strategy" for years. They have always been hateful from day one. Reagan opened his campaign with a nod to Jim Crow South and segregation. I could go on and on. Conservatives run a mean and nasty campaign. Saying people like Rush and the Holocaust museum shooter aren't real conservative is just wrong. I do blame the right wing radio and Fox for the many shootings. Rush was on the radio going on about the birther conspiracy which the shooter just happened to believe in. Ask the people in Rwanda if words dont mean anything.
Rush, Hannity and Bachmann can continue their racially-coded, right-wing oratory if they choose. They are pushing away voters and politicians who are "moderate" to the Democratic party. The East Coast, West Coast and upper Midwest are solidly Blue States, and every word out of the crazy right makes those states more Blue. Unless my mathematical skills are suspect, but the Republicans are never going to control Congress or the Presidency with Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Oh and Utah.
I think these Republican twits think their message of hatred will attract a larger base. It will attract some, but what do they think the wealthy traditional Republicans (moderate on most issues) are going to do? They're running far away from this rhetoric.
I'm a conservative, not a Republican. There's a difference, ya know? Both parties are too populated with nuts for my taste. And don't tell me there aren't nuts who claim membership in the Democratic Party.
GOP has never been as purely conservative as it is today, once they finally purged the last of the modern folks out of the party. Many who call themselves conservatives are mistaken - they were misled by the GOP over the decades as to the true meaning of conservatism.
"right-wing goatfuckery"...Did you make that up, PAL? If the medicine thing doesn't pan out, you should make bumper stickers. It just drove the spell-check crazy. I considered clicking on "add to dictionary".
I guess that we can take comfort that studies on intercessory prayer show that it does not work.
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract
Of course, this was done to see if prayer would help people, not kill them. Maybe that is where the authors went wrong. We would probably need to do another large, multicentered randomized controlled trial.
Coturnix, maybe you can explain to me what "true" conservatism really is? While you're at it, have a go at "true" liberalism.
@Donna B.
Noone claims the Democrats don't have their own nuts. The democratic nuts just don't have the same popular platforms that the Republican nuts have. Rush/Hannity/Glen Beck all have TV/radio shows that put them very far into the public eye, and Jindal(as an Indian, I'm amazingly ashamed of him)/Palin/Bachman all achieved significant elected office despite seemingly being proud of their ignorance on a wide variety of issues.
The Democratic nuts just don't have the same name recognition. Tom Harkins is the one that comes to mind.
Democratic nuts do not incite violence - they chant to incense fumes.
If you want to learn more about conservative ideology, go to my blog, go to Archives, click on the "Ideology" category (and perhaps some of the "Politics" category) and read - hours of stuff collected over the years, especially if you also follow the links (and links within links within links). Best read in chronological order, but the reverse chronological will do.
Incense... ah, memories of college and the lengths we'd go to to cover up the odor of marijuana. The scent of patchouli (sp?) still gives me the munchies.
Coturnix, I didn't find a link to categories, just monthly archives. You've been blogging way too long and are much too prolific for me to read your whole blog!
Just scroll down under the "by month" and you'll see "by topic". Here is the main one for this thread: http://scienceblogs.com/clock/ideology/
Thank you Coturnix. I've read 4 posts so far and have much to disagree with! However, it can't be done in a mere comment.
I'll read, I'll think, and hopefully, I'll be able to post on my own blog my conclusions. Keep in mind that my conservative attitude holds that all conclusions are subject to revision if/when further evidence is presented.
If your definition of 'conservative' includes an inability to learn, grow, adapt, etc., then we're off to a bad start because my definition holds those to be primary. I think a definition of 'liberalism' would not be far off. Where the two differ, IMHO, is in HOW, not WHAT.
Conservative and Liberal have a good many definitions, some of which mainstream members of both movements would not agree with, and some which would deeply offend those who adhere to the typically rendered mainstream. But I think everyone can agree here that this god-man wants the President of the United States to die. Anybody supporting this guy should know what he's really asking for is for someone to act on his wish.
Keep in mind that my conservative attitude holds that all conclusions are subject to revision if/when further evidence is presented.
How is this a conservative attitude? Not meaning to be snide, but the attitude described doesn't strike me as particularly conservative or liberal-or incompatible with either ideology.
Dianne -- my next sentence acknowledged it's not exclusive to conservatism. What I have a problem with is the Party itself (any you wish to use an example) that either won't revise policies or does so with glacial speed.
So conservatives have stopped pushing abstinence-only sex ed, since it has shown to be ineffective at reducing unplanned pregnancy? And they want to teach real science in school and stop pushing thinly-disguised religion? And they have stopped reminiscing about the "good old days" since they realized that TV shows from the '50s aren't real? Hmm, by your own definition, you don't seem very conservative at all.
Perhaps I'm not conservative by your definition of conservative.
The "conservatives" that were pushing abstinence-only sex ed and ID in schools were always only a very small, but very LOUD group that misunderstand two basic fundamental conservative points - separation of religion and state and less government involvement in personal lives.
But I doubt I'll stop reminiscing about the way things "could" have been. For example, I wish it had turned out that Andy Griffith was a role model for modern day sheriffs, but it seems they paid to much attention to Barney Fife. (I'm talking about the very early b&w shows)
Because no "true" conservative would support any of *those* things.