"Both sides do it!"--Oh, really?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 12:00


The most popular trope to excuse the right of all rresponsibility for decades of demonizing, violent and eliminationist rhetoric: "Both sides do it!"

Not so much:

This has been out there for a very long time for everyone to see.  A tremendous tolerance for violent rightwing rhetoric has been built up--particularly by so-called political "moderates", "centrists" and the "objective journalists" of the so-called "mainstream media".  This is what they've all grown accustomed to--and devoted themselves to making other accustomed to as well.

Gosh, who knew someone would end up getting killed!  After all, they only talked about it all the time!  There were tell-tale signs at all the rallies.  They were carrying guns to political events all across the country.  And their political leaders were sending out very clear messages, with no one else reigning them in.

What Democratic Vice Presidential nominee has done that?  If both sides do it, then there must be at least one.  Who is it?

  • Michele Bachmann saying she wanted her constituents "armed and dangerous."

What Democratic congressmember has done that? If both sides do it, then there must be at least one.  Who is it?

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

What Democratic Senate candidate has done that? If both sides do it, then there must be at least one.  Who is it?

  • And Giffords' opponent holding "Get on Target for Victory in November" and "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office[.] Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly".

What Democratic congressional candidate has done that? If both sides do it, then there must be at least one.  Who is it?

All these incidents are only on the right. There is nothing like them on the left.  That alone is enough to refute the absurd "both sides do it" narrative.

But it's only the beginning.

These are not isolated incidents.  They are highpoints of a vastly repeating pattern, that has hundreds of thousands of violent rhetorical echoes that have been there to report on for at least three long years now.  And they are a perfectly predictable repeat of what the militia movement and others did the last time we had a Democratic President.

The media needs to stop lying about this. Democrats themselves need to stop lying about this. Both sides don't do it -- just as both sides were not equally responsible for the Civil War.  Conservatives have clear-cut history of violent treason in our country.  And they've just recently started to celebrate the 150th Anniversary of it--even as they continue to lie, and claim that it wasn't about slavery.  It's true now, like it was true 150 years ago: Both sides don't do it.  And America deserves a media and a political leadership that's not afraid to simply state the truth.

Paul Rosenberg :: "Both sides do it!"--Oh, really?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Both sides do it!"--Oh, really? | 81 comments
If both sides did it (0.00 / 0)
Would the left get more of its agenda done?  If the answer is "yes", should the left do it?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Threaten Violence? (4.00 / 6)
Sun Tzu says "No!" on two counts, from his most famous lessons:

First, the greatest victory is won without firing a shot.

Second, victory is assured to by knowing oneself and one's enemies.  We are the people of reason, inclusion, and the greatest good for the greatest number.  They are the people of violence, exclusion and the greatest good for the smallest number.  We cannot win by becoming them.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sorry to say this, but you're nuts. (4.00 / 4)
You should check to see if the "Maintenance Required" light is blinking on your moral compass, assuming it's working at all.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates
[ Parent ]
Killing innocent people is wrong. (4.00 / 3)
It's kinda one of the big differences between us.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
"Innocent" is so often a matter of dispute (0.00 / 0)
Why not just, "killing people is wrong"?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
True. (4.00 / 1)
To be honest, I don't believe in killing guilty people either, I was just trying to keep it simple for Anthony's sake. He has a hard time following sometimes.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I never said to kill people (0.00 / 0)
But perhaps taking the opposite of a "no drama Obama" type of public persona in favor of something that gives the perception of militancy might be a good thing.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Good. (4.00 / 2)
But what Paul is talking about here, the thing that they do, is using violence for political ends. So when you said said we should do "it," I naturally assumed that's what you were talking about, too.

If you are saying we need people on our side who will speak out with passion (the opposite of "no drama") then we are in complete agreement.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"Perception of militancy" = "good thing" (0.00 / 0)
Nutcase.
[ Parent ]
I don't speak for Anthony, but my guess on what he meant by "militancy" (4.00 / 2)
is more along the lines of having clear convictions and arguing them forthrightly and forcefully, like what the Tea Party did these past two years.
[ Parent ]
NO!! they don't! It began in Earnest with Ronald Reagan! (4.00 / 1)
He made it acceptable to demonize segments of the population in America to achieve political goals. First it was the poor, the unions, the government and then the OTHER. He and the republican party made it main stream to express hatred of the other in order to divide people and he used that devisiveness to harm the american democracy. Democracy was far too inefficient for Reagan and his business allies who wanted to DEREGULATE america and shrink the middle class by suppressing power of the people. The repugs own this hatred, bigotry and as Dupnik said AZ is the capitol of that hatred carried to extreme.
You're Forgetting Richard Nixon (4.00 / 1)
One of the all-time haters the White House has ever seen.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Tis true, but what the Reaganite Right brought was more down to earth: (0.00 / 0)
Operation Rescue. They were the ones who started printing up the Wanted posters with the faces, names and addresses of their intended targets. Their methodology was always intended to recruit whackjobs to do their dirty work for them. They were quite successful in this regard and they were never held to account for their open embrace of terrorism as a political device. They were only superseded by the militia movement which had a broader agenda. Now an entire political party and it's ancillary groups are openly engaged in this.

Anyone who's done clinic defense a few times will tell you OR was a terrorist group, or at least that's the way it seemed to me, as I looked into the terrified faces of my associates.

Fast forward to today and we still have a Reaganite president who still gives the Right a free pass in their terrorist tendencies. It's not hard to write the script of where this is all going.

Put succinctly, the current crew will do what they've almost always done: protect the Right's tender underbelly by blaming "both sides" and labeling this assassin as a "lone wolf" nutbag. Mueller will conduct an "investigation" that will exonerate the Right and claim no connection to this assassination. The Right will be high-fiving each other, in private of course, to celebrate their continued status as "untouchables."

At some point, Obama will give a speech denouncing the extremism on "both sides"--all while winking to the Right with some "while I disagree with you sometimes I still respect you" nonsense. The purpose of that, then, is to tell "liberals" in effect, "better watch your six, because we can't/won't protect you." It's what Reagan did, after all.

The thought occurs that as long as official Washington labels Quaker pacifists "terrorists" while ignoring the virtual and actual violence coming from the Right, they are complicit in all this, to some extent. This includes much of the media as well, since they're the ones trying to transform a blatant act of terrorism as "just some nutter going on a rampage." Wash, rinse, repeat as needed...

But maybe Nixon really does belong in here like you say. He's the one that hired goons to beat up on hippies after all... so he's really the original "hippie puncher," isn't he?


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
thank's god - (4.00 / 1)
we ('the left' - 'progressives') don't do it - and it would be great to keep it like that - perhaps raising the call for civility and not going the way some Germans tried in the Seventies - And no - this isn't a call to 'cave in' - I'm just freaked out that somebody from my generation - who obviously also spend too much time on the Internet - did what he did - instead of marching with US for sanity - I guess there are still too many out there who don't take somebody like Jon Stewart seriously and it's high time to take a vacation from the Intertubes!
Please, it's not "civility" that is the issue; (4.00 / 3)
Civility in our present situation brings us Obama and Jon Stewart. The issue is the connection between violence and political goals, very different from questions of "civility" or "moderation."
[ Parent ]
The second-grader-on-the-playground defense... (4.00 / 3)
...runs something like (in adult-talk) "If I can find anything - no matter how bogus - that suggests you've done once what you accurately claim I do over and over and over, then you can't criticize me for anything I do or say, no matter how often or how horrible."

(AKA "I'm rubber and you're glue").

The simple fact is that the right wing's hate speech practitioners, enablers, apologists and profiteers (FOX News/News Corp/Rupert Murdoch) need to be called out, clearly and repeatedly, and not be allowed to hide behind the smokescreen that some one person on the left, some where, maybe, just maybe, kinda sorta said something similar.

The argument is pure and utter bullshit.

Additionally, the fundamental problem here is two-fold:

1) we're dealing with a set of people who view their particular flavor of bullshit as reality, and

2) that too many on the left feel that the only viable strategy is to continue to self-flagellate as they hold the moral high ground of "reasonableness" by never calling hate speech what it truly is: hate speech.

Implicit acceptance (4.00 / 6)
Glenn Greenwald has a column on Salon today ("Government-created climate of fear") which talks about the systematic intimidation and coersion of government critics.  What's shocking is that Greenwald fails to announce that all of the critics who are intimidated, coerced and harassed by the US (federal) government in his article, and there are plenty of them, are left-wing critics.  The more violent and far more specific threats of the right go answered by the "liberal" Obama and his lackey Holder.

I'll repeat my criticism of an AP story along the same lines.  Giffords was one of 42 members of congress to receive threats.  If both sides do it why didn't that include say 20 Republicans ? AP failed to take a count of the political badge of those who were threatened.  Clearly all, or nearly all were Democrats.

Arizona was at the fore front of the threat movement.  It was here that the man with the assault rifle prowled outside an Obama rally.  It is here where Giffords opponent posed with rifle and camo uniform and offered M-16 target practice at a campaign event where Gabby Giffords was the victim.  It is here where the Governor and the state senate president threaten the large number of hispanics in the state with arrests that sound shockingly similar to well the Nazis.  No papers?  No problem you ar on the next trip out of the country.  Even if born here with papers, well that's no protection either if the next scheme is passed.

There is a reason there is violence and there is a reason it is in Arizona.  There's even a reason it's in this congressional district.  That reason is Jesse Kelly.

The right wing has already started to smear (hence justify the killing of) the 9 year old girl claiming she would have grown up to be a liberal.  Boehner cries crocodile tears but threatens Democrats on the floor of the House.  Hey, you're a dead man is far worse than "liar" in my book.

These are hired scum of the corporates and billionaires.  Ian Welsh was on toip of that angle today.

Time to show backbone and clean house (or is it House) or it will soon be much harder.  Do it by law suits.  But go after the people that really promote violence in this country.

Not to mention that the government legitimizes violence (0.00 / 0)
whenever it invades another nation, or lobs a few cruise missiles, or drops bombs from drones. Bush did it and Obama is doing it. Next President will, too. And the congress will probably applaud them for it while the rest of us weep softly on Memorial Day and call everyone a hero.

Its OK because, you know, America is the greatest nation on Earth.

Although I agree with Paul's assertions with respect to the current political climate in the US. Overall, through our worship of the military and the droning stories of military glory and the obsence focus on the "tough guy" cops and the "heroic" way they mow down the "bad guys", this is way to big of an issue to put on one side of the political spectrum.

The right wing hate-rousers deserve their share of the blame, but let's not pretend that all of this violence worship in the US is confined to the right.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
It's Not Confined To The Right (4.00 / 3)
But it's of perennial benefit to them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Absolutely not. In fact, there isn't really that much political violence (0.00 / 0)
happening in our country. Most of it happens in other countries, and is supported by both sides of the aisle. As far as cultural currents are concerned, it is shocking just how blind the population is to the ideological work of movies such as "300" or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. All these movies are right-wing, pure and simple.
[ Parent ]
The intent may be right wing and authoritarian (0.00 / 0)
but the audiences and fans can be very liberal and progressive people.

Blind.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Don't Forget Sheriff Joe Arpaio (4.00 / 2)
he needs to be included in any accounting of Arizona's forces of political mayhem.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
INdeed, he's the most popular politician in the state! (0.00 / 0)
So this counts on several levels, beyond his own direct involvement with White Supremacists.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates
[ Parent ]
and glad you mentioned Glenn - (0.00 / 0)
I spent a lot of time on his blog in the last years and without any doubt he is one one the 'best'? if it comes to creating a 'climate of fear' about the 'government creating a climate of fear' - And that's 'good' - I thought and that's 'fine' - I thought and honorable - if you could discard some of his readers - who used to get into a kind of frenzy from time to about about their hate of 'thee government' and I always thought they -(some of them)- where kind of funny.
How they worked themselves up - immobile in their internet lunacy - spending all their rage by pounding out one Orwell quote after the other - and it was fun to ridicule them and this awesome serious lawyer who's only fear was too much humor.
And then one sick and paranoid man left his computer and I seriously have to rethink everything!

[ Parent ]
Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
Start by "rethink[ing]" about whether Jared is "one sick and paranoid man", or whether he has a long line of predecessors.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I did - (0.00 / 0)
rethink 'wether Jared is one sick and paranoid man" - and I believe he is.
But as we discus the 'responsibility for demonizing, violent and eliminationist rhetoric' I never took 'violent and eliminationist rhetoric' on blogs and on the Internet very seriously - I had to write my master thesis about the 'Creativity of the Internet language and somehow I feel now I missed something important!
[ Parent ]
I'd figure you'd be used to that feeling by now (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
so - (0.00 / 0)
you think I should open a 'third front' by stereotyping: 'It's all the Internets fault'!  
[ Parent ]
You're partially wrong on the targets thing (0.00 / 0)
Sarah Palin putting cross-hairs on Giffords' district.
What Democratic Vice Presidential nominee has done that?  If both sides do it, then there must be at least one.  Who is it?

The DNC and DCCC have used bullseyes graphics in a similar fashion to depict Republicans targeted for defeat.  Yes, they're bullseyes and yes, the DNC and DCCC aren't (former) Vice Presidential nominees, so you may maintain your position if you wish.  But to pretend like Sarah Palin is somehow the inspiration for Jared Loughner is quite frankly ill-founded at this point.

So I'm Right, Ergo I'm Wrong? (0.00 / 0)
Fascinating logic!

Look, there's all sorts of things that consultants and campaign workers do that it's clearly understood the candidates themselves should never do.  So even if Palin had never done anything else that crossed the line, my point here would still stand. And, of course, she's done all sorts of other things.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Your logic is equally fascinating (0.00 / 0)
Apparently, bad things are okay as long as it's the low-level grunt workers behind it.  Did the DNC and DCCC ever "refudiate" the use of bullseyes on those maps?  Are they doing so now?  Is anyone on the left condemning those maps along with Sarah Palin's?

Do you think that Palin actually designed that map herself, rather than having an aide do it?

Finally, I was not aware that Palin was a candidate for any office at the time of that map's release.

Personally, I don't care about the use of either graphic.  Those graphics, along with other military-inspired words such as "target", "take out" and "campaign" are clearly meant in the context of peaceful political action, not actual violence, and that there might be people too crazy to understand that is not somehow the fault of the speaker/writer.

[ Parent ]
utter bull, not just bull, but bullshit (4.00 / 2)
Yep a "second amendment solution" to "take out" is just meant as peaceful political action. I see.

Yep and this "patriotic bumper sticker" is also

clearly meant in the context of peaceful political action, not actual violence, and that there might be people too crazy to understand that is not somehow the fault of the speaker/writer.


Psalm-109.8
"May his days be few, may another take over his position.
May his children be orphans and his wife a widow".

Just another wonderful thing from the right.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
I was talking about the Palin/DNC/DCCC crosshairs/bullseyes (0.00 / 0)
Not this Psalm 109:8 thing that I'd never seen before in my life.

Did this Psalm bumper sticker show up on Palin's website?  Or Loughner's?

[ Parent ]
Why are you changing the subject? (0.00 / 0)
The question was specifically about bullseye targets on congressional districts.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
NO no it isn't, its about the ginning up of wackos and the creation of an eliminationist culture. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Do the DNC's/DCCC's bullseyes (0.00 / 0)
also gin up wackos and create an eliminationist culture?
[ Parent ]
There are no "sides" here (4.00 / 1)
Tell me, what evidence do we have that Jared Loughner is a Tea Partier?  Or even a conservative?

Unfortunately, my fellow liberals have been vainly trying to connect the dots between Loughner and the Tea Party/Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to find another excuse to hate them.  It's an insult to their own intelligence, really.

History is the best early evidence. (4.00 / 3)
The Right has been blatantly recruiting whackos for decades now. They know it works, so they're acting on experience, not innocently transmitting these messages.

Consider that Rush Limbaugh, all by his lonesome, gets about seven million listeners a week. How many of them need to be mentally disturbed enough to commit a heinous crime? Not that many, really. A few will do. But only .0012% of listenership can terrorize a million people, can't they?

Add in Beck, Hannity (well, all of Fox News except Shep Smith, who seems to be the token sane person), Savage, Laura and Laura and the one or two hundred local gasbags that trumpet this eliminationist tripe 24/7 and it all starts to add up.

HIstory is full of well documented examples in which eliminationism has worked to stunning effect. Europe, Rwanda, China, Russia... all over the place.... and now here.

If you focus on the individual in this case, you're missing the best evidence there is: a mass-market propaganda system that is known to produce precisely these results. Then again, that's what the media is doing: individualizing it so as to denude the real context of this assassination.

Assassination is an act of terrorism. This act of terrorism was openly encouraged by well known political figures and their media cohorts with a wink and a nudge. Furthermore, it's clear that this will continue until it's somehow finally dealt with and that won't happen as long as official Washington gives them a free pass.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree in the general sense (0.00 / 0)
but I do in the context of this particular case.  Where's the evidence that Loughner listened to Rush Limbaugh or watched FOX News?

What I'm saying is, you could've made this same argument last Friday before the shooting.  The potential danger of overheated rhetoric was the same then as it is now, but I don't yet see any actual evidence of it having inspired Loughner.  It's just idle speculation at this point, and one that unfairly impugns an entire group of mostly peaceful people (the Tea Partiers).  The violent rhetoric everyone is kvetching about is actually the exception, not the rule; the only reason why it feels so pervasive is because the media reports it to death.  Blaming the Tea Party for Loughner (even if he was actually a Tea Partier, which as far as we know he's not) is no more fair than blaming Islam for 9/11.

[ Parent ]
Again, you're individualizing it and thusly getting bogged down in things you don't know. (4.00 / 3)
Violent rhetoric is the exception and not the rule? Oh my, where have you been for the last 15 years or more? Do you not see and understand the process by which eliminationist rhetoric (not merely violent, mind you, but ELIMINATIONIST) has been mainstreamed by the media and ruling elites?

Just because you haven't been given the specific "evidence" you're asking for doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. But this was a political assassination and as such, it is a political act. It is an act of terrorism.

What we do know is that he subscribed to a number of genuinely paranoid conspiracy theories involving the "gold bug" fantasies about currency... which quite frankly points him in Beck's direction, since he's the biggest promulgator of that stuff in the country. And since paranoid conspiracy theories are the bread and butter of Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers everywhere, it's pretty easy to conclude he is one of them, yes?

Lastly, given the way people use the "demand for evidence" meme to basically discount what's already obvious to any interested observer, will you even believe the evidence once it's presented? Because most people don't. They'll then say the sourcing is odd, or it's "flimsy" or something else. One can see this on display over at dKos every single day and the whole point of using it is to deny without actually denying.

We know for a fact the RW has been actively recruiting nutters to commit heinous crimes for decades now. There's a nauseatingly long list of such accomplishments to their "credit," all while certain interested parties continue to deny any "evidence" of such activities. As long as they can maintain that myth, they possess plausible deniability.

The evidence you seek will present itself in due course. It may not be enough to convince you this brazen act of terrorism was a genuinely political act. Just remember that one needn't be sane to act politically. Indeed, it really helps if the subject isn't sane, since it entails doing something rather insane.

But whatever the case with this particular perp, he's managed to terrorize an awful lot of liberals, hasn't he? Isn't that the real point here?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I believe there is evidence that Loughner targeted Giffords (0.00 / 0)
What isn't so clear is the connection between Loughner and the Tea Party.  This is because 1. There's no evidence of Loughner having been involved with or even sympathetic to the Tea Party, and 2. Loughner's politics don't match the Tea Party's or any other political organization's.

Loughner and Glenn Beck sharing one policy position does not mean that they share all policy positions, or even the same general worldview.  Moreover, Beck is usually not cited as one of the Tea Partiers using violent rhetoric.  The only time I can recall that Beck said anything remotely violent was when he joked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi.

Conspiracy theories are not the exclusive province of the Right.  One obvious example of a theory that's held mostly by those on the left is the idea that the U.S. government was behind 9/11 - a theory that I believe Loughner subscribed to.

As for terrorizing liberals, I would like to think that everyone is in some way alert to what's going on here.  If right-wing politicians think they're somehow "immune" to violent acts, that could be a potentially fatal mistake.

Lastly, given the way people use the "demand for evidence" meme to basically discount what's already obvious to any interested observer, will you even believe the evidence once it's presented? Because most people don't. They'll then say the sourcing is odd, or it's "flimsy" or something else. One can see this on display over at dKos every single day and the whole point of using it is to deny without actually denying.

1. Did you support invading Iraq in 2003, prior to the beginning of the invasion?

If the answer is "no":

2a. Were you among those who demanded more "evidence" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to give them to al Qaeda to use against the USA in the near future?

If the answer is "yes":

2b. Were you just as impatient with those who demanded more "evidence" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to give them to al Qaeda to use against the USA in the near future, as you are with me right now?

[ Parent ]
Its not about anything you are making up. (4.00 / 2)
It's about the culture of violence on the right, well supported by Palin, Beck, Lumbaugh and the tea party, ginning up the wackos:

http://patriotshop.us/product_...

Your attempt to make this into: "It wont convict her in court" is, well, odd. The above is from the
http://patriotshop.us website.

I don't think anyone is asking for Palin to be arrested for the murder of an Arizona judge. We are saying, this has happened before, historically, it is happening now, the right is ginning up the wackos. Please look into history, read an article or two, and find something better to do.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
I don't doubt that the right is ginning up the wackos (0.00 / 0)
I doubt that the right ginned up this wacko.

When Loughner comes out and says, "Yeah, I got the idea of shooting Giffords from the Tea Party", then we'll have something to talk about.  Until then, liberals who prematurely attack Sarah Palin are just feeding their own irrational obsession with her.

[ Parent ]
Well then, maybe YOU'RE the one who should put up evidence, eh? (4.00 / 1)


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates
[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
My argument is not "It won't convict her [Sarah Palin] in court".  My argument is, "It won't convict Sarah Palin with anyone who isn't jumping to conclusions and doesn't already have a preconceived hatred of/bias against her."

Blaming Sarah Palin for Loughner is no more rational than say, blaming Obama for a store going out of business.

[ Parent ]
Not only Sarah Palin is responsible, all of the violence spewing, wacko ginning up (4.00 / 1)
asshats calling for second amendment solutions are responsible. And that includes the evidence you "don't care about"

You point is silly.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Which one of those "asshats" were responsible? (0.00 / 0)
Who met with Loughner and conspired with him to shoot Giffords?  Where did Loughner ever mention anything about the Tea Party?  What does Loughner have in common with the Tea Party or conservatives?  Oh yeah, the gold standard.  That issue hasn't been discussed in forty years.  I doubt Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers even know what gold standard means.
[ Parent ]
Some clues as to (4.00 / 1)
what might have influenced Jared Loughner from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. These rightwing groups are more obscure than the Tea Party. These are nothing more than clues; they give rise to inferences which later investigation may confirm or disconfirm or neither.
[ Parent ]
More obsfucation. (0.00 / 0)
The only thing they have in common is the spreading of lies and demagoguery, the ginning up of violence, the spread of the idea that violence is a solution to political disagreement, even the solution.

What does Loughner have in common with the Tea Party or conservatives?

One spoke about "taking out" "enemies" with M16's, hunting licenses to kill liberals, communist takeover, Reload!'ing and yesterday, Palin said stop saying we are responsible for inciting violence or there will be more violence..

and

One listened to the discourse about violent solutions, assassination and demagoguery and saw that the mainstream media pretended their discourse was acceptable, and placed that knowledge in his heart, pulling the trigger on elected officials and children.

Now? Now can you see?

Or is it your purpose to distract the conversation from the very real need to expose and denounce the moral, social and political culpability of their detestable acts?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
No I don't see (0.00 / 0)
One listened to the discourse about violent solutions, assassination and demagoguery and saw that the mainstream media pretended their discourse was acceptable, and placed that knowledge in his heart, pulling the trigger on elected officials and children.

We don't even know how much he listened to that "discourse about violent solutions", let alone how much he "placed that knowledge in his heart".  Unless you've had the privilege of an exclusive interview with Loughner that you're withholding from the rest of us, this is pure conjecture on your part.

Or is it your purpose to distract the conversation from the very real need to expose and denounce the moral, social and political culpability of their detestable acts?

You keep exposing and denouncing whatever you need to.  My "purpose" is just to make sure you don't rashly blame liberals for 9/11 and conservatives for 1/8, if you get my drift.

[ Parent ]
Wow, there's so much conflation here it's hard to know where to start. (4.00 / 1)
For a person so insistent on "evidence," you're engaging in an awful lot of pure conjecture, mixed in with a beautiful level of conflation in your concluding questions.

As for your questions, the answer to 1 is NO. Did I demand more "evidence" that Saddam had WMDs? Again, the answer is NO, for the simple reason that there wasn't any such evidence... but there was ample evidence the WH was simply lying. So I went with the available evidence that had piled up over the years.

Ergo, there was no point in demanding evidence many, many people knew simply didn't exist.

I do like this sentence, however:

If right-wing politicians think they're somehow "immune" to violent acts, that could be a potentially fatal mistake.

At this point, it's pretty obvious they do consider themselves immune not only from violent acts, but prosecution as well. The only palpable threat to them is from other right-wingers. Period. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise thus far.

That said, given their proclivity for surrounding themselves with heavily armed militia-types, perhaps they are sufficiently paranoid to fear violence against themselves. This actually makes sense, since people engaged in mafia-type violence have every reason to be paranoid, whether it's justified or not. The conscience tends to work that way with such violent people.

Personally, I am fine with people demanding more evidence. I apologize if I've needlessly characterized you as one of the many, many denizens of dKos who use this rhetorical ruse as a way of simply dismissing things out of hand, without any intention whatsoever of being rational.

That said, your lack of willingness to even consider the evidence currently at hand sent the wrong message.

More evidence will come along at any rate. I hope you are just as skeptical with the WH and FBI as you are with me. Okay?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I'd be just as skeptical with the WH and FBI if it was apparent that it was BS (0.00 / 0)
just as you were skeptical with the WH, FBI, CIA, MI6, Congress, Bill Clinton, 70% of the Democratic Party, etc. back in 2003.  Because it was BS.

The difference with me is that if all those powers-that-be actually presented solid evidence that Saddam Hussein was going to launch a nuke at Washington D.C. in the next 24 hours, I'd support some kind of military operation to prevent that (though it'd obviously be a lot different from Iraqi Freedom).  I'd be keeping my mind open to new facts.

From what you wrote

Did I demand more "evidence" that Saddam had WMDs? Again, the answer is NO, for the simple reason that there wasn't any such evidence... but there was ample evidence the WH was simply lying. So I went with the available evidence that had piled up over the years.

it sounds like you already made up your mind based on what you knew (which is perfectly fine) and you didn't really care about learning any new facts/evidence that might challenge your conclusion, even if it didn't necessarily challenge your principles.

This is crucial because there's a difference between principles and conclusions.  One is an opinion that you guides your thoughts.  The other is a fact-based assessment of reality.

For Iraqi Freedom,

Evidence: All bullshit.

Conclusion: The case for war is bullshit.

Principle: War is wrong (except in certain circumstances).

Now imagine that the Evidence changed so that there was some non-bullshit.  The Principle stays the same, and maybe the Conclusion stays the same because the Evidence doesn't fit the circumstances that justify war.

Now, for Casa Adobes shooting,

Evidence: The best evidence I've seen linking Jared Loughner to the Tea Party is currency.  Really?

Conclusion: Jared Loughner is not connected to the Tea Party.

Principle: The hateful and violent rhetoric that has been used by a select few members of the Tea Party and its associated political candidates (e.g. Sharron Angle) is wrong.

See?  You keep your Principle.  You keep denouncing hateful rhetoric.  But the Conclusion remains that A is still not connected to B no matter how much you'd like it to be.

[ Parent ]
it's an insult to anybodies intelligence - (0.00 / 0)
or proof how far 'removed' somebody can be from reality.
You just have to interview a few of the dudes and dudetts who spent most of their life in front of their PC's - digesting any kind of 'conspiracy theory' and get a whole new outlook!  
[ Parent ]
That's Not The Point--AND You're Wrong Anyway (4.00 / 3)
Even if Loughner were completely apolitical and completely void of ideology, it would still be the case that he acted out the widespread rage expressed by and through the Tea Party, stoked by the conservative/Republican establishment, and tried to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman.  That alone is entirely damning.

But, in fact, Loughner turns out to be obsessed with a number of different extreme paranoid conservative conspiracy/fantasies: about money, big government, mind-control, language and grammar, as well as race.

So your defense is, "Well, at least he's not a Tea Party member!"???

Buddy, where he lives (in his mind), the Tea Party is like the PTA.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
you might be right - (0.00 / 0)
but isn't it the 'full story that we need'?
And in Loughters case -(perhaps just in his case) - the 'Tea Party' never will be the 'full story'!
[ Parent ]
The Full Story Is Much BIGGER Than The Tea Party (4.00 / 3)
And at this point, it really doesn't matter whether Loughner has any connection with them or not.  He exhibits shared tendencies that are part of a larger whole.  That much is already known.  And the same sorts of forces that have been pumping up the Tea Party have been pumping up him as well.  Now the mixture of forces may not be the same--heck, it's not the same from any one Tea Party group to anohter.  But they're all part of the same broad historical phenomena, and now's a rare chance to stand back and say, "Hey wait a minute!  We really don't want to go down that road!"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
and about that bigger story - (0.00 / 0)
try for a change to forget your 'political' approach (just in Loughs case) - and google 'Hebephrenie' - And then let's start over!
[ Parent ]
The Story On Loughner (0.00 / 0)
is that his dismissal from community college represented a real breakdown point for him.  So why didn't he go there to shoot up the place?  (My sister's a retired CC professor, I know how bone-chillingly plausible such a scenario can be.)

That's the key bit of data that any fully adequate explanation has to account for.  And no merely psychological explanation is going to do.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Where's the proof? (0.00 / 0)
it would still be the case that he acted out the widespread rage expressed by and through the Tea Party, stoked by the conservative/Republican establishment, and tried to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman.

Where is the evidence that Loughner had even heard of the Tea Party, let alone give two shits about them, let alone give enough shits about them to actually be inspired by them?

I thought you were all about facts and evidence, Paul.

But, in fact, Loughner turns out to be obsessed with a number of different extreme paranoid conservative conspiracy/fantasies: about money, big government, mind-control, language and grammar, as well as race.

I'll give you money.  Was Giffords a strident opponent of returning to the gold standard?  When was her last speech on that subject and how did Loughner react?

Loughner opposed "big government", but not big government in the sense of economic interventionism, stimulus, health care, etc., but big government in the sense of "mind-control".  If anything, concerns about government "mind-control" would be coming from the left (side of the mental asylum), not the right. (Not that I'm saying Loughner was a leftist.) So, was Giffords a sponsor of a mind-control bill?  When did she introduce it?  How many cosponsors does it have?

To say that Loughner was a right-winger is nonsense.  To say that he was a left-winger is equally nonsense.  To attempt to place Loughner in any kind of ideological box, let alone connect his motives to other non-violent, (arguably) non-crazy members of those boxes, is an exercise in futility.  He was crazy.  He was a member of the Crazy Party.  That's the point here.

[ Parent ]
Get Real! (4.00 / 2)
You argue like a libertarian. Which is to say, in a manner that is totally air-tight logical in your own mind, but so ludicrously contrived, artificial and arbitrary to most other folks that they simply don't bother trying to reason with you, seeing clearly in advance what a total fool's errand that would be.  Which, in turn, gives you the false impression that you showed them!

Two words: Bored Now!

But for anyone else reading this who might be the least bit tempted to be bamboozled by this mindfuck "argument", the rightwing paranoid fringe ideas that Loughner entertained have been well-documented by others.  For example, HousesofProgress's quick hit "Loughner's 'crazy talk' part of right-wing "Sovereign Citizen" movement" links to an article at boingboing, "The anti-government grammar of :David-Wynn: Miller", which states, in part:

OK, I just spent about three hours cleaning up the Wikipedia article on David Wynn Miller, the anti-government activist whose Time Cube-like views on grammar may have caught the fancy of Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner (see previous Boing Boing pieces on Loughner's social media presence by Sean and produced videos by Xeni). Miller travels the country advising people in the Sovereign Citizen anti-tax movement that they can fight in court by using a special grammar he created in 1988. It basically comes down to a belief that how one renders one's name with punctuation and how one uses grammar can alter one's legal status as a person. In other words, DAVID WYNN MILLER (as on his birth certificate) can be taxed, but :David-Wynn: Miller cannot, because that is not legally a person.

[Additional links in original]

This one piece of information--which there is plenty of back-up for--is sufficient to blow all of liberalmaverick's counterfactual hypothesizing to smithereens.  But that's not the only crazy rightwing theory that he bought into.  Yesterday, we ran a guest diary by Chip Berlet, a researcher who's spend decades studying the political right and diverse geneology of its various beliefs.  Berlet is one of top experts in the world on this sort of thing.  In that diary, "Alleged Giffords Shooter Shares Currency Plot Obsession with Anti-Abortion Killer", he wrote:

Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona shares an obsession with government currency and money manipulation plots with anti-abortion killer John C. Salvi 3d. Loughner wrote about a conspiracy of currency manipulation in text posted on YouTube.

Salvi was found guilty in the Brookline, Massachusetts clinic shootings in late 1994 that left two women dead and several persons injured.

Although he was found competent to stand trial, there was substantial evidence that Salvi was mentally unbalanced and obsessed with conspiracy theories. Salvi later committed suicide while serving a life sentence. Shortly after his arrest Salvi released a handwritten note alleging conspiracies of freemasons, conspiracies to manipulate paper currency, and conspiracies against Catholics. He talked about the Vatican printing its own currency and claimed a vast conspiracy of the Ku Klux Klan, the Freemasons, and the Mob.

Most of the news coverage of Salvi portrayed him as a confused person making nonsensical statements alleging conspiracies. In fact, almost all of Salvi's conspiratorial statements echo scapegoating theories long circulated by a specific sector of right wing anti-abortion organizations active in the Boston area and nationwide. Some of these aggressive anti-abortion groups call abortion providers evil and claim to be fighting an "abortion Holocaust." A few of these anti-abortion militants suggest that abortion providers deserve death.

It is still difficult for many people to see the political side of the Salvi case. There is still a widespread lack of knowledge about the beliefs of the right wing conspiracist subculture-and there is still an attitude of denial that groups promoting conspiratorial worldviews have growing influence in our political system.

This sort of denial is exactly what we are seeing from liberalmaverick here.  He pretends to want evidence, but there's literally tons of it, which he simply refuses to see.

As Berlet went on to write:

The writings of Jared Lee Loughner are an odd jumble of right-wing Patriot and anti-Federal Reserve themes mixed with rhetoric similar to that from people who are mentally unbalanced. It is too early to tell where this story will lead. It is clear, though, that aggressive right-wing rhetoric targeting Democrats as treasonous encourages some unstable people to act out in aggression or violence.

And we haven't even touched on his white supremacist tendencies...

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Word of advice: Don't become a lawyer (0.00 / 0)
You'd be laughed out of court.  Your two arguments are as follows:

1. Jared Loughner cared a lot about grammar.
David Wynn Miller cared a lot about grammar.
David Wynn Miller is an anti-tax activist.
Therefore, Jared Loughner is an anti-tax activist???
Therefore, Jared Loughner is a Tea Partier/right-winger???

2. Jared Loughner cared a lot about currency and conspiracy theories.
John Salvi cared a lot about currency and conspiracy theories (though not necessarily the same ones).
John Salvi was an anti-abortion activist.
Therefore, Jared Loughner is an anti-abortion activist???
Therefore, Jared Loughner is a Tea Partier/right-winger???

What airtight cases!  Here are two more that also use this awesome transitive property-style logical argumentation:

3. Osama bin Laden is a Muslim.
Peace-loving Muslims are Muslims.
Osama bin Laden authorized 9/11.
Therefore, peace-loving Muslims authorized 9/11???

4. Barack Hussein Obama has "Hussein" somewhere in his name.
Saddam Hussein has "Hussein" somewhere in his name.
Saddam Hussein ordered the deaths of many Iraqis.
Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama ordered the deaths of many Iraqis???

[ Parent ]
Still Bored! (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't talking to you, fool.

Can't even read.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well I was talking to you, whether you like it or not. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Lets look at your third example shall we? (4.00 / 2)
" Therefore, peace-loving Muslims authorized 9/11??? "

NO they didn't, the violence loving, wacko ginning up, rhetoric spewing, lying, evidence skewing, coordinated cabal of criminals created the found in all too many places individual uncoordinated "cells" of wackos all to willing to act on the violent rhetoric spewed forth by them.

NOW do you understand?

The peace loving Muslims did the opposite, including the thousands and thousands of Egyptians I recently posted about, who went as "human shields" to protect Coptic Christians.


Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields" (HousesofProgress)
After the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt last month, Egyptians, Muslim Egyptians, fought back.

   Egypt's majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

   From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as "human shields" for last night's mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

   "We either live together, or we die together," was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the "human shield" idea.


http://english.ahram.org.eg/Ne...

NOW do you understand?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
 liberalmaverick understand?

Surely, you jest!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
no need for that Paul (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You really think that all Tea Partiers are the same? (0.00 / 0)
That they're all violent nuts with itchy trigger fingers?

How are you any more enlightened than the ignoramuses on the right who think all Muslims are bearded suicide bombers?

I thought the response to this shooting was supposed to be more civility, more dialog, more understanding.  Instead, it seems to have become an excuse to retrench ourselves even further in our preconceived longstanding biases, hatreds and misconceptions.

[ Parent ]
Again: sidestepping, clouding, distracting and ignoring. (0.00 / 0)
Those that have poured millions into the campaign to lie and distract and suggest violence are responsible, as is obvious, as the actors who pump the lies into the civic discourse, as are the people who pretend it is acceptable behaviour.

There is a difference between denouncing the appalling use of demagoguery, fear and encouragement of violence for their own ends, the seeking of their exposure as morally culpable bad actors, just as we denounce the radical criminals who call for jihad, and the state taking them into jail for trial.

I am exposing your bad thinking and apparently tactical writing, not arresting you, or preventing you from speaking. can you see the difference?

I think you can, and I think you are either truly embarrassed by the hole you have dug yourself and c an find no way to pull yourself out, or your political purpose includes protecting this group from criticism.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Denounce them then (0.00 / 0)
But do so separately from Jared Loughner.  Cuz (as far as we know) they're not related.

It's like the old conservative canard from back in 2003: Hey, liberals hate GWB.  Saddam hates GWB.  Ergo, liberals must love Saddam!  It wasn't true then.  Why should we play the same game now?

You're not answering my question.  How is your reflexive blaming of an unrelated party based on a stereotype any different from their reflexive blaming of an unrelated party based on a stereotype?

[ Parent ]
I get your points (0.00 / 0)
I happen to think that the further away from Jared Loughner your arguments are based, they more logical they become.

When you start psychoanalyzing him and talking about aspects of his personal life, your argument begins to crumble. I agree with your analyses, but I also suspect that these kind of detailed suppositions (well-grounded, but suppositions) are precisely the kind of "errors" that the right wing noise machine will latch onto when they set about destroying the scenario you are building. If you get one or two of your claims wrong (no matter how much contravailing evidence you can site) that will be enough to tear you apart in the M$M. Why give them so much ammunition to work with?

There  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I get your points (0.00 / 0)
I happen to think that the further away from Jared Loughner your arguments are based, they more logical they become.

When you start psychoanalyzing him and talking about aspects of his personal life, your argument begins to crumble. I agree with your analyses, but I also suspect that these kind of detailed suppositions (well-grounded, but suppositions) are precisely the kind of "errors" that the right wing noise machine will latch onto when they set about destroying the scenario you are building. If you get one or two of your claims wrong (no matter how much contravailing evidence you can site) that will be enough to tear you apart in the M$M. Why give them so much ammunition to work with?

There are  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I get your points (0.00 / 0)
I happen to think that the further away from Jared Loughner your arguments are based, they more logical they become.

When you start psychoanalyzing him and talking about aspects of his personal life, your argument begins to crumble. I agree with your analyses, but I also suspect that these kind of detailed suppositions (well-grounded, but suppositions) are precisely the kind of "errors" that the right wing noise machine will latch onto when they set about destroying the scenario you are building. If you get one or two of your claims wrong (no matter how much contravailing evidence you can site) that will be enough to tear you apart in the M$M. Why give them so much ammunition to work with?

There are many  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
How did that happen? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Page refresh, before moving away from the post page. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Is there a Cntrl or Alt short-cut? (0.00 / 0)
Because, as far as I know, I was just typing right along. Must have hit some combination of keys.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I've done double posts, (and the most amazing typos) (0.00 / 0)
but the triple is a first.

It wasn't intentional, its just technology.

I also have a laptop that has the most sensitive chrome mouse pad, it sends my typing into ridiculous patterns of gibberish sometimes as a knuckle or palm grazes down too far and jumps the cursor about the page (thats my story and I am sticking to it).

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
I think

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Yes, I am expressing sympathy for your plight, providing examples (0.00 / 0)
of my own experiences and plight, with what I had hoped would be self-deprecating humour.

I honestly attempt to argue points and not people.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Paul? Is there also happening here (4.00 / 2)
the Right's victimization attitude that you've talked about?

I've noticed a lot of folk saying the problem is the Left's hatred of Palin.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!

Oh Sure! Absolutely! (4.00 / 3)
Rightwing victimization is always part of the mix.  You don't shoot someone unless you feel really threatened.  And you don't spend all your time whipping people up into a shooting-war frenzy unless you either feel threatened or else just cynically want to manipulate those who are easily made to feel threatened.

So of course, that rightwing victim mentality is always there as past of the implicit background, just waiting to be brought to the fore in whatever way works best.

This also recalls the bully's complaint:  "It all started when he hit me back!"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Blame vs. Awakening (0.00 / 0)
While some involve themselves with whether the left uses threatening rhetoric as much as the right, the reason it doesn't change is that none of the major media news stations presented that information to Americans about how Giffords was targeted. So, none except the internet elite know about it. Until the corporate controlled media is stopped from feeding America whatever pablum/spin that they desire, Americans won't become educated in the price and deception practiced here. A handful of banks have become so large as to threaten our economy but there's nothing in the media about impending disaster being prevented by breaking up our banking monopolies. The professional politicians in our congress all depend on campaign contributions for their next election. Most of them, democrats and republicans, are being influenced and controlled by lobbyists for the ultra-wealthy and corporate interests. We don't hear about it in the media though because the media is being controlled. Nothing will change until America is awakened with the truth.
"Both sides do it!"--Oh, really? | 81 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox