The radicalization of liberals in politics

[Heavyarms]

Since I know a huge proportion of people in here I believe are liberal in political nature, I wanted to pose this question to yu guys.

 

Recently, in America, we've seen an increase in "radical" disturbances and distractions, from college campuses to prominent liberals speaking. Here is a list of incidents that I can come up with off the top of my head:

 

1. A bunch of atheists and homosexuals entered a church and disrupted a service in San Francisco.

 

2. Several different prominent Democrats have been disrupted by protesters, specifically 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Kerry, Mahr, and Clinton come to mind.)

 

3. People disrupting conservatives speakers on college campuses.

 

4. Someone with red corn syrup on their hands from the group CODEPINK while Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice appeared before Congress.

 

5. Different campus disruptions of various speakers (I can't think of any specifically, but there have been several.)

 

 

So, what do you think? Am I going crazy? Should I go get my tin foil hat, or am I on to something?

[Tinny]

I think they've been nut cases on both sides. Its just just limited to them, remember the Westboro guys?

[Heavyarms]

I think they've been nut cases on both sides. Its just just limited to them, remember the Westboro guys?

 

I'm not saying they don't exist on both sides. Know that church that is anti-patriotic because they hate gays and they protest outside of U.S. soldiers' funerals? I think they are wack jobs too.

 

But the truth is, is that the ones on the left happen with more frequency. They are certainly higher-profiled. Look at the names I mentioned. Those are all high-profiled personnel. You don't see that same kind of open publicity on the right.

 

So, the question remains: what do you think?

[Jvstice]

I think it tends to always happen with greater frequency from the party that is not in power. Conservative republicans are in power and control the major political offices, therefore the liberal radicals have less a stake in society, less to lose, and more to gain by opposing the status quo. While things are like this you'll hear more from the Louis Farakhans and Peta.

 

When the liberal democrats sweep into power, you'll see more bombing of abortion clinics, and beating of gay people to death.

 

It's sort of cyclic.

[Ray Jones]

I think it also depends a lot on where you do get your information from.

[Jvstice]

No denying. There's never been an unbiased media, though we have had periods of time where the media has tried for a brief time. At the present time our big choice is whether you get your media coverage from outlets that are pro - fascist or pro - communist in their leanings.

[Heavyarms]

No denying. There's never been an unbiased media, though we have had periods of time where the media has tried for a brief time. At the present time our big choice is whether you get your media coverage from outlets that are pro - fascist or pro - communist in their leanings.

Really? Which networks are these? I've never seen any network like that (and I've seen a lot... must be those international ones.)

[rccar328]

Personally, I get really tired of the "it happens on both sides" argument. Yes, there are wackos on both sides, but the truth is that the wackos on the left far outnumber the wackos on the right, both in the number of people and the level of virulence.

 

Just recently, there was a conservative event called "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." Over the course of the event, conservative speakers were shouted down and denounced as racist,

.

 

Many liberals today pay a lot of lip service to freedom of speech and tolerance of opposing views...until a conservative wants to speak his/her mind, and then all hell breaks loose.

 

A good case in point is Colombia University: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Islamo-fascist dictator & supporter of terrorism was allowed to come and speak, while Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen was driven off by protesters.

 

And the truth of things is that the news media in the US leans left...even the Fox News Channel: yeah, they're berated by the Left as a conservative network, but a study by UCLA found that very few aspects of the US news media were actually conservative-leaning...most were liberal (and truthfully, the "conservative" media was usually more centrist than liberal).

[TK-8252]

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, etc...

 

So the right doesn't have radicals?

[Fish.Stapler]

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, etc...

 

So the right doesn't have radicals?

 

They are hounded as insane, stupid, and fringe by most of society and the media it seems, while more "left-leaning" extremists tend to receive more publicity and less condemnation.

[Heavyarms]

They are hounded as insane, stupid, and fringe by most of society and the media it seems, while more "left-leaning" extremists tend to receive more publicity and less condemnation.

 

To be honest, I dislike Coulter because I think she's Anti-Semitic after her last set of comments about Christians and Jews. Limbaugh sometimes I think is a little bit too radical, but honestly he does little that really hurts anyone. In fact, he probably benefited from his latest "flap" and he also turned it into a very charitable cuase, raising $4 million for the children of killed soldiers in Iraq. Don't know enough about Savage or Robertson (I know Robertson is on the 700 Club and CBN, which makes him a religious type, and therefore bad) to make a comment on them. But the fact I don't know what they did and I'm actively watching news and politics tells me they haven't done much.

 

But yeah, I didn't mention radical conservatives because they are so small and do little. The left, however, has done a lot of disruption and antagonizing, unlike the conservatives who just say some dumb things every now and again. So, back on point, do you agree Liberals have gotten more radical in the last few years or not?

[TK-8252]

But yeah, I didn't mention radical conservatives because they are so small and do little. The left, however, has done a lot of disruption and antagonizing, unlike the conservatives who just say some dumb things every now and again. So, back on point, do you agree Liberals have gotten more radical in the last few years or not?

 

I'd say so, because living through eight years of Bush could radicalize ANYONE against him. Same with the Clintons though too.

[Heavyarms]

I'd say so, because living through eight years of Bush could radicalize ANYONE against him. Same with the Clintons though too.

 

That's not the point. I am an American and not radicalized against him, so your point is mute. I wasn't old enough during the Clinton years, but I may get the experience soon enough. I wouldn't be more radical.

 

The point is that liberals specifically are doing this. Note that the incidents except ONE mentioned by me involve public officials. They are just liberals acting out agains tthings they don't like.

[rccar328]

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Michael Savage, etc...

 

So the right doesn't have radicals?

First off, I didn't see anyone say that the right doesn't have radicals. That being said, of your list, Savage is definitely a radical...Pat Robertson definitely has a little radical in him. Ann Coulter uses biting wit to make her commentary actually be interesting. A lot of people don't like that because it's too blunt to be politically correct, but the United States could use a bit less political correctness and a bit more bluntness. Anyone who thinks she's anti-Semitic really doesn't understand what she was talking about.

 

Rush Limbaugh is no radical, he's a conservative commentator who's been wildly successful. I've never seen an allegation of radicalism against Limbaugh (or most other conservative talk radio hosts) that couldn't be attributed to taking his words out of context.

 

Conservatism itself (unlike what you seem to think) is not radical, it's the actions taken that make someone a radical. The left's radicalism started long before Bush became president. If you think it's Bush that makes lefties radical, just remember that leftist hippie wackos likely would have set much of America on fire by now if a real conservative had been elected president. Bush isn't the problem, the liberal sense of entitlement and tendency to throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way is the problem.

 

For the most part, conservatives don't go out marching in the streets whenever they don't get their way. Liberals, on the other hand, brought us the term "professional protester."

[TK-8252]

Pat Robertson definitely has a little radical in him.

 

A LITTLE radical? He suggested that we assassinate the head of a sovereign nation!

 

Ann Coulter uses biting wit to make her commentary actually be interesting.

 

If by "biting wit" you mean bigotry, phobia, and hatred, I agree with you.

 

A lot of people don't like that because it's too blunt to be politically correct, but the United States could use a bit less political correctness and a bit more bluntness.

 

I agree with you. But when I think bluntness, I think Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. I don't think Coultergeist.

 

Rush Limbaugh is no radical, he's a conservative commentator who's been wildly successful. I've never seen an allegation of radicalism against Limbaugh (or most other conservative talk radio hosts) that couldn't be attributed to taking his words out of context.

 

So him saying that soldiers who disagree with the policy are "phony soldiers" isn't radical??

 

Conservatism itself (unlike what you seem to think) is not radical,

 

Real conservatives like Ron Paul are great (he's the only guy I really like in the '08 election), but what the Bush Republicans advocate is neoconservatism, which at its very core is a radical ideology.

 

The left's radicalism started long before Bush became president.

 

Yes - they really became radical during the Vietnam War - but during the Clinton years, who was the most radical? The right. The Dems haven't begun impeachment proceedings against Bush yet, but the Republicans are proud of the fact that they impeached Bill for a private affair that never should have been pursued by Congress. Sounds pretty radical to me.

 

the liberal sense of entitlement and tendency to throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way is the problem.

 

You act as if Bush doesn't go on TV and bitch at the Congressional Dems every time they refuse to rubberstamp his runaway spending and looney nominees.

[Jvstice]

Really? Which networks are these? I've never seen any network like that (and I've seen a lot... must be those international ones.)

Right. So you have never actually watched CNN or Fox news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

 

That is what fox news and the neocon's advocate in the name of protecting us. Reagan and most of the conservatives of his administration would call this an abomination, but it's done in his name.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

 

Where a watered down version of this is what you see in lesser form advocated by CNN, it is what the left wing radicals advocate. They differ in what they want to justify it with, but it comes to the same thing in the end. A loss of liberty.

 

And to be honest, from the time of my first federal election I was eligable to vote, in 1992, until the current George Bush got elected, I was about as right wing as they came. Actually seeing the effects of the way Bush rules the country has had me question and change almost every assumption I had up to that point. That is the reason for the radicalization. And if you're comfortable with our government openly claiming the right to torture U.S. citizens in the name of protecting those citizens, I'd have to think you are among the conservative radicals. No disrespect intended.

[Heavyarms]

Wow, you guys sure know how to take a thread and fire a blender into it at full speed... Please keep it on topic. If you want to have debates on the media, or on Ann Coulter, go start another thread.

 

The point on Coulter is she says stuff that is designed with one thing in mind: her bottom line. I've heard her say it. She says something controversial, her book sales go up. I think that's probably true; she seems like it to me. And if you wanted to, I'm sure you could find someone said something somewhere and they could be turned into a radical.

 

Fox News and CNN are not Fascists and Communists, respectively. YOU I don't think watch them. Both networks are primarily objective. Each one has a show or two that leans one way or another (Blitzer is left, so is Cooper; Brit Hume is right, O'Reilly is something in between centrist and right) but neither is so radical you can make the claims you did. If it was true, they'd just be huge mind-control machines that want to suck your brains. Maybe now I need a tinfoil hat.

 

Either way, back to topic please. As for the radicalization of conservatives during Clinton's years, Clinton actually lied under oath. The question then would be why weren't Bush and Cheney impeached for lying about Iraq and starting an illegal war (which the Iraq war actually was according to the U.N. charter.) Well, there was a motion by Kucinich to impeach Cheney that died a quick death today, so obviously there is no will or ability to do that.

[Jvstice]

 

So, what do you think? Am I going crazy? Should I go get my tin foil hat, or am I on to something?

 

Actually, what I posted was on the relevance of your whole interpretation of events. But since interpretations of events that don't mirror you aren't welcome answers to the question that YOU POSED in the first post of the thread, I will leave you to it.

[rccar328]

If by "biting wit" you mean bigotry, phobia, and hatred, I agree with you.

I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you about Coulter...

 

So him saying that soldiers who disagree with the policy are "phony soldiers" isn't radical??

No, it isn't...because the entire "phony soldiers" controversy was a scam started by Media Matters for America and perpetuated by Democrats in Congress. I listen to Rush just about every day, and I was listening to the show the day the "phony soldiers" comment was made. He was referring to anti-war activists who pretend to be combat veterans. The specific "phony soldier" in question washed out of boot camp, then joined a leftist anti-war group and tried to pass himself off as an Iraq War veteran (Jesse Macbeth). About the only reason the Media Matters report got the traction that it did was because Limbaugh didn't initially bring up that soldier during the show...the caller that brought up the topic during Limbaugh's program was referring to Limbaugh's "morning update" (where he talked specifically about Macbeth), a 2-minute segment that airs about an hour and a half before the start of his show. Then, when Limbaugh posted the show transcript on his site, Media Matters yelled & hollered because the transcript was edited...as it turns out, the caller changed the subject to something completely different, and that was what was edited out.

 

If you don't listen to Limbaugh, Media Matters' tripe can sound pretty convincing, but the truth is that it's all a lie.

 

 

Real conservatives like Ron Paul are great (he's the only guy I really like in the '08 election), but what the Bush Republicans advocate is neoconservatism, which at its very core is a radical ideology.

I'm not a big fan of the Libertarian Party...which is where Ron Paul came from and should have stayed, imo. I started out as a "Bush Republican," but I think he (and the Republican party) have moved too far to the left on spending & the border. Personally, I like Duncan Hunter for the '08 election.

 

Yes - they really became radical during the Vietnam War - but during the Clinton years, who was the most radical? The right. The Dems haven't begun impeachment proceedings against Bush yet, but the Republicans are proud of the fact that they impeached Bill for a private affair that never should have been pursued by Congress. Sounds pretty radical to me.

The "private affair" argument has to be the #1 absolutely stupidest bone-headed argument I've ever heard (that's not a flame, it's my honest opinion). The president of the United States engages in sexual acts (multiple times) with a White House intern in the oval office while conducting official business (which he then lied about under oath), and you leap to his defense claiming it's a private matter? If he'd been a Republican, the libs would've run him out of Washington on a rail (whether he'd lied about it or not). He should've been thrown out of office for disgracing the office of the presidency...and that's without even including the fact that he perjured himself.

 

The Left calmed down a lot during the Clinton years because many people on the Left think they're entitled to get what they want. When the Dems are in control, they're fine with things...but then they start throwing temper tantrums the as soon as someone from another party is elected (or even if someone in their own party isn't liberal enough for them, as was the case with Joe Leiberman).

 

You act as if Bush doesn't go on TV and bitch at the Congressional Dems every time they refuse to rubberstamp his runaway spending and looney nominees.

This is the problem: the Dems bitch and moan every time Bush nominates someone who isn't to the left of Che Guevara and think they can get away with it indefinitely. When the Dems won control of Congress last year, they made all sorts of promises about how they'd change things, but the truth is that they've done very little in the way of legislation to advance their agenda...and they've been so intent on pursuing meaningless investigations into the Bush administration in an attempt to keep them tied up that they aren't even taking care of the basic business of Congress.

 

 

The point on Coulter is she says stuff that is designed with one thing in mind: her bottom line. I've heard her say it. She says something controversial, her book sales go up. I think that's probably true; she seems like it to me. And if you wanted to, I'm sure you could find someone said something somewhere and they could be turned into a radical.

Ann Coulter is a capitalist...and there's nothing wrong with that. She is an author...she makes her living by selling books. I have to laugh every time I hear some crazy lib say "she's just in it for the money," because writing books is her career. Of course she's in it for the money. That doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she says. And the truth of the matter is that if people didn't agree with Coulter, there's no way she'd be as successful as she has been.

 

 

As for the topic of impeachment, I'm not sure whether the Dems in Congress have officially tried to impeach Bush, but the Republicans kept the Cheney impeachment bill alive in an effort to embarrass the Dems. There has been talk about trying to impeach Bush, but I think it wasn't followed up on because the votes just aren't there.

 

Oh, and it's also notable to mention that the Cheney impeachment bill was proposed by Dennis Kucinich, one of the wackiest liberals in Congress (if not one of the wackiest liberals of all time).

 

 

Personally, I think it's pretty disingenuous to bring up radicalism on the right during the Clinton years & compare it to what's going on on the Left today. Even the right's radicalism back then doesn't compare to what's been going on today...and the majority of people on the right denounced those radicals back then. Impeaching President Clinton wasn't radical, because what Clinton did was a disgrace and an embarrassment to America...and then he turned it into a criminal matter by lying about it under oath. He deserved to be impeached, because when the President is engaging in sex acts with a subordinate while on the job, it's not a "private matter" anymore.

[El Sitherino]

Maybe they have a message and are speaking out like any previous rebellion, dissent is a pretty prevalent thing in U.S. History.

After all, the country was born on the idea of "You know what I think...".

[rccar328]

Maybe they have a message and are speaking out like any previous rebellion, dissent is a pretty prevalent thing in U.S. History.

After all, the country was born on the idea of "You know what I think...".

I agree, but there have been many cases where liberal fanatics have gone to great lengths to shut down and shut up conservatives who try to speak out and explain their beliefs. When conservatives can't even say what they believe without being shouted down with cries of "racist," "sexist," "bigot," "homophobe," etc., that's a few steps beyond "you know what I believe."

[TK-8252]

About the phony soldiers thing. I found it very telling when the caller said something to the effect of "if you ask a real soldier, they are proud to serve," implying that, again, you're not a real soldier if you don't back the war.

 

The president of the United States engages in sexual acts (multiple times) with a White House intern in the oval office while conducting official business

 

But what if it was Hillary he was having sex with (*shudder to think*), not an intern? Would this be an issue at all? Oh noes, sex in the Oval Office!

 

It's not a crime to cheat on your wife, so why was this investigated at all? Sounds like a witchhunt. It is, though, a crime to solicit sex in a public bathroom, such as what Republican Representative Larry Craig did.

 

(which he then lied about under oath)

 

Again, it shouldn't have been investigated at all.

 

If he'd been a Republican, the libs would've run him out of Washington on a rail (whether he'd lied about it or not).

 

And they should, because a Republican cheating on his wife is utter hypocrisy. The problem with Republicans is their holier-than-thou attitute when it comes to things such as sex. Republicans need to practice what they preach. You don't hear Dems going out talking about "family values" and all that bull. That's why it's not such a big deal when a Dem has a sex scandal. They don't claim to be more moral than everyone else, because they know that they aren't, and don't pretend to be, like the Republicans do.

 

He should've been thrown out of office for disgracing the office of the presidency...and that's without even including the fact that he perjured himself.

 

So Bush hasn't disgraced the office?? Have you seen his latest approval rating? Pretty disgraceful to me. If we threw out government officials for disgracing their office, we probably wouldn't have 2/3 of our government. I say that'd be a good thing though.

 

When the Dems won control of Congress last year, they made all sorts of promises about how they'd change things, but the truth is that they've done very little in the way of legislation to advance their agenda...and they've been so intent on pursuing meaningless investigations into the Bush administration in an attempt to keep them tied up that they aren't even taking care of the basic business of Congress.

 

I agree with you completely on this. I say that if they're going to have their investigations, at least make them worthwhile. Like, actually force people to testify under oath and such.

 

Impeaching President Clinton wasn't radical, because what Clinton did was a disgrace and an embarrassment to America...

 

George W. Bush is a disgrace and an embarassment to America.

 

He deserved to be impeached, because when the President is engaging in sex acts with a subordinate while on the job, it's not a "private matter" anymore.

 

But the President is on the job all day long. He's expected to be on call 24/7 if something big goes down. When is he supposed to have sex? Can he just not have any sex for the entire four years? And what's this about it being with a "subordinate?" Being a White House intern doesn't make you a sex slave for the President or something. She could have said no if she wanted to.

[Totenkopf]

Ya know,TK, if liberals are so blase about sex as you imply, Clinton should have had no problem admitting to what he knew was going to blow up in his face anyway. Afterall, it was only sex. Chances are, had he not lied under oath and solicitied illegal behavior on the part of Blewkinski, there would have been no impeachment proceedings in the end. So, the utter hypocrisy here is that you libs say that sex is no big deal, but then go out of your way to try to hide the behavior. What, no courage of your convictions?

[Jvstice]

What did you expect from a man who said he didn't inhale more than 2 decades after he smoked pot, as though it would be terrible he did that long ago, but not inhaling made it right?

 

Just say. I did it. At the time I enjoyed it. I'm older and wiser though, so I wouldn't do it again. It wouldn't be that hard, and probably a lot more honest.

[RoxStar]

I think you hit it on the nose with "Liberal radicals" being more prominent in the media because it's exactly what they want; they want to be exposed to the public.

 

There are probably a nearly equal number of radicals on all ends of the spectrum, just depends on what media outlet you subscribe to will you get their exposure.