News When does political hate speech become domestic terrorism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
False claims by extreme right-wing figures in the U.S. political landscape are seen as tools to instill fear, particularly regarding President Obama, who has been labeled with various unfounded accusations. The discussion raises concerns about where free speech ends and domestic terrorism begins, questioning the implications of labeling political dissenters as terrorists. Some participants argue that prominent conservative figures, like Palin and Limbaugh, contribute to a culture of fear and misinformation. The conversation also highlights the double standards in political discourse, noting how similar accusations were directed at President Bush without the same backlash. Ultimately, the debate centers on the balance between free speech and the potential for harmful rhetoric in political dialogue.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,487
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ivan Seeking said:
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
Have you ever been to a country where the government can designate dissenters as "domestic terrorists"? I can only assume you haven't, unless you're the sort of pathetic human being who enjoys it when those who don't agree with him are led away by the police.

The United States is a country where even during a time of war a person can stand up and speak truth to power. That becomes entirely impossible when you allow those in power to determine what that truth is—there is good reason why libel laws don't apply to political figures in the same way it apples to private citizens.

Are you really so short-sighted that you can't understand that if you prosecute a tea-partier for "domestic terrorism" today, the next administration will simply imprison anti-war activists for the same charge? Or are you perhaps so foolish as to think that President Obama has just ushered in a new era of pseudo-liberal control of the American government that will last in perpetuity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking said:
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.

So Ivan would you like to be the pot or the kettle today. Is it ok only to call republican presidents names on the alphabet stations but when someone on the radio dose it he/she is a terrorist?

People have a ligament point that the Obama administration is sounding like a socialist government. The continued takeover of US banks (started by GWB), the takeover of GM, and now wanting to get a single pay option in health care. All of this supported by the taxpayers, sounds like socialism to me.

Also since you seem to listen to all of these conservative talk show hosts could you please tell me a direct quote where anyone of them have engaged in domestic terrorism? Also there is the case of Obama's good friend Bill Ayers the head of an actual domestic terrorism group.

As for Savage being banned from Britain it is because according the the UK home sectary office.

This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.
Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast

So can we see on the list soon people like Bill Maher, Jessie Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, or even Howard Stern. They have all said things that could cause inter-community tension.
 
Ivan, I can't believe that I am about to agree with a point in your post, well below your post. It is time for the republican party to be replaced with a real conservative party, in my HO I think the last conservative president we've had was calvin coolidge.
But as far as the rest is concerned pure hogwash.
 
If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.
 
Wax said:
If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation.

Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?
 
Wax said:
If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.

First they would have to have sufficient proof the rumors were false and that they new they were false. Good luck with that the way obama's presidency is going so far. I think it would be far easier to charge Ivan with libel since he put his accusations, his name, and the accused all in the same post without a mentioning a shred of evidence. Can he proove the accusations or does he just feel it. But I don't hear any conservatives calling for that though. Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.
 
Jasongreat said:
First they would have to have sufficient proof the rumors were false and that they new they were false. Good luck with that the way obama's presidency is going so far. I think it would be far easier to charge Ivan with libel since he put his accusations, his name, and the accused all in the same post without a mentioning a shred of evidence. Can he proove the accusations or does he just feel it. But I don't hear any conservatives calling for that though. Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.

Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people.

In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.
Ivan, this is just unvelievably absurd drivel here. You're a person who has attacked the very definition of the word "terrorism" in the past here. So this is really just a game to you, trying to use inflammatory words in a way that benefits you - this doesn't bear any resemblance to the definition of "terrorism".

But it is nice to see you say so plainly that you don't accept the concept of freedom of speech when the speech doesn't agree with your opinion! Such opinions as yours are the antithesis of what a "free society" is.

[edit] Heck, we can even turn this arround: You are advocating a point of view that suggests Obama should imprison his political enemies. That would put him in league with the likes of the typical dictator!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
TheStatutoryApe said:
Perhaps we can start with the people who called Bush a racist fascist nazi criminal?
Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Granted, we allow our government too much power over regulating speech already by my standards, but it would be nice if more people would vote with the wallets to stop sponsoring such madness. I've sworn off cable TV all together, simply because there is so much trash on it; not just the "news" programing, but the the vast majority of the "entertainment" too, and even much of the supposedly "educational" stuff.
 
  • #11
Wax said:
Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.

As soon as you round up all the people that called bush a nazi fascist, I will start to take this argument seriously. I haven't heard obama called a nazi, a socialist I've heard, but its kind of hard to argue your not a socialist when you are trying to socialize everything.
What happened to the old saying sticks and stones, how'd that end? Words will never hurt me. As long as we have a free press to refute the accusations there is nothing to worry about, unless you can't refute the accusations.
 
  • #12
Jasongreat said:
Thats the difference between conservatives and democrats, CONSERVATIVES believe in FREE SPEECH, democrats don't(unless it is themselves speaking).
So did oberman bring value when dissing bush, or was he going for ratings? A couple yrs. ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Its amazing how fast attitudes change when a Democrat gets in office.
Agreed. Democrats are ostensibly the party that believes in individual rights, but the reality is that they don't. Freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
  • #14
kyleb said:
Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Granted, we allow our government too much power over regulating speech already by my standards, but it would be nice if more people would vote with the wallets to stop sponsoring such madness. I've sworn off cable TV all together, simply because there is so much trash on it; not just from the "news" programing, but the the vast majority of the "entertainment" too, and even much of the supposedly "educational" stuff.

The fact that you "vote with your wallet" seems perfectly reasonable to me. If someone is really spouting absolute nonsense about those in power the only proper punishment should be the contempt of those around him. I don't care that half of Ivan's life seems to be his rants about the "rethuglicans" or "O'Reilly kills abortion doctors", as long as it's a private person expressing his opinion, no matter how childish I personally feel that opinion is.

The minute those like him succeed in using the power of the state to imprison his political enemies, then we will probably all remember why we have the Second Amendment.
 
  • #15
Wax said:
Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.
You will see how here:

Defamation laws do not apply to politicians in the same way as they do to citizens. The standard is much tougher:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

But hey - if Obama feels defamed, he can always sue and see how it goes! :rolleyes:
 
  • #16
Jasongreat said:
As soon as you round up all the people that called bush a nazi fascist, I will start to take this argument seriously. I haven't heard obama called a nazi, a socialist I've heard, but its kind of hard to argue your not a socialist when you are trying to socialize everything.
What happened to the old saying sticks and stones, how'd that end? Words will never hurt me. As long as we have a free press to refute the accusations there is nothing to worry about, unless you can't refute the accusations.

My answer was directly related to what Ivan was asking. I don't work for the Obama administration and I have no need or the money to pursue a timely defamation lawsuit. If the Obama administration really wanted to do something about Fox News then they could file defamation lawsuits. Plain and simple.

Obama was called a Nazi and a racists. Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
Agreed. Democrats are ostensibly the party that believes in individual rights, but the reality is that they don't. Freedom of speech is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sure, and Republicans believe in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.
 
  • #18
kyleb said:

The only time nazi was used is by the person writing the article. The header, and later down towards the bottom. His programs were compared to hitlers youth but he was never called a nazi. Besides who should have the most say in what their kids see, parents or the board of education?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
kyleb said:
Sure, and Republicans believe in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?

Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.

While I myself dislike First Amendment Zones, as they are more properly called, they just might be a necessary compromise. First of all, you don't have to enter a First Amendment Zone to exercise your right to free speech, but to exercise your rights to assemble in certain situations.

While I have to work hard to maintain objectivity, as I personally despise protesters, there needs to be some arrangements made so that people can exercise their rights in a particular place without depriving the rights of others.

Your right to protest an abortion clinic does not trump my right to enter one, or vice versa, and it's probably preferable to setting up areas for each as opposed to me having to knife-fight my way through a crowd or whatever.

So while Russ may have generalized unfairly, you just set up a straw man. Remember we are discussing the idea of labeling Americans domestic terrorists and imprisoning (I can only assume he meant imprisoning them, since he didn't state what we should do with these terrorists) them.
 
  • #20
Wax said:
Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.

I would say obama started the racist comments during the election, when he stated that the rebublicans were going to tell you to watch out for that obama guy, cause he doesn't look like all the other presidents, because he's not white. The only time I ever heard references to his color was his camp saying that the rebublicans said so. Although I've never heard a single sound byte to back it up.
 
  • #21
Jasongreat said:
The only time nazi was used is by the person writing the article.
Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/6572072.html"
Inside were articles such as “Nazi Precedent for Obama Health Plan,” and “Obama's Nazi Doctors and Their 'Reforms.' ” Admittedly, the “magazine” was from ...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.pitts24aug24,0,5874342.story"
... up at protest rallies, a poster with a Hitler mustache drawn onto Obama's face and a pamphlet that says: "Act Now to Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan! ..."

Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
kyleb said:
Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:


Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".

So his programs are naziish, hard to refute that. Not one says obama is a nazi. By the way wasnt it a former obama camper that was found to have placed the pictures of him with a hitlerstache in CA? I guess he's just trying to ramp up the public discussion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
kyleb said:
Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page:Granted, this is not suppsising when one considers FoxNews has Glen Beck even running stalk footage of Nazis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddZexeSYGoI".

Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

If such a thing happens, when you're out protesting the "death panels", I want you to remember who gave them the power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Choronzon said:
So while Russ may have generalized unfairly, you just set up a straw man.
I'm not even going to touch you apologisim for limiting peoples right to protest to where they won't be heard as am not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I do have to take issue with your misuse of the term "strawman".
Choronzon said:
Remember we are discussing the idea of labeling Americans domestic terrorists and imprisoning (I can only assume he meant imprisoning them, since he didn't state what we should do with these terrorists) them.
I recall Russ doing a fine job of pointing out the fact that the term is being improperly applied here, and had moved on to addressing his and Jasongreat's overgeneralization of Democrats.
 
  • #25
Choronzon said:
Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

If such a thing happens, when you're out protesting the "death panels", I want you to remember who gave them the power.

Canada, Europe, and Austria all have nationalized health care. They are the real Nazi!:rolleyes:
 
  • #26
Wax said:
Canada, Europe, and Austria all have nationalized health care. They are the real Nazi!:rolleyes:

I never said they were Nazis, nor did I say that the current health care proponents were Nazis either, I merely said that the Nazi's had that power and obviously abused it. There may come a time when Canada abuses it as well. Governments change, and I'm not quite so naive as to thin humanity has out grown the sort of brutality that characterized the Nazis.
 
  • #28
kyleb said:
I'm not even going to touch you apologisim for limiting peoples right to protest to where they won't be heard as am not trying to drag the thread off topic, but I do have to take issue with your misuse of the term "strawman".

I recall Russ doing a fine job of pointing out the fact that the term is being improperly applied here, and had moved on to addressing his and Jasongreat's overgeneralization of Democrats.

So when Russ said that Democrat's are against free speech, what did that have to do with First Amendment Zones? In order to argue his point, why should he have to debate about First Amendment Zones—which are limits on assembly, not speech.
 
  • #29
Choronzon said:
So when Russ said that Democrat's are against free speech, what did that have to do with First Amendment Zones? In order to argue his point, why should he have to debate about First Amendment Zones—which are limits on assembly, not speech.
I did not ask him to debate about free speech zones. For an explanation of what I did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
kyleb said:
I did not ask him to debate about Free speech zones. For an explanation of what I was did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy" .

Then I was wrong, and I apologize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
All good. :smile:
 
  • #32
kyleb said:

Now I listened to Representative Frank and he said something which I strongly disagree with. He called this current legislative effort an attempt "to increase health care."

Now, I admit I haven't read any of the bills in their entirety, but I have heard absolutely zero debate on "increasing health care," only redistributing it. Is there something in these bills that is meant to train more doctors, or build more clinics and hospitals?

The only thing I see is an attempt by government to take over control of health care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
kyleb said:
Sure, and Republicans believe in setting up "free speech zones" were people won't be heard, eh?
Does that contain a point?
Such overgeneralization doesn't help anything, it only adds to the confusion.
Not so. Liberals/democrats claim to be the party that most represents the rights of the people. It is perhaps the central point of their campaigning. The reality of their censorship is a huge contrast and stark hypocrisy. Pointing out this reality and getting people to see the hypocrisy for what it is is important.

Obama won the presidency because people hated Bush but also because people believed the things that he said. The trust pendulum swung toward the democrats in that election. But as soon as he got into power, we see the pendulum swinging back because only when you are in power can you fail to live up to the ideals you champion.

I consider this important because Ivan is not alone in being like this. This problem is extremely common among democrats. The generalization may have been overly broad and non-specific but the point is important: the point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy among democrats on this issue.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
kyleb said:
Hardly. There is plenty of quoting, here is a couple notable examples listed in the exscripts right there on the Google search page.
Please note that there is a difference between calling something a "nazi plan" and calling Obama himself a Nazi. The assertion made was that Obama himself was called a Nazi. Do you have any actual examples of that?
 
  • #35
kyleb said:
Why start with them before the ones who get so much air-time?

Plenty of famous people made rather disparaging comments about Bush on television and radio, many of them actors who could probably get a press conference going quicker than they could make the requisite phone calls most anyone else would have to make.

At any rate, I don't think people should be arrested or sued in either case. I just like to point out that both sides are hypocrites when it comes to freedom of speech. A couple short years ago you would hear liberals being called unamerican and unpatriotic for not supporting the conservative president and calling him names and making caricatures of him. And there was outrage from liberals who thought their right to free speech was being infringed. Now we have conservatives being called unamerican and racist for not supporting the liberal president and calling him names and making caricatures of him. And we have conservatives complaining about their right to free speech.

Its absurd. My two assistants should be arriving with my apparatus any day now.
 
  • #36
Wax said:
If they can find out who started the false rumors then they could bring about law suits for defamation. Beck and Sean Hannity are all propaganda. They provide no real value in news other then to bash a president for ratings.

I find it interesting that Beck led the charge against Van Jones - used Jones own video taped statements against him - and Jones made 2 apologies, then resigned.

Where was the propoganda? Was Beck spreading propoganda or was the propoganda the story that all of Beck's advertisers were pulling out?
 
  • #37
Wax said:
Calling the president a Nazi that wants to create death panels are very clear indications of defamation. I don't see how you could argue against that.

Can you produce a link of one of the aforementioned calling Obama a Nazi? I believe Nancy Pelosi might have used that phrase to characterize people attending town hall meetings though.
 
  • #38
Choronzon said:
Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well.
No, that is going too far. Those images are exactly the point of the propaganda of calling someone's plan a "nazi plan". They are designed to cause people to draw false connections like the one you just made. Hitler also used a toilet - that doesn't make everyone who uses a toilet a nazi.
 
  • #39
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
TheStatutoryApe said:
Plenty of famous people made rather disparaging comments about Bush on television and radio, many of them actors who could probably get a press conference going quicker than they could make the requisite phone calls most anyone else would have to make.

At any rate, I don't think people should be arrested or sued in either case. I just like to point out that both sides are hypocrites when it comes to freedom of speech. A couple short years ago you would hear liberals being called unamerican and unpatriotic for not supporting the conservative president and calling him names and making caricatures of him. And there was outrage from liberals who thought their right to free speech was being infringed. Now we have conservatives being called unamerican and racist for not supporting the liberal president and calling him names and making caricatures of him. And we have conservatives complaining about their right to free speech.

Its absurd. My two assistants should be arriving with my apparatus any day now.

I don't agree. I don't think there is something wrong with calling an opponent unamerican, or unpatriotic. I do think there is something inherently wrong in calling it terrorism and imprisoning them for it.

However much conservatives insulted liberals during Bush's presidency, it seems to me that his administration pretty much endured the insults.

And just incase you think I'm being hypocritical now, for calling "foul" while a Democrat is in office, I'm not criticizing people calling President Obama's opponents racists, or haters, or whatever—I'm criticizing Ivan's idea of charging them with terrorism.
 
  • #41
Wax said:
Obama was called a Nazi and a racists. Beck clearly started the racists comment and he could see a possible defamation lawsuit without the backing of Fox News lawyers.

Can you support this claim with a link?
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
No, that is going too far. Those images are exactly the point of the propaganda of calling someone's plan a "nazi plan". They are designed to cause people to draw false connections like the one you just made. Hitler also used a toilet - that doesn't make everyone who uses a toilet a nazi.

I'm not trying to equate the two, only to illustrate the possible outcomes of government power. President Obama could be a wise and gentle man who will take extreme care with the power we invest in his office, but that would be cold comfort if the next guy who gets elected turns out to believe that AIDS is a punishment from God meant for drug-users and sodomites. I merely believe that the power that the people grant the government should be doled out by the teaspoonful, not by gallons, and only in the gravest necessity.
 
  • #43
russ_watters said:
I consider this important because Ivan is not alone in being like this. This problem is extremely common among democrats. ...
I'd generalize democrats to leftists; no, replace it with leftists. We don't see old school democrats like Lieberman calling for speech codes. We do see a lot of it in Europe.
 
  • #44
mheslep said:
I'd generalize democrats to leftists; no, replace it with leftists. We don't see old school democrats like Lieberman calling for speech codes. We do see a lot of it in Europe.
Not sure exactly what you are saying, however...

Perhaps "leftist" should have more common usage in the US, but it doesn't. It is sometimes used as a synonym for "left wing", though I don't think the term "left wing" has nearly the extremist implications as "leftist" does. In either case, the opinion in the OP is quite extremist. It is well beyond most of what would qualify as "left wing". The word doesn't have a clear definition, but I'd consider "left wing" to be perhaps the left-most 10-20% of the country. Ie, outside the mainstream, but not a lot and not too extremist (Obama fits in there). The OP's position has to be a 1%'er or less (I sure hope so!).
 
  • #45
Choronzon said:
I'm not trying to equate the two, only to illustrate the possible outcomes of government power.
If you consider that outcome possible, then you are equating them.
 
  • #46
russ_watters said:
If you consider that outcome possible, then you are equating them.

I admit I'm pretty stunned that you think it's impossible.

P.S.: I'd also like to remind everyone of the Bush administration's ban on funding for certain stem-cell research. Imagine how much more powerful such a restriction would be if Government had a monopoly on health care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Ivan Seeking said:
False claims made by extreme right-wing players on the US political scene are designed to terrorize people. For example, how many false claims have been made about Obama; that he is a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. He wants death panels. He want's to pull the plug on grandma. He is brainwashing our children. etc etc etc. We even find a "minister" who is praying for Obama to die and go to hell while openly admitting that he is trying to light a fire under his brainwashed congregation; one of which showed up to greet Obama with a loaded AK-47. Then we go back to the invasion of Iran and the claims that WMDs were a slam dunk and the strongly enforced suggestion that we were attacked by Saddam when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

Where does free speech end and domestic terrorism begin? We all know there is a line that cannot be crossed, and it doesn't only apply to yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. In my opinion, Palin, Limbaugh, Savage [who is banned from entry to the UK as a danger to society], Beck, and a number of others, esp from the talk radio scene, are essentially domestic terrorists.

This is quite a rant Ivan.

Sean Hannity spoke nightly about Obama's connections to Bill Ayers during the run up to the election. However, the media largely ignored the story and McCain chose not to make it an issue.

Do Ayers comments on 9/11 fit your description - do you think he's encouraging anyone to blow up the Pentagon or a Police station?

Bill Ayers on September 11, 2001

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/b...protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=all

"No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen
By DINITIA SMITH
Published: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it.

''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.''

But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked.

''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. ''It's true as I remember it.''

Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted.

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''
He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.

In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.
Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.

Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.
''I don't think you can understand a single thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War,'' he said, and the fact that ''the enduring scar of racism was fully in flower.'' Mr. Ayers pointed to Bob Kerrey, former Democratic Senator from Nebraska, who has admitted leading a raid in 1969 in which Vietnamese women and children were killed. ''He committed an act of terrorism,'' Mr. Ayers said. ''I didn't kill innocent people.''

Mr. Ayers has always been known as a ''rich kid radical.'' His father, Thomas, now 86, was chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. When someone mentions his father's prominence, Mr. Ayers is quick to say that his father did not become wealthy until the son was a teenager. He says that he got some of his interest in social activism from his father. He notes that his father promoted racial equality in Chicago and was acceptable as a mediator to Mayor Richard Daley and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1966 when King marched in Cicero, Ill., to protest housing segregation.

All in all, Mr. Ayers had ''a golden childhood,'' he said, though he did have a love affair with explosives. On July 4, he writes, ''my brothers and I loved everything about the wild displays of noise and color, the flares, the surprising candle bombs, but we trembled mostly for the Big Ones, the loud concussions.''

The love affair seems to have continued into adulthood. Even today, he finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,'' he writes.

He attended Lake Forest Academy in Lake Forest, Ill., then the University of Michigan but dropped out to join Students for a Democratic Society.

In 1967 he met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts. In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms. Dohrn told an S.D.S. audience: ''Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''

In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''

Ms. Dohrn, Mr. Ayers and others eventually broke with S.D.S. to form the more radical Weathermen, and in 1969 Ms. Dohrn was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer during the Days of Rage protests against the trial of the Chicago Eight -- antiwar militants accused of conspiracy to incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

In 1970 came the town house explosion in Greenwich Village. Ms. Dohrn failed to appear in court in the Days of Rage case, and she and Mr. Ayers went underground, though there were no charges against Mr. Ayers. Later that spring the couple were indicted along with others in Federal Court for crossing state lines to incite a riot during the Days of Rage, and following that for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings.'' Those charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.

During his fugitive years, Mr. Ayers said, he lived in 15 states, taking names of dead babies in cemeteries who were born in the same year as he. He describes the typical safe house: there were usually books by Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara's picture in the bedroom; fermented Vietnamese fish sauce in the refrigerator, and live sourdough starter donated by a Native American that was reputed to have passed from hand to hand over a century.

He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.

''Fugitive Days'' does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching ''Underground,'' Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was ''embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,'' he writes. ''The rigidity and the narcissism.''

In the mid-1970's the Weathermen began quarreling. One faction, including Ms. Boudin, wanted to join the Black Liberation Army. Others, including Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers, favored surrendering. Ms. Boudin and Ms. Dohrn had had an intense friendship but broke apart. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn were purged from the group.

Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers had a son, Zayd, in 1977. After the birth of Malik, in 1980, they decided to surface. Ms. Dohrn pleaded guilty to the original Days of Rage charge, received three years probation and was fined $1,500. The Federal charges against Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn had already been dropped.

Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn tried to persuade Ms. Boudin to surrender because she was pregnant. But she refused, and went on to participate in the Brink's robbery. When she was arrested, Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers volunteered to care for Chesa, then 14 months old, and became his legal guardians.

A few months later Ms. Dohrn was called to testify about the robbery. Ms. Dohrn had not seen Ms. Boudin for a year, she said, and knew nothing of it. Ms. Dohrn was asked to give a handwriting sample, and refused, she said, because the F.B.I. already had one in its possession. ''I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive,'' she said. For refusing to testify, she was jailed for seven months, and she and Mr. Ayers married during a furlough.

Once again, Chesa was without a mother. ''It was one of the hardest things I did,'' said Ms. Dohrn of going to jail.

In the interview, Mr. Ayers called Chesa ''a very damaged kid.'' ''He had real serious emotional problems,'' he said. But after extensive therapy, ''became a brilliant and wonderful human being.'' .

After the couple surfaced, Ms. Dohrn tried to practice law, taking the bar exam in New York. But she was turned down by the Bar Association's character committee because of her political activities.

Ms. Dohrn said she was aware of the contradictions between her radical past and the comforts of her present existence. ''This is where we raised our kids and are taking care of our aging parents,'' she said. ''We could live much more simply, and well we might.''

And as for settling into marriage after efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, ''You're always trying to balance your understanding of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.''

''Happily for me, Billy keeps me laughing, he keeps me growing,'' she said.

Mr. Ayers said he had some of the same conflicts about marriage. ''We have to learn how to be committed,'' he said, ''and hold out the possibility of endless reinventions.''

As Mr. Ayers mellows into middle age, he finds himself thinking about truth and reconciliation, he said. He would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission about Vietnam, he said, like South Africa's. He can imagine Mr. Kerrey and Ms. Boudin taking part.

And if there were another Vietnam, he is asked, would he participate again in the Weathermen bombings?

By way of an answer, Mr. Ayers quoted from ''The Cure at Troy,'' Seamus Heaney's retelling of Sophocles' ''Philoctetes:'' '' 'Human beings suffer,/ They torture one another./ They get hurt and get hard.' ''

He continued to recite:

History says, Don't hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up

And hope and history rhyme.

Thinking back on his life , Mr. Ayers said, ''I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire. And hope and history rhymed.''"
 
  • #48
Choronzon said:
Those articles make very important points—that health care was nationalized in Nazi Germany as well. You might think that President Obama wouldn't abuse the massive powers that you are all willing to just hand him, but do you trust the next Republican administration with that same power?

What's wrong with the Nazi health care system? It was quite effective until the very end of the war.

Does it really seem so unlikely to you that ten or twenty years from now a conservative government's health service might decide not to provide treatment to AIDS patients who were infected through intravenous drug use or homosexual sex? There are many people in this country who would agree with such a policy.

Is the situation in the U.S. really that bad? I would have thought that only extremists would agree with a policy like that, considering that even child rapists in prison get medical treatment when they need it.
 
  • #49
Choronzon said:
Now I listened to Representative Frank and he said something which I strongly disagree with. He called this current legislative effort an attempt "to increase health care."
The bill is what congress makes it, and I am no expert on what they have going at this point, but Obama's push to increase heath care though improving efficiency has been widely reported, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/15/obama.ama/index.html" .
russ_watters said:
Does that contain a point?
I adressed this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2338761&postcount=29".
russ_watters said:
Not so. Liberals/democrats claim to be the party that most represents the rights of the people. It is perhaps the central point of their campaigning. The reality of their censorship is a huge contrast and stark hypocrisy. Pointing out this reality and getting people to see the hypocrisy for what it is is important.

Obama won the presidency because people hated Bush but also because people believed the things that he said. The trust pendulum swung toward the democrats in that election. But as soon as he got into power, we see the pendulum swinging back because only when you are in power can you fail to live up to the ideals you champion.

I consider this important because Ivan is not alone in being like this. This problem is extremely common among democrats. The generalization may have been overly broad and non-specific but the point is important: the point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy among democrats on this issue.
Wouldn't it be better to make a separate thread for this discussion if you insist on having it?
russ_watters said:
Please note that there is a difference between calling something a "nazi plan" and calling Obama himself a Nazi. The assertion made was that Obama himself was called a Nazi. Do you have any actual examples of that?
Please note what the characterization created by drawing a Hitler mustache on a picture of someone represents.
WhoWee said:
I don't see any links to Beck or Hannity on the list - do you REALLY want to cite bloggers?
I had quoted some reports from MSM and presented a clip from Beck https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2338701&postcount=21", but I can see why you wouldn't want to address that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
TheStatutoryApe said:
Plenty of famous people made rather disparaging comments about Bush on television and radio, many of them actors who could probably get a press conference going quicker than they could make the requisite phone calls most anyone else would have to make.
Surely we should prioritize the present over the past or the possibilities?
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top