Draginol Draginol

The vile left

The vile left

What does it say about your philosphy when it attracts these guys?

Luckily, most vile people on this earth don't pick up on an ideology. And of those that do, few of them are well spoken enough to gather any attention.  Unfortunately, that still leaves us with a number of vile human beings that manage to get their despicable world views broadcast to the world. And most of these vile creatures tend to be from the far left.

I don't pretend to know why most of them are left wingers. Maybe it's because there are simply fewer nasty creatures on the right that are capable of putting thoughts and ideas together in a coherent form to earn any attention. Or maybe it's because the media, already sympathetic to the left, tends to be more willing to distribute nastiness that comes from left wingers and sewage from the right.

The fact is that while there are a few right wing ideologues that manage to get out there a lot (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh to name two), there is no right wing equivalent to Michael Moore, Al Franken, or Ted Rall.  Feel free to disagree with me and name someone on the right that is remotely as nasty and hateful as any of three who get anywhere near the kind of coverage they do. The Christian Coalition can be pretty ideological but they get no where near the attention that kooky Hollywood celebrities get.  Jerry Falwell will occasionally say something nuts but over and over movie stars and singers such as Barbara Streisand, the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc. manage to get air time with their half-baked ideas and hatemongering.

The vile left can be summed up best by one of its own members, Ted Rall whose belief is simply that he and his kind are more enlightened than the rest of us and therefore he has a duty to try to educate us knuckle-draggers. His mission, like those of his peers, is to let others know that they're not alone. For they are convinced that their number are legion and if they can get the word out, they can change the course of this nation to follow a more enlightened course.

They seem to believe:

  • They are intellectually superior to everyone else
  • They are personally enlightened
  • The average American is "sheep"
  • Their cause is righteous and therefore any distortions to the facts are acceptable because they serve a higher purpose
  • People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools.
  • You can't trust corporations but you can trust big government (as long as they're in charge anyway)
  • The will of the "masses" doesn't matter. They know better and so any means necessary should be used to pursue their agenda.
  • They see the courts and public media as more effective outlets to exercise their will than the ballot box.
  • Conservatives aren't just incorrect, they're evil.
  • Liberalism isn't just correct, it's more civilized, more humane.

They're more common than you may think. They're the smug guy in a political debate on-line who, instead of debating the issue will take time out to correct a misspelling or grammar error -- believing that in itself demonstrates their superiority. Or the guy who will selectively use "facts" in a debate to push their agenda believing a) it's okay to mislead because they're trying to lead us on the proper path and b) we're all too ignorant to realize that we're being fed BS.

But what bugs me isn't that they exist. Every news group or forum always has a few of these guys. What bugs me is that some of them manage to get so much attention. How does a guy like Michael Moore manage to get so much coverage when his material is so blatantly fabricated or misleading? No scandal over Bowling for Columbine where he misrepresented everything from the basic thesis (why gun violence in the US is so high) to little things like implying he got a gun at a bank. And yet people are ready to believe what's in Fahrenheit 9/11? No wonder he probably thinks people are sheep. Except maybe it's not all people who are sheep, maybe just his customers...

Al Franken is the same kind of thing. I saw him on Tim Russert spouting off left wing talking points as if he really believes that BS. Same sort of thing though, because he's better than us, smarter and us and dog gone it, people like him, he feels a license to crap on all those who don't share his ideology. I mean really, what kind of guy is so full of hate that he names his show to antagonize someone else (The O'Franken Factor, very classy)? As Palpatine put it, "Let the hate flow through you.."

Ted Rall of course is on record thinking that people like Pat Tillman are saps and idiots. He wrote this stuff after he was killed in combat btw. So I guess it's no surprise that he wrote this week his belief that if there is a hell, Reagan is there.

And again, I ask you, are there right wing versions of these guys who are remotely as well known?  Most people who are left of center are good decent people just like most people on the right are. A nut like Ann Coulter doesn't mean right wingers are a bunch of extremists. But on the other hand, Ann Coulter isn't wildly popular.  Meanwhile, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Ted Rall have large followings. It should make one wonder of the intellectual and moral character of your ideology when guys like these are increasingly being seen as the face of the left.

13,821 views 75 replies
Reply #26 Top
oh brother.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9UVRls83oX8J:www.alarmingnews.com/archives/000507.html+ann+coulter+%22standing+ovation%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en

ann coulter gets standing o:
------------
"Well, at least Clark is getting the hang of being a Democrat- blame everything on the Jews"
...
"It is so great to be among rightwingers" (after a lengthy standing ovation).
------------

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:edAVkECJiTAJ:coloradoconservative.blogs.com/colorado_conservative/2003/11/ann_coulter_beh.html+ann+coulter+%22standing+ovation%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en
---------------
...thanked her with a standing ovation. ...
---------------
Reply #27 Top

Again: The fact that vile right-wingers exist doesn't in itself mean that they counter someone like Moore or Franken.

Even though conservatives make up about half the population, people like Ann Coulter have relatively small followings.  Or are you trying to argue that Ann Coulter is in the same league in terms of popular support as say Michael Moore or Ted Rall?

Let's be real here, Ann Coulter is an obscure radio DJ on AM radio who has gotten slighly more attention because of her deranged McCarthy defending book.  She's not about to win best picture at the Caan film festival or whatever.

Reply #28 Top
MIchael Moore got an Oscar in recognition for a well-put-together documentary... not just for his views.
Reply #29 Top
" MIchael Moore got an Oscar in recognition for a well-put-together documentary... not just for his views."


A documentary that has since been found to have been doctored and"tweeked" to the point of being a mockumentary. Not a chance they'll take the oscar back, though. I am counting on the same with this 9/11 garbage.
Reply #30 Top
Hmm... seems like to me that the growing number of right-wing talking heads (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dr. Laura, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Ollie North, Ann Coulter, etc.) actually gave rise to the movement of left-wing talking heads... as it relates to mocking the way the right presents these talking heads. No one here should fool themselves into thinking the topics spewed from both sides on their radio/tv shows or columns is new - it's the party line to the extreme. So, I'm not sure there's much of a debate here as to which team has a higher score. If you are keeping track, and if it matters, I think the right side clearly has the edge up in both number and voracity - but the left is catching up!
Reply #31 Top
Dragger,

Notwithstanding your comments that some on the left might have a bigger following than those on the right, I'd say extreme "philosophy's" (as mentioned in your subtitle) on both the right and left attract some vile people. Is it only those on the right that demonize those on the left?

Why is it that some on the right can't seem to see that?

As far as your statement on Moore goes "where he misrepresented everything from the basic thesis (why gun violence in the US is so high)", apparently you don't understand what "thesis" means. It would be like me saying that your thesis here is misrepresented. A thesis is a postulate, a position. One cannot "misrepresent" a thesis. But if I'm wrong, then I'll argue that you've misrepresented your thesis, here (which is reiterated below):

"They seem to believe:

They are intellectually superior to everyone else
They are personally enlightened
The average American is "sheep"
Their cause is righteous and therefore any distortions to the facts are acceptable because they serve a higher purpose
People who are patriotic or religious are saps, mindless, fools.
You can't trust corporations but you can trust big government (as long as they're in charge anyway)
The will of the "masses" doesn't matter. They know better and so any means necessary should be used to pursue their agenda.
They see the courts and public media as more effective outlets to exercise their will than the ballot box.
Conservatives aren't just incorrect, they're evil.
Liberalism isn't just correct, it's more civilized, more humane."

A thesis can be right or wrong, but it really can't be misrepresented. And I think that some on the right, take to huge sweeping statements, rather than offer reasoned support for their views.

DD


Reply #32 Top
And as far as your statement goes re: left wingers ...

"They're the smug guy in a political debate on-line who, instead of debating the issue will take time out to correct a misspelling or grammar error -- believing that in itself demonstrates their superiority. Or the guy who will selectively use "facts" in a debate to push their agenda believing a) it's okay to mislead because they're trying to lead us on the proper path and b) we're all too ignorant to realize that we're being fed BS."


This would be different from your outrageous claims on another thread relating to global warming that the world was warmer for most of the past 10,000 years than it is now, how?

If I make up "facts" like that, my mom has a wierd "name" for it. She calls it "lying".

GEEZ! Dragger - look in the mirror, before you start demonizing others.

DD
Reply #33 Top

I gotta ask, are you high?

Only right wingers condemn the left-wingers? Hello? Did you read the post? Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars to tell them" and Ted Rall's viscious statements about anyone who isn't ultra liberal and Michael Moore who is in a class by himself?

From what I'm seeing, the left considers the mere existence of right wingers (or even people who aren't ultra left) to be a counter to the vile left.

So I guess it's safe to say that the lefties of the site can't think of anyone who actually counters Michael Moore, Al Franken and Ted Rall (to name 3 guys who get regular national media attention).  When you're listing cable TV show guests or AM radio hosts you're in pretty sad shape.

The difference to me seems to be that ultra right wingers aren't part of the mainstream right where as the ultra left wingers, including these vile examples I've given, are accepted by the mainstream left.  Michael Moore is an incredibly loathsome human being and yet he's applauded and loved by not just the fanatical left wingers but the mainstream left.

I think it demonstrates a general illness in the left-wing philosophy right now.  That it's so consumed with hatred and anger towards those who philosphically differ from them that they really are not well positioned to govern rationally IMO.

John Kerry is pretty darn liberal. His philosophy is counter to most of my views on the way the world should work. I think his policies would be very damaging and dangerous to the united states overseas.  But I don't hate him. I don't feel anger towards him.  Similarly, most right wingers didn't feel hate towards Bill Clinton.  Sure, there are some ultra right wingers who did but they weren't mainstream.

Reply #34 Top
Draginol,

What policies specifically of John Kerry's would be dangerous to the U.S. overseas? And would you agree with a prevailing opinion (and not just from Democrats) that America's higher moral position has been eroded under the Bush presidency - circa WMD, acting without more European/World support, prisoner abuse scandal, etc. Seems like to me John Kerry would have to shave his head and proclaim himself surpreme leader of the white race to do more damage internationally than Bush has. Sorry for the mental picture of John Kerry that way. But I am curious to know specifically what policies of John Kerry you think are so "dangerous". Thanks, G

Draginol: John Kerry is pretty darn liberal. His philosophy is counter to most of my views on the way the world should work. I think his policies would be very damaging and dangerous to the united states overseas. But I don't hate him. I don't feel anger towards him. Similarly, most right wingers didn't feel hate towards Bill Clinton. Sure, there are some ultra right wingers who did but they weren't mainstream.
Reply #35 Top

I found a list at this site of conservative celebrities, I'll post the link at the end of this reply.  Of course none of them enjoy as much air time as Michael Moore but I still found the list interesting.  I read in the Washington Post and I quote "Republicans have come to distrust the media in greater numbers since President Bush took office."  I also think that as far as party affiliation, recently at least, people have attached themselves as if it is a social club.  People have stereotypes of what lefties are like or what righties are like and they tend to coalesce with the like-minded party.  Consequently this banding together into rival political communities welcomes one-sided perspectives and decreases flexibility on issues.  Psychologically, I think this is rooted in some sort of social force or need to belong to a certain group.  Maybe I'm wrong but anyways here is the Link


 

Reply #36 Top
And would you agree with a prevailing opinion (and not just from Democrats) that America's higher moral position has been eroded under the Bush presidency


There is a Fox News poll giving Bush a slight lead in the area of "foreign policy":
Link

I think that Kerry's position that we need French permission to conduct military activities is dangerous.
Reply #37 Top
Trying the link again

Link

Reply #38 Top
Again Dragger,

I'm not a leftie - in the last seven elections on a national or local level, I've voted for the right six of those seven times. As I stated on another thread...

There was lots of people who hated Clinton (although it's harder than with Bush, cause he had some personal charisma, just like Reagon, who few hated too ...

No, I'm not high ... are you?
Reply #39 Top
Vile Right-Wing Hate Mongers:

G. Bush.
D. Cheney.
T. DeLay
D. Rumsfeld.
Reply #40 Top
Madine,

"I think that Kerry's position that we need French permission to conduct military activities is dangerous."

Where has Kerry said that they need French permission? Can you direct me to the source of this statement?

Reply #41 Top
If anyone here has seen "The Fog of War", a fascinating look at Robert McNamara (defense sec'tary 60-67) as chief apologist then for the Vietnam War, will remember a statement he made looking back at the whole thing that going to war without support from major allies should give pause and cause to re-think the whole issue (whether war is the best way to achieve the desired objective).

So yes, Madine, if one is having difficultly convincing other nations with highly shared values (i.e. other western nations) of the wisdom of this approach (ie going to war), then the whole thing should be carefully be re-thought.

In any case, for anyone who is interested in history (Dragger, et.al.), I highly recommend this documentary. Some fascinating lessons and stories in there ...



Reply #42 Top
I believe in the cause of the left wingers. They aren't trying to give tax cuts and benefits to rich people.
Reply #43 Top
what's moore lying about? The Osama-Bush connection. Been there done that, to much ridicule again I have to say. The flights out after 911? Been there done that too. The footage of US soldiers beating helpless Iraqis? What's he lying about? He gets attention because of the truths he uncovered and people wish to learn more about how their fate was dealt with by a small handful of people who said so many lies regarding the run up to the war and they also know that none of what Bush and Co. said was right. None. Man Bush and Co said so many lies. hundreds of them. Iraq was doing this, Iraq was doing that...nothing. Nothing. Well, almost nothing. There are over 810 dead Americans not including the hundreds more who have died by accidents and even suicide. Total waste of life and their families suffer for nothing. And to top it off Bush denies the families any honor and respect by shaming them with their media ban, as if their loss were something to hide.
Reply #44 Top
If we do not believe M. Moore, then we should not believe ...

Craig Unger:
author of
"House of Bush, House of Saud:
The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties."

i.e., "...more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the Saudis to ... companies that were close to the Bushes."
That's $1,400,000,000.00 -- more than enough to buy a president these days, I reckon, not counting other "political contributions" from well meaning associates of the Saud family. (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/27/james_bath/index3.html)

and ... "How much money has flowed from the House of Saud to the Bush family and its friends and allies over the years? No one will ever know -- but the number is at least $1.477 billion." (http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/12/unger_2/index.html)

and ... "...George W. Bush's close ties to Islamic lobbying groups -- and to an accused supporter of Palestinian terrorism -- may have brought him his razor-thin margin of victory in Florida." (http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/15/unger_3/)

and ... "While the votes were counted in Florida, Bush Sr. went hunting in Spain with Prince Bandar -- and the incoming administration ignored warnings about al-Qaida." (http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2004/03/16/unger_4/index.html)

What cah you say?
"This Gun For Hire!"

DanMS

Reply #45 Top
Re-Engage the United Nations: John Kerry believes that the United Nations must play a central role in the war on terror, and in combating other AIDS and global poverty. A Kerry Administration would seek to renew the mandate of the UN and also to reform its operations and revitalize its capacity. The United Nations will be seen as an asset, not a liability to a safer America.


Link

UN = French permission.

Reply #46 Top
Of course the basic problem with this argument is that liberals need everything spelled out for them. When you spend your entire life getting in touch with your emotions it becomes very difficult to understand logic, reason, and rhetoric.
Case in point, John Kerry, along with most of the Democratic party believe that the U.N. must be involved in all international affairs. That is where conservatives disagree. The United States of America is responsible for it's own protection and prosperity. Relying on an international body of bureaucrats is not in the best interest of the United States of America.
The United Nations is a catastrophic failure! Liberals of course would not admit this, but one only need to look at the plight of Rwanda, Zimbabwe, ad infinitum... The United Nations is only one example of the soft politics of the left, they believe that all problems in the United States and the World are directly attributable to "Whtie men", of course the fact that white people aren't actually white is lost on them, .
As a another poster mentioned the left is not rightly categorized for, they are not liberal they are Marxist, communist, steal from the have's and give to the have not's... Recently I have wondered why main stream media types love tales such as, Robin Hood, Shrek, ad infinitum... And I came to the following conclusion all recent mythology supports the Marxist position that all wealth is stolen from the proletariat. Nothing could be further from the truth or facts. Many people have come from very humble beginnings and overcome there economic disadvantages. One need look no further than William Clinton. A favorite of the democratic party.
The basis of this thread is valid, of course we all know this instinctively. Consider this most Marxist's have only this to offer in a debate; We should all get an equal share of the pie. Now of course if ask Al franken or Michael Moore to give us several thousand dollars without justification, they would laugh all the way back to the bank. I stopped concerning myself with the Al Franken's and Michael Moore's of this world once I realised they were using there ideology purely for profit and could care less about the people they pretend to know so much about.

BTW... Conservatives have been harshly critical of G.W. Bush as of late. Government spending has increased ~25% under Bush and of course there was the initative to legalize all illegal immigrants. Before the Marxists crawl out of there troll holes for this one remember all of us "Whtie aristocrats" where immigrants at one time. We immigrated legally as any person who desires the prosperity that representative reupblics offer should.
Reply #47 Top
"When you spend your entire life getting in touch with your emotions it becomes very difficult to understand logic, reason, and rhetoric"<---cukoo cukoo
Reply #49 Top
The title of this thread is valid. And I have not seen anyone refute it.

The simple fact is that the members of the media on the left use hate and vitriol to denigrate the validitiy of the right. Some people say Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. But they never spew hate, and not a single poster has been able to offer a single instance when there was hate!

Denigration of ideas? For sure! Condemnation of statements? Absolutely. But Hate? Not a single one. Outrage? Daily at the le4ft's hate. but no reciprocation.

Debate the Right spokespeople if you want. They are very sure of their facts, but willing to debate. Let anyone on this thread show me a single instance (Except Ann Coulter, who I have not read, and know very little about) of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, Glen Beck saying anything like Ted Rall, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi (ashimed to even be remotley related to that person), Al Franken, or Randy Rhodes?

Guess what! You already lose! There aint none. Why? because the left has lost their capacity to debate on facts and now resorts to emotion. The Right (both in stance and in fact) can debate all day on the facts.

No Aids funding? Try 5.7 BILLION. NO sympathy for the poor? Name a program that got sabotaged by him. Clinton kiled the Welfare Queens, not Reagan. The Cold War? Why does the living principals (Thatcher and Gorbachev) acredit him?

facts are the anethma to the vile left. It always will be as they cannot argue from them or against them, so they invent them!

This week was a great exercise in the part of the left doing just that. Thankfully, the sane part of the left did not take up the stupidity of that fringe. Altho they have in the past.

"the seriousness of the charge, regardless of the lack of evidence, merits an investigation.".

If they were running police departments, no crimes would be solved!
Reply #50 Top
Madine,

Sorry, but what you claimed he said, doesn't jive with what he actually said. The UN consists of way more countries than "UN=France"

Perhaps sticking to the facts is too much to ask - what did Dragger say about the left??? ... "Their cause is righteous and therefore any distortions to the facts are acceptable because they serve a higher purpose". Seems to me, those on the right can engage in the same type of "BS".

As my mother would have said, we call these type of distortions, "lies". The UN doesn't "=" France, no matter how much it may serve some neo-conservative argument.

DD