Skip to main content

The Weekly Standard ran a story (diary on it over here) where the author decries the "uncivil" discussion ot DailyKos:
On the Daily Kos, civility is in chronically short supply.
The writer laments that there is "little regard for common decorum" and also that DailyKos "produces a surfeit of unseemly commentary on a recurring basis". The author goes on to say that a DailyKos post was ridiculed in "the saner precincts of the blogosphere". And the author links to Little Green Footballs, apparently as being representative of this "saner" blogosphere. Let's see what is on the "saner precinct" of the blogosphere":

LGF refers to Islam as "Religion of Pieces" (mocking Bush's claim that Islam is a "religion of peace")

And I implore you to find anywhere on DailyKos the much used LGF line of "FOAD" (fuck off and die).

LGF is one of the most intolerant and anti-Islamic sites around, one that spews vile hatred towards anyone of Arab decent.  Here are comments from ONE thread, showing the LGF reaction to Don Imus calling Palestinians "ragheads", and "pigs who live in their own filth"

"I'm not a big fan of Don "Anus", but for once it sounds like he has finally bellowed something sensible from that collapsed lung of his -

The PaleSimians are filthy animals."..

" What's wrong with calling a spade a spade?"  

"They choose to live like animals, stop whining about it."  

"I'm offended on behalf of animals everywhere."  

"yet on this point I agree except I would substitute 'Palestinians' with 'all Arabs'."

"The Islamopussyfascistassholes can dish it, but they can't take it."..

" They really are animals! Dirty rotten stinking animals with no brains!"  

Muslim Americans are "racist, bigoted, misogynist, homophobes with a propensity to murder and maim your own and others without compunction or condemnation."..

" I think its time Christians and Jews wadge a lawsuit against the racist hate-filled Koran to have the offensive bits removed."

Listen, these animals were dancing in the street and handing out candy to "celebrate" 9/11.
Nuke them. I want to dance and hand out candy.

We're up to 1.2 Billion [Muslims in the world]? They must multiply like McDonalds hamburgers! I don't even like Imus and I would defend him against this sort of cencorship. Hey CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations]-we ain't in arabia yet-so FOAD [fuck off and die] -you and the goat you rode up on!

Palis are "filthy animals" (mmm, felt good writing it!)

They are animals! The very lowest form of animal...single cell life forms that have no souls! ...Why don't we just nuke these people?! I don't understand....ad I don't want to understand.

That's an insult to animals, "spawns of satan" is what they are.

Instead of calling them 'ragheads', though, he should switch to 'little sheet head'.
I wish CAIR would visit and read Little Green Footballs, then maybe they will get the message loud and clear that we are not going to put up with murderous islam and their quest to rule the world....Death to you CAIR, Death to islam. Read it and weep.

It sounds like Imus offended the camel-raping dog-fucking wombat-nuzzling towel-headed left-handed-ass-wiping illiterate wife-beating savages!

Muslimes are the scourge of the earth.

I cannot show them tolerance and compassion for they will sta.b me in the back with...This world would be a better place without them
Raghead is not an acceptable term....They are actually fucktards.

sand monkeys is preferable, in my way of thinking...but with them in the crosshairs, i really don't care, so long as they splat into a red mist.

Ah, I see our muslim appeaser is on LGF.  (in response to a lone post that it's "like calling a black person the 'N' word, and then wondering why he is offended.)

Wait until PETA gets hold of this story. They'll trash Imus for demonizing animals.

Our Trolls are always defending the islamic scum.

Virtually all civilised states that have been foolish enough to allow muslims in, will be affected by jihad.

All towel and no jihad, fucking animals!!
Nothing will surprise me of the depths of depravity that Islam will sink to.

The I-man is not the enemy. The Muslims are.
Don Imus - I like this guy - he tells the truth. Thick muslims don't like the truth.

**

Add your examples of the "saner part of the blogosphere" below:
Update [2005-3-2 10:56:23 by georgia10]:: Added some context. I read the Free Republic. I read LGF. And I can state unquivocally that DailyKos is a thousand times more "civil" than either of them.

Originally posted to Georgia Logothetis on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:31 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh dear gods (none)
    this is what we're up against?

    Please tell me this is some sick parody.

    "Our representative democracy is not working ... I believe the chief reason for this is that it is ruled by a small group of old men."-Shirley Chisolm

    by JLongs on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:37:12 AM PST

    •  And it taints us all (none)
      allowing so many to dismiss bloggers as insensitive idiots-whether left or right or off the line completely.

      Perhaps awareness of just how crazy some can get will temper our own enthusiasms, making us think with our heads, not just our fingertips as they tap the keyboards.

      If I can't dance, I don't want to be a part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman

      by AaronBa on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 05:42:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't feel tainted at all (none)
        These troglodytes have nothing whatsoever in common with me. Just because we have the commonality of commenting on blogs doesn't make us tainted by association. Infact I am surprised that, with that mindset, they are even capable of turning on a computer all by themselves. how do these people get by in life?
  •  I'm no lawyer, Georgia (none)
    but I'm fairly sure that a Radio program that aired this would be committing a crime in the UK.  As the "colleague"'s comments refer to Palestinians, not Muslims, I think it would count as incitement to racial hatred.

    There's a bill currently under debate to extend this to "religious" hatred, and a lot of discussion as to whether this would be an imposition on the right to free speech.

    Whatever, both the program and the blog are disgusting.

    •  Ditto for Canada (4.00)
      We don't believe all speech should be free. Which I suppose might look "repressive" compared to "total freedom of speech."

      Until you realise, both in theory and in practice, restricted freedom of speech is much freer than absolute freedom of speech.

      Anyway, free speech is a quaint old notion that you folks in the US like to talk about, but not do.

      "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:27:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  no, it isn't (none)
        Both in theory and practice, restricted freedom of speech is fascism.
        •  Under your reasoning (none)
          because the UK and Canada have restrictions on freedoms of speech they are fascist (well, only in theory and practice).  That's kinda like the wing-nuts who say that things like social security and unemployment insurance make the USA communist, i.e., an unfounded universal statement based a few isolated instances.
          •  there's degrees (none)
            The UK, Germany, France, and Canada do tend towards fascism, although Canada only very mildly so (its laws of this sort are much fewer than in Europe, and are written such that it's much more difficult to actually convict anyone under them).

            The UK in particular has become very worrisome lately with its "anti-social behaviour ordinances".  Among other ridiculous things, a 60-year-old man was threatened with jail time unless he obeyed a court order to stop making sarcastic comments to his neighbour.  I had to reread this a dozen times before I believed that it was actually the case that in a supposedly "free country" like the UK, making sarcastic comments to your neighbour can be labelled legally "anti-social behaviour" and land you in jail.  This is only one incident of hundreds as well---the entire campaign against "anti-social behaviour" is really quite Orwellian.

            There are degrees, of course.  It's one thing to lock up someone for making sarcastic comments, another thing to drag them off to the Gulag for it, and still another to go about banning political parties.  That doesn't mean that anything short of the Holocaust isn't still worrisome though.

            (And, of course, the US has its own problems, just free speech itself isn't usually one of them.  Detention without trial is, though.)

            •  We may have more restrictions (none)
              on what can be said, but far fewer on what can be heard.

              Our press has its problems, and our broadcast media are not perfect, but dissenting opinion and plurality of view are far more widely disseminated in the UK than in the US, precisely because of some restrictions on freedom (on owning a monopoly for instance).

              Gannon/Guckert would have been all over the place, same with Abu Ghraib (it was) and the WMD fuckup (it was).  

              What use is freedom of speech if no-one can hear you?

              •  hmm? (none)
                I'm not sure if you've watched any US media, but for weeks there was pretty much nothing but Abu Ghraib on it.

                And I don't understand what you mean by fewer restrictions on what can be heard.  I live in the US, and I can hear anything I want---something not true in the UK, where you are legally prohibited from reading some websites, whose content is deemed unacceptable.  In fact, I read news.bbc.co.uk regularly, and am unaware of any way in which it could be said that Americans are restricted from doing so.

                •  well maybe you're right (none)
                  It's not restrictions I'm talking about, though, it's how readily stuff is available.

                  I find it hard to access foreign news in the US, compared to either UK or Canada.

                  Peace.

                  •  Delirium is an accurate description (none)
                    I think he/she has mistaken theoretical legal freedom with actual freedom and opportunity.

                    You may have a legally free media. But when that legally free media refuses to cover events with accuracy or breadth, one doesn't even know what one is not free to hear.

                    And speaking of Abu Ghraib, sure it was covered. It just wasn't fully investigated or pursued. And that, sad to say, is something which can only be done by American media. As for the rest of the stories, how does Delirium explain the fact that the public in almost all other nations did not believe iraq to be a threat, while in the US a significant majority supported the war? It wasn't just politics--we knew some things Americans didn't.

                    "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

                    by thingamabob on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:52:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Quite (none)
                      I tell you what really brought this home to me.  It was the Columbine massacre.  I was living in Canada, and it was headline news on CBC.  Massive coverage.  Then I turned on BBC world service.  Headline news again, massive coverage.

                      Then I turned on CNN.  I never tuned into CNN much as it never seemed to carry anything but US news.

                      It was the third item.  And this was their news. (As were items one and two of course.)

                      And I'm actually very glad I live in a country where it is illegal to incite genocide.  If that's a loss of freedom, it is a freedom I am happy to do without, just as I am happy to sacrifice the freedom not to shoot people.

                      On the other hand I am addicted to American energy and enthusiasm, which is why I am on DKos instead of trying to finish my thesis....

                      •  what? (none)
                        One or the other of us must have pretty faulty memory, because I remember thinking Columbine was ridiculously over-covered on US media.  It was the top story for weeks; there were congressional hearings that were themselves the top story; calls to ban Marilyn Manson for being an evil influence on society; etc.; etc.
                        •  It was the day it happened. (none)
                          Could have been number one headline on other channels, but on CNN it was number three that evening.

                          Something technical to do with the news cycle maybe.

                          Anyway, I do agree about the importance of freedom of speech, and I'm very concerned about the erosion of civil liberties that is happening in the UK, as you point out, and which is also a danger in the US.  

                          I have just come belatedly to the conclusion that I do see some key limits on freedom of speech as critical to enabling other freedoms, and one - probably the only one - is incitement to violence against particular groups of citizens.

                          If I'm wrong about American media, I apologise, but it is my impression that big money shouts very loud in America, mostly on one note, and it drowns a lot of stuff out that needs to be heard.

                          •  hmm (none)
                            I might agree in principle that limiting speech would have positive effects, but I'm not comfortable giving the State the decision over which speech to limit.  That ends up with the result of just limiting unpopular speech.  Plus, once the principle is established that limiting some speech is okay, then limiting just a little bit more speech is easier to push through, since it's not a radical change.  It doesn't require that this happen (that would be the slippery-slope fallacy), but it certainly makes it easier, as a practical matter, than in the situation (like the US) where it's much harder to limit any sort of speech.

                            Part of my view on this is probably due to my being a fan of a number of avant-garde musicians and artists who seem to perennially run afoul of anti-Nazi laws, despite being neither neo-Nazis nor in fact political at all (and many of whom are actually gay, Jewish, or both).  The masses don't understand avant-garde art, so when they see something that disturbs them, like an piece of art depicting Hitler with an ambiguous meaning (i.e. neither clearly pro- or anti-Hitler), the knee-jerk reaction is to label it "neo-Nazi" and ban it.

                            As far as US media goes, I don't see it as much different than other parts of the world, and on the whole I think it's better than most other places I've seen.  I get the impression that the UK media is very tabloidish, and some of the biggest newspapers seem to be those that devote their front-page stories primarily to royal weddings, Michael Jackson, and other such nonsense.  The BBC and The Economist are the two British sources I read, and I do like them.  The Italian and Greek media I think are much worse than the US media.

                          •  I give (none)
                            Despite my earnest attempts to get you to see a truth you find uncomfortable, I appear to have failed.

                            For what it's worth, this argument had two parts: one was about the purely logical notion of "absolute freedom", the other was about whether the average American is better served by their "free" media than the average Canadian or Brit. We may disagree about the latter (it's clear we do), but you should know that we Canadians and Brits think we get a truer picture and better information than you Americans IN GENERAL.

                            Of course, this being DKos, I expect you get much the same kind of information I do. And further, I'm quite happy to admit that my media often fails in being as objective as I'd like. The major point should perhaps be that it's the individual's freedom to consider the news even more than the press' freedom to publish that matters most. The worst censorship in the US these days is individuals' censoring of their own beliefs based on ideological, religious or paradigmatic principles (meaning, they can't face the consequences of accepting truths which undermine their worldviews).

                            As to the logical question, whether you get it or not is irrelevant. You can't have freedom without some constraints. Think of it as like a kite--without the string tethering it, a kite won't fly. So to experience the maximal amount of freedom, a kite must be firmly anchored. "Absolute freedom" means falling to the ground, and therefore being a great deal less free than kites which have strings attached.

                            "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

                            by thingamabob on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 07:58:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  theoretical legal freedom is actual freedom (none)
                      People can choose to take in news from whatever source they wish.  If they choose to watch Fox News or CNN or some other low-quality news source, that's not my fault, or the US government's fault.  That's their own fault for being morons.

                      How are they "not free to hear" other opinions?  Do people not know that there are other countries with news sources, and they can take a look at them too?  I find this hard to believe, as many millions of Americans do subscribe to foreign news services (especially those who are recently descended from immigrants).  The Economist, a British magazine, actually has more subscribers in the United States than it does in the United Kingdom.

                      What you seem to be arguing is that people ought to be forced to hear particular points of view, because simply giving them the freedom to do so is insufficient, since they don't choose to exercise that freedom, either through deliberate choice, laziness, or disinterest.  That's not an issue of freedom.

                      •  This thread is getting a bit skinny (none)
                        but here goes:

                        You are right that in the US you are legally entitled to read, or not read (or watch or not watch) what you like.  But it's like poverty - a poor man is "theoretically free" to buy  mansion, but can't - it is not available to him. Freedom is the ability to exercise choice, and choice depends on access to options as well as on the right to exercise those options.  And sometimes maximising options for all involves restricting options for some.  IMO.

                        I think that's the difference between cultural values in the US and Canada, and the UK for that matter.  America is "the land of the free" and promises "liberty", and the American dream is that anyone can be rich.  Canada, and post-war UK, looks at "freedom" differently - that freedom lies less in reducing restrictions on individuals than on maximising opportunity for all.  Universal healthcare, subsidised education, public service broadcasting - the "welfare state", in short.  But freedom in this sense also requires restrictions on individual freedom - restrictions on monopolies, on advertising budgets for political campaigns - and on the right to advocate violence against particular groups of citizens.

                        We fall far short in the UK (compared to Canada) and Thatcher eroded much of what we had achieved, and I do worry about restrictions on freedom of speech, which is why I oppose extending laws regarding "incitement to racial hatred" to religious groups, and there is a danger of sliding down a slippery slope.  But all laws restrict freedom to act as you wish, in order to preserve the "freedom" of others to live, hang on to their possessions, walk the streets without fear.  So I have no problem with specific laws restricting my right to advocate violence against national or racial groups on television, any more than I have problem with restrictions on my right to exercise that violence.

        •  Please send me your full name and details (none)
          Once I receive them I will start sending out millions of e-mails alerting people about your strange sexual practices, the murder raps you've beaten and had expunged from the system, and your frequent boasts that "I will be ruler of this goddam universe soon, so you better pay me now or you'll pay me later"--though no one knows what to make of that, exactly.

          Later you and I can go down to a crowded rave somewhere and start screaming about fire, narcs or whatever you think is likely to cause the most casualties.

          After a few brews, we can set up that website urging people to kill every visible group they disagree with.

          How long will it take before someone suggests that maybe our speech oughtn't be that free.

          As for your belief that yours is freer than mine... (sorry too busy laughing to finish that thought).

          "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:14:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  libel is not the same as opinions (none)
            I am arguing against restricting the expression of opinions, not against banning libel.  You ought to be able to say you think I'm an asshole, or that you think all Germans are assholes, or that you think my hair looks like shit.
            •  I don't think you're an asshole (none)
              But the jury's out on whether you are ignorant, a few tomatoes short of a thick paste, or a little shagged out after a hard night's drinking.

              In any event, you seem not to have understood the logic of my post. As for freedom to call each other assholes, consider this: dialogue exists when various parties can freely and respectfully share their views and respond to each other. Repeated personal attacks (which are not real opinions (particularly when one doesn't know anything about the person in question) but merely insults) do not build a respectful environment for dialogue.

              Eventually, the freedom and effectiveness of dialogue is compromised by the lack of respect. So, no, you are not free to call people assholes indiscriminately without consequence. You may be legally entitled to do so, but there is a cost. To imagine otherwise is foolish, churlish or at best, naive.

              "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

              by thingamabob on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 06:45:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm only arguing about legality (none)
                I'm arguing that it is not the role of the State to decide when I may call people assholes.  When it is a good idea to do so is another matter, and not one for the State to decide.

                When the State gets in the business of deciding certain opinions are inappropriate to express (the opinion that the President is bad, for example), that's the beginning of the road to totalitarianism.

                •  Legality is for lawyers (none)
                  Your point about legality may be true, but it is not the only relevant point. Re-read my post on civility in discourse (well, that's what I would have called it if I called it anything)--once you allow a free-for-all, the quality of discourse is sacrificed, and eventually people withdraw.

                  This is not what anyone wants when they start a dialogue.

                  "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

                  by thingamabob on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:01:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  but legality is what was being argued (none)
                    People in this diary are arguing that such speech is not only a bad idea, or socially harmful, or anything else of that sort, but should be banned by the state.  I'm arguing against that position.
                    •  Unh uh (none)
                      I don't think that's true. People here are arguing that "extreme speech" hurts our cause, and that we should perhaps consider self-censorship, not that it should be illegal.

                      Please read this thread again.

                      "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

                      by thingamabob on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  It was a call to genocide on national TV (none)

      The host of the popular morning show, as well as his sidekick who made the remarks, continue in their roles as articulators of US mainstream opinion.

      It was quite a milestone.

      After a couple of weeks, and a letter writing campaign by a handful of NGOs, MSNBC reluctantly issued a minimal statement to the effect that MSNBC did not agree with Rosenthal. I don't remember if they used the word "necessarily," but it was not really necessary.

      If you are an American, and watching it gave you a strange feeling of foreboding, talk to elderly Germans, if you have access to some. They will be able to relate.

      blog updated 3-1
      one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan

      by DuctapeFatwa on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:34:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unintentional humor alert: (none)
    Muslim Americans are "racist, bigoted, misogynist, homophobes with a propensity to murder and maim your own and others without compunction or condemnation."..

    What's the odds this poster is (at the very least) a racist, bigoted, misogynist homophobe?

    If you can't laugh at yourself ... we'll gladly do it for you.

    by btrain on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:13:10 AM PST

  •  A-ha (none)
    Is that recent?  Has it toned down any?  That kind of talk is not only tolerated over at LGF, it's encouraged.  They are fascists.  I'm just astonished to see that site constantly linked and promoted by more mainstream conservatives because there is a constant, constant stream of vile racist abuse over there.  Were that kind of language directed at other races or religions, you damn sure wouldn't see the Washington Post giving that site an award.
    •  Someone should point out (none)
      - that they are full-fledged anti-semites. Arabic being a semitic language, Arabs are no less 'semitic' than are Jews.

      Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

      by Sirocco on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:12:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  incorrect (none)
        The etymology of the term "anti-semite" is irrelevant; the fact is that the English meaning of the word is "biased against Jews".

        Or are you arguing that we ought to interpret all words by their literal etymologies?

        •  No (none)
          I am arguing that certain popular usages should be questioned since they are illogical and misleading. Cf. how 'America' is commonly used about a subset of the continent, the USA.

          Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

          by Sirocco on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 04:39:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  so do you oppose 'automobile' and 'computer' too? (none)
            Should we use "automobile" to describe any machine that moves on its own, and "computer" to describe any machine that computes?  Are you going to complain that people look at you strangely when you call your calculator a "handheld computer", and argue that technically it is a handheld computer because "computer" just means "something that computes"?
  •  The problem with us Kossacks (none)
    Is that we read these things and lose our sense of humour.

    The problems with "them" are too numerous to begin counting.

    But they are our neighbours, like it or not, so we'd better find a way to suck out the poison that is current right-wing propaganda. Otherwise, it will be a sad and unfunny world we hand to our children.

    "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:18:35 AM PST

  •  humbling irony (none)
    i was just about to write that these people are scum

    "Will we be Coca-colonized?" - L'Humanite

    by jokeysmurf on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:21:02 AM PST

  •  Deranged, Hate Speech. How Sad. n/t (none)
  •  A nice companion post with Armando's front-pager (none)
    White trash.

    Ignorance is the cornerstone of these losers.  No wonder Bush and Comapny are desperately working to gut public education in America.  The more ignorant we become, the more likely we are to vote Republican.

  •  Maybe they might listen (4.00)
    to one of thier own.

    "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
    -- Richard Milhouse Nixon

    This same idea was expressed more eloquently and succinctly in one of my favorite quotes on the topic. Two simple words;

    "hatred bounces"
    -- e.e. cummings

    •  Unlikely. (none)
      The conservative establishment has achieved their current power by pushing hate and fear. To keep it, they will continue to use hate and fear.

      "There is no crying in baseball." Jimmy Dugan (aka Tom Hanks in a League of Their Own).

      by dicta on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:07:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The first step in genocide (4.00)
    is depersonalizing the victim.

    Read these comments again and substitute "jew" or "tutsi" for "muslim".

    Freedom isn't free. So why are you bitching about taxes?

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:38:24 AM PST

  •  Who called them "Saner" (none)
    Please tell me some media slut didn't actually term them that?

    The odds are pretty good but the goods are pretty odd. -Dr. Frank

    by Cheez Whiz on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 06:45:13 AM PST

  •  Pity the fools. (none)
    Quran.ca

    "O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is the closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do." (Qur'an, 5:8).

  •  Three words come to mind (none)
    Pure f@#king ignorance.

    Muhammad Ali, the greatest sportsman of the 20th century, as voted by every major sports media outlet in the world,that fucktard.

    Have these people ever set foot outside of their own state? Somebody has got to tell them what the ocean looks like.

  •  I have to admit that I watch Imus most every (none)
    morning.  I think it's funny especially now that they are in MSNBC.  I like what Contessa  (sp?) brings, especially when making fun of Imus...though I think they flirt with sexual harassment pretty regularly and you'd think the MSNBC execs would say something to them.  

    There's only so many times (probably never) you can comment about wanting to see someone naked all the time (mostly from the pig that is Sid) and not tempt fate.  Of coarse Bernard is just a stupid, racist Rushlentball (navel lent).  Charles is your typical Republican for selfish tax cut, small government crap.  

    Imus is just f'ed up...he's soooo distrustful of politicians that it's impossible to not draw his fire but he especially likes to rag on Dems probably because ragging on Dems is just being lazy---easy material to fall back on Ted Kennedy and of coarse EVERY hollywood star is a liberal--riiiight?  

    As far as interviews of the big players, Imus can hardly be beat...except maybe Russert.  He gets everybody on the show...

    If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention

    by mapKY on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:07:58 AM PST

    •  Yeah, that about sums it up (none)
      I listen to the I-Man in the morning, partly because I can bore myself with NPR the rest of the day, partly because I'm curious to figure out this dude who is such a bad influence on my dad.  I can't tell one of his piggish good-old-boy sidekicks from the next, to be honest.

      Currently my theory on Imus is that he believes in this economy of basic human decency, so that it's fine for him to be a total grouchy cynical SOB and constantly insult just about everyone on the planet, because he has that ranch for kids with cancer.  If he stopped being a jackass on his radio program, the law of conservation of basic decency would kick in, and a plague of locusts would descend upon the Imus Ranch and people would start to find botulin toxins in that salsa dip he sells or whatever the hell it is.

  •  It's that 3% thing (none)
    When I was in grad school, I had a course in school/public relations.  The prof told us that there were 3% of people who would always agree with you, no matter what, and 3% of people that would never, ever agree with you.  You could only hope to persude the remainder.

    Stand! You've been sitting much too long, there's a permanent crease in your right and wrong...

    by auntdeen on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 07:18:29 AM PST

  •  Repeat after me... (none)
    Those living for death, will die by their own hand...

    Deep breaths and peace...these people will be punished but not by us...do not hate them but realize they are mentally sick and deceived.  Offer them the truth, and they turn on you, then we have done what we can.

    To use a phrase the wingnuts like to use...

    "Their blood will be on their own heads"

    Galatians 6:9-And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

    by Haroshia on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:14 AM PST

  •  We lack civility here? (none)
    Well they can go fuck themselves, that's all I can say.
  •  What do you do to cleanse yourself (none)
    after reading that grap?  Blech!
  •  Weekly Standard = lunatic fringe (none)
    Anyone who thinks Little Green Loofahs is "sane" must be, ipso facto, not very sane themselves.

    What a ridiculous piece of garbage.

  •  Must be a slow night on Kos.... (none)
    FOAD (now you found it on DailyKos)
  •  LGF (none)
    Now, now Kos - you know you did a heck of a lot of cherry-picking to come up with that list, didn't you?

    The reason the Gannon/Guckert story isn't going to go anywhere is because of some of the craziness the Kossacks post here. Theoretically, I'm on the side of an enlightened universe. In practice, if it means I have to be associated with the "Karl Rove is the source of all evil" contingent, I'm afraid I'm going to have to sit this one out.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site