Liberals fight threats with… MORE THREATS. And Bob Goes to Ames…

Well, here we are one post after my most recent “I’ll never discuss NewsHounds again”, here I am discussing Newshounds. But damn it, when you paint such a large target how do you expect people to not shoot at it (metaphorically speaking, of course). AND, PlanetofBob is heading to the Iowa Republican Straw Poll tomorrow, so, you know, that should be fun.

Okay, a couple of days ago, the hounds were reporting on some comments on the Fox News Facebook page (that article can be found here: http://www.newshounds.us/2011/08/09/fox_news_facebook_fans_want_to_kill_atheists.php#more

Now it would be easy to focus on Priscillas latest flub, but then again it wouldn’t be a “Priscillas Pondering” without at least one whopper thrown in, and the lie of the day was that this thread had “8,000 death threats” in it. Seemingly there were actually some serious threats on the site, and we’ll get to those in a minute, but come on Priscilla, 8,00 death threats? I’ve never been on the Fox News Facebook page (but I have been on the NewsHounds Facebook page, which is the same thing – all of the hate, but from the other side), and I am not saying 100% that there couldn’t have been 8,000 threats. But, in order to make that claim, one would have to COUNT all of the treats, wouldn’t they? I doubt Prissy took the time to count them. Sure, there might have been 8,000 COMMENTS, and some of those comments were vile and threatening, but 8,000?

But Prissy’s lie is not the issue. Let me give you a quick background on the story: There is a group that wants to erect a “Ground Zero Cross” at the site of the 9/11 memorial (The “cross” is two metal girders found in the 9/11 wreckage – See the picture on the right). And, there is a group of people that filed a lawsuit in New York to prevent a cross from being erected within the World Trade Center memorial without equal opportunity for other religions who wish to have memorials there as well. Now neither the hounds article, nor the article from “One Man’s Blog” that the hounds stole most of their information from (found here: http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/) states whether or not any other religion has actually applied to have a memorial placed, but hey, why clog up the article with facts, right?

But the fact of the matter is this: Threats WERE made on the Fox News page, and whether there were 8 threats or 8,000, even one is too many. And while some may use a lame “freedom of speech” argument defending these idiots (those making the threats, not the hounds…. although in this article you need a scorecard to keep your idiots straight), I don’t buy it. Yes, I believe strongly in freedom of speech, but I don’t believe that freedom exists when we are talking about threats.

Now apparently the post was taken down, but not before “One Man’s Blog” could capture some screen shots (and the hounds could write their piece without doing any real legwork). Some of these threats (bad spelling and grammar included) are listed below:

I say kill them all and let see for themselves that there is a God” – Paul Altum

Shoot Them, Shoot to kill” – Bob O’Connell

To all atheiest die and go to hell haha if I could Id shoot all of you in the head with a 12 gauge” – Joe Martinez

There are several more, similar to these. And while some might say that these are just people blowing off steam, or the ramblings of idiots, does that excuse the behavior? Recently there was case where the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Walter Bagdasarian, who previously had been found guilty of threatening then candidate Obama, observation online that Obama “will have a 50 cal in the head soon” and put out a call to “shoot the [racist slur]”

The split court found that Bagdasarian’s comments were “particularly repugnant” because they endorsed violence but that a reasonable person wouldn’t have taken them as a genuine threat. Okay, well using that as a benchmark I guess one could say that no reasonable person would take these threats seriously either, and I doubt any reasonable person would, but it’s not the reasonable people we’re worried about, is it?

Look, I think there is a difference between these statements:

A) The world would be a bettter person if _______ were dead.

B) I wish someone would kill ______.

C) Folks, the world is not a safe place as long as _____ is alive. I implore you, please, we must take this man out.

D)_____ is a dead man, I am going to get my gun, goe to his place of work, and blow the bastard away.

They are all threats, although I really doubt person A or B is planning an attack. Person C or D I would be more worried about.

So what do we do about it? Track down the folks responsible for these threats and put them in jail? Maybe. Personally, I think any threat needs to be taken seriously, and any person making said threat needs to be dealt with in our court system. That said, I don’t think that the person saying “All Minnesota Viking Fans need to die” should receive the same punishment as the person that calls for the assassination of the president.

So what’s the big problem then Bob? Hell, it sounds that you and the hounds are in agreement on this one. They’re calling these people scum, and you think they’re scum. So what gives.

Well, as you know, you can rarely use the word “Newshounds” in a sentence without using the word “Hypocrisy”, and never has there been such a blatant illustration of hypocrisy.

So here are some of the comments on this very article from some of the hounds:

First, from “MLP” we have “I’ve said it before…. bring back the Lions”. Now I doubt MLP is a big Detroit football fan, so what could he mean by “bring back the lions”? Lets see…. oh wait, I know, because the Romans used to feed the Christians to the lions. Why MLP, if I didn’t know any different, that would be threat, right? And as if that wasn’t clear enough, MLP later adds “These people (those making threats against the atheists) are out of their mind crazy, and enabled… and need to be silenced”

And in response to a comment from “Rick Patel”, who said “send your money to Morris Dees, and extinguish hate in our time” (I have no idea what that means), hound “Donquijoterocket” responds with “If we’re extinguishing can we start with you?” Again, I’m no expert, but that sure sounds like a threat.

And threats by the hounds are not new or limited to this story. Over on there “Forum” page they have a discussion going on about how to handle those pesky Christians that show up on your doorstep. Some are good advice, most are tasteless and obnoxious, and then there’s this gem from “Liz”: “You wanna see Jeeezzzus, mothafucka . . ” (Damn, another threat), and this one from “CafeenMan”: “Can’t I just shoot them?” Nope, no one could mistake that for threat, could they.

And then there was the hound who, because he disagreed with my opinion, had to make sure that I knew that he was “Liberal, locked and loaded” Yeah, that a reasonable response to someone who disagrees with you.

But not all of the comments from the hounds were threatening in nature, although I might note that not one person called MLP or Donquijoterocket out on their calls for violence. Sure, most of them were knee-jerk “The right are such asses” BS, but there were a few good comments as well, such as Liz reminding us that it was Jesus who said “thou shall not kill” (yes, the same Liz who gave us the “You wanna see Jeeezzzus, mothafucka . .“) and Aria, who rightly brought up contradiction between these comments, and Jesus’ teaching of the Good Samaritan and his Sermon on the Mount. Granted, this is the same Aria who said of Mormans: “In Arizona, those were called “Jacks”. It was pretty much frowned upon to not “show them the way”, if you follow. And no, I didn’t meet any- they caved and became dickheads or went to homeschooling over the bullying before I had the pleasure.Maybe I’ll meet one here, but I’ll have to give them a second chance first.”, so excuse me for not reigning down too much praise.

Oh, and one more thing. Again on the Forum there was an open thread asking what brings you Peace, and what was it that CafeenMan – you know, the “If we’re extinguishing can we start with you” guy – what was it that brings him peace: “killing somebody you don’t like very much

So one the hounds article about these wannabe atheist-killing assholes – and they are assholes – there were 19 comments, three of which were direct threats of their own. Over at the “One Man’s Blog” article, there were 204 comments (Oh boy hounds, someone is getting their ass kicked… remember when you used to be relevent… yeah, me neither) and I could not find one threat in those 204 comments. Sure, there was a lot of usual BS on the right and the left, but I high number of those comments were people actually discussing the situation.

So I guess the message that we’re getting from the Hounds is this: Hate is a terrible, terrible thing, and threats should never be made… unless of course you are threatening the Christians, the Tea Party, or the right in general. In that case, then knock yourself out. Move along folks, move along…. nothing to see here.

Moving on. Well tomorrow is the day of the Iowa Republican Straw Poll in Ames, and PlanetofBob is going to see what all the fuss is about. I’ve never been to a straw poll, or to a Caucus for that matter. I left Iowa in my early 20’s, before I had much of an interest in politics, and returned shortly before the 2008 election, so I missed all of the primary fun that year as well. This year I am trying to involve myself in as many political functions as possible. Granted, 99% of them will be Republican events, given there will be no Democratic presidential primary, but in 2016 I will involve myself in as many democratic events as well.

So what exactly is a Straw Poll? Well, it’s kinda like a primary, but kinda not. It’s basically a cross between an election, and a circus side-show – leaning decidedly towards the sideshow. different campaigns rent different plots of land near Hilton Coliseum on the Iowa State campus, and set up tents. You pay $30 for a ticket, go to the different campaigns, and they try to convince you to “vote for them. Each campaign offers different incentives to sway you. Rick Santorum will be giving away jars of Santorum Family Peach Jelly. You can get free Godfathers Pizza and Coke at Herman Cain’s tent, and Randy Travis will be performing for Michelle Bachman.

Some people say it’s a situation of the candidates buying votes. So? I mean it’s not like it’s a real election, right. Really it’s more of an opportunity to see which campaign can organize people, and how is that different from any other campaign. I mean hey, your candidate can be by far the best, most qualified person in the field, better than anyone else by a mile. But if she or he can’t put together an organization that will get people out to vote, than what’s the point of them even being in the race. Of course the flip side of that is possible as well, you can have the most unqualified, least prepared candidate in the field, but if they have a strong organization, they can actually win the big one. We call this group of people “Obama Supporters”.

Oh, and remember that $30 ticket? Yeah, only the uninformed actually buy their tickets. What you really do is call one of the campaigns – it doesn’t matter which one, and tell them that you want to go to the Straw Poll, but you can’t afford it. “No problem” they’ll say, “How many tickets do you need”. And that’s it. Not only do they buy you a ticket, but they’ll give you transportation to the event, and feed you to. And while it is implied that since Candidate “X” paid for your ticket you are voting for Candidate “X”, you are under no obligation to vote for that candidate.

Me? I am going as a guest of the Ron Paul campaign, and while I am right now planning on voting for Representative Paul, I don’t plan on voting at all until I have listened to the speeches from the other candidates, so my vote is still up in the air.

Like I said, I’ve never been to a straw poll, so I don’t know exactly what to expect, but it should be an interesting time. I’ll let you know how it went, and share some photos and stories from the event with you. And I’m going to keep a special look out for all of those racist, homophobic bigots that I keep hearing show up at events like this, but I’m pretty sure the Newshounds don’t have a booth in Ames, so I probably won’t find any. Have a great weekend…….

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. OK, I was hanging tough through the spelling & grammatical errors until the “Lincoln was a Republican.” schtick. Yes he was, back in the days when that was the liberal party. Is that really the best you can offer, the lamest sort of obfuscation, aimed at only the most history-challenged among us? I thought that type of pseudo intellectual gibberish had been banished to the Yahoo News comment section

    I’m reminded of Krugman’s description of Gingrich: “A stupid person’s idea of what a smart personal sounds like.”

  2. You know Lamont, I think if you want to see yourself considered as intelligent you may want to comment on a post you actually read. I re-read the post just to make sure, and just as I thought, there was no discussion of Licoln at all in this post.

    I’m assuming your talking about my post titled “How Stupid Do This People Think We Are? And More Importantly, How Often Are They Right?”, since in that post I did mention Lincoln being a Republican, as one of the counterpoints to O’Donnells insipid “Liberals are the reason we have civil rights in this country” schtick.

    But then I have to wonder if you read this post either, as you bring up Lincoln and then as “is that really the best you can offer”. If you had read the article, I actually offered FIFTY-SEVEN facts that dispute O’Donnell’s comment. As for you lame attempt at an insult, (the lamest sort of obfuscation, aimed at only the most history-challenged among us), let me ask you this: Can you find proof that one of my facts presented were in fact wrong?

    Show me where I’m wrong in stating that The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

    Show me the falsehood in the fact that 6% of Republicans voted against the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, while 27% of Democrats opposed the lesgislation.

    You want more? I’ve got 55 more. But don’t let the truth get in the way of your argument.

    You are right that the Republican party of today – much like the Democratic party of today – is not like it was in the time of Lincoln. Hell, I don’t think either party is even a sliver of the parties they were even 30 years ago. But that doesn’t erase the fact that O’Donnells comments are full of holes.

    Oh, one last thing, if you want to attack Gingrich, be my guest, but I’m pretty sure ““A stupid person’s idea of what a smart personal sounds like.” is actually more fitting of a description of Krugman himself…

    Thanks for playing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: