Is (gri)malkin trying to be funnier than Franken?

Oh, why do you people hate michelle and the troops and jesus so much? All that ruining the country you've been doing has just made you bitter...

Malkin's in the middle?

I know some dumb people, but even they have a sense of shame. Malking doesn't

It seems wrong to post this, I mean what if I posted that it was a conservative posing as a liberal posing as a conservative in order to discredit the liberals. Would we want that posted over there or in the MSM? I mean while I agree that it's BS to hold a blog responsible for the anonymous wackjobs that frequent the site, why would we do it now? It may be serios and ernest and probably is but it'd be easy to go to their site and go outrageous just enough to get past the scrutiny and still shock your average American if taken seriously.

instaputz has some more on malkin posters' conspiracy theories and some bat54!+ insane reynold's ramblings as well:

http://instaputz.blogspot.com/

Uh, isn't this just nutpicking?

You guys kinda bitch a lot when the other side does it, now you're doing it yourself.

Whole lot of pot calling the kettle black methinks.

George dubyah Bush (D)

Reverend J @ 14:

Uh, isn't this just nutpicking?

You guys kinda bitch a lot when the other side does it, now you're doing it yourself.

Whole lot of pot calling the kettle black methinks.

The GOP needs no help from us, Their doing just fine on their own.
Just look at the last seven years.

Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.

I find it interesting that almost every news account I have read on this story excluded this information.

"The church’s Web site states that it has worked for “desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women’s rights and gay rights” since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers."

Them damn Christ-punchers.

I'm sure O'Reilly will come out (heh) and say that anyone who 'makes a big deal' out of this is just playing politics with the tragedy. Something a paragon of virtue, discretion and tact such as himself would never do of course...

Proud2bHumble @ 6:

Malkin's in the middle?

cute, P2B, but really, she's ALL OVER things like this.

You knew Malcontent wouldn't miss this chance to blame this on libruls. now certainly, if a gun-totin', bitter and unemployed white man shot up a church, he was librul.

Reverend J @ 25:

JinIll @ 17:

Reverend J @ 14:

Uh, isn't this just nutpicking?

You guys kinda bitch a lot when the other side does it, now you're doing it yourself.

Whole lot of pot calling the kettle black methinks.

Yer right. We're sorry. We'll just sit down and STFU now. Thanks so much for the friendly reminder.

Then my work here is done.

Have patience with the 'rev.' Obviously not playing with a full deck...

extreme right wing liberal hater they exist...i don't believe anything malkin writes

This blogger is admitting to carrying a concealed weapon in a church. Interesting. In Michigan there would be severe penalties.

The shooter committed murder and this blogger is trying to mix it up, besides being extremely rude. Bizarre.

From what's her name page:

atheling:

If he hated libtards, whey didn’t he go shooting at some college campus?

-----

Ya know, because of nutcases like this, I have started packing heat when I go to church. I don’t tell anyone in my parish about it, but I am prepared for the event that if some evil bastard attempts to do the same, he will get a head full of lead in return.

-----

You know what I think? He didn’t hate liberals. He hated Christians. He wanted to leave the impression that he is a conservative who hates liberals, however, to discredit conservatives.
Evil.

-----

TheOtherSide:

Are you a 9/11 truther too?

atheling:

Nope, but anyone who is as evil as this guy, to go into a church and shoot up innocent people, is capable of doing something as low as this kind of obfuscation.
You’re just a naive Obamaton, what the hell do you know? Nothing.

atheling:

Oh, and go back to reading your People magazine, dimwit.

Attila the Appeaser, No Stomach for Kristol @ 32:

How do we know Michelle Malkin is not a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad? I don't trust her for some reason.

That job is left to Drugbaugh, O'Racist, and Savage-Weiner.

Whether he targeted the church for it's theology or politics is largely moot, since they see their political activity as a part of their theology.

I think the reichwingers like (gri)malkin are desperately overreaching to protect their image which is already in tatters rather than feel for the victims is significant.

Unitarian/Universalists are monad thelogists not trinitarian. The Unitarian faith was ran out of Western Europe and found a home in the Carpathian mountains, particularly around Romania, which was interesting, being that was an Eastern Orthodox country, nearly as authoritarian as the Roman Catholic West.

Today the UU even have CUUPS, which if I remember correctly means Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, so some occultic groups meet there.

That's why reichwingers have no concern for the victims and only for themselves.

Snowball @ 27:

If Conservatives were true strict Constructionists, they'd insist that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muzzle loading muskets and flintlocks. Surely the Framers did not predict the advent of double barreled shot guns, assault rifles and automatic pistols.

If the conservatives were conservatives, we wouldn't be looking at a half trillion dollars a year budget deficit.

Noun @ 1:

He hated Christians and liberals.

Why do you think he went after the Unitairans?

That's why Malkin's claim is so ridiculous. Unitarian Universalists ARE liberal in their social action activities, but they aren't "Christian" but rather are pan-religious, studying finding commonalities and value in all the major religions.

People from that church should think about suing those media personalities and their employers on his "reading list" -- they incite people's hatred, and some lunatics will absolutely resort to this kind of violence, just as the rightwing ranting against abortion resulted in the murder of physicians and bombing of clinics.

Mike @ 29:

Snowball @ 20:

Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.

I find it interesting that almost every news account I have read on this story excluded this information.

What no The Catcher in the Rye? Shameful, well I guess O'Reilly is the new J. D. Salinger, hey thats better than a Peabody right?

Certainly, none of those talking heads pulled the trigger, but Hitler and Goebbels didn't directly kill anybody either. For that matter, neither did Charles Manson however, as a civilized society, we still hold them to account.

The monads were murdered and/or chased out Europe by the successful Constantine Christians nee sun worshippers after the Council of Nicea (380 ce?) from which we get the Nicene Creed.

Fortunately today most Christians are like Pelagius and his heretical Pelegians of the 5th century. Pelagius taught that heaven was achievable by all under their own efforts, but Christianity makes a hard job easier.

Snowball @ 41:

Mike @ 29:

Snowball @ 20:

I find it interesting that almost every news account I have read on this story excluded this information.

These guys remind me of the people on Hutu radio in Rwanda inciting the people to genocide.

What no The Catcher in the Rye? Shameful, well I guess O'Reilly is the new J. D. Salinger, hey thats better than a Peabody right?

Certainly, none of those talking heads pulled the trigger, but Hitler and Goebbels didn't directly kill anybody either. For that matter, neither did Charles Manson however, as a civilized society, we still hold them to account.

ysbaddaden @ 35:

Whether he targeted the church for it's theology or politics is largely moot, since they see their political activity as a part of their theology.

I think the reichwingers like (gri)malkin are desperately overreaching to protect their image which is already in tatters rather than feel for the victims is significant.

Unitarian/Universalists are monad thelogists not trinitarian. The Unitarian faith was ran out of Western Europe and found a home in the Carpathian mountains, particularly around Romania, which was interesting, being that was an Eastern Orthodox country, nearly as authoritarian as the Roman Catholic West.

Today the UU even have CUUPS, which if I remember correctly means Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, so some occultic groups meet there.

That's why reichwingers have no concern for the victims and only for themselves.

Sometimes you just bend my mind, ys...

ysbaddaden @ 43:

Pelagius taught that heaven was achievable by all under their own efforts, but Christianity makes a hard job easier.

Where was old Pelagius when I needed him? I was THIS close to achieving heaven under my own effort, but got my finger snagged on the hook to her bra strap.

According to this person, liberals who apparently are retarded, whom he calls 'libtards', are to be found on college campuses.

He would be more polite to say that liberals are intellectually challenged, though they are found on college campuses. Isn't wonderful that our colleges offer those poor liberals a chance to improve themselve, challenged as they are.

This while (s)he misspells the word 'why'.

I rather suspect it is a he, the phrase 'packing heat' rather leads me in that direction.

The comportment speaks for itself.

atheling:

If he hated libtards, whey didn’t he go shooting at some college campus?

I've subscribed to many of these wacko sites, but it is almost impossible to post anything. They want to rant, but don't want any feedback of any kind.

Johnny2Bad @ 48:

You're right, John.

Pulling and posting "comments" from any political blog is Bush league.

So what's the point here? Their nutbags are crazier than our nutbags?

Sounds about right to me.

The comparison between today's right wing talking heads and the responsibility of Hutu hate radio in Rwanda is spot on.

Snowball @ 57:

The comparison between today's right wing talking heads and the responsibility of Hutu hate radio in Rwanda is spot on.

...just waiting for the phrase "liberal cockroaches" to spew out of some random hole...

I am sure that by the end of the day the spin doctors will make the right wing the "true" victims of this tragedy.

Comparing these people to scum would be an insult to detritus...

Why do we care about that bitch!

they need no help from murdering wingnuts....they discredit themselves all by themselves.....every time they open their gaping maws...........................

ysbaddaden @ 35:

Whether he targeted the church for it's theology or politics is largely moot, since they see their political activity as a part of their theology.

I think the reichwingers like (gri)malkin are desperately overreaching to protect their image which is already in tatters rather than feel for the victims is significant.

Unitarian/Universalists are monad thelogists not trinitarian. The Unitarian faith was ran out of Western Europe and found a home in the Carpathian mountains, particularly around Romania, which was interesting, being that was an Eastern Orthodox country, nearly as authoritarian as the Roman Catholic West.

Today the UU even have CUUPS, which if I remember correctly means Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, so some occultic groups meet there.

That's why reichwingers have no concern for the victims and only for themselves.

Considering the history of Eastern Rome, I'd dispute the Roman Catholics being more violent. Without an outside restraining force, we Christians are violent nasty buggers, much worse than similarly unrestrained Muslims. Fortunately, the US system for a long time has served as that sort of restraining force. If it ever completely collapses, the result would be catastrophic.

But apparently we can't talk about this shooting because ....uh.....why?

You know what I think? He didn’t hate liberals. He hated Christians. He wanted to leave the impression that he is conservative who hates liberals, however, to discredit conservatives.

So nice of Sigmund Fraud to give Michelle Mentalcase the benefit of his expertise with an internet diagnosis.........

ysbaddaden @ 43:

The monads were murdered and/or chased out Europe by the successful Constantine Christians nee sun worshippers after the Council of Nicea (380 ce?) from which we get the Nicene Creed.

Fortunately today most Christians are like Pelagius and his heretical Pelegians of the 5th century. Pelagius taught that heaven was achievable by all under their own efforts, but Christianity makes a hard job easier.

In some ways, I wish we Christians had gone with something more like Modalism, as it would more easily display our commonality with the Jews and Muslims without linguistic circus-turns. The fact is, though, that unrestrained Christianity, without ya'll nonChristians and the Constitution to bind us, is a monster that needs to be kept in chains. Bad stuff happens without it.

It is understandable that people will try to make sense of the rambling psychosis of this sick, miserable bastard. It's what we do. Try to make sense of things. Unfortunately the only truth here is that a sick man took a gun and murdered random people because he was mentally ill. Period.
Shit happens.
More so in large populations.

Johnny2Bad @ 48:

Keep your hands off my nutbag.

Of course other massacres of note was Juvenal (?) complaining tha Xians can't find precipices to throw themselves over, or ropes to hang themselves without forever making trouble for their authoritites in their lust for martyrdom.

Two apostles in the New Testament, I forget which ones, murdered another Christian because he tried to hold back some of his tithe to support his family.

Than of course was the wholesale slaughter between partisans of the rival popes Eusebius and Marcius (sp?)

Then was the good Xian general (one of the Nine Worthies) Godfrey of Boullion who slaughtered his Eastern Orthodox hosts in Greece right up to the steps of their most holy church Hagia Sophia.

Then there was King Richard the Lion Heart who promised safety for his prisoners to Saladdin, and then had them flayed alive in front of the Islamic hero.

Then there were centuries of torturing and burning people to death in both Catholic and Protestant sects.

The conservatives need no help to look bad.

This'll probably be my last entry as my dial-up is bogging down.

Nada @ 75:

It is understandable that people will try to make sense of the rambling psychosis of this sick, miserable bastard. It's what we do. Try to make sense of things. Unfortunately the only truth here is that a sick man took a gun and murdered random people because he was mentally ill. Period.
Shit happens.
More so in large populations.

Uh, and he just happened to have books by Micheal Savage, Bill O'Reilly and Sena Hannity as well as leaving a four page letter about how he was doing this because he hated Liberals and Gays.

Never mind that entire societies have been motivated to genocide by hate speech. There must be mass outbreaks of mental disorder. Perhaps it's contagious?

This guy is a liberal like ALL OF THESE GUYS are liberals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUE65Lea6kQ

Conservatives are liars and deceivers. That is such a ridiculous comment by a right wing prick, on Malkin's blog for losers, I won't even dignify it with a comment.

CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 80:

General_Rennenkampf @ 76:

conservatoire @ 72:

Talk about fucking absurd PRETZEL-LOGIC.

History records that it has always been conservatives who have gone on these kind of shooting sprees, or committed assassinations.

Plaster everything with the fact that this nonsense came courtesy of Michelle Malkin's website.

It truly makes me ill.

Always conservatives? I think President McKinley would disagree with that.

enlighten us, please.

JinIll @ 78:

General_Rennenkampf @ 76:

conservatoire @ 72:

Talk about fucking absurd PRETZEL-LOGIC.

History records that it has always been conservatives who have gone on these kind of shooting sprees, or committed assassinations.

Plaster everything with the fact that this nonsense came courtesy of Michelle Malkin's website.

It truly makes me ill.

Always conservatives? I think President McKinley would disagree with that.

Taking a cue from the malkinites:

Ah, but if the supposed leftist actually killed someone, then he wasn't really a leftist. Ha -- gotcha with mai awsoom mm lahjuk.

The guy that killed McKinley, Leon Czolgosz was an anarchist, and somebody who genuinely acted on what he believed. I should be fair, however, and note that Czolgosz was neither affiliated with any group of anarchists, or acting on their behalf. However, lack of affliation doesn't change the fact that he killed the President believing in 1900s anarchism any more than it changes the UU church assassin's belief in conservative Christianity.

ysbaddaden @ 77:

Johnny2Bad @ 48:

Keep your hands off my nutbag.

Of course other massacres of note was Juvenal (?) complaining tha Xians can't find precipices to throw themselves over, or ropes to hang themselves without forever making trouble for their authoritites in their lust for martyrdom.

Two apostles in the New Testament, I forget which ones, murdered another Christian because he tried to hold back some of his tithe to support his family.

Than of course was the wholesale slaughter between partisans of the rival popes Eusebius and Marcius (sp?)

Then was the good Xian general (one of the Nine Worthies) Godfrey of Boullion who slaughtered his Eastern Orthodox hosts in Greece right up to the steps of their most holy church Hagia Sophia.

Then there was King Richard the Lion Heart who promised safety for his prisoners to Saladdin, and then had them flayed alive in front of the Islamic hero.

Then there were centuries of torturing and burning people to death in both Catholic and Protestant sects.

The conservatives need no help to look bad.

This'll probably be my last entry as my dial-up is bogging down.

As I said, without an outside force to restrain Christians of any sort, such as the secular US constitution or the Muslims in the Middle East, bad shit happens. I'm grateful ya'll secularists managed to cut down the Church to size. You hadn't....

let's just say that we'd be still living in feudalism, or near to it.

conservatoire @ 72:

Talk about fucking absurd PRETZEL-LOGIC.

History records that it has always been conservatives who have gone on these kind of shooting sprees, or committed assassinations.

Plaster everything with the fact that this nonsense came courtesy of Michelle Malkin's website.

It truly makes me ill.

they can check his PC logs.

CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 88:

General_Rennenkampf @ 85:
so he's a leftist?
how does someone who simply doesn't subscribe to any order become a leftist?

I don't think that's what you mean.

Anarchism and Communism are the extreme left, Radical Right-Libertarianism and Fascism are the extreme Right. The Czolgosz kind of Leftist was emasculated following the Red Scares and the Cold War. The Goering kind of Rightist, OTOH never received that level of emasculation in the US, particularly when the Conservative Resurgence of the 80s occurred. What Limpballs and Insanity call the far left is nothing of the sort, that died well before their time.

JinIll @ 90:

General_Rennenkampf @ 85:

CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 80:

General_Rennenkampf @ 76: enlighten us, please.

JinIll @ 78:

General_Rennenkampf @ 76:

Taking a cue from the malkinites:

Ah, but if the supposed leftist actually killed someone, then he wasn't really a leftist. Ha -- gotcha with mai awsoom mm lahjuk.

The guy that killed McKinley, Leon Czolgosz was an anarchist, and somebody who genuinely acted on what he believed. I should be fair, however, and note that Czolgosz was neither affiliated with any group of anarchists, or acting on their behalf. However, lack of affliation doesn't change the fact that he killed the President believing in 1900s anarchism any more than it changes the UU church assassin's belief in conservative Christianity.

I was just being snarky and trying to point up the malkanite's attempts to disown one of their own. Despite the fact that anarchism doesn't fit neatly on the left-right spectrum, I don't think anyone would seriously argue that there aren't loons and goons on the left. The point being made is that, way more often than not, pshychokillers tend to be rightwingers.

True, psychokillers tend to be rightwingers, as the Left has only had some 150 or so years to cause mischief, whereas the Right in some form or another has existed for longer, in the form of Spartan-style governing in the West, or Legalism in the East. The Left is relatively new. Even so, for a newfangled idea, it hasn't had nearly the sort of outright brutality that goes along with the Right. The Symbionese Liberation Army of the 1970s was very much a lesser evil than the Klan a century earlier, which incidentally could be argued to be the first fascist movement in history.

I read malkins' readers comments for good fun all the time and "atheling" is certifiable.

JinIll @ 94:

General_Rennenkampf @ 91:

CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 88:

General_Rennenkampf @ 85:
so he's a leftist?
how does someone who simply doesn't subscribe to any order become a leftist?

I don't think that's what you mean.

Anarchism and Communism are the extreme left, Radical Right-Libertarianism and Fascism are the extreme Right. The Czolgosz kind of Leftist was emasculated following the Red Scares and the Cold War. The Goering kind of Rightist, OTOH never received that level of emasculation in the US, particularly when the Conservative Resurgence of the 80s occurred. What Limpballs and Insanity call the far left is nothing of the sort, that died well before their time.

I disagree with this analysis. How do account for all the rightwing anti government types. And what are 'radical right wing libertarians' is not anarchists?

Leftism anarchism is distinguished by a generally positive view of human nature based on a more kind humanity, Radical Right-Libertarianism is a Hobbesian nightmare. Both Left and Right have their extreme let-you-do-WTF-ever-you-want and their extreme do-WTF-ever-government-tells-you-to-do wings.

The modern antigovernment types disappeared when Bush took office, I believe they are more anti-liberal democracy. And note, that their rhetoric never calls for the abolition of government entirely, like straightfoward anarchism does, but instead for a return to the 18th Century, a reactionary position as opposed to a revolutionary one.

General_Rennenkampf @ 97:

JinIll @ 94:

General_Rennenkampf @ 91:

CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Victory Over SCLM, DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA! @ 88:

Anarchism and Communism are the extreme left, Radical Right-Libertarianism and Fascism are the extreme Right. The Czolgosz kind of Leftist was emasculated following the Red Scares and the Cold War. The Goering kind of Rightist, OTOH never received that level of emasculation in the US, particularly when the Conservative Resurgence of the 80s occurred. What Limpballs and Insanity call the far left is nothing of the sort, that died well before their time.

I disagree with this analysis. How do account for all the rightwing anti government types. And what are 'radical right wing libertarians' is not anarchists?

Leftism anarchism is distinguished by a generally positive view of human nature based on a more kind humanity, Radical Right-Libertarianism is a Hobbesian nightmare. Both Left and Right have their extreme let-you-do-WTF-ever-you-want and their extreme do-WTF-ever-government-tells-you-to-do wings.

The modern antigovernment types disappeared when Bush took office, I believe they are more anti-liberal democracy. And note, that their rhetoric never calls for the abolition of government entirely, like straightfoward anarchism does, but instead for a return to the 18th Century, a reactionary position as opposed to a revolutionary one.

This is where notions of 'left' and 'right' get all tied up in pretzelized semantics and layers of definitions. It's why I prefer a three dimensional plot with one axis ranging from more authoritarian to less authoritarian and the other ranging from traditionalist to progressive. I still contend that anarchists don't fit neatly on a two dimensional left-right spectrum.

Snowball @ 98:

General_Rennenkampf@85

Leon Czolgosz was an assassin who took his rage out on a head of state hoping to replay the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand . Agree or not, it was a political act. He was rejected by the Anarchist community before he ever acted. Quite different from this guy.

The point is, he was a sick person manipulated and motivated by hate speech and the constant demonization of Liberals and Gays by the right wing noise machine. Heaven forbid we shall ever see the day when the Limbaughs, Malkins, Hannitys and O'Reillys unleash a mass epidemic of homicidal rage as happened in Rwanda, or more systematically, in NAZI Germany.

I pointed that out that Czologosz was not affiliated with any anarchist groups, but he still considered himself to be one, similar to how the Rudolph wing of Christianity often isn't connected to a church, period, but appoints itself defenders of the unborn and of Christendom, as well.

And yes, Limbaugh, Malkin and all them preach something only slightly different from Hitler's definition of what to do with those who disagree with them. What scares the crap out of me at night, sometimes, is that the Radical Christians and Radical Muslims will discover how similar they are and end up working together. If that happens, consider the world boned.

He couldn't find a job thanks to the Bush-whacked economy, so when a bunch of perverse, extremist pundits spewing hatred exploit his rage and tell him who's to blame, look what happens.

Way to go hate-mongers! Are ya happy now?

Someone at TPM wrote a great post on this. Check it out.

This guy does a GREAT job of showing just how fucked up the right wing sites are. You want to know where hatred comes from? Read his post.

JinIll @ 99:

General_Rennenkampf @ 97:

JinIll @ 94:

General_Rennenkampf @ 91:

I disagree with this analysis. How do account for all the rightwing anti government types. And what are 'radical right wing libertarians' is not anarchists?

Leftism anarchism is distinguished by a generally positive view of human nature based on a more kind humanity, Radical Right-Libertarianism is a Hobbesian nightmare. Both Left and Right have their extreme let-you-do-WTF-ever-you-want and their extreme do-WTF-ever-government-tells-you-to-do wings.

The modern antigovernment types disappeared when Bush took office, I believe they are more anti-liberal democracy. And note, that their rhetoric never calls for the abolition of government entirely, like straightfoward anarchism does, but instead for a return to the 18th Century, a reactionary position as opposed to a revolutionary one.

This is where notions of 'left' and 'right' get all tied up in pretzelized semantics and layers of definitions. It's why I prefer a three dimensional plot with one axis ranging from more authoritarian to less authoritarian and the other ranging from traditionalist to progressive. I still contend that anarchists don't fit neatly on a two dimensional left-right spectrum.

No, they don't fit on a two-dimensional left-right spectrum, but left-right referring to 18th Century definitions of left-right, remember, this originated in the French Revolution to refer to republicans on the left and monarchists on the right. That reference became obsololete sometime around 1917 when the monarchies fell all over the place. The Left-Right idea is outdated, and we need new terms to refer to 21st Century political realities, IMHO.

Politics, to me, ranges from spectrums of libertarian-Left (Anarchists) and Authoritarian-Left (Communism), both united by generally utopian views of mankind, and libertarian-Right (Libertarian Party members), and Authoritarian-Right (Fascism-Nazism), united by a dystopian Hobbesian view of mankind. I only use Left and Right because they're easier to use, really. The terms remain obsolete, though, due to the political framework in which they emerged having vanished in a cauldron of warfare and revolution.

Honestly, I don't think it's productive to get in the weeds with commenters on conservative sites. Just because they do it doesn't mean we should. I think we need to ignore this type of thing. It doesn't serve any purpose and we should be above it.

General_Rennenkampf @ 108:

JinIll @ 106:

JinIll @ 104:

General_Rennenkampf @ 101:

Not sure wha' happened. Meant to say: But, luckily that can never happen.

Don't be so sure, Bush's Administration has stood in unison with such fanatical Islamic regimes as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and we are all well aware of Bush's fanatical Christian rhetoric. Some radical Christians have expressed admiration for the radical Muslims as well, and people have put aside far greater differences to achieve common goals (usually with the intent to stab people in the back, but still...), so I'm afraid if guys like this church shooter and guys like the bombers in Istanbul and Ahmabad get together, we're fucked.

Sure, they might work together tactically. That sort of thing happens all the time with, as you note, each having a dagger ready for their ally's of convenience back. But they can never get over their mutually contradictory revelations to ever work together strategically.

General_Rennenkampf @ 107:

JinIll @ 99:

General_Rennenkampf @ 97:

JinIll @ 94:

Leftism anarchism is distinguished by a generally positive view of human nature based on a more kind humanity, Radical Right-Libertarianism is a Hobbesian nightmare. Both Left and Right have their extreme let-you-do-WTF-ever-you-want and their extreme do-WTF-ever-government-tells-you-to-do wings.

The modern antigovernment types disappeared when Bush took office, I believe they are more anti-liberal democracy. And note, that their rhetoric never calls for the abolition of government entirely, like straightfoward anarchism does, but instead for a return to the 18th Century, a reactionary position as opposed to a revolutionary one.

This is where notions of 'left' and 'right' get all tied up in pretzelized semantics and layers of definitions. It's why I prefer a three dimensional plot with one axis ranging from more authoritarian to less authoritarian and the other ranging from traditionalist to progressive. I still contend that anarchists don't fit neatly on a two dimensional left-right spectrum.

No, they don't fit on a two-dimensional left-right spectrum, but left-right referring to 18th Century definitions of left-right, remember, this originated in the French Revolution to refer to republicans on the left and monarchists on the right. That reference became obsololete sometime around 1917 when the monarchies fell all over the place. The Left-Right idea is outdated, and we need new terms to refer to 21st Century political realities, IMHO.

Politics, to me, ranges from spectrums of libertarian-Left (Anarchists) and Authoritarian-Left (Communism), both united by generally utopian views of mankind, and libertarian-Right (Libertarian Party members), and Authoritarian-Right (Fascism-Nazism), united by a dystopian Hobbesian view of mankind. I only use Left and Right because they're easier to use, really. The terms remain obsolete, though, due to the political framework in which they emerged having vanished in a cauldron of warfare and revolution.

So where does progressivism -- traditionalism fit in this model?

The right wing noise machine doesn't get it. They are creating monsters like this man who killed in a church. You and I know what is next. Obama will be shot by a white angry man who listens to Rush, Sean, O'Reilly, Milken, Coulter, Savage and the other usual suspects. They then will again blame it on us like they do everything. They are for a one party system and against Democracy. Read my book 2199 on Amazon and see their reviews and then understand their warped minds. Thomas Sutton, Author of 2199

JinIll @ 113:

General_Rennenkampf @ 107:

JinIll @ 99:

General_Rennenkampf @ 97:

This is where notions of 'left' and 'right' get all tied up in pretzelized semantics and layers of definitions. It's why I prefer a three dimensional plot with one axis ranging from more authoritarian to less authoritarian and the other ranging from traditionalist to progressive. I still contend that anarchists don't fit neatly on a two dimensional left-right spectrum.

No, they don't fit on a two-dimensional left-right spectrum, but left-right referring to 18th Century definitions of left-right, remember, this originated in the French Revolution to refer to republicans on the left and monarchists on the right. That reference became obsololete sometime around 1917 when the monarchies fell all over the place. The Left-Right idea is outdated, and we need new terms to refer to 21st Century political realities, IMHO.

Politics, to me, ranges from spectrums of libertarian-Left (Anarchists) and Authoritarian-Left (Communism), both united by generally utopian views of mankind, and libertarian-Right (Libertarian Party members), and Authoritarian-Right (Fascism-Nazism), united by a dystopian Hobbesian view of mankind. I only use Left and Right because they're easier to use, really. The terms remain obsolete, though, due to the political framework in which they emerged having vanished in a cauldron of warfare and revolution.

So where does progressivism -- traditionalism fit in this model?

More in the center-Left and the center-Right. Neither progressivism or traditionalism are usually associated with the mind-blowing insanity or cruelty that result from the fringes like Sovietism and Nazism. Traditionalism in European terms typically applied to monarchists, or after the period of 1917-1923, to those who wished to preserve a common set of values associated with the monarchial period. Progressivism refers to a generally moderate set of reform from the Left, as the radicals in the early 20th century were often more in tune with Lenin or Debs than with Sanger or the Mensheviks.

this is one of my favorite comments from the malkin thread:

On July 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm, MikeO said:
There are nut cases on both sides; I say this as a Goldwater era conservative. The one thing these lunatics have in common is an inability to accept personal responsibility for whatever their problems might be

really? i would have thought they also had in common things such as familiarity with guns and a personal history of interaction with a church so antagonistic in nature that it caused them to shoot a bunch of strangers in a fit of rage, but, hey, i'm not a Goldwater era conservative, so what do i know?

MikeO continues:
If he cannot accept personal responsibility for his problems, then he is not a conservative.That inability is a violation of a basic conservative tenet."

that's the bit that made me laugh -- oh, my! kicked out of the club on a rules violation!

these people sure are efficient at shifting bedshitters quickly into opposite land.

Thomas Sutton @ 115:

The right wing noise machine doesn't get it. They are creating monsters like this man who killed in a church. You and I know what is next. Obama will be shot by a white angry man who listens to Rush, Sean, O'Reilly, Milken, Coulter, Savage and the other usual suspects. They then will again blame it on us like they do everything. They are for a one party system and against Democracy. Read my book 2199 on Amazon and see their reviews and then understand their warped minds. Thomas Sutton, Author of 2199

Yes, they do get it. They're playing from a tried and true playbook, using every method of shifting blame from the economic elite onto the shoulders of defenseless minorities with every propaganda technique employed by demagogues, totalitarian regimes and accumulated capital that has been used in the past.

JinIll @ 120:

General_Rennenkampf @ 114:

JinIll @ 111:

General_Rennenkampf @ 108:

Sure, they might work together tactically. That sort of thing happens all the time with, as you note, each having a dagger ready for their ally's of convenience back. But they can never get over their mutually contradictory revelations to ever work together strategically.

That may be true, but tactically would be bad enough. The last thing the world would need would be the likes of Al-Sadr and Bob Jones III deciding to work together, in any sense.

After I posted this I thought you'd probably say something along these lines -- it's a good point and I agree. I still think even a tactical alliance at this time is unlikely. But I take your point that we better hope it remains so.

Well, I look at the Nazi-Soviet Pact as a counterpoint, but we agree anyhow, so that's that.

Reverend J @ 14:

Uh, isn't this just nutpicking?

You guys kinda bitch a lot when the other side does it, now you're doing it yourself.

Whole lot of pot calling the kettle black methinks.

Tell your bullshit to the victims families Rev......what an asshole.

General_Rennenkampf@118

What you're referring to is Classical Liberalism, the same kind of Liberalism that employed Pinkertons to massacre workers who dared to organize into unions.

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

Mike @ 29:

Snowball @ 20:

Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.

I find it interesting that almost every news account I have read on this story excluded this information.

What no The Catcher in the Rye? Shameful, well I guess O'Reilly is the new J. D. Salinger, hey thats better than a Peabody right?

Salinger was at least polite enough to isolate himself from the world. O'Reilly is not so considerate.

JinIll @ 127:

General_Rennenkampf @ 123:

JinIll @ 120:

General_Rennenkampf @ 114:

After I posted this I thought you'd probably say something along these lines -- it's a good point and I agree. I still think even a tactical alliance at this time is unlikely. But I take your point that we better hope it remains so.

Well, I look at the Nazi-Soviet Pact as a counterpoint, but we agree anyhow, so that's that.

I'm still not comfortable with the easy left-right spectrum here (and in your answer to my progressivism -- tradtionalism question). Many would say that Unca Joe (and the Chairman) never were anything approaching leftist, even given the complications and shortcomings of the term.

and I'm one of them (sorry to be so foxnewsy).

it tells me that malkin's a psycho nutbar, who'd rather support the conservative cause than justice for those who were slain.
so what's new?

Some Unitarians are Christians, but it is not a Christian denomination. It is Unitarian, in that it seeks to unite all faiths and is Liberal (in the modern sense) in practicing tolerance and celebrating diversity. This was not an attack against Christianity, it was an attack against diversity.

Malkin, daughter of Filipino immigrants, born in the USA, consistently vilifies brown people. She is a Bushie who will do or say anything to justify her own identity. I have always wondered how much KKKarl is paying her to be so insane--or maybe she was insane and KKKarl just is using her. She is one of the most hateful people on the planet and should be sent back. Somewhere.

. . . . OK, by Malkin's logic:

- 9/11 was Osama Bin Laden's attempt to discredit Muslims.

- the invasion of Iraq was Bush's attempt to discredit Neocons.

- the Abu Ghraib atrocities were Rumsfeld's attempt to discredit the US military. And manufacturers of digital cameras.

- violating the Geneva Conventions was John Yoo's attempt to discredit, let's see, Korean immigrants.

- warrantless wiretapping was Alberto Gonzalez's attempt to discredit . . . I guess that would be the Framers of the US Constitution. And the phone companies.

- the mortgage crisis was the banking system's attempt to discredit, um, capitalism.

Yup, uh-huh, it all makes total sense.

Any questions, Liberals?

She's just another circus clown. Who gives a crap what she thinks or says?

karen marie @ 141:

from malkin's comment thread, a report from the neighbor:

She said she ended up having to explain to him that she was a Christian.

“He almost turned angry,” she told the newspaper. “He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it.”

actually reading the bible and discovering it wasn't the perfect instruction manual he'd been lead to believe, his head exploded. i guess this explains suspicion of anything smacking of "advanced education" gets christianists all nervous -- someone might read the whole bible, by themselves, by accident!

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-man...

Snowball @ 134:

Some Unitarians are Christians, but it is not a Christian denomination. It is Unitarian, in that it seeks to unite all faiths and is Liberal (in the modern sense) in practicing tolerance and celebrating diversity. This was not an attack against Christianity, it was an attack against diversity.

It was an attack against a political viewpoint. I doubt this man had any clue what Unitarians worship. All he saw was a political affiliation, one his sick mind twisted into something evil and depraved.

AndrewK @ 146:

Snowball @ 134:

Some Unitarians are Christians, but it is not a Christian denomination. It is Unitarian, in that it seeks to unite all faiths and is Liberal (in the modern sense) in practicing tolerance and celebrating diversity. This was not an attack against Christianity, it was an attack against diversity.

It was an attack against a political viewpoint. I doubt this man had any clue what Unitarians worship. All he saw was a political affiliation, one his sick mind twisted into something evil and depraved.

I've read his x-wife attended Church there a decade ago.

He did hate Christianity though.