[Osx-nutters] AHMADINEJAD

[Patrick Coskren]

On Sep 22, 2006, at 2:26 PM, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Patrick Coskren wrote:

>> That doesn't matter.  My point is that the people pictured were  
>> not in any way, shape or form mainstream liberals, mainstream  
>> "Left", or mainstream Democrats.  They were, in general, nutballs,  
>> and it's every bit as dishonest to present them as representative  
>> as it would be to present a picture of Terry Nichols, say, as a  
>> representative USA gun owner, when 99% of gun owners are perfectly  
>> decent people[1].
>
>
> I'll grant your point that the (silent) majority of Democrats are  
> not the bile spewing type in the photos.
> Like the majority of Republicans, they just go about their lives  
> and do their protesting at the ballot box.
>
> BUT.   The one's that 'are' in the news have no analog on the  
> right.   There are no giant parades of Republicans all covered in  
> body paint carrying signs that claim that Ried  or Pelosi are  
> Stalinists.    Even is we suspect they are..

> (Sorry for the mind's image that caused)

Bastards!  <cough>  Excuse me.

But, I find your point perplexing.  Have you never seen the abortion  
protesters screaming at frightened women while holding their placards  
of bloody fetuses?  Have you never the counter-protests at Pride  
Marches?  Hell, have you never listened to Pat Robertson?

I suppose the left-nutters are more likely to get naked than the  
right-nutters, but that's merely window dressing.

As for claiming Ried and Pelosi are Stalinists, the hard-Righties  
regularly claimed Clinton was a murderer.  There's nuts on both sides.

> Perhaps it's because the rabid component of the left are the most  
> visible and vocal, it does give the appearance that they are a  
> little less ah.. stable than the mainstream is comfortable with.     
> As long as the silent left doesn't refute what they do, they will  
> get lumped into the same pile, and kept out of power.

They'll get lumped into the same pile by Republican propagandists,  
yes.  The alternative is to spend all their time disavowing nutcases  
like Ward Churchill, in which case they'll get lumped into the same  
pile by the principle of "where there's smoke, there's fire".  That's  
the dichotomy the Republicans want.  I think the best course is to  
mostly ignore them.  The only people who really associate those  
nutcases with people like Reid and Pelosi are the people who buy all  
the Republican propaganda, and let's face it, the Democrats aren't  
winning those people over no matter what.

> Don't get me wrong.  Protest all day..  I'll support it.    Rage  
> against policy and war that you disagree with.  No problem here.
> Take your money from a.n.s.w.e.r and try to recruit for the  
> "Peoples Communist Party"  at an anti-war rally and your image is  
> going to be tainted and your message marginalized by the company  
> you keep.  Unfair?  Perhaps.  Lie down with dogs.. get fleas..

But... who's lying down with them?  What prominent Democrat or  
liberal is recruiting for the Communist Party?  The nutballs may be  
claiming they're representative, but what can anybody else do about  
that?  It's a free country.

> Example: 2005 anti-war ralley DC..  <http:// 
> www.windchimewalker.net/-webpages/9-24-05-antiwar-photos.html>   
> taken by some lefty that was happy with the results and posted her  
> pictures of the rally.     No exactly conducive to convincing the  
> main stream of your message no?

I must be missing it.  Are you objecting to the "Peace is Patriotic"  
sign?  Or the "Have we Forgotten Who we Are?"  one?    This doesn't  
look too out-of-the-mainstream to me.  It's just protesters.

> Cindy Sheehan represents 1/300E-6 people but when she is seen  
> getting smoozy with Chavez the left looses a lot of the middle  
> people that recognize Chavez, Castro etc..  for what they are.

Thing is, nobody pays attention to Sheehan any more.  Even on the  
left.  When she was pointing out that Bush didn't have a good reason  
for sending our troops to die, people supported her.  When she went  
more extreme, people drifted away.  The rightwing propagandists (the  
Rushes, O'Reillys etc) want to keep pretending she's relevant to tar  
Democrats with opinions they don't generally have.  Hyping Sheehan is  
just the same trick as with those websites you originally posted.

> Here is a counter example.
>
> "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he  
> is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at  
> a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General  
> Assembly speech on Wednesday.
>
> *diety* bless her little pointed head for standing up for the  
> entire country for a change.
>
>
> or even Charlie Rangel..  Someone I disagree with on almost every  
> political issue.
>
> http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/ 
> CBRStatementChavezUNspeech09212006.html
>
> Damn..   That is the right thing to say to Chavez, and a lot of  
> people on the left could learn something from this quote.
>
> "Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no  
> right to attack him personally."
>
> Good for Mr. Rangel.  (something I never thought I'd type)

Got to admit, I don't have much of an opinion on Chavez, other than  
to agree that he's probably a thug.  Remind me why anybody cares what  
he says?

> Oh.. final shot at the whole radical Muslim thing..
>
> "Jesus is not getting near my love pump..   To much contact with  
> Lepers..."
>
> (Just to set the tone.)

I'm speechless.  :-)

-Patrick