Conservatives Wish The US Would be Attacked
 

The only hope for the US is that OBL attacks us forcing us to change...


This is pretty disgusting. Glen Beck basically agrees with him before moving on. Fox news has and Glen Beck have yet to denounce this. The only outrage I have seen has been on left wing blogs.

For the longest time we have listened to the right accuse the left of being in bed with the terrorists but as it turns out it is the right that likes the terrorists.

To me the scary part is they basically say that they hope the US gets attacked so they can make a power grab, which is what people accuse bush of doing after 9/11.

This is disgusting...

Doesn't this seem like par for the course at Fox News?

Damn. I hate it when people start aping Limbaugh's debate tactics. I hate it when it's a mostly conservative thing, but I hate it even more when it crosses party lines.

To be fair, Glenn Beck and the guy he's interviewing are also annoying.

Yet another prime example of alarmist media.

We need a terrorist attack to protect us from liberalism and terrorists.

A fine example.

I like how Beck referred to the U.S. using "the land." How much longer do you think before he starts using "motherland" or "fatherland"?

conservatives have grown to like states of emergency.
that didn't take long.

and we have a department of heimat security.

As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I can admit that neither of those dipshits speak for all Conservatives

While that is true, why haven't we seen fox news condemn this yet? What about the conservative members of this forum? Why don't we have calls from the conservative blogs to boycott fox's advertisers?

Not reading your own thread, huh?

I'm not boycotting Fox News because that would require I watch it first.

I don't point to Maher or Franken and issue unqualified conclusions about liberals. You and roachboy, among others, ought to extend the same basic courtesy.

What’s striking about this clip is how closely it tracks some of the key tropes of nutroots paranoia during the Bush years. Now as then, it’s assumed that the greatest threat to the country is its own government. Now as then, the “solution” to getting the nation back on the right track involves some ghoulish catastrophic failure of national security (losing the Iraq war in Bush’s case, failing to prevent a new attack in this one). And now as then, because the president acted in a legally controversial way in one circumstance — Bush on “torture,” Obama on corporate takeovers — he’s instantly suspected of ruthless designs on the Constitution itself, irrespective of whether he actually has the support he’d need to change it. (If you think Blue Dog Democrats are going to vote for a massive gun grab, you’re kidding yourself.) The only major difference between then and now is that the nutroots indictment was limited to Republicans whereas Beck and Scheuer keep it bipartisan. Thank heaven for small favors, I guess.

Sorry I didn't know you were conservative off hand. However, I didn't ask why you aren't boycotting foxnews. I asked why aren't there calls to boycott their advertisers.... You know like they did when Letterman made a joke about Sarah Palin's oldest daughter...

Maybe because it's silly to get so upset over a stupid argument on TV?

Fwiw, I thought the outrage over Letterman's joke was a little more ridiculous than the outrage over this. He clearly meant Bristol. That's the only way the joke makes sense. I still would've cheered if he got kicked off the air, though, because he sucks.

All the TV News Media Channels are Whores. It's so f***king plain to see that I've stopped watching most of it, most of the time.

Yep. Me too.

Thank you for your rational use of common sense. I would be willing to go so far as to say that neither of those dipshits speak for most conservatives.

Both of 'em? :lol:

Every time I see stuff like I don't find what they're saying offensive—they'd have their own mothers raped for some ratings—it's the people watching, nodding their heads. They can get to me. It's the people willing to overlook the facts and abandon their ethics simply for that odd feeling of belonging that comes from partisanship. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly liberal and I've been known to be a bit partisan from time to time, but never at this kind of level. I don't think there are more than 2 people in all the time I've been on TFP that would resort to the Fox News viewer level of partisanship and group think.

The question that should come from watching this should be: what do we do with people at home that are agreeing with this?

Glenn Beck isn't an analyst or a journalist. The guy is a "personality". He gets paid to act like a dick and say outrageous shit so that everyone will tune in next week to see how he manages to one-up himself. It worked for Howard Stern.

Besides, its largely acknowledged that Beck has replaced John Edward as The Biggest Douche in the Universe. The guy gets torn a new one every single night by Stewart/Colbert. The Glenn Beck show offers a great opportunity to sit back, relax, and watch a grown man make a complete and utter dickhole of himself.

What did we do with the Westboro Baptist Church? Have a quick laugh at their expense then let them fade in to obscurity like Crystal Clear Pepsi.

"Glen Beck basically agrees with him before moving on. Fox news has and Glen Beck have yet to denounce this. The only outrage I have seen has been on left wing blogs."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess, Rekna, that these left wing blog's are the only place you saw this 1:30 second clip in the first place. Have you ever seen a short clip from fox news posted on one of these blogs where they weren't outraged. That's what they exist for.

I can't remember what thread it was, but recently ratbastid posted a clip where fox news had a "(d)" in front of Sanford's name and had him suggesting this wasn't a mistake and chanting "fuck you fox news". Now, I watched fox news quite a bit that particular day. They consistently referred to him as republican, vocally, in the text below the screen, etc etc. And this exact same complaint, by (and again I'm gonna go out on a limb) from media matters on fox news, happened a year or so ago. Is fox news consistently making this mistake, only every so often,JUST enough time for people to forget about the charge, or are your left wing blogs just playing you.

Media matters succeeded in outraging you, you succeeded in outraging this board, for what? You already hate fox news because of media matters, and the irate circle continues.

I've watched Glen Beck before, don't necessarily agree with him about everything, but I know he's not (nor is fox news for that matter) what you exhaust so much energy trying to portray them as. I watch this clip and think, "huh". That's it. Not enough for me to go on, not enough to get worked up about, and certainly no less scary than some of the liberal positions (not taken from clips) heard right here on this board: willravel offering up is basement to guantanamo prisoners, the same place he's tested how effective waterboarding is as a torture mechanism on his friends. (that's not an insult, and I dont' mean to "mix games" or pick on Will - it just came to mind). Or the defense that islamic extremists posting video of cutting peoples heads off, by suggesting they are "freedom fighters". It baffles me.

I don't know what media matters is... I hate fox news because they carry stuff like Bill O'Reiley and Joe Scarborough. I've watched them from abroad and they are even nastier when viewed out of the US context.

Problem is, it's not the first time. Not by a LONG damn shot. Look, here's another. And I could find you more.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...-foley-d-1.jpg
(Oh yeah... FUCK YOU, FOX NEWS!)

If you don't recognized Fox News as the propaganda machine that it is, they've already successfully turned your brain to oatmeal.

When I go into a store or restaurant that's got Fox on, I leave, and I tell them why I'm leaving. Fox News is actively bad for America. And not because they're conservative. I don't mind being disagreed with. I mind very much indeed that propaganda is being spoonfed to a slice of America in the guise of straight news.

Before you even go to "Mahr Olberman Maddow Lefty Blogs Just As Bad You Hypocrite", watch the recent clips and postings from those guys blasting Obama for his "prolonged detention" bullshit. The guys on the left are commentators--which means the speak from opinion and an editorial standpoint--but they stand for what they stand for and they're not afraid to go after "their own". They're not a party mouthpiece. Fox News is nothing but a bullhorn held up to the right-wing platform, and the more insane they get, the more rabidly their followers (not viewers... followers) drool for them.

EDIT: You know what? Find me one screen grab where CNN or MSNBC made the same "mistake". You're going to say that there aren't any because nobody's watching them the way people are watching Fox, and maybe you're right. Still, the conclusion one HAS to draw is that the "liberal media" is more honest than the "fair and balanced" propagandists.

EDIT PART DEUX: I was looking for the place where I saw a bunch of these "mistakes" all rounded up and put in context. Finally found it.

http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...8344567567.jpg
(This was during the primaries, when all the commentators were proclaiming that McCain was too moderate to be the GOP nominee.)

http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...7457856785.jpg
This was while Specter was grilling Alberto Gonzales. Hey--that's not a lie, just a prediction!

http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...4523452345.jpg
This was around the time Chafee was labeled "the most liberal Republican in the Senate".

http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/im...6465456475.jpg
Stevens had just been nailed for ethics violations.

Let's all say it together, shall we? FUCK YOU, FOX NEWS.

Source

...someone has indeed let the propaganda machine turn their brain into oatmeal. (<-----psst, Shakran, not an insult, responding in kind)

You don't have to find me more. That came from media matters as well, correct? I can just go there myself, or we can start threads about every one of their rants/photoshops. I obviously watch more fox news than you (you run when you see it -that is HILARIOUS, BTW), I've never seen that mistake, ever. And I specifically look for it knowing these left wing blogs "find it" and feed it to you.

OK, so some douchebag "conservative" who once referred to Ron Paul and his supporters as terrorists who should be dealt with militarily (thanks to the Nov.5th fundraiser), wishes the US would be attacked.

I've had gun-grabbing leftists tell me that they hopes I or a member of my family would be murdered with a firearm so that I would then "see that guns are evil things for nothing but killing." Idiots and asshats are idiots and asshats, and they populate -both- ends of the political spectrum.

As for Fox News mislabling people; yes, stupid and asinine. But CNN got caught misrepresenting a full-auto AK-47 as being banned under the soon-to-expire AWB (And showed it demolishing a cinder-block wall), while the semi-auto WASR-10 (looks like an AK, but isn't) was shown -not- damaging the wall...because the shooter intentionally missed. The impression was that the machine-gun was soon to be made available at the town gun-shop (it isn't, wasn't, and won't be). They lied, they got called on it numerous times, and they were eventually forced to retract. So don't pretend Fox are the only lyin' sonsabitches out there, they just sell their dishonesty to a different political persuasion than most of the rest of the TV media.

you don't watch fox news, you run from it. you know about it only through your self proclaimed "honest and fair and balanced" media outlets. how can you draw any conclusions about it.

I rest my case. Have a good day.

There is a difference between disagreeing with someone's viewpoint and not being able to take them seriously.

I cannot simply disagree with Mr. Beck.

I'm not against all conservative principles. I am not too strongly opposed to liberal conservatism; it's just that many key powers under that description simply made a mess of things.

I'm not opposed to fiscal conservatism either. It's just that I don't think it exists. If fiscal conservatives do exist, well, then, they aren't very good at what they do.

That said, I don't think Beck represents, nor speaks for the average conservative. I'm not sure he even considers himself one. Maybe he's a libertarian. I know for certain he's a rabble-rousing, alarmist, populist propagandist (calling him merely a political commentator and/or entertainer is undermining what he really is). That is far worse than the average conservative...because it misleads the minds of the average conservative.

matthew I have watched a whole lot of fox news. I used to watch it daily. About the time Bush got elected the second time I decided to stop watching it because of it's blatant dishonesty. I do not read media matters and even if I did it doesn't change the fact that we have a guy here saying he wants the US to be attacked on fox news and fox news says nothing about it. At the same time fox news calls democrats unpatriotic and terrorist sympathizers.

Honestly I think media matters is likely a lot more honest than fox news of course that doesn't take much. The problem with fox news is they do not report the news. They decide each day what they want the news to say and then find news that matches their predetermined talking points. That is not how news should be. News should only report the facts and should not make any conclusions about those facts (this goes for the liberal media like Kieth also).

well, to my mind it is pretty clear that conservatism is not a single entity. and it is obvious that there are no spokesmodels who Enunciate the Conservative Propositions of the Moment. but there is a consistent ideological framework that enables the coalition of conservative groups/positions to talk to each other and to elaborate common reference points both for themselves and with respect to whatever the imagine themselves to oppose.

you'd think that a politics like beck's--which is not coming from nowhere---that finds something kinda logical at the least about the notion of conservatives governing from a state of emergency to be quite strange. for example, you'd expect libertarian conservatives to flip their shit about it because nothing--at all--could be more opposed to their notion of rights and the constitution than a state of emergency, which suspends the constitution. you'd think that social conservatives would be at the least kinda perplexed by this as well---a state of emergency has nothing to do with their agendas, unless they're able to imagine that in the context of such a state the Leader would impose or be able to impose laws that advanced their interests that would otherwise not be possible to have implemented.

neo-cons typically are focused on the Great Game of Diplomacy really. i can see becks position as of a piece with some aspects of that, but i don't see it following directly from neo-con positions simply because they're oriented outward, toward the world.

but they do fit in with this kind of skeevy fascism-lite that we saw the bush administration default into after 9/11/2001.
what i think makes this both bizarre and dangerous (witness that period of the bush administration) is that i am not at all sure there are people--except maybe for glenn beck and the dude he is interviewing--who see this fascism-lite as a positive politics---i dont see people advocating it as central to their viewpoints---rather i see it as an implied position, something that follows from other things and that can shape actions in a situation like that which would follow another attack.

sometimes i think it'd be better for all of us were there a segment of the conservative movement that would embrace this stuff explicitly and advance it as a political viewpoint because then there'd be something discrete to go after, to debate--but it doesn't seem to me that we are in such a context.

were it not for the period after 9/11/2001, i'd be inclined to dismiss beck at al as rightwing populist nutjobs. and they are---but there's something stranger about all this.

The_Dunedan wins the thread. Seriously folks, it really gets no simpler than that.

I hate to put it so bluntly, but our wingnuts don't have guns.

Well yeah. How are your wingnuts going to get guns when they don't have jobs?

If you think more than 50% of the unemployed are liberal, you're going to have to cite a reliable source.

Glenn Beck told me so and Rush Limbaugh backed him up.

John Stewart ripped into them last night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...Attack-America

What do you call those funny-looking black thingies that ATF, FBI, NRO, FCC, TSA....agents, plus SBI agents, sherriff's Deputies, and local LEOs carry, "Magic Wands?" Of course your wingnuts have guns, they not only have guns but a legally-legitimated "right" to use them against whomever they like, wherever they like, however they like, and for whatever reason they like.

I'm not familiar with that nickname. If you're referring to tasers (I'm honestly just guessing), we don't have those either. Ever been to a protest? It's the liberals that get tased, not that are doing the tasing.
No, our wingnuts really don't have guns. The absolute most radical liberals in the US might occasionally light an SUV on fire out of protest, but no guns. No radical armed militias. No murders in a holocaust museum. No bombings of abortion clinics. No half demolished Murrah building.

You simply can't compare liberal terrorists with libertarian or conservative terrorists. Our extremes are not in equilibrium.

Frankly, I'm looking at this clip and what I come away with is: no one actually said they wished for a terrorist attack, they were just saying that's what it would take for the (presumably) American people to finally 'come around' to their way of thinking. Not exactly the same thing. Fantastically stupid and insensitive, but not the same.

That said, I've no doubt that both of those guys are assholes that hold all manner of opinions that I object to. I've never actually seen Glen Beck before today, but from what I've heard he's generally understood to be one of those hyperbolic troglodyte types that are so easy to hate.

I say meh. There may be crazy folks out there who take people like this seriously but they are just as disenfranchised and voiceless as the rest of us.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2.../stopstart.jpg

Sadly this the truest statement of them all. I tend to watch a number of different channels, but I tend to like a few progams on Fox. I do not agree with all the viewpoints mentioned but they do raise issues not discussed on other channels. You can not only have one sided news media which we for the most part have. And sadly the truth is they are all whores, any channel you watch will be slanted one way or another, but you need to try to take it all in and formulate your own decisions.

Taking a news channel and taking their word for fact, sadly is almost like taking politicians on their word. The sad fact is most of the country is sheep and do not realize this.

For the record Joe Scarborough is an MSNBC morning guy.

As to the OP, crazy fucking shit. But to his credit beck got through it without crying.

No, I was referring to the GUNS you keep insisting your wingnuts don't carry.

Tell Vicki and Sammy Weaver that, or maybe Jesse Trentadue...oh that's right, you can't, because your wingnuts shot them or beat them to death. Technically your wingnuts don't -have- guns, they simply send thugs -with- guns to do their murdering and looting for them.

With the entire Federal Law Enforcement and Military apparatus marching to your tune, why would you need them?

Coupla incinerated churches and shot-up family cabins, though, to say nothing of the "brag photos" Jesse Trentadue's killers took of him and mailed to his family.

Firstly, I defy you to name a libertarian terrorist. Second, you're correct; the extremes are not in equalibrium. One group is armed with ad-hoc weaponry, frequently insane ideology, and a displaced sense of belonging. The other is armed with an Army, a Navy, an Air Force, the Marine Corps, a frequently insane ideology, and an equally displaced sense of belonging. This is the first logical thing you've said.

The guns you attribute to phantoms or surrogates.
Very nice try, but Bill Clinton wasn't in office until January 20th, 1993. Ruby Ridge was In August of 1992 under a Republican White House with republican senior officials. Anyway, statistically many more FBI agents are republicans, especially senior officials under republican administrations. It's been the same in most federal agencies and all the military for a very long time. I'm afraid you can't attribute that kinda thing to liberals in any way.
Tim McVeigh believed in radically small government and voted for Harry Browne (L) in 1996. He even identified himself as libertarian in an interview with the Washington Post. Like many conservative youths, he started Republican, but moved libertarian as he became more politically aware.
You'll have to demonstrate this before declaring debate victory. So far you've not really provided any evidence of this.

Correct, and a point I make to BushBots on a regular basis. However, it was Clinton's DoJ that illegally changed the Rules Of Engagement which resulted in Vicki Weaver's death.

Which makes not one damned bit of difference as long as the "just follow orders," which they do.

Irrelevant. What someone -calls- themselves is of no worth: leftists insist that, although Stalin called himself a Communist, he was not so. Fine, two can play at that game; Stalin was no Communist because he did not behave as one, fair enough. McVeigh did not behave in a libertarian manner, ergo he was not a libertarian. Libertarianism explicitly forbids the initiation of the use of Force (which McVeigh committed), attacks against civilians in time of armed conflict (likewise) and collective punishment (ditto.)

A Leftist is in control of the White House, yes? Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, yes? Even discounting the fact that the past Administration was little more than economic leftism hitched to unabashed militaristic nationalism and expansionism, the present state of affairs makes my point self-evident.

it's kinda interesting watching the ping pong match above centered on which ideological grid is going to determine where right and left are.
even the most basic categories are subject to disagreement.
the dunedan seems to think that "the left" and the state are the same thing. from my viewpoint, accepting that would also require that up be made down, red be made grey, apples be made squirrels that world be made a cube.
i see a single-party system dominated by two variants of conservatism. there is some motion within each of these two variants: at the moment, a moderate is in power. i see the right has having mostly imploded ideologically and a scattering, one manifestation of which is the rebranded militia movement. one of the political features of this rebranded militia movement is the articulation of a map of the political world that erases any coherent meaning for left/right distinctions, which enables them to position themselves as "patriots" or "3 percenters" or "oath keepers" just regular guys doing regular things and not a paranoiac populist crypto-fascist movement armed to the teeth and waiting for a provocation to come down on them from that Great Devil the state.

but i expect that for dunedan (just because you posted above) to accept that would also require that up be made down, red be made grey, apples be made squirrels that world be made a cube.

round and round.