[...]
The church is known for advocating women's and gay rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter
Watch the MSM disappear this story.
Monday, July 28, 2008
More Conservative Terror!
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Knoxville's police chief says the man accused of a shooting that killed two people at a Tennessee church targeted the congregation because of its liberal social stance.
[...]
The church is known for advocating women's and gay rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter
Watch the MSM disappear this story.
[...]
The church is known for advocating women's and gay rights and founding an American Civil Liberties Union chapter
Watch the MSM disappear this story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
Hilarious. For a guy who wants to see Steyn fined, or even jailed, for publishing his opinion, I find your own "reporting", to be extremely selective and biased.
One lonely loser who hates gays goes bezerk, and we get "More Conservative Terror!" In case you missed it, there is a worldwide campaign of terrorism and bombing by islamic fanatics. Not by conservatives. Hey, I'll even help you find them, and I expect to see your headlines of "More Islamic Terror!" shortly.
here,
here,
and here
Oh, and in case you missed this also, there is a recent survey that came out according to which 1/3 of conservative students support violence to further their ideology, as you can see
here.
Oh woops, my bad, it's not conservative students, its muslim students. Better not report this one then.
PS: you get extra hilarity points for the tag "Conservative Menace". I know that's what keeps me up at night, and Im glad to see Im not the only one.
"I find your own "reporting", to be extremely selective and biased."
You did notice the blog's title, didn't you?
In case you missed it, there is a worldwide campaign of terrorism and bombing by islamic fanatics. Not by conservatives.
Jermo, the Islamic fanatics are conservatives also. In fact, most progressives see very little difference between the conservative utopias either faction envisions.
In a way, it pains me to have to draw attention to the fact that your little distraction ('Look over there...Islamofascists!') ironically serves to highlight the commonalities between conservative radicals that have burdened the rest of us, the true conservationists of the best of Western traditions.
By the way..
For a guy who wants to see Steyn fined, or even jailed, for publishing his opinion...
Did you ever say this, BCL? I would hate to impugn Jermo's ability to recall important legal distinctions such as this.
I, for the record, never wanted Steyn to be fined or jailed. I wanted him shipped to a foreign prison somewhere and waterboarded.
BCL is a big fan of Sharia law. He has no problem with Iran hanging gays and adulterers. Haven't seen one post from him condemning Sharia or the countries that practice it. But some nutter goes on a rampage and BCL tags it to half the population who self identify as "conservative".
The CBC and Toronto Star do much the same but are much more nuanced about it. BCL just lets it all hang out.
I've always argued that Steyn would get off the Macleans thing and that the complaint was frivolous.
Welcome back ti-guy. This blog was getting much too civil.
You did notice the blog's title, didn't you?
Hey BCL, I know you're partisan. It's just a bit rich that you manage to produce faux-outrage at other people's partisanship, under the guise of "poor journalism" or "biased reporting".
In case you havent noticed, I actually support your right to publish hyper-partisan rhetoric, like this post. It's freedom of speech.
Yet, while you enjoy and practice this right, you rail on against Steyn's right to be partisan and publish biased and inflammatory material. Similarly, Suzuki and Hansen want to see deniers, or oil executives jailed for raising doubts about AGW.
Conservatives (the North-american kind), support less state intervention, lower taxes, government being concentrated on its core responsibilities (national defense, law and order, ...) I am not going to pretend that conservatives have always lived by these principles, but that is nevertheless one of, if not the, defining characteristic of a conservative.
Islamic fundamentalists want to see shariah law implemented, thereby having the state intrude into every nook and cranny of what we would consider to be an individual's private life. So, in effect, islamic fundamentalists and conservatives are polar opposites.
poor sod was probably mad as a Hatter because of worrying about global warming and he was unable to bear the guilt over his violent de-flowering of mother Gaia.
Not his fault, maybe he can sue Al Gore. He's made hundreds of millions so should be a prime target for a good trial lawyer.
Maybe John Edwards is available for hire.
I am not going to pretend that conservatives have always lived by these principles, but that is nevertheless one of, if not the, defining characteristic of a conservative.
That's because those neo-liberal/libertarian principles are not the principles of most conservatives.
I can count on one hand the vanishingly small number of soi-disant conservatives who hold to these principles, a group of people whose manifest failing is to believe that the ignoramuses who they're allied with are actually capable of ordering lives according to these ideals.
Islamic fundamentalists want to see shariah law implemented, thereby having the state intrude into every nook and cranny of what we would consider to be an individual's private life. So, in effect, islamic fundamentalists and conservatives are polar opposites.
You really do have to disregard a significant rump of your movement to believe this, don't you? Is it hard to do? Does it make you feel guilty for being disingenuous? When confronted with the religiosity, illiberalism and authoritarianism of a significant proportion of the Right, do you feel discombobulated?
Abortion, restrictions on contraception, same sex marriage...how on Earth do you think these restrictions on individual liberty are going to implemented without intolerable state intervention and massive social re-engineering?
By the way, Jermo...how come you never engage your fellow travellers here?
Do they scare you? Do they embarrass you into silence? Or are they the little bezerkers you guys count on to irritate/intimidate/distract/exhaust the rest of us while you and your movement goose-step to a majority?
Auntie Liberals hit it right on the BUTTON.
I have no problems with liberals at all. It's just people like BCL, Ti-Guy,and Red Tory are so ignorant that I have to give em some tongue sometimes.
Auntie Liberal is 100% correct when she says that BCL laughs when a Canadian soldier is killed.
And the defamation, Jermo...the bold-faced, grotesque defamation. Doesn't that cause you to despair sometimes?
ti-guy, first off let me say that I appreciate that you're engaging in a discussion, not just name-calling.
secondly, I will readily admit that so-called conservative politicians are far from perfect, and do not always stick to a conservative agenda. all Flaherty budgets are a case in point (i liked the lower taxes, not the increased spending).
thirdly, internal contradictions are rife in all ideologies - liberalism included.
WRT, to your specific examples:
abortion is a legitimate law and order issue - even the supreme court said so in R. v. Morgentaler - the Canadian legislative void on this issue is unique in the western world.
restrictions on contraceptions: christian elements were unhappy with that in the 1960s. I dont know of any conservative who supports legislating around contraceptives, and if there are, they are completely wrong, not because contraceptives are great (they are), but because the state has no business legislating morality. Same thing with the war on drugs. There isnt a shred of a conservative case that can be made in support of the war on drugs.
ssm: is about the state recognition of a relationship. gays should enjoy the same substantive rights as non-gays (visiting rights, inheritance ...), but this is not a good example of conservatives being untrue to their principles.
"I have to give em some tongue sometimes."
I had to laugh at that one.
"Jermo...how come you never engage your fellow travellers here?"
Are you asking why Jermo doesn't try to reach out to his allies like Johnathon and Auntie liberal? I'm actually curious to hear the response. My guess is that johnathon is a jermo shill. They probably hang out together and drunken dial auntie liberal.
And the defamation, Jermo...the bold-faced, grotesque defamation. Doesn't that cause you to despair sometimes?
Whatever insults you throw my way are like water on a duck's back (or however that saying goes).
No seriously, the existence of nutters on any side of the political spectrum is not an argument for anything.
Whatever garbage Jonathon spews out (suggesting that BCL laughs at Cdn soldier's death - that's disgusting), has no bearing on my position. He's an idiot.
I hope you dont base your ideology on the absence of nutters on the left. They are many.
Actually JERMO SAPIENS, BCL does laugh at Canadian military deaths. You must realize that Liberals dont like the military. They like to squeeze the military to the point of cancelling a contract with the loss of 500 million dollars.
Maybe I'm wrong and BCL doesn't laugh at a soldier's death. However, he NEVER posts anything about a fallen soldier.
NEver, ever, evea, evah, evahhh.
"BCL does laugh at Canadian military deaths. You must realize that Liberals dont like the military."
Jermo,
he's got you there. Time for some engagement, as ti-guy suggests. Be careful, though, he might want to give you some tongue.
ti-guy, first off let me say that I appreciate that you're engaging in a discussion, not just name-calling.
I am truly blessed by being lavished with this most generous and fulsome praise.
secondly, I will readily admit that so-called conservative politicians are far from perfect, and do not always stick to a conservative agenda.
Never have in my almost five decades of existence, as far as I can tell. And do you know why? Because the conservative agenda (the real one) is profoundly unpopular.
(i liked the lower taxes, not the increased spending).
I wish so-called conservatives would stop pretending they care about anything else but their money. It's something I can even sympathise with, although it's entirely selfish and anti-social.
thirdly, internal contradictions are rife in all ideologies - liberalism included.
Liberalism is non-ideological and pragmatic and assumes a complex reality. Whatever contradictions crop up are understood at the outset to be issues to be resolved. That's certainly not the same thing as wondering how libertarians and social conservatives can reconcile among themselves, although from what I gather, it simply means dismissing the rump of rightist radicals as irrelevant. As long they contribute to and vote for the Party, that's all that matters.
abortion is a legitimate law and order issue - even the supreme court said so in R. v. Morgentaler - the Canadian legislative void on this issue is unique in the western world.
That doesn't explain the contradiction between the conservative principle of non-State intervention and the control of other people's very bodies, surely the most intrusive form of State intervention there could be. It just explains how parliamentary democracy works.
I dont know of any conservative who supports legislating around contraceptives, and if there are, they are completely wrong, not because contraceptives are great (they are), but because the state has no business legislating morality. Same thing with the war on drugs. There isnt a shred of a conservative case that can be made in support of the war on drugs.
This is libertarianism, not conservatism. The fact that you're sharing political space with people who are "completely wrong" is highly significant.
No seriously, the existence of nutters on any side of the political spectrum is not an argument for anything.
No, but your (and others') silence with regard to this not inconsequential number of nutters on the Right is an argument for something; I speculate that they are the useful idiots the CPC needs to gain absolute power.
What's your theory about that? Peruse SDA and FreeDominion for insight and inspiration if you need to before answering.
I hope you dont base your ideology on the absence of nutters on the left. They are many.
I'm not a lefty, so whatever nutters there are on the Left (and you're probably referring to that awesome demographic force to be reckoned with, the Canadian Marxists-Leninists) don't concern me. What other nutters you're referring to are a mystery to me.
Time for some engagement, as ti-guy suggests. Be careful, though, he might want to give you some tongue.
Agreed. It would be impolite for Jermo to dismiss this overture and irresponsible for him to pass up the opportunity to mentor one of his co-partisans.
Tiguy,
Welcome back. Weirdly enough, you are considered one of the attractions of this place.
And, Johnathon, I have never laughed at the death of a Cdn. soldier. I don't write much about Afstan because, politically, its off the table until 2011. Closest I've come to laughing at dead Cdn. soldiers is when my dad told me about his buddy in Cyrpress who lost a finger when he closed the door to his locker on it and wanted a purple heart.
"mentor one of his co-partisans"
while nice in theory...is it realistic to expect Jermo to "reach" someone that thinks BCL laugh's at a soldier's death? It's a bit much to hope for.
The reality is, there are as many nutters on each side of the fence. The difference is the ones on the left are more sympathetic (think hippie, pot smoker) than the ones on the right (think inbred white trash who hate "furriners"). Sadly, one such as Jermo must share the same platform, much like McCain (a sympathetic drunken skirt chaser back in the day) must with religious zealots.
Weirdly enough, you are considered one of the attractions of this place.
And I'm accused of not having a life. Oh, the irony...
I wish so-called conservatives would stop pretending they care about anything else but their money. It's something I can even sympathise with, although it's entirely selfish and anti-social.
yes, I care about my money. and i can only guess that you do too. in fact, it would be profoundly irresponsible not to care about money. what's anti-social, is for an able-bodied person not to pull their own weight and suck on the public teat for assistance.
Liberalism is non-ideological and pragmatic and assumes a complex reality.
That's classical liberalism, which is more closely related to neo-conservatism, not the touchy-feely, opportunistic, identity-politics, moral relativist, gaia-worshipping bullshit that comes from the NDP or the left wing of the Liberal party.
The fact that you're sharing political space with people who are "completely wrong" is highly significant.
Not really. What's more significant is that you think your "political space" is pure and without anyone who's "completely wrong".
is it realistic to expect Jermo to "reach" someone that thinks BCL laugh's at a soldier's death? It's a bit much to hope for.
I don't know why. Rightist nutters are mostly authoritarian followers who'll fall into line and agree with whatever their tribal superiors (the authoritarian leaders) tell them.
It's dead easy to ensure compliance among Rightists; you can tell them to believe something one day and believe the exact opposite the next and you'll get barely any opposition.
Notice how none of the CPC'ers mentions Harper's income trust flip-flop anymore? And that one hit them where it counts...their wallets, to the tune of billions of dollars.
"In case you missed it, there is a worldwide campaign of terrorism and bombing by islamic fanatics. Not by conservatives."
Islamic fanatics aren't conservative?
"Conservatives (the North-american kind), support less state intervention,"
Like, bombing and invading sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands in the process?
"lower taxes"
Borrowing money from your children so that you can have lower taxes is a "conservative value"? Noted.
"government being concentrated on its core responsibilities (national defence, law and order, ...) "
How convenient that you get to define what governments' "core responsibilities" are before expressing your support for governments focusing on "their core responsibilities".
"Islamic fundamentalists want to see shariah law implemented, thereby having the state intrude into every nook and cranny of what we would consider to be an individual's private life."
You got me there. As Stephen Harper famously said "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." I think he said it right before his party introduced the Divorce Act. Or maybe it was during his fight to legalize same-sex marriage. Was it in reference to the conservative's decriminalization of sodomy? Then again he could have said it just before he tabled his bill decriminalizing marijuana, or took the government to task for trying to censure film by deciding which would or wouldn't be eligible for tax credits. Was it said during his praise of the Morgentaler award?
what's anti-social, is for an able-bodied person not to pull their own weight and suck on the public teat for assistance.
You mean like wingnut welfare queen Mark Steyn?
That's classical liberalism, which is more closely related to neo-conservatism, not the touchy-feely, opportunistic, identity-politics, moral relativist, gaia-worshipping bullshit that comes from the NDP or the left wing of the Liberal party.
You're watching too much American television (which doesn't surprise me; I bet you know very little Canadian history as well). And classical liberalism is not related to neo-conservatism, no matter how much that is claimed. Neo-conservatism is premised on the noble lie and what it is related to most closely is Maoism. Remember Irving Kristol's chilling assertion:
There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.
Not really. What's more significant is that you think your "political space" is pure and without anyone who's "completely wrong".
That doesn't provide me with any useful insight. You're just saying "Yeah, well so are you!"
I know the people I'm politically affiliated with don't have a problem with doubt, don't make baseless assertions so cavalierly, don't mind admitting when they're mistaken and, more importantly, are their own political leadership's most vocal critics...unlike the sycophants and courtiers among the CPC.
"Notice how none of the CPC'ers mentions Harper's income trust flip-flop anymore"
Maybe the CPC'ers have fallen into line on this front, but Joe Public conservative is still reeling. However, I'm surprised the libs haven't dont a better job of scandalizing this flip flop as much as the cons did with Chretien and his GST abolishment promise. Dry powder for the election, I suppose.
See the sign in this article:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/28/in-tennessee-eliminationism-is-no-longer-just-a-joke/
And then some of the more vocal cons wonder what happened when someone acts on it.
speaking of nutters from the left, lenny comes in to provide a vibrant example in himself. thanks lenny.
What happened to the noble injunction against name-calling? Is that another conservative principle that became, rather suddenly, inconvenient?
neo-conservatism is like maoism? right, and all those Che-T-shirt wearing losers are are a bunch of Bush supporters too I bet.
More "Yeah, well you are too!"
Highly insightful, I must say.
I guess Jermo has abandoned dialogue, probably because it started become a little more difficult.
I guess I should stick with the vulgarity...
And one more useful link from FireDogLake on the inconsistency of conservatives vis-Ã -vis terrorism.
The silence is deafening.
It's significant to realise that most liberals will understand this mostly as the actions of a lunatic, whereas conservatives view events of this nature, when it involves the people they hate, as a manifestation of profound and widespread moral and ideological corruption.
These people represent a danger to us all.
"speaking of nutters from the left, lenny comes in to provide a vibrant example in himself. "
Feel free to support your assertion, or try and dispute anything I posted.
"What happened to the noble injunction against name-calling?"
He's not to blame, it was an involuntary pain-response.
when it involves the people they hate, as a manifestation of profound and widespread moral and ideological corruption.
you mean like BCL's title to this post "More Conservative Terror!"
islamic terrorism IS widespread, and represents ideological corruption - by those who support the terrorism.
ah, poor lenny wants attention.
sorry, i'd love to explain to you why your rant is wrong on all counts, but i've wasted enough time here today.
enjoy having your preconceptions confirmed by the echo chamber.
you mean like BCL's title to this post "More Conservative Terror!"
No, more like in the multitude of links provided from the post at FireDogLake that treated a similar event in a vastly different way.
islamic terrorism IS widespread, and represents ideological corruption - by those who support the terrorism.
Time for another comparative body count, Jermo. In any case, why don't we just give them the sophisticated equipment they need to bomb whole countries back into the Stone Age? Would that seem less ideologically corrupt?
sorry, i'd love to explain to you why your rant is wrong on all counts, but i've wasted enough time here today.
enjoy having your preconceptions confirmed by the echo chamber.
How juvenile, sour and petty. And they wonder why I don't bother being nice to them. It's a waste of time.
I can understand parody but this post really smells like shit.
Not funny, not biting, not clever.
Kind of a Ben Stiller impersonation in the movie Dodgeball.
I had such high hopes for you BCL. I am really disappointed.
Post a Comment