Is it time for the left to take a look at its own hateful rhetoric?

[Fear No Evil]

We're constantly blasted with stories about how the Tea Party, talk radio, conservatives in general are spouting 'hate speech' which in turn leads people to commit acts of violence or other acts of bigotry, racism, etc. We are told that these groups need to stop spouting dangerous rhetoric because it only encourages people to act out.

So now we have the 'Discovery Channel Bomber' who has been clearly influenced by the left-wing rhetoric coming from people like Al Gore and other global warming alarmists... ahem, climate change alarmists. Is it not time for us to take a look at some of the dangerous rhetoric being spouted by people like Gore and determine if its pushing people to commit acts of violence in the name of liberal causes?

We have people throwing around the terms like 'holocaust' and the end of the world when it comes to climate change. This seems awfully similar to what the left claims the right wing is doing. I think its time the left, the press who support them, and the leaders of specifically the climate change movement take a good hard look at themselves to see if they are not spouting the same hate speech they accuse others of. This Discovery Channel guy is just the tip of the iceberg I think as left-wing groups whip people into a frenzy over climate change and other issues.

 

[Tristicus]

Of course not. That would mean accountability. That is not what they are about. NOT NOW, NOT EVER.

 

[MJinZ]

/Don't give a shit about climate change

/I could use some nice warm weather year round

/We libs are smart and will build a weather machine anyway

/thread

 

[Vette73]

Kettle meet pot. Pot... kettle

 

[Fear No Evil]

Kettle meet pot. Pot... kettle

That makes no sense whatsoever. We're CONSTANTLY being told the right's rhetoric could lead to violence. What we DON'T see is anyone holding the left accountable for their rhetoric. Of course the right is a bunch of bigoted racist people who want to kill everyone. What we need to point out is the left is the same way.

 

[Red Dawn]

We're constantly blasted with stories about how the Tea Party, talk radio, conservatives in general are spouting 'hate speech' which in turn leads people to commit acts of violence or other acts of bigotry, racism, etc. We are told that these groups need to stop spouting dangerous rhetoric because it only encourages people to act out.

So now we have the 'Discovery Channel Bomber' who has been clearly influenced by the left-wing rhetoric coming from people like Al Gore and other global warming alarmists... ahem, climate change alarmists. Is it not time for us to take a look at some of the dangerous rhetoric being spouted by people like Gore and determine if its pushing people to commit acts of violence in the name of liberal causes?

We have people throwing around the terms like 'holocaust' and the end of the world when it comes to climate change. This seems awfully similar to what the left claims the right wing is doing. I think its time the left, the press who support them, and the leaders of specifically the climate change movement take a good hard look at themselves to see if they are not spouting the same hate speech they accuse others of. This Discovery Channel guy is just the tip of the iceberg I think as left-wing groups whip people into a frenzy over climate change and other issues.

Ahahaha, get serious. I know you guys say Liberalism is a mental illness but come on, this guy was off his rocker.

 

[CrackRabbit]

What it boils down to is that there are gullible idiots on both ends of the political spectrum.
Some of those idiots are going to go off the deep end, whether it be blowing up abortion clinics, or organizing anti-government "militias" to taking down power transmission lines, booby trapping trees or taking hostages at the Discovery Channel HQ, they will act.
We as the people of the US should realize this and attempt to get help for these mentally unstable people so that things of that nature can be prevented.

 

[her209]

Is it not time for us to take a look at some of the dangerous rhetoric being spouted by people like Gore and determine if its pushing people to commit acts of violence in the name of liberal causes?

Examples of "dangerous rhetoric being spouted" please.

 

[zinfamous]

there are crazies on both sides. anyone can admit that.

but I find it hilarious that you seem to think that the threat potential from a group that largely preaches: environmental awareness, social equality, scientific advancement, is somewhat profoundly anti-war, etc...

is as equal a threat as the crazies that come from a group that preaches:
anti-government, revolution, arm the fuck out of everyone, God>humanity, etc...

In the end, a crazy person is a crazy person is a crazy person. No one likes crazy people. I think OP is paranoid and offended that some democratic face needs to openly apologize for some crazy dude representing what he (OP) thinks to be the sum-total of their party's core values.

this won't happen, of course...b/c OP is grasping at straws.

 

[zinfamous]

That makes no sense whatsoever. We're CONSTANTLY being told the right's rhetoric could lead to violence. What we DON'T see is anyone holding the left accountable for their rhetoric. Of course the right is a bunch of bigoted racist people who want to kill everyone. What we need to point out is the left is the same way.

The right produces heavily-armed militia people in Montana. Abortion clinic bombers....

armed crazy people exist on the left, obviously, but you could plug the fucking hole in the golf with the number of right-leaning crazy people that are a real threat.

It's an issue of numbers. Once the dangerous crazy leftists become statistically significant, perhaps we'll address that.

Fuck--it's not like the left-leaning crazies recently invaded two countries. :hmm:

 

[her209]

What it boils down to is that there are gullible idiots on both ends of the political spectrum.
Some of those idiots are going to go off the deep end, whether it be blowing up abortion clinics, or organizing anti-government "militias" to taking down power transmission lines, booby trapping trees or taking hostages at the Discovery Channel HQ, they will act.
We as the people of the US should realize this and attempt to get help for these mentally unstable people so that things of that nature can be prevented.

There's whackos on both ends, but look at the language coming from the Tea Baggers:
"Don't retreat... reload."
"Don't tread on me."
"Taking our country back."
"Its time to water the Tree of Liberty."
"We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."
etc. etc.

 

[Thump553]

Having read the Discovery Channel bomber's demands, I don't most of us would classify him as either left or right. He had his own "environmental" agenda-basically along the lines of humans are evil, get rid of humans to save the planet. Last I knew being anti-human being was not a leftist doctrine although FNW would probably like to claim it is.

He also had an anchor baby rant which is straight out of the tea party camp-and as such may have been influenced by the vast amount of tea party bile that has been so public recently.

Personally I'd classify him as a deeply anti-social nutjob to whom politics were essentially irrelevant.
Last I knew being anti-human being was not a leftist doctrine although FNW would probably like to claim it is.

 

[CrackRabbit]

There's whackos on both ends, but look at the language coming from the Tea Baggers:
"Don't retreat... reload."
"Don't tread on me."
"Taking our country back."
"Its time to water the Tree of Liberty."
"We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."
etc. etc.

Let them be angry, and spout off "patriotic" slogans. They have every right to.
You know as well as I do that angry language is just that.

Only the truly mentally ill will attempt to take drastic action on it.

 

[Lemon law]

Global warming is a scientific hypothesis or theory. And its stupid to cite Gore as he may be a pied piper of global warming but never the science behind global warming.
But at the end of the day, there is no love or hate in a scientific hypothesis, just a lot of debate as both sides debate while the final scientific proof remains incomplete as the science research is ongoing.

And as Red Dawn points out the guy was off his rocker, if he had not chosen to be obsessed over global warming he would have picked some other cause like flat earthing or something.

 

[senseamp]

Term "holocaust" in itself is not hateful. Alarmist, maybe, but not hateful.

 

[her209]

Let them be angry, and spout off "patriotic" slogans. They have every right to.
You know as well as I do that angry language is just that.

Only the truly mentally ill will attempt to take drastic action on it.

Isn't that what this whole thread is about (angry language)? I don't think you could equate anything coming out of the global warming camp to anything that is coming out of Tea Baggers, etc. on the anger scale. In other words, Al Gore isn't running around telling people to "Save the planet -- kill humans." That's what I'm saying.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Isn't that what this whole thread is about (angry language)? I don't think you could equate anything coming out of the global warming camp to anything that is coming out of Tea Baggers, etc. on the anger scale. In other words, Al Gore isn't running around telling people to "Save the planet -- kill humans." That's what I'm saying.

Al Gore might not be, but I'm sure if you looked hard enough there are plenty of "environmentalists" that advocate just short of complete eradication of the human race to "protect the planet".
Those people would be raving loons, as are quite a few of the 'Tea Baggers' who advocate overthrow of the government.

But they all have the right to think and in most cases advocate whatever they want.

 

[woolfe9999]

Lone crazies are and always will pop up on both sides of the political spectrum. It is really a question of degree. The truth is that organized left wing violence has largely been a non-issue in this country since the 60's and 70's when it actually WAS an issue with groups like the Weathermen and SLA. Where are the left wing groups who are heavily armed and spouting rhetoric about "watering the tree of liberty," talking about civil war and revolution, of gunning down their political opponents?

Then again, to be fair, most of this violent talk from the right is just that...talk.

- wolf

 

[her209]

Al Gore might not be, but I'm sure if you looked hard enough there are plenty of "environmentalists" that advocate just short of complete eradication of the human race to "protect the planet".
Those people would be raving loons, as are quite a few of the 'Tea Baggers' who advocate overthrow of the government.

But they all have the right to think and in most cases advocate whatever they want.

How much air time are these environmental whackos getting versus Tea Baggers?

 

[squirrel dog]

Here is a famous democrat explaining his position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

 

[CrackRabbit]

How much air time are these environmental whackos getting versus Tea Baggers?

Much less admittedly, the more extreme enviro-wackos tend to stick to the internet.
The Tea Baggers tend to get a lot of air time because a few people figured out that they can make lots of money by spouting strongly worded patriotic BS to the masses that are gullible enough to listen but not mentally ill enough to act violently on it.
The same could be said about the less extreme environmentalists like Al Gore, people like him learned how to make a lot of money by spouting tales of environmental disaster to the masses that are gullible enough to listen.
(Before I get flamed on this, my belief is that yes the climate of the Earth is changing. However it can not be proved to certainty that this climate change is man made or part of some yet to be understood warming/cooling cycle that the Earth has.)

 

[feralkid]

Al Gore might not be, but I'm sure if you looked hard enough there are plenty of "environmentalists" that advocate just short of complete eradication of the human race to "protect the planet".
Those people would be raving loons, as are quite a few of the 'Tea Baggers' who advocate overthrow of the government.

Yes they would.

However, most environmentalists I've spoken with tend to agree that "saving the planet" is a misnomer, i.e. the planet will be just fine; it is humanity that needs to be saved. From itself, mostly.

 

[zinfamous]

Let them be angry, and spout off "patriotic" slogans. They have every right to.
You know as well as I do that angry language is just that.

Only the truly mentally ill will attempt to take drastic action on it.

that's the point. The truly crazy that shout such language are generally much more of a threat. The truly crazy that come out of a crowd that says "Save the whales! End this war!" tend to be less dangerous.

and as was mentioned--the anti-human agenda of this particular whacko is without specific political affiliation.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The Party of Hate playing the victim card in a FNO thread? Must be getting close to an election. Color me not surprised.

IIRC, the "Liberals = Hate" rhetoric went no where in 2006 and 2008. We appreciate your 'recycling' but your election playbook is getting a little redundant.

The Discovery Bomber is the 'tip of the iceberg' in " ... pushing people to commit acts of violence in the name of liberal causes ..." just like the GOP Party of Hate will take responsibility for the destruction of this country.

It ain't happenin'.




--

 

[CPA]

The right produces heavily-armed militia people in Montana. Abortion clinic bombers....

armed crazy people exist on the left, obviously, but you could plug the fucking hole in the golf with the number of right-leaning crazy people that are a real threat.

It's an issue of numbers. Once the dangerous crazy leftists become statistically significant, perhaps we'll address that.

Fuck--it's not like the left-leaning crazies recently invaded two countries. :hmm:

I think you are forgetting quit a bit of the leftist groups that espouse violence and have used it in the past. I think they are very statistically significant, and we don't even have to go to Europe, the bastion of violent liberalism to get significant. Just because the right is pro-gun does not make them more violent.

The far left has:
Black Panthers and their ilk
Earth Liberation Front
Unions
Anti-Globalists
Anarchists

The far right has:
Militias
One or two abortion clinic bomber
KKK and their ilk