Quote from: Jackalope;231105Yeah, I get it John, you are offering a post hoc justification for Limbaugh's comments that doesn't actually justify his comments, even though you don't know what he was talking about.

There are plenty of sites that address Limbaugh's claim about forests, which they quote as, "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written," and attribute to his radio show on 02/18/94.  I suspect the complaint comes from FAIR's "That's the Way Things Aren't", which I've read by the way.  

Given that I don't have a source on where Limbaugh's claim came from, my point is that there might be a legitimate reason behind that claim.  I asked you for your source for the 13 colonies explanation, since none of the other anti-Limbaugh sites that I found mention that as an explanation, and you couldn't provide it.  

Quote from: Jackalope;231105You are a disingenuous fuckwit, a lying mendicant and pestiferous sophist and apologist. Since I don't actually own a copy of The Way Things Ought to Be and can't put his full comment into context, why don't we drop this.

You raised the issue, not me.  Don't start whining just because it's not going your way.

Quote from: John Morrow;231108If you don't have any sympathy for his politics, then why are you understanding about what he did yet condemn Coulter for doing a lot less?

Because I am more sympathetic to misguided idealists than opportunistic demagogues.  Because, at the end of the day, I find for-profit demagoguery on behalf of the ruling elite that is occurring right now far more troublesome to democracy than I find the actions of one misguided and widely discredited revolutionary group from thirty years ago.

See, I get what Bill Ayers thought he was doing.  He thought he was fighting a  fascist government that was murdering people, both at home and abroad, for unconscionable reasons.  Was he right?  Hard to say.

Ultimately, I think he was wrong, not because the government wasn't what he thoiught it was (it was), but because I think the key to achieving progressive goals is peaceful resistance and civil disobedience, but I can understand how Ayers -- watching the government shoot protestors, turn dogs on them, spy on them -- could come to believe that violence was the answer.

But what is Coulter doing?  If she's serious, she's insane.  My mother -- a dyed in the wool liberal -- may be a bit daft in her politics, but she's hardly a traitor.  She shouldn't be considered a valid target, but she could have easily been in that church -- she goes to a very liberal Episcopalian church.  But Coulter would have you believe that because my mom is going to vote for Obama, and voted for Clinton, that she should be Guatamno?

Or is she joking?  If she's joking, that's deplorable.  That's calling for violence against others for...a joke?  Calling for violence because you genuinely believe that real freedom is at stake is one thing

But it does seem to mean that you are willing to step up and defend them or excuse them, which is exactly what you are complaining people on the right do with Coulter, Limbaugh, and others.  

QuoteIn other words, you are upset because you feel she's arguing that liberals deserve to die because they are a danger to America.  But when I offer you an example of a liberal who actually did try to murder his political opponents and their innocent families, you compare him to the "American Revolutionary Army".  What that tells me is that your problem isn't with the idea of people murdering their political opponents but with you being on the receiving end of it.  You think it's just fine to murder innocent people for politics as long as you agree with the cause.

This is so facile it defies credibility.

What this tells you is that I sympathetic to revolutionary groups operating from idealistic (if confused) motives, and not sympathetic to fascist shills who take a corporate paycheck to rail against harmless working class folk like my mom.

But you're right John, at the end of the day, my problem isn't with people murdering their political enemies, because at the end of the day I'm a realist and I know that tree of liberty is soaked in an awful lot of innocent people's blood.

But keep it up John, keep pretending that a confused revolutionary is the exact same thing as a demagogic hate-monger.  Keep pretending the there is no difference between the violence used by the oppressed against the oppressor and the violence used by the oppressor against the oppressed.

All you are illustrating is how completely out of whack your own moral compass is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;231036There are lots of dangerous left-wing loons out there. The main difference, as I said before, is that in the United States far less people listen to them than they do to the dangerous right-wing loons.

I think it's a reasonable argument that the left-wing loons have a similar degree of influence overall (perhaps greater in some ways), but through the University system, not talk radio.

Quote from: Jackalope;231073I don't think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter.  I don't think Bill Ayers is comparable to Ann Coulter.  I personally think that given the direction that the government was progressively moving during the time that the Weathermen radicalized and became violent, their actions are more comparable to the Jeiwsh terrorism (such as the Stern Gang, which is very comparable) in Palestian before the creation of the state of Israel.  or the terrorism committed by the American Revolutionary Army before and throughout the American Revolutionary War.

You know what?  I also think the Molly Maguires were more justified in their use of violence than the Pinkertons, and I think the Black Panthers were more justified in their use of violence than the Klu Klux Klan, and that the United Mine Workers of America was more justified in its use of violence at the Battle of Blair Mountain than the US Government.

None of that has fuck-all to do with Ann Coulter and what is wrong with her, and turning a critique of Ann Coulter's particular form of hate-as-entertainment  into a digression on the relative legitimacy of the radical movements of the sixties, and how guilty participants in those groups should feel is really fucking ridiculous.

It's a RED HERRING.

You shouldn't be calling yourself a 'liberal'.  You give liberalism a bad name, and you give types like Coulter the ammunition to paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors').

Quote from: S'mon;231123You shouldn't be calling yourself a 'liberal'.  You give liberalism a bad name, and you give types like Coulter the ammunition to paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors').

That's fucking idiotic.

You know what REALLY lets types like Coulter paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors')?  

The unmitigated stupidity of the right-wing.

Quote from: Jackalope;231128That's fucking idiotic.

You know what REALLY lets types like Coulter paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors')?  

The unmitigated stupidity of the right-wing.

LOL

Wikipedia tells us of the USA and its forests - and checks elsewhere online and in my own book collection more or less match this - that,
   Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest [...] For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated. This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. [...] Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest, the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.
And searching around elsewhere I find a current concern of environmentalists is that while trees are being planted in the US, it's monocultures for plantation, rather than polycultures which will be left as they are. Your mixed forest has a lot more biodiversity and can store a lot more carbon than a bunch of pines in nice straight rows destined for paper pulp... Plus the forests are getting fragmented. 100 forests of 1 square mile each are a different thing to 1 forest of 100 square miles, they've much less biodiversity and resilience against natural threats.

The beaver stuff is a load of old bollocks.

I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

US domestic politics is a bit silly, really. I hope you guys get to become a proper democracy again soon, with most people voting and none of their votes being "mislaid", more than two factions of the same party to choose from, and so on.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

Seems to me that with the US being a lot more right-wing than Europe (or Australia) it's possible that in America the right-wing extremists could be crazier while in Europe & Oz the left-wing extremists are crazier.  I've seen Hillary Clinton called a 'left wing extremist' when she seems to be somewhere to the right of David Cameron (leader of the UK Conservatives).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

.

Not quite. Rather: Jackalope is painting all conservatives with the same brush because there is one extremist that looks really bad while refusing to admit that the same level, or worse, extremism is found on the liberal side.  

Quite frankly, I could care less who's extremists are worse. Jackalopes 'my shit don't stink' attitude is fun for a larf though.

Quote from: Spike;231239Not quite. Rather: Jackalope is painting all conservatives with the same brush because there is one extremist that looks really bad while refusing to admit that the same level, or worse, extremism is found on the liberal side.

Yeah, except for the part where that isn't what happened.  I was talking about a handful of conservative pundits, the spokesmen (and women) of the right who regularly pollute the airwaves with spurious, irrational, contrafactual, and hatefull bile.  I was mentioning them because this dude, this obviously sick and mentally unwell man, latched onto their hatred and bile and now several completely innocent church-goers are dead.

Comparing leftist extremists who commit terrorism to right wing pundits who promote hatred as a form of entertainment is total bollocks. Yes, the left has it's share of whackos.  If you wnat to draw comparisons between violent left-wing extremists and violent right-wing extremists, we can (there was the guy who tried to blow up the Olympics for example, and all those abortion clinics).

But Coulter, Hannity, Limbuagh, et al. are not murderers, they are not criminals, and really, they are not extremists.  They are paid entertainers who promote hatred, sow discord, and encourage polarization for ratings and profit.

So trying to justify the tone and substance of the average right-wing media personality by pointing to fringe whackos and former fringe whackos on the left is ludicrous.  It's comparing apples and oranges.  I really can't believe that people can make these arguments and not feel stupid presenting them.

So: Now you are complaining that liberals, as a general rule, are crappy entertainers. Got it.

Quote from: Spike;231283So: Now you are complaining that liberals, as a general rule, are crappy entertainers. Got it.

Are you mentally challenged, or just pathetically disingenuous and intellectually dishonest in the extreme?  Pick one, because you're clearly a stupid fuckwit of some sort, I'm just wondering if it's a congenital thing, or if you think you're being funny?

Lets review, shall we: You've responded to just about every single post against you by insulting the poster and shouting, often quite agressively (bold, giant, red text? Check!) that it was a red herring.  That is to say you  have not once made a serious attempt to rebutt even a single point.

What makes you think I actually care what you have to say at this point? I'm just here because I can bear bait you endlessly and not have to worry that one of us will get banned and be unable to play anymore.  You never had any relevance, your comments are willfully ignorant, you show all the political and philosophical sophistication of a spoiled child. You have continually set yourself up as a laughing stock, each time with the plantive cries of 'pay attention to me, I'm special'... just because someone calls you special doesn't mean its a compliment, you know.

Just to throw something back into your face: you know all that stuff you were saying about women in that other thread? Yeah, thats you, buddy.  

You're cute when you try to act all rational and shit.

Quote from: Spike;231309Lets review, shall we: You've responded to just about every single post against you by insulting the poster and shouting, often quite agressively (bold, giant, red text? Check!) that it was a red herring.  That is to say you  have not once made a serious attempt to rebutt even a single point.

That is simply not the case.  I explained exactly why it's a red herring.  Also, pointing out that an argument is a red herring is an actual, real, honest-to-god, serious rebuttal of an argument.

QuoteWhat makes you think I actually care what you have to say at this point? I'm just here because I can bear bait you endlessly and not have to worry that one of us will get banned and be unable to play anymore.  You never had any relevance, your comments are willfully ignorant, you show all the political and philosophical sophistication of a spoiled child. You have continually set yourself up as a laughing stock, each time with the plantive cries of 'pay attention to me, I'm special'... just because someone calls you special doesn't mean its a compliment, you know.

This is nothing but a ridiculous personal attack, made simply to avoid acknowledging my point.  Which you haven't rebutted at all.  Instead, you have just admitted that you are being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous for no reason other than to provoke a reaction from me. Do you know what that is Spike?  That's an admission that you have no real argument, and are just here to waste time.

QuoteJust to throw something back into your face: you know all that stuff you were saying about women in that other thread? Yeah, thats you, buddy.  

You're cute when you try to act all rational and shit.

Seeing as you've yet to make the attempt to be rational, I can't say the same about you.

I'm sick and fucking tired of Whiny, bleeding heart, Commie Pinko liberals, and I fucking hate what the Nazi NeoCon bible thumping douchebag conservatives have done to the Republicans.
 
I propose death squads for both groups.