Patterico's Pontifications

3/6/2010

Lefties Portray Democrat, 9/11 Truther, and Bush-Hating Lunatic John Patrick Bedell as a “Right-Wing Extremist”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:07 pm



On the day of the Pentagon shooting, I posted evidence that shooter John Patrick Bedell was a 9/11 Truther and Bush-hater. Bedell, a registered Democrat, described the Bush Administration as a “collection of gangsters” that initiated the war in Iraq “in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality.” I posted this, not to blame left-wing rhetoric for the shooting, but to forestall the inevitable portrayal of Bedell as a right-wing extremist.

Nevertheless, left-wing bloggers and at least one media outlet rushed to describe the attack as an example of “right-wing” extremism. James Joyner collects several examples here. For example, at the left-wing blog “Crooks and Liars,” David Neiwert wrote:

Yesterday we had another act of violence by a right-wing extremist intent on attacking and harming the government, inflamed by far-right conspiracy theories about 9/11 and other supposed instances of government “tyranny.”

Neiwert made no effort to explain how a registered Democrat and avowed enemy of George W. Bush is an example of a “right-wing extremist.” But Neiwert has made a career of claiming that conservative rhetoric is to blame for the actions of isolated lunatics who commit acts of violence. Sometimes his arguments require him to bend the space-time continuum to lay undeserved blame for violent acts at the feet of conservatives.

And when confronted with evidence of a violent left-winger, Neiwert resolves the cognitive dissonance by simply relabeling the lunatic as a right-wing extremist. Once that sleight of hand is accomplished, he may safely return to the intellectually dishonest business of claiming that violent rhetoric and action is a phenomenon unique to conservatives.

Of course, it is anything but. Violent political rhetoric is hardly limited to fringe right-wingers. Many leftists, including some fairly prominent ones, have engaged in all sorts of violent rhetoric.

National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg once said: “[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux once wrote of Justice Clarence Thomas: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.” Washington Post syndicated columnist Richard Cohen once wrote: “For hypocrisy, for sheer gall, [Newt] Gingrich should be hanged.”

I’m not done.

Comedian and (former) talk show host Craig Kilborn once ran the following caption under footage of George W. Bush: “Snipers Wanted.” Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club said this of Donald Rumsfeld:

And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq “We have our good days and our bad days.” We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say “This is one of our bad days” and pull the trigger.

Who can forget the lovable Alec Baldwin, who unleashed the following rant regarding Henry Hyde:

[I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.

Spike Lee said of Charlton Heston: “Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog.”

When Tony Snow died, a moderated comments thread at the L.A. Times website approved these comments and many like them:

There is special place in hell for Mr. Snow. As a co-conspirator of the Bush administration, I have no special sympathy for him. I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.

. . . .

I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.

. . . .

Thank you G*d.
Only 99 more of them to go.

. . . .

CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM
HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK……………….

I have collected many more examples here.

Moreover, leftists regularly engage in violence for political reasons. Gay rights activists have engaged in mob violence against gay marriage opponents. Recall the example of the man who almost ran a woman and her children off the road because she had a Bush bumper sticker. Or the man who tried to run down Katherine Harris in a car, and claimed it was “political expression.”

And while we don’t know whether mass murderer Amy Bishop was motivated by politics, we do know that the Boston Herald, citing a family member’s comments, described her as “a far-left political extremist who was ‘obsessed’ with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.”

Speaking for myself, I don’t subscribe to the view that the actions of lunatics can be blamed on political rhetoric. As I have written in the past, “mentally disturbed people can be set off by anything. Blame the mental illness, not the random person or event that triggered the disturbed person’s actions.” Blaming the actions of crazy people on political rhetoric is a cheap tactic best left to the David Neiwerts and Scott Eric Kaufmans of the world.

But given the inevitable certainty that leftists would try to paint Bedell as a Tea Party right-wing sort, it was necessary to expose the fact that he was a Democrat, 9/11 Truther, and Bush-hater. The facts are beginning to have an effect. For example, the Christian Science Monitor ran a story titled John Patrick Bedell: Did right-wing extremism lead to shooting? A deck headline read: “Authorities have identified John Patrick Bedell as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting. He appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.”

But if you click the link to that story, it now begins with an update: “As more information emerges about Mr. Bedell, the less it appears that any coherent ideology was behind his actions, except that he was deeply antigovernment.”

I would have liked to have seen a more detailed description of what that “information” was — such as his status as a registered Democrat and his numerous examples of hatred for George W. Bush. But the update is better than nothing.

It’s more than we’ll get from the likes of Neiwert, who will no doubt continue to maintain the amazing Big Lie that a Democrat Truther who hated Bush was really a “right-wing extremist.” It takes a special sort of dishonesty to maintain such a fiction.

118 Responses to “Lefties Portray Democrat, 9/11 Truther, and Bush-Hating Lunatic John Patrick Bedell as a “Right-Wing Extremist””

  1. Ted Kaczynski
    Amy Bishop
    Bruce Ivins
    Joe Stack
    John Bedell

    Official Internet Data Office (40c230)

  2. “Neiwert made no effort to explain how a registered Democrat and avowed enemy of George W. Bush is an example of a “right-wing extremist.””

    By being a fan of ludwig von mises.

    imdw (c5488f)

  3. “Neiwert made no effort to explain how a registered Democrat and avowed enemy of George W. Bush is an example of a “right-wing extremist.””

    By being a fan of ludwig von mises.

    OK. So then I can say that as a registered Democrat he was a left-wing extremist.

    Or we could cut the bullshit and just admit that he was mentally disturbed, period.

    But people like you will never do that, huh? That would be all honest and stuff.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  4. That would be all honest and stuff.
    Comment by Patterico — 3/6/2010 @ 4:42 pm

    Honesty is imdw’s Kryptonite. He can only stand small doses for limited periods. (So he’s not Superman… I never said it was a perfect metaphor! 😉 )

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  5. “OK. So then I can say that as a registered Democrat he was a left-wing extremist.”

    I guess ever since we got rid of the dixiecrats you can’t call someone a right winger if they’re a democrat.

    Thanks for taking me back go Craig Kilborn days….

    imdw (017d51)

  6. Don’t neglect to include the heartless attacks on Sarah Palin’s teenage daughter. That ongoing demonstration of inhumanity will live on as proof of the ugly truth at the root of left-wing hypocrisy.

    ropelight (830273)

  7. Lefties in general are known to be a very unhappy lot.

    It gives me no pleasure to point that out… well… okay… maybe a little… 😉

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  8. I guess ever since we got rid of the dixiecrats you can’t call someone a right winger if they’re a democrat.

    Hey, as long as I can blame the Democrats (you capitalize the D, by the way) I don’t much care if I am blaming their right or left wing.

    So your contention, imdw, is that this guy was a Democrat extremist?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  9. Great post/summation once again, Patterico. I know you bloggers must feel like you are shouting into a tsunami of lies at times, but keep up the good fight!

    Patricia (e1047e)

  10. I guess ever since we got rid of the dixiecrats you can’t call someone a right winger if they’re a democrat.
    Comment by imdw — 3/6/2010 @ 4:48 pm

    Ahh, the thinly-veiled accusation that conservatives are racists comes out again. Just like the “Turner Diaries” references you made before, despite the racists in the story hating conservatives. You said you “skimmed” it, so now you know better. I took the trouble to read it after you brought it up because as usual, I didn’t think it would say what you claimed. It didn’t. It’s got nothing to do with conservatives or Republicans.

    What party is Senator Byrd with still?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  11. I guess ever since we got rid of the dixiecrats you can’t call someone a right winger if they’re a democrat.

    What is that even supposed to mean? Of all your many annoying traits, this business of responding to a point somebody else makes with an incomprehensible non sequitor is right at the very top.

    The gist of the lefts case seems to be that Bedell was a critic of government, and that makes him a right-winger. But all through the Bush years being a critic of government made one a patriot bravely speaking truth to power and standing up for our basic freedoms. Bedell’s crime from the lefts perspective is that he did not flip over into a worshipper of government on Jan 21 2009.

    Subotai (1db6d7)

  12. You can count David Goldstein among the liberal political activists and bloggers who saw fit to declare Bedell a right-winger and a TEA Party activist (with the usual leftist pornographic terminology). I accidentally found this Washington blog (how does a dot org have advertisers, and why does Papa Johns advertise so loudly on such a linguistically vile site?) when people were surfing from there to my site.

    A conservative over there (why he’d be there, I’m not sure) linked to my article, which heavily linked over here to prove the political activist and blogger Goldstein to be nothing but a partisan hack and fast and loose with the truth.

    Oh, and Patterico, I’d love to put this entire article, complete with linkage, up on my site. But I don’t want to violate “fair use” nor do I want to go through the heavy work of adding in all the superb linkage. 😉 I would likely add a preface and/or a post-script if I had your permission to do so. And if adj-laden Dana would allow, I’d also cross-post it over there as well.

    You did lots of heavy work and it needs spread, ya know?

    John Hitchcock (80001c)

  13. Ya know what happened when the Dixiecrats folded? The vast majority of them, including their leadership, returned to the Democrat fold.

    John Hitchcock (80001c)

  14. As to Imadickwad…and associates…

    Facts to a Liberal, are as Kryptonite to Superman.”

    AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  15. I don’t much like posting anymore (though I enjoy reading the site), but this thread says it all. This imdw character typifies many on the Left. They don’t think deeply about subjects, but care about how things make them “feel.” Politics on a bumper sticker. They know that they themselves are good people, and it doesn’t occur to them that decent people can disagree with one another, and sometimes vehemently so.

    So if a PL (progressive Leftist) thinks that he or she is a swell person, than someone who disagrees with her or him is….?

    This is how we start into this offensive and silly and (more importantly) intellectually dishonest “Republicans are racist” meme. Even though I consider most forms of affirmative action racist at their core (ask any Asian-American trying to get into Berkeley how they feel about AA), the Left continues with that drumbeat, the Left just loves AA. Even though African-American Republicans are treated vilely by the Left, it appears to be okay…because they disagree with those “good people.” And you can’t be a good “minority” apparently, if you disagree with the DNC. Funny thing, that.

    Anyway, that is my point of view. I work with people every day who are convinced that they are just swell human beings, sit around congratulating each other for the brave open mindedness they display, and routinely say hateful things about their political opponents. And so I keep my own opinions to myself at work. Perhaps I carry about a bit of resentment. We all have psychological Samsonite, do we not?

    But we should all immediately condemn anyone saying some of the things above, no matter what the “D” or “R” status should be. Joking about killing people or wishing death upon them says everything about the joker. Anyone saying such a thing is, um, not a person of quality.

    Sorry to sound off.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  16. “So your contention, imdw, is that this guy was a Democrat extremist?”

    What esle can we do with the fact that he was a registered democrat who dug von mises?

    ” Ahh, the thinly-veiled accusation that conservatives are racists comes out again”

    It just depends on what you’re trying to conserve.

    imdw (2c1194)

  17. Sigh. See what I mean?

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  18. So your contention, imdw, is that this guy was a Democrat extremist?

    I ask again.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  19. How is being appreciative of the Austrian School of Economics being racist?
    Can anyone explain that to me?
    If we had more students of the Austrian School in the Dem Party, the country would be a whole Hell of a lot better off.

    AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  20. well, Chuckles Johnson is digging in on the whole “he was a teabagger” meme, even as more an more evidence pours in to (once again) disprove an LGF smear.

    Oh, and since we know CJ’s sycophants troll this site to see who says what about him, I say this:

    Bite me!

    eddiebear (ceb9ac)

  21. […] for the shooting, but to forestall the inevitable portrayal of Bedell as a right-wing extremist…Full Story Filed under: Opinion Leave a comment Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on […]

    Lefties Portray Democrat, 9/11 Truther, and Bush-Hating Lunatic John Patrick Bedell as a “Right-Wing Extremist” « Bad Newz (bd038f)

  22. Hey Pat. Don’t forget that lefty nut who bit a Tea Party senior’s finger off last year.

    Topsecretk9 (ab69ad)

  23. Eric’s right as usual, but at times it’s useful to have a sample of the Lefty hand puppets that imadouchebag exemplifies so well. Used as a basis for comparison, we all look quite sane.

    Dmac (ca1d8c)

  24. I don’t know whether this guy was a right winger, a left winger or what but one thing confuses me. The point of this post seems to be that Bedell, because he was a registered Democrat, hated George W. Bush and deeply distrusted the government to the extent that he thought it implicated in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. What confuses me is how this proves that Bedell was not a right winger. The Republican party doesn’t have a corner on conservatives in this country, there is a wing of the right that was very much against many of Bush’s policies and it seems to me that distrust of government is a right wing virtue (and I say all of this as a right winger who has voted for Republicans in every national election (with the exception of this last presidential election) since I became of voting age. I also say this as someone who blames Bedell’s actions on his being a lunatic, not on whatever political ideology might have existed in Bedell’s twisted mind at the time of his actions. I simply see no particular connection between mistrust of government, hatred of George W. Bush (who was, let’s face it, not the most conservative in America), and being a registered Democrat. Seems pretty non sequitur-ish stuff.

    Craig R. Harmon (58f95b)

  25. Let’s try again:

    I don’t know whether this guy was a right winger, a left winger or what but one thing confuses me. The point of this post seems to be that Bedell, because he was a registered Democrat, hated George W. Bush and deeply distrusted the government to the extent that he thought it implicated in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, therefore Bedell was not a right winger. What confuses me is how this proves that Bedell was not a right winger. The Republican party doesn’t have a corner on conservatives in this country, there is a wing of the right that was very much against many of Bush’s policies and it seems to me that distrust of government is a right wing virtue (and I say all of this as a right winger who has voted for Republicans in every national election (with the exception of this last presidential election) since I became of voting age. I also say this as someone who blames Bedell’s actions on his being a lunatic, not on whatever political ideology might have existed in Bedell’s twisted mind at the time of his actions. I simply see no particular connection between mistrust of government, hatred of George W. Bush (who was, let’s face it, not the most conservative in America), and being a registered Democrat. Seems pretty non sequitur-ish stuff.

    Craig R. Harmon (58f95b)

  26. /me throws a yellow smoke on aisle 24……

    your ‘concern’ is noted.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  27. “When Tony Snow died, a moderated comments thread at the L.A. Times website approved these comments and many like them: …”

    – Patterico

    I noticed the John Murtha thread was closed to comments. Why was that?

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  28. Another blizzard of Moby-ism.

    JD (769f99)

  29. Oh, right. The Mobies. Not actual conservatives who might’ve said embarrassingly tactless things about Murtha. Mobies.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  30. Patterico, imdw’s contention is … hey, squirrel!

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Leviticus:

    I noticed the John Murtha thread was closed to comments. Why was that?

    That was my choice and something I did because a large influx of comments makes it hard to keep the website running and I knew no one was going to be around to reboot and keep the website from crashing. (Note that the next post was 5 hours after the Murtha post at Noon PST.)

    Furthermore, the point of that part of Patterico’s post is that the Los Angeles Times approved those derogatory comments. With rare exception, comments post automatically at Patterico’s website and any moderation occurs after-the-fact.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  32. I noticed the John Murtha thread was closed to comments. Why was that?
    Comment by Leviticus — 3/6/2010 @ 6:31 pm

    The comments here are open and seen unless the person has been moderated or the comment specifically unapproved/deleted. The comments there are not seen unless approved. They could have left those comments in moderation and nobody would have seen them. I asked that comments remain closed on the Murtha thread because I wasn’t going to have time that day to keep them moderated.

    It’s a false comparison Leviticus.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  33. Heh. To clarify, DRJ initially closed comments and I asked that they remain closed, as I said.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  34. Leviticus – I was not referring to you, but to Senor Harmon.

    JD (769f99)

  35. Yes Leviticus, there are conservatives who will make tactless (I would call it classless myself) comments expressing joy at someone they disagree with dying. Is that what you want to hear? I don’t see how that relates to the point though, unless you’re saying that conservative-leaning sites are more responsible for their comments than liberal-leaning ones, no matter if they’re moderated or not? Seriously, what is your thinking here?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  36. “Moreover, leftists regularly engage in violence for political reasons.”

    The folks at Hiroshima can vouch for that.

    Dave Surls (baed22)

  37. How is being appreciative of the Austrian School of Economics being racist?
    Can anyone explain that to me?

    You’re assuming that the things which dimwit says are intended to make some sort of sense. If you understand that his comments are the equivalent of an octopus squirting ink (or Rorschach patterns) you’ll stop trying to read intelligible meaning into them.

    Subotai (067b1d)

  38. It just depends on what you’re trying to conserve.

    Bottom line is human rights, and civil rights rooted in those human rights.

    Democrats, on the other hand, are dead set against conserving those values…as demonstrated by the tolerance shown by Spike Lee when he said “Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog,” of Charlton Heston, a heroic defender of both human and civil rights, at a time when white defenders of black civil rights were equally at peril of their lives as black activists of the time.

    In fact, it’s fair to say that not only are Democrats not in favor of “conserving” human and real civil rights, but actually are using the cover of “civil rights” (not based on human rights) and “social justice” to strip human rights from their opponents (who is anybody who isn’t an active “supporter”), in order to effect mob rule (at least, rule by their mob).

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  39. #15 Eric Blair:

    I don’t much like posting anymore

    I am sorry to hear that. I always look forward to seeing your perspective.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  40. Leviticus,

    The obvious implication of your comment is that we’re hypocrites — complaining about offensive liberal comments and then not letting anyone comment when it might reflect poorly on conservatives. You conveniently ignore the many times there have been posts with open comments that rebut your theory, such as Lautenberg’s Lymphoma diagnosis and multiple posts on Ted Kennedy’s death.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  41. Seems pretty non sequitur-ish stuff.

    You’ve managed to snag yourself a good corner of that market.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  42. there is a wing of the right that was very much against many of Bush’s policies and it seems to me that distrust of government is a right wing virtue

    It’s not a right-wing virtue. Lot’s of people on the left and the center distrust the government also. (This is in addition to the great majority of cynical Democrats who trust or distrust the government depending on which party is in power.)

    Subotai (067b1d)

  43. EB, I was wondering what happened to you. I hope you haven’t chosen to quit commenting due to a certain whiny-pants spoiled brat leftist college student for whom I used to have respect.

    John Hitchcock (80001c)

  44. Distrust of government and being anti-government was the highest form of patriotism when Bush was in office. Now it makes you a violent extremist.

    JD (bb7add)

  45. Excellent point, JD! Spot on!

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  46. I simply see no particular connection between mistrust of government, hatred of George W. Bush (who was, let’s face it, not the most conservative in America), and being a registered Democrat. Seems pretty non sequitur-ish stuff.

    You need to pay attention, because no one has argued a causal relationship between the them.

    Bedell was a registered Democrat. Bedell was also vehemently anti-Bush, apparently anti-military and a 9/11 Truther. While there are probably some conservatives who are all of those things, each of them are more likely views of a leftist than a rightist.

    Some chump (050674)

  47. It’s not a right-wing virtue. Lot’s of people on the left and the center distrust the government also

    i would argue that the majority of those on the left that “distrust” the government tend to either distrust a particular party, as you pointed out, or simply distrust the form of the government itself, since ours isn’t easily coerced into allowing the sort of government they would rather see us under….

    (for our own good, of course. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  48. I don’t much like posting anymore (though I enjoy reading the site),

    EB, if you don’t post, the terrorists win…. %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  49. > I guess ever since we got rid of the dixiecrats you can’t call someone a right winger if they’re a democrat.

    Yes, because those racist bastards left the Democrats and became Republicans. Uh-huh.

    Oh, wait. They were Dems in 1944, they were Dems again in 1952. This was shown by what happened at the 1964 Dem National Convention, in which duly elected black representatives were disenfranchised by Johnson and Humphrey, in order to appease the racist South. The result was Watts, Chicago, and the rest of the racist unrest of the 60s.

    OBloodyhell (aacc3d)

  50. > They know that they themselves are good people, and it doesn’t occur to them that decent people can disagree with one another, and sometimes vehemently so.

    Much more important is the fact that they cannot ever recall the paving material on the proverbial Road To Hell, much less figure out how that might apply to them or their goals.

    OBloodyhell (aacc3d)

  51. “So your contention, imdw, is that this guy was a Democrat extremist?”

    What esle can we do with the fact that he was a registered democrat who dug von mises?

    Why does liking von mises make someone an extremist?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  52. I guess ever since we got rid of the dixiecrats you can’t call someone a right winger if they’re a democrat.

    Also I didn’t know the dixiecrats were fans of Von Mises. So how would liking Von Mises wouldn’t make him a dixiecrat?

    Also, are you psychotic?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  53. Gerald – it has nothing to do with anything, iamadimwit just wants to avoid the fact that the violent murderer was a registered Dem, an inconvenient truth that does not fit Teh Narrative.

    JD (bb7add)

  54. Bedell was certifiable, generally speaking, he exhibits the delusions present with Kazynski, Stack
    et al, none of those typical right wingers, I’m surethe pot didn’t help clarify his thoughts any

    ian cormac (9575ac)

  55. #55 ian cormac:

    he exhibits the delusions present with Kazynski, Stack et al,

    I’ve never understood why Al Gore get a pass on the delusions he and Kaczynski shared.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  56. Bedell was paranoid and delusional.

    I know why they want to attach him to Tea-partiers

    It’s entirely rational to believe Obama and his entourage are radicals with bad ideas inimical to the American Republic – socialists or communists by what ever pretty name you’d rather call them.

    It’s true, as a matter of fact, and Obama and his entourage and his cult know it. They need to lie about Bedell to namecall anyone bothered enough to try to obstruct any action or incrementalism of that agenda, and get people to be shy about saying the rational and obvious?

    On the other hand, trutherism is not rational, it’s a stop on the train to KOOKamunga. it has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement at all. The Tea party business is a flat lie.

    SarahW (af7312)

  57. You can add Amy Bishop to this entourage of the deranged, didn’t she try a smaller version of what
    the Unabomber was doing

    ian cormac (9575ac)

  58. “It’s entirely rational to believe Obama and his entourage are radicals with bad ideas inimical to the American Republic – socialists or communists by what ever pretty name you’d rather call them. ”

    Paranoid and delusional huh?

    imdw (842182)

  59. Although I don’t know why they do it here on such a consistent basis, imdw and DCSCA and Leviticus and whatever troll (although I don’t consider those three trolls) of the week, are part of a very consistent, persistent message that traditionally is very effective:

    If you disagree with them you are:

    1. Stupid
    2. Racist
    3. Extremist
    4. Stupid
    5. Uncaring
    6. Stupid
    7. Racist
    8. Uncaring
    9. If unwilling to kill for your stupid, racist, uncaring convictions, you at least support those who do.
    10. Anti-government.

    In corporate-speak, it is the benchmark against which all opinions are judged.

    When it is used against them, the immediate response it to declare fair comment, the tenants of free speech and the always popular knowing of what is in a person’s heart based on past actions.

    When someone opposed to their ever-evolving opinion crosses the ever-shifting line, it can only be concluded the offenders are, once again, stupid, racist, etc., and those voices must be silenced.

    However, the whole construct disintegrates when all those stupid, racist, etc., people simply aren’t.

    However, some individuals indeed are crazy and politics has nothing to do with that.

    Ag80 (f67beb)

  60. Comment by Subotai — 3/6/2010 @ 7:12 pm

    I knew that Imadickwad would be unable to connect the dots he arrayed, I just had to ask the question to let him know that we (or at least, I) know he’s a complete moron – I’m really tired of his act.
    What a great example of the public-ed system.

    AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  61. “…Paranoid and delusional huh?”
    Comment by imdw — 3/6/2010 @ 9:07 pm

    Yes, most Leftist are, as are you and your hero: Obowman!

    AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  62. __________________________________

    One of the most notorious assassins in US history, Lee Harvey Oswald — who murdered an icon of the left in particular — was of the left, an ultra-liberal who sympathized with Communism.

    Another notorious assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, who also slayed another figurehead of the left, was into victimhood politics and affiliated with an “underdog” group (ie Palestinians) that so many liberals throughout the Western World love to weep over.

    crimemagazine.com:

    At Pasadena College Sirhan said he realized “…being an Arab is worse than being a Negro. Oh, I worked hard…but I stood out in class…just my name gave me away. I stood out for that teacher as an example to prove the points he wanted to make to the class about ‘acculturation.’

    Once, during a discussion of adaptation, the problem, the issue of Palestine came up. This was my chance to speak. I really wanted to clobber this fellow, this blond son of a bitch and I did. I put him where he really belonged. I talked for one solid hour.

    There were two or three colored people in the class. They had to applaud. I was on their side when they got up to tell about their grievances.

    …At his trial, Sirhan said he wanted Robert Kennedy to be president but that love turned to hate when he saw television reports of RFK participating in an Israeli Independence Day celebration.

    As for another assassin of an icon particularly important to the left, Martin Luther King, even when the killer’s politics don’t have an ironic symbiosis with the ideology of the group most affected, a defect associated with so many liberals — naivete, idiocy and foolishness combined — still somehow manages to peek through:

    Ray came as close as he ever would to being absolved in King’s assassination in a March 1997 meeting with one of the civil rights leader’s sons, Dexter King.

    “I had nothing to do with shooting your father,” Ray told King.

    Later, King asked Ray directly, “I want to ask for the record: did you kill my father?”

    “No, I didn’t, no, no,” Ray said.

    I believe you, and my family believes you, and we will do everything in our power to see you prevail,” King replied.

    Mark (411533)

  63. _______________________________________________

    Moreover, leftists regularly engage in violence for political reasons.

    Oh, but at least their compassion is in the right place. Correct? At least they put their hearts where their wallet is. Right?

    Uh, well, er, um….

    spectator.org

    Liberal Scrooges

    By Peter Schweizer

    Samuel Johnson once reported on a man who was privately stingy but publicly touted the merits of sharing. Dr. Johnson said sarcastically that the man was a “friend of goodness.” What he meant was that flesh-and-blood goodness is very different from supporting “Goodness” in the abstract.

    Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism. Garrison Keillor explains that “I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness.” But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it comes to making charitable donations.

    Consider the case of Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate for the homeless. He has, according to his website, “compassion toward the most vulnerable of us.” And this is how the New York Times described the courtship of Kerry Kennedy (of guess which family): “Ms. Kennedy-Cuomo, 43, said she fell in love with Mr. Cuomo, 45, when he took her on a tour of a homeless shelter on their first date and agreed to fast for the labor leader Cesar Chavez.”

    But that advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

    Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.

    CUOMO IS NOT alone in this Scroogery of course.

    Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.

    The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.

    Gore’s office initially defended the action, claiming that the Gores had often given “food and clothing to the homeless.” But when no one showed up in cast-off clothes, Gore’s spokesman Chris Lehane offered a typical “friend of Goodness” response saying that you could only “truly judge a person’s commitment to helping others” you needed to see “what they have done with their lives.” In other words, politics was charity work.

    Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy. Later, of course, Kerry married the rich widow Theresa Heinz, and today is active in charitable causes using the Heinz foundation as his vehicle.

    Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, “I come from an advantaged life, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children.” But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving much money to needy children.

    Kennedy’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.

    Robert Reich, once Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and now a professor at Berkeley, has been outspoken about how greedy conservatives are. Conservatives believe in “reviving social Darwinism” and because of conservatives, “America has placed too high a value on selfishness.”

    But when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he was all but forced to release his tax returns. It’s not a pretty picture. Reich’s 1040 reveals an income of more than $1 million, much of it giving speeches to corporations and universities for up to $40,000 a pop. He contributed just $2,714 to charity, or .2 percent of his income — note the decimal — and not all of that was cash. Part of it was the value of a donation of a used drum set to an organization called City of Peace.

    Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a “liberal spirit of compassion and love” while conservatives are “heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor.” But according to his publicly-released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.

    NOR IS THIS liberal tightfistedness anything new. The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a slim record when it comes to giving to charity.

    Roosevelt had an average income of $93,000 ($1.3 million in today’s dollars) but gave away about 3 percent of his income to charity. In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, when people really could have used it, he donated just 2 percent.

    This evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how poorly these liberals do in comparison to so-called “heartless conservatives.” President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on.

    And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more than four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.

    George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.

    The main point of liberal compassion appears to be making liberals feel good about their superior virtue. Such are the rewards of being a “friend of goodness.”

    Mark (411533)

  64. I wonder if Niewert has any stats on the frequency of right wing extremists attacking military installations. Even if they favor smaller government, a military installation does not seem like the venue of choice for a right wing extremist to target, imho. It seems much more likely for your anti-military, anti-Patriot Act, peace loving, pinko commie, progressive metrosexual vegan, kumbaya singing, multicultural dim bulb twatwaffle type to attack. Just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (5710d7)

  65. It’s not a right-wing virtue. Lot’s of people on the left and the center distrust the government also. (This is in addition to the great majority of cynical Democrats who trust or distrust the government depending on which party is in power.)

    Comment by Subotai — 3/6/2010 @ 7:20 pm

    I did not mean to suggest that it was right wingers exclusively who viewed this as a virtue, merely that conservatives harbor, to a greater or lesser degree, a distrust of government — who was it again who suggested that government was the problem, not the solution? Sure there are lefties who distrust government in the hands of conservatives but there are conservatives who distrust government in no matter whose hands because the power of governments, with police and military power, can be such threats to freedom.

    You need to pay attention, because no one has argued a causal relationship between the them.

    Bedell was a registered Democrat. Bedell was also vehemently anti-Bush, apparently anti-military and a 9/11 Truther. While there are probably some conservatives who are all of those things, each of them are more likely views of a leftist than a rightist.

    Comment by Some chump — 3/6/2010 @ 7:29 pm

    Okay but, then again, I said nothing about a causal connection, either. It just seemed to me that Patterico was trying to refute the charge that he was a right wing lune using three pieces of evidence: he was a truther, he hated George W. Bush, and he was a Democrat. It just seems to me that those three pieces of evidence do not add up to a refutation.

    Craig R. Harmon (58f95b)

  66. Hmmm. Why yes, yes I did suggest a causal relationship in my original comment. Sorry for the previous comment. Stupid of me not to go back and read what I originally wrote.

    Craig R. Harmon (58f95b)

  67. Perhaps stupid, but absolutely typical!

    AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  68. Perhaps stupid, but absolutely typical!

    not to mention unprecedented!
    (but not unexpected %-)

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  69. Anyway…lefties/liberals/Democrats are way more violent than righties/conservatives/Republicans. Been that way forever.

    So who can take their whining about right wing rhetoric leading to violence seriously?

    My eyes glaze over when they start whining about violence.

    I don’t care if you’re talking about lefty governments and their love for warmaking (every major war the U.S. has ever fought…a liberal got us into it), violence carried out by groups associated with the left (race riots/anti-war demonstrations) or individual acts of violence (San Francisco…murder capital of California)…when it comes to killing folks and breaking stuff…lefties rule.

    Dave Surls (30c377)

  70. I don’t care if you’re talking about lefty governments and their love for warmaking (every major war the U.S. has ever fought…a liberal got us into it)
    Comment by Dave Surls — 3/7/2010 @ 12:18 am

    Ummm… Iraq and Afghanistan, to name two?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  71. First Gulf War, Desert Storm? Grenada (not “major”, but combat)?

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  72. Not major wars, except to the guys receiving incoming.
    But, realisticly, the entire episode (which as yet, has not been concluded) in Iraq does not compare with just one island campaign in the Pacific in WW-2, or one battle such as Gettysburg or Antietam during the Civil War; not in casualties, and not in the consequences of loss.
    Though I am loath to use the term “Police Action”, what we have done post-VN have not been major engagements, but something on the lines of engaging the Barbary Pirates.

    AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33)

  73. all ultimately caused by failed liberal policies of the preceding liberal Presidents….

    the Republicans were just stuck “cleaning up the mess”

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  74. “The obvious implication of your comment is that we’re hypocrites.”

    – DRJ

    The point I wanted to make is this: people on both sides of the aisle say stupid, nasty things – classless liberals said stupid, nasty things about Tony Snow after he died, and classless conservatives said stupid, nasty things about Ted Kennedy after he died. It wasn’t the LA Times fault in the former case, or the fault of this site’s management in the latter.

    I have no problem with the decision to close comments in these memorial type threads; in fact, I think it shows a definite degree of class and sense of propriety. But does the LA Times really have that option? Would it not be a huge stink if the LA Times closed a comments thread after the death of a major public figure? And would it not be an even bigger stink if the LA Times had selectively deleted comments expressing a negative opinion of Tony Snow (in the one instance) or Ted Kennedy (in the latter), classless or not? You know they don’t have the same freedom and discretion as you/Patterico/Stash do in that regard: it would be decried as further evidence of the shameless Left-Wing/Right-Wing bias of the “MSM”, by one side or the other, depending on the circumstances. So they stay out of it.

    My bigger point is this: I’m so, so tired of this Left vs. Right bickering. It’s stupid. I know I’ve been harping on this for a while now, and I know it’s probably getting old, but I don’t know what else to say. I really don’t.

    I don’t think you guys are hypocrites. I think a bunch of irresponsible, self-important pundits have created a rhetorical riptide, and we all need to swim against it or get sucked out to the Sea of the Lowest Common Denominator. You know I have respect for you guys; why would you assume that I wanted to call you hypocrites rather than make some other point? This is what I’m talking about – I know it’s going to sound really, really cliche, but we’re all in this shitty situation together, and I worry that we’re losing sight of that, and that sucks.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  75. Leviticus,

    Your phrasing gave that unintended impression. That’s why I asked what your thinking was here. I think if you were going to call us hypocrites, you would have done it directly, so I assumed a miscommunication.

    I would contend that it is absolutely the LAT’s fault. Someone at the LAT made a conscious choice that those comments were okay for publication, while others were not. The fact that those didn’t appear to cross the line, while others did, means that the LAT believes that is appropriate discourse after someone dies. That’s a bit different than the Murtha thread here where nobody was going to be around to monitor an open comment forum.

    I’ll respect anyone’s politics as long as the person is usually dignified (everybody needs a rant now and then), and always honest. I might disagree with them, but I’ll respect them. Joe Lieberman is a good example. I’ll take him over John McCain in a heartbeat. I respect McCain’s past service and don’t trust him as a politician at all.

    Unfortunately, the left/right thing is going to be with us for a while and this post is a good example of why it needs to be discussed. The guy was a nut and it wasn’t a liberal or conservative philosophy or platform that encouraged him to violence, yet that is what the post detailed… the left claiming that it was violent right-wing rhetoric that encouraged the idiot to start shooting at the Pentagon. That needs to be countered.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  76. Adding to Patrick’s list:

    In an interview with Playboy magazine, Spike Lee also called for Michael Williams to be beaten up with baseball bats. (Williams was Undersecretary of Education during the G. H. W. Bush administration.)

    DubiousD (696eac)

  77. “Ummm… Iraq and Afghanistan, to name two?”

    A tea party compared to the wars the libby wibbies got us into: WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Those four wars cost us about 600,000 dead Americans, and God knows how many enemy folks our guys killed. Over a million for sure.

    Libs are violent as hell. Right wingers…not so much.

    Dave Surls (30c377)

  78. Are we going to discuss McCarthyism and Liz Cheney?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6271081-503544.html

    Oh wait. CBS news is a left-wing news group (he he), so their stories don’t matter.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  79. I posted this, not to blame left-wing rhetoric for the shooting, but to forestall the inevitable portrayal of Bedell as a right-wing extremist.

    I smell poop.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  80. Excellent post!

    Let’s not forget Mike Malloy wishing Beck would commit suicide. http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/08/libtalker-malloy-i-hope-glenn-beck.html

    Olbermann calling Malkin a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick (or his insinuating someone needs to take Hillary Clinton in a room somewhere so she never comes out of again)

    Or when Mike Mallow said: “The Republican Party needs to be executed as quickly as possible.”
    or
    “Rush Limbaugh he will choke to death on his own throat fat.”

    Ed Schultz: Republicans ‘Want to See You Dead, They’d rather make money off your dead corpse.’ or “I think that Dick Cheney wants this country to get hit again for political gain.” or “We ought to rip it out (Cheney’s heart) and kick it around and stuff it back in him.” And this one, “I ‘Absolutely’ Believe Cheney Wants Americans To Die ” Or when Ed Schultz Attacks Joe Lieberman’s Lobbyist Wife: ‘Does the Word Whore Apply?’

    Or when Olby said, I wanted to apologize for calling Senator-elect Scott Brown an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.” I’m sorry, I left out the word “sexist.”

    Friday, Feb. 12, 2010 Keith Olbermann blames Bush and Cheney for 9/11. Perhaps Olbermann should be blamed for the 9/11 truther shooting attack at the Pentagon.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_WDz3gc7s&feature=player_embedded

    sarainitaly (1a5437)

  81. Are we going to discuss McCarthyism and Liz Cheney?

    Nice deflection. Why on earth is this relevant to a thread about Bedell? And if you think it’s so important to discuss McCarthyism and Liz Cheney, why don’t you get your own blog and write about it there? I’m sure many of the posters here would love to come over and beat you up on your home turf.

    Some chump (050674)

  82. “A tea party compared to the wars the libby wibbies got us into: WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. ”

    Is this a new wingnut meme, that the liberals “got us into” WWII? Because I thought this sort of nonsense died when the Japanese finally sunk the last shred coherence the isolationists could have had on Dec 7, 1941.

    imdw (de7003)

  83. Bill Ayers, right-wing extremists.

    Rich (edf80b)

  84. “Is this a new wingnut meme, that the liberals “got us into” WWII?”

    imdw – No, this is an old and well supported narrative. Try learning some history.

    daleyrocks (5710d7)

  85. It’s not their fault, daley. Have you had a look at high school curricula these days? Or read that silly Howard Zinn book?

    Yep, something smells like poop. And it’s not what the poop-smeller thinks. The source is, um, a bit closer to home.

    Eric Blair (68eb29)

  86. Eric – I’ve seen what my own kids studied and it was seriously dumbed down from my own curricula more than 30 years ago, plus the viewpoint of history has been skewed.

    Plus, I try to stay away from poop. I don’t think our trolls have very good personal hygeine, which may explain the smell.

    daleyrocks (5710d7)

  87. What I always found interesting is the narrative in school about how we *forced* the Japanese to attack us….yet never any discussion of the atrocities of the Japanese.

    Because what we did is just about the same. Sheesh. It’s a microscope on the US, and Mr. Magoo glasses on others.

    Which is why so many young people know very little about US or world history. They aren’t being taught history. They are being taught current political philosophy.

    Eric Blair (68eb29)

  88. Which is why so many young people know very little about US or world history. They aren’t being taught history. They are being taught current political philosophy.

    What he said. Truth.

    John Hitchcock (cdd36b)

  89. I smell poop.

    Comment by Intelliology

    Ask your mommy to change your nappy.

    Subotai (463ad2)

  90. Obviously, liberal/Democrat governments are way more violent. They fight a lot of big old nasty wars. Way over 90% of the Americans killed in wars over the last 100 years have been killed in wars the lib Dems got us into. Ain’t no question that they’re more violent when it comes to governmental violence.

    How about non-govermental violence? How about protest violence?

    Which was more violent, the civil rights and anti-war related protests of the 1960s or these little Tea Parties?

    In 1965 their was a riot in Los Angeles in which 34 people were killed (Watts riot). Now, who was it that was doing the rioting? A bunch of conservative, right wingers from Orange County…or a bunch of black dudes from the inner city who overwhelmingly vote for the liberal Democrats?

    How about riots by lefties connected to the Vietnam War? How about the 1968 Columbia riots or the protests at the 1968 Democrat Party Convention in Chicago, just to name two of many? See anything comparable to that coming from right wingers? No? Me neither.

    How about individual acts of violence by left wing nutballs? Here’s a few names for you: Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Huey Newton, Kathy Boudin, H. Rap Brown…just to name a few famous lefty murderers of my lifetime. And, those guys weren’t loners, they were all connected to organized groups.

    And, the lefties talk about violence from the right???

    Spare me.

    Dave Surls (6e556f)

  91. “I smell poop.”

    Comment by Intelliology

    A rat smells it’s own hole first, Intellcoprophagia.

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  92. In 1965 their was a riot in Los Angeles in which 34 people were killed (Watts riot).

    And don’t forget the riots (oh, excuse me, the “uprising”) of 1992. The event where all the limousine liberals throughout West LA thought “Rodney King got a raw deal!!” And then from the comfort of their living room, watched on TV as neighorhoods farther east went up in smoke. All the while, thinking “this is what happens when injustice and poverty aren’t stamped out of our cruel, heartless society!!!”

    And then they booked a flight out of town to the Bahamas.

    Mark (411533)

  93. And does anyone recall the memorial service for Paul Wellstone, the liberal/Democrat Senator from Minnesota who was killed in a plane crash? In a sports arena packed to the rafters with people of the left, instead of the mood being one of somber reflection, there was a lot of crass, trashy politicization.

    Again, when surveys indicate that higher percentages of liberals actually are less generous — less compassionate — when it comes to the donation of their time, money and even blood, the phoniness of them and everything they stand for no longer surprises me.

    Mark (411533)

  94. It’s more than we’ll get from the likes of Neiwert, who will no doubt continue to maintain the amazing Big Lie that a Democrat Truther who hated Bush was really a “right-wing extremist.” It takes a special sort of dishonesty to maintain such a fiction.

    “A special sort of dishonesty” is a quality that defines leftism.

    I recall during the ’90’s, when Yeltsin was in conflict communist hardliners trying to stage various coups, US papers were referring to the communist hardliners as “conservative, right wing communists.”

    It largely didn’t raise an eyebrow. If the press can call what are essentially Stalinists “right wing,” they can and will call anybody right wing.

    As an aside, it helps illustrate the process by which national socialism got attributed to the “right wing” once it became embarrassing to the left.

    But the larger point, I believe, is that this doesn’t represent merely an ideological blindspot on the left.

    Attributing all things evil to the “right” is part and parcel to justifying organized leftis thuggery.

    Steve (7d8b00)

  95. Ted Kaczynski
    Amy Bishop
    Bruce Ivins
    Joe Stack
    John Bedell…

    William Ayers
    Bernardine Dohrn
    Kathy Boudin
    David Gilbert
    Samuel Brown
    Judith Clark
    Nathaniel Burns
    Angela Davis
    Charles Manson
    Michael Klonsky
    Mark Rudd
    John Jacobs
    Tom Hayden
    David Gilbert
    Susan Rosenberg
    Linda Evans
    Terry Robbins
    Jeff Jones
    Gerry Long
    Steve Tappis
    Ted Gold
    Cathy Wilkerson
    Diana Oughton
    Noel Ignatin
    Clayton Van Lydegraf
    Judith Bissell
    Thomas Justesen
    Leslie Mullin
    Marc Curtis
    Naomi Jaffe
    Susan Stern
    Bob Tomashevsky
    Sam Karp
    Russell Neufeld
    Joe Kelly
    Laura Whitehorn
    Assata Shakur
    Anthony Bottom
    Albert Washington
    Francisco Torres
    Gabriel Torres
    Herman Bell
    Ray Boudreaux
    Henry W. Jones
    Richard Brown
    Harold Taylor
    James Coston
    Clark Edward Squire
    Donald Weems
    Ashanti Alston
    Joseph Bowen
    Robert Seth Hayes
    William Turk
    Ojore N. Lutalo
    Anthony LaBorde
    Nathaniel Burns
    Grailing Brown
    Freddie Hilton
    Russel “Maroon” Shoatz
    Arthur Lee Washington, Jr.

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  96. […] anti-government internet postings by Bedell while ignoring Bedell’s indisputable status as a registered Democrat who hated Bush and a 9/11 Truther (a left wing conspiracy theory). The NYT spends several thousand words detailing Bedell’s background but fails to note his […]

    Media Misleads Americans About Left-Leaning Attackers Bedell, Stack and Bishop | CentristNet (98d1c7)

  97. Comment by GeneralMalaise — 3/7/2010 @ 1:28 pm

    And we can all be quite certain that both of these lists are completely exhaustive…. because if general mayonaise say it is so… then it is.

    *gavel wraps*

    Intelliology (00d844)

  98. Don’t you need to go change your underwear, dude? I mean, given your typically silly little post at #80.

    So before you try to be rude, you should probably not give people such ammo to poke fun at your foolish posts.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  99. It is still astonishing that Intelliology bothers to show up, given his reputation here.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  100. […] some anti-government internet postings by Bedell while ignoring Bedell’s indisputable status as a registered Democrat who hated Bush and a 9/11 Truther (a left wing conspiracy theory). The NYT spends several thousand words detailing Bedell’s background but fails to note his status […]

    Media Misleads Americans About Left-Leaning Attackers Bedell, Stack and Bishop | ahffgeoff's Diary (8eaf85)

  101. Why would anyone give any credence to this stupid list that was given, knowing that there is an obvious agenda behind it? I’m sure with a bit of research I could come up with a list of 3 left-wing terrorists and 3 dozen right-wingers…. so what is the point? There is none. It was a stupid post.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  102. Why would anyone give any credence to this stupid list that was given, knowing that there is an obvious agenda behind it? I’m sure with a bit of research I could come up with a list of 3 left-wing terrorists and 3 dozen right-wingers…. so what is the point? There is none. It was a stupid post.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  103. Idiotology knows its stooopid.

    JD (03a313)

  104. “I’m sure with a bit of research I could come up with a list of 3 left-wing terrorists and 3 dozen right-wingers”

    Intelliology – Go!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  105. Brilliant comment JD. That’s why you make the big bucks.

    Intelliology (00d844)

  106. Envy is so not pretty.

    JD (b4414c)

  107. Intelliology – We’ll await your list.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  108. “Brilliant comment JD. That’s why you make the big bucks.”

    Intelliology – Your comments show why you still live in your mother’s basement.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  109. Ad hominem and outright fabrication, that’s the sum total of Intelliology.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  110. #100 SPQR:

    given his reputation here.

    I suspect its reputation anywhere doesn’t show any significant difference from how its regarded here.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  111. Intellcoprophagy isn’t aware that the list is composed of left-wing terrorists from the late ’60’s and 70’s who became registered Democrats, many of who were also granted tenure in the nation’s universities.

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  112. many of whom…

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  113. #102 and #103… angry double posting through tears of rage.

    GeneralMalaise (04e9c2)

  114. Didn’t you enjoy the conceit that allowed a partisan troll to accuse anyone at all of having an “obvious agenda”?

    The self-examined life is not for everyone.

    Eric Blair (522121)

  115. “conceit” isn’t the first word that pops to mind, Eric.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. Seriously, SPQR, it is just some college kid playing games. At least I hope so. If that is a person with a real job and career and a life writing that way, well….that’s too bad.

    Eric Blair (e9dd87)

  117. […] Loughner is not the only left wing Truther to pick up a gun and go violent. […]

    The Strata-Sphere » Confirmed: AZ Mass Murderer A 9-11 Truther (751de9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5659 secs.