« Proof Media Cherry Picks Data to Continue Horserace | MsJoanne's Blog | Media Distorts for McCain - AGAIN »
Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly Terrorists?
On Sunday, Jim David Adkisson entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during a children’s musical and began firing a 12-guage shotgun. The results were two people dead and six wounded.
According to the Knoxville News, the police stated that Adkisson wanted to kill liberals and because he couldn’t kill the elected officials, he would instead kill the people he said voted them into office.
But it has not.
Timothy McVeigh was a Domestic Terrorist, why not Adkisson?
Of course, it's all the liberals fault!
Keep reading here.
And do Recommend should you feel it's worthwhile.
According to the Knoxville News, the police stated that Adkisson wanted to kill liberals and because he couldn’t kill the elected officials, he would instead kill the people he said voted them into office.
Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, “because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.”‘I wonder why Mr. Adkisson has yet to be labeled a terrorist. He went on a rampage and killed Americans because of his beliefs about our government. He walked into a church and shot people because he felt they elected liberals. As such, this is an attack on the way America is governed. And as such, this should have been labeled a terrorist attack.
(snip)
Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.
(snip)
Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said. “Liberals in general, as well as gays.”
But it has not.
Timothy McVeigh was a Domestic Terrorist, why not Adkisson?
Of course, it's all the liberals fault!
Keep reading here.
And do Recommend should you feel it's worthwhile.
Advertisement
No, no, no, "terrists" are all people from someplace else with semi-pronounceable names.
Didn't you get the memo?
(Snarkity, snarkity, snark, snark, snark.)
July 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooohhhh...and here I thought a turrurist was whomever Bush says was one.
Much like those million names on the turrurist watch list.
Yours.
Mine.
Ours.
July 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that would make little Timmy McVeigh the good kind of terrorist a "freedom fighter". I know the right wing talking heads can't wait to label this psycho church killer one!
July 29, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're already saying he was a liberal plant. He had those books in his house to blame them, poor right wingers, but it was all a liberal plot to discredit them.
It started with a commenter but watch to see if it gets legs. The right is already unhinged enough as it is.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/28/malkins-commenter-on-the-tn-church-gunman-he-wanted-to-discredit-conservatives/
This was the exact quote from the commenter:
Evil.
July 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read this one, too.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/28/tn-church-gunman-killed-over-churchs-liberal-views/
(No, I am not talking to myself, really, honest.)
July 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I stupid thing for the right wing to suggest. He wouldn't have been on the hunt for Xtians (yes I am ripping of Xmas) at a UU church. You don't have to be an Xtian to be a member. Though being liberal is the norm!
July 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By suggesting Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly are "terrists." I really think you do "terrists" a diservice :)
July 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch.
But, hell, they deserved that. :-)
July 29, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad thing is, I foresee more of this type of terrorism after Obama gets elected. There are some really scary unhinged gun-nut types out there who are waiting for some cues from O'Reilly, Savage et al. to exact revenge and do some 'cleansing' of the unclean liberals.
It'll be interesting in the next few years to see if the same power of the state for domestic spying is brought to bear on homegrown terrorists who are white and have names like Smith and Jones as it is for those who are not.
July 29, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was working down in GA a couple months back and they had on one of the radio stations some KKK or supremacist group (or whatver hate group they were) vowed to kill Obama.
The DJ was (rightfully) saying how people like that made people form GA (and from the south overall) look like a bunch of backward idiots.
That someone could verbalize their intent to kill someone running for the office of President of the United States, is something which, IMHO, results in things like Terrorist Fist Jabs and Obama's Baby Mama. Fox and the other hate groups are showing such a lack of respect for the office and the campaign to that office it's more than stunning.
And it is beyond appalling.
July 29, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also a crime to publicly threaten someone's life. I never understood how people like the aforementioned assbags and Coulter and others can get away with some of what they have said, which on occasion has flat-out suggested killing someone they considered too liberal. I think a clear examination of their transcripts might be very revealing, and if they have ever publicly incited violence against anyone, let alone a president or presidential candidate, they should be thrown in jail and muzzled for the rest of their lives. IMO.
July 29, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Raider...like terrorist Obama and Supreme Court judges?
Agreed, 100%!
July 29, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too priceless to pass up! So, the office of the Presidency deserves respect, eh? Ever pay attention to what your fellow liberals say about GWB ? Think it's a one way street, that what goes around won't come around?
July 29, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
GWB has earned everything which is said about him.
Are you not paying attention? HELLO!
War disaster.
Economy.
Job loss.
Housing crisis.
Mortgage crisis.
Banks failing.
$600 BILLION dollar DEFICIT.
Uber secrecy.
Torture.
Politicization of ALL agencies.
Tainted food.
Tainted meds.
Save for workers at Ground Zero.
Worst president in living history.
And this is just off of the top of my head.
Spare me. Just fucking spare me.
July 29, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your warped opinion. Funny you blame GWB for people taking out loans they can't repay, for banks making bad loans, for food being contaminated, for rainy days, blah blah blah. Grow up and figure out what is really in the realm of the presidency and what is not. If you treat GWB with no respect, you can't argue that your candidate for that office should be revered.
July 29, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sticks and stones and shotguns vs words and beliefs and ideals.
We all lose whenever anyone decides that killing Americans is the only valid response. But the loss is all that much greater when it's Americans doing the killing. Of Americans.
Don't 'come around' with your insanity. Who do you think agrees with you? Republicans? Good luck with that. You're sick. Deal.
July 30, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not everyone who listens to the garbage being spewed by the ultra-right wing-nuts goes on a killing spree. It's pretty obvious Adkisson is a few cans short of a six pack.
I get very uncomfortable when people begin talking about banning hate speech. Banning any speech is inherently dangerous. Who is to decide what is "hate speech" and what isn't? One could argue that the lyrics in hip-hop and rap contribute to the gang culture, which results in many senseless deaths and he degradation of women. Should that genre of music be banned as "hate speech"?
We really don't want to get into a legal p*ssing contest about what is "hate speech" and what isn't, do we? Far better to point out the filth coming out of the wingnuts' disgusting pie holes and educate people on why it is wrong.
We should never ban speech. It's a dangerous and slippery slope. If someone says that don't like liberals or blames liberals for problems, then it is up to us to educate people as to why this is false. It's really not that difficult, after all!
If people are directly incited to violence, then there is legal recourse to have the speaker arrested. But just because someone blames you for their problems doesn't mean they are telling other people to kill you.
July 29, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are obviously a Republican troll. No real American would oppose banning hate speech, just as no real American would allow incipient terrorists to burn the American flag -- hateful as hell if you ask me.
Of course we should ban hate speech. Wipe it out. And don't worry about "who is to decide" what's hate speech and what's not. I'll decide, thank you very much. I can't give you a good definition of it, but I know it when I see it.
July 29, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooooooo-kaaaaaaay.
July 29, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that I am not qualified to be a judge of hatefulness? I take that as an insult and demand satisfaction.
Pistols at dawn, sir, or swords?
July 29, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is the challenged who gets to choose the weapons, Tankard.
On behalf of Robbylove, I choose flugelhorns and rollerskates.
July 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I offered him a #&#@&## choice. What are you, his second?
July 29, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no.
Just an inveterate meddler.
I forgot to mention..... "at forty paces"
July 29, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he's a troll at all.
Freedom of Speech is something we all take to heart. And I fear for disallowing this type of speech in fear that all types of speech can be banned, based upon who is in power. (Consider the last eight years should there not have been free speech...especially free speech as originally set out in the constitution which was to be able to speak out against one's own government).
that said, this kind of speech being allowed as mass media, well I have a problem with that. And that these people make millions of dollars on that hate speech. And the results of such hate speech on weak minds.
There has to be some kind of balance somewhere.
Hell if I know what it is, though.
July 29, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was irony, Joanne.
July 29, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I, apparently, need to have my sense of humor tuned up.
My bad.
July 29, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the rest of my post here. I actually address that.
July 29, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Finally someone said it. We may detest what they say, but the First Amendment--first for a reason, I think--allows them the right to say it. Now, if they specifically tell someone to murder someone else (thus infringing on the murdered's right to life), that's another thing. Nutcases will always do what nutcases do; if not this, they will find another "cause" (video games, rap music, teh intrnetz). Figuring out how to solve that problem--healing society's wounds, as it were, the problems (like unemployment, in Adkisson's case) that contribute to acts of desperation/apparent insanity--seems a much more productive cause than beginning persecution of speech we don't agree with. After all--when they're in power, what's to stop them from doing it to us?
July 29, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get very uncomfortable when people begin talking about banning hate speech.
Oh. Why'd you begin talking about it, then? Nobody had mentioned those words in this thread until you did.
July 29, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the article, chuckles. They mention banning people from the airwaves and banning them from writing books.
July 29, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real insanity is the contention that liberals have been in control of the country and tied our hands in the WOT. That’s pretty crazy considering Iraq or the remaking America as a security state. For seven years Bush has been given everything he’s asked for.
This man may have been mad but the incident still reveals the power of propaganda. Timothy McVeigh wasn’t insane and formed his beliefs from the same RW black helicopter cults. Rush Limbaugh has been fomenting hate with lies for twenty years to millions of people. Fox is a network devoted to Republican dogma and demonizing half the people in the country.
I agree that all speech must be protected but the likes of Fox need to be exposed and taken to task for spreading misinformation and hate. They are using the public airwaves to deceive and incite people against a political faction. Pelosi was talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. I won’t hold my breath but that is the least they should be doing.
July 29, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that you can label what Limbaugh, Hannity, and others of their ilk peddle as simply Republican dogma. I think it goes beyond that. It's hate-mongering. Republicans certainly use what they do to their political advantage, but as Joanne is pointing out here, how different are these talking heads from any other extremists? They're out there fomenting hate, inciting people to engage in extreme acts of violence, and they're building highly lucrative careers doing this.
July 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, I mostly agree with you, but, the Republican's are picking up the ways of these talking heads as part of their own dogma. They may not out and out threaten, but their thinly veiled, innuendo based attacks come damned close.
Steve King comes to mind.
That nutbag GOP guy in FL who said that Al Jeezera news wanted to interview him and when asked for his address to pick him up, went ballistic that Al Jeezera was going to kidnap him.
This hate becomes the mindset of these Republicans.
July 29, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that that Limbaugh, Coulter, et al. promote hate but I don’t think anything they put out could be prosecuted as inciting violence. I doubt there are any free speech exceptions that can be applied to their BS. Remember, the KKK has a right to stand on a soapbox and spout the most vitriolic racist hate in the public square as long as they’re not directly inciting violence.
The Turner Diaries are the price we pay for free speech and there will always be lunatics who go off. But Limbaugh and Fox were built to promote the RW agenda at the expense of truth. Like Drudge, they’re treated as legitimate by the press, so millions accept what they promote as gospel.
One of the strategies most responsible for the RW ascendancy has been the idea that the media is liberally biased. This idea paved the way for spreading their BS and has to be exposed as the myth it is. But just as there are truth-in-advertising laws, there are laws governing broadcast media that call for acting in the public interest. Clearchannel organizing marches to promote the invasion of Iraq or networks presenting Pentagon shills as expert and impartial retired generals or the hate and lies being propagated do not constitute neutral reporting and acting in the public interest. Most of all, the media needs to be held to a standard of truth.
July 29, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember the book, but in one of hers, Coulter out and out recommended that someone kill a particular liberal politician. Again, I don't remember the particulars, but when I saw that, the one and only time I picked up one of her books, I couldn't believe that she wasn't brought up on charges for it. It's one thing to say nasty things about people - that's our free speech at work - but it's another to suggest that someone kill someone else. To me, that's over the line and, as far as I know, it's illegal. Coulter should be in jail for that, and so should any "personality" or "pundit" who advocates violence against others.
Now sometimes they do skirt a fine line between out and out advocacy for violence and just the suggestion of it. In such cases, I think there is First Amendment protection unless it can be proved to be sufficiently and reasonably construed as a threat (and I'm not a lawyer so I'm guessing here), but I'm pretty sure that when someone says, "So and so should be killed" or "Someone should go out and kill so and so and get rid of him/her," that's over the line and should be actionable, precisely because of nut cases like Adkisson.
July 29, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see that but I think Coulter is so over the top at all times that she has a too-crazy-to-be-serious defense. She would claim that her writings are satire or parody just as Milton advocating eating Irish babies was satire. There may be a good case of slander or libel against her (i.e. from the 9/11 widows). But free speech is the last bastion against any kind of tyranny. There has to be the widest of latitude. What about Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Chavez? Is it okay because he proposed a government assassination rather than just calling on anyone to kill him? I don’t know where the legal lines are drawn either, but I think the publishers and broadcasters who give these people megaphones for their hate need to be called on it.
July 29, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, she doesn't believe all the crap she spouts, some of her best friends are actually liberals. One of my best friends (who is so leftist, you'd think he was a commie) was, for a time, slated to become her nephew-in-law and she wanted to get him a PS3.
July 30, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I can't remember when it was named as such but the KKK is legally a terrorist group, so they probably don't have the right to gather (or at least probably shouldn't). The American Nazi Party, on the other hand, is not and is perfectly welcome to march through Jewish neighborhoods whenever they like (we could use the target practice for those baseball throwing games at the carnival), but I digress.
July 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Don said about the Fairness Doctrine.
It's been discussed before in these parts, but all that's wrong with it is that the arguments in favor need some freshening up. Freshen them up with the appropriate nods to current technology and it makes sense. Or not?
Otherwise, c'mon, we've ceded limited frequencies to limitless bile.
July 30, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The right wingers always defend angry white men. McVeigh wasn't quite labeled a terrorist. People on the far right saw him as something of a logical reaction to Waco and Ruby Ridge.
July 29, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
McVeigh was labeled a domestic terrorist. I suck at those h ref things (I always have to go elsewhere to create them) but go to my original post. I linked to it there. Heck, Google McVeigh and Domestic Terrorist and look at the hits.
He was a domestic terrorist, just as Rudolph was and just as this man is. His ideology (and desperation) drove him to kill. Tell me what a terrorist is if not that. Are Palestinian suicide bombers not called terrorists? Because of their ideology and desperation they blow themselves and others up.
This guy expected to die. I think he wanted to. It's easy to go out in a blaze of glory than to accept that you've either been let down or let yourself down.
July 29, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he was labeled a domestic terrorist. But not so much by the right. I'm agreeing with you, JoAnne. The right wingers seem to have an insane white guy exception for terrorism and it goes back to the 1990s militia movement, of which McVeigh was a part.
July 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, you have to be one of those icky brown people to become labeled a terrorist. And if they happen to be from an oil rich land, so much the better.
Then we can scapegoat them (whichever country we decide to scapegoat, at the time), invade them, and get into the clusterf**k we are living with now.
So many of our woes go back to this war. The cost of this war is affecting every area of our society because it is chocking us financially.
I don't believe in censorship, but I have a huge problem with the mass media is doing.
July 29, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, my friend. Me too.
July 29, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adkisson was unemployed and reaching the end of his food stamps. Desperation, anger, loss of self-respect, and probably a host of other factors paired with the media he gravitated toward made for a lethal combination. He didn't expect to live through the carnage. There are lots more Adkisson's out there. Until this country rights itself and/or the hate-mongers in the media get a conscience and take a different, responsible tack, these acts of desperation will not cease.
It's been suggested a massive effort to boycott sponsors of programs that foment hate could initiate positive change while protecting the First Amendment.
Thank you, MsJoanne, for your thoughtful post.
July 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm...the act of a desperate man, looking for someone to blame for his misery, someone who he could lash out against.
There are an awful lot of Adkisson's out there - ticking time bombs, looking for an excuse to unleash all of that rage on some innocent party.
What these media "personalities" are doing is just plain wrong, and the networks that are promoting have to put a stop to it. Providing a forum for the airing of political opinions is fine. But, as Don Key said, they have a responsibility to the public to ensure that their programming is meeting a certain standard of informing, educating, certainly not inflicting harm.
July 29, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you MsJoanne, I recommended you fine post as soon as I finished reading the original.
I do agree that Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly are terrorists. And I would ask the question:
Is Coulter sitting on Fox News calling someone to shot because they're a "liberal" any different from Osama Bin Laden releasing a video calling for attacks on Americans?
Is Savage sitting in a radio booth spewing anti gay vemon different from Al Qaeda audio tapes?
In my opinion no.
July 29, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that the New York Times story on Knoxville failed to mention that provocative left-behind literature was all over the place.
Another case of fearing to insult or anger the right wing.
July 29, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if anyone here appreciates the irony of TPM posters who regularly demonize all republicans complaining about how demonizing people for their ideology leads to violence. I guess it's only bad when it's liberals that are demonized.
July 29, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for myself, I would say the same thing about a "liberal" who advocated shooting someone. I would like to see Bush in jail for what he has done to this country and to the Constitution and the separation of powers, but I would like to see it accomplished by due process. So, at least I am one liberal who dislikes what some right wing people are doing enough to demonize it if the action seems truly demonic to me.
Your charges of hypocrisy strike me as a bit strange since you seem to be a strict party line sort of guy without much gray in your black and white. But so it goes.
July 29, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The “people” fomenting hate under discussion here are celebrities who have giant megaphones (generally, public airwaves) to spread their garbage, not bloggers talking to each other. Besides, the commenters at this site pale in comparison to RW sites like Free Republic in demonizing an political opponents.
July 29, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you gonna bring any concrete examples of your own to the discussion that might lead anyone (Republican or Democrat) to wonder at the 'irony' of it all? Pony up.
July 30, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The successful case against Tom Metsger and White Aryan Resistance for their role in inciting the murder of Mulugetaw Seraw here in Portland is one example of successful prosecution of hate speech. The Aryan Nation compound was turned over to the victims of a beating by Aryan Nation members in a successful suit and is not a center for human rights education and organizing (how sweet that is!)
These are just two examples of successful civil suits against those who incite violence. If Anne Coulter's inciting comment about the New York Times building had resulted in a bombing at that paper - or even some other paper - bombing victims and their families would certainly be able to bring suit and likely win damages against her.
They key is that all of these suits are brought by private individuals who have been harmed - not by the government. Private individuals can pursue any legal tactic to discourage hate speech - from civil suits to boycotts and secondary boycotts.
Some may say secondary boycotts are illegal, but they are only illegal for labor. Moreover, because farmworkers aren't covered under the Wagner Act, they can use secondary boycotts. Agribusiness has been lobbying to make all secondary boycotts illegal and have succeeded in some anti-labor states, but they are still legal for anti-hate speech tactics if people choose to pursue them.
Unfortunately, most secondary boycotts are too diffuse to succeed. People say they will boycott all the advertisers on a certain network for example - well, that does not demonstrate the boycott's power because it's spread too wide so people slip. They need to target one key advertiser and boycott that one. It's easier to organize a boycott of one company - and it makes the pain more deeply felt -and the word gets out more effectively.
I sincerely believe that these are all appropriate strategies for the community of concerned people to take a stand against hate speech - and require no government involvement which would be dangerous and unconstitutional.
As to the ACLU, of course they will defend the hate-speakers against any government censorship. The ACLI is neither liberal nor conservative. It is purely an avenue to ensure the protection of our civil liberties. Despite the ravaged principles of the GOP during these last 8 years, I still believe that the Constitution and our rights are not not a partisan issue but an American one - and in that at least - Bush is not representative of most Republicans.
July 29, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great comment, but I take issue with your last line. Bush IS a representative of most Republican because they all vote lock-step with him. That makes him their voice.
July 29, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just got here and I am now giving you a standing ovation. And no, it's not just one hand clapping!
Exception - there's nothin' wrong with your sense of humor and I take issue with that statement. But you are fierce when you get pissed and that's not a bad thing either.
Thanks for excellent post - full of vim and vinegar as they say. Just as it should be.
Rec'd.
July 29, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the guy is judged to be mentally sound enough to stand trial, than I would consider it an act of terrorism. But if he's wacko you can't call it that or blame O'Reilly et al.
Remember that Hinckley said he shot Reagan as an act of love for Jodie Foster, a liberal. However, Hinckley's insanity should preclude any charges of terrorism or incitement to terrorism.
July 30, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whaddaya talk? Jodie Foster shudda been strung up before she had the opportunity to compound her atrocities by forcing "The Brave One" on society.
July 30, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I wonder if anyone here appreciates the irony of TPM posters who regularly demonize all republicans complaining about how demonizing people for their ideology leads to violence. I guess it's only bad when it's liberals that are demonized."
I have a couple of issues with you here. First, we don't demonize Republicans. We talk about what they've actually done, or voted to be done. That's not demonizing, that's reporting the truth.
Do you understand that starting a war against a country that hasn't attacked you is a WAR CRIME, Zippy? It is, but it seems you don't know that.
Did you know that spying on US Citizens in the US is a FELONY, Zippy? It is, but it seems you don't know that.
Did you know that torturing someone is both a FELONY, and when it's done in the context of a war, it's a WAR CRIME, Zippy?
Did you know that killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (who, by the way NEVER ATTACKED US, AND ARE THEREFORE INNOCENTS) are war crimes, Zippy? They are, but it seems you don't know that.
If you wonder why I keep calling you Zippy, it's because it's from a cartoon, and you're basically a cartoon. The cartoon is titled "Zippy the pinhead". He wears a clown suit, much like yours.
July 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
When will Tom Friedman talk about the Right Wing Terrorism Bubble? When do Savage, Hannity, and O'Reilly get to "suck on this."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF6ZeUvgXs
July 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The above was a response to the bulldog idiot. NO these guys aren't terrorists. They are slanderous, libelous, pandering, cowardly propogandists, but none of them have enough vigor in them to actually DO anything, they just lip off.
And a good eviscerating boycott is the exact appropriate response to them. Also, people should protest FOX being in their basic cable package, and if they are unwilling to remove FOX from that basic cable package, then tell them you want a discount, or quit them. If they hear that enough, FOX will stop being part of basic cable.
July 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink