2009-7-31 05:01:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]
JJ:
If we are in a time of crisis concerning carbon dioxide (CO2) saturation as global warming alarmists preach, with thousands of species at stake, then why in the world are we talking about destroying clean hydropower to expand the population of just one species?
It makes you wonder if global warming alarmists are really convinced of their own doctrine or if they really have another agenda unrelated to climate.
Anyone who really believes the global warming hype should support the building of a nuclear plant for every dam breached. If they cannot support this, the cleanest of all energy, then they are guilty of hypocrisy of Biblical proportions.
JJ:
Well, Jim, many of these blowhards who complain about wind-power are environmentalists, especially when endangered species are involved. Then the noise of the hum of the windmills is so great when close to population areas that lawsuits surface. We also have environmentalist Robert Kennedy and [the Kennedy] clan complaining of visual pollution and suing to prevent windmills from being built on the ocean.
Jim rightfully says we should continue working on them until we perfect them so they will not harm the birds, but I'll bet this guy does not say the same thing about nuclear power plants. Unlike windmills that only operate when the wind blows nuclear energy works 24 hours a day and the new generation of nuclear plants has been greatly improved to the point they would require a direct hit from a nuclear bomb to cause a problem.
Anyone really serious about reducing CO2 emissions will support nuclear energy.
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"'Well, Jim, many of these blowhards who complain about wind-power are environmentalists, especially when endangered species are involved. Then the noise of the hum of the windmills is so great when close to population areas that lawsuits surface. We also have environmentalist Robert Kennedy and...'"
"Nice to see '73.2' is out supporting his favorite charity - big business. Nukes are nothing but welfare for the wealthy."
JJ:
Then I suppose you are against using health care since everyone involved in it is connected to big business.
Bad choice of reasoning my friend.
Big business won World War Two for us and many average people own stock in them and work for them. The only big that is really dangerous is government because we are forced to buy into it whereas I can always refused to buy Shell gasoline.
JJ:
If there is such a thing as hate speech then Michael Clark is guilty of it. To blame O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck for the recent murders is one of the most misguided and hateful words in print I have ever read. The Statesman has a policy of not publishing letters that are not accurate and unsupported by facts and therefore should not have published this letter.
First, all four of these guys give unwavering support to the police and would support taking away guns from madmen. If Clark was talking about the Oakland shooting there was only one killer involved, Lovelle Mixon, and he overreacted because of a grudge against his parole officer. Believe me, he was no Rush fan.
Secondly, the majority of US citizens were against Tiller's late term abortions just as these four. Do we want to live in a country where we cannot voice our opinions?
Thirdly, William Long was shot by the Muslim Abdulhakim Muhammad who probably never heard of Rush or Hannity.
Fourth, these four conservatives have only spoken in positive tones toward the Jews and Israel. The Holocaust shooter received no hateful ideas from them.
Finally, I have listened to these four for years and the only hate I have seen is from the Left who hate to hear an opposing point of view. They accuse others of hate speech, but cannot give examples.
As long as America remains America we must tolerate both sides and ignore such hateful and malicious finger pointing as is the case here.
"ConservoDem":
"Oh, and '73.2,' in response to your drawn out regurgitation of rightwingnut talking points, take this:
" http://www.alternet.org/media/140792/9_conservative_myths_about_right-wing_domestic_terrorism/?page=entire "
JJ:
Thanks for your reference to this "I hate everything from the Right" site. [The Unabomber] Ted Kaczynski would love it. I followed the link to hate groups and guess what? Everyone of them was from the Right and identified with Neo Nazis. If you take all the 926 hate groups from there they haven't created the damage of one Left wing hate group such as ELF. Funny, ELF [Earth Liberation Front] is not listed there, neither is "Earth First," Mexican nationalist groups, leftists gangs and other minority hate groups.
Nothing in this site supports the idea that any of these four conservatives bear any responsibility for anyone violence. I'd say the real haters are those who are trying to incite hate against these innocent men.
"TWall" wrote:
"No hate speech Joseph? Watch this:
" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSKJZfeQHPE "
JJ:
Yes, that was a good example, especially where it was pointed out that Joan Walsh from Salon.Com accused O'Reilly of being responsible for Tiller's death. I can't think of a more hateful thing to say. And it worked. The Left has been worked up into a frenzy of hate against him, thanks to her and others promoting hate.
As far as O'Reilly goes, he was emotional since he was virtually falsely accused of murder, and did interrupt more than usual, but anything he said in response did not cross the line any more than did Ms Walsh's hate writings. It is not hateful to passionately defend yourself against hate.
You would do the same.
"TWall" wrote:
"She only accused him after he told her there's blood on your hands, Joseph. I suggest you watch again."
JJ:
You missed my point. She accused him in an article for Salon.Com a few days earlier. That's why Bill [O'Reilly] was so worked up and that's why he invited her on the program. I would be upset also if someone wrote that such accusations against me.
"TWall" wrote:
" http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/06/10/von_brunn/index.html "
"There's the article, Joseph. No where in it does she say O'Reilly is guilty of murder. No where does she accuse him of murder. It's just O'Reilly getting worked up again when someone doesn't bow to his 'almightyness.'"
JJ:
Did you read the same article as I?
The headline blares:
"Can Right-Wing Hate-Talk Lead To Murder?"
Then she answers the question as follows:
"If there's a through-line between any of these acts of terrorism and the right-wing rhetoric that abets it, of course, it's the one linking Bill O'Reilly to Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Tiller."
I'd be mad if I were Bill also for this link to murder. He doesn't even like being called right wing as he is fairly centrist and agrees with the Democrats on a number of items.
The Right is tolerant of their differences with him, but the Left is foaming-at-the-mouth intolerant of him and everyone who is not a totally pure believer.
JJ:
I can't believe the audacity of the Lefties here. First you complain about hate speech coming from the Right talk show hosts, and then you agree with hateful and hurtful remarks from the Left much worse than anything you can find in their millions of words.
"LOKI" says:
"First Ammendment or not, those who profit from keeping American citizens at each other's throats should be summarily shot. All patriotic Americans should seek to harm pundits whenever they can."
JJ:
"ConservoDem" says this is "true' so I guess that's an endorsement.
"TWall" says he's on board with this but just wants pundits (right wing hosts) thrown in jail.
Now when has Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, or Beck ever stated something so mean spirited? When have they ever wanted anyone killed or thrown in jail for merely voicing their opinions?
What's that I hear?
Silence...
"Run":
"Did you just propose that the Statesman censor this letter, only to turn around and complain about people who hate to hear an opposing view? How did you put it? -- 'hypocrisy of Biblical proportions."
JJ:
In the past when I have sent letters to the Statesman that made any type of controversial statement they wrote me back and told me that I needed to supply them with references to prove my points or data, that it was their policy that letters making unfounded allegations or false data were not accepted to be published.
If this is really their policy for both Left and Right then they should not have published Clark's letter. I would have no problem with them publishing it if they had an "everything goes" policy, but what they apply to one side they need to apply to the other.
"Run":
"Joseph, you haven't even read the article. She never says what you say she does. I've been waiting months to throw this line back at you: You have to argue with what Joan says, not with what she doesn't say. Oooooh, that felt good."
JJ:
Looks like you'll have to try again. My point was with what she did say. Again, this is from her article before she appeared on O'Reilly:
The title of the article was:
"Can Right-Wing Hate-Talk Lead To Murder?"
Then she answers the question as follows:
"If there's a through-line between any of these acts of terrorism and the right-wing rhetoric that abets it, of course, it's the one linking Bill O'Reilly to Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Tiller."
Even though she started out by saying that those who pull the trigger are responsible she backtracks and shares the blame with people she hates including O'Reilly as noted. Again, I say, I would be upset at her if I were O'Reilly.
-- End Of Part One --
Go To:
Next article in series: Local Posts #26, Part Two
Previous article in series: Local Posts #25, Part One
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved