After his hate filled monologue on Leno, I'm not very inclined to believe him. The Cheney comments might be taken as innocent, if Maher didn't have a history of deep seated hatred.

You know liberals, saying you hate us and you think we should die does not turn us to your way of thinking. It makes us buy more ammunition.....

Civil War! Civil War! Seriously, Kahn, get a grip! What are ya gonna do? Shoot us all in the face?

Civil War! Civil War! Seriously, Kahn, get a grip! What are ya gonna do? Shoot us all in the face? Why don't you go watch some more Star Trek.

No Eric, I'm not the one advocating violence - you are. I've seen liberals advocate violence against President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and any conservative. In this blog and at mattmargolis.com I could only get a handful of liberal posters to denounce violence against conservatives.

We have documented numerous times in both blogs the multiple acts of violence against Republicans and Republican offices and property since the 2004 election cycle. You've burned offices, stormed offices, assaulted conservatives, shot at Republican offices (no less than three times), burned Republican offices (no less than two times), and vandalized Republican vehicles. Just recently a man was arrested in Fredricksburg, Virginia for following Republicans home and attacking them in their home because of conservative bumper stickers.

Yes. I think you are dangerous. Look at how you REFUSE to condemn liberals inciting violence. You are after all, the party of the Klan. Nearly all of the Klan was Democrat. And Edwards seems OK with attacking Catholics, an old favorite enemy of the Klan.

Your self-righteous arrogance and willingness to commit violence make you dangerous. Will any liberals here join me in denouncing political violence and the advocating of it in the United States? Will you?

or will you just post about how your hatred of us is justified?

In other words Eric, I'm telling you and your butthole friends to stop advocating and commiting violence and to denounce it. OK?

Lay off the hatred. Did you see Mahar on Jay Leno? Have you listened to any of the hate filled crap your leaders have said?

Stop it. We're sick of it, and your actions prove its not idle talk - you mean it. We are taking you seriously. Take us seriously.

DENOUNCE VIOLENCE AGAINST OPPOSSING POLITICAL VIEWS NOW! Both sides. Denounce it.

Sorry to get you so upset. I didn't mean to unleash the wrath of Khan.

My willingness to commit violence has blinded me from honest political discourse. From now forth, I shall join with you Khan in DENOUNCING VIOLENCE AGAINST OPPOSING POLITICAL VIEWS! What about hate speech, is that still alright?

Put away that ammunition, and let's just be friends OK!

Cheers!

Yes. I think you are dangerous…
Posted by: Kahn at March 7, 2007 02:20 AM

This is a good example as to why I believe rush limbaugh has single handily destroyed the political fabric of our country. The Hannity’s, Morgan, O’Reilly’s, Savage and Coulters are wannabes. Prior to 1990 you had the campaign seasons. Every once in a while a personal issue would come up such as Gary Heart’s picture with his secretary on his lap. But it was just putting it out there. It was not vicious. Your candidate lost the election you geared up for next time. This all changed in the 1990s. Limbaugh saw money to be made by making political attacks personnel. Seriously what did a young governor of Arkansas do to Rush Limbaugh that was so terrible that he would attack him not just on principal but with gut wrenching hate from the day he entered office through a Republican orchestrated Congressional trial and impeachment?

Move the clock forward to 2007 and you expect us to now bow down to Bush and Cheney and give them the benefit of the doubt. It aint going to happen.

I agree, Bill's comments about Cheney were "innocent" in the view that he wasn't advocating the assasination of the VP, but his comments about Pres. Bush were disgusting at best.(On Leno) Of many things he said about Bush he said "He's a Gilligan who couldn't find his ass with both hands." He was on The O-Reilly Factor lastnight defending his position, and one of the things he was upset about was the fact that the huffington post had removed the comments people were making about the VP not being injured during the suicide bombing. He was citing "Freedom of Speech" rehtoric. This is just my personal belief: Freedom of speech is every American's right, we know that, but not every nation has that the rights that we do. Our Veterans of the Rev. War died to give us the freedoms that we have today, therefore I see it more as a privledge to enjoy Freedom of Speech, People like Bill Maher, (and many others like him, both rep and demo.) Abuse this privledge time and time again, and then hide behind the "Freedom of Speech" right. I see this as an arrogant move, and I think it serves to some insight on that persons intergity and character. This goes for people of all political roots.

Yes. I think you are dangerous. Look at how you REFUSE to condemn liberals inciting violence. You are after all, the party of the Klan. Nearly all of the Klan was Democrat.

This statement is VERY ignorant and shows great lack of knowledge on the history of the South. Remember that the northern Democrats and northern Republicans were pro-civil rights and integration and the southern Democrats AND Republicans were ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS and ANTI-INTEGRATION. Theses southerners OF BOTH PARTIES made up the Klan. The fact is that most of these "Dixiecrats" became Republican after the Civil Rights Act- remember Strom Thurmond? Well, he was a Democrat . . .why, then, was Trent Lott proud of supporting him for President?

Again, the South used to ALMOST ENTIRELY be represented by Democrats for economic reasons, but the Republicans in the South were also anti-Integration. Once the Democratic party became associated with the Civil Rights Act (under southern Democrat Johnson), Johnson famously declared "We have lost the South for a generation". Which party is now dominant in the South and claims "States Rights" for anything civil rights related? Hint: it is not the Democrats. . .

One could easily say that Christians were the religion of the Klan, but this would also be unfair and ignorant of the history of America. Perhaps you should do some reading of history, Khan, before you post hate-filled venomous statements.

Back to the topic, anyone reading the transcripts (or watching the show) knows that Maher was saying the Huffington post shouldn't have to remove comments lamenting that the VP didn't persih in the bombing. I watched the show and cringed even though I knew what he was saying. . . it still seemed irresponsible.

Still, it's a FAR CRY from Ann Coulter saying of Clinton "the only question now is whether to impeach or assassinate him", or Michael Savage saying gays and liberals should be killed, or (insert your favorite hate monger here). . . Where was the right-wing outrage then?

The fact is that most of these "Dixiecrats" became Republican after the Civil Rights Act- remember Strom Thurmond?

In the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Republicans, in both houses, voted for the act in larger percentages than the Democrats. This makes Strom's switch a bit puzzling. He may have been upset that members of his party voted for the act, but then left them for a party that was even more in favor of it.

According to this article, most of the Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic party. You'll have to scroll down a bit, to where the author names names:

"Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains"

I'll concede she's wrong on one thing. Robert Byrd has remained a Democrat, but not until his dying day, because he has yet to reach it.

Here's something else I find interesting. Although some allege segregationism to have been part of conservatism,

"In the old South, support for segregation spanned the ideological spectrum. Some segregationists, like Thurmond and John Stennis of Mississippi, were conservatives. Others, like William Fulbright of Arkansas and Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, were liberals."

From my own recollection, most of the South voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. That was 12 years after the Civil Rights act. Since quite a few Dems were voted into Congress in the "Class of '74", I would also suspect that most of the South's congressmen for most of the late 1970's were Democrats.

Another piece of the puzzle, Bigfoot, is that Social Conservatism used to be detached from Economic Conservatism. That is, many Republicans were "Fiscally Conservative", but "Socially Liberal", like Rockefeller, Goldwater, etc. That was also true in the Democratic party, there were many Fiscally Liberal, but Socially Conservative Democrats. The segregationists were overwhelmingly "socially conservative" Southerners of both parties. After the Civil Rights Act (pushed through by "Liberal Democrats" like LBJ and Humphrey- this point was even made by Newt Gingrich on the floor of the House), the Democrats were forced to either switch parties or to change their views on integration. This is when the split between the "socially liberal" and "socially conservative" became a partisan issue. Now, which party calls itself "socially conservative" today?

Granted, even today there ARE exceptions, but do you REALLY think a pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-choice candidate will get the Republican nomination? Goldwater was the last "socailly liberal" national candidate who got the GOP nomination and I would be SHOCKED if Guiliani, Romney, etc get the nomination without changing their views on these issues. Likewise, you will not get a Democratic endorsement for President who is Pro-life, etc (like Reid, Murtha, etc). . .

There is also the fact that 98% of African Americans disapprove of this administration and the OVERWHELMING majority also consider themselves Democratic voters. And, do you REALLY think that the KKK today is voting for pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action, socially liberal Democrats??? I think not. . . I think they are more likely voting for the party represented by folks like: Limbaugh ("take that bone out of your nose and call me back"), Lott ("we wouldn't have all these problems today if Thurmond had been elected"), Coulter (repeatedly using the term "Raghead"). . .

Again, the KKK is currently is existence AND they call themselves a "Christian" and "Conservative" group! Which party does that sound like today?

One more thing, the Democrats WERE the party of the Confederacy as well (they DOMINATED the South, remember?) Jefferson Davis WAS a Democrat, the Confederate flag was associated with the Democratic party, etc.

However, which party today celebrates the Confederacy? Which party speaks at CCC conventions (remember, the CCC is an offshoot - a more "respectable" KKK)? What about Bob Jones University, which as recently as 2000 prohibited inter-racial dating?

The Southern Democratic party may have started the KKK, but the Democrats left the KKK long ago. . .

Coulterfan, I've attempted to educate Kahn about civil rights and the Klan several times, but nothing ever sinks in with him--he's got his talking points, and dammit, he's going to stick to them no matter what! Did you ever notice how he never, ever, ever under any circumstances mentions the Southern Strategy? That's not a simple oversight.

It's also worth pointing out that for all his bluster about "violence against conservatives," not once has he or any of the Bushbots around here denounced violence against liberals. Hell, keefer actively advocates for it...wanna bet that Kahn has never once called him "dangerous" for that? It's all just a charade.

Josh - refused to denounce violence.
coulterfan - refused to denounce violence.
SeesThroughIt - refuses to denounce violence.

You love to nit pick don't you. Too bad you facts are wrong. The Democrats were the party of the Klan right up into the 1960's. Then you bought off the black vote with welfare, using addiction where suppression had failed. You twist the facts - the "dixiecrats" did NOT become Republican, except in a very few cases. And no - the Republicans denounce the Klan as loud as anyone. Just because they claim to be conservative and Christian does not mean they are.

BUT - YOU STILL REFUSE TO DENOUNCE VIOLENCE! So, thanks for proving me right. You can't even bring yourselves to denounce it in an anonymous blog? You ARE dangerous.

Republican offices shot into on multiple occasions? Offices burned? Offices stormed? You won't denounce that? WTF?

I have noticed the silence regarding violence against liberals, SeesThroughIt.

I was also thinking, since Planned Parenthood of America was founded by a prominent Republican, Peggy Goldwater, does that make it a Republican organization? They still award the "Peggy Goldwater" award every year, but the 'Conservatives' are silent on this fact. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee in '64, lobbied his daughter that having an abortion was her best option. He also notably said "the Religious Right scares the hell out of me". . .

But, enough with this 'fake outrage' everyone knows what Bill Maher was saying (albeit not terribly well)- this is just more of a 'controversy' created by the Right's talking points. How much press has been given here to Coulter's homophobic remarks? She has refused to apologize, stating that "faggot has nothing to do with being gay, it's a playground taunt"!!! Ummm, ask the kids on the playground what a 'faggot' is, Ann. AND ask yourself if you want to reduce political discourse to the level of childhood taunts. . . Wait, wasn't Ann the one who claimed that you can't debate a liberal because they only call you names?!?!!?!?!?

Umm, Kahn, yes I denounce violence. I have at times even called myself a pacifist (like Jesus), which is about as big a denounciation of violence you can make! I believe violence only begets more violence, which is part of the reason I only believe in wars of DEFENSE and was against the War in Iraq from the start!!!

I denounce the death penalty, I denounce hatred, I denounce intolerance against anyone, I denounce revenge, I denounce PRE-EMPTIVE War, and I denounce violence. . .

Enough for you??? What about you- are you also opposed to the unnecessary war in Iraq, Kahn? What about Operation Rescue and other domestic terrorist groups? What about Limbaugh, Coulter, George Allen ("kick their soft teeth down their whiny throats")? What about the hate-mongers on the Right?

Remember, that folks like Coulter actually SUPPORTED terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and voilence against others because they are Muslim.

Umm, Kahn, yes I denounce violence. I have at times even called myself a pacifist (like Jesus), which is about as big a denounciation of violence you can make! Posted by: coulterfan at March 7, 2007 12:05 PM

-I'm sorry, but i gotta blow a whistle on this one. How many people used war and violence in Gods name? I guess if you dont count plaques, locusts, and turning people into salt blocks a form of violence then yea, I guess Jesus was a pacifist. I dont mean to attack your religion but I'm having trouble making the connection on your above post.

Bill Maher quote about President Bush.-"The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world stage. He is a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a vain half-wit who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another incoherent sentence.”
-Posted by: coulterfan at March 7, 2007 11:55 AM-"But, enough with this 'fake outrage' everyone knows what Bill Maher was saying (albeit not terribly well)- this is just more of a 'controversy' created by the Right's talking points.

-Yup thats right, thats all just Right-wing talking points. I think theres nothing else to argue about this.

"This is a good example as to why I believe rush limbaugh has single handily destroyed the political fabric of our country. The Hannity’s, Morgan, O’Reilly’s, Savage and Coulters are wannabes."-Posted by: Josh Keaton at March 7, 2007 08:30 AM

-I'm going to take that as an oppurtunity to defend Mr. O'Reilly. Yes hes Arrogant,and he "Bloviates" but he tells it like it is. He doesnt represent the "right-wing" or the "left-wing" He doesn't BS with anyone. And I for one am sick and tired of hearing one-sided reporting. Anchors trying to push their politcal parties agenda through manipulation. This goes for all reporters. I just see Bill as someone who does his best to report accurately and doesnt put up with BS from ANY politician. Sorry, this doesnt really have anything to do with this thread. I just felt compelled.

One can't be part of the Religious Society of Friends and condone a suggestion that another be killed. I'm not swayed that maher wanted Cheney dead, but if that was what he meant to say,a) he wasn't clear enough for me, and b) he's way out of line. I don't watch his show or read his books, so I can't give him up.

So, that said, I'm just as appalled when a minister/powerlifter calls for the assassination of Chavez, or when someone sugests a newspaper's office building beign bombed is appropriate. I think it's wrong to mock the disabled or use your radio show to attack a 13 year old girl's looks. I don't think we should use racial slurs, whether raghead or macaca, or sexual ones like faggot. I'd prefer a world where it's possible to admit that one can love one's country and have disagreements about how it's to be run with others who also are attached to it, not automatically assuming those who disagree with you eat babies. I'd like to think that Giuliani would be considered for the presidency based on whether or not he's qualified and well suited to run the nation, not on wheher or not an adulterer, denied the Kingdom according to Corinthians, would be fit to lead us. I'd like Obama to be judged on his ideas, not whether he committed the unpardonable crime of attendign a madrassa, or, in Enlgih, a school.

Sadly, I'm reasonably sure I'm in the minority, if not alone here. I see most people as being far more concerned about whether their team does well than being concerned about the ideas the two parties purport to stand for. Too attached to emigrate, too discouraged to expect change. Sucks to be me.

How many people used war and violence in Gods name? I guess if you dont count plaques, locusts, and turning people into salt blocks a form of violence then yea, I guess Jesus was a pacifist. I dont mean to attack your religion but I'm having trouble making the connection on your above post.

I think you've confused people purporting to be Christian with Jesus. BTW, plagues, locusts, and 'turning people into salt' were all OLD Testament. In fact, Jesus opposed the death penalty ('let he who is without sin cast the first stone') and violence ('you have heard it said 'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth', but I tell you this: if your brother should smite your left cheeck, turn to him the right')

Yes, zealots of all religions have done brutal things in the name of God (shooting abortion clinic doctors, the crusades, witch trials, terrorism, etc), but they are twisting the meaning of their religion. . .

Back to topic, Maher was insulting Bush's intelligence in that quote, NOT advocating violence. I personally don't think Bush is too bright, either. Isn't that protected by the First Amendment? I'm not going to argue about Bush's lack of intelligence, there are PLENTY of stupid quotes, poor decisions, examples of sheer incompetance. . . still, it's a bit different than advocating violence against him, isn't it? I remember Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc saying LOTS worse things about Clinton, Kennedy, etc. than what Maher has said about Bush. Heck, some of them (including another who twists his religion, Falwell) even accused Clinton of being a MURDERER!

Again, Ann Coulter advocated assassinating a sitting president (something Randi Rhodes, whom I also dislike, has done on the Left). Coulter stated about McVeigh, "My only regret is that he didn't go to the New York Times building!" REALLY?!?!? Otherwise, he did a pretty good thing!?!?! I can think of A LOT OF REGRETS when it comes to terrorists like McVeigh and the 9-11 terrorists, but they all involve regrets over ANY innocent life REGARDLESS of political persuasion. . .

Hell, keefer actively advocates for it...wanna bet that Kahn has never once called him "dangerous" for that? It's all just a charade.

I can't help it; I detest you kooks and averything you stand for. You're a bunch of cowardly wimps who are a danger to the country I love. If you all vanished tomorrow I would not shed a tear.

Have a nice day...

Hey, God is Great Libs I hate, speaking of cowards and wimps. . .

Why aren't you over in Iraq and putting your money where your mouth is? That goes for all of you who support this war- get over there and do what you believe in. . .

If you can't stand up for your professed beliefs, well, we all know who the "cowards" and "wimps" are. . .

coulterfan, I did wear camoflauge for a living. So did many posters here. I have relatives there, and neighbors. You really don't know what you're talking about.

"Maher was insulting Bush's intelligence in that quote, NOT advocating violence. I personally don't think Bush is too bright, either. Isn't that protected by the First Amendment?"
Posted by: coulterfan at March 7, 2007 05:49 PM

I wasn't implying that he was advocating violence agaisnt Pres. Bush. My point was I thought he was over-the-line. You said that you dont think he's too bright either. I could argue with you all day long about that. Yes, you have that right, and I dont take offense to anyone who wants to put it that way.-"I dont think he's too bright." But I think calling him (among other things) "A Gilligan who couldnt find his ass with two hands." is a bit too much. Even before he made those comments, it was well known that Bill hates Pres. Bush. So to say something like that on national TV cannot be seen as anything other than a personal attack, and theres no respect in things like that, even for a comedian. The same goes for Coulter. . And honestly, you kinda lost me on rebuttal about the Religion thing.

coulterfan, I'm fifty years old, and I retired from the Air Force 11 years ago. Once you grow up, and retire from the Brownies, maybe you can join up and defend your country...