16 Comments

1. The Left  •  Apr 18, 2006 @4:04 pm
   

   He’s not talking about leftie blogs, he’s talking about “The Left” (me). I may have had more than my prescribed limit of tequila shots at the Club de Ville in Austin last night, but I don’t remember the word “mutilate” or any of its variants crossing my lips.

2. Randy  •  Apr 18, 2006 @5:40 pm
   

   Hey, this is “this idiot” that you referred to above. You might notice my comments say nothing about his defense. Nice spin pinhead, but I not only didn’t mention his defense or quote that part of the article. I simply put out the obvious truth that liberals always rush to defend the indefensible and in situations like this, love to cry “free speech”. Reread my post, because your entire paragraph:

   This idiot conflates what the student’s lawyer said with what “liberals everywhere” must think. (It’s called a defense, dummy. They’re payin’ the lawyer to come up with an excuse. For all we know the lawyer is a Republican.)

   Is complete bologna. Nice try bud, but you better hurry off to freshman political science now…

   Wait, I take that back… I see you have a bachelors in journalism. How then could you be so stupid as to have totally misconstrued and lied about what I said? Now you could whine about my generalization about liberals, and that would be a fine disagreement to have. But you are flat out lying by saying that my comments had anything to do with his defense.

3. maha  •  Apr 18, 2006 @5:53 pm
   

   liberals always rush to defend the indefensible and in situations like this, love to cry “free speech”.

   So how many “liberals” have “rushed” to the defense of the accused assasin? I did a technorati search for “Vikram Buddhi,” and all the comments I found were from righties.

   In other words, “liberals” are not doing what you say they “always” do. Your only example is from the accused’s lawyer.

   Provide proof, including links, or shut up.

4. joanr16  •  Apr 18, 2006 @6:49 pm
   

   The link to Randy’s original post is broken or has been disabled, which is probably a mercy considering his comment. Perhaps this is his problem:

   con-flate 1) a) to bring together : FUSE : b) CONFUSE.

   He assigns to me, a liberal, the thoughts and actions of some jerk student at Purdue; an unjustified fusion. And because I, a liberal, in fact think actions like the jerk students are criminal, Randy is also confused.

   Here’s a thought: since apparently we’ve entered “threatening season,” how about presidential-level Secret Service protection for everyone Michelle Malkin takes it into her head to terrorize. Fair’s fair.

5. maha  •  Apr 18, 2006 @7:14 pm
   

   Oh, Randy’s still there, and he has linked to another rightie blog that says the guy who issued the threats is an “everyday liberal.” Based on no evidence at all, of course.

6. alyosha  •  Apr 18, 2006 @7:34 pm
   

   But maha, it’s an “obvious truth”:

   I simply put out the obvious truth that liberals always rush to defend the indefensible and in situations like this, love to cry “free speech”.

   No evidence needed, not in rightie world.

7. A. Citizen  •  Apr 18, 2006 @8:17 pm
   

   Threaten the President! My merciful God, why would anybody want to do that?

8. Bonnie  •  Apr 18, 2006 @9:55 pm
   

   It seems the right has forgotten that Jesse Helms threatened President Clinton. IOKIYAR.

9. justme  •  Apr 18, 2006 @10:16 pm
   

   I cannot imagine a single “liberal” that would ever harm to come to bush,, thus making dick-I -can’t -shoot- straight-cheney president…holy crap the thought will give me nightmares tonight.And I am not alone here,,he has like a 18% approval rating? ,, yikes!

   Does this person offer any proof that the guy making the threats is a liberal?The last faux (s)nooze poll I saw, bush only had a 37% approval rating,,, and seven generals, all of whom are republican step out last week,,is it so far out to consider it could be a rightie? They do love to lynch Mob,(insert your own example here)they do love to make threats(see yesterdays circus),and bush has let them down the most.. THEY were the only ones not able to spot bush for what he is,, How shocking it must be to see the light…If I woke up after having being duped by bush, I would be a might mad.

   Another thing makes me wonder,which is it? I thought the reps said liberals were against war because we were chickens, I thought the reps said all liberals were peace loving hippy’s ,, now all of the sudden the right changed it and now we are all the type to make death threats? Which is it? Are we yellow france lovers or are you painting us all as a threat to your dear leader? We can’t be both, you HAVE to make up your mind

10. jurassicpork  •  Apr 19, 2006 @12:41 am
    

    Liberals are far less tolerant than conservatives of opposing views.

    Man, I needed to change my shorts after reading that…

11. Rick  •  Apr 19, 2006 @1:16 pm
    

    I am with Maha on a life sentence for Georgco. but hardly in amaimum security. I would prefer them to have to tour the misery they have created for the rest of their lives.A litlle public ridicule and maybe pelting with dung could be debated as options as well..

12. Bruce A.  •  Apr 19, 2006 @3:09 pm
    

    This guy must have forgotten all of the Ann Coulter books and quotes already.

13. Emma  •  Apr 20, 2006 @9:30 am
    

    How can you say liberals aren’t as hateful as conservatives RIGHT above the admonishment you wrote to your righty commenters about printing malkin’s personal information?

14. maha  •  Apr 20, 2006 @10:47 am
    

    Emma, thou twit: The reason publishing addresses and phone numbers on the Internets is a no-no is that there are some people all along the political spectrum with bad judgment and poor impulse control who will use this information in an irresponsible manner. Malkin was counting on that when she published the names/phone numbers of the students. Never mind that someone who saw those numbers might not have stopped at mere harassment. Someone might have been unglued enough to track the students down and do them physical harm, which is why what Malkin did was unforgivably irresponsible.

    One of those people with bad judgment and poor impulse control created a graphic displaying a photo of her house, plus her home address and phone number. And someone — I believe it was the same person — tried twice to post the graphic in the comments here. I deleted it both times; I don’t stoop to Malkin’s level. I’m not aware of blogger on my blogroll who posted it, either.

    However, Malkin is the highest-ranking right-wing blogger on the Internets, not some nobody trying to slip something naughty into blog comments. Big difference.

    Malkin is now whining her head off about how SHE is a victim, even though she hasn’t removed the phone numbers of the students. In other words, she feels entitled to do to others what she doesn’t want done to herself.

    Dave Neiwert has Malkin’s number.

15. erinyes  •  Apr 20, 2006 @5:42 pm
    

    Well, It’s all fun until someone looses an eye….

16. No More Mr. Nice Guy!  •  Apr 21, 2006 @7:18 pm
    

    Perhaps this will clear up the confusion.

    Anything posted by a liberal (and a liberal is anyone the extreme lunatic right labels as a liberal) is hate speech by definition. regardless of the actual content. Conversely, anything posted by the extreme lunatic right, however incendiary and hatemongering it may appear, is not hate speech - it’s standing up for America and traditional mainstream values.

    You see, Maha, you are led astray by your reality-centric view of the world. Leave the reality-based community and all will become clear.

    (Hint to Randy: this is called sarcasm)

2 Trackbacks

• Apr 21, 2006: Saswat Blog » Rants of Vikram Buddhi
• Apr 21, 2006: The Mahablog » First Amendment Confusion