Does he think the lion makes it tasteful or something?

You know, some lawyer should just go for the gold and have a little animated lawyer chasing an ambulance across their homepage.

Denny Crane! Truth is stranger than fiction.

White supremacists are terrorists
White supremacists are right-wing in their politics

hence...

"these right wing organizations need to be stopped... these right wing organizations are terrorists, domestic terrorists!"

...is quite coherent - maybe not to fox news-watching retards like you, but that's not my problem.

Pinheads.

You're kidding right?
We have right wingers placing liberals in league with terrorists ALL THE TIME. And I'm talking about liberals who may have spoken out about the war! Meanwhile..ACTUAL-MURDERING-BASTARDS..who,if they are white power idiots are radical right wingers...should NOT be named for who they ACTUALLY ARE?
Please.

"To Fieger, white supremacists, terrorists, and the right wing are all one and the same."

You mean that they aren't?

And why can't people on the Right give unqualified condemnation to Right-wing terrorism without whining about it?

aaronpacy,

perhaps James was responding to the fact that this silly lawyer was foaming at the mouth about this, while, even now, the liberal media insists of refering to Iraqi terrorists as "insurgents". Or, to put it in words and phrasing you'll understand:

You're kidding right?
We have left wingers placing the President in league with Nazis ALL THE TIME. And I'm talking about a President whose actions have freed 50 million people! Meanwhile..ACTUAL-MURDERING-BASTARDS..who,if they are Iraqi or Syrians cutting off heads and killing their own people...should NOT be named for who they ACTUALLY ARE?
Please.

Jri asks, "To Fieger, white supremacists, terrorists, and the right wing are all one and the same."

You mean that they aren't?

No. Next question.

The deaths in Chicago were heinous and representative of many of the horrors of our current political situation, both abroad and at home. I suspect that was what was meant. A terrorist, either abroad or domestic, is a terrorist. The lawyer you seem to delight in mocking is a good lawyer. He's skilled and also dedicated to actually righting wrongs. Not a bad mix and one the profession lacks too often.

Gosh, can't we all just be more civil to one another?

Now, having pleaded for civility, I'm about to violate my own rule. This President and his administration violate the Constitution on a daily --- hourly --- basis and violate the good name and memory of our Founders. Suspected of something? Not American? We'll haul you to Guantanamo! No...we may want to torture you! Even if you're Canadian...yeah, maybe our friends to the North will go along with that...so we'll haul the Canadian fellow and probably other folks off to one of the friendly dictator states we haven't yet overthrown in the Middle East so we can have him tortured!

Look, the current crew in power in Washington came close to destroying NATO, and the jury's still out on that, and have violated 200 years of what we've always at least paid lip service to with the idea of not attacking before we're attacked. Domestically, they're also are now about to destroy the New Deal. OH...but not really. That's not what they really mean. Oh no. Not at all. Gosh, no.

This administration is made up folks who seem to care nothing for our Constitution, our population apart from the rich, or our laws and heritage. May the Democrat's win back the House and the Senate --- I can dream --- in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008. And may God, separated from the State as he should be, help us.

I've *got* to proof stuff before I post. It should have been "also now" not "also are now" and "Democrats" not "Democrat's". Two more for the confessional this Saturday. Have I mentioned the priests flip coins to determine who gets me? It's not the winner who walks into the other side and says, with a very resigned voice, "In the name...". Anyway, schtick aside, if I post again, I'll proof a bit better. I'll accept any "look at the Dummocrat!" remarks thrown my way as help towards lowering my time in purgatory.

I was going to leave this site alone after enduring here the most tedious and unthinking sort of personal attacks. But my curiosity this morning is rewarded.

I'll only remind those who object to Mr. Fieger's remarks (without bothering to review his work) that many (notice I don't say all) on the right routinely avoid engaging an issue by attacking their opponents personally. Anyone who wants clean air and water is an eco-terrorist. Anyone who thinks a woman's body belongs to her alone is a stem-cell profiteer. Anyone who declares that education and opportunity reduce crime coddles criminals. All specious and cowardly nonsense.

I know some responsible and thoughtful conservative people. Not a one of them engages in these ad hominem attacks, not even when they are losing a point. And not a one of them is a terrorist or a white supremacist. They DO know that their camp contains a large share of violent and dysfunctional nutjobs, not to mention the professional liars and thieves. In the same way, reasonable people on the left know that they are plagued with some allies who think AIDS is a World Bank plot, that beef cattle experience joy, and that big street puppets are politically persuasive. We all have our problematic friends. Let's please not make matters worse by telling every Jesus he's a Judas.

Okey Dokey Smokey?

mbrir,

I'm certainly not going to mock you for a lack of spelling skills, as, lord knows I suffer from the same affliction.

However, I think you're also engaging in a bit of hyperbole. You say, "This President and his administration violate the Constitution on a daily --- hourly --- basis and violate the good name and memory of our Founders. Suspected of something? Not American? We'll haul you to Guantanamo!"

Well, the folks it Gitmo aren't just "suspected" of something. They were captured fighting for al-Qaida in Afghanistan. It's not like random liberals on the street are being airlifted there-no matter what the D.U. looneys say.

As for the rest:
-destroy NATO? Who cares, NATO was useless as soon as the cold war ended.
-attack the New Deal? You know, a lot of people have no problem with this. Many Americans believe we have a welfare state that's out of control.
-the Constitution? Well there you might have something. The administration's support of McCain/Feingold is shameful.

Poor Bob,

I'm sorry that you're upset that some of our readers had a problem with your comments. However, you brought it on yourself. This is what you said to me, PERSONALLY:

I am disgusted with your childish simplifications. You fear to disagree honestly, openly, like an American, like a man, and choose instead to paint a most honorable man as a traitor. You convince me you don't know what any of your fine words actually mean. That you know nothing but a feeble and masturbatory heat that cannot bear observation any more than it can bear the ordinary light of day.

Shame on you.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I deeply resent the fact that you're presenting yourself as some kind of martyr.

mbrlr, you sure seem to think that you know a lot about "violating the Constitution." last i checked, you don't have a seat on the supreme court. and i'd bet 100:1 that you're not a constitutional law lawyer, or lawyer of any sort, or someone who's sat through at least one semester of a con law class. where then, do you get your vast knowledge of constitutional law? have you spent hours upon hours reading 200 years of caselaw? or do you just repeat what you read over at the democratic underground?

"that's a violation of the constitution" seems to be a favorite rallying cry for those who don't know the first thing about it.

"Look, the current crew in power in Washington came close to destroying NATO, and the jury's still out on that,"

"have violated 200 years of what we've always at least paid lip service to with the idea of not attacking before we're attacked."

"Domestically, they're also are now about to destroy the New Deal."

where do you get this stuff? you dont come close to proving how any of this is true or to explaining why you think it's a bad thing if it is.

just like you dont come close to proving any sort of constitutional violation.

you're really good at "alleging" things, mbrlr. problem is, any moonbat can do that. you just rattle in here and start throwing out allegations an you expect to be taken seriously. esp when your allegations are so far off topic it's a wonder to me that youre able to discuss anything in life without somehow disparaging the president in a moonbatty way.

you spend 1/8th of your comment talking about the actual subject matter of the article, that is one geoffrey fieger, saying only "he's a good man, dont attack people this way" then in typical liberal fashion you say "having said that, i'm gonna violate the rule, b/c im a liberal and im entitled to do so" then launch into a long tirade about the president.

i can just imagine you at your wedding,

"do you take this woman to be your lawfully weedded wife."

"i'd like to say that wedding days are special and sacred, and are all about the person you love. they should be cherished, and that should be your only focus. having said that, let me tell you that this president doenst take ANY of his vow seriously.... blah lbha blah..."

take off your tinfoil hat next time you come in here

OK, kris, I'll flog that horse with you one more time. I'll freely concede I let my rhetoric get away from me in the comment you reposted. I ordinarily try to be more restrained, as you can see in my present comment. I was carried away by your baseless slander of an honorable man who devotes himself to quiet public service. Apart from that, I did, for the most part, avoid characterizing you, except for charging you with "fear," which I regret and apologize for. My other comments described, not you, but my response to you: that I was "disgusted" and "convinced" by one thing and another. About me, not you, you see?

I'm not sure why it's so important to you. It's clear your remarks tend to be divisive and off-the-cuff. Surely you've provoked a little ire before.

Take, for instance your baseless assertion that I was "upset." Pure invention. Where in my deliberate text is this upset? And then that others objected to my "comments." Somebody threatened me physically, which, as you know, is not an argument. (BTW, I look forward to your repudiation of those threats.)

Finally, you ignore everything I took the trouble to say on the subject at hand. Does that mean you agree with me, or only that it's more important to keep a superficial wound fresh?

Again, I do apologize for any personal remark I may have made about you or anyone. Your REMARKS about Chris Rock were wrong, and disgracefully so, but pointing that out is not a personal attack.

Having read the original post, I fail to see how Fieger has equated terrorists, the right wing and white supremacists. I believe the right wing groups to which he was refering are those with names like "Neonazis for dead judges". He hasn't equated politics with murder. Assuming the murder was committed by white supremacists, and that it was intended to intimidate other judges, domestic terrorsm is an apt description. I hope the bastards are caught and punished.

You may object to the use of the term "right-wing", but now we're just arguing over semantics.
I hope republicans loudly denounce the murders if and when they are demonstrated to be performed by and "right-wing" group. The democrats missed an excellent opportunity to denounce Ward Churchill, and republicans would be foolish not condemn loudly any actions by white supremacists.

As for their website, they're not trying to appeal to you. You're not supposed to get it. They know who their client base is and theey are trying to appeal to them.

Well, let me get this out of the way first, because anything else I say on this may be held invalid if I, as a conservative, do not denounce this murder. Yes, I think it's reprehensible. And I think the hate sites who have posted their gloating over these murders are even more despicable, if such a thing is possible.

The main thing that struck me about Fieger's comments was the way he used the murders to make a political point...casually tossing in "right-wing" in his statement. I may be making an overbroad generalization here, but in my opinion many of the folks who think Fieger's comment is reasonable are the same folks who bend over backwards to give Islamofascist terrorists the benefit of the doubt when they blow something up. Apparently the "right wing" deserves no such consideration. Anyway, to me Fieger is taking the tragedy of these murders and using it as a way to attack the Right, and I can't excuse him for that. If I had seized upon this as a way to attack Chicago's strict gun control laws, I'd likely be attacked as well, and not unreasonably.

Look, we don't know who killed the Lefkows. Yes, there is suspicion that some white supremacist individual or group is involved (I think it should be pointed out that the actual mainstream Right roundly condemns these groups, so I'm not sure how accurate the "right-wing" moniker is anyway...besides, most such groups I've heard of are so far Right they're pretty much Left.), but that's to be expected. In a murder, you look at all the people who may have wished the victim harm. But it's also possible it may have been a home invasion gone awry, some random psycho, or someone who had a grudge unrelated to the aforementioned group. But for an attorney, ostensibly trained in logic progressions, to first say he is of the *opinion* a white supremacist group is behind this and then condemn them as terrorists for doing something based on that opinion comes off as a little smarmy.

I say let's find out who exactly did this before we start in on the political finger pointing.

Hey kids! I slept late today; what'd I miss?

I can't speak for Mr. HAAYYY-AATTT! (I'm sorry; every time I think of James, I think of that nut-job teacher from "South Park" with the hand puppet), but I believe his objection--as is mine--is that Mr. Fieger could have used any number of adjectives to describe these organizations, yet he chose "right wing".

White supremacists organizations are considered "right wing" simply by virtue of their race. Their philosophy is the same as the New Black Panthers or La Raza: all of our problems, and all of society's problems, are the fault of (the other race). But because Black people and Latinos are minorities in America, their racist organizations are considered "left wing".

Because the ideologies of all these groups are the same, putting them in a left/right paradigm is silly. They're all at a center point in the circle--the BACK END of the circle.

Lastly, I--as a conservative--am embarrassed to have to share my of the political spectrum with people I so throughly despise. Racist group don't even belong in politics--for them, it's just a power grab. If we introduced to such concepts as "infrastructure", "public policy", and "foreign relations", watching them operate would be like watching that stupid Vonage commercial with those asshats spinning around with their head on the baseball bats (woo-hoo, woo-hoo-hoo!).

So, yeah. These groups sicken me, I don't want them included in my politics, and I'm sorry the political spectrum is so huge that these people can actually find a place in it.

Tell the truth, liberals--do you REALLY like being associated with DU moonbats, anarchists, and Code Stink? I mean, Code Pink?

I think jkhat needs some reading comprehension skills. Its called context. There are considerably more threats of domestic terrorism from the right then from the left. When was the last time Code Pink made a sodium-cyanide bomb, blew up a Federal Building, or terrorized an abortion clinic? What do you expect when transmitting fascism becomes a fad?

I'm glad to read all these heartfelt repudiations of racism. Of course, when the racist in question talks about nothing else, and has no particular influence beyond his own inbred circle, he's already marginal. It's easy to dismiss him.

I'd like for you self-styled conservative folks to address yourselves to this remark, made Saturday by Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) at the longest-running Lincoln Day Dinner in Tennessee:

"We don't do Lincoln Day Dinners in South Carolina," he said. "It's nothing personal, but it takes awhile to get over things."

Is there any mistaking his meaning? So let's hear it, Rightfolk. Should Graham apologize? Step down? Or is there actually an excuse for this sort of thing? I'm very curious.

Mr. Gillnitz,

Perhaps you're the one in need of some lessons in reading comprehension. You bandy about words like "fascism" and I don't even think you know what it means. Here's a clue

As for domestic terrorism, let's see. I believe the eco-fanatics are strongly suspected of burning down that subdivision around DC last year, not to mention the acts of violence perpetrated by anarchists, animal rights activists and the like.

As for blowing up federal buildings, I can only think of two occurences in recent history. Timothy McVeigh's blowing up the building in Oklahoma City and the bombing of Sterling Hall here in Madison, WI. One of those was done by a right wing nutjob, the other by left wing moonbats. So don't feel so superior.

James' post had nothing to do with whether or not there are right wing terrorists and nutjobs. Of ocurse there are. His post had to do with the almost apparent glee that certain people showed because murders may have been committed by people they don't agree with politically. No matter where you sit, that's pretty distasteful.

Bob,

Who is the racist in question in your comment?

Is there any mistaking his meaning? So let's hear it, Rightfolk. Should Graham apologize? Step down? Or is there actually an excuse for this sort of thing? I'm very curious.