Freedom of Speech = Freedom from Responsibility?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So, I know, I know. It's Glenn Beck. We expect the whacko from him. And, of course, he's got every right to speak his mind; I certainly don't think he should be censored.

But at what point does he become responsible for the actions of people who follow his advice?



Buy farmland. Move to places where everyone is like you. Buy guns. Buy ammunition. And then... what? It's not like enclaving really works long term. Eventually, one of two things will happen.

1) After Obama's term ends without the world doing the same, maybe some of these people will pull their heads out and say "why did we listen to that guy?"
2) Someone provokes an incident.

The message sent by the American people this election was quite clear. The President won a resounding electoral victory and beat his opponent by more votes than Bush beat Kerry. Every competitive senate race save for one was taken by the democrats, and these aren't blue-dogs we're talking about; these are real progressive liberals like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. And while the GOP retained the House, they did lose seats, and more people voted for Democratic Congresspeople than Republicans.

It was a fundamental rejection of GOP ideology. It was a rejection of the rape brigade, a rejection of the Ryan budget plan, a rejection of the concepts of the Makers and Takers, a rejection of the concept of the 47%, a rejection of conservative definitions of marriage, women, LGBTQ, race, immigration and drug law.

But the GOP doesn't seem to want to believe it. The constant refrain of "Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" continues to sing in their ears, drowning out anything resembling the truth, which is that they lost and they lost big, and then they turn to people like Glenn Beck, and he tells them to buy farms, move to where everyone is like you, and get more guns.

Or this guy, who advocates cutting EVERY democrat in your life out of that life, to the point where he doesn't know if he'd rescue a democrat who was drowning, and thinks that he can get better brain surgery in Mexico than from a US brain surgeon who happened to vote differently than he did.

Or these people who think that losing an election is a national emergency so they, who so often rail about how burning the flag is treasonous, fly their flags upside down to indicate distress.



At their McDonalds.

And why do they do this?

Because they've been lied to, by the guy at the top of this post. By Rush. By Karl Rove. By http://www.unskewedpolls.com By every pundit who insisted that Nate Silver was cheating. Hell, GOP donors are angry because they were assured, ASSURED, I TELL YOU, that Romney was going to win based on bad data using bad algorithms, and a campaign that wasn't going to be dictated to by facts.

So what responsibility to these people have to tell the truth, I wonder? Of course, I think they should tell the truth. There are reasonable arguments to be made on policy. There are reasonable disagreements to have. I just wish we could see more of that, and less insistence that Obama is a kenyan radical christian muslim nazi communist.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Um. The NY Times Shift Map (which I provided and you are using here) " turned to the right" meant a change in the PRESIDENTIAL vote from the 2008 election.

I'm aware of what it says and what it means. It certainly does not indicate, as dwer thinks, some sort of leftward shift. Nothing in the numbers do.

(And you provided the neato animation, I found the page on my own, thanks)

Here is Pennsylvania, a typically purple state, except when you look at the Congressional districts drawn up by Republicans. O REALLY?

Yeah, state legislatures typically work out districts to be friendly to whoever's in power. I don't see how Obama performing extremely well in Democratic districts says a lot about the majority of the state, especially since the populations of said districts are basically even.

Maybe Pennsylvania isn't really purple, but the Republicans underperform.

Democratic senators INCREASED, Republicans lost any chance of taking the Senate.

Granted. The question, however, is why.

Republican majorities in several state houses decreased SIGNIFICANTLY. And several state legislatures now have Democratic super-majorities.

And there were states where the GOP improved, they still have a majority of governorships, etc. This supposed leftward shift? It doesn't exist.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of what it says and what it means. It certainly does not indicate, as dwer thinks, some sort of leftward shift. Nothing in the numbers do.

You and numbers and your interpretation of them doesn't have a great track record. And your cherry picking the map as some move to the right in general isn't supported either.

(And you provided the neato animation, I found the page on my own, thanks)

Irrelevant, since you posted my animation, not the NYTimes link. But you're welcome.

Yeah, state legislatures typically work out districts to be friendly to whoever's in power. I don't see how Obama performing extremely well in Democratic districts says a lot about the majority of the state, especially since the populations of said districts are basically even.Maybe Pennsylvania isn't really purple, but the Republicans underperformed.

*Swoosh* right over your head.

And there were states where the GOP improved, they still have a majority of governorships, etc. This supposed leftward shift? It doesn't exist.

Maybe, but neither does the move to the right.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You and numbers and your interpretation of them doesn't have a great track record.

If you say so. At least I have data.

And your cherry picking the map as some move to the right in general isn't supported either.

I don't see any cherry picking happening. It's a pretty broad data point.

Maybe, but neither does the move to the right.

Obama's going to end up 7-8 million votes short from 2008. A thirteen point swing away from him with independents. What does that tell you, specifically?