April 1, 2006
Media Matters’ new whine:
Summary: Michael Savage repeatedly called on his listeners to “burn the Mexican flag” in opposition to illegal immigrants. Savage claimed that the only way to combat the onslaught of illegal immigrants is through protest and asked his audience to “[b]urn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you’re a man, burn 10 Mexican flags, if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where they came from!”
Wahh!
Okay so let me get this straight ..
Talking about burning the Mexican flag, not okay.
American flag burning, okay:
(via Zombie Time)
To make it clear; I am not for any flag burning. However it is hypocritical for Media Matters to complain about this when the liberal mantra is supposed to be free speech. Oops forgot, that only applies if you’re a liberal.
77 Responses to “Media Matters: Condoning Mexican Flag Burning Isn’t Free Speech”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
12:39 pm [ Quote ]
Another example of the hypocrisy of the left.
Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of Liberalism
!
1:43 pm [ Quote ]
Now, hold on a second and think. Just for a second. It won’t hurt, I promise.
Ian, you said that “it is hypocritical for Media Matters to complain about this when the liberal mantra is supposed to be free speech”.
You haven’t exposed any hypocrisy here. You haven’t even tried. To do that, you would have to show that Media Matters, and not some nebulous, larger group of “liberals”, said one thing and did another, or advocated mutually contradicting positions. You can’t hold them accountable for the actions or words of anyone else.
This is one of the most common and obvious fallacies of the right and the left: equating a tiny segment of a population (i.e. “media matters” or “little green footballs”) with a broader group (i.e. “liberals” or “conservatives”). Nobody is guilty by association, or we would have to lock up all republicans for being in the same party as Jack Abramoff. See?
1:58 pm [ Quote ]
I agree w/ your position, Ian.
That said, should we burn the Mexican or the American flag? Only as a last resort.
Frankly, although I believe a guest worker program backed up by more secure borders is the only sane solution – I believe if we want to be spiteful, we should just buy up all the copies of Harold Coyle’s Trial by Fire and see how the Mexicans would like turnabout…
2:39 pm [ Quote ]
Burning American flags…why thats a God given right silly. Burning Mexican flags….now thats crossing the line. Nutjobs.
3:12 pm [ Quote ]
Savage’s plan is idiotic. Two wrongs, lowering yourself to their level, etc.
It’s much more effective to highlight examples of the U.S. flag being burned and similar instances than to just go tit for tat.
Instead, I’d suggest signing up for as many MMFA accounts as necessary and then posting comments there that devastate their positions. I used to try to do that, but I gave up after seeing my comments getting deleted. I’d also suggest inserting some truth back into the Wikipedia entry on MMFA and similar groups.
4:11 pm [ Quote ]
Apples & oranges, Cakewalk.
4:19 pm [ Quote ]
Now, isn’t that just humorous, Ian? One of my readers (a definite Kos Kid, probably) said that CROSSING THE BORDER was “free speech!”
They just don’t get it, but the rest of us WILL get it – and it will be at our peril as a nation.
Thanks liberals… thanks for nothing!
Ms. U
4:29 pm [ Quote ]
yes, burning a flag is much worse then blowing up a country.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
Think before you speak jackass.
4:32 pm [ Quote ]
Ms. Underestimated,
You’re engaging in more guilt by association. A guy calling himself a liberal says something foolish, so you paint 200 million people (est.) foolish as a result. That’s just bad logic.
4:34 pm [ Quote ]
200 million liberals?
hmm….
4:36 pm [ Quote ]
Yes, Neal. Estimated. I believe the population of the US is about 400 million (maybe a bit less), and I believe there’s a fairly even number of conservatives and liberals. If I’m wrong, feel free to show me some better figures.
4:36 pm [ Quote ]
Uh… where did they say Michael Savage should be jailed or otherwise lose his right to say this? They didn’t.
Ian, there is a world of difference between highlighting speech you disagree with and saying it is unconstitutional. The latter would be required to somehow prove that MMFA somehow “opposes free speech”. I would expect that you, of all people, would know this by now. If you say someone opposes free speech, then you had damn well better prove it.
By the way, if quoting someone you disagree with and indicating disapproval is a whine, you have one of the whiniest blogs around.
4:48 pm [ Quote ]
Flag burning should be legal in all cases. I want to know exactly who the jackasses are and watching someone burn a flag is a great way to find out.
4:55 pm [ Quote ]
who cares, flags are stupid anyway. and the only thing that’s dumber than a flag is some moron who’s burning one. if you DO burn a flag, please keep it controlled. i think we can all agree that fire safety is no laughing matter.
4:55 pm [ Quote ]
To Perspico:
You are wrong.
Media Matters is a liberal, anti-conservative group. They posted their story on Michael Savage because they are against Savage’s call to burn the Mexican flag.
Being liberal, they are in the same half of this country that votes Democrat and supports burning the American flag to ascert their right to free speech.
So it is absolutely hypocritical of Media Matters to even think about questioning anyone who wants to burn any flag as a form of free speech.
So try not to muddy the waters by bringing up “guilty by association” or “advocated mutually contradicting positions”. It seems your fancy talk is just trying to take away from the fact that Media Matters is a hypocritical liberal organinization which works to tear apart the conservative right and this country.
As a side note, name one conservative who would even consider burning Old Glory to asert their rights to free speech. Perhaps the flag burners are just unpatriotic and not just worried about their rights?
4:56 pm [ Quote ]
liberals are against fire safety! and they hate fireman too. and kitty cats.
4:58 pm [ Quote ]
blah blah blah, you must have failed a 4th grade logic class, right? liberals support the right to burn flags. a very tiny amount of liberals actually support flag burning. there is a difference between the two but your probably too busy sticking your tongue up old gloryhole to notice, right?
5:03 pm [ Quote ]
Legal Americans won’t deserve any rights in the eyes of Liberals until they’re in the minority.
5:08 pm [ Quote ]
Scarshapedstar: Where did Ian say it was unconstitutional? He called it hypocritical, which it is.
Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of the left!!
5:09 pm [ Quote ]
Proud American,
Sir, with all respect, your logic is faulty. It’s interesting that advocating logical thinking seems like “fancy talk” to you, but I really don’t think it’s beyond your ability to understand my statements. I just think that your strong opinions prevent you from clearly assessing them.
Media Matters posted a factual article, and did not insert any of their own opinions into it. They did not question Savage’s right to his opinion, and you are welcome to your own. But the article was informative and factual, not complaining or questioning.
I still have not seen any “evidence” of hypocrisy in the article that doesn’t rely on the pre-conceived notion that they are in the first place.
5:28 pm [ Quote ]
Burning a flag isn’t “speech” no matter how you want to twist and turn it. It’s just burning something. As long as there is no against burning your own property, such as a flag, there is nothing wrong with doing it – but regardless, it is not “free speech”.
Might as well burn a damn t-shirt and call it free speech. Or lighting a cigarette. Or burning books. Is that free speech too? Whatever. Burning things is not “speech”.
5:34 pm [ Quote ]
Perspico,
First, I doubt you have any respect for conservatives.
Second, do me a favor and explain the fault in the logic of my “strong” opinion.
YES, the article was factual.
YES, they did not insert any of their own opinions.
YES, they did not question Savage’s right.
YES, it was informative and factual and not complaining or questioning.
I don’t question any of that and I did not comment on any of that.
I simply pointed out the hypocrisy which you failed and still fail to see.
6:19 pm [ Quote ]
jackass?
that’s the best you can do jordan?
how silly you are.
6:21 pm [ Quote ]
No doubt Savage is opposed to the burning of the American flag as a form of political protest. And yet he feels that it is legitimate political speech to burn the Mexican flag. That’s where the hypocrisy lies.
As Perspicio has pointed out, Media Matters made no editorial comment to suggest that Mexican flags should not be burned. Indeed, it is Ian himself who believes that Mexican flags should not be burned. He even says so in his post. So between Media Matters and Ian, the only one who condemned Savage is Ian.
So to recap, conservatives aren’t just hypocrites, they’re also idiots.
6:24 pm [ Quote ]
Burn all the flags!
Only if you promise to wrap yourself in them first!
6:27 pm [ Quote ]
oh jordan?
by the way, did you read when your friend ben got owned by my post earlier?
ben said he opposes usama bin laden because he targets women and children.
oh the irony! oh how grand! women and children are targeted by usama bin laden.
tell me, do you think “smart bombs” can tell the difference between women and children?
eh? or shock and awe? do you suppose all women and children were free from harm during shock and awe?
jackass.
6:33 pm [ Quote ]
Cakewalk:
jackass?
that’s the best you can do jordan?
how silly you are.
Cakewalk:
jackass.
hahahaha. the liberal hypocracy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Does anybody else think Cakewalk is a moron?
6:53 pm [ Quote ]
Can anyone please point out a liberal talk show host/anchor who called for his audience to burn the American flag?
If that happend and Media Matters didn’t note it, than you could accuse them of bias. But no where in that segment did MM question Savage’s free speech rights – they just point out a deranged individual’s crazy blabbings. It’s scary that so many people take Savage seriously.
7:06 pm [ Quote ]
That’s not a fair request to make Zim. You know there is only one liberal radio station, and no one listens to it.
7:14 pm [ Quote ]
Kevin,
I asked the question because MM would be hypcritical only if they did not report on some liberal media figure calling for American flag burning while at the same time whining about a conservative doing the same thing.
Since no liberal media anchor/host has called for American flag burning, then there is no way you can prove hypocricy here.
7:19 pm [ Quote ]
Proud American,
As I said, you are welcome to your opinion. If you doubt that I have any respect for conservatives, it’s your right and choice to do so. I suspect that opinion reflects your choice of beliefs about liberals. I know for a fact it doesn’t truly represent my stance. I may disagree with a person’s politics, but that alone doesn’t mean I have no respect for the person himself.
As for “complaining and questioning”, the complaining part came from Ian’s article, and the questioning part came from YOUR comment, in which you said:
No, you didn’t explicitly say they DID question it, but the implication rang clear as a bell. And if you now claim that they DIDN’T question it, then your charge of hypocrisy crumbles.
My belief is that they ran the article because they want people to be aware of some of the more radical free speech that’s being practiced out there.
7:45 pm [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
Let me simplify this for you.
It is clear that MM does not aprove of burning Mexican flags. It is clear MM supports liberalism.
It is historical and clear that it is the liberals that burn American flags and fight for their rights to do so.
Therefore, it is HYPOCRITICAL of MM to be state, imply, or suggest an opinion which is critical of burning a flag. Got it?
Now, regarding your ‘belief’, to actually burn a Mexican flag is a bit much, but certainly the VAST MAJORITY of Americans would slam the border shut imediately if they could. They all probably wouln’t burn a flag but I bet they all would vote that way in a referendum. Therefore, Savage’s main point of stopping the illegal immigration is far from “radical” but is actually mainstream.
8:10 pm [ Quote ]
It is clear that MM does not aprove of burning Mexican flags. It is clear MM supports liberalism.
Yes, you’re correct here.
It is historical and clear that it is the liberals that burn American flags and fight for their rights to do so.
I’m a liberal and I’ve never burned an American flag, nor been in the same location of where that has taken place. I don’t know anyone who’s actually seen it happy and most of my friends are liberals as well.
Therefore, Savage’s main point of stopping the illegal immigration is far from “radical” but is actually mainstream.
His call for poeple to march while burning Mexiacn flags is radical because it in no way alleviates the problem – even the looney lefties know that burning a flag and is the least effective way to actually change policy, Savage is not interested in a concrete solution to the problem – he is only interested in starting up confrontations and provoking hate. Only if his listeners would realize that.
8:19 pm [ Quote ]
Proud American,
You state that it is HYPOCRITICAL of MM to be state, imply, or suggest an opinion which is critical of burning a flag.
First of all, liberalism isn’t a doctrine or a code of conduct. There’s no club or official membership. There is room under that wide umbrella for a lot of views, even contradictory ones. So “supporting liberalism” in the sense you used it could mean a lot of different things—and therefore means nothing, without additional qualification. You can’t indict MM for having views that aren’t shared by all liberals.
Secondly, there’s a famous quote:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Is that a hypocritical stance?
With free speech comes a lot of criticism. It is natural, normal and healthy. For example, I disagree with a LOT of what you say. But I’m glad we both live in a country where we are both free to express our views.
As for the rest of your post, well, there’s nothing that says mainstream ideas can’t be expressed in radical ways.
By the way, for those who don’t understand that “freedom of speech” could include flag burning, the term has come to be synonymous with “freedom of expression”, and refers to communicating ideas through any means, including spoken word, written word, art, dance, performance, etc.
9:24 pm [ Quote ]
Freedom of speech is just that, speech. That is why speech and freedom of the press were two seperate ideas in the bill of rights. The idea that freedom of speech covers all expression is a liberal interpretation.
9:46 pm [ Quote ]
Kevin,
That’s right. If you want to hear the air america hosts you have to catch them as guests on ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN.
Zim,
Nobody is concerned about MM being biased or not. Just read their “About Us” statement. It is their stated goal to thwart conservatives. The hypocrisy is that liberals should be the last people on this earth to have a negative opinion of anybody burning any flag.
“I’m a liberal and I’ve never burned an American flag, nor been in the same location of where that has taken place. I don’t know anyone who’s actually seen it happy and most of my friends are liberals as well.”
What does the fact that you have not burned or been around a burning American flag have to do with the fact that it is the liberals who are doing the burning of American flags? Name one conservative who burned a flag? Get the point?
You got Savage wrong too. I conceded that burning a Mexican flag is a bit far out there, but shutting down the boarder is mainstream. I’m sure Savage would be plenty happy to shut down the border now and then take all the time in the world to listen to liberals explain his ‘radicalness’ to him. Forget about his listeners, they get the message. It is liberals like you who need to get the message to shut the border down now.
Perspicio,
Yes, liberalism is under a big umbrella…it would have to be to hold all the hypocritical views that it does.
“You can’t indict MM for having views that aren’t shared by all liberals.”
Are you kidding me? I can and I do indict MM for having liberal views even though all liberals don’t believe in MM. By the way, liberals that don’t support the liberal agenda should stop being liberals. It will be good for the country.
No, your famous quote is not hypocrital. Did anybody say it was? Ian did not say MM didn’t have the right to print what they want. I certainly didn’t. In fact, I can’t think of a single occasion where I heard a conservative say that a person should not have the right to burn and American flag, or have the right to free speech, or have the right to be hypocritical.
What I have heard and I believe myself is:
Why would anybody want to burn an American flag? Why are only liberals burning American flags? Do these liberals hate their country as much as they hate the flag (enough to want to burn it)? Get the message?
I’m glad to live in this free country too, but that doesn’t mean I have to like liberals who enjoy burning the American flag.
9:47 pm [ Quote ]
MM’s article states, “Savage’s remarks came in response to the recent massive rallies held in California during which demonstrators marched in opposition to proposed legislation that would impose new immigration restrictions.”
If it were truly unbiased fact with no opinions, that wouldn have read “new restrictions on ILLEGAL immigration.”
9:52 pm [ Quote ]
True. Nobody, including MM, is even thinking that MM is unbiased. Their “About Us” statement says: “Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive (spoken “liberal”) research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”
10:29 pm [ Quote ]
Hilarious! I tried to post the following, and got this message:
“Sorry, you can only post a new comment once every 15 seconds. Slow down cowboy.”
It’s been quite a bit longer than 15 seconds….I smell shenanigans.
Well, let’s see if my IP address has been blocked. I’ll used the same IP address with new user information, so if this posts then we will know I’ve been censored. If that’s the case, I will leave this little man’s blog and you guys can start having fun again under the protection of a guy who doesn’t want you to have to contend with any other views but your own and the ones he chooses for you. Enjoy!
Hard working white guy (Proud American? ...I can’t tell if it’s two people or not, based on post 40….):
I will try to make this as simple as possible, with out any “fancy talk”.
If “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media” is the same thing as “thwarting conservatives, then spreading misinformation is one of the goals of conservatives.
Also, just like liberalism, conservatism is a wide umbrella under which you can find many contradictory views. That does not equate to hypocrisy. If you, as a conservative, agree with Bush’s fiscal policy (and I’m not saying you do), then you disagree with a large number of conservatives who believe that increased government spending is a bad idea. That doesn’t make you or them hypocrits. And ditto for Media Matters.
Based on this, I still have not seen any evidence of MM’s hypocrisy with respect to flag burning.
10:31 pm [ Quote ]
It worked!
You’ve got some ‘splaining to do, Ian.
10:31 pm [ Quote ]
(BTW, less than 15 secs between the last one and this one.)
10:57 pm [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
Maybe you need to look up the meaning of ‘hypocrisy’.
MM, being a liberal organization, is being hypocritical for stating or implying anything negative about anyone burning a flag. That is it. Nothing more. Get it?
How about an analogy:
It would not be hypocritical for Laura Bush to go speak at grade schools and advise students about how integrity is important and a virtue in life.
It would be hypocritical if Hilliary Clinton were to do the same. Get it?
11:04 pm [ Quote ]
Oh, I get it all right. First you pass judgement, then you pass more judgement.
Not very Christian of you.
Farewell. I hope you come into adulthood someday.
11:15 pm [ Quote ]
Well, you are a true liberal. Cut and run. Can’t dispute the facts with reason.
I honestly did not expect that you would break down and admit your wrong and I never actually expect to hear it from a liberal in my lifetime. But I will keep on trying.
11:20 pm [ Quote ]
Sir, in case you didn’t catch it, Ian apparently tried censoring me. I’d be happy to stick around and have intelligent conversations even if we disagree, but not under hostile circumstances. Why on earth would I?
So I am on my way out. I’m just sticking around to counter any personal slandering or unwarranted deletions…that sort of thing. Such as the type you have just done.
11:36 pm [ Quote ]
No, I am the one who laid the facts on the table and specifically agreed and disagreed with many of the statements made here.
You are the one who:
1. Doesn’t dispute that MM is liberal.
2. Doesn’t dispute that is is the liberals who burn the American flag.
3. Doesn’t dispute (with a statement or facts) that is hypocritical for liberals to support burning an American flag yet disagrees with someone advocating burning a Mexican flag.
Three points. A=B, B=C, therfore A=C and you won’t admit you are wrong. Why can’t a liberal admit “Yeah, that is hypocritical but I still hate Bush.” At least that would be honest. Find one statement I made which is not honest. You can’t. Which is the difference between me and liberals like you. I am not bent on insulting you. I am striving to learn why liberals can’t argue logically, can’t face facts, and ALWAYS cut and run when they get backed into a corner. Prove me wrong. Please try. You would be the first.
11:48 pm [ Quote ]
Sir, are you being deliberately obtuse?
I don’t dispute that Bush calls himself conservative.
I don’t dispute that conservatives are in favor of small government.
I don’t dispute that Bush has expanded government.
Is Bush a hypocrite?
Can you see the logic now?
And can you NOT see that claims like “liberals can’t argue logically, can’t face facts, and ALWAYS cut and run when they get backed into a corner” are INSULTING?
Proud American, are YOU a hypocrite?
12:01 am [ Quote ]
No, you are wrong again.
Get back to the three very simple statements made in 48. Answer those. That is the whole point of this thread. Go ahead.
Why did you bring up several more unrelated statements to argue your point. They just make my point for me. You can’t face facts and argue logically.
If you think my claims are insulting, then I guess you are insulted by the facts. Am I a hypocrite? Why don’t you point out where I have been hypocritical?
Certainly you have been. “Not very Christian of you.” Talk about throwing around personal slander. At least my statements are honest and correct.
Again, I am just trying to get a liberal to own up to agreeing with or disputing three simple facts. Why won’t you step up to the plate?
12:11 am [ Quote ]
proud american, you’re not big on subtlety, are you? you haven’t proven anything, other than the fact that media matters pointed out the savage advocated the burning of a flag. on second thought, the article kind of stated that, so i guess you haven’t proven anything. if you can find an example of media matters NOT criticizing a liberal media figure for calling for flag burning, then i’m all ears. but until then, the rest of us are left wondering what you’re so proud of….it’s certainly not superp reasoning skills or honest debate.
12:34 am [ Quote ]
Fadingcapn,
You need to read back a few entries. This has nothing to do with whether MM does or doesn’t critisize the left.
12:35 am [ Quote ]
I was addressing your 3 simple statements by presenting 3 other simple statements which precisely mirror your own. As such, they were quite directly related to the conversation.
You see, that’s how a logical debate works. As any rational person would agree, in order to evaluate a claim or a chain of logic, you can bring in parallel examples and see how the same logic holds up in a different situation.
If you are unwilling to engage in that aspect of a logical debate, then I must conclude that you really aren’t interested in being rational.
And, no, I will not diminish myself by conforming to the stunted method you are insisting on. On the basis of my parallel example, it comes down to this: If MM is hypocrital, then so is GWB. That’s why I asked what you thought about that.
Regarding your claim that “liberals always cut and run”, Mahatma Ghandi was one of the most liberal figures in history. He did not cut and run. He persisted in the face of immense opposition. And great advances in human rights were made because of him in India. So your claim is false.
Moreover, your claim is insulting to those who identify with and respect the extraordinary moral strength of liberalism as practiced by men such as M. Ghandi, MLK Jr., and many, many others. So you HAVE made insulting statements, yet you have claimed you are not bent on insulting me. So either you accidentally made an insulting statement, in which case you were wrong to do so and should own up to it, or you ARE bent on insulting me, in which case you are a liar and a hypocrite.
For the record, I stand by the fact that passing judgement on people is not a very Christian ethic. If it’s true, it’s honest and correct and it isn’t slander.
Note: passing judgement is not the same thing as logical deduction.
12:38 am [ Quote ]
A minor correction: Omit the “If” at the beginning of the next-to-last sentence.
1:07 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
You were dodging the inevitable. You are engaging in ‘liberal’ debate where you keep bringing up anything at all to keep from answering the three simple questions.
What are your answers?
You know, I never had a discussion with Mahatma Ghandi so maybe he might not have cut and run. But every other liberal has.
Answer the questions.
I couldn’t care less about
“those who identify with and respect the extraordinary moral strength of liberalism as practiced by men such as M. Ghandi, MLK Jr., and many, many others.” If you or they are insulted by my statements then prove me wrong by:
1. Arguing logically.
2. Face the fact.
3. and ANSWER the three question instead of cutting and running.
Here, watch a conservative being honest:
Yes, Bush is a hypocrite for claiming to be a conservative and spending like a Democrat.
Yes, Bush is a hypocrite for claiming to be a conservative and failing to close the borders.
He will pay for his hypocrisy.
Answer the three questions.
I am not a hypocrite for insulting you. I am being honest that my goal is not to insult you. I just want you to answer the questions. I simply point out facts that liberals can’t answer questions and argue logically and you fail to answer the questions (and therefore prove my point), and I am the hypocrite?
Great, passing judgement is not very Christian like. Fine. I’m guilty. I still stand by my statements. You have still failed to answer the questions.
Just answer the questions already.
1:12 am [ Quote ]
oh jordan?
by the way, did you read when your friend ben got owned by my post earlier?
Side Note: Once again, what does this have to do with anything?
However, I shall digress…did you by chance see my resonse to why I hate bin Laden in the earlier post? You never said anything back to my answer, so I will post it again…
“Jordan…Aside from him being our mortal enemy, why do you oppose usama bin laden and al qaeda?
Cakewalk,
Did you seriously just ask that question? That has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard…and that is saying something.
That is like asking a cancer patient to give you another reason for hating cancer besides the fact that it is killing them/could kill them.
What other reason should there be for me despising that piece of trash?
Is the WTC in 1993 not enough for you?
Are the embassies in 1998 not enough for you?
Is the USS Cole in 2000 not good enough for you?
And, on the off-chance you forgot, there was this whole thing with airliners and over 3,000 Americans being murdered on September 11, 2001.
Shall I go on?
What do you want me to say…
‘He walks with a cane, so I despise him’... ‘He has a long beard, thus I hate him’...
Give me a frigin’ break. Use the head God gave you.”
1:42 am [ Quote ]
Very well, then. Since you have demonstrated honesty and willingness to be rational, I will now address your three points. To recap, you said:
Three points. A=B, B=C, therfore A=C and you won’t admit you are wrong.
With your A, B, and C you have asserted the transitive property, which says that IF A=B AND B=C, THEN A=C.
But in this example, A does NOT equal B. Media Matters being liberal does NOT mean that liberals burn the American flag. They might both be true, but they’re not the same thing. So your logic was flawed from the very beginning.
What you were actually trying to say, I think, was that if A is true AND if B is true, THEN C is true. Or, more concisely, A and B imply C. Symbolically, A,B => C.
So let’s run with that.
1. I don’t dispute that Media Matters is a liberal website.
2. I don’t dispute that some liberals have burned the American flag. However, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about every single documented incident to claim that ONLY liberals have burned the American flag. Moreover, I am certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that not ALL liberals advocate or support burning the American flag. But I will go along with the idea that they are generally the ones that do.
So, with certain clarifications I am asserting that A and B are true. Now we only have to determine whether or not they, together, imply C. Well, here’s my answer:
3. I DO dispute that it is hypocritical for Media Matters to disagree with someone advocating burning a Mexican flag, for THIS REASON: Media Matters has not been shown to support burning any flags at all, including the American flag.
As I’ve said from the very beginning, “guilt by association” doesn’t work. In this case, A and B do NOT imply C.
I will provide another example of why this is the case, by applying the same chain of logic to yet another situation.
Your are a human being.
Some human beings drink their own urine.
It is not hypocritical for you to abstain from drinking your own urine, even though you are part of a group that contains members that do.
I hope all of this has been instructive to you.
Tying up loose ends:
I accept that your goal is not to insult me.
I did not call you a hypocrite, I merely asked you if you were.
Many liberals do not cut and run. Jesus is perhaps the most famous.
3:01 am [ Quote ]
Jesus is a liberal?
?! I didn’t see that in the Bible anywhere 
3:10 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio,
Good enough. I’m done.
3:27 am [ Quote ]
You have earned my respect, sir.
3:31 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio
eh just to correct a factual error you made awhile back. the population of the USA is 295 mil or 300 mil if you round up…not 400 mil. Thus about 150 million moonbats reside in the USA
3:44 am [ Quote ]
Perspicio:
A noble effort and intelligent argument but Proud Am suffers from severe tunnel vision as well as the apparent ignorance.
However, I do take issue with your answers to his asinine “questions”, which pretend to be based on “facts”.
Here are the correct answers:
1. Yes, of course MM is a liberal site, as sure as this one is conservative.
2. Libs DO NOT burn the American flag. Where’s your proof? By and large, the folks doing the flag burning are Anarchists, Communists and Fascists…or of some other fringe persuasion. NOT LIBERAL. Get it? No “fancy pants” stuff here! BTW, more than a few conservatives support one’s right to burn the flag. Don’t retend “your people” are monolithic. (oops, that’s a fancy pants word for “all the same”...how’d that get in there?)
3. Liberals DO NOT “support burning an American flag” as you assert, nor does MM. Many liberals support ones RIGHT to burn a flag, but are neither supporters nor advocates of flag burning, to use your quite “unfancy”...or is it “fanciless” terms.
Your misinformed and (mis)leading phrasing aside, allow me to illustrate for you why you are WRONG on the hypocrisy argument in the first place.
You and I, being loyal and patriotic Americans, probably both support a neo-Nazi’s right to free speech (BTW, that does not make either of us “supporters” or “advocates” of Nazism).
You and I, probably both disagree (strongly, even) with the neo-Nazi message.
Are you and I “hypocrites” for disagreeing with and speaking out against Nazism, while supporting the neo-Nazi’s right to free speech?
8:41 am [ Quote ]
Gayrepublican,
If you go back and read posts 17,24,34,38,44,38,44,48, and 55, you will see it is you who suffer from ignorance.
11:40 am [ Quote ]
“Sorry, you can only post a new comment once every 15 seconds. Slow down cowboy.”
isn’t an error that just you are getting.
1:37 pm [ Quote ]
Just to clarify a point, I don’t sense any antagonism from Ian about my posting here, but I got the message about “Sorry, you can only post a new comment once every 15 seconds. Slow down cowboy,” and I complained about it! So, if Ian is trying to silence debate with this, he would have to be accused of silencing everyone!
3:04 pm [ Quote ]
Scarshapedstar: Where did Ian say it was unconstitutional? He called it hypocritical, which it is.
Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of the left!!
Uh… read my post again, please.
Free speech is granted by the constitution. In order to oppose free speech in America you have to declare something unconstitutional. This is what Ian is claiming MMFA did. This is, um, counterfactual. I see not one single sentence in their press release where they said Savage should be jailed. You seem to have one in mind, so, please, highlight it for me. Copy and paste is all you need. Simple.
Please show me where I said Ian said MMFA did something unconstitional. I’m not seeing it. My post isn’t even particularly long but I just can’t see where I said this. Again, you seem to have it clear in your mind, so please fill me in.
In reality, though, I’m saying that MMFA is exercising their right to free speech by criticizing this call for flag-burning. They are not calling for a ban on flag-burning. There is a huge difference and I’m pretty sure you know it. Although your post made so little sense, I should have more doubts.
3:53 pm [ Quote ]
Scarshapedstar,
“In order to oppose free speech in America you have to declare something unconstitutional. This is what Ian is claiming MMFA did.”
Who is opposing free speech? Ian wasn’t. Show me where you think he did. He simply pointed out the hypocrisy of MM’s speech.
It was YOU who implied Ian said it was unconstitutional in post 13.
Again, who is questioning MM’s “right to free speech by criticizing this call for flag-burning.”? Ian and I did not.
Who questioned whether MM is “calling for a ban on flag-burning.”? Ian and I did not. It was YOU. Therefore, who gives a damn about the HUGE DIFFERENCE you point out.
Very simply: It is hypocritical of a liberal, anti-conservative organization to be critisizing anybody about burning a national flag. Nothing more to it.
Of course MM has the right to criticize or advocate anything at all that they want to. Nobody is disputing that.
It is the hypocrisy at issue.
Similar to Bill Clinton has the right to teach an ethics class at a law school but it would be hypocritical for him to do it.
5:47 pm [ Quote ]
Proud American: Excellent post and defense of what Ian actually said versus how others chose to interpret his comments, thank you!
7:42 pm [ Quote ]
Uh… you seem to be going further and further down the rabbit hole here. Let’s review.
Ian sez:
“it is hypocritical for Media Matters to complain about this when the liberal mantra is supposed to be free speech.”
This is nonsense. When Pat Robertson says that God makes hurricanes to kill gays, and I denounce this, am I being a hypocrite? No. Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with supporting anything anyone says. It’s about supporting their right to say it. I can say that Pat Robertson is insane, evil, a charlatan; this does not somehow call my commitment to free speech into question.
Similarly, when Michael Savage tells people to burn the Mexican flag, and MMFA denounces it, this is not hypocritical. Neither MMFA nor myself is denying Michael the right to incite the burning of Mexican flags or even to burn one himself. We are merely stating that we think he’s very wrong in this belief. We are not saying, as Ian falsely implies, that “Condoning Mexican Flag Burning Isn’t Free Speech.” Again, if you can show me where MMFA said that “Condoning Mexican Flag Burning Isn’t Free Speech” or words anywhere near that effect, I will concede the point. But you can’t.
I’ll even give you a third example. When Bush makes some stupid strawman about how “some people have said that people with brown skin can’t form a democracy” and I point out that nobody has ever said this, I am not threatening his right to free speech, merely pointing out that he is lying.
Heck, I’ll even be bipartisan. When John Kerry says that he voted for a bill before he voted against it, and Ian ridicules him, Ian is not saying that this was not free speech. Far from it. Same deal with MMFA and Savage.
Am I getting through to you yet?
10:27 pm [ Quote ]
Scarshapedstar,
Regarding your Pat Robertson example: Yes, you would be a hypocrite if:
1. You had long historical background of preaching craziness.
2. You got sued by people who thought you shouldn’t be able to preach craziness.
3. You fought for your right to preach craziness (freedom of speech) in the courts.
4. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled you did have the right to preach craziness.
5. You continued to preach craziness under the guise of asserting your right to free speech.
6. Many Americans disagreed with the craziness you preach, yet they clearly understood your right to preach craziness so they could do nothing but write articles or blog about how they agreed/disagreed with your craziness.
AND
7. You wrote an article denouncing Pat Robertson for the craziness he was preaching, then YES, YOU WOULD BE A HYPOCRITE!
However, if you only just denounced him then you would clearly not be a hypocrite. Do you see the difference?
“Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with supporting anything anyone says.” Who said it did? This thread is about the hypocrisy of MM and not your desire to change the subject.
“It’s about supporting their right to say it.” Who questioned anybody’s rights to say anything? Who is arguing against someone’s right to free speech? Not me. Not Ian.
“I can say that Pat Robertson is insane, evil, a charlatan; this does not somehow call my commitment to free speech into question.” Certainly not. Knock yourself out.
“Similarly, when Michael Savage tells people to burn the Mexican flag, and MMFA denounces it, this is not hypocritical.” For MM, and any other self-designated liberal organization, Yes, it is hypocritical for them to pass judgement against anybody burning a flag.
“Neither MMFA nor myself is denying Michael the right to incite the burning of Mexican flags or even to burn one himself.” Very true. No disagreement here. However, why do you keep going back to this “rights” issue instead of the “hypocrisy” issue? Oh, because you are a liberal and you need to change the subject and argue insubstantial points that nobody cares about while hoping the conservative quits and you can claim victory.
“We are merely stating that we think he’s very wrong in this belief.” Yes, true again. You are on a roll. Many people would agree with you. Except, it is hypocritical for MM to be passing judgement about anybody burning flags. And if I knew YOU were a self-proclaimed bleeding-heart liberal then a statement by you disagreeing with Savage would also be hypocritical. Please note that being hypocritical has nothing to do with being true or false or with your rights to say what you want.
“We are not saying, as Ian falsely implies, that “Condoning Mexican Flag Burning Isn’t Free Speech.”” Ian did not use the words in your quotes (so why are you using quotes?) and he did not imply that quote either.
“Again, if you can show me where MMFA said that “Condoning Mexican Flag Burning Isn’t Free Speech” or words anywhere near that effect, I will concede the point. But you can’t.” There is your false quote again. Of course I can’t find your false quote in MM’s or Ian’s statements. Maybe because they weren’t trying the make the same point you are stuck on.
Your Bush/Kerry examples are inane at best.
Get it yet?
10:35 pm [ Quote ]
This just goes to show you that when you’re a Democrat, it’s just different.
12:08 am [ Quote ]
You all waste your time yelling back and forth at each other.
Perhaps we need to think of a better way to LISTEN to one another, not YELL our points at people.
We simply wait until the other person is done talking so we can yell some more. It’s bullshit.
1:30 am [ Quote ]
Oh man, Proud Am, you’re like a broken record.
You keep playing semantic games to try to compare MM to the bigot Savage.
MM does not “preach craziness”...in the very least sense (as it relates to the issue at hand) that MM does not actively promote the burning of flags, and never has.
Michael Savage actively urges his millions of listeners to burn the Mexican flage. Savage, we can all agree is “preaching craziness”. Why can’t you see this massive gap in your “logic”.
You ask: “why do you keep going back to this “rights” issue instead of the “hypocrisy” issue?”
Because for MM to be hypocritical (this is the point where you might want to look it up in a dictionary), they would have had to do the same thing as Savage—actively call for the burning of flags)...then turned around and criticized Savage for his action. MM may support one’s right to burn flags, but did MM actively call for millions of people to burn flags? No. Surely you see the obvious and big difference. By definition, Proud Am, MM is not hypocrtical in this instance.
Proud Am, you are flat wrong in so many ways and your argument has been shredded by so many responses that I’m kinda embarrased for you. No wonder you can’t admit that you’re wrong.
3:31 am [ Quote ]
Gayrepublican,
I’ll try again for the liberal that rides the short bus.
Where did I compare MM to Savage? Well?
I never stated MM “preaches craziness”. Where did I day that? Scarshapedstar stated “When Pat Robertson says that God makes hurricanes to kill gays, and I denounce this, am I being a hypocrite?” So I made up an analogy to give an example of when his statement would and would not be hypocritical. You obviously missed the point.
“MM does not actively promote the burning of flags, and never has.” Where did I say they did?
Again, the “preaching craziness” had nothing to do with MM or Savage (that was a point you missed). It was the term I used to characterize Robertson saying “God makes hurricanes to kill gays”. Surely you would agree that that would be preaching pure craziness, wouldn’t you, Gayrepublican?
Now go back to my analogy in post 68 and replace “preach craziness” with “burn flags to assert their right to free speech” and it then applies to “liberals” vs. “Robertson”. Catching on yet?
“Because for MM to be hypocritical…they would have had to do the same thing as Savage—actively call for the burning of flags…then turned around and criticized Savage for his action.” No, they would not. They are a liberal organization (Yes?). Not just a individual liberal like you, but a group of liberals with a stated anti-conservative agenda. They take on all conservative issues and their liberal ideology is the source of their arguments. That includes the liberals proud tradition of burning American flags in this country under the guise of asserting their right to “free speech”.
Now go back to Ian’s statement:
“...However it is hypocritical for Media Matters to complain about this when the liberal mantra is supposed to be free speech.”
For years the liberals have burned flags in the name of asserted their right to free speech, and yet now this liberal organization, MM, is expressing disapproval of Savage’s call to burn the Mexican flag which is his free speech? Hypocritical, don’t you think? Please tell me you get this.
“MM may support one’s right to burn flags..” They DAMN WELL BETTER support someone elses’ right to burn a flag. If they didn’t, it would be a whole new order of magnitude of hypcrisy for them.
Remember, Hypocrisy is the cornerstone of Liberalism!
10:06 am [ Quote ]
Proud Am,
You are wrong in so many ways it’s actually gone from embarrasing to sad. Your sense of hypocirsy has nothing to do with it’s actual effective meaning. That’s why you’ve been flat wrong from the start. I’m sorry you’ve wasted so much time on such a weak argument.
If you cannnot understand the difference between an action and a right to act, you’re a fool. If you cannot understand the difference between an expression of dissaproval, and a call to physical action, you’re a fool. I’m sorry, but you’re comparing apples and oranges and you’re wrong to do so. Hypocrisy applies to apples and apples. In other words, you’ll need to show MM sending out a call to burn flags in order to show hypocrisy…and you can’t show that because it’s never happened.
“That includes the liberals proud tradition of burning American flags”
LOL
!
That’s choice! You’re funny, Proud Am! Approximately 5-7 flags are burned in the US each year. Virtually all are burned by Anarchists, Fascists and Communists…or other extremist groups. Not by liberals. Indeed, many conservatives support Americans rights to burn a flag. Sorry, but I can’t tell you that i “get” your lies. It might be easy for you having swallowed so many of Bush’s for so long now.
I think the proud tradition here is the conservatives proud tradition of trampling on consitutional rights.
Remember: Lies, corruption and abuse of power are the cornerstones of conservatism!
11:58 am [ Quote ]
LOL
Everyone of my comments in this thread was deleted. Because you have no arguments against your own hypocrisy.
Hilarious.
1. Nutjob wingnut claim.
2. Owned by anyone with a coherent thought.
3. Response deleted because said wingnut can’t think of anything to say in response.
2:05 pm [ Quote ]
This is what is wrong with American politics and dialogue today. People like you who (on the left and right) aren’t interested in the truth but rather in twisting messages of the “other team”. All of you who jump on the “look at what those crazy liberals are saying now” and listen to the likes of Ann Coulter know damn well that the liberal message here is not that “the American flag should be burned but the Mexican flag should not even be mentioned being burned.” First off the whole American flag debate is always twisted by saying that someone who believes that you should have THE RIGHT to burn the flag does not mean that you SHOULD burn the flag. I think that anyone who burns the American flag is an asshole who deserves to get his ass wooped, but I also believe that they should have the right to do it without the government coming down on him. The difference in that and what the quote is saying is that the Mexican flag SHOULD be burned…and that is just ridiculous. I too believe that these mexicans who are protesting should be waving the American flag, but to suggest that a nation’s flag should be burned is a spit in the face to everyone from that land (several who are part of the Republican party)and anyone backing up these remarks can spin them all they want and find a way to turn them on the “dirty liberals” but it just makes him look ignorant and idiotic. I also have a strange feeling that the same people who back up these quoted remarks and consider themselves so incredibly patriotic are also the same people who would be lashing out at the liberals for saying something that seemed to be an attack on christianity. Seems a tad hyprocritcal to me. I’m sure Jesus would be saying “burn those spics’ flag”.
2:11 pm [ Quote ]
The biggest smugglers of meth are beaners from mexico. These people are a drain on our system and make up 1/3 of the population in our Federal Prisons.
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again. I going to keep a mexican flag in the outhouse just in case I run out of pages from the porKoran.
7:44 pm [ Quote ]
Gayrepublican,
The gaping hole in your liberal rant is that you appear to actually believe that it isn’t the liberals who burned the flag in this country. Are you kidding? Who the hell was it? What are you smoking? What happened to the 60’s and 70’s? How old are you? Have you ever opened a history book? Are you saying it was the “Anarchists, Fascists and Communists” that fought through the courts all the way to the top to assert their right to burn the flag (free speech)? Are you really serious? The gall of liberals to try to rewrite history is amazing. Back in post 54 a liberal actually admitted that liberals are generally the ones who burn the American flag. (From a liberal!) Talk to some of your older liberal buddies and you will find some who were actually proud of their anti-American activities and beliefs. And you say “Bush Lies“. Where were you during the Clinton years? You must be still be in one of our liberal- controlled and propaganda-pushing high schools. You should grow up and learn some history before you go giving this country to the Mexicans and Muslims.
Go stand on a street corner and spew your liberal rhetoric and see how people react to you. And you think I should be embarrassed?