Must be a good day for liars…

December 22, 2006 in Political Animals | 14 comments

Because Jay “rope + tree + ACLU lawyer = pinata” Stephenson is lying again about his own views:

…I do not in any way endorse violence against any ACLU lawyers…

Patently false. Jay has said he wants to hang ACLU lawyers. He’s pissed because he got caught doing it. And once he was caught, of course, he tried to pass it off as a “joke”. David Neiwert explains just how disingenuous and dishonest Jay was, and is, being:

The picture, of course, appears with the following “disclaimer”:

For those who are too stupid to understand, the below picture is satire. It is a joke. We do not actually advocate murder in any way here at STACLU.

Hee haw! Of course! What a knee-slapper! Obviously, this is just another example of that refined right-wing elimination humor.

I’m sure it would be OK for someone on the left, at no risk of being labeled “unhinged,” to Photoshop the same picture with some other formulas. Oh, like this one:

Stake + Fire + Right-Wing Blogger = Roast Weenie

Or how ‘bout:

Block + Ax + Rich Republican = Justice

Har de har har! See? Fantasizing about executing your fellow Americans is such fun! And if you call it a “joke,” you can say damned near anything!

Most of all, it’s a great way to vent the rage that comes when you’re caught “bending the rules” for that truly just cause.

It is worth noting that Jay did not initially display the disclaimer. He added it only after I pointed out the eliminationist nature of his alleged “joke”.

And this so-called “humor” can have a deadly influence, as Neiwert explains elsewhere:

These are not mere jokes. They describe an underlying attitude about the writers’ fellow Americans that not only demonizes them, but reduces them to subhuman level, prime targets for violent elimination. The authors may think they are publishing mere jokes, and perhaps in their own minds, they are. But they have a concrete real-world effect — because inevitably members of their audience (particularly the more hate-filled and mentally unstable types) will eventually act them out. Recall, if you will, that William Pierce often protested that The Turner Diaries was a mere work of fiction; but that did not prevent either Robert Mathews or Timothy McVeigh from attempting to enact its blueprint.

Here’s the really sad part: Should someone actually go out and kill an ACLU lawyer, Jay Stephenson suffers from such massive moral blindness that he will claim, in all seriousness, that his little “joke” could not possibly have had anything to do with inciting a murder.

14 comments

Comments feed for this article

December 22, 2006 at 11:49 pm

Warwitch

Hmmm…Lies. Must be the theme of the day.

Since you’re the self-ordained LIE POLICE, where’s your big headline: “The Iraqis Lie Again”?

Heheh. That ought to ruffle your feathers.

Happy Indeterminate Non-Religious Winter Holiday.

December 23, 2006 at 8:30 am

meatbrain

No feathers ruffled here. I have comments open here so that people can comment. And unlike Heidi and Kit, I do not instantly delete comments that disagree with me.

And has anyone asked Heidi why at least one of the Marines involved in the Haditha killings initially lied about how the Iraqi civilians died?

December 23, 2006 at 10:32 am

Warwitch

I read your link but didn’t find mention of how one of the Marines lied about how the Iraqis died. Did I just miss it?

I see how the sergeant is ACCUSED of lying, but that doesn’t mean he lied. Could you please put the excerpt here in your comment for little ole me?

Merry A Few Days Off Of Work For No Good Reason!

December 23, 2006 at 11:33 am

meatbrain

If you don’t understand what’s in print, it’s not my job to explain it to you.

Let us note in passing that whereas Wuterich can only be accused of lying, it is assumed by the wingnuts that the Iraqis must be lying.

December 28, 2006 at 5:52 pm

ric ottaiano

Out of curiosity, why do you spend most of your time “debunking” others and very little on any kind of original thought or analysis? I know the former is easier since calling someone names can’t fall prey to fact-checking, but you’d be much more persuasive (assuming that’s your goal of course) if you’d actually make a cogent argument backed up with facts and links.

December 28, 2006 at 5:56 pm

kender

Bwahahahaa…..gimme a dollar.

December 28, 2006 at 5:57 pm

meatbrain

I comment on what I find interesting on any given day. And what I usually find interesting — and all too common — is the predilection that the wingers have for lying outright.

And you will note that I do not simply ”[call] someone names”. I provide factual support for my statements when I point out that someone is lying, or advocating violence as an instrument of political change, or whatever.

December 28, 2006 at 9:18 pm

Big Dog

And you will note that I do not simply ”[call] someone names”. I provide factual support for my statements when I point out that someone is lying, or advocating violence as an instrument of political change, or whatever.

Let us note in passing that whereas Wuterich can only be accused of lying, it is assumed by the wingnuts that the Iraqis must be lying.

I fail to see how calling him a name and making a comment that you do not support with facts squares up with what I quoted from you in the first paragraph.

Could you explain that so i can understand. I would not want you to have to rat yourself out as a liar.

BTW, John Kerry’s statement about the troops and how being uneducated lands them in Iraq. In your opinion, he meant it or he was trying to make a joke?

December 28, 2006 at 9:33 pm

meatbrain

“I fail to see how calling him a name…”

Calling who, and what name?

”...and making a comment that you do not support with facts…”

To which comment do you refer?

“John Kerry’s statement about the troops and how being uneducated lands them in Iraq.”

Cite the specific statement that you refer to, please.

December 29, 2006 at 1:53 am

Warwitch

If you don’t understand what’s in print, meat, it’s not his job to explain it to you.

December 29, 2006 at 12:04 pm

kender

zingo Warwitch…..that was funny.

December 30, 2006 at 12:43 am

Junk

This is funny. You flock to this guy’s site with conservative righteousness ready to fling witty comments like “zingo Warwitch”. The truth is that you needed this desperately. Just at the point that you’re all getting tired of hearing each other beat off over pictures of guns, explosions and the macho marines that make them, finally, here is someone that gives you the smallest amount of validation by disagreeing with you. You couldn’t resist the urge to link here so that you can finally point at something that gives you an excuse to spend your days and nights on the internet that doesn’t involve chatting with underaged pinays. Congrats.

December 30, 2006 at 9:33 am

meatbrain

I think kender has reached the point that he deserves his very own avatar here, so I’ve given him one. I’ll be adding it to all his past comments.