The Michigan Messenger: Midland GOP precinct delegate participated in Nazi rally in Kalamazoo in Aug. last year
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
Todd, do you really want to engage in this kind of guilt by association stuff. If so, I can pull precinct delegate lists for the Democratic Party and find dirt on on two of them somewhere. Should Democrats all be tarnished because Robert Byrd was a bona fide member of the KKK? Or that Mark Brewer represented them?
And you and I both know that precinct delegate campaigns are usually not contested - anyone can apply for an application, etc. While there are some contested delegate races, its not the norm. And there are thousands of Precinct delegates - hardly a position of "power" within the party unless you show me a few hundred, or a district chair, etc.
I'll condemn Gray fully. If he participated on stormfront in the way you paraphrase, he needs to be strongly condemned. I'd note that your article here though is very short on actual quotes of what Gray has said (if he's participated there, you should be able to quote it).
As to Kyle Bristow, you are violating MM's and Ms. Apo-Joynt's standard of not self-reporting your own biases and I'd argue formal conflicts here. My understanding is that you were involved in an altercation with Bristow in which complaints were filed (even if they weren't, you were an active participant in that story). That said, while I'm not convinced of anything just because Southern Poverty Law Center says so and not convinced they made a case Bristow meets the pre-existing standards of their hate group list, I am convinced that he's a loose cannon and has serious problems. There's nothing necessarily wrong with being a loose cannon sometimes, but I certainly strongly disagree with many of his views and his expressive style even as I defend his right to it.
tspencer
· 1 year ago
Chetly,
I'm sure Heywood will respond to your comment in due time. Until then...
I would be surprised if you are not on the site, as much as you are, because you are being paid to do so by the MI-GOP or similar interest. Regardless of your motive for being here, I'd like to remind you that we are not repping the Democratic Party.
If you have "dirt" as you call it -- I thought cheating on spouses was "dirt." Being a member of organized racism seems to go far beyond that description -- on Democratic precinct delegates in this state; dirt that raises the question of trust with the public concerning that person's role in the Democratic Party, then submit a news tip to us and we would be happy to investigate.
If the Democratic Party is electing racists or pedophiles or drug dealers to positions within the party the public has a right to know.
Your simultaneous defense of and criticism for Gray and Bristow is a bit confusing. Their actions and statements speak volumes.
And what interest, I wonder, does the Southern Poverty Law Center, have in labeling groups that are not hate groups as hate groups? You're free to disagree with them, I guess, but on the basis of what? Because it offers convenience in your defense of Bristow? Or because to you, calling people racial slurs in public or in polls on your Web site is not racism but loose cannon-ism? That's not a good reason to distrust the best watchdog this country has in this arena.
And by the way, the report Heywood wrote clearly states that both precinct delegate races discussed were uncontested. Not sure why you act like you are providing us this information now.
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
I'm not being paid to comment here. Period. That may be hard for you to believe within your worldview, but ...
My criticism of Gray is different because if he made braggadicio-like comments on Stormfront, that is evidence he should be condemned. Bristow has acted recklessly on numerous occasions, but I don't know the motivations behind why he invited certain speakers and I haven't seen full articulations of why those speakers are so evil a priori as to justify the attack on Bristow for their views (you'll recall none other than Columbia President Lee Bollinger's invitation to Ahchmendenjad (spelling) - which while properly criticized for foreign relations impact shouldn't have been criticized as an attribution of his views to Bollinger). That Bristow/Gray took advantage of a system to run as precinct delegate does not impune on other precinct delegates or the Party as a whole - unless you expect Parties to run background checks on everyone that runs for office. If it were a primary for a contested seat of more real responsibility (say state rep), I'd actively campaign against him. But this story is just plain pointless otherwise.
I have not "simultaneously" defended and criticism them - I have criticized their actions and only noted their First Amendment rights.
What would Southern Poverty Law Center have as an interest? Well, I dare say its the interest you accuse me of on a far greater scale. Donors who need or desire to see increasing documentation of hate. The problem is that there was an original definition of that status gets watered down in the process. And trust me - SPLC monetary interest is thousands of times any theoretical monetary interest you or Ms. Apo-Joynt would accuse me of. Its millions of dollars. Does that alone mean their work is worthless? No. I'm particularly impressed with the early work they did in their first two decades. But watering it down devalues it.
If you've read my own investigative work on SPLC, you'd know what I disagree with them on. On the basis of one of their people, after I interviewed her on the phone and she hung up on me after I asked her a tough question, telling her boss that I might be the person who had left a series of anonymous threats with SPLC (which I suspect SPLC receives alot of) at roughly the same time. It was a cover story to deflect from her refusal to answer the question and hangup (which she most certainly had a right to do). When her boss relayed that allegation, I challenged him to report the concern to the FBI as he was alleging a federal felony on my part and that I would waive my 4th Amendment rights (although they wouldn't need that to verify or disverify the allegation with phone records and voice-printing) to allow and encourage an FBI investigation. My challenge was the end of the argument - I recall no FBI inquiries to voice-print me or check my phone records and SPLC stopped arguing the point. Think of this analogously to your belief that James Carabelli was trying to cover for something by accusing Ms. Melzer of misquoting him. Saying that someone that falsely accuses people of crimes because they don't like the questions they are asked is the "best watchdog" in the country is absurd - or at least you should be able to see how I'd think that. SPLC tarnishes itself when it overreaches, or when it treats people that actually might side with it sometimes (I do) badly.
Finally, if you have evidence that Bristow was "calling people racial slurs in public" or "in polls on" a website, please post it (maybe someone has and I missed it, but I can't follow everything). With that evidence, I'll call him a bigot or racist. I have yet to see the "smoking gun" evidence that he's a racist, and when I see it I'll join the choir. Surely, if its that obvious, you can condense the evidence into a paragraph or two with a citation or two to the original source material.
tspencer
· 1 year ago
Bristow is the communications director for MSU YAF, which yesterday had a poll on their site that asked readers to choose which group of people were the biggest threat to the western world, and the choices included, and these are paraphrases since the poll was replaced today and is no longer up, goat-herding ragheads and hook-nosed Jew bankers, along with other like slurs for liberals and gays (or was it Mexicans?).
Defend away, with your rhetorical gymnastics of a philosophy major, and tell us why this means Bristow is but a loose cannon. And while yer at it, I'd love to hear how global warming is a myth and how cigarettes are perfectly safe.
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
If those were the choices, as with I did with Ed, I'll agree with you. I'd be amazed if someone didn't save the html or take a screenshot though and that would be easy to post.
And that I'd consider more newsworthy than this sensationalist attempt to link him to Republicans. Indeed, now that I think about it, Ed was wrong and I was wrong to agree that "two random people have white supremacist views" isn't a story. That's precisely what SPLC reported on in its first twenty years - but with exhaustive documentation and tight standards. There would be value in Heywood's endless documentation of Bristow-stupidity, if Heywood stuck to posting exact words, cold hard facts, and evidence and that evidence stuck to a standardized definition of racist, etc. Document Bristow's racism, not his 6 degrees of connection, which is the only new part of this story.
tspencer
· 1 year ago
Good job! Knew you could do it!
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
There's nothing new in what I said, and still no (presented) evidence on Bristow.
The evidence on Gray is convincing. He's a member of KKK and a racist. I have no qualification in saying that.
tspencer
· 1 year ago
Again, you admit in previous posts that it was racist for Bristow to bring certain speakers to MSU.
"I'll agree that hosting Griffin or Fromm is incredibly poor judgment and even worse style in that it is intentionally confrontational."
What you call poor judgment and confrontational, common morals, ethics and standards calls acts of organized racism.
Perhaps your standard of what is racism is a lot higher than anyone else I've ever met in polite society. Though it is curious that you will admit that *if* Bristow used the slurs on his website I described (he did) he is a racist. Yet by inviting Griffin and Fromm and promoting those talks, he is not a racist.
I suppose that what makes someone a "racist" is subjective. If your whole belabored effort here is to make Bristow's racism a matter of opinion, the way the right wing has made global warming and the way Big Tobacco made the cigarette-cancer link a "matter of opinion," perhaps you have succeeded with the handful of white supremacists who might have dropped in to read these exchanges. But then again, I'm not sure you're changing anyone else's mind about what walks and sounds and acts like a duck as being perhaps a loose cannon instead.
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
My standard of racism is simply does the person or action/statement convey a message that implies racial superiority or inferiority, or cause people to be treated differently based on the color of their skin. I actually take the objectivist view here and do not believe it is a matter of opinion - its a matter of definition (which "the left" particularly on this issue has taken flexibility with in recent times).
The "right wing" has not "made global warming" a matter of "opinion" -- global warming (or more properly its causes) is neither "opinion" nor "fact" -- its a matter of scientific hypothesis, and is in a state where the majority of scientists currently adhere to the hypothesis that it is caused by man-made CO2 emissions. I'm inclined to believe that at least a substantial part of it is man-made, but then that begs the question of what the science (and economics) says about the solutions, and that's far more complex. Cigarette-cancer link is a much longer running scientific question and there is simply just ALOT more data out there, and I think its simply a less-complex and more quickly provable hypothesis, but I don't see anyone today seriously doubting the link. I certainly wouldn't put the "right-wing" in there - it was Big Tobacco, a special interest with an obvious interest. With cigarettes, a valid libertarian-conservative argument can be made that people have a moral right to choose to take personal risks (that obviously doesn't translate to global warming).
ebrayton
· 1 year ago
Kyle Bristow is a "loose cannon"? Come on Chetly, can't you just admit the guy is exactly what he appears to be, a raging bigot and a neo-Nazi? He has brought in to speak and showered with praise people like Nick Griffin, the head of the British Nationalist Party who openly calls for all non-whites and non-Europeans to be thrown out of the UK. Mr. Griffin is a neo-Nazi, plain and simple. so is Paul Fromm. So is Preston Wiginton, Bristow's buddy who brags openly about "stomping muds" who "seduce our girls." He has brought all of those people to MSU or the surrounding area to speak. This isn't just guilt by association, he advocates for those people and supports them. In fact, all you need to do is look at his blog. On the front page of his blog right now, Bristow is celebrating the fact that the YAF blog was picked as a "pro-white" blog by the openly racist Council of Conservative Citizens, declaring "Viva Nixon" while playing audio of Nixon ranting incoherently about Jews controlling the world, and linking to yet another neo-Nazi and anti-semite.
When I was first told that Bristow and MSU YAF were labeled a hate group, I responded with skepticism. I think SPLC has a tendency to use that label too broadly sometimes. But it didn't take me long to be convinced. Since getting that designation, Bristow has time and time again proven it to be accurate by praising and advocating for racists like Griffin and skinhead fascists like Wiginton. He's not a "loose cannon." And like you, I'll certainly defend his right to his views, but let's not play games with what those views are. The guy is a bigot and a neo-Nazi.
And by the way, could you cite anywhere in this post or anywhere else that Todd has said that all Republicans are "tarnished" because of people like Bristow and Gray? He doesn't even imply such a thing. The post is about those two, not about Republicans in general, the vast majority of whom, I have no doubt, find these people just as appalling as I do. I'll gladly join you in condemning Robert Byrd, not only because of his past in the KKK but because of his incredibly corrupt legislative career (he is the Democrats' version of Ted Stevens). But tu quoque replies are pretty meaningless here.
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
Then why write and headline the story focusing on the GOP delegate status?
You do a better job here of evidencing than the author, who merely points to the hosting of two speakers (Lee Bollinger doesn't want to eradicate Israel just because he hosted the Iranian President last year), but your evidence is still based on the statements of the speakers he hosted, not Bristow himself. Give me one good one and I'll join you - in the meantime, I'll agree that hosting Griffin or Fromm is incredibly poor judgment and even worse style in that it is intentionally confrontational. I avoid Bristow for those reasons. My criticism was stronger than just "loose cannon" - it included he has "serious problems" and we are parsing words over exactly what the nature of those problems are. But my point is that when throwing around charges like "racist" and "bigot", let's be precise in our evidence, meaning, and use of those terms.
My point about Byrd was not that you should join in condemnation (you should), but that his corruption doesn't automatically impune other Democrats, except to the extent that some now rally to his defense.
All of this said, Bristow is not a Republican in my opinion. He's burned a McCain shirt and routinely shows intolerance of those he disagrees (not a bad thing unto itself) with within the Republican Party or conservative movement, and even labeling him a "conservative" is inappropriate, for similar reasons. Buckley, the pre-eminent defintion of conservative, would not have approved of the incivilty or tone of this style of political interaction. That's some pretty harsh criticism, without passing on the more precise question of racism or bigotry.
ebrayton
· 1 year ago
Chetly Zarko wrote:
Then why write and headline the story focusing on the GOP delegate status?
Because that's the story, that these two cretins are now Republican officials in this state. "Two random people you've never heard of are nazis" is not much of a story. I would think the GOP would want to know this so they could do something about it. But no one ever suggested that this is a stain on all Republicans.
You do a better job here of evidencing than the author, who merely points to the hosting of two speakers (Lee Bollinger doesn't want to eradicate Israel just because he hosted the Iranian President last year), but your evidence is still based on the statements of the speakers he hosted, not Bristow himself. Give me one good one and I'll join you - in the meantime, I'll agree that hosting Griffin or Fromm is incredibly poor judgment and even worse style in that it is intentionally confrontational.
He didn't just host them, he praised them over and over again. When Ahmedinijad was at Columbia, Bollinger delivered a speech criticizing him strongly for his views. That is why we know he doesn't agree with them. Bristow not only didn't do that, he has praised them and advocated for them repeatedly. He works with them and organizes with them. On his own blog he constantly posts racist and anti-Semitic material and links to such material by others. Seriously, how much evidence do you need here?
My point about Byrd was not that you should join in condemnation (you should), but that his corruption doesn't automatically impune other Democrats, except to the extent that some now rally to his defense.
But since no one has ever said that all Democrats are impugned by him. Do you think that publishing an article about Byrd being a former Grand Wizard of the KKK and now being a Democratic senator impugns all Democrats? I certainly don't.
All of this said, Bristow is not a Republican in my opinion.
Your opinion does not change the fact that he is now an elected Republican party official. I suggest looking up the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
He's burned a McCain shirt and routinely shows intolerance of those he disagrees (not a bad thing unto itself) with within the Republican Party or conservative movement, and even labeling him a "conservative" is inappropriate, for similar reasons. Buckley, the pre-eminent defintion of conservative, would not have approved of the incivilty or tone of this style of political interaction. That's some pretty harsh criticism, without passing on the more precise question of racism or bigotry.
You're still engaging in mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious: Kyle Bristow is a bundle of pretty much every significant form of bigotry you can think of, from racism to anti-semitism to homophobia. He is a vile bigot. Period. If you can't recognize that, you are entirely out of touch with reality.
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
I say he's a bonehead and intolerant, but that isn't far enough for you. You insist that I must be "out of touch with reality" when I hold to the old-fashioned notion that words have meaning and should be used precisely, and that watering down words (bigot, racist, "nazi", which I see zero evidence for with Bristow and you imply above, have precise meanings which should be honored). So if I don't agree with your view of the words or call a person a "racist" without seeing evidence of belief of racial superiority, even as I agree mostly in substance, I'm out of touch. Do you see where this is going? Its Orwellian. It devalues evidence and the language itself.
Evidence: I need one link here to the best example of a Bristow statement you'd say is "racist". Just the best case. How hard is that? Still no link in this whole exchange. Or a quote from another media source pasted here if it isn't online. As a reader, it shouldn't be my job to go find what you suggest is obvious and easy to prove.
ebrayton
· 1 year ago
Chetly, if you really see "zero evidence" of Bristow being a bigot, racist and neo-Nazi, there is really little point in trying to convince you of anything. The fact that he continually praises racists, bigots and neo-Nazis is "zero evidence"? The fact that he celebrates being given praise by an openly racist and bigoted group is "zero evidence"? The fact that he declares "Viva Nixon!" while playing a tape of Nixon ranting about how Jews control the world is "zero evidence"? The fact that he continually calls Heywood an "AIDS-infested faggot" isn't evidence of bigotry? The fact that he works actively with a skinhead who has called for other skinheads to "send a message" to Heywood is "zero evidence"? You may not consider it proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but any rational person would see this is as good evidence of being exactly what I describe him to be. If you can't see that, I really do have to wonder what color the sky is in your world. If he doesn't want to be seen as a bigot and a nazi, he should stop praising and promoting bigots and nazis.
chetlyzarko
· 1 year ago
You say he's played this tape, but not provided a link to the tape or a news story about the tape. The same with each of your other assertions. I'm not arguing that saying "AIDS-infested faggot" does not qualify him as a bigot, I'm asking for proof he said that. Saying evidence exists is far different than showing the evidence.
So I'll agree in a qualified manner - if he said "AIDS infested faggot" that's a bigoted statement. If he played a tape of Nixon ranting about Jews and praised, that's bigoted. I don't know what "works actively" means or who or what the evidence of the person you suggest is skinhead, so I can't even give you a qualified statement there.
cheneygun
· 1 year ago
Diane is right. Anyone can run. I know in my county we don't even recognize a third or more of the people elected to precinct delegate spots sometimes. They DO NOT have to go through the party to obtain a P.D spot.
Secondly, I wonder how many Democrat precinct delegate backgrounds have been checked. I would wager none. You guys that write for this website are deeply partisan...I doubt as to whether anyone actually considers you "Independent Media."
DankoRamone
· 12 months ago
I'd rather have these fools out in the open and being honest. As I discuss in the post below, it makes it far, far easier for me to tell who's a waste of flesh.
All Comments
And you and I both know that precinct delegate campaigns are usually not contested - anyone can apply for an application, etc. While there are some contested delegate races, its not the norm. And there are thousands of Precinct delegates - hardly a position of "power" within the party unless you show me a few hundred, or a district chair, etc.
I'll condemn Gray fully. If he participated on stormfront in the way you paraphrase, he needs to be strongly condemned. I'd note that your article here though is very short on actual quotes of what Gray has said (if he's participated there, you should be able to quote it).
As to Kyle Bristow, you are violating MM's and Ms. Apo-Joynt's standard of not self-reporting your own biases and I'd argue formal conflicts here. My understanding is that you were involved in an altercation with Bristow in which complaints were filed (even if they weren't, you were an active participant in that story). That said, while I'm not convinced of anything just because Southern Poverty Law Center says so and not convinced they made a case Bristow meets the pre-existing standards of their hate group list, I am convinced that he's a loose cannon and has serious problems. There's nothing necessarily wrong with being a loose cannon sometimes, but I certainly strongly disagree with many of his views and his expressive style even as I defend his right to it.
I'm sure Heywood will respond to your comment in due time. Until then...
I would be surprised if you are not on the site, as much as you are, because you are being paid to do so by the MI-GOP or similar interest. Regardless of your motive for being here, I'd like to remind you that we are not repping the Democratic Party.
If you have "dirt" as you call it -- I thought cheating on spouses was "dirt." Being a member of organized racism seems to go far beyond that description -- on Democratic precinct delegates in this state; dirt that raises the question of trust with the public concerning that person's role in the Democratic Party, then submit a news tip to us and we would be happy to investigate.
If the Democratic Party is electing racists or pedophiles or drug dealers to positions within the party the public has a right to know.
Your simultaneous defense of and criticism for Gray and Bristow is a bit confusing. Their actions and statements speak volumes.
And what interest, I wonder, does the Southern Poverty Law Center, have in labeling groups that are not hate groups as hate groups? You're free to disagree with them, I guess, but on the basis of what? Because it offers convenience in your defense of Bristow? Or because to you, calling people racial slurs in public or in polls on your Web site is not racism but loose cannon-ism? That's not a good reason to distrust the best watchdog this country has in this arena.
And by the way, the report Heywood wrote clearly states that both precinct delegate races discussed were uncontested. Not sure why you act like you are providing us this information now.
My criticism of Gray is different because if he made braggadicio-like comments on Stormfront, that is evidence he should be condemned. Bristow has acted recklessly on numerous occasions, but I don't know the motivations behind why he invited certain speakers and I haven't seen full articulations of why those speakers are so evil a priori as to justify the attack on Bristow for their views (you'll recall none other than Columbia President Lee Bollinger's invitation to Ahchmendenjad (spelling) - which while properly criticized for foreign relations impact shouldn't have been criticized as an attribution of his views to Bollinger). That Bristow/Gray took advantage of a system to run as precinct delegate does not impune on other precinct delegates or the Party as a whole - unless you expect Parties to run background checks on everyone that runs for office. If it were a primary for a contested seat of more real responsibility (say state rep), I'd actively campaign against him. But this story is just plain pointless otherwise.
I have not "simultaneously" defended and criticism them - I have criticized their actions and only noted their First Amendment rights.
What would Southern Poverty Law Center have as an interest? Well, I dare say its the interest you accuse me of on a far greater scale. Donors who need or desire to see increasing documentation of hate. The problem is that there was an original definition of that status gets watered down in the process. And trust me - SPLC monetary interest is thousands of times any theoretical monetary interest you or Ms. Apo-Joynt would accuse me of. Its millions of dollars. Does that alone mean their work is worthless? No. I'm particularly impressed with the early work they did in their first two decades. But watering it down devalues it.
If you've read my own investigative work on SPLC, you'd know what I disagree with them on. On the basis of one of their people, after I interviewed her on the phone and she hung up on me after I asked her a tough question, telling her boss that I might be the person who had left a series of anonymous threats with SPLC (which I suspect SPLC receives alot of) at roughly the same time. It was a cover story to deflect from her refusal to answer the question and hangup (which she most certainly had a right to do). When her boss relayed that allegation, I challenged him to report the concern to the FBI as he was alleging a federal felony on my part and that I would waive my 4th Amendment rights (although they wouldn't need that to verify or disverify the allegation with phone records and voice-printing) to allow and encourage an FBI investigation. My challenge was the end of the argument - I recall no FBI inquiries to voice-print me or check my phone records and SPLC stopped arguing the point. Think of this analogously to your belief that James Carabelli was trying to cover for something by accusing Ms. Melzer of misquoting him. Saying that someone that falsely accuses people of crimes because they don't like the questions they are asked is the "best watchdog" in the country is absurd - or at least you should be able to see how I'd think that. SPLC tarnishes itself when it overreaches, or when it treats people that actually might side with it sometimes (I do) badly.
Finally, if you have evidence that Bristow was "calling people racial slurs in public" or "in polls on" a website, please post it (maybe someone has and I missed it, but I can't follow everything). With that evidence, I'll call him a bigot or racist. I have yet to see the "smoking gun" evidence that he's a racist, and when I see it I'll join the choir. Surely, if its that obvious, you can condense the evidence into a paragraph or two with a citation or two to the original source material.
Defend away, with your rhetorical gymnastics of a philosophy major, and tell us why this means Bristow is but a loose cannon. And while yer at it, I'd love to hear how global warming is a myth and how cigarettes are perfectly safe.
And that I'd consider more newsworthy than this sensationalist attempt to link him to Republicans. Indeed, now that I think about it, Ed was wrong and I was wrong to agree that "two random people have white supremacist views" isn't a story. That's precisely what SPLC reported on in its first twenty years - but with exhaustive documentation and tight standards. There would be value in Heywood's endless documentation of Bristow-stupidity, if Heywood stuck to posting exact words, cold hard facts, and evidence and that evidence stuck to a standardized definition of racist, etc. Document Bristow's racism, not his 6 degrees of connection, which is the only new part of this story.
The evidence on Gray is convincing. He's a member of KKK and a racist. I have no qualification in saying that.
"I'll agree that hosting Griffin or Fromm is incredibly poor judgment and even worse style in that it is intentionally confrontational."
What you call poor judgment and confrontational, common morals, ethics and standards calls acts of organized racism.
Perhaps your standard of what is racism is a lot higher than anyone else I've ever met in polite society. Though it is curious that you will admit that *if* Bristow used the slurs on his website I described (he did) he is a racist. Yet by inviting Griffin and Fromm and promoting those talks, he is not a racist.
I suppose that what makes someone a "racist" is subjective. If your whole belabored effort here is to make Bristow's racism a matter of opinion, the way the right wing has made global warming and the way Big Tobacco made the cigarette-cancer link a "matter of opinion," perhaps you have succeeded with the handful of white supremacists who might have dropped in to read these exchanges. But then again, I'm not sure you're changing anyone else's mind about what walks and sounds and acts like a duck as being perhaps a loose cannon instead.
The "right wing" has not "made global warming" a matter of "opinion" -- global warming (or more properly its causes) is neither "opinion" nor "fact" -- its a matter of scientific hypothesis, and is in a state where the majority of scientists currently adhere to the hypothesis that it is caused by man-made CO2 emissions. I'm inclined to believe that at least a substantial part of it is man-made, but then that begs the question of what the science (and economics) says about the solutions, and that's far more complex. Cigarette-cancer link is a much longer running scientific question and there is simply just ALOT more data out there, and I think its simply a less-complex and more quickly provable hypothesis, but I don't see anyone today seriously doubting the link. I certainly wouldn't put the "right-wing" in there - it was Big Tobacco, a special interest with an obvious interest. With cigarettes, a valid libertarian-conservative argument can be made that people have a moral right to choose to take personal risks (that obviously doesn't translate to global warming).
When I was first told that Bristow and MSU YAF were labeled a hate group, I responded with skepticism. I think SPLC has a tendency to use that label too broadly sometimes. But it didn't take me long to be convinced. Since getting that designation, Bristow has time and time again proven it to be accurate by praising and advocating for racists like Griffin and skinhead fascists like Wiginton. He's not a "loose cannon." And like you, I'll certainly defend his right to his views, but let's not play games with what those views are. The guy is a bigot and a neo-Nazi.
And by the way, could you cite anywhere in this post or anywhere else that Todd has said that all Republicans are "tarnished" because of people like Bristow and Gray? He doesn't even imply such a thing. The post is about those two, not about Republicans in general, the vast majority of whom, I have no doubt, find these people just as appalling as I do. I'll gladly join you in condemning Robert Byrd, not only because of his past in the KKK but because of his incredibly corrupt legislative career (he is the Democrats' version of Ted Stevens). But tu quoque replies are pretty meaningless here.
You do a better job here of evidencing than the author, who merely points to the hosting of two speakers (Lee Bollinger doesn't want to eradicate Israel just because he hosted the Iranian President last year), but your evidence is still based on the statements of the speakers he hosted, not Bristow himself. Give me one good one and I'll join you - in the meantime, I'll agree that hosting Griffin or Fromm is incredibly poor judgment and even worse style in that it is intentionally confrontational. I avoid Bristow for those reasons. My criticism was stronger than just "loose cannon" - it included he has "serious problems" and we are parsing words over exactly what the nature of those problems are. But my point is that when throwing around charges like "racist" and "bigot", let's be precise in our evidence, meaning, and use of those terms.
My point about Byrd was not that you should join in condemnation (you should), but that his corruption doesn't automatically impune other Democrats, except to the extent that some now rally to his defense.
All of this said, Bristow is not a Republican in my opinion. He's burned a McCain shirt and routinely shows intolerance of those he disagrees (not a bad thing unto itself) with within the Republican Party or conservative movement, and even labeling him a "conservative" is inappropriate, for similar reasons. Buckley, the pre-eminent defintion of conservative, would not have approved of the incivilty or tone of this style of political interaction. That's some pretty harsh criticism, without passing on the more precise question of racism or bigotry.
Because that's the story, that these two cretins are now Republican officials in this state. "Two random people you've never heard of are nazis" is not much of a story. I would think the GOP would want to know this so they could do something about it. But no one ever suggested that this is a stain on all Republicans.
He didn't just host them, he praised them over and over again. When Ahmedinijad was at Columbia, Bollinger delivered a speech criticizing him strongly for his views. That is why we know he doesn't agree with them. Bristow not only didn't do that, he has praised them and advocated for them repeatedly. He works with them and organizes with them. On his own blog he constantly posts racist and anti-Semitic material and links to such material by others. Seriously, how much evidence do you need here?
But since no one has ever said that all Democrats are impugned by him. Do you think that publishing an article about Byrd being a former Grand Wizard of the KKK and now being a Democratic senator impugns all Democrats? I certainly don't.
Your opinion does not change the fact that he is now an elected Republican party official. I suggest looking up the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
You're still engaging in mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious: Kyle Bristow is a bundle of pretty much every significant form of bigotry you can think of, from racism to anti-semitism to homophobia. He is a vile bigot. Period. If you can't recognize that, you are entirely out of touch with reality.
Evidence:
I need one link here to the best example of a Bristow statement you'd say is "racist". Just the best case. How hard is that? Still no link in this whole exchange. Or a quote from another media source pasted here if it isn't online. As a reader, it shouldn't be my job to go find what you suggest is obvious and easy to prove.
So I'll agree in a qualified manner - if he said "AIDS infested faggot" that's a bigoted statement. If he played a tape of Nixon ranting about Jews and praised, that's bigoted. I don't know what "works actively" means or who or what the evidence of the person you suggest is skinhead, so I can't even give you a qualified statement there.
Secondly, I wonder how many Democrat precinct delegate backgrounds have been checked. I would wager none. You guys that write for this website are deeply partisan...I doubt as to whether anyone actually considers you "Independent Media."
http://www.buster-get-my-pills.com/2008/11/03/a...