Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Pushback against boycott terrorist tactics

Pushback against boycott terrorist tactics

The reason I have pushed back against the Rush boycotters has nothing to do with Rush.  Social media anonymity has allowed all sorts of implied and explicit threats against advertisers and others as a means of shutting down speech, particularly conservative speech.

Twitter is just one part of it; there’s a hunting down of people that is dangerous and frightening.  Much of it is organized and instigated, as I noted last week.  More on that tomorrow.

In the meantime, it is heartening to see a company speak out against the tactics.

Via Right Scoop:

MSCO CEO Mark Stevens told Varney and Company about the campaign against his company to stop him from advertising with Rush Limbaugh. He emphatically says that the story isn’t getting out, that this isn’t a boycott, but rather an organized terrorist action.

He describes emails from people telling him that his company is now under constant surveillance, that they are watching every move he makes. His employees, even female employees, are getting emails calling them woman haters.

When asked why he doesn’t think it’s just a bunch of unhappy people, he said “The comments are all the damn same. ‘You hate women! You hate women! You hate women!’”

Stevens is so put off by this attack that he has decided to double, even triple down on his advertisements. He said he’s even in negotiations to just run ads spots noting his support for Rush Limbaugh.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I have to quibble with the use of the word “terrorism”.

We can’t be hyperbolic, any more than we allow our adversaries to be.

That said…WAY TO GO, DUDE!

This is what thugocracy looks like!

    OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    I disagree, we need to clarify exactly what is happening here, put a human face on it, in local markets where Sony advertises on Rush’s show, go to the local Sony Store and document the damage, the suffering of the average joe from this organized terrorist attack on American capitalism and the constitutional right to free speech.

    Don’t expect Holder to do his job or the IRS to do their jobs in investigating this criminal act.

      Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | March 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Sorry, I think you’re dead wrong. “Terrorism” is a quantum more evil than this.

      Think driving by and killing school kids.

      This is a bunch of thuggish losers exercising THEIR free speech. Nothing I’ve heard in this report is remotely criminal.

      NOBODY has to listen, as Mr. Stevens shows. Try that with hand grenade.

      Being Breitbart means living in Realityville, among other things.

        OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 2:35 pm

        Its called economic terrorism or the criminal act of trade defamation. Cyberattacks include acts of cyber war, terrorism, espionage, crime, protest, vandalism, and more.

        Remember SinclairAction, these progtard activist groups have a long history of specifically targeting conservative free speech…. @Staples again, over The Armstrong Williams Show

        http://web.archive.org/web/20050210005705/http://sinclairaction.com/

        Led by Media Matters for America and supported by MoveOn, MediaChannel.org, Free Press, Working Assets, Robert Greenwald (Director, Outfoxed), AlterNet, and The Campaign for America’s Future, we have launched a campaign to protest Sinclair Broadcast Group’s continued misuse of public airwaves to air one-sided politically charged programming without a counterpoint.

        March 19, 2012 9:40 am
        Dem Congressional Candidate Arrested for Threatening Staples Employees with Gun
        http://freebeacon.com/dem-congressional-candidate-arrested/

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | March 20, 2012 at 3:39 pm

          Lets sort of loop back to reality, shall we?

          We are considering THE Stevens story. Not something else.

          “Its called economic terrorism or the criminal act of trade defamation.”

          I suppose there is such a thing as “economic terrorism”. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Stevens facts.

          There is no “crime” of “trade defamation” that I know of in any jurisdiction in the U.S. There is a tort for business defamation in my jurisdiction, which the Stevens story has nothing to do with. Nobody has approached the elements of that tort.

          Let’s keep the wheels on the wagon.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm

        Msr. Ragspierre, There is a reason why threats against people, public and private, individual and institution (like schools), are illegal.

        To a business owner, it is a threat against his livelihood. It is economic terrorism.

        To a single woman, it is a threat against her safety, security and sense of well-being and can cause her to feel terrorized.

        It is terrorism. Terror is a felt emotion in response to threat – and can range from moderate to extreme fear.

        To appear armed and proceed to carry out a threat is terrorism, assault and/or murder.

        To chase down a child and kill her after killing her father is terrorism, assault, murder and vilest atrocity.

    Well “terrorism” is defined as the the use of violence and threats to coerce or intimidate for political purposes that are designed to produce a state of fear or submission. Attempting to topple the number 1 conservative radio show, to destroy the livelihood of an individual(Rush) by using a boycott (instead of a gun)has a far-reaching, damning and serious political consequence.

      janitor in reply to Lambchop. | March 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      Nasty emails to employees of the advertisers? What is that. Contrived crap. The community organizer. It’s downright slutty.

      Ragspierre in reply to Lambchop. | March 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm

      “…the use of violence and threats…”

      But threats of what?

      Not trading with me?

      Trying to persuade others not to trade with me?

      Annoying me with messages or calls?

      See, that is NOT terrorism. All are legal (up to a point at least). All are protected speech themselves.

      Isn’t that what we’ve done WRT Carbonite?

      A threat of violence or property damage WOULD be terroristic.

      See…???

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 3:51 pm

        Some of the emails to Mark Stephens’s female employees contained threats…of being watched and followed. I am not sure if they threatened or inferred bodily harm, confrontation, etc., but it was intimidation.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm

          If the language used in the emails to the female employees was typically vile, it was sexual harrassment and threatened assault.

          FU is a threatening phrase…and can be terrorizing to some people, especially if they have been a prior victim of sexual assault.

          Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm

          You heard something I did not.

          “He describes emails from people telling him that his company is now under constant surveillance, that they are watching every move he makes. His employees, even female employees, are getting emails calling them woman haters.”

          We may agree that is over the line of nice conduct. We will have to disagree that is “criminal” or remotely an act of “terrorism”. To put company conduct under close scrutiny is neither. I do it all the time as an attorney.

          To express a stupid, wrong opinion is neither criminal or terroristic, though it is stupid and wrong. We have a right to be stupid and wrong, last I looked.

    It’s not terrorism, it’s harassment.

      Harassment is when you are being annoyed. Terrorism is when you are being frightened. A lower-level female employee who is not the decision-maker in her company very well might be frightened at having her identity ferreted out, and being targeted to receive any commentary on the subject.

Good for you, Mr. Stevens.
Do not back down.
Do not retreat.
This is war.

LukeHandCool | March 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm

One word: Mensch!!

Churchillean. He ain’t gonna feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

I wanna buy that man a beer.

    In the 70s in Australia a private company was threatened by union action because the owner, and his workers, would not allow the union in. Labor laws in Australia were much more union friendly, but the owner was within the law. The labor federal government refused to intervene, so the owner closed the company rather than be intimidated. He was British and moved to Australia because of the stifling labor laws in the UK.

Oh, and just checked Twitter. Rush is 3 people short of 117,000.
So he added 2,000 more within the hour, and he’s got almost 2 more hours of show left.
I can’t stop smiling.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Tamminator. | March 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    For some reason, he uses two twitter accounts. @limbaugh is up to 128K followers now. If I remember correctly, it had 123K yesterday.

    He’s getting a big jump in followers because he announced some sort of a contest where you can win a new Apple ipad, but to become eligible to win one you first have to sign up and follow him on twitter.

    He says the contest rules are at his website (which I haven’t read yet).

    Tamminator in reply to Tamminator. | March 20, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Update: @Rush Limbaugh has 137,680 followers now.
    I just love watching his numbers rise…

StrangernFiction | March 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm

The Left is the enemy.

Mr. Stevens is being “Breitbart.”

On the Carbonite front, the company has reportedly announced a deal with Staples that would add CARB to the 7,000 items offered in 1871 Staples stores.

Problem is … that Carbonite has ALWAYS sold its product at a LOSS, and the losses have INCREASED with volume.

Carbonite’s 2011 Annual Report shows that they lost $47 on each of the 500,000 subscribers added in 2011, for a total loss of $23.5 million.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1

Carbonite’s stock has bounced back up to nearly $9. But the stock price means nothing — it’s just a measure of market confidence.

The real news will appear in CARB’s quarterly reports, in the form of subscription numbers (relative to 1.3 million), retention numbers (relative to 82%), and liquidity (cash + short-term investments).

For the past two years, CARB’s cash has been dwindling at the rate of $2 million per month. We’ll want to watch that number, as CARB fights to survive without Limbaugh and Limbaugh’s supporters.

Professor, perhaps you could put a link to MSCO? Or I suppose I could do it right here: http://www.msco.com.

Just a quick note for all those needing to go on a diet. Low CARB diets are great! Cutting back on CARB is all it takes to improve one’s computer health. Just MOZY down to another choice, to get a healthy choice for PC safety, anything but CARB.

It occurs to me that Carbonite investors have empowered CEO David Friend to burn up their money ($100 million, so far) because there is a ghost of a chance that they might get some of it back.

If, on the other, hand they were to let Barack Obama invest it in “green energy” ($billions, so far) there is almost no likelihood of ever seeing a return on it.

So … Carbonite is a better investment than green energy.

Go figure!

If I were a liberal, there is only one way to interpret this.

Because of his devotion to the leader of the republican party, Mark Stevens has vowed to double–TRIPLE– his hatred of women!

I would call it a nascent form of political terrorism. It seeks through the terror tactics of intimidation not only to obliterate Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves but to serve as a model for the larger suppression and annihilation of conservative speech. We can’t concede to definitions such as “boycott.” As a former Leftist, I guarentee there is discussion among Leftists at this moment how to move this into the realm of physical terrorism, and that it is only a matter of time before we see fires or other forms of actual physical terrorism.

It coming on so fiercely now because the Left is at the cusp of total systemic failure of its own premises and policies to the point of critical mass. This was always the risk, and they knew it. Obama knew it – it was why within two weeks of assuming office he’d launched preemptive offensives against Rush and Fox News. This is the only way the left can survive its own hideous governing incontinence. Silencing debate and controlling language – removing the possibility of challenging discourse – is essential to their survival, to avoid that “critical mass” of comprehension, rejection and mockery. Punishing dissent and inculcating a sense of fear of the idea of dissent is the linchpin of “fundamental transformation,” perhaps what they really meant by at all along.

They gain strength and advantage through the audacity of it all, and through our naivete — the belief many hold that such things cannot be true or could not happen in America. They’re happening. Stalinism is happening.

    Rosalie in reply to raven. | March 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    We’ve been seeing “actual physical terrorism” from the unions. They not only threaten, but hurt people along with destroying property.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to raven. | March 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Guys, can we name this one the official Comment of This Whole Thread? Especially because of this:

    “I would call it a nascent form of political terrorism. It seeks through the terror tactics of intimidation not only to obliterate Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves but to serve as a model for the larger suppression and annihilation of conservative speech. We can’t concede to definitions such as “boycott.” As a former Leftist, I guarentee there is discussion among Leftists at this moment how to move this into the realm of physical terrorism, and that it is only a matter of time before we see fires or other forms of actual physical terrorism.”

    I have no doubt in my mind that it is just a matter of time before certain elements begin to target Republicans and Conservatives anywhere, especially the “bigs”, for assassination. At work. At the store. At the park.

    At home.

    Those who had watched or listened to Glenn Beck will well remember the one event that finally made the decision for him to move to Dallas to set up his headquarters for his own media empire. (Hint: it was at Central Park.)

    What makes you think they won’t do the same to Sean Hannity? Or Mark Levin? (Levin’s got them pegged. I’ve been reading Ameritopia.)

    A father-son duo were from PA were just sent to another federal prison far from Alaska for psychiatric evaluations after (get this!) harassing Sarah Palin’s attorneys! (That’s right: her attorneys.) Another guy was also arrested not long ago for making calls to her with death threats from the Northeast – and actually making landing in AK – to kill her!

    I have been quite concerned about the strong possibility of an attempt against Rush’s life. The advertisers who “get it” will see it. The audience will encourage them.

    But Rush has a weak spot: that one can silence him much quicker than any advertiser boycott.

    (Kathryn: get your gun. And do some Krav Maga, too.)

    Hope Change in reply to raven. | March 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    raven, again, your analysis seems so profound and accurate I’m in awe.

    Most people do not understand the genuine danger of stalinism being tried in America. I see that the American spirit expects to be free, and that is a tremendous advantage to the American People.

    However, we also expect our public servants to be steeped in a tradition of civic public service. Americans are slow to understand that someone may be lying straight to your face/ And it’s even more unthinkable for most that the president might have bad intentions toward the USA. God bless us for that, but it makes this situation perilous, because, as you say there is a terrible naivete: “It can’t happen here.”

    A libertarian-conservative-classical liberal-type I know lives in Chicago and talks to his Leftist friends about the irrevocable development of coercion once the Leftist coerced- paradisiacal State has taken control. Gulags, re-education camps, violence are the direct consequence. They all answer him, “It can’t happen here.”

    I believe that they would resist if they saw that their freedoms were really being taken away. But will they notice in time?

    The Establishment Republicans are the willing or blind handmaidens of this assault on our traditional liberties. That is why I am unalterably opposed to electing one of them.

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | March 20, 2012 at 9:33 pm

      And: however important this issue may be; this phony, Leftist “controversy” ploy against Republicans in general and Rush in particular… there is a primary going on.

      Newt is a mortal threat to the Left. To the extent that we are genuinely distracted from getting to know that, the Leftist White House MSM ploy has worked.

      I’m not saying that responding to the faux-controversy necessarily means we’re distracted. This echo-chamber of the Left and the MSM and the astro-turfed faux-citizen-outrage has to be recognized and stopped.

      But we will be in such a better position if we have Constitutionalists in running the presidency, House and Senate.

      The time is now. This may be life and death. I think raven sees the potential problems accurately. This is why we need morale, mental toughness, to stand for freedom.

      If Newt is our nominee, I believe we will win this fall. And we will be spared. Given all this, of course I want everyone to check out Newt.

      I don’t think any other GOP candidate can stop the Left. Win or lose against Obama makes no difference, except timing. The Left bamboozles them.

      We need to mobilize the genius, energy, power and will of the American People in order to pull the country back to fair play, safety and prosperity.

these tactics remind me of the Brownshirts. Even if they didn’t smash windows, having a bunch of thugs show up at your shop and letting you know what would happen if you didn’t change your ways (or leave) was pretty threatening. This is the same tactics. The police and judiciary during the Weimar Republic were pro-Nazi (or at least anti-Communist) so the Nazis were allowed to get away with it.

Funny. I don’t remember any outrage by any of you when a major pro-life group calls for boycotts of supposed pro-abortion corporations:

http://www.fightpp.org/show.cfm?page=boycott

    Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    That would be because there was nothing outrageous about it.

    It COULD become outrageous if the organizers went too far…say jamming the switchboards with robo calls.

    RIGHT…????

      jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      I don’t think jamming the switchboard with non-automated calls is outrageous or illegal. [It’s a gray area in my mind about robo-calls.] A right wing organization associated with the American Family Association asked its members to call the switchboard at Mennen and other companies in the late 1980s to protest their support of shows that the AFA group found offensive. Do you think that was outrageous or illegal?

      http://articles.latimes.com/1990-04-28/entertainment/ca-289_1_watchdog-group

        Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm

        Not in the least. Do you?

        (And, yeah, intentionally jamming business communications WOULD be both outrageous and legally actionable…subject to injunction and liability.)

          jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm

          I’m not sure robocalls to business are illegal, Rags. They don’t seem to be covered here:

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227

          This probably covers the situation in Texas, but it’s not a felony:

          http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/42.07.00.html

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 4:53 pm

          I think you…intentionally?…missed the point.

          Jamming a business intentionally with adverse calls would be legally actionable.

          It would not matter your modality. The effect would be what was actionable.

          That is qualitatively different than a campaign that calls for like-minded people to call a business to express their opposition to…say…sponsorship of a program.

          Some of us would know not to do that over and over. Many in the Collective would make it a point to do.

          jimbo3 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 5:06 pm

          Rags, here’s what I can find on Texas law. The way I read this is that the jamming needs to be harassment (and thereby wrongful in itself) in order for this to be actionable in Texas (unless I’m missing something, which is quite possible):

          Cause of Action for Tortious Interference in Texas

          The elements of tortious interference with contractual relationships are: (1) the existence of a contract
          subject to interference; (2) the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional; (3) the
          act was a proximate cause of the claimant’s damage; and (4) actual damage or loss occurred. Baty v.
          Protech Ins. Agency, 63 S.W.3d 841, 856-57 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).

          Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relationships

          The elements of tortious interference with a prospective business relationship are: (1) a reasonable
          probability the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship; (2) an independently tortious or
          unlawful act by the defendant that prevented the relationship from occurring; (3) the defendant did such act
          with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or the defendant knew the interference
          was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual
          harm or damages as a result of the defendant’s interference. Id. at 860. Midtown’s motion for summary
          judgment alleged Space Place failed to produce evidence of each element.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 5:15 pm

          I figure you can read. Or are you trying to be a smart-ass???

I would also add that this entire charade is surely part of some grand Obama-Alinksy scheme, related to the “War on Women”. This pseudo-conflict is the strawman that Team Obama intends to use to promote civic unrest this election season. For example, as a Catholic woman, I am attending the “Stand Up” for Religious Freedom rally this Friday — one of 50 being held at noon across the county.

My Tea Party group has eyes/ears among our “opposition”, including the local Occupy group. It has come to our attention, that these groups are thinking to disrupt our event is some way — using the “War on Women” as their righteous shield. Since when does the desire to NOT PAY for another’s OPTIONAL medical items constitute “War”.

What should be most concerning to the Team Obama minions and trolls who may be reading the Professor — I am a Democratic woman, and I will be carpooling with other such women to the March 23rd rally. I don’t think this “War on Women” is going quite the way Obama’s brain trust has planned.

    jimbo3 in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 20, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    You know this is sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League, don’t you? They’re the ones who tried to barracade abortion clinics.

    P.S. Expect people like me to show up in the opposition and counterprotest.

      Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      Best stay on your side of the street.

        Hope Change in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 9:42 pm

        Beware — is this not the Left’s game plan? They are trying to provoke violence from a conservative, any conservative; they’ve been trying for years.

        But TEA Party Americans are doing such a great job of staying peaceful. Tthe way of peace. Peace except in self-defense and/or as a total last resort, IMO.

        But if necessary as self-defense, then strong; and we win, they lose.

      Mutnodjmet in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 11:21 pm

      Jimbo3: It seems your are misinformed about our particular event, which is being sponsored by the local Catholic Diocese. Your scare-tactics are laughable and ineffective. Furthermore, the event coordinators have been apprised of the situation, so I doubt any stunt from your groups will be successful.

      One last point: “Occupy” camps have a recorded 75 rapes and sexual assaults among them, so no group can have so great a claim as your team to being “Warriors Against Women”.

      Thanks for playing, though.

        jimbo3 in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 5:03 pm

        Here’s a paragraph right out of your link. You look to be misinformed:

        Thousands of Americans of all faiths will be participating in these peaceful rallies, organized by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society to oppose the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires all employers provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, even in violation of their consciences.

Please RATIONALLY explain how this is terrorism…

1. We subscribe to Mozy, leaving Carbonite over the Rush flap

2. We call both Mozy and Carbonite to tell them WHY we do what we’ve done

3. We encourage all like-minded people to do the same

4. We EVEN rid ourselves of Carbonite stocks, and do both 2 & 3 again

Now, please explain what we did not do that the Stevens story says he experienced.

Rationally (i.e., no making up new facts).

And please rationally explain why it should be illegal.

The following is from Louis’ article on Sunday (talking about the new law that allows the Secret Service to criminalize disruptive behavior at some events):

“It has been a hallmark of legal jurisprudence that people exercising their right to protest be given sight and sound to the object of their protestations. So if one is protesting a political rally, you have a right to be seen and heard.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/another-brick-removed.

Why shouldn’t people have the right to call advertisers, companies, etc. to protest?

    Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Your barking up the wrong tree, bowser.

    Ragspierre in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    legal jurisprudence…??? What other kind is there?

    sybilll in reply to jimbo3. | March 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    I have seen the coordination of attacks at places like Democratic Underground. Not a single person was a patron of any of the advertisers, and they made no bones about the fact that they wanted Rush silenced. Classic Alynski. The ends justify the means.

@Ragspierre

The Stevens link was just to show the pattern of Media Matters, acting as an organized cyber group, in this case to defame or libel Staples in both instances
They were merely engaging in market buys of advertising and not engaging in financial support to spread hatred, bigotry or “hatred of women”, which is a form of racism just as agism is, as well as other forms of racism.
I know suing for tort is a long shot and possibly ineffective but these charges of racism are serious, so serious defined as “defamation per se” and in such
situations, the plaintiff need not prove that his or her
reputation was in fact injured.
Even IF the shows were intentionally corporate funded, in this new era, “to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy.”
And as for proving economic terrorism.
TERRORISM DEFINED
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0501/80.html
“….terrorism is that it is often associated with an “extreme form of violence.”(2)However, terrorism can take place in forms other than violence. Especially within a modern context, the face of terrorism is rapidly changing. From passive resistance, to technological and economic terrorism, terrorism no longer necessarily requires the spilling of blood to be effective. (2) The Morality of Terrorism, pg. 15.”

So I’ve given contextual validity to MSCO CEO Mark Stevens claims of “this isn’t a boycott, but rather an organized terrorist action.”

I understand you’re an old country lawyer, possibly more country than lawyer,,, so maybe you would rather go after them for cyberbullying?

Yeah, I guess I am too county…

“From passive resistance,”

And you are out of your FLUCKING mind if you think passive resistance is “terrorism”.

I would prefer staying attached to reality.

Thanks.

    OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Obviously you engage in the tactic of obfuscation with the partial quote “From passive resistance,” while dismissing standpoints and ignoring logical connections made with references, this is not debate!

    “you are out of your FLUCKING mind” is not a valid retort in polite company, you’ve devolved and I suggest you give a wide berth from now on or I’ll take you to the woodshed every time.
    -how’s that for country?

      Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | March 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm

      “Currently, in Israel, a progressive campaign of economic warfare is taking place. Israeli soldiers continue to destroy olive tree crops in Lebanon and Palestine, delivering a harsh blow to the Arab economy and mentality.

      Through its policy of multi-containment, the Jews have separated areas such as the West Bank and Gaza Strip into multiple sectors, preventing movement in between them. The effect has been devastating, essentially ruining the Palestinian economy by forbidding Palestinians to go to work, school, etc.”

      From you link, explicitly including this as Israeli “terrorism”.

      I quake at your approach. Really…

        Tamminator in reply to Ragspierre. | March 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm

        For God’s sake, are you still arguing about the meaning of the word “terrorism”?

        You’ve completely missed the point of Mr. Stevens fighting back.
        Could you just drop this childish argument, because you’re starting to look silly now, and I know you’re both better than this.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Tamminator. | March 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm

          lol

          Dammit, Tamm, at least while they’re counting angels they’re not eating all the cookies and chips. Leave ’em be.

          Hope Change in reply to Tamminator. | March 20, 2012 at 9:55 pm

          Hi Tamminator, I don’t know if they’re both better than this; I hope so, but IMO, this is not a particularly useful altercation. The material cited is not even relevant, afaics.

          It reminds me of the endless verbal fisticuffs over at Riehl World View, which IMHO are over the top, go on too long, spoIL the thread, are often uncivil, and even unkind, and generate a whole lot more heat than light.

          One think I LOVE about LI is that comments are lively & interesting AND I OFTEN LEARN SOMETHING. Because the commenters here are AWESOME. Please let’s not start the boxing match methods here.

          Hope Change in reply to Tamminator. | March 20, 2012 at 10:00 pm

          … one THING I love about LI …

          oh, and also, of course, “Bill Jacobson is the smartest, best looking and most loved law professor at all of Cornell and his blog is one of the finest out there.”

          Tamminator in reply to Tamminator. | March 21, 2012 at 12:27 am

          The boxing methods? What the hell does that mean?

          Tamminator in reply to Tamminator. | March 21, 2012 at 12:33 am

          And so you are reverting to “law language” to tell me to back off?
          Interesting.
          And annoying.

          Tamminator in reply to Tamminator. | March 21, 2012 at 12:36 am

          Oh, and elitist.
          Last jab.
          It’s late.

        OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | March 21, 2012 at 6:30 am

        Again Ragisphere,

        You went from dismissal of standpoints, obfuscation and fraying of topic, trying to discredit the source, a character assault wrt “out of your FLUCKING mind” and inferring “unhinged”…

        …and now trying to dilute the reference I made to the “definition of Terrorism” by implying my endorsement of the entire context of the source material.
        Which is probably anti-Semitic and therefore to a degree racist.
        Really -you’re not quaking, you’re flailing mercilessly. I’ve made my case to support the notion of economic terrorism, you’re unwilling to stay within the constraints of structured debate and its at this point, the point at which I tire of endless moonbattery, you’re probably deserving of an onslaught of colorful pejoratives.

        However, I will abandon this thread with one final thought in support(to spike the football if you will)of my case: economic terrorism
        Media Matters and its organized cyber group(s) are attacking these advertisers on the basis of professional incompetence by financially supporting unethical or morally bankrupt behavior.
        They are in essence attacking the foundation of American Capitalism since “…morality is impossible unless one is free to choose between alternatives without outside coercion. Since capitalism is based on freedom of choice, it provides the best environment for morality and character development.
        MORE:
        Capitalism and Morality
        http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins21.html

        Since the Ragisphere is somewhat challenged here’s a video
        The Morality of Capitalism
        http://www.cato.org/multimedia/video-highlights/tom-g-palmer-gives-speech-morality-capitalism-john-locke-foundation

Welcome to ObamaTime.

Great post. I’m in complete agreement with the post. I’m not a fan of Rush, but what is being done to him is as this CEO said “terror tactics”.

Rush should stay on radio, anyone who doesn’t want to listen, change the channel.

Thanks lefties for showing your “tolerance”, what a bunch of haters.

    alex in reply to alex. | March 20, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    I should say this is against the companies as well as Rush, as the CEO said, “”terrorist tactics” against that said company.

    Thanks lefties for showing your hatred and your wanting to intimidate those who disagree with you.

    -a signed a former disgusted lefty.

For S&G’s I would contact the local FBI and get them involved. Any traffic over the Internet (eg email) that happens to cross state lines, would be considered a federal crime. And if I remember correctly, obama, back in 2009, signed a hate crime bill into law.

Also, it would not be difficult for a security consultant to examine the email header of those messages that are threatening this company. Easy to trace these messages back to the original IP Address. Once that has been established, the FBI can obtain warrants for those records from the Internet provider and trace this back to the individual user. I think that the federal authorities can have these “terrorists” hand cuffed in less than 30 minutes.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend