See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. If these guys are “right-wing”, I’m not right-wing « Federal Way Conservative

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #355918
   On June 20th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, Ty85719 said:

   Well, of course they are labeled “right-wing” if they oppose Communism – everything the MSM and our, possibly, future president, comrade Obama, stand for.

2. #355923
   On June 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm, purplepeep said:

   “Right wing” how?

   Kind of related to how the US MSM will always intone “conservative” in reference to someone, See-Dub, but you never hear them employ the term “liberal” in a like manner in reference to a liberal. e.g. “conservative columnist”, but never “liberal columnist”.

3. #355924
   On June 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm, John Ansell said:

   I noticed he has a bum leg. Maybe he should get one of these

4. #355933
   On June 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm, jlibertarian said:

   If he was communist, they’d call him an “unjustly prosecuted progressive”. They might even give him a swell name like Uncle Diego. Man, I haaaaate liberals.

5. #355936
   On June 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm, flenser said:

   Seriously, the AUC isn’t a movement with an ideology other than killing FARC and selling drugs.

   So they are evil greedy killers. That’s what the media mean by “right wing”.

6. #355938
   On June 20th, 2008 at 6:30 pm, almeehan said:

   As a former resident of Colombia for 20 of my short years on this earth I can shed some light on the subject. I lived in the heart of FARC territory. The FARC kidnapped, killed, terrorized with impunity under various presidents of Colombia who tried to appease them. Same as pubbies are trying to do dems. Additionally any time the government tried to take stern measures, the US state Dept would come down hard on Colombia’s govt with human rights threats…carrot & stick. Of course the International Red Cross, Amnisty Int. etc all were in bed with the FARC and contributed to lobbying our congress, which is still going on. Finally the average joe got a belly full of seeing their country peed away so took matters in their own hands. Of course the NYT & all above called these people “right wing death squads.” They had no choice as it was either their lives and farms or give it to FARC with the aid of the USA. Of course when they started to get the upper hand human rights watch et all cried foul and the US came down hard. Add to that some of the AUC had no other way to finance their activities but through the drug trade. Hence the story.

7. #355950
   On June 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pm, DBNinKY said:

   Is the bbc even capable of reporting without intertwining it some outlandish slam against the U.S. and American conservatives?

8. #355963
   On June 20th, 2008 at 7:09 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   “The local legend,” Barry said, “is that he reappeared on the streets of Medellin with a crutch under one arm and a machine gun under the other.”

   …with his Bible bitterly clenched in his teeth…

9. #355984
   On June 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

   Right wing because it’s a conservative conspiracy to flood our inner cities with drugs, strapping hardworking minorities to waterboards and blasting coke up their noses with airguns while boomboxes blast “The Brown Note.”

   Have I earned tenure yet?

10. #355991
    On June 20th, 2008 at 7:35 pm, John Ansell said:

    AlohaGuy #7, Beer all over the screen and tears in the eyes I’m laughing so hard.

11. #356009
    On June 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Thanks John!

12. #356013
    On June 20th, 2008 at 8:08 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Maybe they meant right of left?

13. #356051
    On June 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm, uhangtight said:

    yeah, cause you know all of us ‘right wingers’ are all about getting those drugs legalized…???

    just another example of a lousy journalist doing a lousy job of researching and telling a story. is it that they are so entrenched in left is good and so if anyone is against the left it must be bad and be ‘right wing’????

    i am so disgusted with the media’s inabiltiy to research and provide a comprehensive story from that research!

    but, this right winger is so glad this guy is in jail, the creep of a drug lord.

14. #356091
    On June 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

    Yeah, right wing…. like earlier today on another thread a person equated the Nazi’s as right wing. Of course, the fact that Nazi meant National Socialistic… meant nothing to the retard who referenced that.

15. #356094
    On June 20th, 2008 at 10:45 pm, spo-con said:

    You got that right David. Every time these Leftards call Bush a Nazi, they inadvertently are saying “comrade”. Sweet, ain’t it ? Heh………….

16. #356103
    On June 20th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, tbear44 said:

    On June 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pm, DBNinKY said:
    Is the bbc even capable of reporting without intertwining it some outlandish slam against the U.S. and American conservatives?

    Ummm, no.

17. #356107
    On June 20th, 2008 at 11:20 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    he was the target of an assassination attempt that left his body riddled with gunshot wounds

    …but does he have slide scars on his thumb (right thumb of course)?

18. #356115
    On June 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm, alamedaman said:

    using logic, opposite of “leftist” groups would be “rightist” groups, no?

19. #356126
    On June 20th, 2008 at 11:55 pm, see-dubya said:

    Ah. My point is that there’s more to being Right than opposing the Left.

    There’s actually a really good Wikipedia entry on the origin of these terms:

    The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.[1] This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic.

    Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancien régime (”old order”). “The Right” thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while “The Left” implied opposition to the same. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were regarded as being on the left whereas today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. The earlier “left-wing” politicians were advocates of laissez faire capitalism[citation needed] and the “right-wing” politicians opposed it, until the early nineteenth century when anti-capitalism gained favour among the leftists due to the rise of socialism. Despite this, the left-controlled French National Convention decreed numerous economic interventions during the Revolution, including price controls (enforced under penalty of death),[2] forced loans on those with incomes exceeding 1000 livres, and the abolishment of the Paris Stock Exchange and all joint-stock companies.[3]

    In Great Britain at that time, Edmund Burke (now generally described as a conservative)[4] held similar economic views to this first French Left.

    Nonetheless, he strongly criticized their anti-clericalism and their willingness to turn to mob violence for support and to overturn institutions of long standing. Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France criticized the Left as excessively rationalistic and disrespecting of the wisdom of tradition.[5]

20. #356172
    On June 21st, 2008 at 12:34 am, BrianNY said:

    #6 almeehan said:

    As a former resident of Colombia for 20 of my short years on this earth…

    Thanks for that post. I’m always heartened by how pro-American the Colombians that I have met in America are; especially when I think about how difficult the American Left have (are) making it for the good people of that great nation to put the FARC away for good.

    I recommend Kate from A Colombo-Americana’s Perspective for consistently accurate and entertaining analysis of everything LatAm; especially Colombia, Venezuela and Nicaragua. She’s Bogotá born and Connecticut raised.

21. #356229
    On June 21st, 2008 at 3:56 am, pgtips said:

    I had almost expected them to insert “fundamentalist Christian” in front of the “right wing”.

22. #356231
    On June 21st, 2008 at 4:18 am, ct davis said:

    On June 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pm, DBNinKY said:

    Is the bbc even capable of reporting without intertwining it some outlandish slam against the U.S. and American conservatives?

    YES.. How many times do I have to say it. BBC is working hard to turn the UK against the US. They have already done so for the majority of Brits.

23. #356304
    On June 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am, pressto said:

    Based on this logic, in Palastine would Hamas be the left-wing or right-wing and what does that make Fatah then? I wonder if the BBC will start labeling these groups as such.

24. #356404
    On June 21st, 2008 at 1:18 pm, Papa Louie said:

    The BBC has not only labeled Hitler but also Stalin as right wing. If they killed fellow communists or others on the left, they must have been right wing. It never occurs to them that left wingers might kill other left wingers to eliminate the competition. If a mob boss can knock off another mob boss or a right wing dictator can come to power by overthrowing another right wing dictator, why can’t a left wing ruler knock off other left wingers who are threats to his power?

    Harry Phibbs makes some interesting points about the BBC in the following article: “Can words be reclaimed? Harry Phibbs considers whether the term “right wing” is beyond rescue”

    Here is one point from the article:

    Often one hears the term “to the right of Genghis Khan.” The Tory Euro MP Dan Hannan took issue with this in a recent letter to The Spectator when he wrote:

    I’d have thought Genghis was a clear-cut leftie. His tactic, on conquering a tribe was to liquidate the aristocracy and elevate the lower orders. He was a proto-Europhile, mingling his subject clans so as to prevent the development of a national identity. Where modern socialists want to use the education system to cut high achievers down to size, the Khan was more literal, forcing his vassals to walk under a yoke and decapitating those who were too tall. He was even an early metricator, organising his soldiers according to a decimal system. Genghis can be considered right-wing only in the BBC sense, as a synonym for “baddie”.