Meet the legions of wingnuts who think Andy Griffith was a communist and want him to burn in hell


180 Responses to “Meet the legions of wingnuts who think Andy Griffith was a communist and want him to burn in hell”

  1. WIG-NUTS!  Intentional?

  2. mccrum says:

    Where do these people get all the energy to hate all this much?  Vitrol like that just seems like so much work.

    • millie fink says:

      They’re diligent attendees of the daily Two Minutes Hate (aka, Fox News).

      • haineux says:

        So true. It’s so much easier to tune in, get worked up, hate hate hate, than to actually think about difficult issues and work hard to solve them.

        Especially when the bankers have swindled all our spare cash and most of the rest, as well, just because they could.

        (The unspoken truth: An awful lot of this is sublimated racism. And an awful lot of people will vote for a morally bankrupt 1%-er, literally one of the people that stole their wealth, just because Obama is black.)

        • dutchs says:

          Sublimated? Nope, they can’t say it openly, yet, but NOT sublimated.

        • Wreckrob8 says:

          This sort of behaviour results from a mixture of fear (which people across the political spectrum suffer), UNsublimated anger directed towards individuals and inarticulacy. The problem for the left is to sublimate their anger and direct it towards causes. If the left can no longer communicate this then maybe both sides have lost the plot (temporarily).

    • scatterfingers says:

       Hate and fear power the conservative money machine.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

       It is proof that our mental health care system isn’t working

      • bzishi says:

        Mental illness and assholery are independent. Calling them the same is a bigoted view and is not particularly funny. It furthers the stigma that the mentally ill are bad people and defective. Please stop it.

  3. markp says:

    what the fuck is wrong with people?

  4. Because the left never engages in that sort of behavior.  Modern political discourse is like watching 7 year olds argue.

    • sincarne says:

      Yes, you’re exactly right with regards to that last sentence. Just like it’s very tiresome when children justify poor behaviour by shouting “he did it too!”

      • Boundegar says:

         No, you’re exactly wrong.  Both sides DON’T do it.  This is a byproduct of Redstate and Faux News.  In years of posting and reading on Daily Kos, I have seen at most a handful of comments like this, and they are immediately disapproved.

        I’ve been called a privileged tool of the white male patriarchy a few times, but nobody has ever wished me death or danced on my grave.

        • sincarne says:

          Ah, but that’s the first sentence. I was commenting on the second one.

          I’m Canadian, so I’m a bit removed from this. But it astounds me how you can have people in politics like Michelle Bachman and Allen West, with the mentally unhinged things they say. We have folks like that in Toronto, but they’re standing by the Eaton Centre with megaphones, and the cops keep an eye on them.

        • vinculture says:

          Well, I’ve been called a ‘selfish right-wing bastard’ before. But I am one, so I didn’t really mind.

        • IRMO says:

          Care to visit Democratic Underground? 

    • sansadvocate says:

      I hate how true this comment is. It is insanity when people claim universal health care as communist, or socialist. All it is is compassionate, and humane. That’s it.  Not to mention ensuring the financial well being of the people, ridding them of unnecessary debt. It riddles me!

      • retepslluerb says:

        Also, notice how only socialized health care, education and welfare are evil.

        Socialized military, police, firefighters and military are fine.

        • scatterfingers says:

           Socialised anything that we’re used to is fine. This is, after all, what conservatism, is, right?

        • austinhamman says:

           no socialized military is fine; police, firefighters, and teachers are being regularly cut so the tax money that funds them can go to large corporations (this strange sense that the very wealthy are the “job creators” and we must present offerings to appease them so they will deign to give us jobs) and the police, firefighters, and schools are moving to a for-profit system (even the military is being run largely through third party companies. not just making weapons and guns, but intelligence even soldiers are coming from third party for-profit companies)
          so at least they are consistent, they want everything to be for-profit: schools, the military, the roads, police, firefighters, they want the government to do nothing but funnel tax money to corporations in exchange for campaign money or out right bribes. and they are getting it.

      • billstewart says:

         Of course it’s socialist.  Buy you’re saying that like it’s a bad thing?

        (As a libertarian, I think socialism isn’t economically sustainable, but it’s not like crony capitalism is a good example of the free market either.  Meanwhile, when is Obama going to work on getting more space in US medical schools so we’ll have the doctors and nurses we need in the long term, as well as making it easier for non-US doctors to certify over here?)

        • scatterfingers says:

           I used to be a libertarian. Good times. I’m now a semi-free-market socialist with libertarian leanings.

    • picaflor says:

       No. Whatever the rightwingers and the Jon Stewarts on the left say, both sides are not the same. There is no terror campaign on the forced birthers, and there is no equivalent of Adkisson.

    • donovan acree says:

       It’s called partisanship. If you are a partisan for the left or the right then you are a wing nut

      • marc dauncey says:

        No you aren’t. If you are crazy, hate-filled credulous person who believes fallacious statements pumped out by media outlets with vested interests, THAT makes you a wingnut. You simply don’t see the left behaving in this way, sorry. 

        • millie fink says:

          Right. And that’s because what most people call “the media” is corporate media. Which obviously has no vested interest in promoting left-wing agendas. The idea of “the liberal media” is a fog-generating myth.

        • billstewart says:

           Of course we see leftists behaving that way – haven’t you run into the occasional crazy Trotskyite?  Or those annoying Black Block thugs who give anarchism a bad name?  It’s just that for the most part, the left encourages civil behaviour, while Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk have been encouraging the right wingers to be angry and crazy, because that gets market share and makes them easy to use.

          • Robert Drop says:

            And importantly, the left-wing equivalent of Fox news et al isn’t mainstream – it’s therefore a relatively very small group and largely hidden.

      • Avram Grumer says:

        “Wingnut” used properly refers only to extreme partisans of the right. Extreme partisans of the left are “moonbats”. 

    • dragonfrog says:

       Yeah, remember all the vile hate poured forth by liberals when Charlton Heston died?

      Oh, wait – that never happened.

      • trondmm says:

         Wait. What? Charlton Heston didn’t die?

      • Mitchell Glaser says:

        Sure, I’ll take your bait. Charlton Heston was a political firebrand who for years actively courted the anger of those he defied as the head of the NRA. There is no comparison: a man making angry insulting statements in support of the tools of death versus a man making calm reasoned arguments in support of preserving life. And I can’t say I’m surprised you son’t see the difference.

        • SamSam says:

          You missed the part of dragonfrog’s comment where it was noted that liberals did not spew vile hatred after Heston’s death.

    • Dez Crawford says:

      No it’s not.  Seven-year-olds argue for about five minutes and then somebody gives in or cries, and then someone says “hey look, a soccer ball!” and they all run over to play, and the argument is over. 

    • Mitchell Glaser says:

      You are so very wrong. Name one upstanding American whom the left would condemn to burn in hell forever over a detail of some issue they don’t even understand. I’ll bet you can’t! And that’s because the conservative right has lowered the bar on political hatred to the center of the Earth.

  5. Why do we give people like this an even louder voice by repeating what they say across the Internet? Is spreading hate supposed to enlighten us somehow? I can’t stand articles like these because all it does is give hate a stronger voice and make the rest of us angry. There will always be haters in the world making the most ignorant remarks you can possibly imagine. Why amplify those remarks?

    • Brad Shur says:

       I don’t think these people are fringe weirdos who pull this out of their asses. They get these viewpoints from their media. It is important to understand the landscape of political ideas that effect our political process.

      If we want change, we may never change the minds of these assholes, but we’re going to have to communicate with a lot of people who are being fed the same bad information and pushed towards fear and hatred. Remember that these people didn’t wake up one day howling “Communists!” out of the blue. They write this shit because they have been convinced by people with a lot of voice that our new healthcare laws will murder their grandparents.

      • AttilatheBlond says:

         Rarely have we seen the situation described more eloquently. Bravo!

      • CognitiveDissident says:

        You would think that after the whole “9/11=Saddam Hussein” Big Lie thingee they would stop trusting the messengers, but it doesn’t seem to work that way.

        Lack of critical thinking skills +  media illiteracy is the Devil’s playground.

    • abstract_reg says:

       Because this way we are made aware of the hatred. Knowledge is power and all that. You don’t stop hate by putting on earmuffs and pretending it doesn’t exist.
      Hate is not the ravenous bugblatter beast of traal.

    • Scott Slemmons says:

       Ignoring it is giving hatemongers, wingnuts, and psychos permission to keep going. Pointing out this kind of stuff and holding it up for mockery and condemnation sends a stronger signal that it’s wrong and disapproved.

      Saying “Ignore them” is the same as saying “I approve of them.”

      • Matt Popke says:

        I want to agree with this, but these people have a serious persecution complex on top of their other, more obvious issues. The fact that we mock them only serves to convince them they are right. They believe in a moral philosophy that tells them they are going to be persecuted for their beliefs and that standing strong in the face of that persecution is not only part of the deal, it’s proof of the correct-ness of their beliefs (a classic self-fulfilling prophecy because they push aggressively against those who disagree with them until you can’t help but hate them for it, which then gives them license to confirm their own beliefs because they’re being persecuted for them just like they thought they would be). 

        The best way to deal with these people is not through mockery, but with calm, reasoned and dignified responses. Nothing flummoxes these people more than being treated with ambivalence. Nothing threatens their belief structure more than the possibility of irrelevance. Don’t ignore them, but don’t mock them either. Disprove them. Rebut them. State exactly why they are wrong, but do so calmly and with the dignity that they themselves cannot muster.

        That’s the only way to beat them.

        • millie fink says:

          Well yeah, that beats them morally, but it doesn’t make them listen. In a debate, there’s no way really to “beat them.”

          Legally and politically, though . . .

        • dragonfrog says:

           You ever try rational discourse with these folks?  How did it go?

          • AnthonyC says:

            Yes, I have, and it went nowhere. Reason and rationality had little enough to do with generating their ideas in the first place. Why should they play a role in changing them?

        • AttilatheBlond says:

           Enabling (by ignoring) anti-social behavior that is being ramped up is not going to make society more civil. Did ignoring  the worst of the bullies on any schoolyard ever get rid of their behavior?

          While I applaud, and sometimes work at, “calm, reasoned and dignified responses”, there is a point at which one must accept that reason only works if all parties agree to recognize and use it. You can’t always reason with a drunk. Same is true when dealing with people who are under the influence of mental distortions which can be as, or more, debilitating than alcohol or drugs. Impaired is impaired, and at some point, we have to stop worrying about the feelings of the impaired and intervene.

          • Matt Popke says:

            I don’t give a shit about their feelings, and the last thing we should do is ignore them (which I explicitly stated already). You won’t, actually you can’t change these nuts. But you can influence their kids and others around them. That’s how we beat them. Not through futile attempts to change them. But by making sure their particular brand of meme-virus doesn’t spread.

            And the only way to do that is by being better than them.

        • DreamboatSkanky says:

          Often, to those committed to the these hateful kind of right-wing positions , using reason is perceived as mockery.  Don’t abandon reason, or humor, to expose them.

        • joshpowers says:

          Great post Matt. Good analysis of how these discussions tend to spiral in a negative direction. Thoughtful responses require effort, and I guess most people just don’t think it’s worth the effort. Everything you said was correct, but here is one thing with even greater effectiveness towards these people (or anybody): kindness. It’s always in short supply on both sides of a disagreement, and it’s the most powerful weapon you have in bridging a gap.

    • LinkMan says:

      There’s also that whole cliche about sunlight being the best disinfectant.

  6. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    I always find it interesting how the spectre of future ‘death panels’ manages to stir passions to a degree that actual insurance policy lifetime maximums (incidentally banned by the terrifying Death Panel Law) or presently enacted state laws somehow manage not to…

    In Texas, it has been explicitly legal since 1999 for a hospital to decide that treatment is medically futile and pull the plug on the patient 10 days after that decision unless they are transferred to another facility within that time. Virginia has a very similar standard, Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2990, except that the period is 14 days. I don’t know offhand if there are others.

    (For clarity’s sake, both of the above statutes allow a determination of futility against the wishes of the patient or patient’s proxy. An agreement on medical futility and subsequent termination of care is, to the best of my understanding, a quite general practice, so long as one isn’t named “Terri Schiavo”)

    • Those are Republican Death Panels, and only apply in the case of the non-elect.  ie, the not-wealthy.   Since I will soon be wealthy due to my faith   …..   Also ombamakenyasocialismwharbirthcertificate….       

      • digi_owl says:

        “Those are Republican Death Panels, and only apply in the case of the non-elect.  ie, the not-wealthy.   Since I will soon be wealthy due to my faith…”

        In essence, the american dream taken beyond the pale.

  7. Whatever happend to speaking no ill of the dead?Or a little common courtesy at the very least?

  8. John Harland says:

    I saw a digest of the ‘choicest’ nuggets of rage from that article, and there’s one that stuck out for me, head and shoulders above the rest of the horrible, demented nonsense.

    “I had hoped that he would live long enough to be denied the healthcare that he helped shove down America’s throat.”

    Wh-… b… you… but.. what?

  9. Palomino says:

    I didn’t know he was a Russian Jew, his corn pone  dialect was perfect.

    I don’t take anything at face value when those faces spew filth AFTER the person they are defaming is deceased.

  10. Colin Curry says:

    It really bothers me that people don’t understand what communism is. It doesn’t come much closer to state supported capitalism than forcing people to buy health care insurance to cover treatment in private hospitals. The US solution is a far cry from what the rest of the world considers public health care.

    • farwest1 says:

      The right sees the world on a primitive ideological spectrum where if you’re left leaning or liberal, and move further left, somehow you reach communism.  Therefore, a liberal is by extension a “moderate” communist. (Nevermind that on this same ridiculous spectrum, if you move further right you reach Fascism.)

      It’s an absurd way of looking at the world.  Democratic Liberalism actually runs counter to all totalitarianisms.  But try explaining that to the intellectually-stunted folk who wrote the cruel and ignorant comments about a great, upstanding guy.

      • Nonentity says:

        Nevermind that on this same ridiculous spectrum, if you move further right you reach Fascism.

         No, no, no… that’s one of the best parts of the absurdity.  On their spectrum, fascism is on the left too.  See, in their world, the only way to have communism is by enforcing it with fascism.

        The only thing you get by moving farther right is Freedom!

        • AttilatheBlond says:

           Yep. Logic and language skills are not the forte of the haters.

        • Dave Lloyd says:

          As an outsider this is always the doublethink I can’t get past: your uber rightwing nazis bang on about Freedom but hate Liberals and Liberty. How can that work in anything other than an Orwellian world?

      • BonzoDog1 says:

        The right also ignores the fact that the USSR collapsed 20 years ago, the Maoists  have adopted capitalism and are beating us at our own game and Castro’s in a nursing home.

    • Boundegar says:

       Here’s how the logic works:

      1. Communism is bad
      2. Obama is bad
      3. Therefore, Obama is a Communist

      See how simple that is?  Why, it can be used to prove almost anything!

      •  Whoa whoa whoa! slow down there, professor.

        So what is this ‘logic’ you speakin’ of?


      • Colin Curry says:

        What I really find curious is how gung-ho the left is about this solution. I guess it beats what was there before, but I fail to see how funneling money into private health insurance and private hospitals is anything but state sponsored capitalism. It’s wasteful and inefficient – it doesn’t remove the profit motive so costs will continue to spiral out of control.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

           The left is gung-ho about single payer, but this will still help a shitload of people in the meantime. 

        • AnthonyC says:

          Which is probably why Romney and Gingrich wrote this law in 2006 and 1994, respectively.

          All the methods that solve that problem involve either government-as-single-payer, reforming insurance companies as non-profits, eliminating the fee-for-service system, or a few other ideas that had absolutely no chance of becoming law.

          If there is a long-term political logic to it (there may not be), I would guess it’s that once 30 million more people have health insurance, they’re likely to fight to keep it and be willing to make more fundamental changes to do so.

    • AttilatheBlond says:

      Some state legislators in  Texas don’t want critical thinking taught in public schools. They already wrote Thomas Jefferson out of some of their textbooks, and as textbooks in Texas go, so goes most of the nation’s school books.

      Teaching is not allowed by TPTB on the far authoritarian side. Ignorant people are easier to herd with twisted language and playing on raw emotions of the unbalanced.

  11. BonzoDog1 says:

    He was buried so quickly, he had to be Muslim.

  12. Just_Ok says:

    And thus Gomer Pyle was a sleeper agent who worked his way to the top levels of the Marine Corps!

  13. EvilSpirit says:

    I, for one, am shocked to learn that Andy Griffith was a Democrat, when he was old enough to have personally witnessed FDR dining on babies.

  14. snagglepuss says:

    What the fuck is wrong with people ?

    They believe assholes like this guy, that’s what’s fucking wrong with them:

    You’re welcome, Mr. Barton.

    • sigdrifa says:

      Phew… who the hell are these people?? I do complain quite a bit about the BS conservative politicians in Germany are spreading and the ridiculous laws they’re trying to get through, but _none_ of them are anywhere near as bad as that. I don’t think that anybody in Europe would be stupid enough to try and spread the misinformation that people don’t die from cancer anymore. I guess, it’s not so bad here after all.

  15. bcsizemo says:

    Powered by rage, but fueled by fear…

    Kind of like when kids are afraid of the dark or thunderstorms…

  16. Albie Farinas says:

    I say let them spew their hatred, let them demonstrate their ignorance and their primitive views to us…  It provides great contrast that diminishes their value to the collective conscience….  I happen to think it’s a good thing that we can define these nuts and classify them as a demographic, that can be easily manipulated, mocked and ridiculed….  Don’t tell me who you are, tell me what you are….  I’m loving it….!

  17. Charles Kane says:

    From far away in Australia, a long time close friend and ally of the US, America looks progressively sicker and more facist and extreme day by day.

    Truth is the vitriol, hatred, violence that define a good part of modern America is repulsive to many of us in the West. That being so, is it any surprise that much of the rest of the world has no regard for the false claims of democracy and freedom that America trumpets.

    Universal health care may have its faults but it is one of the benefits of wealth, “capitalism” and democracy – not a left wing plot but that which much of the world offers its citizens and which much of the rest of the world aspires to.

    Until now America has been completely out of step with what makes sense, a healthy well treated citizenry where having your appendix out doesn’t make you a pauper but allows you to be a productive member of society

    • mccrum says:

       I hear you guys don’t have an ozone layer, but do you have room over there?  I promise not to bring any crazy talk.

    • BonzoDog1 says:

      If you had managed to keep Rupert Murdoch caged up, we’d be much better off!

      • Robin Nixon says:

        Murdoch makes huge money from Fox News, and that’s his only criteria. He doesn’t care that he’s setting Americans against each other as long as he turns a decent profit. He certainly has a lot to answer for, far more than for the phone tapping scandal in my view.

    • dioptase says:

       We didn’t get universal healthcare.  We got insurance reform.  The way we went about health care reform, paradoxically, aligns more with fascism than with communism.

      And a bit of a pet peeve, but fascism as a political description (as opposed to the common use a a epitaph) is very different than how most people use it.   In a bit of irony, Russia might be a good example of fascism right now.  Authoritarian, nationalistic, anti-plutocratic.  But given the weird mix of things that make up fascism, nearly every country has some overlap.  In several categories, US is by no means fascist (too capitalist and religious). 

      Many European countries that consider themselves progressive probably fit more categories.  That’s right, economically and religiously, fascist philosophy has much more in common with liberal tenets.  Yow!

      Sorry.  My pet peeve comes from the feeling that mislabeling something is a distraction that makes it harder to fix.  And by no means do I know what the heck fascism is.  Just that we all keep using it wrong.

      • Colin Curry says:

        I agree with two of your points – that this isn’t universal healthcare and that mislabeling something makes it harder to fix. I’m not sure that fascism aligns easily with either end of the liberal-conservative spectrum though.

  18. Joseph Brown says:

    “There is a social realm where things are rationally sorted and then there’s the anonymous place that brings out a person’s base instincts. It can become a frothing, bubbling cauldron of insanity,” he said. “Yet, you need that animalistic part of yourself. I think of it almost like your sex drive.”

  19. sincarne says:

    Can everyone saying the left does it too please provide links to examples of the left doing it too? And on a site the size of the Blaze and/or the other sites linked on Wonkette, not some tiny little hive of scum and villainy.

  20. Jim Saul says:

    Lest anyone forget that in 1957 he starred in a film that may be the role model for Limbaugh and his ilk: 

    • CognitiveDissident says:

      I bet if the headline was,
      “Rush Limbaugh archetype dies at 96″
      the praise would have flowed effortlessly!

  21. Wolfgang Barth says:

    The right-wings speak about “death-panels” to come with new laws.

    I do not understand why the really existing death-panels arent spoken about. Thousands and thousands of people without insurance or low coverage which are not given adequate medical treatment: no surgery – “too expensive”, no cancer treatmant – “too expensive” …

  22. corydodt says:

    directly lead to the death of millions
    directly lead to the death of millions
    directly lead to the death of millions
    directly lead to the death of millions

    Holy cow. Some of these people have to be trolls.

  23. dorkhero says:

    It is not the acidic hate being spouted by pundits of both sides that bothers me. It’s the inane parroting behavior of their fans. My elderly parents were excellent at repeating the daily talking points of Glenn Beck when he still had his show on Fox News. (My parents were not technically sophisticated enough to follow Beck’s show onto the web. I feel confident he lost a large portion of his audience for that reason.) Those who follow the words of these entertainers who care not for their country, but for the advertising money brought in by higher ratings, are gradually polarizing the political discourse of our nation. Conservative vs Liberal. Republican vs Democrat. Red state vs Blue state. Political gridlock is paralyzing our legislative processes. Our representatives in the government need to respect their opposition, agree to disagree, and relearn the skill of compromise. Our nation was founded on compromise. We will certainly fail with out it. If those representatives only see such abysmal comments from their constituents they will continue to act blindly in our name to our mutual detriment.

  24. Russ McClay says:

    Leave Andy Griffith ALONE!

  25. AttilatheBlond says:

     Have tried it many times. With most, it’s like dealing with a belligerent drunk. As with belligerent drunks, sometimes you have to  throw polite tactics away and just take the car keys before they hurt somebody. At some poing, we have to deal with the realities and call a ass an ass.

  26. The way some American people react to healthcare issues will never cease to amaze me… (as a French)
    I mean…some people really believe that “Obamacare” will “kill millions”…REALLY ? I mean… really ? Wow, just wow…

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      Ironically those opposed to affordable heath care will hopefully die off quickly due to their inability to access it.

    • Max Meyer says:

      I had the same reaction as a Canadian. Is there some sort of flawed reasoning behind statements like this or are the people opposed to universal healthcare just stone cold crazy?

      • Same thing here. I’m trying to find what I’m missing but I can’t…

      • Colin Curry says:

        Also speaking as a Canadian, what Americans have isn’t universal healthcare – it forces them to buy insurance from private insurers and get care from private hospitals. While there are provisions – people can’t be refused insurance – there is no guarantee that subsidies to those with low incomes will be continued into the future. As hospitals are private, their #1 motive is profit, and the law does little from preventing costs from skyrocketing. It doesn’t prevent a two tier system where people who can afford it jump the queue for treatment.

        Our system may not be perfect, but it does a far better job of containing costs and it provides fair and equal access to everyone.

  27. Stephen O says:

    As a Canadian watching your politics and news over my life I’ve noticed a major shift in your society. Firstly, no one is calling out bullshit any more in the mainstream and when they do (Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes) they get shouted down as a partisan. Take for instance how many mainstream media outlets are reporting on Darrell Issa and his wag the dog fast and furious conspiracy theories – which were reported last week to be a complete non story. None.

    The media and a large majority of the population just wave their hands and say both sides are bad. This isn’t about sides this is about human decency and truth.To me it is akin to having two naughty kids, one who picks his nose and the other who runs around with gasoline and matches. Then when the house burns down you just stand around watching it burn and say ‘both my kids can be so naughty.’ Some perspective people!

    Cory thanks for calling out bullshit.

    • cleek says:

      it’s called “working the refs”.

      the right has convinced the media that there’s no upside in calling-out a “conservative” – only pain. they’ve beaten down the media so many times that it refuses to do anything but present “both sides” of every issue. the media has adopted a defensive crouch, where they can say nothing negative about one party without balancing it with a comparable example from the other party (even if that means stretching “comparable” to absurdity).

      actual fact checking (explicitly saying that this or that political statement is true or false) has become something they do in special segments, once every four years.

      so, we’re stuck with Mitt Romney: the most mendacious, truth-averse, flip-floppingest candidate this country has ever seen; and yet the media will only hint about these deficiencies in slyly worded editorials. actual reporters refuse to make judgements about what he says. they simply report what he says, uncritically.

      the media absolutely refuses to tell the public when a “conservative” is lying, and so “conservatives” have made brazen lies an integral part of their campaign strategies.

      we’re fucked

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Don’t fall for this ‘the left is bad too’ nonsense.  The right wing/conservatives *are* wrong. “Which side are you on?” ain’t just a song. It is annoying to hear people talk about civil/human rights like they’re just a matter of opinion.

  28. SomeGuyNamedMark says:

    If Andy Griffith is now a commie then Ronald Reagan must almost be Lenin.

  29. If you got suckered into religion at a young age, you’re primed to be suckered into FoxNews as an adult.  If you watch FoxNews for a week, it’s over: Your brain changes and reality is only one of many possibilities.  Trying to make sense with delusional  populations is useless. This process of priming the brain for fiction is not a power that left-wing comedians will ever have.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      The folks I know that watch Fox News don’t have a strong religious streak instead they tend to be extremely judgmental and very fear driven.

    • joshpowers says:

      Non-sequitor. What is the connection between religion and this news article? I believe the comments posted in the article represent a very culturally narrow segment of society found only in the United States.

  30. Seriously says:

    I love how everyone commenting talks like they’ve never met these folks. No one got redneck extended family but me? C’mon. 

    • mccrum says:

       No, seriously, I got ‘em, but they’d certainly never get all kinds of frothy mouthed about Andy Griffith dying.   It might be there but thrown out as a comic observation, not the insanity from those posts:
      “Shame he didn’t die of that health care thing.”
      “Yep.  Ha!”

    • IRMO says:

      Upper class suburbanites are more likely than genuine-rednecks to spawn these haters.

      • joshpowers says:

        Can you elaborate? My experiences contradict this (and I have met some VERY hateful and prejudiced people). I can’t prove this, but I’d bet my savings that ignorance, lack of education, and extreme bigotry have an incredibly strong correlation. But I’d love to see an article that proves otherwise along the lines of what you’re saying. 

        • AnthonyC says:

          I don’t have a strong opinion on this point either way, but I have read (don’t recall where, sorry, but it was a source I remember trusting) that when people get higher socioeconomic status they become more selfish and self-absorbed

  31. TimRowledge says:

    Since around 6500 people die each day in the US, we can guess that around 4000 are of voting age and so about 2000 would be Repugnicans. Hopefully more.
    Oh, gosh, am I being nasty? Tut-tut.

  32. CognitiveDissident says:

    As disturbed as those commenters seem to be, they are actually quite compassionate for their intended audience’s ears.
    They refrained from using that uniquely terrible word, SHARING, which Jesus and others in the Bible warned us about.

    The moral is (especially in the Old Testament), when you share, all you will end up with is a half-brained half baby.
    Those concerned commenters are obviously trying to save America from the same fate that they themselves suffer from (at least the half-brain part).

    R.I.P. Andy

  33. Gyrofrog says:

    I thought they were mad because (35 to 40 years ago) he shilled for Log Cabin Syrup, which until recently contained  HFCS and may have contributed to the poor health of many consumers.

    That’s still no excuse, though:  No one should speak ill of the dead. I can’t emphasize that enough.

    • Marvin Marks says:

      Good point – although did Log Cabin Syrup have HFCS 35 to 40 years ago? I thought most things were still using real sugar back then. 

      You’ve got me curious. I’m going to do some Googling and come back to you… 
      Well I found this: “Soft drink makers such as Coca-cola and Pepsi use sugar in other nations, but switched to HFCS in the U.S. and Canada in 1984″ … so 1984 for soda – I’d imagine it’s a similar time period for maple syrup but I wasn’t able to find that specific info with a quick search.

  34. Paul Souders says:

    I’m impressed. It takes a truly special kind of asshole to hate Andy Griffith ON THE DAY OF HIS DEATH.

  35. Giving people healthcare = public mass executions?

    I don’t get it.

  36. Marvin Marks says:

    Bill Maher has it right. Being a conservative in 2012 is just about being a dick. 

  37. 666beast1 says:

    The hatred is because he supports health care for everyone?  One wonders how much they would hate him for receiving social security and medicaid, liking his mom and enjoying apple pie.


  38. hungryjoe says:

    I’ll take a Death Panel over an actuary any day.

  39. ethanwc says:

    Some people are just better left ignored.

  40. ElRonbo says:

    Ironic that this appeared on The Blaze, since Griffith starred in the prescient Glenn Beck biopic “A Face in the Crowd”

  41. royaltrux says:

     I promise you the comments from the left won’t be nearly as hateful and absurdly stupid.

  42. michael b says:

    I used to think that.  I don’t anymore.   I don’t think I’ve ever quite seen the same level of vitriol coming from the left as I have the right, especially since the coming of the far right propaganda machine, talk radio, tv, internet, etc…  There is a closed mindedness and singular ideology that some of these folks latch on to that is so far removed from factual evidence, that it’s like them believing in the tooth fairy or unicorns, then laying into you, frothing at the mouth, for not believing in it too.

    Are there some far lefties that cross the line and say destructive things?  Sure, but the majority of these people are your neighbors, Bob and Susi Jones from St. Louis, or Grandpa Fred from Minnesota.  These are the people that are buying subscriptions to Glenn Beck websites, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, and so forth.  It’s Scare-orrism for “Pay”triots.  There is a reason that the likes of Romney hasn’t distanced himself from the birthers.  There is a reason that Ron Paul and the Tea Partiers haven’t distanced themselves from the racist organizations that help support them.  They pay lip service to moderation, but they know what side their bread is buttered on.

  43. DrunkenOrangetree says:

    Andrew Breitbart just died. Surely you can find some examples of “hatred and vitriol.”

  44. millie fink says:

    What DrunkenOrangetree said.

    Evidence plz. A slew of examples from just one source, as Cory apparently provided. 

    Go on, we’ll wait.

  45. Vengefultacos says:

    I always hear these empty “both sides do it” whines whenever we see right-wing venom being spewed. I’ve never seen anyone corroborate their claims. Put up or shut up. Provide links to stories of mainstream figures who happened to be republican whose comments were filled with vitriolic hate, merely because they subscribed to conservative beliefs. 

  46. Navin_Johnson says:

    You realize that this is just a beloved American actor who happened to appear in a commercial that endorsed a Democratic party issue?  I didn’t even know he’d done it, and I get the sense that I’m not alone. So please tell me who your equivalent old guy who happened to appear in a Republican ad would be?

    Andy Griffith was not like a Ted Kennedy type of polarizing figure, or a Breitbart for that matter.  False equivalence is false.

    I also want to be clear that neither is Kennedy comparable to a Breitbart!

  47. Nonentity says:

     Please say you’re not trying to compare Andy Griffith to Andrew Breitbart.

  48. DrunkenOrangetree says:

    The commenter called for a comparison the “next time a Republican dies.” That’s all.

  49. No comparison between the two individuals, but the reaction from many people was surely hatred and vitriol. Either way, and regardless of what one might think of his politics, Breitbart left behind a wife and children, and the way he was treated online in the immediacy of his passing was pathetic.

  50. Nonentity says:

     Just thought I’d check.  I’m sure there *was* some vitriol out there when Breitbart died (although, I also saw a lot of articles about how we should look past his politics now that he’s dead).  But even if one were to cite vitriol about his death, it really wouldn’t prove what theprez98 is attempting to say.

  51. Navin_Johnson says:

     I readily admit I said “good riddance” to Breitbart, and I would again.  Even though that was an extremely hateful and ugly individual there were many saying to respect his passing.  Respect is earned, and there is absolutely no equivalence between a Breitbart and a Griffith.  Let’s not buy into this disingenuous “the left is just as bad” shit.  It’s like comparing your elderly neighbor who voted Democratic to another neighbor who burns crosses in your neighborhood.

  52. Just_Ok says:

    They’ll be witty and insightful, at least.

  53. IRMO says:

    I’ll give you a counter-example: the writers and commenters at The Exiled are particularly vituperative about people they  decide to put on their enemies list, and particularly gleefull when a man on their list dies. And you don’t have to be Andrew Breitbart to get on the Exiled’s list. 

  54. Navin_Johnson says:

    He was not a Republican Andy Griffith.  False equivalence is false. I would say most people don’t even know that Griffith had done anything political. Find “the left” saying such ugly things about a similarly affable, hardly political figure plz.

  55. Nonentity says:

     “No comparison between the two..”

    And then you go on to try to make a comparison between them.

    Strange how the easiest way to show how “the left does it too!!!” is by comparing apples to oranges.  One would almost think there was a reason for that.

    I suppose the question must be weighted… obviously, there’s no way there would be a comparable actor with mildly republican leanings, since all mass media is so controlled by liberals.

  56. farwest1 says:

     Brietbart was not Andy Griffith, a well-mannered and likeable media figure who occasionally got involved in political issues he felt were important.

    Brietbart was closer to a Keith Olbermann–provocative, in your face, ranting, hateful, and generally unable to see others’ points of view. I’m sure there are other examples on the left, but I’m having trouble coming up with any. Meanwhile: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, etc etc.  Wow, the entire right is comprised of screamy, ranting, hateful, and non-openminded bloviators.  Oh, sorry, I mean journalists.

  57. royaltrux says:

    Please find for us dozens of whacky, Tea Party-worthy, over-the-top hate-filled rants about Breitbart’s passing  that you claim are out there.

  58. DrunkenOrangetree says:

    Then please give us an example of that kind of vitriol directed against Breitbart, after he died.

  59. Navin_Johnson says:

    Breitbart left behind a wife and children, and the way he was treated online in the immediacy of his passing was pathetic.

    The way he treated people online IN LIFE was pathetic, not only pathetic, but fueled policies that hurt real people (see ACORN for one), cost them their jobs, and incited his followers to violence, all the while monetizing his extremism. 

    Also, all bets were off when he made his comments on Ted Kennedy’s passing.  He got exactly what he gave in return:

  60. Navin_Johnson says:

    @DrunkenOrangetree:disqus  Oh there were lots of “good riddance asshole” type comments, Matt Taibbi’s being the most famous (which him and his family faced all kinds of violent threats for), but Breitbart was deserving and engaged in the same insults himself, unlike Griffith.  It is ridiculous to compare an otherwise innocuous grandfatherly character like Griffith to Breitbart, a person who made his money antagonizing people, and admitted to relishing the fact that he was so disliked, and caused real grief and hardship for people as a result of his “work”. There’s no comparison to any media figure on the left for a Breitbart, because there isn’t one.

  61. Wild Rumpus says:

     Sorry prez, “”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.  You have to show us sources. 

    Many. many times I’ve seen comments in right wing websites, and especially religious right wing websites, wish death and eternal hell on anyone who challenges their shaky ideology.  (I’m thinking Jessica Ahlquist).

    “I’ve seen it happen.” – no source? I call BS.

  62. Wild Rumpus says:

     …still waiting…

  63. royaltrux says:

    If you like, I will hold off my celebration until you provide the evidence of monkeys hurling barely-coherent poo at Breitbart’s coffin that you have implied exists in droves.

  64. eselqueso says:

    Enjoying, thanks. Stupid argument is stupid.

  65. Navin_Johnson says:

    By your standard, it’s acceptable to trample on the grave of polarizing figures like Breitbart, but off-limits for good guys like Andy Griffith.


  66. Nonentity says:

     Oh, my, yes.  It’s such a high bar to set, asking that you find a somewhat similar set of circumstances before trying to imply that Cory is somehow being biased by posting this article.

    Whether it’s pathetic to trample on someone’s grave or not isn’t the question.

    Publicly demonizing someone solely because they gave public support to a political party you don’t like, in a completely non-confrontational and unassuming way for a miniscule portion of their life, is.

    Bringing up people who were quite happy to be publicly confrontational is not responsive.

  67. joshpowers says:

    First: everyone is biased. Don’t trust any news agency that claims to be free from all bias. (Ahem “fair and balanced”.)

    Second: this is turning petty. Prez’s point is: bigotry and prejudice grow up on both sides of the tracks. It’s found both among the ignorant and uneducated, and among the privileged, savvy, and hip. All colors, creeds, and political credos have it. If you don’t see them when you look in the mirror, be grateful. Or, look closer. We are all far more susceptible to these things than we care to admit, and it might make us more careful before we judge. “Judge not lest..” I’m not condoning the vitreol; I’m just saying, they were posted by clearly ignorant people. More privileged society is better at concealing their prejudices. The nastiness of a comment reflects the ignorance of the author, and ignorance is a sad thing. But that’s only ONE facet in which prejudice is put on display, and an obvious one at that, and particularly easy to target. A little perception will reveal that it IS as universal as Prez is arguing for.

  68. Nonentity says:

     “Prez’s point is: bigotry and prejudice grow up on both sides of the tracks.

    If that were his point, there wouldn’t be any point posting about it.  His point was that there is *equivalent* prejudice on both sides, and there seems to be an odd lack of evidence to support that.

Leave a Reply