« The Liberal Leap Of Faith | Main | Why I voted Republican »

Liberalism: A Bottomless Pit Of Lies And Liars

Yesterday, I wrote a little piece pointing out the historical significance of the day in American history, that it was the 235th anniversary of the battle of Lexington and Concord.

One of our regular commenters, GarandFan, made the following statement:

"Watch it Shawn! Intelligentsia like Joe Klein (that's GERMAN, isn't it?) might say that you are bordering on 'sedition'."

While I have heard the name Joe Klein, I honestly know nothing about him. So I decided to quickly look him up, as GarandFan was obviously implying something which was not meant be taken kindly.

As I found out, that's putting it mildly.

Recently, Mr. Klein appeared on something called "The Chris Matthews Show," which appears on something called "MSNBC."

Klein, also a columnist for "Time Magazine," in a section appropriately named "Swampland," has made the assertion that people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are "seditious" in their criticism of the Obama administration.

From Newsmax.com:

Appearing on NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" on Sunday, Klein said: "I did a little bit of research just before the show, it's on this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition, which is 'conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state.' And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck, and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious."

Apparently, he did not provide any actual proof or examples to back up his accusation, nor did Chris Matthews press Klein for any. However, fellow leftist kook John Heilemann, author from the New Yorker, joined Joe's attack, claiming Rush Limbaugh should be added to that list for his use of the word "regime" to describe the Obama administration. I guess doodles on the back of a napkin is what passes for legitimate journalism on the left these days.

Klein defended his remarks on his Time magazine blog on Monday: "Let me be clear: dissent isn't sedition. Questioning an administration's policies isn't sedition. But questioning an administration's legitimacy in a manner intended to undermine or overthrow it certainly is."

I see, Joe.

So, because Rush Limbaugh used the term "regime" to describe the Obama administration, that somehow nullifies eight years of wacky liberal accusations that Bush "stole" the presidential elections. Or that the Supreme Court, despite holding firm to electoral law, illegally handed Bush the presidency. Or comparing Bush to Hitler, that he is a fascist, or that if he was re-elected, he would re-instate the draft, for the sole purpose of scaring the pants off of young voters. Nope. No intention of de-legitimizing the Bush presidency there.

That's not seditious, at least according to Joe's definition..

Nor is Hillary Clinton screaming "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Or "Bush lied, people died."

Or Bush and members of his administration should be "frogmarched" out of the White House and brought in front of the Hague for war crimes. Or Rep. John Conyers holding his own "impeachment hearings" that Bush was guilty of high crimes leading us to war in Iraq under false information, with the "Downing Street Memos" as proof.

Should I go on, Joe?

In a display of tragic comedy, the next day, Glenn Beck shredded Klein and Heilmann's ridiculous indignation at the use of the term "regime."

From gatewaypundit:

(Glenn Beck speaking) I don't even understand how speaking out can be sedition but that's what Klein said about me and Sarah Palin and then Rush over the weekend... The only piece of evidence he sited was that Rush used the word "regime." Well maybe John (Heilemann) should have done a little napkin journalism and googling before he went on the air as well. It may have helped him find out that the term "regime" was used 6,500 times to refer to the Bush Administration since January 20, 2001. The host he was talking to (Chris Matthews) used the term "regime" to describe Bush and Heilemann himself used regime to describe the Obama Administration at least four times.

Do these stooges really take themselves seriously?

In a prior display of professional impotence, on September 12, 2009, Klein appeared on, surprise, The Chris Matthews Show, this time with network dopette Norah O'Donnell filling in for Mad Dog Matthews, discussing an anti-Obamacare rally in Arkansas.

Unable to come up with any legitimate reason to disparage the participating members of the rally, he immediately pulled out the race-card to explain why they opposed it, and proceeded to place the impetus squarely on "Boss Rush Limbaugh," implying the participating American people were too stoopid to think for themselves concerning an issue so important and complex.

It really is pitiful to witness liberal pseudo-intellectuals fall all over themselves, believing they are still relevant in some way to the current discourse, attempting only to discredit those with whom they disagree, and even more pitiful that there are outlets like MSNBC that will showcase them as if they actually matter to anything other than a shrinking far-left liberal audience.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38826.

Comments (50)

Equating leftism with a bot... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Equating leftism with a bottomless pit truly is an insult to bottomless pits.

Klein is a fool looking for... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Klein is a fool looking for attention...just as Anne Coulter often plays the same role for the right (like when she wrote her cute little books about liberal traitors). Of course, this type of entertainment is the bread and butter of certain folks (the left and their right each have their versions). Nothing wrong with that, but there is also no need to take many of them too seriously.

Dissent is a good thing. People should speak their minds, and we should all be able to discuss opposing points of view without freaking out. I am all for dissent now, just as I was during the last presidency. Once we can't speak up and express our views, then we KNOW we're in trouble.

Here's what I would like to see: a move away from polemic public debate. It might be fun, and grab attention, but there is often little substance to this kind of discourse. Shawn's title, which is catchy, is just one example. Cute, but that's about it. Sure, people will rally around it, but that doesn't mean it holds much explanatory weight. It's on par with "liberal" writers who can't get past how eeeeeeevil conservatives are.

Doesn't the whole left vs right thing ever get old to anyone? I hope so, because it seems like everyone ends up arguing and re-arguing what Glenn Beck and Chris Mathews said over and over. Meanwhile, it's the same old shit in DC.

Anyway, back to business as usual. You can all commence with the negative votes.

Joe Klein and his ilk are n... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Joe Klein and his ilk are nothing more than closet fascists. If they could do away with the Constitution, they would in a blink of an eye and never look back.

ryan a: "Dissent is a good ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

ryan a: "Dissent is a good thing. People should speak their minds, and we should all be able to discuss opposing points of view without freaking out. I am all for dissent now, just as I was during the last presidency. Once we can't speak up and express our views, then we KNOW we're in trouble."

Excellent...now try telling BillyBob Clinton, et al, that same thing...and Obama too!

"Excellent...now try tellin... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Excellent...now try telling BillyBob Clinton, et al, that same thing...and Obama too!"

So...are you arguing that your right to free speech is being suppressed?

You just don't get it do yo... (Below threshold)
BluesHarper:

You just don't get it do you?

When a liberal says something, it's the truth.

No matter how logically you connect the dots or prove to them by their own words that they are hypocrites, we (conservatives/republicans/libertarians/right wing/ tea party members) are wrong.

2 + 2 = 7 or any number but 4, to a liberal. How do you debate something like that?

I'm sure I'm wrong, but that is how it seems/feels to me.

The sun shines out a liberal's ass but a conservatives/republicans/libertarians/right wing/ tea party member is evil and wrongheaded.

How does that lend itself to a debate?

Joe would have been very mu... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Joe would have been very much at home in East Germany.

BluesHarper,I thin... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

BluesHarper,

I think you watch too much TV.

"When a liberal says someth... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"When a liberal says something, it's the truth."

and:

"No matter how logically you connect the dots or prove to them by their own words that they are hypocrites, we (conservatives/republicans/libertarians/right wing/ tea party members) are wrong."

The world isn't as polarized as certain pundits would have you believe. Anyone who talks about massive groups of people (liberals, conservatives, etc) in absolute terms is vastly oversimplifying reality. This kind of devisive rhetoric makes for good talk shows and snappy blog posts, but that's about it.

ryan a: "So...are you ar... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

ryan a: "So...are you arguing that your right to free speech is being suppressed?"

Actually suppressed? Not yet. But the momentum IS building for just such a thing. A growing number of Democrat polticians, more & more in the media, and the heads of various agencies (DHS, Treasury, etc) are ALL seeking to do just that.

Ever been to a Tea Party? They're just normal folks...mostly OLDER folks...in LAWN CHAIRS. Essentially NO chanting, no violent rhetoric, and NO violence.

When folks like THAT are accused of "Sedition", "Terrorist inclinations" and "Racism" on a DAILY BASIS...yes, that is an active attempt to suppress their speech.

This snippet drives me nuts... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

This snippet drives me nuts but, I listen to it to remind myself of how hypocritical liberal/statists are. Despite their supposed differences Hillary and "o" think alike on just about everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

Well, ryan a, despite the M... (Below threshold)
epador:

Well, ryan a, despite the Monty Python allusion, you're slipping a little from your original post.

While no one is burning books in front of the public library, there are efforts to squelch free speech with such misnomers as "fairness" and by sporadic episodes of violence by leftist against conservative.

So in 8 and 9 you are saying that TV/cable pundits are or aren't polarizing?

"Actually suppressed? Not y... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Actually suppressed? Not yet. But the momentum IS building for just such a thing. A growing number of Democrat polticians, more & more in the media, and the heads of various agencies (DHS, Treasury, etc) are ALL seeking to do just that."

And your argument is that they are seeking to suppress the right side of the spectrum? Through what means or measures? Which specific politicians are you talking about?

"When folks like THAT are accused of "Sedition", "Terrorist inclinations" and "Racism" on a DAILY BASIS...yes, that is an active attempt to suppress their speech."

Accusations are a little different than the suppression of the right to assemble and speak in public, IMO. Do you really think that this is suppression of free speech? Since I have not been to these rallies I really can't say--but I am pretty sure that the government is not suppressing anyone's speech at present. If it was, I think there would be some big outcries.

But I agree with you that plenty of people are flying off the handle about some of these issues. And sometimes it gets out of hand. This is why I think some of the political rhetoric needs to step down a notch or two. We are all Americans, after all.

But this heated rhetoric is nothing new. There were plenty of accusations about liberals being traitors the last several years. For some reason, many people have a difficult time listening to opposing perspectives without losing their heads. And then things only get worse. It's frustrating.

"Here's what I would like t... (Below threshold)
LeBron Steinman:

"Here's what I would like to see: a move away from polemic public debate. It might be fun, and grab attention, but there is often little substance to this kind of discourse. Shawn's title, which is catchy, is just one example."

I've seen a lot of this sudden,sanctimonious,convenient epiphany from lefties now that their "ox is being gored" and "dissent is patriotic" is now a suspicious concept.
You invented , perfected and wallowed in no- holds- barred, sarcastic,demolition derby, "Bushhitler" politics. Now,voila, you've decided that it's time to be collegiate,constructive and all 'substancy'.
The act ain't playing, pal.
The petard is being hoist and it's chock full of disingenuous, ugly souled leftists

"While no one is burning bo... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"While no one is burning books in front of the public library, there are efforts to squelch free speech with such misnomers as "fairness" and by sporadic episodes of violence by leftist against conservative."

Are you talking about "fairness" in the media? IMO everyone has an agenda, and the audience has to keep this in mind constantly. I don't expect anyone to hand me the so-called straight truth.

I think there are sporadic episodes of the suppression of free speech at these low levels that happen often enough. And I doubt that "the left" is the only one to blame.

But I am not talking about citizens getting into verbal arguments and shouting each other down, or getting physical. I am talking about the actual suppression of free speech by the state. That is certainly not happening yet. And if it did, I would hope that various political factions would wake up and realize that there are bigger issues at hand.

How do you propose that we deal with incidents in which free speech is squelched by combative members of the public?

"So in 8 and 9 you are saying that TV/cable pundits are or aren't polarizing?"

They are certainly polarizing--that's their whole gig. But that doesn't mean people need to take them so seriously or even listen to them. It's often all very oversimplified. It IS entertainment, after all.

Dearest LeBron,"I'... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Dearest LeBron,

"I've seen a lot of this sudden,sanctimonious,convenient epiphany from lefties now that their "ox is being gored" and "dissent is patriotic" is now a suspicious concept."

Good for you. But you don't know shit about me or my political inclinations, so just quit assuming. Feel free to go read my posts from the last 5 years or so, and then get back to me.

"You invented , perfected and wallowed in no- holds- barred, sarcastic,demolition derby, "Bushhitler" politics. Now,voila, you've decided that it's time to be collegiate,constructive and all 'substancy'."

Dude, WTF are you talking about? You're waaaay off target here, pal. Rule number one: don't argue against straw men. You clearly don't know the first thing about me, so it might make more sense to ask questions rather than making these lame accusations. What's the point?

"The act ain't playing, pal."

Ok.

"The petard is being hoist and it's chock full of disingenuous, ugly souled leftists."

Are you done yet? Do you have anything substantive to talk about, or are you here just to fling nonsense around?

By the way Justrand,<... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

By the way Justrand,

I hope you don't read me as being dismissive about your point. Trust me, I have seen leftist assholes at work in the name of "peace". Formative moments in my understandings of politics and the difference between what people say and what they do. But in my experience there are similar problems on all sides of the political spectrum. All sides have their extremists.

But maybe I'm just too cynical...

Just to cut-off the left-tu... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Just to cut-off the left-turds before they start ranting about context and "parsed" words - and you know who you are - this little turd
Heilemann wrote that.... Barack Obama had no particular expertise in economics, "So it's ironic, to say the least, that the first defining moment of the Obama regime happens to revolve around matters macroeconomic -- dealing not just with a nasty and potentially prolonged downturn, but with a wrenching, epochal crisis of capitalism on a global scale."

The week prior he wrote: that all administrations experience internal conflict over foreign-policy issues, "And Obama's regime -- with Joe Biden in the building and Robert Gates likely to remain atop the Pentagon -- will be no exception."

Heilemann...FOAD, you sniveling little turd.

And your argument ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
And your argument is that they are seeking to suppress the right side of the spectrum? Through what means or measures? Which specific politicians are you talking about?

Through use of the Fairness Doctrine, for one. For another, use of SEIU thugs to beat up people at Tea Party rallies. SEIU is an arm of the Democratic Party and is largely funded by the government.

But I am not talki... (Below threshold)
jim m:
But I am not talking about citizens getting into verbal arguments and shouting each other down, or getting physical. I am talking about the actual suppression of free speech by the state. That is certainly not happening yet. And if it did, I would hope that various political factions would wake up and realize that there are bigger issues at hand.

I believe that most sentient people would recognize Bill Clinto's BS this past week about Tea Parties being the kind of speach that precipitated Waco, and Joe Klein's crap about sedition as an obvious and deliberate attempt to suppress free speach.

When you are working to preempt dissent by labelling it as seditious or as provoking violence you are classifying dissent as a criminal act. Happily, neither Clinto's nor Klein's words have the force of law. However, obama is not far off from saying these sorts of things. He has come pretty damn close actually.

I seriously expect an attempt to ram through a new Fairness Doctrine before the fall or to have serious aggitation on the left to have someone like Beck or Limbaugh arrested.

It goes without saying that I think we will see major violence by leftists against a Tea Party event before the summer is out. That is really what suppression of free speach is about. It's the threat of violence and the threat of arrest even if it never gets to that point.

"Through use of the Fairnes... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Through use of the Fairness Doctrine, for one. For another, use of SEIU thugs to beat up people at Tea Party rallies. SEIU is an arm of the Democratic Party and is largely funded by the government."

The Fairness Doctrine--which is not in place--would certainly be open to abuse. And I do think that some politicians are basically advocating for something that would impinge upon freedom of speech. So the threat of this is definitely problematic, yes.

As far as the SEIU, what do you think should be done about their actions?

Jim m,"I believe t... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jim m,

"I believe that most sentient people would recognize Bill Clinto's BS this past week about Tea Parties being the kind of speach that precipitated Waco, and Joe Klein's crap about sedition as an obvious and deliberate attempt to suppress free speach."

Sure, this can be considered a form of suppression I guess--but nasty political rhetoric isn't exactly the same as the state suppression of free speech. Not to dismiss this stuff, because it is an issue. This is, in my opinion, on par with all of the Ann Coulter followers who went around calling anti-war liberals "traitors" during the Bush presidency. People should be able to disagree, dissent, and express their views. And once people--Clinton, Klein, Coulter--start screaming treason or sedition, that starts to create the foundations for bigger problems, IMO.

This kind of thing cuts both ways.

"When you are working to preempt dissent by labelling it as seditious or as provoking violence you are classifying dissent as a criminal act."

Agreed. It is a political act, and it is a real problem as far as free speech and open debate are concerned. If people are not able to communicate their views in public, we're in deep shit.

"I seriously expect an attempt to ram through a new Fairness Doctrine before the fall or to have serious aggitation on the left to have someone like Beck or Limbaugh arrested."

I doubt a Fairness Doctrine would pass. Although I would not put it past some politicians to attempt to do so. Plenty of stupidity exists within those ranks. As far as arresting Limbaugh or Beck, I doubt it. A move like that would be idiotic.

"It goes without saying that I think we will see major violence by leftists against a Tea Party event before the summer is out. That is really what suppression of free speach is about. It's the threat of violence and the threat of arrest even if it never gets to that point."

The threat of violence is definitely real, and it can shut down free speech (among lots of other things). I have been thinking about these protests as well, and how different people are reacting to them. And I agree with you that tensions are high and that there are asinine groups that resort to violence, which then creates bigger problems. So ya, I hear you about this one.

ryan a ...maybe yo... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

ryan a ...

maybe you haven't noticed but Beck, Palin, Rush and the Tea Patry movement are talking about ending "the same old shit in DC" to quote you.

Thats a nice Obama trick of holding yourself above the fray, nicely done sir. The problem is that not only has Obama not ended "the same old shit in DC" he's managed to elevate it to policy and the SOP for every branch of the Government.

The thing is YOU voted for him. So when you complain about the discourse you have no standing or moral authority. You voted for him and until you admit that was a mistake you will always be seen as a defender of "the same old shit in DC".

So wear the label prodly ryan a, "the defender of the same old shit in DC". You won't put that in every comment you post but the rest of us will always remember to tack it on to the end of your signature.

Ryan A, you misinterpreted ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Ryan A, you misinterpreted Justrand's comment:

"Excellent...now try telling BillyBob Clinton, et al, that same thing...and Obama too!"

You immediately asked if he felt his right to free speech was being supressed. That's not at all what he said, but it didn't stop you from derailing the point of the thread and inviting people to engage in your strawman argument.

I see variations of this all this time. I criticize what someone says and almost without exception someone will pipe in and invoke the person's right to free speech when I said nothing at all about anyone's rights.

Clinton drew direct parallels between the average citizen's criticism of government and the actions of an extreme few who blow up buildings. I thought it was both disgusting and disingenuous and most of all, irresponsible.

THAT is what Justrand was talking about.

Ryan-you compare p... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Ryan-

you compare private citizens protesting and radio personalities criticizing the government to political figures includeding a past and current President as being the same thing? I highly doubt it. Having the current administration and a former President coming out and decrying dissent as dangerously provoking violence, and then citing leftist violence in support of their agenda as proof that they were right, is far more dangerous to free speach. Obama and Clinton are pointing the way toward making political dissent a felony. Period.

As for a new version of the Fairness Doctrine not passing, I believe they could get the FCC to pass a new doctrine under the guise of "localism". Same fascist doctrine, new name. The dems have been wanting it for several years now. You don't need any votes to pass a regulation. The FCC will just declare it so. Creation of such a rule would unleash a torrent of lawsuits from the ACLU and other leftist groups to force radio stations and TV networks to comply with their version of "fairness". We'll have government suppression of free speach by proxy.

Obama challenged his follow... (Below threshold)
John:

Obama challenged his followers to get in the face of the opposition blah blah blha. When did GWB ever do or say anything like that, for that matter when did any republican president or candidate do or say anything like that. He didn't say debate them, he didn't say be less polemic did he? The progressive side of this debate has demonstrated a clear intent to attack people personally and smear them.

What is the response of the "tolerant left" to the tea party, do they challenge them with the "facts" about how bail outs and deficits are good for us, do they demonstrate how an ever growing federal government can make life so much better? Not really they call us RACISTS and say our agenda is to oppose the first black president.

What should a conservative do to improve the political discourse, ignore the fact that we are call RACISTS, and domestic terriorists. What happens then, I think we all know the answer to that the oft told lie becomes the truth.

I vote republican:I ... (Below threshold)
wildman:

I vote republican:
I don't agree that everyone who is poor is due to circumstances beyond their control. Some folks are just plain lazy.
I dont agree that criminals are criminals because they did not get enough nurturing when young. Some people just like hurting others or making money by addicting others to their wares.
I dont beleive that the US needs to be the pressure relief valve for mexico to prop up a corrupt regime.
I don't beleive that the government uses my hard earned money to solve problems. They have yet to solve a single one.
I don't belive that our millitary needs to put their life on the line with rules of engagement that are more restrictive than the NYPD.
I don't belive in accomodation with people who have sworn to kill us by any means because their god says so.
I don't believe in a government that allows an education establishment to produce a crop of sensitive, know nothing, brainwashed children and expect them to succeed in the world. I dont believe in a government where politicians will say and do anything to get reelected.
I dont believe i should pay through my taxes, groups that lobby for more federal money.
I don't believe i should pay for an EPA that has to contrive a new crisis every day in order to justify its existence. Government has stopped serving the people and only serves itself.

I've always been inpressed ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

I've always been inpressed by the lefts' ability to feign outrage when the right mimics their actions.

Side note. A shame Klein was on the Matthews show, cutting the number of viewers in half.

Oyster,"Ryan A, yo... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Oyster,

"Ryan A, you misinterpreted Justrand's comment."

How so? I get the point of the comment. What is the ideal response that would have made you happy?

"You immediately asked if he felt his right to free speech was being supressed. That's not at all what he said, but it didn't stop you from derailing the point of the thread and inviting people to engage in your strawman argument."

So...what's wrong with asking someone a direct question about what they think? How is this derailing the point of the thread? You make it sound like I'm forcing people to talk to me. Justrand is perfectly capable to choose whether or not to engage/answer my questions without your moderation.

"Clinton drew direct parallels between the average citizen's criticism of government and the actions of an extreme few who blow up buildings. I thought it was both disgusting and disingenuous and most of all, irresponsible."

Clinton? Saying stupid shit in public? A politician? Imagine that.

I get the point of Justrand's concern. I went ahead and asked a specific question about the suppression of free speech, since that's part of the issue here. Since people are referring to this, it makes sense to ask what they are actually talking about. Are they talking about Clinton's dumb statements, or are they talking about specific instances they have experienced--or both. Again, I don't see the problem with asking.


"Obama and Clinton are poin... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Obama and Clinton are pointing the way toward making political dissent a felony. Period."

What do you mean PERIOD? That there is no discussion? That the future is unavoidable? What specific state measures are you talking about? If Obama and Clinton head down that road then we're all in trouble. Are they pointing the way? I think things are quite far away from state sponsored political repression. But maybe we are thinking about this in different ways.

"As for a new version of the Fairness Doctrine not passing, I believe they could get the FCC to pass a new doctrine under the guise of "localism". Same fascist doctrine, new name. The dems have been wanting it for several years now. You don't need any votes to pass a regulation. The FCC will just declare it so. Creation of such a rule would unleash a torrent of lawsuits from the ACLU and other leftist groups to force radio stations and TV networks to comply with their version of "fairness". We'll have government suppression of free speach by proxy."

The whole Fairness Doctrine is a problem, and is certainly open to manipulation. I am definitely not a supporter of mandated news dissemination, or of controlling how media is produced. It's way too easy to twist a system like that. But this is still a hypothetical problem, and I do not think it is as far down the road as you seem to. But again, this definitely isn't something that I am in favor of.

Jeff,"maybe you ha... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jeff,

"maybe you haven't noticed but Beck, Palin, Rush and the Tea Patry movement are talking about ending "the same old shit in DC" to quote you."

Maybe you haven't noticed, but every politician makes this claim. So it's not really news. Meanwhile, we can keep playing liberal vs conservative ping pong. I don't think you get my point.

"Thats a nice Obama trick of holding yourself above the fray, nicely done sir. The problem is that not only has Obama not ended "the same old shit in DC" he's managed to elevate it to policy and the SOP for every branch of the Government."

Ya, right. Obama is THE SOURCE of all of our problems. Kind of like GW Bush was THE SOURCE of all of our problems for liberals for the past eight years. Ya, that's really cutting to the heart of the matter. The problem isn't just about the current POTUS, but sure, just keep telling yourself that.

By the way, whoever said I'm above the fray? I am just arguing my position/POV.

"The thing is YOU voted for him. So when you complain about the discourse you have no standing or moral authority. You voted for him and until you admit that was a mistake you will always be seen as a defender of "the same old shit in DC"."

This isn't a new problem. This problem of political discourse didn't just magically appear in 208. So don't try to fill in blanks where you don't have the data. And don't assume that you know my politics because you read a book about "liberals" by Glen Beck. You're making a lot of assumptions.

"So wear the label prodly ryan a, "the defender of the same old shit in DC". You won't put that in every comment you post but the rest of us will always remember to tack it on to the end of your signature."

Ok. Keep making shit up if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. Meanwhile, if you want to know what I ACTUALLY think, then just ask.

"What is the response of th... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"What is the response of the "tolerant left" to the tea party, do they challenge them with the "facts" about how bail outs and deficits are good for us, do they demonstrate how an ever growing federal government can make life so much better?"

I think there are various reactions by "the left," which isn't exactly a unified political group. The so-called left is full of all kinds of viewpoints, agendas, histories, reactions, actions, and tendencies. That's part of the problem. You're arguing through a bunch of generalizations. Are some on the left supporters of violence? Yes. Are they all? No. The same goes for the so-called right.

About the deficits and bail-outs. This isn't just about the Republicans versus the Democrats, and hopefully you know that. In some cases, there is a slim margin between the interests of the two parties. The bailouts started under Bush, and continued under Obama. Same goes for deficits. It's not as if the system was completely scrapped once Bush left office--Obama didn't start from scratch. So part of this requires a longer term approach to assessment. Kind of like this: when GW Bush took over after Clinton, in order to understand the economic situation of the first few years it made sense to look at what was going on under Clinton and before. History matters. Sure, we change presidents, but that doesn't mean that each transition of power represents a pure, clean slate.

"Not really they call us RACISTS and say our agenda is to oppose the first black president."

What is your agenda? Do you have a unified agenda? Are do you only react to what people are saying you're doing? Pundits, politicians, and members of the public say all kinds of things, but that doesn't make it accurate, fair, or just. The only way to make your intentions clear is to state your actual intentions. Part of the problem with the Tea Party is the fact that they have a somewhat vague position with many different versions.

There is real unified platform--this reminds me of some liberal protest movements that just put anything under the sun on their agenda. They would protest NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Bank, war, violence, unfair taxes, and the local bus drivers all at once. A great place to vent, but not really effective for getting anything done.

Generally, the Tea Party folks are angry and upset, and they want a reduction of the federal government--somehow. There often aren't a lot of specifics. Nothing wrong with that, but it's difficult to respond to vague political movements.

ryan a,Just a smal... (Below threshold)
Chiaroscuro:

ryan a,

Just a small suggestion:

Brevity can be your friend.

Chiarscuro,"Brevit... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Chiarscuro,

"Brevity can be your friend."

Well, this is a really complex issue that you bring up, and there are multiple important factors that we need to address in order to...

hahaha

just kidding.

point taken!

I took a course called info... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I took a course called information mapping. It's used for technical writting mostly, but applies here. One of the basic premises is that the average person can remember 7+/- 2 items of information at a time.

So you end up with paragraphs with 7+/- 2 sentances. Posts with 7+/- 2 paragraphs.

It helps organize your thoughts and communicate clearly and concisely. It also contributes greatly to the readability of what you write. I write (and read) a lot of deadly dull SOP's and policies in my job. Infomapping makes it survivable.

I see so there has been a r... (Below threshold)
John:

I see so there has been a reasonable response to the tea parties and I missed it.... right. Oh and of course since we have no specific agenda it's very difficult to address our concerns so the best thing is to call us angry, or racists or nut jobs or something.

I think most people here (conservatives) would be happy to complain about Bush and bailouts. I sure would besides just because Bush did it doesn't mean Obama should to it with the amps turned up to 11.
I also think most conservatives here can very clearly state the main issues that tea parties are concern about. First and foremost is the financial ruin of the country. More specifics? How about a trillion dollar health care bill, how about tripling the deficit in 1 year, how about stimulus that didn't stimulate anything, how about pork, how about awarding GM to the union, how about.... you get the idea.

Nice job of deflecting the calling of tea partiers racists comment into a comment about unified agenda or something. My point is unless our agenda is to resegrate the country why is it that we're constantly called racists. Please point out the rational opposition to the tea party I can't seem to find it anywhere. Even elected officials call us teabaggers, and claim we're racists.

"I also think most conserva... (Below threshold)
914:

"I also think most conservatives here can very clearly state the main issues that tea parties are concern about. First and foremost is the financial ruin of the country. More specifics?"


Yes, more specific: A deficit grander than the Grand Canyon and deeper than deep space, more so than the entire accumulated debt of the first 230 years of the Countries existence.

Both sides dug the hole and Barry ( bless him ), has made it a black hole. Yet still, beyond mortal comprehension, Barry insists upon seeing if even a black hole can resist his charming messianic magnificence and bow in submission.

Careful there 914 I think y... (Below threshold)
John:

Careful there 914 I think you mean African American hole don't you?

John,"I see so the... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

John,

"I see so there has been a reasonable response to the tea parties and I missed it.... right."

I don't speak for the national response team to the Tea Party protests, so you're asking the wrong person. I think plenty of people have freaked out and gone overboard, yes. But that doesn't mean that everyone has reacted in this way. It's good to keep that in mind.

"Oh and of course since we have no specific agenda it's very difficult to address our concerns so the best thing is to call us angry, or racists or nut jobs or something."

Don't assume you know what I think--this seems to be a pretty common trend on this thread. Everyone seems to think they know where I stand, because they are attaching stereotypical political perspectives without taking the time to read through what I am writing. How do you know what I think is an acceptable reaction? You don't.

I don't think that many of the responses to the Tea Party thing are justified, at all. And I definitely do not think they are fair. Now what?

"Nice job of deflecting the calling of tea partiers racists comment into a comment about unified agenda or something. My point is unless our agenda is to resegrate the country why is it that we're constantly called racists."

I already talked about this on another thread. People use these sorts of things--RACIST! TRAITOR! SOCIALIST! MUSLIM ISLAMOFASCIST! NEOCON!--to deflect discussion away from the issues and to focus on the character of the person who is speaking. If you think this is a new invention then you haven't been paying attention. It's a political tactic, and one that BOTH SIDES employ pretty often. Ya, people make all kinds of charges, all the time. So what should we do now? Whine about what Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman broadcast, or combat those kinds of things with other debates, discourses, and actions?

What exactly are you asking for here?

"Please point out the rational opposition to the tea party I can't seem to find it anywhere. Even elected officials call us teabaggers, and claim we're racists."

Ok, I can understand your frustration. So what do you propose be done about this? When is this a matter of mutual free speech? When does it go too far? Do you want to curtail the nasty rhetoric of your opponents in the name of the protection of free speech? Or do you want to find ways to combat this kind of stuff with productive actions and discourses?

jim m:"I took a co... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

jim m:

"I took a course called information mapping. It's used for technical writting mostly, but applies here. One of the basic premises is that the average person can remember 7+/- 2 items of information at a time."

Good thing we have TV news, where complex and important geopolitical events and issues are broken down into 15-30 second segments.

Maybe all information should be on twitter, since it's hard to read more than 7 lines anyway...

Damn! Sorry John, <p... (Below threshold)
914:

Damn! Sorry John,

I dont know what it is with Me today? The racist comments just keep popping out of Me. I must be turning into an ultra rightwing white supremacist conservative skinhead right before everyones eyes?

Sorry Barry! I meant to say "super dense field of irresistable solar mass", K Bare.

"Both sides dug the hole and Barry ( bless him ), has made it a super dense field of irresistable solar mass".


"Barry insists upon seeing if even a super dense field of irresistable solar mass can resist his charming messianic magnificence and bow in submission."


There all better

Ryan, my comments are not d... (Below threshold)
John:

Ryan, my comments are not directed at you but at the argument that there is nothing rational to debate. And that it is VERY common among those in the media, some elected officials, many on this site to resort to calling people teabaggers and worse rather than to discuss the issues.

I appreciate that you do not name call and should have been clear about that from the beginning.

Still, no one can seem to p... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Still, no one can seem to point out the "rational" opposition response to the tea parties.

Odd that.

I will try not to generaliz... (Below threshold)
John:

I will try not to generalize but I don't really see much responding to the issues that seem to drive the tea party movement. Perhaps there are reasonable voices that aren't being heard.

John:"And that it ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

John:

"And that it is VERY common among those in the media, some elected officials, many on this site to resort to calling people teabaggers and worse rather than to discuss the issues."

Agreed. Many people go to great lengths to avoid the issues at hand. Name calling is a favorite tactic that completely derails any actual communication or discussion.

Oyster,What are yo... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Oyster,

What are you looking for? A debate about the foundations of western economic theory and philosophies of governance?

ryan a and his ilk absolute... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

ryan a and his ilk absolutely crack me up. For eight years (as someone already said) we had cruel, beyond the pale criticism of GW Bush AND his family. Relentless. Not just by the fringe, but mainstream pundits and magazines. Eight years. We who supported GW Bush were labeled and brain washed or mind numbed robots. Now Obama (a very cheap, weak, inexperienced empty suit) gets into office and now we mean, rotten conservatives can't behave. ryan a your hypocrisy and your feighned ignorance of the past eight years is telling. You simply lied. Go away now. ww

Oyster-"Still, ... (Below threshold)
914:

Oyster-

"Still, no one can seem to point out the "rational" opposition response to the tea parties.
Odd that."

Using southside brownshirt indoctrinated thugs to beat down tea partiers while chanting "bush, bush, bush" is about as rational as the Obama Chavez FarraCON hater crowd can get.


Willie,What the f*... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Willie,

What the f*ck are you talking about? Next time, try actually READING what I wrote before you just react and post nonsense.

"Liberalism: A Bottomless P... (Below threshold)
914:

"Liberalism: A Bottomless Pit Of Lies And Liars"

Liberalism: A home to wayward misbegotten lustchilds who sot their drawers daily.

Liberalism: Behind every failed affirmative action, there is a dark cloud.

Liberalism: Behind every lamebrain from Chicago there is a teleprompter.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy