Free Markets, Free People


Violent hateful rhetoric? The left is peerless in that realm

It appears we’re again witnessing leftist projection as those on that side of the ideological divide continue to try to sell the “violent and hateful right-wing rhetoric” canard as a reason for concern.

In fact the right can’t really hold a candle to some of the left.  Media Research Center provides a little primer.

Under the category of hateful rhetoric, see if you can guess who said this Michelle Malkin?

“…a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

If you guessed Keith Olberman, give yourself a point.  Of course we could probably cite Olberman for any number of hateful diatribes but one example makes the point.

And this about then sitting (2007) VP Dick Cheney?

I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

A little hard but not much – that would be Bill Maher, that paragon of restraint and good taste.  Maher also popped this one out there about Rush Limbaugh when Heath Ledger was found dead (2008):

Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?”

No cries for “civility in discourse” then, were there? 

Hateful?  Try this from Charles Karel Bouley, a San Francisco radio host on the announced death of Presidential spokesman Tony Snow from cancer:

I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?

Yeah, “civil discourse”.

Violent rhetoric?  Any idea who said this about Congresswoman Michele Bachman in 2009?

“Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

That would be Air America’s Montel Williams.  Had that been someone on the right we’d have heard the usual suspects on the left denounce Williams as a misogynist, etc.  Instead – crickets.

Mike Malloy, a favorite lefty radio talker on Rush Limbaugh:

“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!

That was just last year when Limbaugh was taken to the hospital with chest pains – you know, “civil discourse.” (more Malloy here)

Ed Shultz joins the civil discourse choir talking about the left’s favorite righty, Dick Cheney.  Here he lovingly wishes the former VP a happy life in 2009:

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?

And in 2010, Schultz continued his enviable record of “civil discourse” when talking about Cheney and his heart problems:

“We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

Who is “we” Mr. Schultz?

Finally, another hypocrite master of civil discourse who has been chiding the right for a couple of weeks now fantasized on the air about the death of Rush Limbaugh:

“Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.”

Bless their little hearts, when it comes to “civil discourse”, they are the standard, no?  And of course, as anyone who has followed the “discourse” during the Bush years (and as the examples above point out, since) they know that what is listed above is the very tip of a honking big iceberg of similar “civil discourse” from the left.

It is the primary reason I refuse to be lectured to by these people.  I’ll again make the point that they’re much less interested in “civil discourse” than they are in shutting the right up. 

Ain’t gonna work, fellas.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

99 Responses to Violent hateful rhetoric? The left is peerless in that realm

  • James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured — and their ears severed.
    “There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin’s ears toward the end, because they’re small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney’s, in the center,” Fuller said.
    Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.
    On Saturday, Fuller was carted away for a psychiatric exam after disrupting the town-hall meeting by taking a photo of Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries and shouting, “You’re dead!”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/01/18/to-be-fair-a-lot-can-happen-between-friday-and-saturday/
    The MSM coverage of the arrest of Fuller has been very “holy”…lots of conspicuous omissions.  Wonder why?

    • Of course it’s holy! By the holy principles of post-modern leftism, when someone becomes inconvenient to the cause, we just define them out of existence.

      Geez, it’s like you guys don’t even know any history. My ex-Soviet father-in-law has all kinds of amusing anecdotes about how the Soviets did it.

  • Let’s face the fact that “crosshairs” only became a point of sensitivity with Democrats because they only shoot blanks.
    At least Sarah Palin bagged 18 out of 20 of the targets she had in her “crosshairs.”

  • LOL don’t forget all the sterling examples of the left on the Journolist, including the POS who suggested just calling republicans racist so as to shut them up.

    EFF ALL OF YOU.

  • Well, as they say about Stalin:
    “He didn’t want a Loyal Opposition.  He wanted No Opposition.”

  • Now, now!  When lefties make hyperbolic statements or use colorful language, they are just being passionate(and, anyway, Rush and Cheney and Palin are totally evil so wishing bad things on them is like wishing it on Hitler or something).  That’s absolutely not the same thing as hateful vitriol that incites violence.  Absolutely not, I tell you!

    / sarc

    The left squawking about vitriol and hate speech is like Al Capone lecturing on the virtues of obeying the law and employing strictly non-violent means in settling disputes.

  • This is slight off thread but it is about speech from the Left …

    “I am going to go back to Washington tomorrow and meet with the President of China. He is a dictator. He can do a lot of things through the form of government they have. Maybe I shouldn’t have said dictator, but they have a different type of government than we have and that is an understatement,” Reid said.

    Reid is probably functionally correct with calling Hu a dictator but you’ve got to ask …

    Did Reid get so caught up in the rhetoric of DC that he forgot that the President is of his same party ?

    I was always told the the Senate is the chamber of “statesmen.”  When the Majority Leader of the Senate forgets how to be a “statesmen” you really have got to wonder what is going through their minds.

  • “Real power is the ability to define what the fight is about.” The entire discussion moves into a rigged casino. Control words and you control truth. George Orwell understood this so well that he believed one of the first things every totalitarian ideology does is redefine the words in a language, purposefully, forcefully and relentlessly.
    http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/01/18/free-the-dictionary/
    Richard Fernandez is VERY worth reading.

  • I see this kind of cherry picking of quotes from each side, wanting to claim they are (mostly) pure and the other side so bad.  It’s amusing.    Of course, it’s not indicative of “the left” writ large any more than Michael Savage is indicative of the “right” writ large.    But if you’re caught up in the emotional game of wanting to see yourself as good and the other side as evil, and if you want to feel self-righteous, then a simple (if also irrational) way to do so is to cherry pick a few quotes, and then use that as an excuse to avoid actual discussion of issues with the vast majority from the other side (be it left or right) who actually want conversation.
    Admitting the other side is capable of reason would diminish that rush of self-righteous struggle!   You might even have to admit you might be wrong about a few things.    To some, that is intolerable.

    • There’s an easy enough way for you and the rest of the Left to get the heat off you, Scott: Stop lying, stop lying from the time you get up in the morning until you go to bed at night and during sleep. Stop supporting any enemy of the U.S.  you can find. Stop trying to enslave people with socialism and lying about that.

    • Well Erb, the conversation needs to start out on this:

      1) Repeal Obamacare.

      2) Reform entitlements, primarly medicare, medicaid, and social security.

      3) End civil service unions.

      4) End civil service pensions. Put ‘em all on a defined contribution plan.

      5) Stop efforts at government “stimilus”.

      6) Stop efforts at cap and trade.

      7) free up drilling, build refineries, mine and use coil, start making breeder reactors, and stop funding solar and wind power nonsense.

      • Health care reform will be changed (and the GOP does have some good ideas), but it won’t be repealed.  I agree with number two.   I disagree with number three.   Number 4 may have merit.    I think the debt is too high to continue efforts to stimulate, that may just led to more foreign consumption and stimulate China’s economy, so I can agree with number 5.  I disagree with number 6, but recognize that ‘cap and trade’ may not be the best approach.  I’m not sure why you want to stop funding solar and wind power, they seem very promising.  But breeder reactors may make sense, given that they don’t use as much uranium (which could be in short supply).  I’d keep experimenting at all levels.  It would be good if the oil companies would build new refineries.   I’d make drilling less a federal and more a state decision.

        • You see, that is part of your problem on this site. From the actual things you claim to promote, I would not classify you as a left winger.  But I beleive that you self identify yourself that way (even if you claim to be a moderate).

          What I mean by that is you have a left wingers apparent disdain and snobbery against us righties.  And it comes off in your writing even if you are not aware of it.

          Although in actuality you would be disdained and snoberized by any real lefty because you do not toe the party line.

          And before you accuse me of generalizations, all I can do is speak from experience.  I am 52, a teacher, and I spent around a decade in and out of colleges and I have in my lifetime only met ONE, and only one left winger who was not dismissive, snobbish, and contemptuous of anything that didn’t fit in the preconceived narrative. (and that one guy quit an academic career and became a priest.)

          • I believe people read a lot into text that is not there.   I am certainly not looking down disdainfully at anyone, or feeling superior.   I’m sorry if my writing makes it seem that way, but I’m not sure what to do differently in that regard.    In Political Science we make a real point (all faculty here) to tell students that diversity of opinion is good, disagreement is good, and politics requires people listen to each other.   I’ve also had huge disagreements with colleagues who are far left of me (they call me a libertarian, and I identify with left-libertarian thought — I am very distrustful of big government, but disagree with capitalist libertarians that the market is able to regulate things on its own), but even as we disagree I don’t feel they are dismissive.   My experience has been different than yours, I guess.

        • What’s promising about solar or wind? Both are inefficient. Both require major breakthroughs–which probably won’t happen–to become stand alone energy sources.

          Wind requires a coil or oil fired plant to match output, since it is eratic. This means the oil or coil plant must operate with poor efficiency. Maybe a breakthrough in super capacitors will happen and fix this shortfall, but more likely not.

          Solar doesn’t work at night. We have no energy storage method that makes up for this–perhaps that super capacitor or super battery will fix the problem. But more likely, not.

          This is all nonsense anyway. We have the potential for superb, clean power via nukes. Reprocessing nukes can virtually eliminate waste. We just need to repeal stupid Carter era rules banning breeder reactors, and move forward. Oh, and we also need to remove the regulatory nightmare that makes the costs of such plants insane.

          • Don, there are a lot of scientists who disagree with your take on solar and wind power.   I think you’re taking your stand on political rather than scientific grounds.   I think it’s important to investigate all possibilities of alternative energy, you seem to want to put all your eggs in one basket on the faith that your belief about it is right.  I’m not willing to go that route, nor are most scientists or businesses involved in the energy field.   I am in favor of loosening regulations on nuclear energy, however.

          • Scott, show me a scientist with some idea on how to make wind or solar into a stand alone energy source. There simply is no current technology that does this.

          • I think you’re taking your stand on political rather than scientific grounds.   I think it’s important to investigate all possibilities of alternative energy, you seem to want to put all your eggs in one basket on the faith that your belief about it is right.

            Once again you cynically accuse someone else of holding a belief based on “faith” with the added bonus of claiming that the position is arrived at via politics more than science.
            When it comes to the practical use of various energy technologies, there are proven technologies which work now (thus, no “faith” that a nuclear power plant will work, if built).  But “green” sources such as solar and wind have massive problems when it comes to space usage, cost, inconsistent sources (e.g., night time, no wind), and getting the energy from A to B.  So many of the assumptions that the green advocates make about renewable energy assume, on faith, that people will be able to discover new technologies to overcome these daunting limitations.  As it stands, the “green” energy sources are huge boondoggles, sucking in billions in taxpayer money but yielding very small returns, far far less than that of fossil or nuclear.  Again, there’s the faith that someday, all of this taxpayer loot poured into the projects will gain critical mass and actually pay off.  But there’s no guarantee that they will even break even.  So, which arguments are based upon proven technologies, on evidence, on facts…and which are based upon hope and wishes and fantasies?
            As for the catastrophic AGW predictions and all of the political movements to prohibit and control industry, as well as subsidizing boondoggles, nearly all of the dire predictions are based upon computer models and unwarranted assumptions about positive feedback loops, etc..  In this case, the skeptics who acknowledge that human emissions can contribute to global warming but who doubt the ridiculous numbers of alarmists, are the ones staying true to the scientific method of inquiry.  Those who decree that matters are “settled” are the flat-earth, anti-science crowd, who feed off billions in grant money to advance a political agenda.  A disturbing number of the alarmists have a history of pushing socialist agendas and, conveniently enough, just about all of the political “solutions” pushed by the greenies happen to be the same “solutions” that rabid socialists have been pushing.
            Once again, in true Goebbelesque fashion, you demonize your opponents by accusing them of exactly what your ilk does.

          • “I think you’re taking your stand on political rather than scientific grounds.”

            Probably because you know only politics and nothing of the science involved. 

          • As a further example of the promises and policies driven by politics and faith, consider the “green jobs” in Spain, frequently cited by Obama as a blueprint for the eco-friendly direction he and his ilk want to take us in.  But wait, the “green jobs” in Spain cost 2.2 regular jobs each and only 10% were permanent, according to Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid.  Then there was Evergreen Solar, which folded after squandering $60 million in taxpayer subsidies and running up a $630 million deficit.
            When such abject failures are touted as the way of the future, one must have a political agenda, blind to facts and reason, in order to have faith that all of the politicians’ promises will be fulfilled, if we just put enough money into it.

        • “I’m not sure why you want to stop funding solar and wind power, they seem very promising.”

          They have been ‘promising’ for over 30 years that I know of, just like nuclear fusion. They have also been using a lot of tax subsidies for all those years.  Unfortunately the laws of physics have not changed during those years. Solar and wind will never be anything more than a niche power source. 

    • Amazing denial at work, Erp.  As usual.
      OBJECTIVELY, there is…not a frog-fur distinction…but a broad avenue between the Collective and Enlightenment people.
      You’d LIKE to pretend away the EXPLICIT, CALCULATED, and extremely deliberate shaping of the ideological landscape.  The Frankfurt school EXISTED, and their work is being implemented right now.  Alinski was a real guy, and Obama is a product of his acolytes.
      It is funny to me that you even try this kind of bullshit here.  It MIGHT play…for a while…with the poor kids you indoctrinate.  But reality exists, and it belies everything you say.

      • The Frankfurt school’s work?  I like Adorno, and I’m having an honors course read Fromm’s “Escape from Freedom.”  But I’m not sure what beef, exactly, you have with the Frankfurt school, other than their world view was different than yours.  But certainly you recognize that your perspective isn’t the only one that should be given respect, don’t you?  Also, I think you’re describing a lot of what the right has been doing in your reply.   I don’t know who Alinski was.

        • “Perspective”?  Really?  Institutionalized, intellectually rationalized lying is not a “perspective” worthy of respect.  It is, as Orwell understood, evil.
          Nor is a concerted, “scientific” attack on individualism, human achievement, and the Enlightenment worthy of respect.
          Nor, candidly, do you deserve any respect…other than as a human “factor”.

          • Except the Frankfurt school is very well respected and certainly not accused in philosophical circles of lying.   I do think they saw the limits of the enlightenment; as German Jews forced to flee fascism, they had to come to grips with how this could happen.   Erich Fromm’s *Escape from Freedom* is a very persuasive example.   Now, you make assertions that you’re right and launch attacks on those who disagree.  That is anti-enlightenment.  You are not making a rational, reasoned, argument, you are appealing to emotion and engaged in trash talk.  That’s fine, but don’t you dare try to claim you’re supporting the enlightenment here — your style is contrary to everything the enlightenment stands for.

          • Yeah, these “intellectual” totalitarians fled from Hitler.  No hate like a family feud.  One branch of the Collective hunting another, like Stalin and Trotsky.
            Same family, though.  Hard to know which was more evil, really.  Sure can’t tell by the body counts, respectively.
            These pukes…like you…would impose the rule of the Collective on everyone, including the people they fled to for protection.
            Once in the U.S., they set out to undermine everything that made us the nation they resorted to, and impose their Marxist “utopia”…by any means necessary…on the rest of us.  They have done IMMENSE damage in the lives of people…including death, pain, expanded ignorance, crime…you name it.
            Please, you little prick, spare me your phony condescension and sanctimony.

        • I think you’re describing a lot of what the right has been doing in your reply.

          Oh, PLEASEexpand on THAT…!!!!

    • Scott, the quotes are being “cherry-picked” from the mainstream media! Here I use the term not as a snark, but to underline the word mainstream.  Not random whacko blogs or worse, blog comments, but media figures, leaders of their field, spokesmen and women of their ideology, millions of listeners/watchers every night. And cherry-picked from a cherry tree that has nearly fallen over from the weight of the cherries; cherry-picked my ass. It’s indicative of the leadership of the left, and I am at a loss as to what further evidence would even be relevant; this is as relevant as it gets.

      It’s not even an argument that the right is perfect and holy. It’s that the left is being hypocrites calling for civility now. What the right has done is not even relevant, actually, and quoting thought leaders of the left is totally relevant.

      • Even the right is calling for civility.  I honestly don’t care if each side blames the other side.  But if they use the other sides’ excesses to rationalize their own refusal to engage ideas and communicate in a way other than name calling and wild rhetoric, they are generating far more heat than light.

        • Typical moral equivalence BS from our representative from the postmodernists.

        • Republicans that wish the Tea Party would go away are joining the Left who wish the Tea Party would go away.  The Republicans don’t want to be under pressure to live up to their party’s principles. 

          Grassroots Outrage (c) was a tool of the Left for 8 years of being out of power.  These negative comments are an outshoot of that.  Now that they are in power, they want to shutdown Grassroots Outrage (C) as a tool for conservatism. 

    • Cherry picking???  Now that is real rich after two weeks of rage from the establishment left after they cherry picked a often used campaign slogan by both the left and the right, and tried to convince the world that Sarah Palin was solely responsible for the shooting in Tuscon.  Methinks that your side was slapped down so hard by facts by the good folks in the middle when you tried to sell them this bile.  So hard in fact that we see new memes popping up everyday in the attempt to marginalize the damage you have done to yourselves.  Cherry picking?  Yeah Scott, you would know well what cherry picking is – problem is you and your ilk are having an increasingly more difficult time selling it.

    • Does it ever occur to you that coming along and saying the same things over and over again accomplishes very little?    I mean, aside from getting attention of course…

      you’re not just here for the attention are you?

      “who actually want conversation”    and don’t be foolish, you don’t want a conversation, you want us to nod our heads politely and say “of course you’re right, how foolish of us, we will mend our ways.  Hurrah for the collective!”

    • And are we to infer from your comments that you give a pass to the ‘cherries’ that McQ has picked? You excuse the ‘hateful’ rhetoric from these individuals?

      And pray, what excuse do you give for overlooking it?

       

    • Ok, I’ll give you this, Savage is pretty crazy, and Ann Coutler is pretty nasty.  But they are hardly equivilent to an entire cable news network, or to sitting memebers of congress like Grayson and Frankin who said similar things. 

      Again I ask you, try to find the Republican writer who came up with a right wing version of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  That book is holy writ to a large number of left wing pundits and politicians.

      There really is no comparison of the two sides, and the fact that you don’t get that is why it is you who are being self delusional.

      • There are not just two “sides.”   I don’t even know who this Alinsky is, but I’ll google him tonight.  I think you have an imagination-driven understanding of the “left” – certainly I don’t see myself or any of my colleagues who are more to the left fitting your stereotypes.   And I have a lot of conservative friends and colleagues, who definitely do not fit the stereotypes of the hyper-partisan left.   I think the rhetoric is spectacle, the reality is that most people would prefer politicians talk to each other and engage ideas.

        •  I don’t even know who this Alinsky is, but I’ll google him tonight

          >>>  There’s a breathtaking lie.

          • I did google him, so I now know who he is.  I can’t say I find much to like about him.

          • Dude!!!  The good ol’ boys down at the Frankfurt school LOVED Alinsky…!!!
            How do you come here PRETENDING to know a forking thing about political science, and NOT know the TRUTH about the Frankfort school, Alinsky, and their quintessential product…Barack Hussain Obama.
            What an AMAZING puke!!!

          • Well Scott, you might want to consider he was an influence on Obama. Saul created the whole community organizer (agitator) thing, Obama’s first profession.

    • I think it’s fair to respond to the implication that the right is poisoning the atmosphere with hateful rhetoric that drives people to kill by showing examples of such rhetoric coming from the left.  It can help to eventually foster discussion by forcing both sides to acknowledge that such talk will always exist and should be marginalized instead of used as fodder for ridiculous demagoguery.  It is not a case of refusing to accept that the other side is capable of reason; it is a case of trying to get them to see reason.

    • I see this kind of cherry picking of quotes from each side, wanting to claim they are (mostly) pure and the other side so bad. It’s amusing. {chuckle] Ha, ha. {giggle} LOL

      Of course, it’s not indicative of “the left” writ large any more than Michael Savage is indicative of the “right” writ large. Yep, I’ve got one guy, and that trumps anything you dense righties can come up with. It trumps an entire network on MSNBC, because he’s indicative, which means the people on Fox are just like him. I tell you, he’s indicative. That’s my new word this week.

      Besides, Sarah Palin all by herself just shows how awful the right is. With those full lips and ample bosom, she just winks at you rightie men through those naughty librarian glasses, and you believe anything she says! She’ll be, like, “Hey, those leftists are mean and attacking me unfairly with a blood libel”, and you’ll be like “Sarah’s under attack! We have to defend her. Let’s cherry pick some leftist quotes and show that her attackers are stupid and mean!” And there you go, off cherry picking. Why you’re so motivated that you bring back dozens upon dozens of cherry picked examples of leftist vitriol! With more every day! Soon you’ll probably be up to a thousand cherry picked examples! Don’t you see how she’s manipulating you!?!

      No, you’re caught up in the emotional game of wanting to see yourself as good and the other side as evil. So you want to feel self-righteous, then a simple (if also irrational) way to do so is to cherry pick a few quotes. See, with my advanced powers of post-modern argumentation, I can point to any list you produce and say “Well, that’s just a few” and completely ignore the dozens or hundreds you already found and posted earlier.

      Just remember – one quote from a random whackjob on the right balances anything elected Democrats say plus anything on MSNBC plus all the Code Pink protests (which are totally OK anyway because they oppose Iraq) plus anything said by people like Bill Ayers plus anything said by Obama’s preacher plus anything said by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and much more. That’s by the holy principle of moral equivalence. If you guys understood leftist post-modernism, which I totally believe in except when I need to say I don’t, you would get my argument here.

      But no, you just use cherry picking as an excuse to avoid actual discussion of issues with the vast majority from the other side (be it left or right) who actually want conversation. Like me. I totally want conversation. Won’t you come back and debate the same issues with me every day for hours a day? Like we used to on Iraq, which I was totally right about by the way. I’m really, really busy, as I’ve told you, but you can certainly believe I’ll make the time to come here and write thousands of words to go back and forth with you a thousand times. Because I want conversation. Not because I’m a pathological narcissist who has an unhealthy craving for attention and someone to talk down to, so stop saying that! I just want to go back and forth with you a thousand times or so, with you presenting your cherry-picked “evidence” and me handwaving it away with my godlike powers of political science.

      See, because of my advanced degrees and my advanced caring morality and stuff, it’s completely necessary that I set the terms of the debate. You guys just don’t have the experience for that. You see that, don’t you? That I’m the only one qualified to decide what’s fair in debate and what’s not? That’s why I can call you sterile and thuggish and inbred and all that stuff, but it’s all completely fair because you are wicked climate change deniers. But if you insult me, it means I’ve won the argument. I decree it.

      Admitting the other side is capable of reason would diminish that rush of self-righteous struggle! Even when they have bought into post-modernism and don’t even believe in reason the way you Neanderthal, so-called “Enlightenment” types do. So don’t start up with how leftism has an unblemished record of failure for a hundred years or any of that stuff. It just hasn’t been done by the right people yet.

      Like Obama, who thinks like me, and is going to cut spending any time now like I said when he took office. And who with his wondrous political powers got his universal healthcare bill passed, which I totally opposed because I think the states should do that, but which I totally supported because, hey, it was Obama. With that Christlike visage of his, how can I oppose anything he does? He is so capable and wonderful and dreamy, yet somehow those extremist Tea Partiers with their extremely extreme rhetoric managed to somehow hypnotize enough voters to completely throw the House way over to the Republicans. I mean, it’s completely obvious that the tea partiers are a very small, inconsequential minority, as I said many times in the runup to the election. They only had, what, maybe a couple of thousand at that march of theirs, and it definitely was smaller than Stewart’s march, and don’t you dare get out those aerial photographs comparing them! Don’t you dare! A random leftist on Wikipedia totally proved that Stewart’s was bigger! That’s the narrative now, and we got it established by the holy principles of post-modernism and you thick righties will never get it changed. Suck on it, and stop talking about it.

      And for goodness sake, stop bringing up those charts and graphs and stuff on the budget and the climate and whatnot. You’re just trying to look smart! We’re the smart ones! You don’t even admit that we’re capable of reason, because we don’t get that grunt engineer math stuff you think is so important. When it’s absolutely trivial next to the advanced mental feats required to understand post-modernism and other glorious leftist philosophies. Though of course, I’m a pragmatic moderate who brings balance to the whole thing, so I’m really better than anyone else.

      You might even have to admit you might be wrong about a few things. And no, I don’t have to bring up any of your so-called evidence. You ought to just admit it because I’m the smart one and the only qualified to say what’s right and fair. To some, that is intolerable.

  • http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/01/16/how-the-obama-campaign-created-the-palin-incites-violence-meme/
    Very useful case-in-point, showing how the liars in the Collective shape the landscape.
    Lies have a persistence, especially when you have really evil people (yeah, I think the Collective is evil) using them cynically as their favorite tools.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/01/19/stand-back-when-the-left-focuses-their-crosshairs/

    As I think Jay Nordlinger noted five or six years ago, the divide between the Red and Blue States has gotten so wide, that both sides are practically speaking a different language. Curiously though, it’s not those crazy rubes in the Red States who keep trying to shrink the dictionary.

    Read it all….

  • In an extraordinary outburst on the House floor, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) invoked the Holocaust to attack Republicans on health care and compared rhetoric on the issue to the work of infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
    “They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing. And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.
    “The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said

    YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP

    • “Cohen made his comments late last night, but they have attracted no attention because his speech was made to a virtually empty House chamber with no reporters around to watch.”

      No, they have attracted no attention because he has a (D) next to his name, making hypocrisy invisible to the old media and the progressive new media.

      But the observe the beauty of the new left rules for speech – since it wasn’t necessary for Jared Lee Loser to actually hear, or read,  anything Sarah Palin or other vitriolic haters from the right said in order to act the psycho, it was an ‘atmosphere’, it doesn’t matter that no one heard Cohen’s speech, does it.


       

      • Oh comon….he only compared his political opponents to nazis.  It isn’t like he committed a huge inciteful offense like putting targeting symbols on a map or something.   Lighten up!

    • Well, the claim that it was a “government take over of health care” was named the lie of the year.  There are a lot of comparisons of people on both the right and the left to Goebbels because he was one of the founders of modern political propaganda.  He was brilliant at it.   And his style is being used by many today, even if they don’t know it’s Goebbelesque.   But you’re right, Cohen shouldn’t have made that comparison or evoked the holocaust.  That turns his criticism of that slogan into a parody, and undercuts his own argument.

      • Who controls my medical records under ObamaCare?

        • Arbitrary health care screw job #6001: the law prohibits any new physician owned hospitals or any expansion of existing physician owned hospitals.  How does that help patients?  It doesn’t.  But it helps the American Hospital Association (AHA), a Democrat supporter.  How exactly is prohibiting people from building hospitals not a perfect example of government takeover?
          One of Erb’s techniques is to defend a big lie (that Health Care Deform would save money, improve care, solve many of the dilemmas which were paraded before the American public as examples of how the “current system” was “broken”, and not, we repeat, NOT, a government takeover) by accusing those who see through the lies as being the dishonest ones.  Trotting out his best friend, Goebbels to shake at his enemies ranks up there in frequency, just a few places behind “thou doth protest”.
          Of course ObamaPelosiCare is a government takeover, an imposition of an arbitrary system to contort, distort, and strangle the market, with the intention of making it unprofitable for certain private providers to compete and to create a crisis down the road which will be the excuse to expand the government program to single payer, or even an NHS-style monstrosity.
          Erb KNOWS this and he also knows that the best defense in a political slugfest is to go on the offense.  The reason he knows so much about Goebbels is that he practices his technique, constantly.

        • The answer is NOT ME…
          NOT my doctor…
          The Federal government…if I don’t resist by breaking the law (which I will)…will TAKE my health-care records, and control them henceforth.
          It’s one thing to be an ignorant, arrogant ass.  It is another to lie, Erp.

      • Well, the claim that it was a “government take over of health care” was named the lie of the year. See, that’s how post-modernism works and the people at Politifact know it. Hey, why do you think they named themselves that?

        See, we just repeat something enough times and it becomes the narrative. So we simply define “government take over of health care” as “the government owns every healthcare provider and is the single payer” and then we point to anything less than that as obviously not a government take over and a lie besides. Guys, I’m telling you, post-modernism is wonderful and such a great tool for debating that I’m constantly surprised that you guys don’t jump on it.

        And in the coming battle over the glory that is Obamacare, which I’m totally against because the states should to do it but I’m also totally for because Obama is so dreamy, we have to set the rules for debate. As I said above, only we wise pragmatic moderate leftists with godlike powers of political science are qualified to set debate terms. We have to set them to ensure fairness. Which means that the terms have to ensure that we win, because otherwise that wouldn’t be fair.

        There are a lot of comparisons of people on both the right and the left to Goebbels because he was one of the founders of modern political propaganda. And the holy principle of moral equivalence combined with my post-modern powers to change definitions whenever I like means I get to point out how people on the right are like Goebbels. Like you inbred sterile climate change deniers here, and I pointed out that you were just like Goebbels last year if you remember.

        He was brilliant at it. And his style is being used by many today, even if they don’t know it’s Goebbelesque. Like Sarah Palin. Those full lips and ample bosom are just her cover for being totally like Goebbels, and unfairly influencing people all over the country to resist our glorious march to leftist utopia.

        But you’re right, Cohen shouldn’t have made that comparison or evoked the holocaust. It was obviously unwise because he got caught. That turns his criticism of that slogan into a parody, and undercuts his own argument. If he had just done it to the right audience with no cameras running, it would have been fine.

      • When the 250+++ entities applied for WAIVERS from ObamaCare…
        to whom did they apply?  The Red Cross?

      • Well, the claim that it was a “government take over of health care” was named the lie of the year.  There are a lot of comparisons of people on both the right and the left to Goebbels because he was one of the founders of modern political propaganda.  He was brilliant at it.   And his style is being used by many today, even if they don’t know it’s Goebbelesque.   But you’re right, Cohen shouldn’t have made that comparison or evoked the holocaust.  That turns his criticism of that slogan into a parody, and undercuts his own argument

        >>>  So you spend a whole paragraph basically agreeing with him, then throwing in a pro-forma “oh, he shouldn’t have said that”

        Typical

        • You need to read more carefully.

          • No, you need to learn to disguise your opinion better.

          • Answer the frigging question.  From whom did 250+ entities apply for waivers from ObamaCare?  And if your answer is correct (THE GOVERNMENT) then your argument about the Government not taking over healthcare is BS!

            Once again, you need to come up with a few mea culpas there Erbie-boy for a few positions you held in previous days.  Don’t think we haven’t forgotten your sorry ass!

      • Well, the claim that it was a “government take over of health care” was named the lie of the year.

        And here you are talking about, nay, chastizing McQ for “cherry picking”.  Neither the Onion nor Ott Scerb gives us better parody than you yourself.

         

      • Waivers Scott, come on, be honest, it’s a simple word - here’s a link, just for those who don’t know what a waiver is (I know you must, you’ve got lots of letters after your name and your a political science guru guy…)

        For those who can’t manage to actually USE the link here’s what it says -
        : the act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim, or privilege; also : the legal instrument evidencing such an act”
        Relinquishing a known right, claim or privilege…..hmmmm…

        And these 250+ groups of non governmental people, they applied to WHO for the waivers Scott?
        While you’re thinking about that, sorta like the Jeopardy clock – you can read this.  It’s a recent quote from some neo-famous person just to help you when considering your answer, or your non-answer of the question as to WHO they applied to for the ‘waiver’ that would allow them NOT to have to adhere to the program that ISN’T a government take over of Health Care….

        “Admitting the other side is capable of reason would diminish that rush of self-righteous struggle!   You might even have to admit you might be wrong about a few things.    To some, that is intolerable.”

        We’re all waiting – and anyone who’s not a normal poster who’s wandered in here following the thread is probably ALSO waiting…..

        Your turn.
         

  • A government take over of health care would be something like a single payer system with the government controlling the rules for what doctors do, charge, and how care is provided.  That does not happen in the current reform package, not even close.   It does at this time require people get insurance.  That’s not a government take over of the health care system.   That would imply control over the whole system and how it operates.

    • That’s just another lie, Scott. Imposing full-scale bureaucratic oversight and regulation on an industry simply turns the industry into a serfdom and leaves bureaucrats pulling the strings.

      It doesn’t take a single payer system.

      Stop lying.

    • “That does not happen in the current reform package, not even close.   It does at this time require people get insurance.  That’s not a government take over of the health care system.   That would imply control over the whole system and how it operates.”

      So, you’re telling me it took them about 2000 pages of documentation to outline that we all had to get health insurance?
      Someone needs to point these people to the paperwork reduction act before they come up with any more ideas.  What, did they use really big font, double spaced and one sentence per page?

      I mean, I can see they can’t do it like the 10 commandments where they say “Thou shalt have health insurance”  (cue the thunderous woosh and  burning finger carving that into the rock like they had in “The 10 Commandments” with Charlton Heston).  You do have to provide SOME details on how that ‘must have insurance” thing works I understand……..but 2000 pages?

      You really believe that’s all that document said huh?   “Thou shalt have health insurance”.

      You said you had advanced degrees, right?

    • It does way more than require people to get insurance.

      It isn’t a 100% takeover, but it is a takeover of most of the system, and it will work in such a way as to require further takeover to fix the “unintended” consequences.

      You are doing the equivelent of arguing that serfs are not slaves, Scott.

      • I think most of us will see nothing change in our coverage and care.  But I have my own concerns.  Something needed to be done — we spend a lot more than other countries and do not have superior health care (and note, even conservatives in Germany, France or the UK would not want to go to what the US had before the reform — so it’s not a clear right-left issue).  But I’d prefer an approach that gives more resources and power to states to come up with their own plans, and experiment/share information.  If Republicans want to admit health care is a big problem (and most have done that) and that something needs to be done (and not some magic ‘just let the market do it’), then I think Democrats should listen and be willing to make compromises and not just slam the door on the GOP.

        • I think most of us will see nothing change in our coverage and care.

          Who are “us” and why do you have such faith in the predictions of politicians?  Companies are lined up around the block to get waivers so they aren’t hobbled by the new law (they’ll be “more equal” than the rest of us).  Then there’s the 1099 monstrosity, which imposes huge taxes (in the form of time spent on filling out forms) which will hit small businesses particularly hard.  Also, there’s the mandate in ObamaPelosiCare which has put a halt to new construction of physician owned hospitals (as a payback to the AHA, who support the Democrats).  People now have fewer choices in hospitals, for no reason other than political payback.

          If Republicans want to admit health care is a big problem (and most have done that) and that something needs to be done (and not some magic ‘just let the market do it’), then I think Democrats should listen and be willing to make compromises and not just slam the door on the GOP.

          There are systemic problems, mostly caused by the government distortion of the marketplace (medicare, interstate prohibitions, tax incentives) and there are personal problems.  Systemic problems which are caused by government can only be eliminated  by preventing government from artificially creating pressures which drive up costs, create waste, etc..  So long as you have medicare, pre-tax employer-provided insurance plans, arbitrary restrictions on interstate policies, and the like, there is no free market and thus you cannot point to a given situation and say, “See, the ‘free market’ failed to fix that.”  It’s the same old game as blaming “deregulation” for the mortgage crisis (when it was the government inducing banks to make bad loans in the first place which was the genesis of the crisis).
          Personal problems, such as preexisting conditions, on the other hand, are just that: personal problems.  Democrats love to parade all the “victims” of the insurance industry across the political stage when pushing for legislation, but the fact remains that if you have a bad heart and the government forces my insurance company to sell you the same coverage I get, it costs me more.  Your personal problem is something you should find a way to solve, without dragging me into it.
          Again, in a free market, I would be free of having to solve your dilemma, which would properly be contained within your own realm and not harm others through the force of government.

        • Erb,

          Our healthcare system is superior. Compare the 5 year survival rate for major cancer treatments, for example. The European system is third world by comparison.

          We do worse in terms of life expectancy, but that isn’t due to healthcare. If you factor out homicides and auto accident deaths, which are much higher in the US, then the US has the longest lifespan. And this doesn’t even include other factors, like obesety, which effect the US more than Europe. This also leads towards an understanding of why our system costs more. We treat more illness, more assault victims, more accident victims, etc.

          A similar argument applies with respect to infant mortality rates. But I won’t go into that now.

          Both the US and European systems have the same basic problem driving costs. In both cases, there is no price competition, European socialism and American employeer insurance systems both act as open loop systems (no negative feedback on prices, effectively), so both are too expensive. The Europeans tend to place the burden on the collective, so the collective will suffer the end result, a serious moral hazzard issue.

          The solution in the US is to go back to pay out of pocket, at least for routine care (insurance only makes sense for rare and expensive care). The Europeans can do as they wish.
          Obamacare is a clusterf*ck of stupid.

    • “… the government controlling the rules for what doctors do, charge, and how care is provided.  That does not happen in the current reform package, not even close.”

      LOL.
      I note you use the words ‘current reform package’ . Weasel words.  Perhaps not as of this date, but all those things are in the law, and will occur if it is not repealed.

  • Rags, when you respond with just name calling and bluster, and no argument or point of contention, then you are acting in direct opposition to the values that define the enlightenment.  That’s why I can’t take seriously your claim to stand for enlightenment values.  Its more like the anti-rational movements (built losely from the romantics, but often tinged with nationalism and other emotive concepts) that arouse to counter enlightenment thought.

    • …or would be like saying “the government requires all businesses to withhold income tax from employees, and file W2 forms…therefore, the government has taken over all businesses in America.”

      • So you’re comparing ObamaCare to the practice of withholding income taxes?

        What’s wrong with you?

        • Where to begin…???
          he’s a delusional liar (i.e., Collectivist).  That’s the big, generic diagnosis.
          Note that, now, instead of dealing with the RATIONAL, OBJECTIVE facts of the Frankfort school’s concerted campaign to destroy American culture in service of a Marxist conversion, he is resorting to his own name-calling.
          OK.  I expected nothing more.  The man is a hoot, and an excellent foil!

          • Please detail why you think the Frankfurt School wanted to “destroy American culture in the service of a Marxist conversion.”  I mean, there is no way you can get that from the philosophy of any of them I’ve read!  You are making things up, and hiding behind a bluster of name calling.  That is anti-enlightenment, anti-rational and (thankfully) ineffective.   If you can bring yourself to engage in rational discussion, state what these allegedly “objective facts” are (rather than vague assertions), then you’d have something of value.   As it is, it appears you are hiding behind insults because you know you don’t have an argument.

          • Geeze, you haven’t read much – I’ve done a skim overview and seen just on that basis their fundamental beliefs were anti-ethical to the structure of the United States (and most European states of their time) as a Republic.  What did you think they were trying to accomplish by combining Marx and Freud?  You think Marx was a big fan of a Democratic Republic? (what with all those oppressive bourgeois and class struggles going on in his head)

            You sure you read this stuff and not a Baedekers on the City of Frankfurt?

          • “I mean, there is no way you can get that from the philosophy of any of them I’ve read!  You are making things up, and hiding behind a bluster of name calling.”
            ‘K.  I’m done.  There is no point in my trying to pour information into a skull so unashamedly closed…
            What a fine, inquiring, searching little mind you have there, Erp!!!
            Anyone else, with a shred of intellectual integrity, can begin here…
            http://frankfurtschool.us/history.htm
            http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNU_enUS380US380&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=frankfort+school#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1C1CHNU_enUS380US380&q=frankfurt+school+america&aq=1sx&aqi=g-sx4g-o1&aql=&oq=frankfort+school+A&pbx=1&fp=ee5b8d49ec6ea034

          • You know, if you can keep changing the target, maybe no one will notice you can’t hit it.

          • Erp has resorted to his Collectivist Mobius loop.
            Ah, well…  Reverting to type…

          • “state what these allegedly “objective facts” are (rather than vague assertions),”

            Hilarious.
            What gives you the right to demand that others do what you have refused to do for years?
            Typical arrogance.  

            “Geeze, you haven’t read much”

            That’s his dirty little secret. He drops a lot of names, but can’t back it up.

  • One source of “hateful rhetoric” has been muzzled …

    The Pima County Sheriff’s Department has suddenly turned off the flow of information in the January 8th mass shootings in Tucson.  Shortly after noon Tuesday Sheriff’s PIO Jason Ogan released this terse, one-line statement:
    “Until further notice, due to a controversy between the Sheriff’s Department and the County Attorney’s office, no further information reference the January 8, 2011 shooting will be released.”

    • Ah, so, there IS a God after all and he’s answered my prayer.  Wait, can I say that?   Is there an establishment clause here?

  • Of course you’re done, Rags.   You aren’t making any points, you’re making just vague assertions, and hoping that if you throw out a bunch of insults and name calling that I’ll lower myself to that level.   Instead, I’ve patiently made my points,  and pointed out that I’m the one using reason to try to have a rational conversation while you call names.   You are on friendly ground, so you’ll have fellow right wing supporters backing you up here.   But in real world, it would be clear you’ve brought nothing rational to this conversation.   If you actually want to have a real discussion or debate, I’ll join you.   Somehow, I think you’re afraid of that.

    • It’s very amusing, Scott, that you didn’t know who Saul Alinsky is (he’s been a constant subject of discussion for well over two years with the rise of the community organizer to the presidency), but then you google him (an unusually unlazy thing for you to do, to actually take a moment find out about something) and declare your dislike for him. But then you turn around defend the indefensible Frankfurt School and boast about including an Eric Fromm book in one of your classes and relate how you like Adorno.

      Very amusing.

      • Yeah, I noticed that too. More proof, as if any is needed, that Erp is basically ignorant of anything other than his field of ‘expertise’, and has only a superficial knowledge about that.
        I have never come across anyone else with his ‘education’
        who has such a lack of curiosity or general knowledge, yet with such an inflated idea of his own intellectual prowess.
        Fascinating. I almost feel guilty about laughing at him.

    • “Instead, I’ve patiently made my points,”

       All you’ve done through this thread is skip from one topic to another without answering amy substantive question when someone refutes your “points”. 

      Good work, you should run for President or higher political office.   I think you might even understand why Guam can’t capsize, so you’re more than qualified.

    • Of course you’re done, Rags. You aren’t making any points, you’re making just vague assertions. I decree it. Those are vague assertions, and with my magical godlike powers of post-modern political science, I hereby handwave them away as being of no consequence.

      You’re hoping that if you throw out a bunch of insults and name calling that I’ll lower myself to that level. Why, I never stoop to insults. Well, except for calling the people around here sterile inbred thuggish Nazis because they don’t believe in the holy writ of climate change and the fact that it has been scientifically proven that everyone on Earth needs to give a whole bunch of power to elite leftists. But that’s different! These thuggish Nazis around here insist on putting up charts and graphs and stuff! Nope, I’m good and pure and I don’t insult people the way you do.

      Instead, I’ve patiently made my points. Stop laughing! I have too made points! And they were good ones too, filled with the wisdom of my vast, advanced-degree-fueled expertise. I’ve pointed out that I’m the one using reason to try to have a rational conversation while you call names. Stop laughing, I said! My posts were all about reason! And yours were just vile insults! And the fact that I couldn’t respond to half the stuff you put up doesn’t count! I decree it!!!!

      You are on friendly ground, so you’ll have fellow right wing supporters backing you up here. But in real world, it would be clear you’ve brought nothing rational to this conversation. Yes, in the real world of academia, if you acted this way in the faculty lounge, you would be immediately chastised, and probably wouldn’t get tenure, because of course we don’t give tenure to insulting dense righties like you. And don’t start waving that law degree in my face. I know you guys spend three years learning all about structure of argument and rhetoric and all that, but because of my magical powers, I can handwave all that aside and tell you that you’re just wrong. And I, of course, am good and pure and right. And that’s not either evidence that I’m totally narcissitic, so stop saying that!

      If you actually want to have a real discussion or debate, I’ll join you. As long as you admit that I get to set the terms of debate, and decide what’s rational and what’s insults and so forth, because of my magical powers. That’s completely reasonable, right? That you put aside your supposed expertise in such things and let me decide? Because it’s obvious that I’m so good and pure and smart, and you’re just a thick rightie who clearly doesn’t appreciate the beauty and elegance of pragamatic moderate leftism that can always use moral equilvalence to excuse anything the left does wrong see both sides of every issue.

      But, no, you won’t have that discussion. Somehow, I think you’re afraid of that. Yep, no matter how many times you have stood up and done highly confrontational arguments against highly trained professional lawyers, you’re afraid of me. It’s obvious.

    • Erb,

      Since when have you posted any argument of substance? I can probably think of one or two times where you have posted something worth reading. But I’d have to go back years. Mostly you only post high level talking points, and vague unsubstaniated claims. It is obvious you are full of sh*t.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet