Sowell: Dems do better bumper stickers and take your home!

[trumptman]

Does your mom know you beat your wife? (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/a_war_of_words.html)

It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents. The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.

Are you for or against "social justice"? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice?

What about "a living wage"? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?

Then there is "affordable housing" and "affordable health care." Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick?

For those who claim it isn't so. All those are nice examples of bumper sticker reasoning from the left that falls apart when you get more into depth.

Such theoretical questions were made vividly real, and people were vividly outraged, when the Supreme Court in 2005 declared that governments at all levels had the power to seize private property, not only for such government activities as building reservoirs or highways, but also for turning the property over to private developers to build shopping malls, casinos, or whatever.

The Constitution says that government can take private property for "public use" if it compensates the owner. The Supreme Court changed that to mean that the government could take private property just to turn over to others, so long as they called it a "public purpose" like "redevelopment."

Politicians are experts at rhetoric, especially if that is all that is needed to justify seizing your home and turning it over to someone else who will build something that pays more taxes.

The above is yet again, an example of why rhetoric must match actions. The politicians who have the power to make these changes shouldn't play word games with our freedoms. If you are a person who engages in such dubious wordplay yourself with issues like gun control, freedom of speech, and private property, don't be surprised when you end up at the wrong end of a new title in which you lose. How will you be able to stand against the looters when all they are doing is providing "affordable housing" or "a living wage" and neglect to deal with the details that involve you sacrificing your own efforts, wages and property.

Perhaps they will think up a catchy name like...shared prosperity. (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1)

Nick

[BRussell]

No way. Conservatives have always been better at this and have always taken it more seriously. One of the best examples is Newt Gingrich's list of approved words (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm) for Republicans to use. Or all the Frank-Luntz (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401302599/sr=8-1/qid=1152914348/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8735230-7072648?ie=UTF8) focus-group-tested words that Republicans are supposed to use, like death tax and pro-life and partial-birth abortion and Democrat party.

[thuh Freak]

"Cut and run" and "mission accomplished" come to mind. Those'd make swell bumper stickers.

Where are you trying to go with this? Which party makes the stupidest word games? Which ones are the most deceptive? Or, just ignore the conservatives' word games, and pretend like the libs have a monopoly on it? Or is this delayed (or recurring) anger towards the eminent domain case?

[Northgate]

Stay The Course!

[Northgate]

Defeatocrats! My favorite. Ken Mehlman personally gave us that one.

[Northgate]

FLIP-FLOPPER! A Gillespie favorite. Shit, that one's quickly coming around to bite them on the ass, isn't it?

[groverat]

I wonder if Mr. Sowell is pro-life or not.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.dannemann.org.uk/images/morans.jpg

[Northgate]

I wonder if Mr. Sowell is pro-life or not.

Probably Pro-"Drowning it in a bathtub"-Government.

[SDW2001]

That's 'cause you don't "support the troops."

I don't think that one fits.

[SDW2001]

http://www.dannemann.org.uk/images/morans.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice. Git er dun!

[addabox]

Death Tax. Blame America First. The Silent Majority. Tax and Spend. The Nanny State. The Nut Roots. Fighting Them Over There So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here. Love It Or Leave It. Separate But Equal. Pro Family. The Culture of Permissiveness. Moral Majority. The Gay Agenda. Special Rights. Fair and Balanced.

But those perfidious Dems came up with "affordable housing" and "affordable healthcare", which are clearly euphemisms for sending armed thugs to take your home and Soviet style "medicine".

Also, "justice" means "kill whitey", "the rule of law" means "kill whitey and take all his stuff" and "our system of government" means "hos up, pimps down".

Yo, Nick, you done gone bat shit crazy.

[BRussell]

I don't quite get what the Kelo decision has to do with Democrats or with bumper-sticker rhetoric. The Constitution expressly provides for the government's power to take property. If you don't like it (and no one does if it's their property), then take it up with the Constitution.

[hardeeharhar]

Clear Skies. Healthy Forests. No Child Left Behind.

So really... no.

[Northgate]

I don't quite get what the Kelo decision has to do with Democrats or with bumper-sticker rhetoric. The Constitution expressly provides for the government's power to take property. If you don't like it (and no one does if it's their property), then take it up with the Constitution.

What? Republicans aren't dangerous sloaganeers. Not about important and dangerous stuff.

I mean they just got their Troop Supplemental Spending Bill passed by using "Surrender Date" slogans. But we shouldn't hold that against them, right?

[addabox]

I don't quite get what the Kelo decision has to do with Democrats or with bumper-sticker rhetoric. The Constitution expressly provides for the government's power to take property. If you don't like it (and no one does if it's their property), then take it up with the Constitution.

Apparently there is some great irony at the intersection of declaring "affordable housing" to be a (duplicitous, cynical, manipulative) slogan of the left and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that government entities can seize property for private redevelopment.

Your guess is as good as mine. Because, let's see here, liberals are all gummit loving and shit, so that when the very people who enabled having your home seized by stormtroopers by, uh, controlling the packed-with-right-wing-ideologues Supreme Court go on to put bumper stickers on their car that say "affordable housing" (or possibly "Affordable Housing!") it is a bitter something something something because who can "afford" to, um, get reamed by.... uh..... see, because what they really want is to....... oh, fuck it.

[Northgate]

Apparently there is some great irony at the intersection of declaring "affordable housing" to be a (duplicitous, cynical, manipulative) slogan of the left and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that government entities can seize property for private redevelopment.

Your guess is as good as mine. Because, let's see here, liberals are all gummit loving and shit, so that when the very people who enabled having your home seized by stormtroopers by, uh, controlling the packed-with-right-wing-ideologues Supreme Court go on to put bumper stickers on their car that say "affordable housing" (or possibly "Affordable Housing!") it is a bitter something something something because who can "afford" to, um, get reamed by.... uh..... see, because what they really want is to....... oh, fuck it.

Dirty fucking liberal hippy!

;)

Must suck being right about the war and Bush and all that and still being dismissed as an Al Qaeda Operative™*

*McCain '08

[addabox]

So anyway, three Nick threads in rapid succession: dirty hippies, Chavez is a commie bastard, and dirty commie bastard hippies take your house while having bumper stickers.

I'm dying to hear the back-story.

[@_@ Artman]

Cindy Sheehan: Why I Am Leaving the Democratic Party (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17784.htm)

Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: "Now, I think the president's policy will begin to unravel." Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political "courage" to hold them accountable. If Iraq hasn't unraveled in Ms. Pelosi's mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.

Amazed Trumpman you weren't gnawing on this...but guess what...I agree with her.

I've stopped voting for parties a long time ago. I vote for people. I don't care what party they represent if they're honest and share my views. Both parties are the same in policies. There's very little difference between them since they're both controlled by the same PACs and lobby groups that get the money from corrupt corporations.

People, stop being led like sheep. Don't vote blindly for parties. Vote for people that can make a change.

edit: Oh yeah, as you can see, she pulls out every liberal talking point and rhetorical statement in the book...oh well...

[Outsider]

So anyway, three Nick threads in rapid succession: dirty hippies, Chavez is a commie bastard, and dirty commie bastard hippies take your house while having bumper stickers.

I'm dying to hear the back-story.

Remember the good old days when it was all about women she-devils and oppressed white males?

[addabox]

Remember the good old days when it was all about women she-devils and oppressed white males?

I know! That's what's got me wondering. Presumably the heavy hand of socialist repression is involved, possibly via the agency of a hippy? Or a sufficiently hippy-esque functionary of some sort? We deserve to know more.

[franksargent]

Apparently there is some great irony at the intersection of declaring "affordable housing" to be a (duplicitous, cynical, manipulative) slogan of the left and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that government entities can seize property for private redevelopment.

Your guess is as good as mine. Because, let's see here, liberals are all gummit loving and shit, so that when the very people who enabled having your home seized by stormtroopers by, uh, controlling the packed-with-right-wing-ideologues Supreme Court go on to put bumper stickers on their car that say "affordable housing" (or possibly "Affordable Housing!") it is a bitter something something something because who can "afford" to, um, get reamed by.... uh..... see, because what they really want is to....... oh, fuck it.

I think that would be a more fitting trumpster title! :p

Except that trumpity would have spelled Goobermint correctly! :D

As to the Thomas Sowell op-ed screed about the nearly two year old SCOTUS decision;

But it was a liberal court decision, not the words of conservatives, which created that understanding.

Time for Rip Van Winkle to WAKE UP! :rolleyes:

As to the SCOTUS 5-4 "liberal court" decision;

The U.S. Supreme Court has largely given the public use requirement an expansive interpretation and has allowed takings of private property for reconveyance to other private parties, or in some cases by private parties directly, on the theory that the new owners will put the taken land to more lucrative uses that are likely to generate more tax revenues.

As of January 2007, 34 states had enacted some kind of legislation reforming eminent domain laws, while 13 had failed to enact any legislation regarding eminent domain (three state legislatures did not hold sessions in 2006). Seventeen of those thiry-four states either prohibited the use of eminent domain for private development purposes or substantially strengthened their definitions of blight, while the other seventeen increased eminent domain protections.

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the Federal Government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

Takings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takings)

As to the libertarian academic scholar Richard Epstein's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Epstein) 1985 book correctly titled;

Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain

it isn't EXACTLY rhetoric that we expect from scholarly works! :lol:

Now if it came from the works of the Witch with Tits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter) that would be different.

http://www.newmediamusings.com/blog/images/coulter.gif

[Hassan i Sabbah]

If I were a cruel man, and I am, I would bump this thread to point out that Nick started it, got rolled over, caned, tarred, feathered and otherwise pwned and then disappeared utterly with nothing but the indignity of being palpalbly unable to defend his single post.

Pip pip!

[trumptman]

No way. Conservatives have always been better at this and have always taken it more seriously. One of the best examples is Newt Gingrich's list of approved words (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm) for Republicans to use. Or all the Frank-Luntz (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401302599/sr=8-1/qid=1152914348/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8735230-7072648?ie=UTF8) focus-group-tested words that Republicans are supposed to use, like death tax and pro-life and partial-birth abortion and Democrat party.

As opposed to pro-choice, white boy party, and anti-science?

"Cut and run" and "mission accomplished" come to mind. Those'd make swell bumper stickers.

Where are you trying to go with this? Which party makes the stupidest word games? Which ones are the most deceptive? Or, just ignore the conservatives' word games, and pretend like the libs have a monopoly on it? Or is this delayed (or recurring) anger towards the eminent domain case?

Can you think of any conservative word games that put an end to private property?

Stay The Course!

Quagmire

Defeatocrats! My favorite. Ken Mehlman personally gave us that one.

WHEN CLINTON LIED, NO ONE DIED!

FLIP-FLOPPER! A Gillespie favorite. Shit, that one's quickly coming around to bite them on the ass, isn't it?

Again, they only flip-flopped because BUSH LIED!

I wonder if Mr. Sowell is pro-life or not.

Naw, he is probably anti-choice.

Death Tax. Blame America First. The Silent Majority. Tax and Spend. The Nanny State. The Nut Roots. Fighting Them Over There So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here. Love It Or Leave It. Separate But Equal. Pro Family. The Culture of Permissiveness. Moral Majority. The Gay Agenda. Special Rights. Fair and Balanced.

But those perfidious Dems came up with "affordable housing" and "affordable healthcare", which are clearly euphemisms for sending armed thugs to take your home and Soviet style "medicine".

Also, "justice" means "kill whitey", "the rule of law" means "kill whitey and take all his stuff" and "our system of government" means "hos up, pimps down".

Yo, Nick, you done gone bat shit crazy.

Estate tax, multiculturalism, minority rights, borrow and spend, multilateral corporations or it takes a villlage, neocons, creating more terrorists than we kill, It's Not That I Hate BUSH - It's That I Love AMERICA, Affirmative Action, keep government out of my pants, tyranny of the majority, the religious right, comparable jobs and rights, CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/NY Times, etc.

What those Dems do is attempt to shut off debate by making it impossible or pretty much evil to be against a position. Is anyone for the planet having a fever? If your baby has a fever...:lol:

Justice doesn't just mean kill whitey. Sometimes it just means fire whitey (Imus) or indict whitey. (Duke lacrosse team)

And yes, I am bat shit crazy. Absolutely.:lol:

So anyway, three Nick threads in rapid succession: dirty hippies, Chavez is a commie bastard, and dirty commie bastard hippies take your house while having bumper stickers.

I'm dying to hear the back-story.

You'll have to watch Springer tomorrow to find out.

If I were a cruel man, and I am, I would bump this thread to point out that Nick started it, got rolled over, caned, tarred, feathered and otherwise pwned and then disappeared utterly with nothing but the indignity of being palpalbly unable to defend his single post.

Pip pip!

Dude, I may have no life, but I do still sleep, eat and bathe on occasion.

What do you think I'm English or something? Geesh!:D

Nick

[Flounder]

Well, you seemed to have proven everyone's point, that both parties have an almost inexhaustible list of slogans.

So the point of starting the thread was.............?

[trumptman]

Look at the title. Their bumper stickers are better AND they take your home.

Is the title really that unclear?

Nick

[thuh Freak]

Look at the title. Their bumper stickers are better AND they take your home.

Is the title really that unclear?

Nick

It is. You judge the dems as being better at word games. Numerous people have pointed out that both sides play the games. Its verbal or literary strategy, independent of party; concise ideas. Often the phrases will promote the speakers cause while diminishing or ignoring the opposition. Republican word games have done plenty of bad; its pointless to sum up the effects of each party's games.

I agree with you to a degree on the eminent domain business; or as you like to word it, the "end to private property." Its fucking retarded and isn't very logical to me. But at the time, that decision is giving the company I work for hundreds of millions of dollars and paying my check (i work in r/e).

[sammi jo]

FREEDOM FRIES!

Yes, it does.

Soon to be freedom's fried?

[spindler]

The Republicans entire strategy for Iraq is throwing out loaded slogans since they have no plan other than to let out troops keep getting slaughtered.

When the war was going nowhere originally it was "support the president", "support the troops", "stop playing political games", etc. As it was obvious to all there is no hope of achieving anything without a MASSIVE increase in troops it was "cut and run", "victory", etc.

If the Republicans really cared about achieving any kind of goals in Iraq, they would have been calling for a draft of 2 million Americans since 2004, when it was obvious we were in a losing situations. Instead it had been slogans all the way.

BTW, how is "estate tax" a slogan? It clearly says the word "tax" in there?

[addabox]

As opposed to pro-choice, white boy party, and anti-science?/

"Pro-choice" is a genuine formulation of the type we are speaking of. "White boy party" sounds like something you just made up, and at any rate isn't any kind of a catch phrase. "Anti-science" is a descriptive adjectival term and is no more a catch phrase than "anti-religious" or "anti-violence".

Can you think of any conservative word games that put an end to private property?

Which "liberal word games" are putting an end to private property, again? And what do "liberal word games" have to do with the Supreme Court's decision, anyway?

Quagmire

"Quagmire" is a word in the english language that has a specific meaning. It seems to be a pretty good match for what's happening in Iraq. Just because someone describes something in a way you don't like doesn't make it dissembling sloganeering.

WHEN CLINTON LIED, NO ONE DIED!

Yes, this is actually a slogan.

Again, they only flip-flopped because BUSH LIED!

However, I don't think you are clear on the concept. "Bush lied" is a statement of fact. It's like "Clinton got blown by Monica Lewinsky"-- unflattering but hardly some Jedi mind trick.

Estate tax,

Is the freaking name of the tax.

multiculturalism,

Jesus. You really don't get how this works, do you? Do you see us listing "conservative fiscal policy" or "cutting taxes" as right wing catch phrases?

minority rights,

OK, let me explain this again: we're talking about pithy little phrases that are designed to flatten the debate into mottoes that (generally) do real violence to the range of possibilities. Hence, "cut and run" makes anything other than staying in Iraq forever into cowardice, "flip flopper" makes changing one's stance in response to changing conditions some combination of spinelessness and impotence, "blame America first" makes disagreeing with foreign policy some kind of petty, unpatriotic reflex, etc. Each of those phrases were worked out by PR types and designed to carry negative connotations.

"Minority rights" is simply a phenomena you don't like. There is nothing hidden in that phrase, it simply describes something. "Special rights", on the other hand, seeks to distort the idea of extending civil right to homosexuals into some kind of power grab, as if not getting evicted for being a fag is some kind of extra special treat. See the difference?

borrow and spend,

Sort of, but it's a pretty obvious response to years of "tax and spend" followed by a spending orgy and specifically addresses that hypocrisy.

multilateral corporations

You must be desperate to pad this list.

or it takes a villlage,

The name of Hillary's book and not really something that you hear flung about much, and definitely doesn't really work as trick to shut down discourse.

neocons

Their name for themselves.....

creating more terrorists than we kill,

That would be an observation. How about "lower taxes don't grow the economy"? Do we get to use "liberal entitlement programs don't work"? Why is it every time it's time to play "Democrats are just like Republicans but worse" we get these bizzaro lists that seem to be deeply unclear on the whole concept of equivalency? Is it possible that wingers are that tone-deaf, or is it just some sort of reflexive busy-work?

It's Not That I Hate BUSH - It's That I Love AMERICA,

Where the fuck are you even hearing these things? Is any off hand remark by any "liberal" in earshot a slogan now?

Affirmative Action,

Name of the underlying legal concept...

keep government out of my pants,

What?

tyranny of the majority,

Quote from John Stewart Mills...

the religious right,

Oh, fuck, fine, and we'll take "the secular left". And then you can have "I think CEOs are greedy" and we can have "hippies make me sick". And then we'll have blurred the idea to the point of unintelligibility, just like every other time the "It's all symmetrical, I just know it is" gets played.

comparable jobs and rights,

I'm imagining you writing that and thinking "heh, totally lame, what do I care, it makes the list longer and I'm just sort of going for a graphic here."

CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS/NY Times, etc.

Aha! The liberal media! Are just like "flip flopper" and "cut and run" and "compassionate conservative" and "Defeatocrat" and "Moral Majority" and "blame America first" and "special rights" and, and.... Oh God! The stupid! It burns!!!

What those Dems do is attempt to shut off debate by making it impossible or pretty much evil to be against a position.

Yes. With such shrewd, manipulative language as "the estate tax", "multilateral corporations", "neocons", "minority rights", "affirmative action" and "comparable jobs and rights".

What an impenetrable thicket of misdirection.

Is anyone for the planet having a fever? If your baby has a fever...:lol:

Yep, the more honest phrase is "the planet is getting warmer in an entirely non-critical fashion that you need not be alarmed about".

The use of metaphor is NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

Justice doesn't just mean kill whitey. Sometimes it just means fire whitey (Imus) or indict whitey. (Duke lacrosse team)

And yes, whitely certainly has been taking it on the chin. Negroes have all the money now, I've heard.

[midwinter]

Dear god.

[thuh Freak]

Dear god.

You rang?

[trumptman]

It is. You judge the dems as being better at word games. Numerous people have pointed out that both sides play the games. Its verbal or literary strategy, independent of party; concise ideas. Often the phrases will promote the speakers cause while diminishing or ignoring the opposition. Republican word games have done plenty of bad; its pointless to sum up the effects of each party's games.

I don't think it pointless and I'll tell you why. I have no doubt that both sides use phrases to crystallize thinking around certain concepts, talking points, what have you. The very big difference here is that Democratic slogans often involve vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate. It becomes impossible to argue against.

We can argue about whether domestic violence or wife beater are more loaded terms emotionally. We can discuss which is more likely to sway public opinion with regard to legislation. There is a big difference between that and saying, if you don't agree with me, you are a wife beater and thus should be discredited from even having a say.

I agree with you to a degree on the eminent domain business; or as you like to word it, the "end to private property." Its fucking retarded and isn't very logical to me. But at the time, that decision is giving the company I work for hundreds of millions of dollars and paying my check (i work in r/e).

Does this make you a sell out? The whole point of the decision is to take land with one tax basis and give it to someone else who will generate more taxes. Kelo is terrible because we only have private property if the government thinks we pay enough taxes on it.

*******************

Oh and Adda, what you fail to realize is the pithy little phrases you claim are nothing more than mere words, do in fact do severe damage to the range of possibilities. You cannot stand against affirmative action without being called a racist. The phrase was dreamed up once upon a time to give a positive face to racial preferences which is what it really happens to be. You like those pithy little phrases though while railing against "cut and run" for example. You should recognize your own bias here.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

oh yes. learning words makes people unable to think of alternatives. that's why we should all be illiterate.

[thuh Freak]

I don't think it pointless and I'll tell you why. I have no doubt that both sides use phrases to crystallize thinking around certain concepts, talking points, what have you. The very big difference here is that Democratic slogans often involve vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate. It becomes impossible to argue against.

Well, I disagree with you on the exclusivity. Reps slogans can shut off debate too. "Flip flopper" I think is a good counter point. That slogan was used in opposition to John Kerry's presidential run, and relates to his voting record. A career in congress involves thousands of bills, many are simply not worded well or contain attachments and riders which outweigh the other good the bill addresses. JK voted in favor of many of the things he voted against, and so has a large number of congressmen; and so will nearly all congressmen. Nearly every republican voted against funding the troops, when there was a rider requiring a time line. Does this mean they opposed the troops or the war effort? No, they disagree with one detail. The "flip flopper" meme cuts off this kind of logic though. It basically means if you change your vote based on the latest text of the bill, and you are weak or unfocused. Even the heart of the matter --changing your position-- is a horrible one to attack. Conviction is a good and noble trait; being uncompromising and not addressing the details are not good traits. "Flip flopper" doesn't allow this kind of debate. Who wants a president who's a moving target? Who's always changing his position?


Does this make you a sell out? The whole point of the decision is to take land with one tax basis and give it to someone else who will generate more taxes. Kelo is terrible because we only have private property if the government thinks we pay enough taxes on it.
Yeah, I've accepted being a sell-out. I do lots of things I wouldn't otherwise, because I get paid. Because it pays pretty well. But I am looking for other employment. I agree with you very much on this issue, in principle. I wish I didn't, so I could continue working in good conscience.

[addabox]

I don't think it pointless and I'll tell you why. I have no doubt that both sides use phrases to crystallize thinking around certain concepts, talking points, what have you. The very big difference here is that Democratic slogans often involve vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate. It becomes impossible to argue against.

Honestly, I don't feel like listing them all again, but try going back through the thread and looking at the cited examples of right-wing sloganeering vs. what you have cited for the left.

Notice that nearly all the right wing items actually are examples of characterizing the opposition with a cute, memorable little phrase very clearly designed to push emotional buttons and cut off reason-- tax and spend, cut and run, flip-flopper, etc.--while most of what you imagine to be "vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate" seems to involve names for things you don't like that don't do a good enough job of declaring their evil up front. Like, "affirmative action" apparently vilifies its opponents by failing to be known as "fantastically unjust racial set-asides."

Notice how profoundly dishonest you are, how driven to make fatuous arguments by ideological animosity. Now hang your head in shame.

We can argue about whether domestic violence or wife beater are more loaded terms emotionally. We can discuss which is more likely to sway public opinion with regard to legislation. There is a big difference between that and saying, if you don't agree with me, you are a wife beater and thus should be discredited from even having a say

I think this must be the freakiest, most disturbing example of what you want to convey that you could possibly have come up with. Are you saying that liberals coined "wife beater" to drive their anti-male agenda? Because it makes it so hard to have a reasonable conversation about the pros and cons of wife beating?

And who the fuck is saying "if you don't agree with me you are a wife beater"? Have you entered some kind of resentment fugue state, and posting in a trance?

Oh and Adda, what you fail to realize is the pithy little phrases you claim are nothing more than mere words, do in fact do severe damage to the range of possibilities. You cannot stand against affirmative action without being called a racist. The phrase was dreamed up once upon a time to give a positive face to racial preferences which is what it really happens to be. You like those pithy little phrases though while railing against "cut and run" for example. You should recognize your own bias here.

Nick

See above, and when I wrote that I had forgotten that you are actually putting up "affirmative action" as a direct equivalent of "cut and run".

I'll just (gently, as I back away very slowly) point out that there is nothing in the term "affirmative action" that makes of its opponents racists and that that connotation has been an artifact of how enforcement has played out, on the ground. I'll also note the peculiar inversion that equates a term of open, mocking contempt with a term that you claim cannot be opposed without being exposed to open, mocking attempt.

And by "peculiar inversion" I of course mean "hideous bullshit that wouldn't persuade a four year old."

[midwinter]

I can't believe we're having this discussion, so I'll ask a simple question:

Says who? Sowell? Is there any evidence for this, or is it simply more rhetoric? Note this:


It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents.


"Has long been recognized" by whom?


The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.


Is he talking about "the political left" (a myth in America) or is he talking about "their opponents"? Vague pronoun reference there, Thomas. FOR SHAME!

Then this:

Are you for or against "social justice"? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice?

What about "a living wage"? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?

Then there is "affordable housing" and "affordable health care." Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick?

"social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice)" is an exclusively lefty term? "living wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)" is? "Affordable housing" is a lefty term? I'll grant that it's vague and a bit loaded, since its utility hinges on how we define "affordable." "Affordable health care" is the same.


Conservatives, on the other hand, have a gift for phrasing things in terms that are unlikely to arouse most people's interest, much less their support.


Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Adda listed most of them. Pro-life. Death tax. No Child Left Behind. And on and on. But Sowell's point here seems to little more than whining about how much the Republicans suck at, um, words. And stuff.


Do words like "property rights," "the market" or "judicial restraint" make your emotions surge and your heart beat faster?

Property rights as in "the right to property"? Sure. And it's not "the market," Thomas, and you know it. It's the free market. And it's hardly "judicial restraint." It's activist judges. And it's also "originalist" interpretations of the constitution (original to whom? To when?). It's the "original intent" of the founders (nevermind that we cannot ever know that). It's "strict constructionist." (I have never understood what this means).

So anyway. Unless there's been some sort of statistical analysis of the number "loaded" terms used by both Right and Left, and unless there's some definition of what a "loaded" term is, Sowell is full of shit.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010710_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004091619_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004032104_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010741_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010731_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010740_Display-25.gif

[addabox]

............So anyway. Unless there's been some sort of statistical analysis of the number "loaded" terms used by both Right and Left, and unless there's some definition of what a "loaded" term is, Sowell is full of shit.

But it's a very cagey type of shit, one that seeks to make "loaded terms" out of some very basic statements of what in fact are broadly agreed upon goals.

So if "affordable housing" is seen to be a nefarious term of liberal scheming, how, exactly, do we talk about the cost of housing vs. income? If "living wage" is a trojan horse for, I don't know, "income redistribution", does that mean the concept of a "living wage" (after all, what else would you call it?) should be driven from the public sphere?

That, I would guess, is largely the point.

There is some irony in the fact that Nick is arguing his case with a fistful of terms right out of the Gingrich "talk like this" playbook of the nineties, which, far from being a vague impression of the state of the discourse, is an honest-to-God "we will control them with our words" mission statement.

[SDW2001]

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010710_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004091619_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004032104_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010741_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010731_Display-25.gif

http://www.bumperart.com/ProductImages/2004010740_Display-25.gif

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[addabox]

Speaking of "slogans that often involve vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate" (honestly, after the relentless campaign to make opposition to the war the last step before signing up with al Qaeda, I'm amazed that anyone can say this with a straight face), I came across this (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage) op-ed by none other than Peggy Noonan over at WSJ:

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

I guess this is part of the "Now that everybody hates the guy we can reveal that he isn't really one of us" strategy for the 08 election. Funny that the vitriol was never a problem as long as it was used to paint "moveon.org liberals" as hysterical terror enablers.

[@_@ Artman]

Speaking of "slogans that often involve vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate" (honestly, after the relentless campaign to make opposition to the war the last step before signing up with al Qaeda, I'm amazed that anyone can say this with a straight face), I came across this (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010148&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage) op-ed by none other than Peggy Noonan over at WSJ:

...

I guess this is part of the "Now that everybody hates the guy we can reveal that he isn't really one of us" strategy for the 08 election. Funny that the vitriol was never a problem as long as it was used to paint "moveon.org liberals" as hysterical terror enablers.

This WSJ Op-Ed chilled me to the bone...

The Case for Bombing Iran I hope and pray that President Bush will do it. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139)

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
...
As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

I have a question...What if this administration could use nukes somewhere before they leave office? I wouldn't tie it to a timeline, but to an event. Tactical nukes count too.

Because when/if we do attack Iran, we won't have the military forces to execute it successfully. So, either we drop the bomb, or re-instate the draft. My assertion is that dropping nukes on foreign countries is more palatable domestically than re-instating the draft.

A long read and only a commentary. But it irks me that any editor would let this by. Unless it is their take on things too. Or sales, or letters...whatever.

Mr. Podhoretz is editor-at-large of Commentary. His new book, "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism," will be released by Doubleday on Sept. 11. This essay, in somewhat different form, was delivered as an address at a conference, "Is It 1938 Again?," held by the Center for Jewish Studies at Queens College, City University of New York, in April.

Also, Rupert Murdoch still has a bid on the table for the Wall Street Journal...:\

[addabox]

It's an important principle of modern American journamalism: the wronger you are about everything the more your voice should be heard. That is because constantly advocating for war makes you a Serious Person and even your delusions are important. "Tough talk" is serious talk.

Really. Take a look around at the predictable disaster of Iraq. Look at the pronouncements of its architects, and count the ways that they were consistently, aggressively, giddily wrong, about the reasons to invade Iraq, about how it would play out, about the progress of the occupation, about the larger geo-political results.

Then look at who was right, and how prescient they were, how accurate in their portrayal of the costs and consequences of our little foreign adventure.

Now note which group gets the lion's share of column inches and airtime, to continue to expound on the same demonstrably bankrupt ideas about how the world works.

Fucking liberal media.

[Northgate]

It's an important principle of modern American journamalism: the wronger you are about everything the more your voice should be heard. That is because constantly advocating for war makes you a Serious Person and even your delusions are important. "Tough talk" is serious talk.

Really. Take a look around at the predictable disaster of Iraq. Look at the pronouncements of its architects, and count the ways that they were consistently, aggressively, giddily wrong, about the reasons to invade Iraq, about how it would play out, about the progress of the occupation, about the larger geo-political results.

Then look at who was right, and how prescient they were, how accurate in their portrayal of the costs and consequences of our little foreign adventure.

Now note which group gets the lion's share of column inches and airtime, to continue to expound on the same demonstrably bankrupt ideas about how the world works.

Fucking liberal media.

So true. So true.

Hey, did you know? Tim Russert is a liberal? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[addabox]

So true. So true.

Hey, did you know? Tim Russert is a liberal? :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's kinda spooky, isn't it? That's what the liberal media haters truly believe.

The infotainment news talk industry seems to be coming to be dominated by vapid men with a daddy complex, who long for tough talking authoritarians to make sense of the world for them.

Chris Matthews is absolutely horrifying on this count. I just marvel that anyone thinks it's a good idea to pay that bundle of twitchy reflexive enthusiasms and animosities lots of money to talk about the news, for God's sake.

Truly, this isn't really left or right (except as a by product), it's pathological. However, it inevitably means that the Rudy Giulianis and Fred Thompsons will have reliable sycophants on the airwaves while pussies like Edwards (and worse, ugh, girls like Senator Clinton) will get a chill shoulder.

I imagine these guys in high school, staring longingly into the boys locker room after football practice, wishing that they, too, could be part of the towel snapping macho real man elite, then sighing heavily and going back to journalism class, full of loathing for the nerds and academics their own abilities forced them to interact with.

Years later, when that über nerd Al Gore stepped onto the national stage, they were ready.....

[@_@ Artman]

Truly, this isn't really left or right (except as a by product), it's pathological. However, it inevitably means that the Rudy Giulianis and Fred Thompsons will have reliable sycophants on the airwaves while pussies like Edwards (and worse, ugh, girls like Senator Clinton) will get a chill shoulder.

The people that pay the media run our elections, I guess. I think this means that we don't actually live in a democracy.

We need a new term for a republic in which the democratic representation is limited to the candidates chosen by those with money, so that we can reject this type of system with the magnanimity that comes with the rejection of a single word.

[midwinter]

The people that pay the media run our elections, I guess. I think this means that we don't actually live in a democracy.

We need a new term for a republic in which the democratic representation is limited to the candidates chosen by those with money, so that we can reject this type of system with the magnanimity that comes with the rejection of a single word.

I believe it's called an oligarchy.

And "magnanimity" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[@_@ Artman]

I believe it's called an oligarchy.

And "magnanimity" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

LOL. I typed it, Firefox gave it a correct spelling but I hadn't conceded to whether it was the right meaning to what I wanted to say (which I forget now). Thanks for calling that. It's Friday, I need a break from all this...:smokey:

[trumptman]

Honestly, I don't feel like listing them all again, but try going back through the thread and looking at the cited examples of right-wing sloganeering vs. what you have cited for the left.

Notice that nearly all the right wing items actually are examples of characterizing the opposition with a cute, memorable little phrase very clearly designed to push emotional buttons and cut off reason-- tax and spend, cut and run, flip-flopper, etc.--while most of what you imagine to be "vilifying the person or their position to the point where it can no longer be included in the debate" seems to involve names for things you don't like that don't do a good enough job of declaring their evil up front. Like, "affirmative action" apparently vilifies its opponents by failing to be known as "fantastically unjust racial set-asides."

Perhaps you don't understand the contention. The fact that you can see the lower quality of the Republicans examples yourself is proof of why the leftist ones are better.

Here is the latest and greatest example, Al Gore lets us know that if you don't agree with him, then you are engaging in "An Assault on Reason." (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7812527.html)

You are right. It is not a perfect bit of sloganeering. It is not the perfect pithy phrase. You can't see the forest for the trees. Republicans do come up with "flip-flopper" but damn, Democrats just up and grab "reason."

Who wants to be unreasonable or lacking in reasoning? If not, then you better agree with Al Gore?

Again, you seem to prove my point for me. Lefties actually grab entire concepts and give them political intention. Against affirmative action, you hate all non-white races. Against "affordable housing" you want to push Grandma off a cliff. Against "reason" well you want the planet to die.

I think this must be the freakiest, most disturbing example of what you want to convey that you could possibly have come up with. Are you saying that liberals coined "wife beater" to drive their anti-male agenda? Because it makes it so hard to have a reasonable conversation about the pros and cons of wife beating?

And who the fuck is saying "if you don't agree with me you are a wife beater"? Have you entered some kind of resentment fugue state, and posting in a trance?

I request at least one complete thought before I respond. Thanks. I noted that some words have a stronger emotional response. Democrats grab those words, but also assign themselves as the arbiter of entire concepts and ideas. No one gives it to them, they just grab it and declare it true. Sure they filibustered the civil rights act in the 60's. Sure they actually ran segregationist candidates through their entire history and even lead the states to secede to create the civil war. It doesn't matter though because Democrats are the arbiters of race relations. If you don't agree with them, then you are racist.

Now thanks to Al Gore, they are the arbiters of "reason." If you don't agree with them, then you lack reason and thus should be ignored. Sure Republicans occasionally managed to think up some cool phrases that puncture the fantasy of say, the left side of the political spectrum being the only people on the planet who can utilize reasoning.

I mean you have a candidate like Hillary that is for the war, then against the war, then for and against the war. We aren't just talking certain votes on obscure bills, but loads of statements that clearly indicate her views. Occasionally Republicans will find a way to crystallize her actions to the electorate but considering they are starting off lacking "compassion" "reason" etc. they do pretty well.

I can't believe we're having this discussion, so I'll ask a simple question:

Says who? Sowell? Is there any evidence for this, or is it simply more rhetoric? Note this:

"Has long been recognized" by whom?

Is he talking about "the political left" (a myth in America) or is he talking about "their opponents"? Vague pronoun reference there, Thomas. FOR SHAME!


I think Sowell is using as evidence, simply who wins. Republicans have had the last 12 years, but Democrats had what the previous 40 before that and have now regained the leadership. A 20% win rate is pretty objectively sucky.

"social justice" is an exclusively lefty term? "living wage" is? "Affordable housing" is a lefty term? I'll grant that it's vague and a bit loaded, since its utility hinges on how we define "affordable." "Affordable health care" is the same.

If you mean by "we" the political left, then sure. Sowell's contention is that the right is never allowed to define these things. The left manages to craft a type of "or" reasoning where disagreement of any aspect amounts to being completely against it. So if they want a 10% increase in funding and you favor a 3% increase, you are "against affordable housing."

We can argue whether that is true or even effective, but the election results over the past half century shows it works. Republicans have indeed adopted some of the tactics but they still don't do them as well. Republicans do conjure death tax but then Democrats go and grab the very concept of "reasoning." Now if you don't agree with them, you lack the capacity to reason. You probably are "anti-science." You probably have a chimp for your party leader, etc.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Adda listed most of them. Pro-life. Death tax. No Child Left Behind. And on and on. But Sowell's point here seems to little more than whining about how much the Republicans suck at, um, words. And stuff.

Sorry, but the left really has a gift for this because they are not bound to reality. Take immigration (you and I mentioned this the other night very briefly) and the language around this. Illegal immigration as a phrase might arouse some emotion. However someone was smart enough to conjure up the phrase "undocumented" and apply it to this circumstance. How is someone who breaks the law of the country with regard to immigration merely undocumented? They aren't and that is why it is so brilliant. How is it that people will die and housing will be unaffordable if we do not meet the terms of the Democrats, it won't and that is why it is so brilliant to use the phrase. Republicans can craft the terms. They are getting smarter about it. That one mentioned here, surrender date, that is brilliant politics. I'd say that in defense Republicans have managed to outdo Democrats with regard to rhetoric. Almost all the examples cited here relate to that topic. However on every domestic matter, and everything outside of defense, the Democrats are the linguistic masters.

Property rights as in "the right to property"? Sure. And it's not "the market," Thomas, and you know it. It's the free market. And it's hardly "judicial restraint." It's activist judges. And it's also "originalist" interpretations of the constitution (original to whom? To when?). It's the "original intent" of the founders (nevermind that we cannot ever know that). It's "strict constructionist." (I have never understood what this means).

So anyway. Unless there's been some sort of statistical analysis of the number "loaded" terms used by both Right and Left, and unless there's some definition of what a "loaded" term is, Sowell is full of shit.

I don't see why you or others seem to harp on the fact that the right does this as well. The title says better bumper stickers, not exclusive bumper stickers or anything like that.

I mean we could both argue about whether a judge is activist or shows restraint. However since you have reason and I am thus, irrational, who wins by default?:lol: :lol:

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

'undocumented workers'

um... The reason why the term 'undocumented workers' applies is because they are here illegally BECAUSE they lack documentation. It is an apt description...

as addabox points out this is true of most of your examples. you really do fail.

[trumptman]

'undocumented workers'

um... The reason why the term 'undocumented workers' applies is because they are here illegally BECAUSE they lack documentation. It is an apt description...

as addabox points out this is true of most of your examples. you really do fail.

I like your blinders.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

I like your blinders.

Nick
as i yours.

[screener]

I like your blinders.

Nick

You should try to come up with a better bumper sticker.

[thuh Freak]

I'd say that in defense Republicans have managed to outdo Democrats with regard to rhetoric. Almost all the examples cited here relate to that topic. However on every domestic matter, and everything outside of defense, the Democrats are the linguistic masters.
Oh, were that it were so. Clearly the double speak race is excessive, overly competitive and subverts honest debate. What do you propose? I'd say, we need a bloody and violent revolution; remind them who they work for. Or at least get something codified and enforceable against these bumper sticker, sound bite politics.

[addabox]

Oh, were that it were so. Clearly the double speak race is excessive, overly competitive and subverts honest debate. What do you propose? I'd say, we need a bloody and violent revolution; remind them who they work for. Or at least get something codified and enforceable against these bumper sticker, sound bite politics.

Trouble being that anyone who tries to do "nuance" is immediately attacked for being insufficiently blunt and straightforward and pithy.

We live in Gary Cooper land, where "kill em all" is hailed as "refreshingly honest" while "see, it's complicated and requires careful thought" means you're a total egg-head pussy that would get us killed while you dither about "ramifications."

See also, Al Gore, John Kerry, et al.

That's actually the reason that the right gets more mileage with terse sloganeering: the authoritarian mind-set is comfortable with blunt, reductive statements of aggressive certainty--
"right and wrong", "good and evil", "strong and weak", "with us or against us", "dead or alive".

[midwinter]

I think Sowell is using as evidence, simply who wins. Republicans have had the last 12 years, but Democrats had what the previous 40 before that and have now regained the leadership. A 20% win rate is pretty objectively sucky.

Let's see...in the 20th century, Democrats have won the presidency 11 times (4 of them FDR, of course). Republicans 16 times.

Sowell used no evidence whatsoever beyond simply saying that Democrats are better at sloganeering than Republicans are.

If you mean by "we" the political left, then sure. Sowell's contention is that the right is never allowed to define these things.

Which is utterly preposterous. Never allowed, huh?

The left manages to craft a type of "or" reasoning where disagreement of any aspect amounts to being completely against it. So if they want a 10% increase in funding and you favor a 3% increase, you are "against affordable housing."

Tough shit. But to claim that the right doesn't do the exact same thing is preposterous.

We can argue whether that is true or even effective, but the election results over the past half century shows it works.

No one is arguing whether it's true except you and Sowell. The rest of us are simply pointing out that it's a stupid claim to make.

Republicans have indeed adopted some of the tactics but they still don't do them as well.

Prove that they "don't do them as well."

Republicans do conjure death tax but then Democrats go and grab the very concept of "reasoning." Now if you don't agree with them, you lack the capacity to reason. You probably are "anti-science." You probably have a chimp for your party leader, etc.

Again, tough shit. Go write a book about treason or something.

Sorry, but the left really has a gift for this because they are not bound to reality.

Oh dear god.

Take immigration (you and I mentioned this the other night very briefly) and the language around this. Illegal immigration as a phrase might arouse some emotion. However someone was smart enough to conjure up the phrase "undocumented" and apply it to this circumstance. How is someone who breaks the law of the country with regard to immigration merely undocumented? They aren't and that is why it is so brilliant.

Who conjured it up? The friggin' zeitgeist? Some sinister cabal of liberals in Massachusetts? Were they the same ones who went and switched it from "illegal alien" to "illegal immigrant," too? THOSE BASTARDS! THEY CHANGED THE WORDS!!!

How is it that people will die and housing will be unaffordable if we do not meet the terms of the Democrats,

Proof?

it won't and that is why it is so brilliant to use the phrase. Republicans can craft the terms. They are getting smarter about it. That one mentioned here, surrender date, that is brilliant politics. I'd say that in defense Republicans have managed to outdo Democrats with regard to rhetoric.

Um. Let me see if I follow you: the democrats are better at the rhetoric unless you say they're not. This is a pointless claim, Nick. It's sort of like complaining that Democrats are prettier and that's why they are totally in control, except they're not and haven't really been lately and besides Republicans are prettier now anyway.

[trumptman]

Let's see...in the 20th century, Democrats have won the presidency 11 times (4 of them FDR, of course). Republicans 16 times.

I conceded that Republicans do war rhetoric better and considering we spent large amounts of time at war, this would make sense in terms of what you can demand of a leader. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, two Gulf Wars and dozens of smaller skirmishes in there as well.

Sowell used no evidence whatsoever beyond simply saying that Democrats are better at sloganeering than Republicans are.

It was a column with space considerations. His books aren't exactly thin and light reading. Perhaps he has one on the way regarding this matter.

Which is utterly preposterous. Never allowed, huh?

Well the real issue that I don't think conservatives have been brave enough to face is that when attempting to insert their views into the public debate, the left dismisses them not as bad ideas, but as simply unworthy of consideration because they come from bad people. We'd love to consider your ideas on poverty, but you are a rich, heartless pig. Likewise we would love your thoughts on civil rights, but they start off automatically wrong because you are a racist, even if you think you aren't we know you are, etc. etc.

Tough shit. But to claim that the right doesn't do the exact same thing is preposterous.

I said they've become very good at it with defense. I don't see anything domestically that is moving rightward.

No one is arguing whether it's true except you and Sowell. The rest of us are simply pointing out that it's a stupid claim to make.

Would that be a popularity logical fallacy? The Republicans love their icons because so few of them do this well. You basically have Reagan and Newt who were able to beat Democrats at their own game. Even Newt got whipped by Clinton though.

Prove that they "don't do them as well."

Most opinion polls on who the public would prefer handle issues point almost exclusively Democratic. Even when Republicans had power, even when they were handling those issues competently, the polls showed Democratic preferences. Why? Better rhetoric.

Again, tough shit. Go write a book about treason or something.

Sorry if I touched a nerve, but you make a good point. If we want what the left does, good rhetoric that creates good politics that just doesn't happen to always connect to reality, we can go enjoy Ann Coulter.

Oh dear god.

Sorry, he can't save you now. Bwahahahahah!:lol:

Who conjured it up? The friggin' zeitgeist? Some sinister cabal of liberals in Massachusetts? Were they the same ones who went and switched it from "illegal alien" to "illegal immigrant," too? THOSE BASTARDS! THEY CHANGED THE WORDS!!!

They do change words. They do have, regardless of what you want to point out on the right occurring as well, their own group of spinmeisters, approved word and talking point creators and so forth. They do create and change the words we use.

Proof?

There is no proof. That is what is so wonderful about the leftist rhetoric. It is entirely disconnected from reality. Thus you can have the same people claim that Saddam has WMD's and that hundreds of thousands of our soldiers will die when they release mustard and other biological weapons at them and thus we ought not go to war. Then turn right around and say that Bush lied and new Saddam was a a paper tiger and that it was all about oil and thus we ought not have gone to war.

We've had a little over 10 years pass since welfare reform was signed in 1996. Let's look at some of the quotes from back then.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/WM126.cfm

"I'm in favor of welfare reform. There are a lot of things we've got to do, but starving kids is not one of them."
-- U.S. Rep Ron Klink, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 14, 1995

"Beating up on our children by passing this ... in an election year is nothing to be proud of."
-- Florida Rep. Corrine Brown, Orlando Sentinel, August 1, 1996

Are you in favor of beating and starving the children Mid?

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

Arkansas GOP head: We need more 'attacks on American soil' so people appreciate Bush (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942)

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Hey with Bush supporters like these, who needs enemies?

- Brought to you by the minds of the GOP... :rolleyes:

[midwinter]

I conceded that Republicans do war rhetoric better and considering we spent large amounts of time at war, this would make sense in terms of what you can demand of a leader. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, two Gulf Wars and dozens of smaller skirmishes in there as well.

That's not the point. The point is that you claimed Democrats were dominant (referring to Congress). I pointed out that they've only occupied the white house 11 times in the 20th century, and four of them were FDR.

It was a column with space considerations. His books aren't exactly thin and light reading. Perhaps he has one on the way regarding this matter.

So he'd have provided plenty of evidence but he didn't have enough space? Bah. I've written newspaper pieces. It ain't that hard.

Well the real issue that I don't think conservatives have been brave enough to face is that when attempting to insert their views into the public debate, the left dismisses them not as bad ideas, but as simply unworthy of consideration because they come from bad people.

I think addabox dealt with that in one of your 11 "Edwards is a hypocrite" threads.

We'd love to consider your ideas on poverty, but you are a rich, heartless pig.

Well, Nick. You are a rich, heartless pig! ;) But look, man. The GOP is completely free to continue to try to convince people that making rich people richer is a totally awesome way of helping the poor help themselves. Or something.

Likewise we would love your thoughts on civil rights, but they start off automatically wrong because you are a racist, even if you think you aren't we know you are, etc. etc.

Yeah. I think they're all pretty much sucktackular at that.

Would that be a popularity logical fallacy? The Republicans love their icons because so few of them do this well. You basically have Reagan and Newt who were able to beat Democrats at their own game. Even Newt got whipped by Clinton though.

I think Republicans love their icons because they want a strong, central leader. The hey-day of the Bush presidency is a case in point. That was a stunning cult of personality.

Most opinion polls on who the public would prefer handle issues point almost exclusively Democratic. Even when Republicans had power, even when they were handling those issues competently, the polls showed Democratic preferences. Why? Better rhetoric.

That completely misses my point. PROVE that it's better rhetoric and not, say, better hair. Better ideas? Better choice of font? Better anything?

Sorry if I touched a nerve, but you make a good point. If we want what the left does, good rhetoric that creates good politics that just doesn't happen to always connect to reality, we can go enjoy Ann Coulter.

Indeed.

Sorry, he can't save you now. Bwahahahahah!:lol:

I nearly applied for a job at a Xian college in TN, and the application asked me to describe my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I thought about saying "He never writes, he never calls...."

They do change words. They do have, regardless of what you want to point out on the right occurring as well, their own group of spinmeisters, approved word and talking point creators and so forth. They do create and change the words we use.

Who? Who are "they"?

There is no proof.

Thank you. End of discussion.

That is what is so wonderful about the leftist rhetoric.

Oh sweet Jesus.

It is entirely disconnected from reality. Thus you can have the same people claim that Saddam has WMD's and that hundreds of thousands of our soldiers will die when they release mustard and other biological weapons at them and thus we ought not go to war. Then turn right around and say that Bush lied and new Saddam was a a paper tiger and that it was all about oil and thus we ought not have gone to war.

Let me see if I follow this: because "the left" sent forth multiple and sometimes mutually exclusive rhetoric, it is evidence that "the left" is entirely disconnected from reality? Remember that thing I said about a strong leader? I'm real sorry to break this to you, Nick, but we on the left sometimes disagree about things. I know that, being a conservative, the idea of dissension within the ranks or confusion about message is unthinkable, but really, seriously, "the left" is a big ol' family. And just like any regular old family, we disagree.

We've had a little over 10 years pass since welfare reform was signed in 1996. Let's look at some of the quotes from back then.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/WM126.cfm





Are you in favor of beating and starving the children Mid?

Nick

You have again missed my point. We can sit here and lob quotations at one another until the cows come home, but until we have some definition of "better rhetoric" such activities are absolutely meaningless.

[trumptman]

That's not the point. The point is that you claimed Democrats were dominant (referring to Congress). I pointed out that they've only occupied the white house 11 times in the 20th century, and four of them were FDR.

It is the point. Bush was likely reelected because he is a war president. Reagan was elected in part as a reaction against Carter's failure in Iran.

So he'd have provided plenty of evidence but he didn't have enough space? Bah. I've written newspaper pieces. It ain't that hard.

Have you read any of Sowell's books? The man isn't known for his brevity. Perhaps this (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780465002054&itm=36) is up the alley with regard to what you desire.

I think addabox dealt with that in one of your 11 "Edwards is a hypocrite" threads.

Come now, I started 11 threads, but only one on Edwards.:lol: I also don't consider Adda's brand of "you're a fucking douche bag" reasoning to be be convincing now have much explanatory power.

The reality is that most attacks against conservative brand them as bad people who's ideas are unworthy of consideration. Al Gore's latest book isn't called "Great Ideas," it is called "The Assault on Reason." Those who disagree with him are unreasonable and hence bad people. They don't have less worthy ideas, or ideas that might work but be less effective. They are simply stupid people.

Well, Nick. You are a rich, heartless pig! But look, man. The GOP is completely free to continue to try to convince people that making rich people richer is a totally awesome way of helping the poor help themselves. Or something.

I think the Democrats need to have Edwards quit proving trickle down works by being willing to spend $400 on a haircut. I mean seriously the Democrats need to stop trying to convince everyone that the world is aligned against, so get up and do something about it... or something as well.

Yeah. I think they're all pretty much sucktackular at that.

Sucktacular has nothing to do with it. It is a means of cutting off debate. The left hated it when the right did it with "You're either with us or with the terrorists" because there were lots of solutions that did not have to be the Bush solution. Meanwhile though they attempt the same trick with pretty much every other issue.

I think Republicans love their icons because they want a strong, central leader. The hey-day of the Bush presidency is a case in point. That was a stunning cult of personality.

I think you've just shown why we have Republican presidents, but still have a Democratic Congress most of the time.

That completely misses my point. PROVE that it's better rhetoric and not, say, better hair. Better ideas? Better choice of font? Better anything?

Better in my view is more persuasive. That point shows the rhetoric was more persuasive because they prefer it over the actual implementation of ideas they prefer.

This is part of why Democrats seem to become so sucktacular (I'm borrowing that thank you) as campaigns progress. We move from the rhetoric, (Who's down with torture?) to the actual implementation and Democrats and those who vote for them realize that this rhetoric often has terrible implementation. That was the Sowell point with Kelo. In that instance a liberal court decision (SC) allowed the taking of property from the poor to give to the rich since the rich would be able to give the government taking it more taxes.

Rhetoric - Tax the rich.

Reality - Take from the poor and give to the rich so they can redevelop it and we can tax the rich.

Why would the poor vote into office, or allow those in office to confirm judges who work so hard against their interests? It is because they have great rhetoric. Tax the rich sounds great.

I nearly applied for a job at a Xian college in TN, and the application asked me to describe my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I thought about saying "He never writes, he never calls...."

I've heard he keeps stepping on your toes.:p

Who? Who are "they"?

Democratic leadership.

Oh sweet Jesus.

Can't you appeal to more than a monotheistic view? I find your religious appeals very intolerant. How about a Good Zeus or something else.

Let me see if I follow this: because "the left" sent forth multiple and sometimes mutually exclusive rhetoric, it is evidence that "the left" is entirely disconnected from reality? Remember that thing I said about a strong leader? I'm real sorry to break this to you, Nick, but we on the left sometimes disagree about things. I know that, being a conservative, the idea of dissension within the ranks or confusion about message is unthinkable, but really, seriously, "the left" is a big ol' family. And just like any regular old family, we disagree.

Well they can disagree on the solutions of course. What they are in total agreement on is Republicans as evil white, anti-intellectual, religious, racist, sexist devils who wish to destroy and oppress the planet.

George Bush hates black people and that is why Katrina response is slow.

George Bush hates black people and that is why he wants to enlist them and send them to Iraq to die for oil.

See disagreement about policy, but agreement on Republicans and how to characterize them. As I noted the trick utilized is that the person is bad enough to exclude from the debate. This the debate can be among themselves internally. All the rhetoric has to do is exclude the opposition externally.

You have again missed my point. We can sit here and lob quotations at one another until the cows come home, but until we have some definition of "better rhetoric" such activities are absolutely meaningless.

I've stated that persuasive power is what makes it best for me. Do you have some criteria that you want to suggest that I can then look for "proof" to meet? Otherwise I'm sort of pissing into the wind and I don't like having stinky shins.

Nick

[addabox]

.........: I also don't consider Adda's brand of "you're a fucking douche bag" reasoning to be be convincing now have much explanatory power.

The reality is that most attacks against conservative brand them as bad people who's ideas are unworthy of consideration........ Nick

You're a wonder Nick, don't ever change.

[trumptman]

You're a wonder Nick, don't ever change.

Thanks for making sure you sig prove my point too. That is an especially fitting touch.

Nick

[addabox]

Thanks for making sure you sig prove my point too. That is an especially fitting touch.

Nick

Of course. Finding "amorphous goose" an amusing phrase makes me a. ......, um, whatever your point was.

[midwinter]

It is the point. Bush was likely reelected because he is a war president. Reagan was elected in part as a reaction against Carter's failure in Iran.

Man. It's a good thing that Bush didn't use any rhetoric at all in his campaign against Kerry! And it's a double-plus good thing that Reagan didn't deploy any rhetoric in his campaign against Carter! Or that gas prices weren't high. Or that Carter wasn't generally pretty weak. Or that he gave a pretty memorable state of the union address. Or that he told everyone to turn down their thermostats and put on a sweater. Or that he didn't beat a rabbit to death with a paddle.

You seem to keep insisting that Republicans get elected because of their super-neato ideas and Democrats get elected because of their totally awesome rhetoric.

And that's preposterous.

Have you read any of Sowell's books? The man isn't known for his brevity. Perhaps this (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780465002054&itm=36) is up the alley with regard to what you desire.

I read the Sowell column you linked to, which is what we're discussing. And I tend not to read political books (or those tomes on the dismal science you seem so attracted to!). I prefer uplifting works like Saramago's Blindness or Coetzee's Disgrace.

The reality is that most attacks against conservative brand them as bad people who's ideas are unworthy of consideration.

Prove it. "Most attacks against conservative[s]." That means that you have somehow quantified all recognizable attacks against conservatives, coded them in some kind of database, and how determined that when we consider every attack against conservatives, most of those brand them as whatever you say.

Prove it, Nick.

Al Gore's latest book isn't called "Great Ideas," it is called "The Assault on Reason."

That's one.

Those who disagree with him are unreasonable and hence bad people. They don't have less worthy ideas, or ideas that might work but be less effective. They are simply stupid people.

I would imagine (I haven't read it, but I did see his interview about the book on Charlie Rose) that you might agree with his premise. Considering that the ID and anti-global warming arguments have adopted the logic of postmodernism, the facticity of fact is being interrogated. In terms of an "assault on reason," that puts Gore on the conservative side of things—as side with which I suspect you agree, no? You hold that facts are facts? That they are not fungible? That there is a truth?

I think the Democrats need to have Edwards quit proving trickle down works by being willing to spend $400 on a haircut. I mean seriously the Democrats need to stop trying to convince everyone that the world is aligned against, so get up and do something about it... or something as well.

You talk more about Edwards than any Democrats I know.

Sucktacular has nothing to do with it. It is a means of cutting off debate. The left hated it when the right did it with "You're either with us or with the terrorists" because there were lots of solutions that did not have to be the Bush solution. Meanwhile though they attempt the same trick with pretty much every other issue.

Everyone hates it when someone outflanks them with rhetoric. But again, "pretty much every other issue"? Prove it.

I think you've just shown why we have Republican presidents, but still have a Democratic Congress most of the time.

Perhaps. Then why complain if that's the nature of the beast?

Better in my view is more persuasive.

More persuasive than what? How do we define "persuasive"? Are you considering various modes of rhetorical appeal in this? Do Democrats tend to appeal to pathos while Republicans, well, they just stand there, because they don't use rhetoric, do they?

That point shows the rhetoric was more persuasive because they prefer it over the actual implementation of ideas they prefer.

And again, you do not know this. You do not know if it was rhetoric or hair color or posture or the kind of suit someone had on.


Well they can disagree on the solutions of course. What they are in total agreement on is Republicans as evil white, anti-intellectual, religious, racist, sexist devils who wish to destroy and oppress the planet.

George Bush hates black people and that is why Katrina response is slow.

George Bush hates black people and that is why he wants to enlist them and send them to Iraq to die for oil.

I am a registered Democrat and I do not think any of those things. Therefore, you are wrong in your hyperbolic assertion that "they are in total agreement."

See disagreement about policy, but agreement on Republicans and how to characterize them. As I noted the trick utilized is that the person is bad enough to exclude from the debate. This the debate can be among themselves internally. All the rhetoric has to do is exclude the opposition externally.

Well, now that we're talking about rhetoric in general and not in some sort of hyperbole, I'll address this. The point of this kind of rhetoric is to frame the issue in terms that make your opponent look back opposing you. Simple. You call a law "The Trumptman Anti-Child-Buggery Act of 2007." Anyone who votes against it looks horrible.

I've stated that persuasive power is what makes it best for me.

How do you define "persuasive power"? Are there gradations? Specific modes of appeal? And keep in mind that that "persuasive power" is of course going to vary from audience to audience. Maybe you should read this (http://www.amazon.com/Size-Thoughts-Essays-Other-Lumber/dp/0679776249). There's a wonderful essay about the mechanics of changing one's mind.

Do you have some criteria that you want to suggest that I can then look for "proof" to meet?

I'm neither a stats guy nor a rhetorician, so I don't know. I suppose you'd have to set your rough dates—say the 2000 election—and then get your hands on every single ad on both sides. Then you'd have to figure out, broadly, how you were going to code the rhetorical appeals—logos, ethos, pathos, that kind of thing. Then you'd have to go through them and figure out if your were going to go with just words or with visual rhetoric, as well (i.e. text on screen saying "George Bush single-handedly eats 100 kittens a day" [pathos] vs that image of Kerry botching that football catch [ethos]). You'd probably have to filter for audience, age, location, time, network, etc.

Maybe some political scientist has conducted an analysis of political rhetoric and sloganeering?

Otherwise I'm sort of pissing into the wind and I don't like having stinky shins.

And that has been my point all along.

[@_@ Artman]

Bush to mother: Don't sell on eBay (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/05/bush_to_mother_.html)

"Then he gave us a presidential coin,'' she said. "Now you check this out: He gave six of us a presidential coin, tell us not to tell the rest of the people that was there, and then after that he told us don’t go sell it on eBay. Now you tell me how insensitive that can be? What kind of caring person is that?''

Compassionate Conservative? :???:

[screener]

Bush to mother: Don't sell on eBay (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/05/bush_to_mother_.html)



Compassionate Conservative? :???:

Another nail in the Worst President, plaque.

What an imbecile.

How can anyone, who isn't gaining from this administration, think this clown is just peachy.

Who the hell is this 30% that still supports this, pick your own adjective, noun, whatever, here.

The whole world is still watching and shaking their head in disbelief.

I'm so pissed, I'm rooting for Putin at the G8.

[trumptman]

Man. It's a good thing that Bush didn't use any rhetoric at all in his campaign against Kerry! And it's a double-plus good thing that Reagan didn't deploy any rhetoric in his campaign against Carter! Or that gas prices weren't high. Or that Carter wasn't generally pretty weak. Or that he gave a pretty memorable state of the union address. Or that he told everyone to turn down their thermostats and put on a sweater. Or that he didn't beat a rabbit to death with a paddle.

You seem to keep insisting that Republicans get elected because of their super-neato ideas and Democrats get elected because of their totally awesome rhetoric.

And that's preposterous.

It would be preposterous if that was what I said. What I have said is that Republicans participate in rhetoric much like Democrats. Overall their rhetoric is not as good but it seems to be exceptionally good in the area of defense. This one area, defense often lends itself well to picking a president and thus while Republicans have been exceptionally poor at keeping control of both wings of Congress, they have been better than average at winning the presidency.

You are welcome to quote or link to anything I typed that would denote "super-neato" ideas that Republicans had.

I read the Sowell column you linked to, which is what we're discussing. And I tend not to read political books (or those tomes on the dismal science you seem so attracted to!). I prefer uplifting works like Saramago's Blindness or Coetzee's Disgrace.

Those jokes get anymore dry than that, and I'll have to find a working scooter to kick you in your good foot.8-)

Prove it. "Most attacks against conservative[s]." That means that you have somehow quantified all recognizable attacks against conservatives, coded them in some kind of database, and how determined that when we consider every attack against conservatives, most of those brand them as whatever you say.

Prove it, Nick.

I've seen the studies in the past. I'm sure I'll run across them again and when I do, we have this nice thread here. I'll also be happy to post any examples I find here.

That's one.

I found another in the Obama thread and cited it.

But the Fair Pay Act, despite its anodyne title (who's against fair pay?) is the result of profoundly unserious economic thinking. That Obama put his name to it has to give pause.

Who is against "fair pay?"

I would imagine (I haven't read it, but I did see his interview about the book on Charlie Rose) that you might agree with his premise. Considering that the ID and anti-global warming arguments have adopted the logic of postmodernism, the facticity of fact is being interrogated. In terms of an "assault on reason," that puts Gore on the conservative side of things—as side with which I suspect you agree, no? You hold that facts are facts? That they are not fungible? That there is a truth?

One can start with a good premise, but also be an example of it as well which is exactly the problem with Gore. There is indeed a truth but showing it can be manipulated by one side does not automatically mean the other side has not engaged in it. Especially when you go and actually examine that side and note the same problems and issue there.

That is why in the environmental threads I have argued that these leaders really do have to lead by example. Most of us do not have first hand information available at a fingertips and thus must rely on digested against. As such, the level of skepticism arises and anyone who helps raise it more is part of the problem, not the solution, no matter how good their intentions.

The main fact that Gore and others refuse to seem to acknowledge is that the climate continually changes and they suppose a static state with all humans causing any change. Anyone who argues against this is accused of the postmodern view you have mentioned.

You talk more about Edwards than any Democrats I know.

I also mention Richardson which no Democrat I know has even mentioned. This is why I am a political geek.

Everyone hates it when someone outflanks them with rhetoric. But again, "pretty much every other issue"? Prove it.

I don't have the polls in front of me, but over time I have seen polls where they ask about a preference in handling a matter. They often seem very contradictory with regard to reality. For example the polls when Republicans were in power often showed happiness with them, with the direction of the country and direction of the economy. Then when the question of party preference came up, it would show and had always shown a Democratic preference on that and other issues where their rhetoric is strong, strong enough to still overcome all the other areas they indicated a positive preference. That to me is proof and when I run across them again, I'll post them.

Perhaps. Then why complain if that's the nature of the beast?

I like rolling rocks up hill and also shrugging.

More persuasive than what? How do we define "persuasive"? Are you considering various modes of rhetorical appeal in this? Do Democrats tend to appeal to pathos while Republicans, well, they just stand there, because they don't use rhetoric, do they?

Republicans do, just not as well. Flip-flopper would never make someone as upset as being declared unfair, or to be making life unafforable. People will absolutely overreact to avoid being seen as any of the -isms that Democrats play a fine tune with.

And again, you do not know this. You do not know if it was rhetoric or hair color or posture or the kind of suit someone had on.

Perhaps I am too much of an optimist in your view, I'd rather people be buying a lie from both sides and have one side be a better liar than believe such shallow concerns.

I am a registered Democrat and I do not think any of those things. Therefore, you are wrong in your hyperbolic assertion that "they are in total agreement."

You're the margin of error in the survey.:lol:

Well, now that we're talking about rhetoric in general and not in some sort of hyperbole, I'll address this. The point of this kind of rhetoric is to frame the issue in terms that make your opponent look back opposing you. Simple. You call a law "The Trumptman Anti-Child-Buggery Act of 2007." Anyone who votes against it looks horrible.

Yes they do look horrible.

How do you define "persuasive power"? Are there gradations? Specific modes of appeal? And keep in mind that that "persuasive power" is of course going to vary from audience to audience. Maybe you should read this. There's a wonderful essay about the mechanics of changing one's mind.


Thanks for the link.

'm neither a stats guy nor a rhetorician, so I don't know. I suppose you'd have to set your rough dates—say the 2000 election—and then get your hands on every single ad on both sides. Then you'd have to figure out, broadly, how you were going to code the rhetorical appeals—logos, ethos, pathos, that kind of thing. Then you'd have to go through them and figure out if your were going to go with just words or with visual rhetoric, as well (i.e. text on screen saying "George Bush single-handedly eats 100 kittens a day" [pathos] vs that image of Kerry botching that football catch [ethos]). You'd probably have to filter for audience, age, location, time, network, etc.

Maybe some political scientist has conducted an analysis of political rhetoric and sloganeering?

You and I both know that the fact that I have a life and even a job precludes such actions. However I know I have linked to such studies in posts here previously and will be glad to resurrect his thread when I find them in the future. Then we can all argue about their methodology and whether we find it accurate enough using the many categories you cite above.:lol:

And that has been my point all along.

I apologize for not having the first hand information nor the time or inclination to generate it. I've run across such examples in the past and posted them and will in the future. That is the best I can do for you and if it is not good enough, well then too bad.

Enjoy the final word. I'll add what I find when I run across it.

Nick

[trumptman]

I mentioned previously that when I ran across an example of:

See disagreement about policy, but agreement on Republicans and how to characterize them. As I noted the trick utilized is that the person is bad enough to exclude from the debate. This the debate can be among themselves internally. All the rhetoric has to do is exclude the opposition externally.

that I would post it.

Joe Klein warns us to "Beware the Bloggers Bile." (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630004,00.html)

Joe notes that the majority of left wing blogs have gotten quite a nasty tone to them.

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

Who is at fault? Why the right of course!

Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.

Nick

[midwinter]

Joe Klein? Are you serious? Klein's been complaining that bloggers are mean and nasty and swear for years now. Klein's arguments have nothing to do with left or right and never have; it's about the threat that bloggers pose to the punditocracy.

And seriously. Joe Klein oughta check out his publication history (http://www.amazon.com/Primary-Colors-Penguin-Readers-Level/dp/0582418305/ref=pd_bbs_5/002-9071668-9165641?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181421684&sr=8-5) before he bitches about those mean, nasty, dirty, foul-mouthed bloggers!

[pfflam]

Dear god.
Amen Brudder!


ooops . . . is that a slogan?