Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I've mentioned it before, but the only people to ever make this "they are equally divisive" argument are right wing apologists, for obvious reasons.
Although I must say, the idea that right wing hate radio arose as a response to people making fun to Reagan is fairly novel, as is the idea that mocking a sitting president, something of an American tradition, is "beyond contemptible". Oh yeah, I forgot, right wing icons are figures of such dazzling radiance that to belittle them is to belittle the very Fabric Of Our Christian Decency. No joking matter.
Still, if beyond contemptible Robin Williams mocking Reagan equals Rush Limbaugh, I would have thought the Clinton years would have led to liberals with guns randomly executing Republicans. One way street, I guess.
And what is the deal with these surreal pair-ups ya'll keep reaching for? KOS and Limbaugh? Is your capacity for evaluation so coarsely deployed that all you are registering is that are both "partisan"? By that criteria white supremacists have nothing to apologize for in David Duke because black folk have Bill Cosby.
See, pretending that simple partisan polarity provides cover for the Coulters and Limbaughs and Savages requires you to strenuosity ignore differences of tone, intent, strategy and technique-- you know, the stuff thinking people use to distinguish between cheap hustlers and a genuinely political stance.
To visit Limbaugh's website, with it's carnival tent atmosphere and cult of personality, its bombast and media mogul marketing tie-ins, and fail to understand the difference between that and the wonkish Daily KOS, with its multiple contributors, long lists of poll tracking and speculation on what the numbers portend, discursive analysis of congressional actions and "open threads" is to either be utterly tone deaf or willfully blind.
I've mentioned it before, but the only people to ever make this "they are equally divisive" argument are right wing apologists, for obvious reasons.
Although I must say, the idea that right wing hate radio arose as a response to people making fun to Reagan is fairly novel, as is the idea that mocking a sitting president, something of an American tradition, is "beyond contemptible". Oh yeah, I forgot, right wing icons are figures of such dazzling radiance that to belittle them is to belittle the very Fabric Of Our Christian Decency. No joking matter.
Still, if beyond contemptible Robin Williams mocking Reagan equals Rush Limbaugh, I would have thought the Clinton years would have led to liberals with guns randomly executing Republicans. One way street, I guess.
And what is the deal with these surreal pair-ups ya'll keep reaching for? KOS and Limbaugh? Is your capacity for evaluation so coarsely deployed that all you are registering is that are both "partisan"? By that criteria white supremacists have nothing to apologize for in David Duke because black folk have Bill Cosby.
See, pretending that simple partisan polarity provides cover for the Coulters and Limbaughs and Savages requires you to strenuosity ignore differences of tone, intent, strategy and technique-- you know, the stuff thinking people use to distinguish between cheap hustlers and a genuinely political stance.
To visit Limbaugh's website, with it's carnival tent atmosphere and cult of personality, its bombast and media mogul marketing tie-ins, and fail to understand the difference between that and the wonkish Daily KOS, with its multiple contributors, long lists of poll tracking and speculation on what the numbers portend, discursive analysis of congressional actions and "open threads" is to either be utterly tone deaf or willfully blind.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
The nod to Williams and the mocking, if you are of the age to remember, was mentioned to cue you to also remember that Reagan was treated by the political/media apparatus as a cross between Patton, Custer, and Charles Manson. He was crucified. To then balk that Limbaugh was in part a somewhat legitimate response to Reagan's treatment isn't, to my mind, reasonable.
Regardless of the above, your demeanor, the anger, the insistence on hinging the "discussion" on "liberals are....", "conservatives are...." only make this a venting session and it's truly pointless. Nothing good can come from venting exchanges. The discussion can't be had, this is also why the ID debate is failing, by falling into litigation, neither side is willing to put down their rocks and clubs and listen to the other -- and we are supposed to be a modern, enlightened culture.
The philosophical/academic reasons for public policy are no more ably communicated by a Hannity whining "but don't you think that is a little too extreme" than by the DialyKos writers and their foul-mouthed blather of how Bush is evil and Karl Rove is the Boogie man. If that wasn't enough, both sides compound the idiocy of their sentiments with a truly puerile insistence that all things could be so simple:
Quote:
"Above all, be conscientiously cautious of busying yourself with the affairs of state. Many indulge themselves in great impertinency in this respect; that affect to have a profound knowledge of politics; to be acquainted with private negotiations, and the secret springs of action; to which are often added rash censures of what they do not understand. They can find some fault in every measure of their governors; can tell to whose ignorance or unfaithfulness every disappointment was owing; or to gratify whose pride or revenge this or that step was taken, or law made. By this means they not only.. [are guilty of] ..great folly, but divert others from their proper business, and set them against the most prudent or even necessary measures..."
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---Richard Steele, The Religious Tradesman, 1747
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t---Richard Steele, The Religious Tradesman, 1747
In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...
In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...
