or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs) - Page 6

post #201 of 204
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 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

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. --...

Reply

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. --...

Reply
post #202 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
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.

Except we're not talking about how the media treats the president. We're talking about the rise of a legitimized right wing rhetoric that positions "liberals" as something akin to a despised ethnic minority.

Quote:
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.

Except we aren't discussing "liberals are....", "conservatives are.....". We're discussing specific instances of right wing rhetoric that wishes to isolate the "liberal" as an enemy of America and a cancer to be excised.

Quote:
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.

Then why are you bothering to post in this thread? Give up? OK, I'll tell you:

You only go to your "a pox on both their houses" corner when you are obliged to act as an apologist for right wing excess.

You don't weigh in on abortion or homosexuality or creationism with a lot of world weary sighting and chiding and "gosh, all this bickering is bad for my soul", do you? No, because you feel you know the correct position in those instances. You're never going to post that "everybody has an opinion about queers, so never mind, let's just increase the peace" because you in fact believe that homosexuality is against God. Funny how having a strongly held belief clears away the fog of rhetoric, isn't it?

Well guess what: the evidence in this very thread makes it clear that mainstream right wing rhetoric has veered alarmingly into "√ľntermensch" territory. Not, "liberals are good conservatives are bad", not "I'm always right, your always wrong", but a simple statement of fact based on what is actually being said.

Quote:
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:

Nobody's claiming that all things can be simple. Nobody's saying that there isn't partisanship. This isn't about sweeping notions of who's right and who's wrong, however much you would prefer it to be.

Again, we're talking about specific instances of specific language that could fairly be called "eliminationist", however much Nick might want to take the term out of circulation by making it so broad that it ceases to have meaning.

Look again at the books cited at the beginning of the thread. Read through the discussion to note the feeble rejoinders. For all your dismay at the evil men do it's hard to not notice that you can't really offer up a plausible corrective of liberal invective against conservatives as a class of people. The best anyone can do are citations of snarkiness about Republican presidents and their policies.

It's called reality, and sometimes it's discomforting.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #203 of 204
Edited: zipping it for now

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. --...

Reply

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. --...

Reply
post #204 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Again, we're talking about specific instances of specific language that could fairly be called "eliminationist", however much Nick might want to take the term out of circulation by making it so broad that it ceases to have meaning.

He's very very good at that.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs)