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

Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs) - Page 2

post #41 of 204
Quote:
First and foremost pointing out that both sides can have some extremeists isn't news to me and I don't have to be convinced of this. It is you my friend who claimed this was a one way street. You still do because you declare that the abortion doctor murderer and say the Unibomber are not the same. You declare one worse and only condemn on of them.

You also have your history wrong. It is not the Republican party that has a former clansman in the Senate. It is not the Republican party that split the union to keep slaves or that filibustered the civil rights act.

Also if you think you can go to some Democratic party function or speech and not be hustled out of the building, or not even allowed entrance in the first place because you don't have the proper "credentials" then you are living in a fantasyland because I posted the very links showing such things in the last election and have witnessed and had such thing occur to me as far back as 1996 when I went to a Clinton rally in Orange County that required such things.

Stop drinking the kool-aid. The people in one party aren't above human nature.

Nick



You disingenuous dumbass, you KNOW they switched names back then. The racist Democrats of the early 20th century are now the racist Republicans. Strom Thurmond.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #42 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The bottom line is this:

Right now, both parties are detrimental to this country.

Hear, hear! I completely agree with that statement!

Unfortunately, we have a de-facto two party system in the USA, since neither the Republican Party or Democratic Party will stand for any viable competition and they will work together to squash any third party.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #43 of 204
Yes, both parties have their extremists, at least rhetorically (I don't think an actual left wing "extremist", at least insofar as what that term meant 20 years ago, would be allowed to roam free in today's America).

However, to get back to the topic of the thread, the talk-radio, eliminationist rhetoric of the right, which as the books pictured aptly demonstrate is no longer a fringe phenomena but truly a mainstream conservative trend, is something new without any real analogue on the left.

People keep asserting that this is yet another "a pox on both their houses" scenario, but then they link books by liberals that are clearly of a different order of partisanship.

Where are the "liberal" books that are predicated on the notion the "conservatives" aren't truly Americans, that conservatives in fact hate America, that they are guilty of treason, that they are so ideologically blinkered that we have passed the point of political solutions and might need to start considering some kind of "other" solution, darkly hinted at?

Where is the "liberal" version Michael Savage, and his calls for renewal by excising, once and for all, the "disease" of liberalism?

Where is the liberal equivalent to Ann Coulter's grotesque rantings? I dare say it exists, but you're not going to find from someone who routinely gets to air their views in newspapers and cable scream fests.

And don't pretend that even unfair or over the top criticism of the Bush administration somehow evens things out, because these

The difference, clearly, is that the conservative attacks position themselves, not as partisan voices in the tug of war of ideologies, but as the voice, the Amercian voice, the true voice of the people, of real Americans, the real patriots, the true sons of the soil. At the same time "liberalism" is somehow foreign, an invasion, a disease, a weakening of the body of the republic, an insidious "enemy within".

Can anyone really be so blinkered as to not see the difference between the likely outcome of regarding your political opponent as having wrong ideas that are bad for the country and which will lead to increased hardship and suffering for the population, and regarding your opponent as being a threat to the very idea of your country, and a sickness which is actively conspiring to harm you and yours?

Liberals aren't even Americans. They're an occupying army, scarcely better than al Qaeda sleeper cells.

What measures a wouldn't be appropriate to combat such a grave menace?

Nick, you're pretty much lying through your teeth. I'll be happy to link to half a dozen instances of people being denied entry to a tax payer funded Bush campaign event simply because they failed to be Republicans or sign a loyalty oath, in one instance being hustled out by campaign operatives posing as Secret Service agents. Show me the documentation of the same at Clinton or Democratic events. How much you want to bet that even if people were denied entry, it was because they came with bullhorns and "Slick Willy Murdered Vince Foster" signs?

And, "the Unibomber is OK with me?" Jesus. For what it's worth, I don't seem to recall the Unibomber taking refuge in sympathetic "liberal" communities while being hunted, or members of the Democratic congress implying that while they abhorred his techniques, they understood where he was coming from.

Are you really going to hang your inane "liberals are the violent ones" on the fucking Unibomer?
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 #44 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you've obviously never heard of Clint Willis and his "I Hate" series

Lol! That's kind of the point.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
So if I mention that Treason from Ann Coulter (which was first cited in the initial post) is ranked at # 54,393 while Lying Liars is ranked #1,773 and What's Wrong with Kansas is ranked #1,183 does that somehow disprove your point?

No, because Coulter books, including treason, regularly sit in single and double digits for long stretches (like all but one of the books I looked up from the original post), including How to talk to a Liberal which is currently ... oh look, 314. I'd love to check the history of the Willis books you cited, but unfortunately they aren't popular enough for anyone to have put them in the historical sales rank tracker I'm using.

But the real issue:
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But the point I was making by showing these books was not about extreme rhetoric per se, but about the nature of that rhetoric: about how popular conservative rhetoric defines liberals. I don't think you'll see mirror-image mainstream rhetoric from liberals defining conservatives as treasonous and with the same kind of "eliminationist" tone, as addabox so aptly phrased it.
post #45 of 204
But that point is a natural cause of the republican ideology, which have a lot of conservative baggage. The liberals are treasonous because its the worst thing you can be. For a liberal its not the country that is at the center but groups of people (homeless, women, races etc.). The worst you can do for them is to abandom those groups. So being treasonous would not appeal to the (die hard) liberal reader as it does to a (die hard) republican. Thats where the tone comes from. Its not worse or better. Its different.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #46 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
But that point is a natural cause of the republican ideology, which have a lot of conservative baggage. The liberals are treasonous because its the worst thing you can be. For a liberal its not the country that is at the center but groups of people (homeless, women, races etc.). The worst you can do for them is to abandom those groups. So being treasonous would not appeal to the (die hard) liberal reader as it does to a (die hard) republican. Thats where the tone comes from. Its not worse or better. Its different.


An interesting point, but I would argue that an ideology that inherently seeks to cast its enemies as "enemies of the state" is, for the purposes of this conversation, much worse than an ideology that casts its enemies as "enemies of women" or "enemies of the homeless".

Being "the enemy" of women or the homeless is a poitical problem, with political solutions, i.e. funding levels, programs, access, etc.

Being an enemy of the state verges on totalitarian condemnation, particularly when the state in question is broadly understood to represent all that is good and right and possible in the world.

To be an enemy of the homeless is to be a politician with a faulty agenda who deserves to be voted out of office.

To be an enemy of the United States of America is to be in the same camp as terrorists and is to be deserving of utter annihilation.

I don't see how claiming that "each side" is simply using the message that appeals to its constituency renders them equivalent, when that message is presented in such starkly different idioms.
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 #47 of 204
Liberals are on their last legs here in the US. Liberals survive by keeping other folks dependant. As minorities and woman and others learn that they don't have to be second-class citizens and trade votes for welfare, the liberals become less and less powerful. Those clueless folks in New Orleans with no idea how to take care of themselves are products of liberal democrats. They are sitting in motels here in Houston waiting for the government to do something for them. Nice job lefties! Creating helpless people.

Truth is the American people to a greater and greater degree identify with the Conservative values of the Republican Party and the people will continue to elect Republicans.
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #48 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Liberals are on their last legs here in the US. Liberals survive by keeping other folks dependant. As minorities and woman and others learn that they don't have to be second-class citizens and trade votes for welfare, the liberals become less and less powerful. Those clueless folks in New Orleans with no idea how to take care of themselves are products of liberal democrats. They are sitting in motels here in Houston waiting for the government to do something for them. Nice job lefties! Creating helpless people.

Truth is the American people to a greater and greater degree identify with the Conservative values of the Republican Party and the people will continue to elect Republicans.

Right, which explains why the latest ABC poll.



Must be the communist ABC disinformation, eh Moe?

"Nothing will come of it".
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 #49 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Those clueless folks in New Orleans with no idea how to take care of themselves are products of liberal democrats. They are sitting in motels here in Houston waiting for the government to do something for them. Nice job lefties! Creating helpless people.

Hurricane Kerry. A natural disaster that only affects people too lazy to work.

I'm donning my cone hood immediately and going to torch the nearest social security office before the same things happens here.
post #50 of 204
Can't pay attention to the mainstream media. Too biased.
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #51 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Its not worse or better. Its different.

That's ridiculous. Look at the kinds of books that are very popular with each group. The conservative books have been covered at the beginning of the thread. Most of them are books that we have all heard of, that are cited by bush-loving posters here in PO and the most well-known are written big media personalities.

In contrast, look at the popular "liberal" books. These are the big books that liberals read, talk about and cite in places like here in PO:
  • House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties
  • The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century (krugman)
  • Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
  • The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill
  • Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
  • Plan of Attack (Woodward)
  • Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
  • Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bushs America
  • What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
  • Dude, Where's My Country?

For the most part, these books are relatively analytical, somewhat dry criticisms of the Bush administration. A few of them were written from an insider point of view of the administration (Against All Enemies, Price of Loyalty, Plan of Attack) and the worst accusations in the title are "secret," "watergate," which refer to the administration in particular, and "liars," which refers to the administration and their supporters in the main stream media.

You are certainly correct when you say that it's "different" from the right wing best sellers that sell because they say that liberals themselves are treasonous, mentally ill, like terrorists, evil, etc.

In contrast, liberal best sellers sell when they come off as analytical critiques of the Bush administration, preferably insider critiques. Even Al Franken wrote Lying Liars to be perceived as basically more-academic-than-winger-books (footnotes and Harvard grad students) analysis littered with humor. Whether particular criticisms of certain bush admin policies aren't entirely fair or whether fact #329847 in the book isn't totally accurate is a separate debate, and that discussion seems rather trivial when we put it next to the hate spewing from the winger books.

So yes, it's different, but it's certainly not the same and they don't bank on spewing hate at millions of fellow americans.
post #52 of 204
Yeah, also, his point is somewhat circular. "It's equally valid for conservatives to use a eliminationist tone because they naturally use an eliminatist tone." Nice one there, Andy.
post #53 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Can't pay attention to the mainstream media. Too biased.

Good point. If the biased mainstream media had actually cast a critical eye on the lies put forth by the White House in the run up to Iraq invasion, instead of just acting as stenographers, and if the biased mainstream media had treated the Swift Boat bullshit as the political hit piece it so obviously was, and if the biased mainstream had thought to ask hard questions about the outing of Valerie Plame before the election, Kerry would be president today and Bush's poll numbers would be very different indeed.
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 #54 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
You disingenuous dumbass, you KNOW they switched names back then. The racist Democrats of the early 20th century are now the racist Republicans. Strom Thurmond.

You're right ol'Strom switched parties. But you know that ol' George Wallace didn't. Ol'Robert Byrd didn't and Ol' Al Gore Sr. didn't nor did his son.

In case you forgot, Byrd is old enough and has been in the Senate long enough to have been one of the 21 Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

One of the 21 was also William Fulbright who is the mentor and hero of Bill Clinton.

When you had governors preventing racial school integration it was DEMOCRATIC governors Orval Faubus, George Wallace,and Lester Maddox. They were stopped by the REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower.

Learn your history before you level claims.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #55 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
When you had governors preventing racial school integration it was DEMOCRATIC governors Orval Faubus, George Wallace,and Lester Maddox. They were stopped by the REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower.


Don't forget Ross Barnett of MS, who was shitty enough to get a mention in the letter from Birmingham jail. Still have a reservoir named after him just north of Jackson.

The other important thing to keep in mind is that these are precisely the kind of people we think of when we think of Democrats in the 1960s. They just leap right to the front of the mind when asked to imagine a 1960s Democrat. It is, indeed, from their cloth that the modern Democratic party was cut. It's even more important to keep in mind that these Democratic governors/politicians in the South are a complete anomaly. The South, of course, has a long tradition of supporting Republicans. Especially in the years between the end of Reconstruction and Nixon's Southern strategy. Long tradition, that.

Finally, I think Randy Newman took care of Lester Maddox.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #56 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You're right ol'Strom switched parties. But you know that ol' George Wallace didn't. Ol'Robert Byrd didn't and Ol' Al Gore Sr. didn't nor did his son.

In case you forgot, Byrd is old enough and has been in the Senate long enough to have been one of the 21 Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

One of the 21 was also William Fulbright who is the mentor and hero of Bill Clinton.

When you had governors preventing racial school integration it was DEMOCRATIC governors Orval Faubus, George Wallace,and Lester Maddox. They were stopped by the REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower.

Learn your history before you level claims.

Nick

What exactly are you claiming here?
post #57 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You're right ol'Strom switched parties. But you know that ol' George Wallace didn't. Ol'Robert Byrd didn't and Ol' Al Gore Sr. didn't nor did his son.

In case you forgot, Byrd is old enough and has been in the Senate long enough to have been one of the 21 Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

One of the 21 was also William Fulbright who is the mentor and hero of Bill Clinton.

When you had governors preventing racial school integration it was DEMOCRATIC governors Orval Faubus, George Wallace,and Lester Maddox. They were stopped by the REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower.

Learn your history before you level claims.

Nick

So the answer to "The eliminationist rhetoric of the right has no liberal analogue" is "The Democratic party of 40 years ago still contained, for historical reasons, southern racists who have subsequently been assiduously and successfully wooed by the Republicans".

Um... touché?
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 #58 of 204
Giant: Most of the books you mention are not of the kind we (or at least I) am talking about. "Dude" and "Lies" are. "Plan of Attack" and "Against all Enemies" clearly aren´t.

Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yeah, also, his point is somewhat circular. "It's equally valid for conservatives to use a eliminationist tone because they naturally use an eliminatist tone." Nice one there, Andy.

No. Its makes good sense for conservatives to use a nation-centered tone ("they are comitting treason...") because its in the heart of conservative ideology and will appeal to readers of conservative leaning. And likewise for liberals to talk about groups (One example: After Katrina the government didn´t do enough for blacks) because defence of certain groups is in the center of liberal ideology. That makes the tone in the conservative books more "bombastic".
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #59 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Giant: Most of the books you mention are not of the kind we (or at least I) am talking about. "Dude" and "Lies" are. "Plan of Attack" and "Against all Enemies" clearly aren´t.

"Dude" and "Lies" aren't either. Again, we aren't talking about "partisan" or even "snarkily partisan". We're talking about positing the opposition (the entire corpus of the opposition, not just the leadership or its media mouthpieces) as vile, traitorous and unworthy of citizenship. You apparently think that must be accepted because it's a structural characteristic of conservatism:


Quote:
No. Its makes good sense for conservatives to use a nation-centered tone ("they are comitting treason...") because its in the heart of conservative ideology and will appeal to readers of conservative leaning. And likewise for liberals to talk about groups (One example: After Katrina the government didn´t do enough for blacks) because defence of certain groups is in the center of liberal ideology. That makes the tone in the conservative books more "bombastic".

Which obliges me to quote myself, since you are repeating your point:

Quote:
An interesting point, but I would argue that an ideology that inherently seeks to cast its enemies as "enemies of the state" is, for the purposes of this conversation, much worse than an ideology that casts its enemies as "enemies of women" or "enemies of the homeless".

Being "the enemy" of women or the homeless is a poitical problem, with political solutions, i.e. funding levels, programs, access, etc.

Being an enemy of the state verges on totalitarian condemnation, particularly when the state in question is broadly understood to represent all that is good and right and possible in the world.

To be an enemy of the homeless is to be a politician with a faulty agenda who deserves to be voted out of office.

To be an enemy of the United States of America is to be in the same camp as terrorists and is to be deserving of utter annihilation.

I don't see how claiming that "each side" is simply using the message that appeals to its constituency renders them equivalent, when that message is presented in such starkly different idioms.
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 #60 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What exactly are you claiming here?

See below...

Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
So the answer to "The eliminationist rhetoric of the right has no liberal analogue" is "The Democratic party of 40 years ago still contained, for historical reasons, southern racists who have subsequently been assiduously and successfully wooed by the Republicans".

Um... touché?

No. It means when you are so blind that you won't even admit the party contained contains certain elements, then you certainly won't believe that they can have rhetoric that can also be an equivalent analogue.

Also there is no proof that these racists left the Democratic party. As I noted, Strom left, but everyone else stayed. I don't see Byrd with an (R) next to his name.

Anders made a good point in that each party has a different goal with regard to how they are eliminationist. If you don't think that the rhetoric of the left here in America attempts to exclude you for being a white male or being religious, then you are just blind. There is a reason Catholics, white males, and married women (often married to those white males) are all groups that the Democrats cannot manage to win. It is because their language does not seek policy solutions or compromise there. It instead informs that these people are the enemy. This is why Kerry, for example is a Catholic but couldn't even win Catholics. Religion and people who practice it are the enemy.

Now when you look at Catholics, do they really seem to be part of what many would call the religious right? I would say no. Many Catholics are non-whites. Additionally there are aspects of the church that are progressive with regard to advocating for government help and societal change on matters of class. But none of this matters since leftist eliminationist rhetoric makes them the enemy.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 204
Can we get back to the point? Where are the Democratic pundits/books calling for the complete elimination of Conservatism?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #62 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Giant: Most of the books you mention are not of the kind we (or at least I) am talking about. "Dude" and "Lies" are. "Plan of Attack" and "Against all Enemies" clearly aren´t.

What "kind" of books are we talking about then? I was under the impression we were talking about books that are widely popular with each group.

Mainstream conservative rhetoric is eliminationist hate, and the books that are popular with conservatives reflect that. Liberal rhetoric is largely analytical critiques, and the books that are popular with liberals reflect that.

I know you have this idea that liberal rhetoric is about defending xyz, but it's clearly not as dominant as the critiques, and this is reflected in the nature of the most popular books. And remember that "Lies" was entirely a critique of the statements of the administration and its supporters in the media.

I understand the point you are making, but I can't agree that eliminationist hate-spewing books are somehow OK, equal to or benign like liberal analytical critiques simply because they are a reflection of conservative thought. On the contrary, it shows just how far out there the whole mainstream conservative movement is going.

As has been pointed out, it's entirely dishonest to look at the wildly popular right wing bestsellers that spew hate at millions of americans (not to mention the millions worldwide) and look at look at liberal bestsellers and claim that they are equally as bad ... just different.
post #63 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Can we get back to the point? Where are the Democratic pundits/books calling for the complete elimination of Conservatism?

They don't call for an end to conservatism. They just call for an end to the mental illness they happen to consider Conservatism to be and for the elimination of white men and religion.

You don't treat the symptoms Mid, you treat the root causes. Conservatism is just a manifestation of the real problems, white men and religion. Liberalism is an ideal that can be defeated and so conservative books can deal with an ideal being dangerous or in need of change. Conservatism is caused by (according to the left) patriarchy and racism as enforced by nation/states and churches. The only way to treat the root causes is to get rid of religion and white men.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #64 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
They don't call for an end to conservatism. They just call for an end to the mental illness they happen to consider Conservatism to be and for the elimination of white men and religion.

Right, because that's exactly what House of Bush, House of Saud, The Great Unraveling, Against All Enemies, The Price of Loyalty, Lying Liars, etc, etc were all about.

The fact that you believe stuff like this
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
One of the best attacks has been how men are basically evil. They are potential rapists. They achieve their means only through violence and beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. They are sexual predators who want to harm adult women and children of both sexes as well.

describes mainstream liberalism just shows how removed from reality you are.
post #65 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
What "kind" of books are we talking about then? I was under the impression we were talking about books that are widely popular with each group.

Mainstream conservative rhetoric is eliminationist hate, and the books that are popular with conservatives reflect that. Liberal rhetoric is largely analytical critiques, and the books that are popular with liberals reflect that.

I know you have this idea that liberal rhetoric is about defending xyz, but it's clearly not as dominant as the critiques, and this is reflected in the nature of the most popular books. And remember that "Lies" was entirely a critique of the statements of the administration and its supporters in the media.

I understand the point you are making, but I can't agree that eliminationist hate-spewing books are somehow OK, equal to or benign like liberal analytical critiques simply because they are a reflection of conservative thought. On the contrary, it shows just how far out there the whole mainstream conservative movement is going.

As has been pointed out, it's entirely dishonest to look at the wildly popular right wing bestsellers that spew hate at millions of americans (not to mention the millions worldwide) and look at look at liberal bestsellers and claim that they are equally as bad ... just different.

Yep. I can see how books like "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore are just social critiques that don't inspire any hate.

Also you don't have to hate someone if you just consider them mentally ill as many liberal books claim conservatives happen to be. I'm sure when they advocate rounding us all up for the reeducation camps, there won't be an ounce of malice there. After all, they will be "curing" us of our dreaded disease and mental disorder.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #66 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Right, because that's exactly what House of Bush, House of Saud, The Great Unraveling, Against All Enemies, The Price of Loyalty, Lying Liars, etc, etc were all about.

The fact that you believe stuff like this

describes mainstream liberalism just shows how removed from reality you are.

You always claim I am removed from reality. Yet my reality always seems to objectively occur more often than yours.

Perhaps they should up your meds.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #67 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You always claim I am removed from reality. Yet my reality always seems to objectively occur more often than yours.

Is that why you've get caught in lies and twisting facts in just about every thread? Hell, in this thread you already got caught playing games with sales ranks. BTW, we missed you after libby's indictment came out.
post #68 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Is that why you've get caught in lies and twisting facts in just about every thread? Hell, in this thread you already got caught playing games with sales ranks. BTW, we missed you after libby's indictment came out.

I had no problem disproving Shawn's points. It wasn't hard at all to find liberal books about conservatives that were ranked higher than conservative books used to attempt to prove the premise here. As previously noted, you seem to forget such matters. If Ann Coulter is "mainstream" and ranked lower than folks like Franken, then Franken certainly isn't obscure.

But really, dismiss the reality of your own side of the political spectrum. Denial is such a useful tool and I'm sure you use it often in other matters as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #69 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
They don't call for an end to conservatism. They just call for an end to the mental illness they happen to consider Conservatism to be and for the elimination of white men and religion.

You don't treat the symptoms Mid, you treat the root causes. Conservatism is just a manifestation of the real problems, white men and religion. Liberalism is an ideal that can be defeated and so conservative books can deal with an ideal being dangerous or in need of change. Conservatism is caused by (according to the left) patriarchy and racism as enforced by nation/states and churches. The only way to treat the root causes is to get rid of religion and white men.

Nick

I would appreciate it if you would point to a pile of liberal books claiming that Conservatism is a "mental illness" and not just a wrong-headed political ideology. The charge is that Conservative pundits rely openly and heavily upon a "rhetoric of elimination" (which I would argue is just plain old Nationalist jingoism) and that liberal pundits do not. Where is the book called Why Conservatism Must Be Stopped Before It Kills Us All or Conservatism is a Cancer Eating Away At the Nation?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #70 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep. I can see how books like "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore are just social critiques that don't inspire any hate.

Thanks, lets add it to the list:
  • House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties
  • The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century (krugman)
  • Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
  • The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill
  • Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
  • Plan of Attack (Woodward)
  • Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
  • Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bushs America
  • What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
  • Dude, Where's My Country?
  • Stupid White Men
Quote:

Also you don't have to hate someone if you just consider them mentally ill as many liberal books claim conservatives happen to be.

Right, because that's exactly what House of Bush, House of Saud, The Great Unraveling, Against All Enemies, The Price of Loyalty, Lying Liars, etc, etc were all about.
post #71 of 204
Oddly enough, it's sure beginning to look like "Treason" would be a far more accurate title for a book describing the inner workings of the Bush Whitehouse than it ever was for a screed against liberals.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #72 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I had no problem disproving Shawn's points. It wasn't hard at all to find liberal books about conservatives that were ranked higher than conservative books used to attempt to prove the premise here. As previously noted, you seem to forget such matters. If Ann Coulter is "mainstream" and ranked lower than folks like Franken, then Franken certainly isn't obscure.

Oh, that's interesting. So now you are claiming that best selling author Anne Coulter isn't mainstream because one of her books attacking liberals has a lower sales rank than Lies ... even though she has another book attacking liberals that has a much higher sales rank than Lies. Interesting "logic" you have there.

Try reading again:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, because Coulter books, including treason, regularly sit in single and double digits for long stretches (like all but one of the books I looked up from the original post), including How to talk to a Liberal which is currently ... oh look, 314.
post #73 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I would appreciate it if you would point to a pile of liberal books claiming that Conservatism is a "mental illness" and not just a wrong-headed political ideology. The charge is that Conservative pundits rely openly and heavily upon a "rhetoric of elimination" (which I would argue is just plain old Nationalist jingoism) and that liberal pundits do not. Where is the book called Why Conservatism Must Be Stopped Before It Kills Us All or Conservatism is a Cancer Eating Away At the Nation?

I already cited books. They were dismissed as obscure. When I pointed out that sales numbers didn't make them all obscure then we had to have several people lose it and get into weird personal stuff.

I will say I'm generally happy though. The goal posts have certainly moved. We've gone from "this stuff doesn't even exist on the left" to "this stuff exists but it is obscure, non-mainstream, and lastly lots of things but not truly eliminationist in a manner I will believe or endorse.

I call that progress.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #74 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I already cited books. They were dismissed as obscure. When I pointed out that sales numbers didn't make them all obscure then we had to have several people lose it and get into weird personal stuff.

I will say I'm generally happy though. The goal posts have certainly moved. We've gone from "this stuff doesn't even exist on the left" to "this stuff exists but it is obscure, non-mainstream, and lastly lots of things but not truly eliminationist in a manner I will believe or endorse.

I call that progress.

Nick

Nick,

I didn't ask for you to produce any old book that confronts conservatism. The charge is that the Right relies heavily and openly on a "rhetoric of elimination" while the Left does not. If you think this is untrue, please produce a pile of lefty books that rely heavily and openly on a rhetoric of elimination.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #75 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Oh, that's interesting. So now you are claiming that best selling author Anne Coulter isn't mainstream because one of her books attacking liberals has a lower sales rank than Lies ... even though she has another book attacking liberals that has a much higher sales rank than Lies. Interesting "logic" you have there.

Try reading again:

I'm sure the new Franken book has better numbers than than the old Franken book as well. The Truth with Jokes is currently ranked number #17 on Amazon.

The reality is that Shawn's premise, that using the Amazon book ranking system to show that someone on the extreme left doesn't exist because enough people haven't bought their book this week, is a falsehood. Their speech, ideals and what they advocate certainly do exist. The fact that Moore advocates against "Stupid White Men" doesn't become any more or less true because his Amazon rankings aren't as high this week.

Now perhaps we can get on to the truth of the matter, that this stuff does exist on the left and can't be dismissed because Shawn or you believe enough liberals don't happen to buy or read it this week.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #76 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sure the new Franken book has better numbers than than the old Franken book as well. The Truth with Jokes is currently ranked number #17 on Amazon.

Stop playing your stupid little games. That book was just released and it still doesn't have the sales rank that either Coulter book got when each was released (both had long stretches in the single digits).
Quote:
The fact that Moore advocates against "Stupid White Men" doesn't become any more or less true because his Amazon rankings aren't as high this week.

Try reading more slowly since you apparently can't keep up. I'm using historical sales rank data.

We are talking about best selling mainstream books. The books at the beginning of the thread are examples of mainstream best selling conservative books and I compiled a list of the best selling mainstream liberal books.
post #77 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Nick,

I didn't ask for you to produce any old book that confronts conservatism. The charge is that the Right relies heavily and openly on a "rhetoric of elimination" while the Left does not. If you think this is untrue, please produce a pile of lefty books that rely heavily and openly on a rhetoric of elimination.

I addressed that head on. You can't have a discussion with someone if the words you are both using do not share a common understanding. Conservatives deal with the ideals of liberalism because them bad. Liberals do not deal with the ideals of conservatism because they consider them an ideal. They consider them simply the result of what religious white men happen to be or what insane people do in voting against their own economic interests.

To be eliminatinist in the tone you suggest they would basically have to call for the elimination of white men and religion. There are indeed books that have called for such things but the reality is that this viewpoint is not something you can broadly broadcast. This is why the left has such a hard time coming up with a legislative agenda.

This is why you and I have had the "paleocon" chats. Wouldn't it be great to have fair trade and increasing unionization? Sure it would but that would benefit white men who (according to feminists and various racial leaders)would use those gains to subjugate minorities and also their wives and keep them home to beat them. It's better to send the job over to India or Mexico because there, even if it goes to a man, at least it isn't a white man and we can try to win them into our corner by claiming racism by white men.

If I'm lying then think about the number one claim levied against those who speak about immigration limits and fair trade, even when such matters would help prevent explotation and allow unionization of people of color, it is the charge of racism.

This is why a legislative agenda cannot be put together on the left. It is because of sexism and racism within that party.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #78 of 204
Current sales ranks aren't a very good measure of a book's popularity -- total sales over some time period, such as first month or first year would be much more meaningful.

I don't have the time to try and do the needed research right now, but I'd be quite willing to wager that those numbers would show that the best-selling, most popular right wing books are mostly of the vicious anti-liberal screed variety, many evincing the eliminationist attitude which we have discussed, while left wing books, while not every last one being the epitome of gentle fairness, are much more analytical, employ ironic humor more often than vindictive humor, and are more apt to attack particular politicians and their particular policies than they are to take broad swipes at whole groups of people and their political philosophies.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #79 of 204
You know trumptman, you keep typing but all that comes out is a torrent of strawmen. Here are the best selling liberal books:
  • House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties
  • The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century (krugman)
  • Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
  • The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill
  • Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
  • Plan of Attack (Woodward)
  • Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
  • Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bushs America
  • What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
  • Dude, Where's My Country?
  • Stupid White Men
The common thread of these books is that they are largely analytical critiques of the bush administration, three of them with insider points of view and a forth by a former nixon aide.
post #80 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Stop playing your stupid little games. That book was just released and it still doesn't have the sales rank that either Coulter book got when each was released (both had long stretches in the single digits).

Try reading more slowly since you apparently can't keep up. I'm using historical sales rank data.

We are talking about best selling mainstream books. The books at the beginning of the thread are examples of mainstream best selling conservative books and I compiled a list of the best selling mainstream liberal books.

I'm not playing games. I'm showing how stupid the game of "that doesn't count because X people did or did not buy it," happens to be.

I'm glad you "compiled" a list of what you consider to be the best selling liberal books. You didn't state your methodology for compiling them nor did you state that the conservative list at the beginning of this thread would have met the same criteria when you performed your search. What search terms did you use, where did you search and for what historical timeframe for example?

Now suppose even then that we grant you all that. All we are doing is going back to the same game as before with the numbers. You conclusion is that liberal hate is "obscure" while conservative hate is "mainstream." My conclusion might be, liberals don't know how to read and instead watch television for their information.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs)