Two bits of information regarding Jeff’s doings tomorrow. First, Michelle Malkin’s going to give Jeff the opportunity to respond in his own post at Hot Air. I’m not sure what time that will go up. Second, he’s going to be at Breitbart.TV again, at 4 pm Eastern, to talk about the brouhaha and intentionalism.
So, this is an early heads up. I’ll be back with details tomorrow.
Keep in mind that if you missed the live show last time, you’ll have to give yourself time to download the interactive platform that they use at BTV.
Jeff, go in with fists flying. I know you will, no matter what I or anyone else says.
This is where we draw the line. This is where we take our stand. They don’t get to put words in our mouths. We stop letting them define us. This is when we start taking our language back.
Rush Limbaugh and Bricks on the Road to Hell
Cool. I wish I could comment at Hot Air and join the fight.
OUTLAW!!
Not exactly on topic, but here are some interesting quotes, for your amusement, from Thomas Jefferson a couple of hundred years ago. The man was a prophet.
Then, there is this gem from Mark Twain:
I look forward to this, and I’m glad Michelle decided to do it.
Forget Rush. Talk about 16 words, Makaka, Mission Accomplished, anything but Rush.
I’m excited.
I look forward to it as well. Seriously.
And I have a feeling the Hot Air commenters will like Jeff’s message a lot better than they like mine. (I’m not meaning to damn with faint praise, although it’s not a high bar to set.)
Anyway, more speech is good. I’ll be at work when it happens, likely, but I look forward to seeing it when I get home.
Conservatives believe in the marketplace of ideas. I’m going to go link this on my blog now.
Frank Schaeffer over at the HuffPo says, among other things, that any one who disagrees with Obama’s economic policies is a traitor. The folk who have attacked Jeff have unwittingly lent some credence to his bilge. If Limbaugh, whether he be genius or buffoon, can be castigated and discarded for a remark that can only be deemed traitorous if it is willfully misinterpreted that way then we all only speak at the whims of men like Schaeffer. That is a remarkably wrong headed position. Here is the link to the Schaeffer article. I apologize for my lack of hyperlink-fu. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/open-letter-to-the-republ_b_172822.html
I’ll tell ya, classical liberalism is dead. As dead as phlogiston or Piltdown Man. Even at Ace Of Spades, the proprietors think we have to be excruciatingly careful with our freedom of speech. Lest someone else mischaracterize what we say. So shut up unless you can guarantee, with money-back and free postage, that your words won’t be misused. You must guarantee that no one will lie about you or distort your meaning, so choose your words carefully. So carefully that someone speaking Urdu can understand them, even if you speak only English. I’m probably crazy, but that doesn’t sound like leadership. It doesn’t even sound like standing on your own two feet.
I think I finally have a glimpse into Jeff’s disillusionment. When your allies start to deny you munitions, guns, materiel… because they are afraid you will only cause friendly fire, collateral damage, and nothing else… then either you are a hopeless liability, or you are in the company of cowards. I don’t know which any longer.
Good.
jeff is the nate marquardt of the conservative movement. a furry yet decorated master toiling behind the scenes to teach all these hapless douches how to fight, all the while not getting the respect he deserves. also, i miss tough-skins pants. those pants ruled, and this is coming from a man who knows his pants. also, patterico, youre the definition of nancy-boy, true story
Lee, you were not off topic. Not at all.
I don’t think Patternico is a nancy-boy (evidenced by his willingness to engage in debate), I just think he is a lawyer to the bone, trained to work with the law, rather than advance justice. The problem with that is law is man made, while justice is based in truth. Thus he can’t be outlaw, constrained as he is with what he understands to be the rules of the game. That’s why he is willing to play Calvin-ball with the left, regardless of the fact we can never win at that game.
…then we all only speak at the whims of men like Schaeffer.
I feel like a broken record, posting so many times on a single thread. But Obvious put his finger on it, squarely. Why, oh why is this so hard to understand? The matter appears especially incomprehensible when our usual allies not only fail to understand it, but insist that we be careful to avoid phrasing things “inartfully.” Isn’t that the word Obastard and his minions use to excuse his Kinsleyian slips?
I wasn’t expecting it. I wasn’t. But free thought is now dead, if no one will defend it. Your “free speech” is no longer free, if what you say must be held hostage by those hearing it. It’s more efficient and more pernicious than Big Brother telescreens or Thought Police. It’s truly the manifestation of Doublethink.
right lee, exactly. a nancy-boy. the fact he is bound by textual rules of political discourse imposed on him by people that despise his essence and demand his compliance, and that he willingly submits to it, makes him, by definition, a nancy-boy. are you implying he is too stupid to realize the ploy or that he is just another “supple” republican wanting to play by the rules of those who wish nothing but harm to conservatives, and by extension himself? neither of which is particularly flattering. and maybe thats the problem though, the last thing we need is a of republican version john edwards giving us advice on how to please our “masters” in the press and make nice.
Post your info. Name, rank, and serial number. It’s no secret what my name is or what I do. So who’s cowardly, Mr. “landstander”? If that is your real name . . .
I hope Jeff addresses this argument. I don’t pretend to be some literary theory expert, but I do have a theory about how to interpret words, and there you have it.
“the fact he is [incomprehensible ten-dollar word gobbeldygook], makes him, by definition, a nancy-boy.”
Mocks itself, I tells ya, anony-boy!
“he’s going to be at Breitbart.TV again, at 4 pm Eastern, to talk about the brouhaha and intentionalism.”
Tell your Twitter dude that Monday is not Sunday.
pat pat, my dear boy, i dont mean to call you out as a nancy-boy perse, strictly in the mongolian-conservative sense, i meant it lovingly, in the ignatian sense, peppered with a gracious reach-around for your ego. im flattered, though, that you singled me out but im sure that el jefe can confirm that i have never posted here before by any other name. i dont make it a habit to post under my real name on the internet genius. now go fetch me a pie poste haste or im gonna slap frums dick out of your mouth
Translation:
landstander: “I will remain an anonymous pussy.”
As expected.
either that or we can meet at the bell-tower at sundown, with pistols, that’ll settle your hash! we can duel. DULE I SAYS!! (and by pistols i dont mean tea and freakin crumpets you sassy little ponce!) and no dainty spandex either, that shit just makes me nervous. and you can keep youre learned book-speakin at home with your designer milks and your fancy mittens. in conclusion, henceforth and in other words.
Now I hasten to add: my argument applies only to those foolish enough to issue challenges about manliness on the Internet.
Because I don’t pretend to be Mr. Manly. All I’m saying is: it’s known who I am. I give Jeff the same credit. But some anony-pussy named “landstander” . . . sorry. It’s hard to take his chest-beating seriously when he makes accusations about bravery but doesn’t even have the stones to identify himself.
If you’re commenting anonymously, cool — as long as you’re not accusing a guy of being a “nancy-boy” who puts his name out there. That, to me, is the height of being a pussy.
Anyone with a name and address is free to disagree. (Anyone with a phony name and no address is also free to disagree and be shown to be laughably hypocritical.)
“either that or we can meet at the bell-tower at sundown, with pistols, that’ll settle your hash! we can duel. DULE I SAYS!! (and by pistols i dont mean tea and freakin crumpets you sassy little ponce!) and no dainty spandex either, that shit just makes me nervous. and you can keep youre learned book-speakin at home with your designer milks and your fancy mittens. in conclusion, henceforth and in other words.”
I don’t understand a word of that, weirdo. WHO ARE YOU?
Patterico, being a lawyer, understands probably better than others how risky it can be to be completely free with ones speech these days. Although the gov hasn’t yet passed stringent speech codes and restrictions on what is published, the effect by organizations looking to be offended who have large legal funds at hand, is effectively the same. I have noticed that on heavily trafficked sites that have also a made a public impression have tended to be restrictive as to comments made that border the realm of either “insensitive”, “threatening” or outright libelous. Some also restrict “fanciful speculation” (i.e. rumors)
This is the result of our litigious society with plentiful lawyers lined up to take ones business when a nerve has been struck. what blogger can stand even one suit? Only the big guys can really speak truth to power because they have the power of money on their side.
Still, all in all, when someone stands up to take hits that I can’t afford to attempt in an arena I don’t have the entry pass for, I tend not to take shots at their back while their doing it.
Retardo has invaded Protein Wisdom.
ALL HAIL RETARDO!
wtf, you want my address too you freakin thin skinned douche-marauder? seriously? like for real? anonymous pussy? thats all you got? you reached back in the warehouse of wisdom and knowledge and thats the weak shit youre bringing to this epic confrontation? did you don your aquaman footy underoos for the occasion? you want me to give you my moms address too? maybe you can step out of the game for a bit and join her knitting circleto kvetch about the latkes and how everyone misunderstand you, huh bubka? for fucking real dude? no, seriously? for fucks sake man
pat, are you seriously this dense? no really, if you are this dense then just shut the fuck up about all things regarding this controverisal manner and do your law-talking stuff cause youre the last person that needs to be giving the pary or conservatives any type of advice. sorry dude. i was having a little fun with you but you seem to be a real touchy freaking moron without a lick of freaking sense. oh, and youre a total freaking self-important douche.
“Patterico, being a lawyer, understands probably better than others how risky it can be to be completely free with ones speech these days. Although the gov hasn’t yet passed stringent speech codes and restrictions on what is published, the effect by organizations looking to be offended who have large legal funds at hand, is effectively the same. I have noticed that on heavily trafficked sites that have also a made a public impression have tended to be restrictive as to comments made that border the realm of either “insensitiveâ€, “threatening†or outright libelous. Some also restrict “fanciful speculation†(i.e. rumors)
This is the result of our litigious society with plentiful lawyers lined up to take ones business when a nerve has been struck. what blogger can stand even one suit? Only the big guys can really speak truth to power because they have the power of money on their side.”
I’ve had 1) one crazy university psychologist write my office and claim I’m a racist; 2) one criminal lawyer deliver a written threat to sue me to my home, and deliver a threat to make a complaint to the State Bar to my office; and 3) another criminal lawyer threaten on my blog to file a complaint with my State Bar.
All within the last three months.
Does it bother me? No, not really. All three people are morons. Why should I fear them?
Which is just to say, in particular, why should I fear some anonymous pussy on Goldstein’s blog who won’t identify himself beyond calling himself “landstander”? Ooooh, “landstander”! I’m scared by your mighty might!
Even the people who identify themselves by name are toothless. Why would I worry about some no-name?
“pat, are you seriously this dense? no really, if you are this dense then just shut the fuck up about all things regarding this controverisal manner and do your law-talking stuff cause youre the last person that needs to be giving the pary or conservatives any type of advice. sorry dude. i was having a little fun with you but you seem to be a real touchy freaking moron without a lick of freaking sense. oh, and youre a total freaking self-important douche.”
I thought I was a nancy-boy, anony-boy.
Jeez. The OUTLAWS here are kind of pussies. Embarrasing, really.
WTF does his anonymity have to do with anything? Sick fuck.
“Embarrassing.” Because correct spelling is important to us nancy-boys.
so pat, basically youre saying that no one can contest any of the bullshit you say, on the internet, unless they give you their address and phone number?
‘WTF does his anonymity have to do with anything? Sick fuck.”
Nothing; I respect anonymity. Unless, like “landstander,” some anonymous person makes a big point out of how someone else is a “nancy-boy.” At that point it becomes relevant. What do you have to lose? He has nothing to lose; so he can pretend to be some tough guy even though he is nothing.
I don’t criticize the anonymous unless they make these stupid arguments about courage. That’s RETARDO territory. Or should I say JOSH territory.
ok u got a point
“so pat, basically youre saying that no one can contest any of the bullshit you say, on the internet, unless they give you their address and phone number?”
Not at all. Just don’t use the terminology “nancy boy” — because then you’re invoking the issue of personal courage. Which you obviously lack.
I don’t even claim to have a lot of personal courage. I don’t think I have much, physically. But I certainly have more than you, “landstander.” It’s not like it’s a high bar to overcome.
yes yes, pat, in my haste i made some spelling errors. i can correct those, hopefully you can correct being a preening fucking supine nancy-boy before the next election. god forbid you grow a pair and fight fucking people that want your political extinction like you fight “anonymous” people on the internet, tough guy. we’d love to have ya on the team but lately you have been going out of your way to remind me why people LIKE YOU are irrelevant.
sorry pat, you are being a nancy boy. and epic nancy boy. youre conceding ground that shouldnt be conceded to people that want you to concede and are dictating such. period. end of discussion. once the concession is made, it doesnt matter what rationalization you make to justify it. so no, youre the fucking pussy
I was referring to comments made about folks who have decided that Rush shouldn’t be critized/critiqued for his comments and counter arguments and that anyone who doesn’t wish to see conservatism branded as a bunch of loonies and hooligans tossing out incendiary verbiage for kicks or a payoff is being a traitor to the “cause” or cowering to bullies (or in this case as “pussy”). I don’t think there’s much to discuss about what Rush said but there is something to be said for the APPEARANCE recently of bloggers expressing a desire for a more intelligent discourse in re the republics future being seen as capitulation to our opponents (which it may be). Trouble is our opponents don’t fight fair, have never fought fair and have rigged the fight anyway so why play the game “fair” using what appears to be their rules? I was explaining what I thought may be the reason for some bloggers to be trying to throttle the hyperbole by commenter’s be they troll, moby or genuine.
“yes yes, pat, in my haste i made some spelling errors”
No, dumbass, I misspelled “embarrassing” in a comment. I was talking about myself.
“hopefully you can correct being a preening fucking supine nancy-boy before the next election. god forbid you grow a pair and fight fucking people that want your political extinction like you fight “anonymous†people on the internet, tough guy. we’d love to have ya on the team but lately you have been going out of your way to remind me why people LIKE YOU are irrelevant.’
This is all lovely, but even Molon Labe understands that’s it’s pretty hilarious for you to “preen” about your courage while hiding behind a pseudonym. My name is all over the Internet; I won’t give it to you because I want to make you work for it, but you don’t have to work that hard — even you, as dense as you are.
Your name is a mystery — because you preen about your courage while lacking the courage to back your opinions with your full name and other identifying information.
“sorry pat, you are being a nancy boy. and epic nancy boy. youre conceding ground that shouldnt be conceded to people that want you to concede and are dictating such. period. end of discussion. once the concession is made, it doesnt matter what rationalization you make to justify it. so no, youre the fucking pussy”
Hey, cult-boy. Make the argument without using any variation of the word “cede” or “concede.” I want to see if you can manage it, anony-boy. Do you have your own words, or only the ones you are fed? How ’bout it, anony-boy?
Are you RETARDO? Seriously, you can say if you are. It’s OK.
ummm, yes, even Molon Labe gets it. And that’s an achievement on his part.
jcw46,
It’s cool. I get you. I have no problem with you or what you’re saying.
“ummm, yes, even Molon Labe gets it. And that’s an achievement on his part.”
But you got there! And that’s the important thing.
“When I choose leaders and spokesmen for my party and my political movement, I want clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness.” – Patterico
Lack of pettiness? You are beclowning yourself, perhaps drunk. We’ve all been there before.
Stop it.
And yeah, ML, I got the sarcasm. I was just having some fun. We can have some fun, right?
patterico;
I get your point about personal attacks. It’s easy to make comments to boost ones ego when commenting anonymously on the internet. landstander may or may not have point but by doing so without fear of most anyone knowing who they are or how to contact them it’s an easy thing to do. My previous comment was an attempt to inject some reasoning as to why some people/blogger’s (not just you) are calling for less hyperbole and calls to arms that have been going on since the actions of the fools on the hill.
landstander; ad hominem attacks never work whether you’re genuinely upset or a troll or a moby. That’s why he’s calling you on your name calling from the safety of anonymity.
Lack of pettiness? You are beclowning yourself, perhaps drunk. We’ve all been there before.”
I’m not claiming to be a party or movement leader. I’m having some fun with Mr. anony-boy who called me “nancy-boy.”
jcw46:
You get it. I don’t begrudge you your anonymity because you’re not misusing it.
courage meaning what? calling you a nancy-boy? if it makes you feel any better i would call you that to your face too, while gratuitously grabbing my junk and dancing a jig. whats your point? the fact is that i dont really care either way what you think anymore. the moment you made the comment about obama being an essentially “good man,” you lost me. everything from there was either directly or indirectly a reflection of that sentiment in one form or another, however subtle it may have been. further, you insist upon yourself.
I’d prefer you engage this comment I left on your blog, if you aren’t gonna be mean to me or nothin’:
You are ommiting the fact Limbaugh’s audience has gotten much, much bigger. Bigger than most shows, even very successful ones. By “bigger†is here meant Limbaugh’s increase in audience recently was larger than almost any other talker’s audience is total- while of course Limbaugh started out with a gigantic lead.
Nordlinger presents evidence this is a good thing via his numerous interactions with Limbaugh’s listeners over the years and also says “As it happens, WFB loved Rush Limbaugh — I know, I was there.â€
It can only be good for more and more millions of people to listen to Rush. Many people won’t like him and find him crude, arrogant, and idiotic.
But many millions more will become “conservative†because they will have an understanding of what it means, thanks to the Maha Rushie.
Comment by easyliving1 — 3/9/2009 @ 12:18 am
Laandstander! oh Laandstander! come out and plaayyy.
(where’d he go?)
See what you did patterico? now there’s no one to bat around anymore! :>
“courage meaning what? calling you a nancy-boy? if it makes you feel any better i would call you that to your face too, while gratuitously grabbing my junk and dancing a jig.”
I would expect nothing less, weirdo.
“whats your point?”
I think it’s pretty clear. You’re insulting my courage from behind the veil of anonymity, while my name is public and yours is not.
“the fact is that i dont really care either way what you think anymore.”
Megadittoes! To the max!
“the moment you made the comment about obama being an essentially “good man,†you lost me. everything from there was either directly or indirectly a reflection of that sentiment in one form or another, however subtle it may have been. further, you insist upon yourself.”
If I understood what you meant I suspect I would still have contempt for you.
“And yeah, ML, I got the sarcasm. I was just having some fun. We can have some fun, right?”
Of course. And I wasn’t being sarcastic. Clearly an unfair attack. Although perhaps ones I delighted in, I will admit.
Is anyone surprised by this? I’m not.
As it happens, I like him pretty well myself. I don’t get to listen much, but what I’ve heard I’ve mostly liked. Anyone who has actually read what I have to say will not be surprised by that.
Heh. Well, one can only hope. I’m not so confident. But it would be nice to think you’re right.
“Of course. And I wasn’t being sarcastic. Clearly an unfair attack. Although perhaps ones I delighted in, I will admit.”
OK. You’re more fun than I thought.
oh, and youre too much of a nancy boy, litigious twat to fight a real fight with people who wont adhere to standards of decency and honor. what then? after they have re-defined and re-framed you to their liking by virtue of concessions you so graciously gacve them out of courtesy? what then el capitan? ohhhh, lets not possibly give the moderates the wrong idea, they might not join our team. yeah, fuck off with that shit. enjoy getting your lunch money taken away by people who laugh at you, margarette.
“oh, and youre too much of a nancy boy, litigious twat to fight a real fight with people who wont adhere to standards of decency and honor. what then? after they have re-defined and re-framed you to their liking by virtue of concessions you so graciously gacve them out of courtesy? what then el capitan? ohhhh, lets not possibly give the moderates the wrong idea, they might not join our team. yeah, fuck off with that shit. enjoy getting your lunch money taken away by people who laugh at you, margarette.”
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Come on. I’m tired. Can’t someone here say something interesting? If not, I’m going to bed.
whoops, spoke too soon!
MY gripe is with these folks who seem to think that conservatives should couch our ideology in terms that won’t “scare” the undecideds. What!! If they’re undecided, I personally don’t care what they think. Conservatives should present/live their ideals and if others want to join in then fine with me. I believe that’s what happened in ’06 and ’08. Conservatives and republicans tried too hard to “reach” these middle-of-the-road, don’t-know-their-own-mind folks and lost a good percentage of the folks that did know what they wanted and it wasn’t watered down democrats. The latest buzz word is “branding”. WTF does that mean? You either believe in less government, less taxes and free market economic policies or you don’t. Let’s not be like the democrats and try to figure out how to “sell” our ideas. They appeal to others of themselves or they don’t. Look how many bought into the democrats b.s. Look how many are ALREADY having second thoughts! I KNOW some of my neighbors here in PA didn’t vote for this ” ” to do what he’s doing.
yeah, i called you margarette, its what i do
Well I’ll say that parsing Rush’s meaning became a distraction from JeffG’s point about intent. That’s a major fucking works-every-time tool the Left uses against us.
im landstander. i stand, i stand on land. lots of times really.
“MY gripe is with these folks who seem to think that conservatives should couch our ideology in terms that won’t “scare†the undecideds. What!! If they’re undecided, I personally don’t care what they think. Conservatives should present/live their ideals and if others want to join in then fine with me. I believe that’s what happened in ‘06 and ‘08. Conservatives and republicans tried too hard to “reach†these middle-of-the-road, don’t-know-their-own-mind folks and lost a good percentage of the folks that did know what they wanted and it wasn’t watered down democrats. The latest buzz word is “brandingâ€. WTF does that mean? You either believe in less government, less taxes and free market economic policies or you don’t. Let’s not be like the democrats and try to figure out how to “sell†our ideas. They appeal to others of themselves or they don’t. Look how many bought into the democrats b.s. Look how many are ALREADY having second thoughts! I KNOW some of my neighbors here in PA didn’t vote for this ††to do what he’s doing.”
I like it.
I don’t really have a problem with what you’re saying. I think spirit and integrity and passion will win adherents.
But you think your ideology will appeal to everyone, right? Not just the rich? Even the working class?
That’s how I feel. Do you?
“im landstander. i stand, i stand on land. lots of times really.”
That’s gotta be a sock puppet.
“Well I’ll say that parsing Rush’s meaning became a distraction from JeffG’s point about intent. That’s a major fucking works-every-time tool the Left uses against us.”
I think I gave a link up the thread. Didn’t I? If I did, didja read it?
I’m no literary expert, but I’m happy to debate how we should interpret language. After all, I’m a reasonably intelligent human with an opinion. That counts, right?
I was surprised Rush’s audience grew so much, perhaps that’s why Byron York saw fit to write an article about it also. In any event, the significance is profound as we are talking about millions of people hearing a voice, perhaps a rare occurance in many areas, of conservatism that’s humorous and enlightening.
It’s akin to William F. Buckley and Firing Line (along with the columns and books) in many respects, which is why I posted the link (at your site) to Nordlinger essentially saying that very thing.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWYyNjBhNWU2NzQ5ZWNhZThmZGYxY2ZiYmEwNjViMmM=
#18 is where I gave it.
I knew I did.
Point being, even if you make up a word (like “macaca”) the Left will twist and imbue it with nefarious intent. So WTF hope is there for policing your language?
As I said on your blog, if the rule is that we police our language, then that becomes the Alnskyite point of attack (RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”).
What if the rule were “Fuck you that’s not what I meant”?
I’ve not spent much time in PW lately – too many things going on – but I wandered over tonight, and got some cognitive dissonance blown right into both eyes.
Is this landstander guy with his in-your-face homophobia representative of where things have gone over here? ‘Cuz, this ain’t pretty at all, and a conversation about the utility of Rush becomes a bit . . . rich . . . in this context.
#67
That is awesome. I love that link. You learn something new every day. I love that.
“Rush has been widely criticized for saying he hopes Obama fails. Well, I hope Obama fails, too — that is, in his efforts to achieve what I think would be bad for the country. What’s so mysterious and wrong about that?”
BOOM! Why couldn’t have Rush said it as clearly? I don’t think he ever said it that clearly.
I like that. I may have a new guy I have to read.
#69
Try my theory. It’s linked at #18, I think.
OH yeah, let’s not forget the other thing they’re doing in d.c., besides letting wall street know that they’re going to “bankrupt the coal industry” (which provides about 60% of our electricity) and “tax the rich” (i.e. investors) and take over failing businesses and tell them what to do, they’re also going to allow a judge to rewrite mortgage contracts. what idiot will ever underwrite a mortgage again under those rules? only those who will factor in the risk and price the mortgage accordingly. to anyone who needs it spelled out; MONEY WILL COST MORE TO BORROW! fOR EVERYONE! I’m not educated enough to know the answer but I know that what they’re doing most likely won’t help the economy. And that’s my real fear; they’re doing this to purposely wreck the economy so that they can erect something alien to the continued freedom and greatness of the U.S. I’ve posted elsewhere on this blog that that’s the real purpose of the Rush kerfluffle; misdirection and to sow dissension amongst conservative bloggers/pundits. keep the yakkers busy with something other than the mess they’re making. They need time to get things in place, that’s why ” ” is hurrying everything through without even his cabinet and advisors in place yet.
If I had to do it all over again, I’d change that second “perhaps” to “seemingly.”
“I think I gave a link up the thread. Didn’t I? If I did, didja read it?”
But your interpretation theory relies on how the *listener* interprets rather than what the speaker intends. That leads to abominations like the British defintion of racism: Anything the listener decides is racist.
“Is this landstander guy with his in-your-face homophobia representative of where things have gone over here?”
Oh, bobby b, you’ve missed A LOT.
I have a wife and all, but calling people “pussies” is the ORDER OF THE DAY.
‘Cause EVERYONE’s tough on the Internet.
OUTLAW!
landstander: in your face homophobia is what i do, ITS ALL I DO!!
yeah, fuck off, my point exactly. so now calling someone a nancy-boy is homphobic? i rest my case. also, go eat a gallon delicious dicks mon frere. is making fun of the french homophobic too now, maxine?
“But your interpretation theory relies on how the *listener* interprets rather than what the speaker intends. That leads to abominations like the British defintion of racism: Anything the listener decides is racist.’
NOPE!!!
Gotta be REASONABLE.
Oh, you can call that subjective. But I think your theory runs that risk too.
that was for bobby, btw. dont cry pat, i wasnt inferring you were a faggot or anything. just a nancy-boy, im pretty sure thats not a hate crime yet
Patterico; your #64
“I like it.”
sorry, not sure what you’re liking?
“Using the word “deranged†to describe liberals as a whole is just silly. It’s true of some of them. But not all of them. Calling liberals deranged may make you feel good, and it may make you laugh. But many of you consider Limbaugh to be the spokesman of the conservative movement — and if our spokesmen regularly say stuff like that, we’ll alienate voters.”
Howard Dean. The man both proves your point, and mine.
landstander,
I think we’ve established that you’re very silly and not worth responding to. So you can keep talking, but I just might ignore you. mmmkay?
“sorry, not sure what you’re liking?”
I like the spirit. What? Did someone talk you into the idea that I’m trying to take the spirit out of our discourse?
Where did you get THAT idea? It wasn’t anything I said.
pat, just a heads up, this is not a valiant dignified effort on your part, in any sense. youre not redeeming yourself at all and if anything your are depreciating your worth in the eyes of many people you probably dont expect. my point being is this, i played you, i played you like a chump cause you are a chump. youre predictable and clearly you have something to prove after the past 2 embarassing weeks. and this is not a simple observation but a tangible fact. chin up bro, its not too late to turn things around. unfortunately i dont think your ego will allow that. best of luck
“Howard Dean. The man both proves your point, and mine.”
Not sure what you mean.
Howard Dean is not every liberal. So I see how it proves my point.
How does it prove yours? Serious question.
“pat, just a heads up, this is not a valiant dignified effort on your part, in any sense. youre not redeeming yourself at all and if anything your are depreciating your worth in the eyes of many people you probably dont expect. my point being is this, i played you, i played you like a chump cause you are a chump. youre predictable and clearly you have something to prove after the past 2 embarassing weeks. and this is not a simple observation but a tangible fact. chin up bro, its not too late to turn things around. unfortunately i dont think your ego will allow that. best of luck”
Just a heads up: you sound like this: “blah blah blah blah blah.” Best of luck.
i’m outta here. 2:00 vegas time. Great spirited fun this weekend.
“But you think your ideology will appeal to everyone, right? Not just the rich? Even the working class?
That’s how I feel. Do you?”
Patterico; see, I’ve got a problem with that kind of thinking. I have an ideology. I’d like others (a majority) to have the same ideology but i don’t worry about who it appeals to. they either do or don’t. if they don’t get it then they’re probably not going to get it until they see the same reality that I do. I don’t judge whether my ideology is correct for everyone or anyone, it’s the one I believe. given an understanding of how the world really works and what human beings are like, then communist utopias or liberal welfare states can be seen for the failed/failing fantasyland constructs posited by those who wish to rule and enslave other people.
“I’d like others (a majority) to have the same ideology but i don’t worry about who it appeals to.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Poindexter.
Take your pick. You can wish for a majority or you can refuse to care who you appeal to.”
This ain’t Marie Antoinette Callendar’s. You don’t get to eat your pie and have it too.
Sorry about the extra quotation mark.”
patterico; your 83
Okay. I understand what you meant by that now. I didn’t know whether you liked what I said or what others I was commenting on were doing/saying. I was confused because I have read your blog fairly regularly over the last month or so. (got a hot link to it!) and had concluded that you were a moderate conservative (if those labels can be said to have definitive meaning) so I was taken aback that you might “like” some of the policies spewing forth from D.C. I didn’t think so but wasn’t sure due to shortness of acquaintance.
Why only recently you may ask? Well, I have taken a personal vow to divest myself of any and all products and services that put money in the pocket of liberals/acknowledged democrats in the news/entertainment industry. This has been tough to accomplish. they are like cockroaches; everywhere you turn you find yourself sending them money. so I’m looking for intelligent, well written commentary on the news of the day or news in general to take the place of the blatant boosterism that passes for journalism these days.
THE MEDIA HAS BECOME MY ENEMY. THEY CHOOSE TO BE, NOT ME.
I don’t think the demographic is as split between rich and working class as it is between urban and rural. This map shows what I mean. I don’t have an explanation, just an observation.
you seem to be good at apologies. does your “wife” accept those apologies when you de-pant? ZING!!!
What? sure I can. I said like not want or need. Once anyone starts trying to persuade others to an ideology, it becomes almost inevitable that that ideology will be compromised as more and more people are desired to be part of that movement. Since it is impossible to please everyone by trying to please everyone, you lose integrity. the only real question is how much compromise can be allowed before it has become something entirely different to the original intent. I’m not saying compromise is bad but too much and the ideology is by definition not the same and possibly no longer appealing to the initial group that it appealed to.
Example; pope says no women as priests. some people say this is wrong and is archaic and sexist, etc. blah, blah the church should change this. If the church WERE to change this point then it no longer would be the catholic church as formed over 1700 yrs. Yes/no? there are certain fundamental points that cannot be changed without compromising the whole focus of the ideology. If I become so concerned with having that majority that I give up/change one by one the very foundations of my ideology, then it’s no longer have my ideology.
I think it may be a function of the difference in format. When writing, you can agonize over every word, and spend as long as you like getting it just right. Doing a three hour radio show might be a little more challenging.
Having said that, I still disagree that Rush wasn’t perfectly clear. But then I’ve been listening to him for 20 years, so what he thinks isn’t exactly a mystery to me. And for the record, I don’t agree with everything Rush says, but I am closer in ideology to him than any other pundit.
“you seem to be good at apologies. does your “wife†accept those apologies when you de-pant? ZING!!!”
Huh? Did someone say something? No? Good. Going to sleep.
“there are certain fundamental points that cannot be changed without compromising the whole focus of the ideology. If I become so concerned with having that majority that I give up/change one by one the very foundations of my ideology, then it’s no longer have my ideology.”
I HOPE HE FAILS = MY IDEOLOGY.
I HOPE HIS POLICIES ARE DEFEATED = FUCKING SELLOUT.
Come on. I agree that we don’t sacrifice our principles or beliefs. That’s not the issue.
Good night!
lee; your 92
Yes, I agree. the areas you point out have limited ability to support a large number of “non-workers”, have democrat/liberal government (and have had for a long time), are areas where the ethos is one of self-sufficiency or at most a community based assistance (usually through a church). the children are respectful and appreciative (as far as any child over 2 can be) and are taught to think for themselves and to think of others and one’s community. It’s the grasshopper vs the ants. guess who’s the ants?
6 a.m. here. I’ve got to go be an “ant”.
I hope he fails=I hope his plans fail
I DON’T CARE IF THAT’S WHAT YOU SAID YOU MEAN, I CAN REASONABLY TWIST IT TO MEAN WHAT I WANT IT TO MEAN!!
Yeah, 3am here, I probably should go to bed. Have a good one.
“REASONABLY TWIST IT”?
??
oh my dearest patterico, you are such a noble victimized martyr. maybe republican bake sales and bingo night are more youre speed, my little precious. oh, and mantwat…thats you. i just made that up. i fucking rule. now tell us again for the 15th time how your ego is making you go to bed. i, for one, believe you. hopefully my apparent mockery doesnt push you over the edge and make you really butter my nugs.
I hope Soros fails.
Thanks for the steaming pile, guys. Great way to start the morning.
Did Patterico ever respond to this?
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/03/08/rushs-critics-need-to-read-what-he-actually-said/
Is it just me, or does it strike anyone else as odd that Patterico apparently spent the night arguing with people I’ve never seen ’round here before?
youre the definition of nancy-boy, true story
Another true story: there’s a picture of you in the dictionary under “Trollhammered”.
people I’ve never seen ’round here before?
Oh, I suspect that all of them have been here before under different names. Maggots.
Interesting thread. And, by interesting I mean wtf?
I can’t believe Patterico spent so much time engaging landmoby. I think there’s a whiff of thor about that one..
Patterico is a decent guy, really. But on this issue I respectfully disagree: we cannot tippy-toe carefully at all times, mindful of every un-nuanced word or misplaced apostrophe, worried that there are landmines. We should never have allowed such mines to be placed in the first place.
Rush is excellent as minesweeper, btw.
The nuance; it burns.
Pogues baby!
Woof. Guess I didn’t need the coffee to get me moving this morning after all.
WTF?? Did someone say “BRING ON THE STUPID”? Cause looking at this thread some people seriously brought it on.
It sucks that I can’t walk away from this place for a few hours without this stuff happening.
Patterico comes here and says that he’s glad that Jeff’s going to get his side out, and landstander starts calling him a “nancy-boy”? WTF?
I’ve been saying for 2 or 3 days now that we can’t permit people, whoever they are, to be subjected to these kinds of slanders without pushing back, and this is what happens here on this blog? I’m humiliated. Landstander, you’re out of line. You’ve got a substantive beef with Pat, take it up in a substantive way.
My apologies, Pat.
Oh, great, Jeff gets rid of one moron and another mouth-breathing street corner screamer named “landstander” shows up.
I know I’ll always respect someone who doesn’t understand the function of the key.
…the function of the “Shift” key.
lee has an excellent point..
How many times does something slip, verbally, that a column writer would never allow? There’s a reason live TV and radio is sometimes a dangerous sport. That’s why Teleprompter Jesus wouldn’t be caught without one.
Dan, check the comments ISP’s. See if landmoby hails from West Palm Beach.
Someone else noticed this first but that guy sounds exactly like thor.
Says it’s coming from Brooklyn.
Honestly, Pat shouldn’t have been goaded into it. I think it’s a good course of action to simply ignore anyone who:
1) doesn’t consistently use a recognized screen name and
2) petulantly refuses to capitalize.
Not thor then, unless he’s out and about on Daddy’s credit again.
It feels like having to clean up after a high school party before the parents get home.
Oh, here’s the real enemy. h/t Vman.
It’s to Patterico’s credit that he’s willing to engage his critics here, and he states his case reasonably, though I still disagree. OUTLAWS! don’t walk on eggshells.
purse? I’ve seen those nancy-boy purses before, but around here we call them “murse”, short for man-purse.
But, it isn’t to his credit that he spend so much time arguing with a … whatever the hell it was. It was about as fruitful as arguing with the town drunk. And, given that the IP was from the East coast, and the hour of the debate … I’m guessing that’s what it was.
Figures. Fucking New Yorkers. Potty-mouths, all of them.
126 The author of your link says this:
“As the father of a Marine who served in George W. Bush’s misbegotten wars let me say this: if President Obama’s strategy to repair our economy, infrastructure and healthcare fails that will put our troops at far greater risk because the world will become a far more dangerous place. So for all you flag-waving Republicans who are trying to undermine the President at home — if you succeed more of our troops will be killed abroad.”
So is this idiot trying to argue that opposing 100 bridges to nowhere and socialized healthcare will kill troops overseas? He has to be smoking crack.
Slart – I prefer manbag. Jack calls his a “go-bag” but we all know what it is.
Yeah, I noted that article yesterday, but I won’t dignify it with a link.
Frank Schaeffer has never been right about anything in his entire writerly life, but he’s still certain that he’s right this time, and no mistake. Putz.
Well by the end of it he basically blames every single bad thing that is happening on George Bush and repeatedly exclaims “Obama is the only one trying to fix things!” so you’re right, we probably should be more worried about his sanity than his arguments.
Funny, but that I don’t know the name Frank Schaeffer until he become a former Republican. Oh, the heartache! We’ve lost yet another …
So W’s misbegotten wars are now O’s noble crusades?
“Did Patterico ever respond to this?”
BMoe,
One way of finding out would be checking the comments to your link.
Another way would be to simply ask people here.
You chose the latter course. Let me suggest the former instead.
I’m thinking that it would be a wise career move to first come out as a “conservative” … then switch sides, and become one of those brave “former” Republicans speaking truth to power.
“Comment by alppuccino on 3/9 @ 7:27 am #
So W’s misbegotten wars are now O’s noble crusades?”
As an added bonus, O! is lying about deployments, too.
136
Not only that but somehow the guy misses the irony of comparing Rush Limbaugh to Hanoi Jane when he is posting on a website that has proudly published OpEds by her and has to close down comments sections when a terrorist attack fails to kill the vice president because all the commentators are dissapointed.
Honestly, there is so much wrong with that article, I think it would take less time to comment on anything he possibly got correct.
Does anyone else think that Huffpo should change those stars, surrounding their “Obama’s first 100 days” banner, into hearts?
Vman says it best..
Why didn’t Frank Schaeffer just make a video? SFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
Pity poor Cramer, he’s learning how the left will spin your words all out of context.
http://tinyurl.com/9vbv9n
It’s almost as if there is a pattern to the behavior.
And since this thread opened with some quotes,
Just a reminder:
If we don’t stop the assault on language, we will necessarily drift toward totalitarianism and liberal fascism. NECESSARILY. Meaning, it’s built into the premises we are accepting.
It’s not really about Rush, Cramer, Patterico, or PJM.
If I’ve learned one thing about interpretation, it’s that the author owns his words, and you can’t pull one soundbite out of context and smear the speaker with it, because that would be unfair.
Also, if you see that bastard Patterico around here, remind him of that time he said Obama was a good man. Sure, Patterico argues that in context he still violently opposes Obama’s disastrous policies, but just feels that Obama isn’t evil for pursuing bad policies that he believes are good. But pay no attention to that. The “good man” soundbite oughta shut him up!
Now what was I saying about authorial intent and context? Ah yes . . .
I might agree that Obama is a “good man”. If I were a cannibal and really hungry. You know like, “Wow! That’s good man right there!”
BONUS PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE: Again, I don’t sanction ANY reading that others may give your words, just a REASONABLE reading. So snarky comments about how you can twist this phrase of mine or that are off-point. During the “good man” discussion I always made it crystal clear I opposed Obama’s policies, and anyone who actually read what I said — which is about 3% of those who criticized me for it — knows that. Rush didn’t make it clear that he never wanted to see an economic downturn for America. I cited my poll as evidence and now I’ll quote that candy-ass Ace:
Anyway. Final word as I have work. Good luck to Jeff; he’s a bright guy and I think his stuff will be interesting. I do hope he addresses my theory of interpreting words according to their reasonable meaning, as argued in the link given in this comment and earlier upthread.
Sorry, another screwed-up blockquote tag.
Pat, the two of you have managed, both, to cartoonize and insult each other. Enough of the Et tu, quoque?
So snarky comments about how you can twist this phrase of mine or that are off-point.
Sorry, dude, but that is exactly the fucking point.
You probably didn’t even know you had a petard, did you?
Sorry, dude, but that is exactly the fucking point.
Sorry, dude, but it’s fucking not. That’s not my argument and my argument can’t be reasonably read to raise that issue.
This is coming from the guy who asks if I responded to a post, but doesn’t even bother to read the comments to that post to see if I did. You may not be a lazy man but you’re behaving in a lazy manner and you haven’t bothered to understand my argument.
Patterico, Jeff G. and other commentators and readers the other night!
And now again today too!
It was super!
Hell. Too few people will click the link.
I’ll just reproduce the argument here.
Have at it!
B Moe, please . . . why, after the abuse that he suffered from this ninny last night, are you poking at Patterico? Let me repeat that this is not about Rush Limbaugh, or Patterico, or Ace, or Allah, or Steele in particular. It’s about all of us. I’m pretty sure, anyway, that that’s what Jeff is going to say.
“Personalize it,” remember? Whose rules are those?
That’s not my argument and my argument can’t be reasonably read to raise that issue.
Who are you to say how I can reasonably read it? I don’t agree with you or Ace that Rush can be reasonably read as you say, I think that post is crystal clear. Defining reasonableness down to that level can be a very tricky and objective business. The point is, as long as we are bitching at each other about infinitesimal bits of nuance and reasonableness, the other side is laughing all the way to the Treasury. Capiche?
And, by the way, Pat, Ace did make the argument–and I’m going after the argument–that whereas he had no dog in the fight, people who disagreed with him, you and Allah with respect to Rush’s comments were “cultists.” NG.
Even Frank Fucking Schaeffer thinks he’s reasonable, no doubt.
This is coming from the guy who asks if I responded to a post, but doesn’t even bother to read the comments to that post to see if I did. You may not be a lazy man but you’re behaving in a lazy manner and you haven’t bothered to understand my argument.
I was posting in a hurry over coffee this morning, I didn’t mean to offend. And I don’t mean to be poking anyone, I just think you are still missing the point. I am a fan, Pat, lighten up.
I won’t be home again for a few hours. Keep a lookout for Jeff’s post at HA.
[B]ut just feels that Obama isn’t evil for pursuing bad policies that he believes are good.
Yeah Pat, many of us acknowledged your formulation. We just disagreed with it. Instead arguing that evil is often nothing more than good intentions gone awry. Paths to hell, pavings, and whatnot.
I’m not sure I’d know a petard if I saw a really nice one at a pawnshop.
Just me, probably.
I think this is a reasonable reading of what it means to not want our dipshit pezzydent to fail. It’s mostly the Associated Press dirty socialist propagandist what expresses the meaning of the geriatric rich guy, but it seems reasonable enough. Also it’s neat how it’s indiscernible from fascism.
Warren Buffett is a deluded geezer. Nasty old man.
“I was posting in a hurry over coffee this morning, I didn’t mean to offend. And I don’t mean to be poking anyone, I just think you are still missing the point. I am a fan, Pat, lighten up.”
Fair enough.
“Yeah Pat, many of us acknowledged your formulation. We just disagreed with it. Instead arguing that evil is often nothing more than good intentions gone awry. Paths to hell, pavings, and whatnot.”
Plenty of people throw that quote in my face like I am an Obama supporter.
Pat, have you addressed the question whether Ed Henry and Robert Gibbs’ interpretation of Limbaugh’s meaning was a reasonable one yet? It seems to me that theirs is the interpretation most in question, isn’t it? Or to put it another way, we’re faced with having to distinguish between a possibly mistaken interpretation and a possibly intentionally distorted interpretation, one an innocent error, the other an intentional lie. In either case, I’m assuming the interpreter has failed to fully grasp Limbaugh’s intent. Both can claim to be “reasonable” readings of Limbaugh’s intent, and in fact when challenged probably will so claim right up to the moment they are argued out of their positions, if they are amenable to argument. Meanwhile, of course, Limbaugh’s intent goes the bye.
“I hope Obama fails, and the economy doesn’t recover, because it’s THAT important that liberty be preserved.â€
I don’t have a problem with that statement.
Buffett said the nation’s leaders need to support President Barack Obama’s efforts to repair the economy because fear is dominating Americans’ behavior and the economy has basically followed the worst-case scenario he envisioned.
Yes, Warren, we are afraid the dipshit is going to succeed.
Buffett said he believes patriotic Republicans and Democrats will realize the nation is engaged in an economic war.
I would be interested in hearing Buffett’s definition of the differing factions in this conflict.
So are they all, all reasonable men.
Beyond all of the nuance hoo-ha, I’m really, really getting angry with useless tools like Buffet and Rich and that boneheaf from Huffinpuff telling me that the only patriotic thing to do is accept both a “stimulus” and a budget as is because, darn it, he’s our Commandant in Chief and he is doing something!
Crap on a cracker they all sound like some today for Hugo Chavez.
boneheaf? Bonehead.
Nuance.
Plenty of people throw that quote in my face like I am an Obama supporter.
It must be difficult.
Have you, you know, tried confronting them directly on their duplicitous spin, or are you simply striving to better parse your own verbiage so as to reduce future occurrences?
today? toady!
Outlaw? No. Moron.
Fascism can be see as a smart deal for those who already have theirs. It generally will freeze in place the power relations of those willing to go along. Stasis is a good thing if you have your heart’s desire already.
Under it the powerful feed the middle class to the raging mob to placate it’s hunger and save the wealthy. What the wealthy don’t perceive, is that, that hunger is insatiable and once the middle, in earlier times known as “Kulaks”, is gone their time will come around at last. In the end there is only the now destitute mob and the elite ruling class which is in constant backstabbing warfare.
It is a very old system, perhaps the oldest political system the human race has had. Pimped up in modern finery, but the same old face underneath it all.
Opposing the Commander in Chief when he is defending the US = Patriot.
Opposing the Commander in Chief when he is usurping the Constitution = Treason.
Directions change in the New World.
Comment by ThomasD on 3/9 @ 9:11 am
Touché.
“Have you, you know, tried confronting them directly on their duplicitous spin, or are you simply striving to better parse your own verbiage so as to reduce future occurrences.”
I confronted people about it repeatedly and was told I was wrong about what I meant. I was told by the proprietor of this site that I didn’t believe what I was saying.
You didn’t read my argument, did you? If I thought the White House/media reading of Rush’s words was unreasonable and unfair I would go to the front lines and defend him.
I’m not saying that one need parse one’s words to avoid UNREASONABLE readings, but rather REASONABLE ones that aren’t meant.
In the abstract, this formulation may represent an evolution of my argument — and if it does, then I’ll credit it to this site. But I think my argument applies to the Limbaugh situation.
In spoken words and writings, the authors intentions give rise to the meanings of those words. That is for words, which have their field of action, within the mind.
Actions in the greater world, physical actions, must be judged by the results of those actions. Intentions are a mitigating factor under the law, but to the victim there is little difference between the degrees in a homicide. He is just as dead no matter what the intent of the actions.
All men are good, reasonable, honorable within the limits of their own thoughts. It is their actions in the world, and the results of those actions, which allow for the judgment of others as to whether they are good, reasonable, and honorable in practice. Their words can only be used to possibly infer intent.
My main problem with the good man comment was in respect to his attendance in a racist church for 20 years. Whether you want to chalk that up to agreeing with the sentiments, or with cynical political use of racism for use as a power base, I do not think either one of those are hallmarks of a good man.
I am not trying to beat a 2 month old dead horse anymore but would you call David Duke a “good” man because he wanted to do what he thought was best for his country?
Ignore my last two comments. Responding to them will be pointless.
Comment by Patterico on 3/9 @ 9:40 am
That you feel the White House and their Media shills are making a REASONABLE interpretation is the real problem here, as I see it. They know precisely what Limbaugh meant and are deliberately misconstruing his words in order to demonize and marginalize him.
Are we having another pissing contest?
Dang. I never get invites on time…
Patterico,
Howard Dean is a leader in the Democrat’s party, who says things over and over that you say our side shouldn’t say (from a conservative perspective) because it would alienate voters.
You’re right as far as Howard Dean has been somewhat shoved aside from the national spotlight, and I’m right when it’s taken into account that Democrats don’t play by the rules you say we should play by. National spotlight aside, Howard Dean is still powerful.
Also, consider how often the left demonized Bush and how that didn’t alienate voters in 2006 and 2008.
Far fucking from it, sad to say.
“but just feels that Obama isn’t evil for pursuing bad policies that he believes are good”
Who does? What makes him NOT a good man is the absolutely unbelievable amount of lying he did in the campaign. Playing the race card at times. And having more than a passing relationship with a domestic terrorist who hates the fucking country that Obama is trying to govern (maybe, Lord over, would be a better phrase). There is a world of difference between “not being a good man” and being evil. Talk about misleading rhetoric.
Howard Dean, easyliving1, Howard Dean? How about President Barack Obama, addressing Republican objections to the Democrats’ stimulus plan claiming that the Republican position was “Do Nothing”. How would that count in your estimation of “reasonable interpretations” of another’s statements?
Patrick, you keep talking about Rush like he made a witless blunder in his word choice.
I guess you’ve heard the saying “impropriety is the soul of wit” – and Dorothy Parkers observation that wit isn’t just cracking wise…. but wit has truth in it.
He was being frank and provocative and he’s a radio-show talk host, and you seem to think a stone literal interpretation of the worst is legitimate.
Worse, it seemed to escape you at least for a time that the overarching reason for pointing at Rush and demanding he lasso his tongue or HAVE IT LASSOED is distraction from ACTUAL failure of O, and worser still the government should not be appointing people to clamp down on political speech of private citizens ( not working for the government), if they can’t get them to shut up on their own.
See also AOS remarks. I think I said the same thing about ten different ways.
In which thread at AoS, SarahW?
If I thought the White House/media reading of Rush’s words was unreasonable and unfair I would go to the front lines and defend him.
Now I see why you avoided confronting the argument directly.
Thanks for that bit of clarity.
Sdferr,
Patterico wrote that Rush was wrong to call all liberals deranged because it will alienate voters.
Howard Dean clearly offended all Republicans with his starving children crack, a much larger group than self-identified “liberals,” and therefore I thought the Dean example most germane to the argument Patterico made.
Nice to know that an officer of the court is so committed to defend our right to reasonably free speech.
I’m going to chime in here, as I did over at Apostate Ace’s, and say that Patterico has a point. It is worth one’s time to parse one’s words so that reasonable people interpret you correctly.
That said, he should shut his pie-hole. Or if he must opine on l’Affaire Rush, he should turn to the nearest Lefty and say “I don’t know that I would put it the way Rush did, but you must understand how he’s tapping into the anger people feel at the President’s bait-and-switch from a New Politician to an embrace of reactionary socialism’s failed policies.” Or whatever he would feel would express that with the most elegance.
The metro-cons are supposed to be providing cover FOR the hard-core, not seeking cover FROM them. That’s what your moderate Dems do for the Kossacks. That’s how this works.
Easy, on those grounds I wouldn’t quarrel with your Dean example. In fact, in general I don’t intend to quarrel with your use of Dean, save in this respect, namely that I think that what Obama says and does that warps what conservatives believe is currently more salient than anything Dean can now do. So carry on, as you see fit.
By the way, I agree most vehemently with Patterico on the subject of calling one’s political opponents deranged and hence agree with Pat’s position vis a vis Limbaugh calling them deranged. I think that such rhetoric is ultimately a harm, an awful, grievous harm to politics. See my case here.
A fair enough point.
Patterico lost me because he seemed not to be able to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable.
If that’s the legal training talking, all the gladder am I that I chose not to pursue that for myself.
The MainStreamBlogosphere has officially jumped the shark!
198.
Yep. And not in the direction it should have taken either. Politics will do that to you.
For those of you (or us, I should say) in the “Watch what they do, not what they say” camp of intentional interpretation, this Obama call back to the NYT may (emphasis on may) prove to be a crucially important datum. Filed in the category of “Why did he just do that? Oh, right.”
well, i’m late to this shindig and not a regular poster till like yesterday. but i gotta agree with sarah w. et al.
first it doesn’t matter what the nuance of rush’s meaning was. because the media will twist his words and distort his meaning in the most damaging way possible regardless of how carefully he chooses to speak. and i bet rush reaches for the hand lotion and kleenex any time people do get into arguments about his meaning. because all of it makes him a bigger SUPAHstar! haven’t you folks ever heard? there is no such thing as bad publicity.
but more importantly, and i think this has been mentioned up and around thread/s, everyone is ceding ground to the dirty socialist narrative by fighting a battle over rush’s words in the first place. my response to anyone, particularly leftard friends, who might ask me about this manufactured scandal would be to laugh in their face. heartily. and then to ask them why they are getting into such a huff about what some unelected entertainer thinks? the same exact reaction i would have if they wanted to pick a fight over the meaning of howard stern’s words, or opie and anthony’s.
the dirty socialist spin machine wants all of us not dirty socialists arguing, just like this. over trivialities and bullshit and what entertainers may or may not have meant. instead of calling them out over their misdirection, which makes some radio entertainer the focus of attention instead of obambi’s policy FAILs. which is where our oppositional energies really ought to be focused.
the rest is all commentary. and junior high school girl catfights. without even the fun and excitement of possibly seeing some nipple.
One thing further:
I dislike the use of the “entertainer” escape. Rush is not an entertainer. He’s a pundit. He happens to be pretty damn good at being a pundit, and more entertaining than most pundits.
Remember, when the MSM first condescended to acknowledge Rush’s existence, the “he’s just an entertainer” jibe was brought out by the lefties so they wouldn’t have to take what he says seriously. I found that disengenuous then, and I find it disengenuous now.
andrew you have a point. and perhaps pundit would be a better way to phrase it. he’s still not an elected official, he’s a private citizen. and an entertainer. the two (entertainer and pundit) aren’t mutually exclusive categories. but neither job title comes with the privilege of writing and signing laws, or even official policies (foreign, domestic, and otherwise.) and i think that really needs to be stressed to the idiots who are calling him the de facto leader of the republican party. which is simply horseshit.
just to clarify: when one acts as if rush is our de facto leader, argues as if his words carry the gravitas commensurate with that imaginary title, one has already fallen into the trap. it lets them define us, and we end up lending credibility to their manufactured narrative about us. and that’s a losing strategy (imao, fwiw.)
the one thing the morally vain cannot abide is to be laughed at. so i’d rather get their narcissistic panties into a twist by turning their game against them. rather than playing by their rules. but that’s just me. YMMV.
From yesterday.
The phone back is only done when second thoughts creep in that the lie didn’t stick well the first time. It’s like semantic duct tape. It may make it stick but it’s a shabby, temporary fix.
Damn right geoffb, well done.
I thought that was what you were getting at too.
Notice he doesn’t really deny being a socialist, he just wants to make it clear he isn’t the first one.
I’m only guessing now, but I do think that there may come a time when this act, this seeming tiny datum, does rise in significance in public opinion writ large. I could easily be wrong, pushing a bias I already have. On the other hand, if this does in fact represent an (actually, yet another in a long series) attempt to hide his own long held belief system from the people he purports to govern and they ever get on to him, whoa momma.
Pat: look up the authorial fallacy. I spoke to it somewhere yesterday.
Global warming? That’s the pathetic fallacy.
68% of Republicans think the party has no leader and 98% think it has no balls.
Jeff will fill the void…
It is 100% unreasonable to think that Limbaugh wanted America to fail. So why is this discussion/argument taking place?
[…] Collins has the details. I’ll reproduce my comment here: I look forward to it as well. […]