December 4, 2013

Remember when GOP “pragmatists” warned we Hobbits about using loaded terms to attack an Historic President?

Well, it’s time for them to start chiding liberal law professors who — shockingly! — are beginning to use some of those very same EXTREMIST terms (I mean, c’mon:  “imperial”?  That’s the kind of thing that Rick Moran finds so absolutely maddening about you unnuanced and embarassing nutters; and suggesting that such behavior can lead to an “unstable system”? Why, that kind of of revolutionary innuendo will get you drummed off of Professor Brian Kiteley’s Christmas Card list tout de suite) and who will likely now find themselves subject to deliberate misrepresentation about their views, white papers describing them as potential domestic terrorists, or at the very least, deserving of special IRS (and perhaps even NSA) scrutiny.

For being such arsonistic anarchists and, you know, racists.

Funny:  it seems its only politicians and political hacks who can’t see Obama for what he is.  Just as it’s only politicians and political hacks who object so strenuously to our noticing, and giving voice to what are rather obvious observations.

Take that for what it’s worth. I’m not into being judgmental.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:33am
26 comments | Trackback

Comments (26)

  1. It’s never their fault for undermining our fundamental respect for the rule of law; no, it’s our fault for noticing.

    Just wait ’til we all give tax laws as much respect as we do speed limits.

  2. Neo-neocon wrote up Jonathan Turley’s testimony at the hearing yesterday (linked there in pdf), as well as his column (also linked there) correcting the WaPo moron Milbank’s obscuring piece on the hearing yesterday.

    When one first notices it, it’s hard to believe how blatant and shameless the distortions are. Turley was struck by it in part because he knew from personal experience, having been a major player in the hearings, how badly the WaPo misrepresented what happened there. I haven’t followed Turley’s work before, although I plan to do so now. But I wonder whether he knows how commonly this happens, and how pernicious are the effects on the voting public and its perceptions of reality.

    Almost surely not.

  3. - So many “good men”, so little time.

  4. - You see, its simply that white men are all rapists and not part of a protected class, soooooooo PENIS!

  5. I bet Sarah Palin has referred to Bashir as a penis, or at least thought it.

  6. Martin Bashir: “It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.”

    MSNBC is the “special” network, where “special” viewers get their “special” news. Explains rather a lot, non?

  7. - Yeah. That special group of paste eaters on the short bus.

  8. Is there any doubt that Kitely would give his left nut to have Turley on his Christmas list? That is, assuming he still has a left nut.

  9. Nicholas Rosenkranz was the best of the four panelists in what portions of the hearing that I saw, from the point of view of a constitutional liberalism and interpretation, heroically, even, a consistent a man of reason.

  10. Well now isn’t that special?

  11. “That is, assuming he still has a left nut.”

    The new man has two left nuts and knows that but for a big government they would be impossible to keep clean.

  12. I thought the “new man” was a woman.

  13. sdferr, I really enjoyed the hearing yesterday. Turley was very good and I liked the others, excepting , the old guy whose name escapes me.

    I learned quite a bit from watching it.

  14. “I thought the “new man” was a woman.”

    No way. Someone still has to carry the extra luggage and have a disadvantage in divorce cases.

  15. Not to mention killing spiders and parallel parking.

  16. Spider killing, definitely. I can parallel park just fine.

  17. ‘Forget About the Price Tag’ Wins Obamacare Video Contest

  18. newrouter, that link about Attiksson “pounding” the White House is clearly angry rape imagery, and you should be ashamed. I’m sure Prof Kiteley is bound to be right cross with you for it.

  19. DiploMad addresses the phenomena [The New USSRists], and concludes the tyrannical push underway is about power, plain and simple, so in some measure is unprincipled as such: that is, the motive doesn’t arise from a genuine attempt to reach an order based in knowledge, or, in phenomenological terms, in passing on a superior knowledge of a marxist order to those over whom these pseudo-marxists would rule — they do not seek to educate us, but merely to grasp at whatever powers they can obtain, regardless of theory, regardless of order (by this, a kind or shape of reason — the contrast being crazy-like, resembling the crazed surface shapes of pottery glaze), even, so long as their ends can be obtained.

    But then we’re necessarily thrown back on another question: if not arising from knowledge (even if an incomplete and partial knowledge, or pseudo-science), i.e., on the basis of principles (ideas) and with these, rationally so to say — – then where does the motive arise?

    It’s strange to say, but I think there is an account of the dark recesses of the human soul which, if not entirely or perfectly illuminating, at least locates this motive in a sort of natural particularity about human beings as such, hewing close to the phenomena as we find them, as they come to us unbidden. And whoa, it’s old, this account . . . very old. But it is not agedness alone that makes it worthwhile. It’s the clarity which does that.

  20. Horowitz covers a lot of the same territory in these podcasts.

  21. E.J.Dionne: Why not totalitarianism? It has always worked heretofore, so it can work again!

Leave a Reply