by which I mean TRex of FDL, has cross-posted a piece at AlterNet and sent out little emails to his cohort, urging them to rebuff the absurd implication that people who differ with them politically over “equal protection” for homosexuals–by which I think he can only mean illegalizing any resistance to “gay marriage”–may not be rankly hypocritical gay-bashers.  Once again, Jeff is mentioned by name, but not me, and in the reproduction of my faggot post, he omits to distinguish between Gleen’s screed and mine.
Here’s a taste of the logic proferred:
Call me crazy, but it seems like the United States came out the other side of Ahmadinejad’s visit without creeping any closer to Sharia law. My friends in New York City insist that no one has tried to stone them to death for adultery or to force the women among them to wear burkas since last week.
They could be holding off until the end of Ramadan, I guess, but something tells me that NYC isn’t going to be turning into the new Islamic caliphate any time soon.
Well, I am stating the obvious and well commented on once again, but tell it to Larry Summers, whose noxious views preclude him from taking the stage at one of our august bastions of free speech. Gleen(s)’ argument is that what doesn’t touch us doesn’t concern us. Righties are not merely overreacting to the perceived threat of Islamism, there is a psychosexual disfunction at the root of their delusions. Those who live presently in London will perhaps feel differently about this issue, but really what’s a few honor killings among brownish people? And footbaths? Why not? I mean their religion is so exotic and different, and Christianity is so over.
As I’ve mentioned, what’s interesting here is the way these bloggers represent the issues: haven’t had a fatwa issued against you? What’s the big deal? At the same time, the constitutional erosions wreaked by the Bush Administration–suspension of habeas, domestic spying, etc.–put us all in imminent and (to use the funny term they like) existential danger. Do they know anybody who’s suffered as a result of these predations?ÂÂ
Let’s take once again this issue of gay marriage. Leave aside the idea that it intrudes on the general understanding of what marriage is, which has its roots in religion. Does anyone doubt that once having redefined the concept of marriage to include “gay marriage,” the next push will be to drop the modifier “gay”? We make a distinction with “common-law marriage,” because it seems somehow an important distinction to us, and privately gay couples will continue to view their marriages as different from those of breeders, but as a matter of speech-comportment, it will be punishable publicly to enunciate the difference (and potential Rethuglican appointed justices will be ransacked for their views on the subject). This is hypocrisy. This, to refer to someone whom Gleen pretends to understand and approve, is Orwellian.
The idea that the Mo-Toons were blasphemous is one to which Gleen subscribes, as is clear from his post. That transgression, amplified by right-wing bloggers (who hide behind the first amendment in order to spew their hateful, xenophobic bile), does much, apparently, to excuse the behavior both of those who trumped the issue up, and those who went on murderous and/or destructive rampages in the wake of the publication. As I noted a couple of evenings ago, the editor of the Danish paper that first published the Mo-Toons has indeed had a fatwa issued against him. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has had to cut short her US visit and is fighting with the Netherlands to maintain her security funding. For what? Are the Knights Templar out to get Dan Brown, do you suppose? The very idea that Gleen would approve the category of blasphemy is, frankly, absurd, and I’m happy to have been able to have drawn attention to it, even if I did have to type the dread, taboo word faggot in order to do so. What it demonstrates is that the category of blasphemy has been moved by leftists from the realm of religion to the civic realm and the realm of law, and that is where properly they believe that marriage ought only refer.
In point of fact, I do rather care about the fate of faggots in Iran, just as I care for the fate of Buddhist monks in Myanmybobbymagee Burma, Muslim apostate heterosexuals, Rwandans, Russian journalists, evil Zionists, and other people with whom I have superficially very little propinquity–as mind-blowing as that may be to someone like TRex, who cannot imagine that someone who differs in political philosophy can possibly do so in good faith, due to his bigotry. Or perhaps it is beyond his ability to contemplate the strange happenstance of one arguing in good faith at all.
I have left out of this analysis for the moment the leftist psychologization of “conservatism” as a mental disease, in which point they resemble Michael Savage, because I’m still gathering information on this phenomenon. The genius of such analytical conventions is that they are not susceptible of proof or disproof, and so operate as articles of faith for the believers.
Oh, and looky here. You know, I wish there weren’t so much marching in the street over the other chinless wonder’s occupation of Southern Lebanon. It makes such a godawful racket.
I also wasn’t aware that brewing is permitted at Oral Roberts U.
Michael Ledeen: “Insights into Iran can be gleaned from these masterly works“. Okay, but I would have chosen a different verb.
Not to mention ridiculous on its face.
I may be misconstruing “blasphemy,” but I don’t think even a cartoon purporting to show Allah (not the blogger) having relations with a camel would necessarily qualify. Offensive, yes. Blasphemous? Whose faith would actually be shaken by such an obvious product of mere twisted imagination?
I’m just going to paste in a previous comment of mine from another thread for now:
““Dumbasses like Gleen apparently think that wingnuts oughtn’t worry about what doesn’t affect them directly.â€Â
“No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.â€Â
“First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.â€Â
Why we should be concerned about the words and deeds of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“No man is an island”, but Gleen is a peninsula.
“Speaking of buggery on an epic scale”
The jury is out on whether conservatism is a disease, but it certainly
can be diagnosed as a disability. But, loathe as you are of public programs, you won’t exercise your ADA perogatives.
Let’s do another exercise in gives-me-chills rhetorical comparisons:
“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.” — Neville “What Do Gay Rights In Iran Have To Do With Any Of Us” Chamberlain, September 27, 1938.
The left has abandoned any attempt at logical coherence.
P.S.: Gay marriage bothers me not one bit.
Cleo–
To what do you owe your idiocy, then?
One correction I’d suggest is that you use the proper name for the country Burma. This renaming of countries is a trick tyrants use to demonstrate their ownership. Going along with it just shows the Burmese people that we support their masters. See Cambodia-Kampuchea for an example. As Jeff has shown, words matter.
Done.
Of course, the hypocrisy is perfectly demonstrated by the offhand comment that it matters not if Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia because New York City won’t go sharia. By the same reason it shouldn’t be a problem if Rumsfeld is at Berkely because they certainly won’t become the Department of Defense.
What, it is a problem because the army won’t let gays openly join? Well then, by the same lights Ahmadinejad is a human rights violator. He isn’t? So, keeping gays out of the army is the same as hanging them?
Progressive principles are not as important as power over their true domestic enemies.
The genius of such analytical conventions is that they are not susceptible of proof or disproof, and so operate as articles of faith for the believers.
The genius of such analytical conventions is that they are not susceptible of proof or disproof, and so operate as articles of faith for the believers.
Like a cult.
A principled Dutchman takes the view opposite of Greenwald’s here.
Funny that the progs call the reaction of the Iranian President’s visit to Columbia an over reaction, but don’t have a problem blasting & denouncing Fox News or Rush Limbaugh – which to them is considered the more dangerous message?
Whereas liberalism? Reality-based, baby! Who needs facts when you control the Narrative?
Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are the most dangerous enemies as they are the domestic enemies of the culture wars. The Iranians? The Islamofascists? They are the misunderstood other and are overseas, and, if necessary, can be dealt with in the same manner as the domestic conservatives – who are the Taliban Wing of the Republican Party.
It all makes sense when you get rid of your sense of proportion and self-preservation. You know, just like those French Communists that thought resisting the Fourth Republic was smarter than resisting the Third Reich. Until they were hauled into the cells.
There. Fixed it for you.
Passive voice rules!
“Passive(aggressive) voice rules!
fixed.
OK, cleo, we get it. You hate us, you really, really hate us. You’ve made your point here — now go make it anywhere else.
Im still amazed, he used those 2
words,Blasphemous Cartoons,he could
have used, maybe,silly cartoons,stupid
cartoons,or overblown cartoons.
He could have put it in qoutes,
“Blasphemous Cartoons”,to make it looked ironic.He did’nt,I bet ya,
he proof-read that line,and still did’nt
think there was anything wrong with it.
what a douche
Tony LaVanway
South Haven,MI
Hate the sin, love the sinner………….
Hon, we’ve got enough examples already, you don’t need to strain yourself to provide more.
It’s merciful that E. B. White has passed on. The very existence of Gleen’s prose would certainly kill him, or at the very least, cause a stroke.
Semanticleo has now accused others of being passive-aggressive (apparently without understanding the term)… their transition to Bizarro-world is complete!
So, when faced with the hollowness of their ideas, the left hurls irrelevant invective. When they receive invective in return, they cry foul. When they get called on their false victim status, they change the subject.
Check.
Which explains why you keep ignoring all those restraining orders.
But, then, how else would a Semanticleo prove its existence to itself, if not by unmoderated gobbling to us?
MEMO:
To the Left Wing liberals
When we start the bombing of Iran
Please dont think of it as a war,
think of it as a
late
late
late
late term abortion
Greenwald could have said that conservatives act like a bunch of girlie-men with homosexual fantasies, but he didn’t; even though the man-sex obsession is part of conservative coalition rhetoric.
TRex is sending out directives telling his cohort to essentially call, what, 72% of the US population HATERS?
Genius.
Think I’ll start calling him “The Man Who Would Be Queen.”
And yeah, the long knives are out for me, Dan. You gave them the opening — and they realize that their mischaracterizations will be frozen in time by Google.
The art of the cumulative Google slander. It’s so progressive!
Transgendered people should not be conflated with gay people. As ontegrity boy’s first commenter says –
I think conflating homosexuals with people for whom gender is a disease to be cured is not helpful if you really are opposed a homosexuality as disease idea. And also they’re not pretty.
crap – that was *integrity boy*
lfd:
Since you don’t allow your verbalisms alleged as claims to be disproven, and you don’t care to try to prove them, your verbalisms are as meaningless as, say, a child’s namecalling or even a turkey’s gobble.
injustice prevails:
you may want to send your memo to conservatives too, bombing Iran is a neoconservative policy http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10935
J. Peden:
I am doing the best I can.
Jeff G.:
The left is turning the tables on the bad habits the right has developed over these past few years.
ok that comment was all screwed up. I went for breakfast and I feel sluggish which is why I never eat breakfast really. The point really is is that I’m kind of starting to not really understand what these posts are about. I think what we’re essentially talking about is the extent to which the left is devolving to a raw – really raw – essence of hate and resentment, and that the MSM is stoking that. I only say this cause to be honest, I don’t really care much about gays in Iran per se – they’re young men and women that should be emigrating and speaking out or fighting for themselves. With guns. I don’t really want to see the current regime be all evil except for ok we won’t kill gays anymore. That just doesn’t feel like progress to me.
Also, I didn’t really see these linked anywhere but Anita Hill is feeling victimy and white people suck.
BUT MOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM! He hit me first! mmmmm, nuance.
never mind that you can’t seem to point to any “bad habits” surely you can find a few.
maggie katzen:
Last week’s “phony soldier” comment by Rush is a case in point. The liberal hysteria is really a stretch but they have made it stick. Two years ago this never would have happened. Rush is use to being able to say whatever he pleases with no consequences but times have changed.
what consequences?
oh, so you’re okay with just making stuff up to attack people with?
That’s what Katrina was.
happyfeet:
The left was able to bring Limbaugh’s comment to the attention of the MSM and put a dent in his credibility. In the long-term, I expect they are trying to build a case for an equal time law and a breakup of the media conglomerates.
or, to bring it current, Anita Hill.
maggie katzen:
I am not ok with propaganda of any kind from either the left or the right. Both sides have been doing it. That is why the quality of debate has sunk to such lows.
by COMPLETELY lying about what he said. They have tried it before, remember the Michael J. Fox thing? I suspect you’re right so far as building a case goes, but it’s STILL dishonest. So basically you’re saying this is all payback for things the right has done in their imagination. that’s grown-up.
you have yet to provide an example. even one! and yet this is a “habit”?
Maggie, you’re threatening Teh Narrative™ with pesky little things like facts.
Keep cornering LFD like that and he’ll run out of places to scuttle into and get all pissy.
heh
Being called a girlie-man,over the internet,from a foreign country.
ouch,ouchy.. im sorely wounded..douche
Tony LaVanway
South Haven,MI
well, I’m scuttling off, RTO’s home and putting me to shame in the house work department. *sigh* doesn’t he know there’s OU football on?
Though if they think about it, it’s not the “right” that’s done anything it’s those pesky voters electing people LFD, Gleen et al don’t like. Darn them!
maggie katzen:
What we have here is a failure to communicate! What are you talking about? I just brought up Rush as an example.
maggie katzen:
What we have here is a failure to communicate! What are you talking about? I just brought up Rush as an example. If you want more, I’ll give you more.
AN example, and not even a real one! perhaps you could show us some other things he’s said that, um, weren’t true?
…and maggie pointed out the flaw in your using Rush as an example. Your side lied about what he said, using the usual out-of-context quoting and going from there.
Just keep hoping people won’t read the transcripts. It’s your only chance, really.
NPR totally didn’t cover Limbaugh’s comments. Just their ditzy new morning show that only like five stations carry, and even they conflate it with something they call “noisefare.” This is because there’s no way that they can cover the story that would stand up to scrutiny in a hearing with respect to their objectivity and the welfare they get from the government.
http://www.npr*.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15026903
What Democrats are doing in this instance is forsaking the flood-the-zone MSM synergy strategies they usually employ. That threatens the coherence of their narrative, and don’t think for a second that that doesn’t make a lot of people very nervous.
maggie katzen:
Whether or not they are true is not the point I was trying to make. Look at what happened with O’Reilly last week, same thing. The goal of the left is a fair time law and to breakup the media conglomerates and they have started building their case.
You said:
I said, show some examples… or was this just you channeling lefties, you don’t believe this?
The goal of the left is
a fair time law and to breakup the media conglomeratesto silence people who disagree with them and theyhave started building their caseare lying about what conservative commentators have said in order to smear them.Fixed that for you.
bad habits = shooting their mouths off without thinking first
case in point = Limbaugh, O’Rielly
I want my $5,000.
“The left was able to bring Limbaugh’s comment to the attention of the MSM and put a dent in his credibility. In the long-term, I expect they are trying to build a case for an equal time law and a breakup of the media conglomerates.”
Can someone point Ligthening in the direction of a clue?
Rush has survived a racial “thing” (because I don’t know what else to call the McNabb thing on ESPN) and a drug scandal. But it is this use of the “PAUSE” button that has dented his credibility. Please. When the point man for the left on muzzling Rush is Wes Clark, it’s not so much a push for anything as a homage to Monty Python absurdity.
And the lefties have as much chance of “breaking up” the media conglomerates as I do of becoming Pope. Such a move would have no point. Terrestrial radio and television are the most vivid examples of walking dead industries as you will find apart from hard copy newspapers, that is. Don’t believe me? Look up the NYT stock price.
Next!
That’s one of the most inane things I’ve ever heard.
Racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe — or some combination thereof — is the charge at the base of nearly every leftwing attack on policy. And it’s been going on for years and years. Hell, I’ve cited Stanley Fish’s early 1990s articles on “how the right stole the magic words,” etc. And that was in response to Bush I realism and, later, the contract with America.
Then there are the several studies over the past couple decades purporting to show how “conservatives” are subhuman, moronic, given to totalitarianism, intractable, and sexually confused — all based on how they view the federal government’s interest in, say, raising taxes or deciding which minority should get special treatment.
It’s a surreal world, Lightening.
Funny, though, that the same arguments are being made today — despite Bush the younger being not really much like his daddy, when it comes to foreign policy. The Bakerites these days are on the left. Wonder if that makes all that Bush I era ad hom against “conservatives” transferable to the new realists…
and this is something entirely confined to “The Right” that requires payback? you’re really reaching.
Wishbone, I kept meaning to say, I find it really amusing that Wes Clark doesn’t seem to understand how AFN works and what content is available on it.
Nice vaporware you have there, El Kabong.
Though I would think lying about what someone said and manufacturing a bunch of outrage based on that lie would count as a “bad habit”. You seem to think it’s a valid tactic.
“bad habits = shooting their mouths off without thinking first
case in point = Limbaugh, O’Rielly”
How many lumps would you like with your projection, Lightening?
When you bludgeon your competition in the ratings on hundreds of radio stations or cable news, let us know. Until then, what’s the phrase…oh yes…shut up.
(The above does not conflict with my assessment of antenna-broadcasted radio and tv’s problems. The industries themselves are run by idiots who just can’t seem to grasp that technology is passing them by. They are going the way of the dinosaur. And if you thought Howard Stern’s satellite deal was big money, just wait for Rush’s. And just to annoy Jeff…Hannity’s.)
#
Comment by lightening_fast_draw on 10/6 @ 2:21 pm #
bad habits = shooting their mouths off without thinking first
case in point = Limbaugh, O’Rielly
You’re so outclassed you don’t even know it. You’re A game, son, bring it, or don’t show up.
“Can someone point Ligthening in the direction of a clue?”
Oh wise and magnificent one, time will tell. Your reasoning is most profound yet flawed as hell. Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Durbin, Speaker Pelosi and many, many others support the Fairness Doctrine. Let me restate as clearly as I possibly can, I am not arguing that the demise of Rush Limbaugh is at hand. What I am saying is that Libs are using what pundits say to support their political arguments. Loose lips sink ships.
As to your argument against the financial benefits of spinning off media business, again I must meekly disagree. Notice if you will, the five year price charts of GE (owner of NBC) or Time Warner or Disney. Your will find they have underperformed horribly relative to the S&P.
This is not an endorsement of an Equal Time Bill or forcing a media spin off. I do believe that by knowing the intentions to your opponent you have an advantage. That is why I mentioned it to begin with.
Now that Maggie is off somwwhere trying to make me think she’s doing housework:
Leaking_slow_drain: If you are going to cite examples, then please offer some that are, you know, discrete and researchable. Simply offering the names of two conservative pundits is not a citation.
You know–incidents, not people. Or the sin, not the sinner, if you like.
Rusty on:
Agreed, if I’d kept my A game the Republican Party would not be in the shitter and I would not be here talking to you trying to understand why it is. But the idea of voting for a Dem. is so abhorrent to me, I a forcing myself.
No. Libs use what they are told pundits say, or some interpretaion of what pundist say, as opposed to what was said, to support their political arguments.
I wonder if you know the intentions of your allies, let alone your opponents.
RTO Trainer:
How many do you want before you get the point?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery
Ah the “I’m a solid Republican despite my embrace of Democrat/Progressive talking points and tactics” line.
Gosh, never seen that before.
Well, let’s start with one.
Any time you’re ready…..
cause you see, “saying things I don’t agree with” requires smearing them in retaliation.
Whoever can transform that Medved link into something other than a complete nonseq from Lightening, please let me know.
Because I will nominate you for at least two of the Nobel Prizes. One being Chemistry. I’ll have to take the explanation and run it through the nearest Cray to come up with the other.
Patrick Chester:
What exactly would those talking points and tactics be? You really have no idea who you are talking to.
RTO Trainer:
By allies you mean the conservative coalition? I am familiar with the conservative coalition, the weakest of which is the conservatives.
wishbone:
The Medved article is the latest fodder for the liberal propaganda machine. It fits in perfectly with their assertion that conservatives are racists, elitists and homophobes.
Wish, I need way more translated than that….. I think someone’s going into the “ignore” file for going way OT.
“What exactly would those talking points and tactics be?”
All the cool kids who hang around with Pat Buchanan can answer that, Lightening.
I still think that is the place where you fit. Disprove me.
Wish: Alchemy is a dead science, so your nomination for Chemistry would be disqualified, I’m afraid.
Lefty_fast_drop: You’re proving that either you are completely divorced from reality or drunk.
maggie katzen:
I don’t really think I have said much of anything you don’t agree with. Name one thing.
Funny, I never knew that lefties needed a Michael Medved column to call conservatives racists, elitists and homophobes.
Just as I need no column from, say, Al Franken to call leftists intellectually dishonest. Try again.
wishbone and RTO Trainer:
Now who is making assertions with no basis in fact? I am pointing to something that is happening right under your noses and you are both in denial.
What exactly would those talking points and tactics be?
“Case in point = Limbaugh, O’Reilly”
Hmm… should I scroll further up the page for a few more?
Btw, you can use the a href html command to put shorter bits of text to mark a long link so it won’t break the page. HTH, HAND.
“The left is turning the tables on the bad habits the right has developed over these past few years.”
I don’t agree with this, which is why I’ve been trying to pin you down on it. Now, if you’d said, “The left is turning the tables on the perceived or imaginary bad habits the right has developed over these past few years.” I might agree with you.
wishbone:
Congratulations, you have learned something today.
Lefty, no doubt the Progs are up in arms over it. But that’ll be, once again, becasue they chose to reinterpret it to fit their presumption of racism, elitism amd homophobia on the right, and not because of anything actually said in the article. But, speaking of what was actually said, you were going to offer examples of “right-wing bad habits.” Now perhaps the problem here is that you have so far declined to define what you mean by “bad habits.” As such, my expectation is that you’ll show some clear examples of conservative pundits making false statements.
I find, on a fast reading, much in it to quibble with, but nothing untrue in it.
your statement also implies that “The Left” is blameless. we just pushed them over the edge. yeah, right, see Jeff’s response above.
maggie katzen:
If you want to modify the statement to make it more understandable, be my guest. My point remains the same. Medved, for example, is a disc jockey by trade. Why in the hell a prestigious site like Town Hall would publish his intellectual bile is beyond comprehension. He becomes a poster boy for left wing propaganda as well.
“wishbone:
Congratulations, you have learned something today.”
Unless you just admitted that you’re a Buchananite, stupidity and condescension don’t go well together, Lightening. If you have made a coherent point at all in this entire thread, I can’t find it.
right, it appears I can fix stupid, but it’s too damn much work. You still seem OKAY with the left’s misinterpretation of various and sundry statements. I guess we should all just shut our yaps lest we be taken out of context. I guess looking at what you consider a coherent point, this makes sense. to morons.
Medved has a JD from Yale Law and made a living for a time as a movie reviewer. National Merit Scholar, political speechwriter, published author, screenwiter….
What have you done?
In no way do I hold the left blameless they have simple become empowered for a number of reasons not the least of which is their majority in the house and senate. Notice that Dan Rather is suing CBS, Chris Matthews accused MSNBC and Cheney of intimating him to moderate his views and a number of lesser TV news people are “coming out” with the same message. In the meantime, conservatives are acting as though they are still in the majority while they are getting pounded by the media. The message is not just sloppy by is starting to be defined by the left.
Let’s run through this again:
Rush Limbaugh said “Fake Soldiers” and insulted the troops.
DEMONSTRABLE LIE.
Bill O’Reilly made racist remarks about a New York restaurant.
DEMONSTRABLE LIE.
George Bush is trampling the Constitution.
DEMONSTRABLE LIE.
What I have “learned” from you, Lightening, is no different from any other liar. You lie.
And your advice to the right is to shut up so they won’t be re-/mis-interpreted? Yeah. That’s non-starter.
The left will willfully re-/mis-interpret the utterances of the right whether they are in the majority or not. The ultimate defense, as always, is the truth, so unless you can show falsehoods, i suggest your POV is (if you are indeed a conservative) self-imollating, or more likely as you have yet to dispaly any conservaitve tendency here, simply deluded that you think anyone’s likely to give it serious consideration.
The message has always been defined by the left. That is why millions of people turned to Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Do you think Dan Rather all of a sudden turned leftward a few years ago? The only thing different than it used to be is that there are now means for voices on the right to be heard. In response the left has become even more ruthless in their attempts at suppressing opposition.
Anyone else get the feeling that we’re not far from reading the word “Illuminati” in all this drivel?
a further note: Lightening has not refuted my contention that he is a Buchananite.
wishbone:
More like Buckley and Rand.
RTO Trainer:
Medved might be an intellectual to you but he is a disc jockey to me. I have been an Investment Banker for 28 years and make no claims to intellectual superiority.
Except over guys you dismiss as “disc jockeys.”
Well, it’s a good thing you make no claim to intellectual coherence either.
It’s late in the B-dad, gang. Good night.
nighty-night, wishbone. send us an email will ya? gwynnifer at gmail.com
Mike C.:
The points I am making are that soon Libs will be passing a Equal Time Rule. Next they will try to break up the media conglomerates and they are using the right wing pundits rhetoric against them.
Now, it is time for me to refinish my daughters’ 30th birthday present. Good day to you all. I can’t remember meeting such a mule-headed bunch of people. But I enjoyed it none the less.
You display an ingnorance that is common to the left. You are abvioulsy connected to teh internet, and yet you refuse even to check the barest facts before spouting in public.
Limbaugh was once a disk jockey. Medved was not.
So, whither your own credibility, not that wasn’t rapidly waning anyway?
And who has ever been a national Merit Scholar and a JD that cold not credibly claim some intellectual chops?
All you’ve proved here is that one can be simultaneously an experienced investment banker and an idiot. Not that we had lacked evidence of that prior to this….
Investment banker?
Well, I guess that explains the “You really have no idea who you are talking to” remark above.
“Comment by lightening_fast_draw on 10/6 @ 3:16 pm #
wishbone:
The Medved article is the latest fodder for the liberal propaganda machine. It fits in perfectly with their assertion that conservatives are racists, elitists and homophobes.”
Except, of course, that it proves no such thing.
In fact, just the opposite.
“Medved might be an intellectual to you but he is a disc jockey to me. I have been an Investment Banker for 28 years and make no claims to intellectual superiority.”
Why is it always “investment banker” with these intellectually challenged trolls?
Is that some kind of seminar poster talking point or something?
If cornered, claim to be a stock broker or investment banker. That will give you instant capitalist bonafides and the right wingers will automatically respect you.
N O’Brain: Something like that? ;)
If I slightly modify one of lfd’s comments to:
soon Libs will be attempting to re-institute the “Fairness Doctrine”. Next they will try to break up the media conglomerates and they are distorting the right wing pundits rhetoric to aid their cause.
How do those of us on the various areas right of center prevent this or deal with it when it’s done?
I meant to address this earlier:
Actually, he’s an archipelago.
Am I the only one who sees a resemblance in LFD to some other troll we’ve (been) entertained (by)?
Only a liberal would think that they need to pass a Law to enforce the First Amendment. Listen, lamebrain, no one is preventing the liberals from putting their message out there (cv “Air America”, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, et al). It is the market – and the fact that no one wants to hear what they have to say – that is preventing them from having the audiences that the right has on a regular basis.
Liberals actually do understand, which is why they think that forcing their message onto people that have made alternative choices is the only way that they will be able to continue controlling the narrative, which slipped away from them with the advent of cable news services and talk radio.
You didn’t hear all this talk about “Fairness” when all we had were the Deciders in the dead-tree media and only three TV channels. Suddenly Americans have choices and the liberals want to take that away, because those other voices are too popular. So we have to have “fairness” because the Peepul aren’t smart enough to know what they are supposed to believe without it.
Oh, no doubt. I’m sure they would all support running away from the enemy on the field (as evidenced several times in recent history) and government-run health care (just as long as they didn’t have to stand in line with the plebes). That does not make it a good idea, or one that will be enacted. They still have to win elections every now and then…
Just remember, if it weren’t for Perot, Hillary would be a Little Rock lawyer still trying to defend her husband from paternity suits.
I was thinking of an atoll, myself. Maybe an isthmus.
WINNING & ONE
The war on terror and the war in Iraq will be the first wars in United States history definitively “WON” by the United States military, and “LOST” by a malicious misleading and intentionally detrimental left wing senate.
Honorable men and women are fighting and dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but back home, the left wing senate democrats and the leaders of the left wing mass news media are undermining their every effort to win.
The only war lost, is the delusional political war of the left wing senate democrats minds and their bias left wing mass news media cronies. A war created by self-serving anti American, anti military, anti President Bush ideology.
TO:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority leader Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durban, Chuck Schumer, Russell Feingold, Barak Obama and Barbara Boxer et al, and all others similarly situated hear this,
“Give up your dreams of freedom, because to save your own skin, you are willing to make a deal with your terrorist masters.” You’re a lost left wing senate and dragging a nation down with you, if you prefer disgrace to danger, prepare yourself for a terrorist master, because you deserve and shall have one.”
What will history say of the 2001 – 2007 senate democrats?
Post Script:
Senate democrats, regarding your statements that you support the troops?
Senate democrats, calling the war in Iraq “a total fiasco and a disaster”
It is “NOT” opposition party rhetoric
It is “NOT” partisan party critic of the president or his administration,
It is “NOT” a direct attack or a political attack against the president
IT “IS” AN INDICTMENT OF THE “TROOPS”
JOB PERFORMANCE IN IRAQ.
Damn you all to hell.
Media conglomerates? Like AOLTimeWarner? Or ABC/Disney?
LFD – the right isn’t the one running media conglomerates.
Mikey, if you don’t think they’ll search for a way to target the outlets they consider “right-wing” (i.e., NewsCorp and Clear Channel) you underestimate their deviousness.
The ceo of Time Warner is a Republican I guess. A black one even. But mostly he focuses on this thing where he really wants the company to be getting more revenue from outside the US. You have to look at what they do in terms of the fiefdoms. Viacom is the worst, partisan-wise. Universal and Sony suck too, but they don’t always seem to really have a sense of their own influence or the courage of their convictions. Disney is too neurotic and narcissistic to really talk about in this sort of conversation. They’re liberals, but they’re not always very moored in the here and now. News Corp is much more of a mixed bag than is generally understood.
Mike C. – you might just put that down to being “they ought to be careful what they wish for because they may get it”. The law of unintended consequences applies to legislative drafting also.
I’m still gathering information on this phenomenon
Bait! NOM NOM NOM.
There are two distinct phenomena. Not confusing them is important. Super-dumb explanation:
One is like “blasphemy,” fittingly. People have plans for you. It’s been found expedient that your resistance to them be defined as your failure. The preferred language of such declarations is, right now, mostly psychological. The words don’t matter. You change yourself under normative pressure, honestly or not, or you’re exiled/confined/destroyed, socially and/or materially, whatever — it works. It’s not the universal form of political “argument” for no reason.
The other is a simple recognition that politics is false (and falsehoods are motivated), a language game that can’t be understood in its own terms, but sometimes can (briefly seem to) be in others. Psychology offers some such terms, useful if not mistaken for real things found in the world.
The former talks like the latter when it feels the need to pretend it’s science.
(A much less dumb and not-quite-the-same elaboration/diagnosis of this can be found in a wonderful little essay called “About the Concept of the ‘Dangerous Individual’ in Nineteenth Century Legal Psychiatry,” by Michel Foucault. (No, seriously.))
Damn shame they can’t get but a speck of their agenda passed, ain’t it? Remember that war they were going to get us out of?
And you though the Iraqi legislature was ineffective…
psycholoizer: You are the post-mortem voice of Rod Serling. Complete with the twitchy eyebrow flourish.
Pablo: Heh. Good point. Gosh there’s a lot of left (and “I’m on the right… really!”) crowing about how all is doomed and all we who are labeled conservative by them must despair, be silent or something Really Bad Will Happen, hasn’t there?
Interesting.
…
…
…
MARX!