We're terrorists, hostage takers, and we want the economy to collapse so we can blame it all on Obama. They also enjoy shouting "racist!" at anyone who doesn't fall on his knees before The Man Who Would Make The Oceans Recede.
It's all part of a larger progressive strategy to delegitimize what they are intellectually incapable of arguing against, explains Dr. Krauthammer.
For weeks, these calumnies have been Obama staples. Calumnies, because they give not an iota of credit to the opposition for trying to promote the public good, as presumably Obama does, but from different premises and principles. Calumnies, because they deny legitimacy to those on the other side of the great national debate about the size and scope and reach of government.
Charging one’s opponents with bad faith is the ultimate political ad hominem. It obviates argument, fact, logic, history. Conservatives resist Obama’s social-democratic, avowedly transformational agenda not just on principle but on empirical grounds, as well — the economic and moral unraveling of Europe’s social-democratic experiment, on display today from Athens to the streets of London. (Krauthammer – Bad Luck?)Krauthammer observes Obama leveling the old charge of “Playing politics:”
These people, who inhabit Congress (guess which party?), refuse to set aside “politics” for the good of the nation.I’ve always thought that such criticisms were illegitimate. Of course it’s politics! Politics is the art and science of government, and the people we send to DC don’t always agree with one another, thank God. Consensus and compromise are the primary ingredients of the toxic economic stew we find ourselves drowning in.
Which is worse? “Playing politics” by defending a philosophy you believe will better the country and its citizenry, or calling your opponents terrorists and hostage takers?
Angry democrats have poisoned the waters. Tea partiers want debate based upon the political philosophies of our founders, the left wants everybody to sit down and shut up.
So tell me again who the liberals are in this debate?
70 comments:
Part of the smear campaign relates to poisoning the waters before any election debates occur.
Honestly, I've never seen the mainstream media more in the pocket of any Democratic Party candidate.
To be sure, the left does not want an honest and open discussion of the issues. They much prefer a smear campaign, since that doesn't require them to actually defend their positions with logic that applies. To that end, the media is their right hand man and then some.
To be honest, I think everyone wants the other group to just sit down and shut up. I don't think either party is interested in reasoned debate, because reasoned debate means you have to be able to admit when you're wrong.
If you think that your own side is always right on every issue, then you have to take a step back and realize that no one is right on every subject. The Tea Partiers are just as unwilling to admit when they're wrong as the Democrats.
Many of them also resorted to claiming that Obama is a Muslim, as if that were an accusation or a charge of malfeasance, and many went as far as to claim that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen.
And how many of you here can say that you have NOT charged Obama with wanting to destroy the country for some sort of nefarious conspiratorial purpose?
And please note that any defense you give to any of those things you all might be guilty of is the same defense that the Democrats would give for the ridiculousness in which they engage.
There's really not much difference between the tactics of the two parties.
Is there really any difference between the current rhetoric by the left and the previous/current rhetoric by the right? Calling someone a terrorist isn't intellectually removed from calling someone anti-American.
Which is worse? “Playing politics” by defending a philosophy you believe will better the country and its citizenry, or calling your opponents terrorists and hostage takers?
-------
Now, about his phony birth certificate ....
Now, it's difficult to discern if you accept that the political scene has been one huge continuous disaster since St. Ronnie Raygun but I think you do. But you seem to want a more intense dose of the same.
But back to name calling. Pssst, do you know he's a Muslim?
Jack, Constitutional and Ducky:
Thank you for the challenge.
I present to you Paul Ryan. What politician on the left has presented such a comprehensive plan on anything, and then invited people to debate him on it. Ryan admits the plan has merits and demerits and rather than being dogmatic, has presented it as a starting point for debate and discussion.
There may be a few out there, but name me some conservative politicians who start the debate by trying to delegitimize the other side as Obama and the Democratic leadership do?
What is the ideological basis of much of the liberal arguments?
I know "both sides do it" but I smell some false equivalency, and you're going to have to provide some evidence if you think conservatives are just as bad.
And please don't invoke the random rightwing loon. In this post I am referring to Democrats on the national stage:
Obama who urges people to punish their enemies. Biden and the Democratic party leadership who calls Republicans terrorists and hostage takers.
Democratic congressmen who routinely call conservatives racists and tea baggers.
Ducky: Take your broad brush and shove it. Being so intellectually lazy is unbecoming of you. I have never been a birther and I have never questioned the president's religion.
Jack: I deliver you the same message but in a nicer tone because you are an intellectually-honest interlocutor.
For the record, I have never accused Obama of "wanting to destroy the country for some sort of nefarious conspiratorial purpose"
I chalk up his destroying the country to gross incompetence.
Silverfiddle, I like Paul Ryan...but his style and vision doesn't negate the temperament and hyperbolic rhetoric of both parties.
If there were 10-20 more of Ryan on both sides of the aisle...Congress may actually start to look like an august body with a few kooks...rather than the other way around.
If quoting an individual's own words in ways that raise suspicion about him, or present him in an unflattering light constitutes "name-calling," then I suppose this piece revealing Barack Hussein Obama's profound -- and by American standards bizarre -- affinity for Islam is part of a "smear campaign" against him.
Please take a look, then you be the judge:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/10-quotes-by-barack-obama-about-islam-contrasted-with-10-quotes-by-barack-obama-about-christianity
Smearing one's opponent, by the way is a time-honored tradition in American politics. None other than Sallie Hemings' Slavemaster and that corpulent, truculent, perennially absentee husband of poor, longsuffering Abigail Adams indulged in it mercilessly.
Cheerio!
~ FreeThinke
A question for the court:
Did the Monica Lewinsky Scandal qualify as a "smear campaign," or was it merely honest reportage?
Just want to know what you think, that's all:
~ FreeThinke
PS: Does anyone remember Sherman Adams and the Vicuna Coat during the Eisenhower administration? What was that all about? - FT
SilverFiddle,
In fairness to Ducky I have to say I don't believe he was targeting you particularly so much as he was The Right Wing in general.
Both sides use similarly abominable tactics -- i.e. selected facts taken out of context, half-truths, lurid suggestions, deliberate distortions, willful misunderstanding, outright fabrications to fortify their own agendas.
Maybe it shouldn't be, but the fact remains that in political contests The Agenda takes precedence over the Truth every single time, UNLESS the Truth just happens to coincide with The Agenda.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."
~ Socrates (470-399 B. C. )
The problem appears to be as old as organized society, itself.
~ FreeThinke
FT: What GOP politicians on the national stage are smearing Obama?
I am asking an honest question here, since I do not discount the possibility of my own biases blinding me to "the other side doing it."
I see conservatives on the national stage arguing from first principles, the constitutions, the founders, and empirical evidence.
Can anyone point out how liberals are doing this? What principle do they argue from besides nebulous concepts like fairness? I see a lot of emotional appeal from the left and not much else. What are their philosophical underpinnings?
>I think everyone wants the other group to just sit down and shut up
I just want the other group to stop taking my property and restricting the exercise of my liberty. They can be standing when they stop if they'd like.
Another nice one, Bastiatarian...
BTW, you figure prominently in this Sunday's post on Rational self interest, accountability and morality.
Hi, SilverFiddle.
A short answer
The Left is in trouble, because they've been in charge now for a long time, and things aren't going well -- or let's just say for the sake of fairness they've continued to go badly and have gotten worse. Ergo, they're resorting to tactics such as changing the subject, obfuscation and accusation all of which provide distraction from the real problems that confront us.
Politicians don't have principles, because they're more concerned with gaining and holding power than they are in solving problems.
It's easier to denigrate the opposition than to present polite, reasoned, well-researched argument against their policies -- especially when you're wrong, but can't afford to admit it. Besides, denigration sells more soap.
Thanks to the so-called Dumbing-Down of America the vast majority don't have an attention span sufficient to absorb and process reasoned debate -- they'll just change channels.
As for "our side" smearing Obama: Oh how I wish they would! RIghtwing Radio, of course, does nothing but bash Obama 24/5, but you won't find any of the "serious" GOP candidates doing it for fear of being called "racist."
I don't disagree with you premise, SF. I'm merely saying that smearing and bashing are the heart and soul of the political process, and it's game "our side" ought to get better at if they ever hope to gain ascendancy.
Regards,
~ FreeThinke
The title is basically straight out of the Alinsky playbook. I have yet to hear a leftist debate a TRUE liberal (us) intelligently.
Blogger Ducky's here said...
Which is worse? “Playing politics” by defending a philosophy you believe will better the country and its citizenry, or calling your opponents terrorists and hostage takers?
-------
Now, about his phony birth certificate ...."
Ducky..what? !! :-) LOL!
Bastiartian; brilliant.
SF...excellent post; I often consider what would have happened if any Republican had suggested to the media that they should stop covering a whole liberal movement 'a la' what John Kerry said about the Tea Party. 8" headlines on the cover of the NY TIMES "REPUBLICAN DEMANDS LEFTIST GROUP NOT GET COVERAGE!" OH, the outrage :-) Picture it?
Have you noticed that it's a kind of weekly thing with the insulting terms? First lefties mentioned TERRORIST, then they mentioned "RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ECONOMY" ..there have been several more I can't remember and then, and a few days ago, it was "REPUBLICANS USED SENATORS TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND THE DEBT CEILING SITUATION" There's a new one! Bob Beckel, one of the many resident leftists at FOX (the 'biased' channel) actually looked sheepish recently when a Cons. pundit said "Bob, you actually wrote that the Tea Party people were ANARCHISTS?" Bob is a liberal and can get very ugly and sarcastic, but I hear he's a good guy in private and I sensed he didn't like that he'd said that..it was a very telling moment for a guy like Beckel to actually look down, seemingly ashamed, as if he'd done the bidding but didn't like having done it. Quite a moment.
This is all CAMPAIGNING...it's about getting TERRORIST, ANARCHIST, YOUNG, etc...out in the American eardrum which only hears what the mainstream media is spouting.
And yes, SF...I've written this too...since when is wanting conversation and discussion "playing politics" when we feel what's happening is bad for the country? man.
Good post dude. Makes you wonder what Martin Luther King would have thought about that racism in the white house.
A Roman philosopher named Marcus Tullius Cicero said it best a very long time ago. "A nation can survive from its fools, and even from the ambitious.
But it cannot survive treason from within"
Actually I like it when the left talks. I want them to speak out more often. You see when sane people (the majority) see their arguments they tend to lose.
Let them keep on blathering on as they always do, sooner or later they will tire of it and plunder into oblivion.
Okay, seriously, arguing with with them can be challenging but they never fail to lose their cool and start foaming at the mouth with ridiculous liberal rhetoric when they have realized they lost the debate.
" ... Bob [Beckel] is a liberal and can get very ugly and sarcastic, but I hear he's a good guy in private and I sensed he didn't like that he'd said that..it was a very telling moment for a guy like Beckel to actually look down, seemingly ashamed ..."
I've long suspected that TV News and News "Analysis" belong more in the realm of Show Business than the business of honestly informing the public about things they truly need to know. The anchors, panelists and commentators all make very good money, and I'm sure many-if-not-all of them are assigned to play "character" parts.
Apparently the public just loves to watch a good food fight or a screaming match, so naturally the TV moguls oblige them in order to get ratings and sell soap. It's a very cynical business.
By the way, I know many liberals. Aside from their politics many of them are perfectly lovely human beings and very rewarding to know. It astounds me, however, to discover how many of them are completely taken in by liberal media spin, and don't see it for what it is. I guess when you are burdened with having had an Ivy League education, you've been hypnotized into accepting The Liberal View as the ONLY sensible approach to solving social problems. There doesn't seem to be any other logical explanation.
At a recent fiftieth high school reunion I was stunned at how many not only ACCEPTED, but ADVOCATED the idea of ceding our sovereignty to ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
"Democracy just doesn't work anymore," they said. "The world has grown too complex and interconnected for us to get away with pursuing our own selfish interests unfair to the rest of the world anymore. We're just going to have to learn to live with less and accept our place as just one small part of The Family of Nations."
That's a true story -- and these people were A-Students in high school, and all came from what-used-to-be-considered "a good background."
And you still think there has been no PLOT to destroy us from within via the educational establishment?
GEDDOUDAHERE!
~ FreeThinke
Silverfiddle, no need to react personally.
What you HAVE DONE is attempt to stick the problem of the current loaded rhetoric in the Dem's lap.
That is simply naive.
I think Free Thinke got it right several comments ago. Smear tactics are ordinarily common to both sides. The Democrats and the Republican statist have had their way so long that they have restructured the government in a way that even they can see is unsustainable. Therefore the liberals are left with nothing but smear tactics. the Republicans, on the other hand are in the enviable position of not having to use smear tactics. The have the empirical evidence and the constitution to support their agenda. In other words the truth and the agenda coincide for the Republicans.
"But back to name calling. Pssst, do you know he's a Muslim?"
Interesting that our friend Ducky -- a self-admitted hard leftist -- would regard identifying someone as a Muslim as "name calling," isn't it?
That's like the Grand Champions of Gay Marriage gleefully and spitefully "calling out" a political opponent for being a closet fag -- or Grand Champions of Social Justice owning five or six different homes and a yacht, then loudly castigating some poor CEO for traveling in a private jet.
Smearing is endemic to the political process -- it just goes with the territory. It's the flamboyant stinking HYPOCRISY I can't abide.
~ FreeThinke
Lefties are emotional beasts. To them, feelings ARE facts. Their rhetoric is reactionary at best.
^How do you figure that?
We pissed away a trillion because right wing bed wetters were scared the crack Iraqi spec-ops were going to night drop and put botulism in their Wheaties.
Now that's pretty emotional.
Libtards don't have the capacity for rational debate, let alone thought. Even if they did they don't have the desire for it. It gets in the way of their fantasies.
Addiction is a powerful thing.
Duck Boy is a self illustrated case in point.
PS - so to finish my thought in case it wasn't obvious; libtards only have insults, complaints, lies, and misdirection left in their arsenal.
A trait of every incompetent middle manager you will ever meet.
"one huge continuous disaster since St. Ronnie Raygun"
How true, how true, ah how we all yearn for a return to those golden glory days of the Carter presidency...those were the days!
Bedwetters? I seem to recall that roughly half of that was approved under a democratic controlled house and senate while 488B of it was spent under Obama.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
But to get back on topic, personally in political discourse after hearing Nazi, Fascist, Godless, Muslim, etc... all I hear afterwards is blah, blah, blah ,blah.
"Lefties are emotional beasts.
"Beasts" is a word used here to dehumanize human beings who happent to be lefties. Beats def.--2. savage nature or characteristics the beast in man
3. a brutal, uncivilized, or filthy person
But righties don't "smear?"
"Libtards don't have the capacity for rational debate."
"Libtard" a combination of "liberal" and "retard." Retard: Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
"the Republicans, on the other hand are in the enviable position of not having to use smear tactics."
"Grand Champions of Social Justice owning five or six different homes."
That would be John McCain, who, during the 2008 campaign for the presidency, couldn't remember how many he owned. It is eight.
"It's the flamboyant stinking HYPOCRISY I can't abide."
Apparently, FT, you do. And the rest here are blind to their own.
>2. savage nature or characteristics the beast in man
>3. a brutal, uncivilized, or filthy person
>But righties don't "smear?"
An objective observation based on the actual observed behavior patterns of individuals or groups of individuals is not a smear. It's science.
Mr Kenwawe, Who the hell put up John McLame as an example of a conservative ? Or GW Bush for that matter.
Libtard is exactly right. Don't take it from me; Phd's in the field have stated liberals have a mental disease, briefly described as stunted (retarded) mental growth which leaves them ill-equipped to think beyond the level of a child, even though their math or vocabulary, or other skills may disguise them otherwise as adults.
Liberals have the minds of children and all the violent tendencies as well.
They live in a fantasy world, and have tantrums when presented with rational debate or realities and facts that tend to tug them out of their fantasy comfort zone.
whoopi goldberg and countless other example who shout profanity and run off stage when a view other than their own is stated. There are millions of examples.
^Phd's in what field?
What's your Free Republic screen name?
Bedwetters? I seem to recall that roughly half of that was approved under a democratic controlled house and senate while 488B of it was spent under Obama.
-----------
Yeah Obummer certainly enjoys the fiasco.
He can be credited with at least putting it on the books and not doing it through supplementals (research it Kid, it's not difficult) like Chucklenuts.
Take a guess Duck.
btw- Do you have a good chocolate chip cookie recipe?
Silver,
This whole post is such BS, and you know it.
The Left most certainly does not have any corner on the "Calumnies" market. "Sir Charles" has been known to do quite a bit of it himself. Everyone does.
And the Tea Party?
Those shmucks are infamous for that. Rather than ask serious questions of candidates, they offer oblique critiques of everything under the sun they don't like, with no intention whatsoever on finding some middle ground - bad faith defined.
If you dont want to argue, if you are so certain that even God Himself could not convince you otherwise, then why argue? What's the point? Why run for political office when the only way to achieve your aims is to overthrow or destroy the government completely?
Really, I'd love to know?
JMJ
" And the rest here are blind to their own."
Trust me, that's not true.
By the way, Shaw; could you link to any Republican VP calling Dems 'terrorists' for ANY reason? Or a Rep. senator advising the media to ignore a whole segment of this country like the Tea Party?
How about Bush being portrayed as a monkey or a drunk as if everybody can wean himself off booze on their own? Or have you ever seen Republicans tell the Dems that they should have used older, more experienced senators in high level discussions? Have you seen conservative news people go through a Dem candidate's TRASH? How about the fact that we can't see Obama's school records but the mainstream media's already got Perry's and is crowing about him having had C's on report cards!? ..I could go ON and on.....
"Libtard": big woop/ THAT must hurt, huh? Think you'll ever recover?
"Z" and "Bastiatarian"
An objective observation based on the actual observed behavior patterns of individuals or groups of individuals is not a smear. It's science."
All you two have added to the discussion is more snark and insults.
As for your asking about other VPs who've insulted opposition, I suggest you do the research yourself--there are plenty of examples on the 'net that go back decades.
To read you people deny that your politicians, pundits, and bloggers are just as guilty of smearing and name-calling as are those on the left side of the political spectrum is one of the knee-slappingly funniest things I've read all week.
Thanks for the laughs.
Snottiness i such a bore!
The central problem on just about every discussion site I've ever visited is that the SNOT sets the tone, and controls the agenda.
Everyone gets derailed by SNOTS, and suddenly the discussions centers on snottiness, and becomes nothing more than an exchange of snotty remarks on all sides.
It's a clearly identifiable syndrome that deserves an official name.
Whatever you want to call it, it SNOT enlightening.
~ FreeThinke
I would hardly consider supplemental funding voted for in an open congress "off the books".
>All you two have added to the discussion is more snark and insults.
I have no idea what you're talking about. All I have done is communicate the conclusions I have made based on decades of observation and thousands of cases. The repeatability ratio of for those results is nearly 100%. If extreme outliers are eliminated, it reaches 100%. You don't like science?
z, for someone who's a friend of the human filth pile, Andrew Breitbart, you should really lie low.
I notice his crew's latest videos went nowhere and Andy is hustling to find an alternate gig.
FYI: "Shaw" (I'm beginning to think of it more as Pshaw! but no matter) is a female. Her name is an obvious pun on Shock and Awe, and according to her profile she's from Boston (where they pronounce shock as though it were spelled shawk).
By her own proud admission "Shaw" is as a red a tomato as ever ripened on the vine planted so long ago by Karl Marx.
We might do well to examine some of the blogs Shaw frequents. It might be helpful as well as revealing.
We all need to develop more curiosity and less adamancy. We also need to drop defensiveness. It always appears weak.
"Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free."
Indubitably, but the trick is to find it -- and then to be able to recognize it when you do.
I must say the retort naming John McCain showed remarkable naiveté. If Ms. Shaw Kenawe knew what she was talking about, she would have known that most of "us" (if there is such an entity, which I seriously doubt) absolutely despise John McCain for the spineless, waffling, weasely, wimp that he is.
But even there her parallel is flawed, because McCain for all his many faults has never pretended to be a Great Champion of the Downtrodden the way political poseurs like the star-crossed Kennedys, filthy rich Nancy ("We have to pass the bill before we can find out what's in it") Pelosi and John ("I served in Vietnam") Kerry do.
With the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Howard Dean, Hew York's Nanny Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Pelosi, and the nouveau riche Clintons and their cadre of powerful friends with megabucks behind the scenes like Beth Desoritz and all those creepy foreign weirdos who carried suitcases stuffed with cash to The White House B&B during The Clinton Regime, doing their darndest to undermine the Capitalist system that gave them all their advantages it's hardly persuasive to try to portray the Republicans as "The Party of the Rich."
As I said earlier, the stench of base hypocrisy coming from the left is harder to tolerate even than the corrosive poison of their Marxian ideology.
~ FreeThinke
A short message from Oswald Chambers to those who persist inidentifying themselves as Christians yet appear to be in a continual state of agitation, resentment and fear for the future:
"... With regard to the problem that is pressing in on you right now, are you “looking unto Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2) and receiving peace from Him? If so, He will be a gracious blessing of peace exhibited in and through you. But if you only try to worry your way out of the problem, you destroy His effectiveness in you, and you deserve whatever you get.
"We become troubled because we have not been taking Him into account. When a person confers with Jesus Christ, the confusion stops, because there is no confusion in Him.
"Lay everything out before Him, and when you are faced with difficulty, bereavement, and sorrow, listen to Him say, 'Let not your heart be troubled . . .' (John 14:27)."
~ From My Utmost For His Highest - the daily reading for August 26
~ Submitted by FreeThinke
If Breitbart qualifies as "a human filth pile,"what does that make Greg Pallast, Nom Chmsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Moore, Woodward & Bernstein, Joe Conason, Katrina Venden Heuvel, William Rivers of Spitt, and the rest of their ilk? Plaster saints primly standing in a row of niches?
~ FreeThinke
How dare you call Shaw a "she"!
Shaw, through years of studying and actually believing Marxist nonsense, has earned the right to be called an "it".
You are so sexist! Oppress her no more!
Shaw,
After your screed, I just thought I'd remind you that 'libtard' isn't too bad after all.
Ducky, you should be so lucky to know Andrew. But, then, you're the guy who wrote that he should be in a bodybag, in typical lib style.
Sort of like when Huffington Post collapsed under the weight of celebratory comments over the untimely death of Tony Snow.
Odd, when Ted Kennedy died, every single Conservative blogger I know commented on how sad they were for his family, even though they didn't agree with him on a lot of things, they felt sorrow for the survivors. What a difference.
thanks.
Jersey: There is a difference between debate and hurling ad hominem. Since your main tactic is name-calling, I can see how you can't comprehend this point.
As I said, tell us what conservatives on the national stage are engaging in such tactics?
Z: Thank you for reminding me of the Kennedy thing.
I blogged on it back when I averaged zero comments a day...
Ted Kennedy's Legacy
Shaw: Are republican politicians just as bad? I don't think so, but the burden is on those leveling the charge.
"Shaw: Are republican politicians just as bad? I don't think so, but the burden is on those leveling the charge."
So I'm waiting for your friends who are leveling charges against Democrats here to prove Democratic politicians are worse than Republican.
"Go fuck yourself while it's still legal." --Vice President Cheney, on the floor of the US Senate.
Maybe your friends can answer this without ad hominem attacks.
Oh, wait...not possible as they have so perfectly demonstrated.
As for the person who insinuated that I'm a Marxist because I'm a liberal and who thinks he knows everything about me from a blog profile, I suggest you go back to reading cereal boxes for more enlightenment.
A drunken fat oaf now lies dead.
He was pompous, pretentious, ill-bred.
He committed manslaughter
On the Kopechnes' daughter
As I'm sure you know, his name was Ted.
Those who pretend to feel grief
In truth must feel great relief
For this bastard disgraced
His name and laid waste
To all who in him had belief.
~ Anne Animus (No whited sepulchre she!)
Submitted by FreeThinke
Liberals are Marxists. Liberalism isMarxism pure and simple. There's nothing liberal about it. Modern liberals are in fact tyrannists. Most of them have the soul of a born hall monitor and the disposition of a Nazi Stormtrooper.
That so many liberals today appear blissfully unaware of the sad and sordid aspects of what they like to imagine they stand for only indicates how demonically clever the intellectual aggressors who indoctrinated them -- or inoculated them, perhaps? -- have been.
Rather than expressing anger at these poor benighted souls, we should mourn for the potential lost in their blighted, twisted, demented little lives.
They march, indeed, to the beat of a different drummer -- and are headed straight over the edge of a precipice.
Liberals are much more to be pitied than despised. However, we must not allow our compassion to let them sweep us into the path of their Lock-Step March Toward Perdition.
~ FreeThinke
"Go fuck yourself while it's still legal."
- Vice President Cheney, on the floor of the US Senate.
Thank you for reminding us how bright, charming, spontaneously witty -- and deliciously apt -- Dick Cheney could be.
This is an exquisite example of "thinking on your feet" at its best.
Too bad Mr. Cheney didn't know the microphone was on! We might have been treated to an even more eloquent demonstration of his scathing off-the-cuff analysis had that been the case.
In any event all of us should buy a copy of his book and read it from cover to cover. I imagine it's very enlightening.
~ FreeThinke
Touche, Shaw, but you still have not provided an equivalent riposte to Krauthammer's observations.
To wit: We're talking about delegitimizing the opposition instead of debating them, not telling somebody what he can do with himself.
Jack Cramwell has it right methinks...
Shaw...do you suppose that we came about the Marxist title from reading the dribble you post ALL OVER the internet?
Here is a post that Shaw participated in. Quite lovely. All full of rainbows and unicorns...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CB0QFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmadmikesamerica.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fright-wing-reich-wing%2F&rct=j&q=shaw%20kenawe&ei=nRJZTrLTDOvG0AGxkLmzAQ&usg=AFQjCNGKs9ci4IMmEQnTkZtMkmfsIFt4UA
"Jack Camwell has it right methinks ..."
Yes and no. Both sides do, indeed, use terrible tactics, but Conservatives less so, and usually for the noble purpose of defeating DemonRats -- i.e. The Party of Satan.
Jack is an interesting, thoughtful, good-hearted fellow, but in my never humble opinion he tends always to be a little too willing to give the devil his due.
Where I come from you give the devil nothing but a slap in the face, a kick in the shins, a knee in the groin, and an axe in the neck lest he take you for all you have, and leave you naked, broken and bleeding by the side of the road begging for death to come quickly.
Satan is not called The Great Deceiver for nothing. He will never give a sucker an even break. We shouldn't attempt to be "fair" to him any more than we should be "fair" to a striking cobra.
The capacity to reason may be a great thing, but we must remember that almost invariably "Reason is but the slave of Passion."
~ FreeThinke
Ms. Theatre,
I tried to reach your long long link, but Alas! could not.
I'm sure whatever "Pshaw" said there is vastly entertaining. I wonder if you'd be so kind as copy it, and past it here for our convenience -- if that's even possible?
Thanks.
~ FreeThinke
FreeThinke,
The title of the thread is "Rightwing...Reich Wing". The photos are very entertaining as well. Let me try again...
http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/10/right-wing-reich-wing/
z, for someone who's a friend of the human filth pile, Andrew Breitbart, you should really lie low.
Boy, nobody pisses off you lefties like a former lefty who woke up.
Ms. Theatre,
Thank you. An interesting discovery:
When I copied and pasted this thread into Pages (a word-processing program), the links we typed or pasted in here automatically came alive in the Word document, so I was able to access the grotesque fantasies on Right Wing Reich Wing without your kind assistance after all.
Such commentary would be amusing if only those who write it didn't take the morbid projections from the bowels of their diseased minds seriously.
Of course they would say the same of us, wouldn't they? That Parallel Universe thing again.
Could all that nonsense possibly come from within, or did someone have to put it there?
I know many of these libloons want to believe that Rush Limbaugh and the others who try to be like him do all "our" thinking for us, but in truth it's the other way 'round. Rush only says what I and millions of others like me have felt for many decades.
Regards,
~ FreeThinke
" ... nobody pisses off you lefties like a former lefty who woke up."
It's not that so much, 98ZJUMC, as their absolute unwillingness to accept even the remote possibility that any opposition to their doctrinaire views could be legitimate.
~ FreeThinke
"Go fuck yourself while it's still legal." --Vice President Cheney, on the floor of the US Senate."
Um...SHAW? Do you remember this was said in private during a group photography session and not when the senate was in session?.... and that Leahy had blasted Cheney a day or two earlier on the Senate floor?
"F off"...as if people crowing over a painful death from colon cancer by Tony Snow is acceptable? I'd rather hear "F off"
SF....good job on Kennedy: I was touched and struck by the civility of ALL the posts after he died...especially in comparison with the Tony SNow glee...or the way the Left celebrates on leftist blogs each time Cheney's not well, 'hoping he dies', etc...it's awful
GAMES PEOPLE PLAY
People often live their lives by consistently and predictably playing out identifiable games in their inner and interpersonal relationships. They play games to avoid reality, conceal ulterior motives, rationalize their reactive behavior or to avoid the responsibility of active participation in life situations. Some of the more common games are:
Now I've Got You, You Son-of-a Bitch (NIGYSOB)
Used to justify anger that has built up over an extended time period. The aggressor (usually unconscious) identifies their victim, sets up a trap and springs it as a form of getting even or gaining perceived power.
Ain't It Awful
Person overtly expresses distress, but it is covertly gratified at the prospect of the satisfaction they can wring from their misfortune.
Blemish
Person seeks to find the blemish or weakness in another or themselves. They exploit others around the discovered blemish from an authoritarian posture. In themselves, it is used for negative reinforcement for inability to perform.
Why Don't you... Yes, But
Played out as a person presents a problem while others present solutions — each beginning with “Why don’t you...?” followed by the objection, “Yes, but...”. The payoff is the silence or masked objection when the solution giver has exhausted their data bank of solutions. This gives the “Yes, but” player evidence that they have won by demonstrating that it is the other person who is inadequate.
Look What You Made Me Do
Played by someone who is feeling hurt and angry, who becomes engrossed in an activity which tends to isolate them from people. When interrupted, an accident or error occurs. Player then turns on the intruder. Also used to direct cause or failure in a task the player is angry about having to do or does not know exactly how to do.
Let's You and Him Fight
Player maneuvers two others into fighting. They align themselves with the winner. Sometimes, while the two are fighting, they will align with a third party who appears to be above fighting or sees honest competition as a sucker’s game.
Wooden Leg
Used to excuse dysfunctional behavior. “What do you expect of a person with a wooden leg?” Often used in statement form, i.e., “I'm a redhead and have a temper”, or “I drink because I’m Irish”, etc.
Kick Me
Played by people whose social manner invites them to be kicked. If people will not kick them, they will behave more and more provocatively until they have exceeded the limits, thereby forcing them to oblige. The jilted. . .the job losers.., the rejected.
Push-Pull
Played by people who have a fear of closeness/intimacy but are also afraid of being left alone. They will entice or seduce the other person to come close, open up and then when the person has opened up, the push-pull player will retreat, leaving the other person confused.
A more detailed look into the psychology of human relationships is contained in the book, Games People Play, by Eric Berne.
Submitted by FreeThinke
We see an awful lot of Ain't It Awful in political chat rooms, don't we? - FT
And all the while liberals will blame conservatives for the very mess they've created.
I hate to have to be the one to say it, MK, but we live each day at the end of a chain reaction that started very probably before welived in the caves.
~ FreeThinke
Yes and we all know how they speak only the truth on Fox News! LOLO!!!!
Bd: Thank you for showing up and proving my point. You leftists are incapable of defending your agenda because it is indefensible.
No part of my argument has anything to do. Your hopium-addled brain has a fox fixation.
Post a Comment