Right-Wing Commentators and the Problem of Decorum
I’ve been traveling so much, I haven’t had time to blog at any real length — and I’ll be traveling for a few more days still. Some of this is to promote my new young adult adventure novel If We Survive, and if you haven’t yet bought this for the young adult in your life — or bought it pretending it’s for a young adult while secretly reading it yourself — c’mon! It’s good! Buy it! Now.
One interesting aspect of my most recent trip was that it began among conservatives at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend in Florida and ended among friends and family in New York, many of whom are on the left. It was downright bizarre to spend time with, say, Ann Coulter — who is smart, sweet, generous and kind — and then, only days later, hear her off-handedly derided by lefties as bigoted, evil and cruel. And because my lefty friends and relatives are lovely people, I wondered greatly at this disparity between their firmly held convictions and the truth.
Leftists of good will (and don’t write in to say there aren’t any because it only proves you don’t get out enough) profess themselves appalled by what I’ll call the lack of decorum of right-wing commentators. Ann called someone a retard! Rush called someone a slut! Glenn or Sean called some radical a radical! Who says such awful things??? It doesn’t seem to matter to these lefties that Chris Matthews routinely slanders people as racist who are not; that Paul Krugman blames right wingers for violence they didn’t commit; that network news anchors attribute foul motives and actions to a peaceful and patriotic Tea Party while glorifying the violent and anti-semitic Occupy movement. These left-wing commentators may lie like dogs — but they have decorum! They don’t use words like retard and slut. They don’t raise their voices. You could invite them to dinner without embarrassing yourself.
In his novel Empire of Lies (which you can pick up while you’re buying If We Survive), the very wise and extraordinarily attractive author has one of his characters declare that, “In an empire of lies, only a crazy man would speak the truth.” The character then goes on to explain that the empire can then destroy the crazy man, not for the truth he speaks, but for doing the crazy things that crazy people do.
Ann and Rush, Sean and Glenn aren’t crazy, but the sort of person willing to hurl himself against the vast machinery of the left-wing information empire is not likely to be all that concerned about decorum. This puts a weapon of slander in the hands of the left-wing media and they use it effectively to demonize these truth-tellers and stopper the ears of those who might hear them and be convinced.
It’s easy to be calm and polite when you have the power to destroy the reputations of your enemies — it’s a lot tougher for the rebel brave enough to fight back.
– done.
…a whore and a good argument against the 19th Amendment.
Wow, you did exactly that Mr. Klavan said liberals do. Way to go.
David, one must assume (if one is a die-hard leftie) that it is ‘acceptable’ to lie, smear and tar, as long as one is ‘progressive’. And it is not as if they haven’t learned their lessons well.
For if conservatives really learned theirs, they would take many pages out of ‘Rules for Radicals’ and turn the tables!
And it is exactly their timidity which allows radical leftists the upper hand. In effect, as ‘Dear Leader’ infamously intoned, one does not bring a knife to a gun fight!
This is the first utterance which the Radical-in-Chief said, that this Conservative not only agreed with, but believed he was being truthful about!
So, if true conservatives want to survive – in the war being waged, and it is war – then http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma-the-same-world-over-freedom-loving-people-beware-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-32-2/
They couldn’t do any worse.
Ann has MADE arguments against the 19th amendment.
Kind of silly.
And you’re a fucking idiot, so what’s the difference? I can prove you’re an idiot, can you prove she’s a whore? The fact that you made such a comment proves you’re an idiot. I have yet to see Ann on a street corner offering her body for money.
She gives it up for free; so she is a slut-right?
Not exactly…she wants us to pay for her birth control, but since we dont get any “action”, just the bill, I dont think “prostitute” is the right word…
Oh damn, I’m thinking of the wrong woman…oh well….
My 15-year-old can’t put your book down
nice to hear – thanks!
… someone used Crazy Glue?
Cheers
A fellow named Robert Oscar Lopez writes in a recent American Thinker post:
“I am convinced that if the Sean Hannitys and Ann Coulters and Laura Ingrahams and Michael Barones and Charles Krauthammers hadn’t sucked up all our oxygen, colorful conservatives with new ideas could have changed many American minds, rather than merely try and fail to tailor the Republican case to pre-existing minds for victory’s sake.”
I was listening to/reading/watching these people a LOT during our recent presidential election, along with regular doses of Rush Limbaugh’s bufoonery (and I’m using that word in a positive sense). Sure I was disappointed with the election results, but, like Lopez, I’m a Christian first and a conservative second or third. But I felt a great sense of weariness hearing this same hand full of pundits, along with Dick Morris’s wildly inaccurate poll estimates, and Karl Rove’s as well, and I suddenly thought, “I’m tired of all this crap.” What I learned this year is that these guys don’t know the electorate any better than your average knucklehead on the street who happens to like politics. They just happen to handle the English language better.
I don’t think any of us need these people to tell us how to think, and I believe Lopez’s thought about these decent, intelligent people sucking up all the oxygen is spot on. There is not a liberal in the world who will listen carefully to any of these people, other than the occasional convert who calls Rush up from time to time to tell how he’s seen the light. And while there will always be resistence to conservative thought, these few faces have become so familiar that libs reflexively switch them off when they appear on the air. It’s time for conservative media to promote people like Lopez into positions of greater prominence and rotate out people like Krauthammer.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/why_we_dont_need_to_be_bitter.html#ixzz2DQ8F3Dhu
I sure miss Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley, Malcolm Muggeridge. With exception of lovely Ms. Coulter and Krauthammer the others bore me to death. I simply can’t bear Hannity whom I credit with sending many votes to the left by sheer obnoxiousness. O’Reilly truly sends me to my porcelain god chapel.
O’Reilly’s THE spinmeister: he spins everything—as he sits in the middle, on the fence too. He’s only just come to the conclusion that Obama really is NOT a reliable person, like maybe he’s a socialist. Why O’Reilly keeps his prime time spot baffles me.
My husband and I are Canadian and pay extra to get Fox, which we’ve been watching for a few years now. It took a few months for me to come to the conclusion that Bill’s a self-referential—VERY—“play both ends against the middle” kind of guy. We hardly ever watch him anymore. I cheer when Laura’s on! She’s a huge improvement on Bill—who’s indulged by her, Krauthammer, Goldberg, Ham, and others. O’Reilly’s a really self-indulgent and unreliable hack as far as I’m concerned. At least Sean isn’t disingenuous.
Athena – (Below) Stop trying to eat our own. Just stop.
O’Really is just full of himself = spin, spin, spin – with no good content. Kinda boring actually.
Hannity is just “Hi, I’m Sean – arguing with Liberals – Hannity and I am boring.” Same shtick, same channel.
They are just shills for themselves.
Levin is just shrill.
Coulter is too often just crude. Not something I like in gentlewomen.
Krauthammer is smart and about the only one I can take.
The Right needs better spokespeople. Bill Whittle comes to mind.
I’ve recently been watching youtube videos of older Conservatives from the 80′s like Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan. These Conservatives were giants who had the ability to articulate their thoughts and reasoning into more than just a sound bite.
Ronald Reagan appealed to a wide variety of people because he got down to the roots of what it means to be a Conservative. Fighting for the common man and making his life a bit easier. Reagan had a sense of conviction that he was fighting for you no matter what side of the fence you were on.
When I heard Romney’s 47% remark, I knew he was toast. To actually say that kind of crap out loud just tells me he doesn’t have the understanding it takes to be President much less being a Conservative.
Hopefully in 2016, we will have a true Conservative running for office.
wri,
I think now, you need soundbite/twitter-length condensations of ideas; people won’t spend that much time reading things they disagree with.
More Cowbell!!! I mean Bill Whittle. Check out his talk at restoration weekend; the guy should run for office.
You are so correct in your description of the right wing commentators. I think Hannity’s IQ is about even with his temperature. I have stopped waatching all except Krauthammer. Unfortunately too many Republicans dote on this bunch of zealots.
*I* miss Andrew Breitbart! He knew how to call the media out in ways they could not argue with!
If being a Conservative is only second or third in your universe, then you are part of the problem.
If being a Conservative is so important to you that you think people like Wemedge are “part of the problem”, then you are just as much a zealot as people like Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and the rest.
Of course, this assumes that you are an actual conservative, and not an Obama shill. Given the astounding levels of deceit and treachery flowing like a flooded sewer out of DC, it saddens me to admit that this second possibility is far too likely.
One would hope this was obvious but your relationship with God is more important than your political persuasion. If you doubt this, just ask oh, about any Real Conservative out there…start with Rush, go to Ann, the Levin….
For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
I’m a “real conservative” who also happens to be an atheist.
In my opinion, that’s one of the biggest problems conservatism has today – none of it’s “spokesmen” will support or defend it from a fully rational point of view – they too often feel they must resort to religion to support their argument. This hinders the strength of the argument rather than helps it.
Conservatism is rooted in reality and common sense, and is served better by the use of reason; rational thinking based on facts is a much better way to approach any arguments made against conservative ideas by the Left.
When Christian conservatives attempt to argue for conservatism from the perspective of their beliefs, rather than facts, it only clouds the issues and invites the mockery of the Left.
We have enough preachy spokesmen. What we need are more Rands and Goldwaters.
Liz, I don’t understand why atheists believe their claim that god does not exist is any more rational than the claim that god does exist. Occam’s razor is not an axiom of logic, it is a problem-solving strategy. I do agree that it’s pointless to argue from assumptions your audience does not share; you’ve lost before you begin. At the same time, however, I don’t know what you’re talking about: who are these conservatives you accuse of invoking god to support their position? Are you conflating god and morality?
There is a time for bomb-throwing and a time for reasoned explanations. I’ll grant that Rush and Ann throw their bombs for which I’m more often than not grateful, but Barone and Krauthammer never do.
All strategies should be pursued. Different strokes for different folks. Ridicule is a powerful weapon, used effectively by the Left silence their critics or dismiss them. It shouldnt be tossed out by conservatives. In fact this type of informal ostracization should be used to disempower the Leftists, and other purveyors of extremely bad ideas, and positively reinforce good ideas.
Both positive and negative reinforcement (discrimination) should be employed. The carrot and the stick.
What we need is an all of the above strategy of attack, subversion, entryism, promotion, marching through the institutions, etc.
We can start by reminding liberal women that they think with their girl parts; it was in all the news. They TRUMPETED that.
The biggest issue is, the Leftist Bomb throwers are practically their Mainstream, and “self excuse” the most visceral hatred from their side with a wink, nod, and pat on the back.
The “things” uttered by Anne, Rush and Sean are polite and tame compared to the REGULAR vulgarities uttered by the left.
One side is allowed to lie, steal, and cheat while committing theft fraud and violence with absolute impunity. The other is held to an impossible standard of absolute perfection, and shouted down whenever a reasoned rational conversation is attempted.
The problem isnt our message or any of our messengers, the problem is the insurmountable double standard applied to Political Debate in this country.
They own the media, control the schools, and spent all the money.
Other than just starting over after we wipe out all these limp-wristed metro-sissies in a regular old shootin’ war, what else CAN we do?
I always love when people refer to Rush as a “bomb thrower”. They immediately reveal themselves to me as a non-listener of Rush. Rush explains things, he does not throw bombs, but you actually have to listen to him to understand this. Those who make these remarks reveal themselves as liberal “bomb throwers” themselves, using propoganda to silence those they disagree with.
I’d say the Just Us Brothers and Barack The Magic Negro and the National Association of Gals (NAG) are pretty good examples of “bomb throwing”.
Granted they are intelligent, pointed parody and hit the mark, but they are not reasoned debate.
And I appreciate them.
Conservative analysts didn’t increase their normal factor for cheating by 5%. As natural optimists they were unable to recognize the depth of the depravity of the marxists.
Other than that, they did nothing wrong.
I think you missed (or ignored) one of AK’s main points. And that is (paraphrasing) people who are energetic, spunky and brave enough to speak the truth knowing what the Leftist pundits, media and entertainers will do to them might also be the same people to overstate occasionally or sometimes use cutting remarks themselves (to wake people out of their stupor).
People expect perfection from conservations while completely ignoring or “understanding the rage” of much more degrading Leftist pundits.
No matter how kindly and thoughtfully a conservative says something, the Left will twist what they say into something wicked and cruel. So they might as well be frank and tell it like it is in the first place.
Exactly!
Right.
If a Liberal is assaulted by another Liberal, it’s dismissed as a misdemeanor.
A Conservative who commits the same crime is accused of rape with malicious intent, and resisting arrest with violence.
When you have such a well organized and unionized criminal system being subsidized by the Democrat Party, who’s going to win?
If they can turn a standardized U.S. Geological Survey symbol pasted to a map into the motivation for a mentally deranged person’s actions, there is little they cannot do.
Of course it does not help when, after the fact, every right wing pundit agrees with the meme.
Thank the U.S. taxpayer for the development of the Internet.
It has disintermediated the hard-left gatekeepers. News and universities are now moving to the Web, so their control will diminish over time.
Imagine how bad it would be if every information source were now controlled by a left-wing ideologue.
Let freedom ring!
Judging by the recent election, enough of it already is.
Sigh. I’m afraid it’s not about information at all. I’m pretty sure many of the deciding votes came from the ZERO-information voters.
Pravda even observed that “Obama has been re-elected … by an illiterate society…” (Soviet mistake?)
and of course there’s the awesome Howard Stern interviews with Obama voters. Yep, we’re toast.
“Leftists of good will…profess themselves appalled by what I’ll call the lack of decorum of right wing commentators. Ann called someone a retard! Rush called someone a slut! Glenn or Sean called some radical a radical!…(But) It doesn’t seem to matter to these lefties that Chris Matthews routinely slanders people as racist who are not; that Paul Krugman blames right wingers for violence they didn’t commit; that network news anchors attribute foul motives and actions to a peaceful and patriotic Tea Party while glorifying the violent and anti-semitic Occupy movement.”
With all due respect, Andrew, I believe that we might not share the same understanding of the notion of “good will.”
I hope your book does well.
Don’t be fooled. Even if Ann and Rush, Sean and Glenn were always and forever sweetness and light and reason, your lovely Leftist friends would find some other reason to hate them. Hate, it’s what the Left does. Going back to the French revolution, Leftism has always been about envy, and envy is just an excuse for hate.
I’m 58 years old, and I’ve never seen a political candidate as clean, as genuinely Good of a person (whether you agree with his policies or not) as Mitt Romney. Did any of your lovely friends ever listen, really listen, to what he had to say? Or did they just dismiss him as a greedy, uncaring, screw-the-poor-and-favor-the-rich Rich Guy?
I’m guessing I know the answer.
No, decorum, or lack thereof, is not the problem. It’s just another dishonest excuse Leftists use to pat themselves on the back. Which of course is their primary occupation. Vision of the Anointed, and all that.
DSmith
You are right about Romney. He wasn’t my ideal choice for a few reasons, but thats a mere policy issue. I I respected him as a person of good character, so it was incredibly sad to see such decent fellows like he and his running mate (and their wives?) subject of such vulgar rhetoric by Media Figures of the left.
Ryans wife bleaches her a**shole? Romneys wife’s is brown and hairy?
This, tweeted to thousands from a “movie star”, employed by DISNEY, to do a KIDS program?
And no outrage by anyone in the media. If anything, there was a smug and sneaking delight in the rudeness.
While people (on our side even!) have the NERVE to complain about someone like Anne Coulter as being “divisive” and “hateful”.
Despicable.
Intil the Left is held accountable for their conduct, I dont want to hear crap about how we have to “refine” our message
I suggest that the very wise and extraordinarily attractive author stop goldbricking and start producing more books.
Does he want my teenages son’s intellectual growth to be stunted by NEKBTR (Not Enough Klavan Books To Read) syndrome ?
If he writes a “supernatural romance”, please drive a stake through his heart.
What age range is “young adult”? 20? 14? Mine read darn near everything (and of course are brilliant so they read books above their grade level, too) so I don’t know what that means.
I promise they won’t be bored!
In quick response I consider young adult the equivalent of a PG to PG-13 film in terms of content. In other words it is writing which could be condisered appropriate in theme and word choice for a teenage audience, yet still appeal in content and theme to an adult audience interested in the subject matter.
I write fantasy in the young adult arena myself, and those are the guidelines I generally use when writing my own works. I usually address themes of life and death fairly frankly yet don’t let any romance elements trail off into areas of purient interest. Fade to black or change of scene usually happens when any romance elements begin to get a little steamy is my general method. I depict violence, but not in a detailed or graphic manner. I also show that people do die from both bad decisions and from the actions of bad people.
Andrew may use other guideposts when writing his own young adult fiction, but that is what I consider to be my own. I hope this helps.
…Sort of. It’s on my amazon wish list right now; I just need to decide which offspring I give it to: 22, 20, 18, 14 or 12-yr-old. Maybe I just put it under the tree? (22 and 12 are male, in between are female)
A relevant parable:
http://azamra.org/Essential/grain.htm
I work with people who have learning disabilities and other difficulties which make them struggle to live successful lives. I have several male clientsw who are between 28 and 33 who are still trying to get their lives started, and not because they are stoners gaming in their mothers’ basements.
The therapy I use requires reading aloud into a microphone which feeds client’s voice back to his or her ear via headphones. I must find reading material that is appropriate (no f-bombs, no sex, no chainsaw murders, etc.) but is still engaging. You know where I’m going with this, don’t you?
Homelanders rocks, Dude. These guys are reading aloud from a gripping story, which really makes the heart race, and doesn’t make them feel like they are reading kiddie books. Before you wrote this series, I had trouble finding stuff for adult men. No longer. I read everything I ask them to read, to make sure there aren’t any rude surprises, and I have to say, following Charlie West through his thrill ride had my heart in my throat. It was difficult waiting for the next book to come out.
Now you have written another one! I’m buying it. Right. Now. Thanks.
No, thank you. I love hearing this story, truly.
Why, pray, should I pretend to be polite to people who’ve made it abundantly clear they intend to reduce me to state serfdom?
To get them off their guard, after you’ve found ways to screw them royally.
I’m with you on that one. I can barely look at, let alone be pleasant to the few people I know who put this bum back in office.
So the point is that it’s ok for Coulter to call the President a retard and for Rush to call what’s-her-name a slut because Krugman and Matthews do things that are equally wrong, if slightly more subtle? Coulter is brave because she called the President a retard? Perhaps if Chance the Gardner was President. Otherwise, she’s just trying to stir the pot so she can sell books.
By saying $3000 wasn’t enough for her birth control, Sandra Fluke was calling herself a slut. Rush was just agreeing with her. And he actually backed off after referring to her as a prostitute by wanting others to pay for her sex.
He was making a point that by her own admission, she was having so much sex in between classes that she couldn’t afford the birth control and that maybe she should spend less time on her sex life and more on her studies, then it wouldn’t cost more than she could afford.
I find this comment bizarre, as I did Rush’s comments. You would have to know nothing about how health care, health insurance, and contraception for women (as opposed to for men) works to take away from Ms. Fluke’s testimony that she was asking anyone to pay for her contraception, or that she was some kind of super sexed being. Perhaps you don’t have a wife or a daughter? I am a woman, and I have two daughters. When I buy health insurance my premiums, which I pay, pay for the services I get–pap smears, contraception, ob-gyn. No one else “pays for me”–and certainly not the University or my employer. In addition, of course, hormonal birth control doesn’t cost its users per act of sex, but on a monthly and yearly basis (yearly because you need to be under medical supervision to get it and that costs money and an annual visit.)
You are right to sense that Limbaugh’s words did irreperable harm to the share of the vote that went to Mitt Romney. But I would put high on my list of reasons why my daughters will never, ever, vote Republican the fact that Limbaugh’s attitude towards all women, and especially towards Ms. Fluke, was mirrored over and over and over again in comment threads by his true believers, and in the voting choices of the Republican party writ large. I watched her speak at the DNC and I can tell you that every other woman my age that I knew–and we are in our fifties–looked on her as our daughter, being attacked and smeared by sad, fat, old, four times divorced men and their followers.
But please, keep on attacking the voters–voting women especially–its not like we needed any more reasons to vote against you but its nice to know how right we were.
aimai
A perfect comment, a perfectly reasoned arguement for you never having the right to vote. If that is all you care about then you are too ignorant to vote. Either that or you are some sort of troll just trying to stir up things. I would waste time and space telling you all the ways that you are wrong and agmorant but I just can’t make myself do it because it would be like explainging quantum physics to a rock. Do your country a favor and shut up and never vote again.
Congratulations, on being a rabidly buffoonish libal hack, who took the entire GOP/conservative position and..
lied through your teeth about it’s meaning..
Religious freedom in your world, only exists if someone else has to surrender it rto pay for your playtime.. and that is exactly what Fluke was saying.. only an idiot would try and spin that as you just did. and my Daughter will never vote democrat.. or my wife anymore..
they saw the lengths you go to to twist, mutilate and distort the truth. And lady, if you think women weren’t the ones callibng Fluke a slut..
You’re deaf as a post…
That is ALL any of the women I know who mentioned her said about her. The kind of ideologue feminists like you are why the young are so badly misinformed as to want endless “free” stuff, at the expense of the religious convictions of others.. The Obamacare abomibnation your side so lied about, will now be the cause of endless misery, as more and more elderly and disabled are thrown under the bus, by the me me and only me generation of people taught by your side that coveting is a human right.
You are as much to blame for the idiocy of the Obama generation as the left wing media..
but go on voting hard left..
four more years of verbal thugs like you, and it’ll be generations before anone trusts the democrats to change a litter box..
and where by the way, miss Einstein, did anyone mention hormone therapy in the coment you distorted? You are aware that condums ARE a use once every sex act device,… right?.. and that is what people are speaking about.. and you lied about that too… most insurance companies already covered hormone therapy for medical conditions..
They just didn’t cover actual birth control.. since it’s cheap.. even for mindless liberals attending a very expensive college.
But if the left didn’t lie and accuse us of hating women, they’d have nothing to offer.. except the other ten or twelve things democrats train people to hate their neighbors for..
My wife walked away from the democrats forever, because of the idiot hard left..
my daughter, following her mother..
go ahead and hate us.. it’s all you have.. when truth never worked for you.
The war is only beginning, you won by a media lie campaign.. by massive local fraud.. and still… won by less than 2%..
You can’t keep on lying forever, when so many will have been mugged by your party of thugs and hacks. People can learn when the misery you spread goes far enough.. learn the enemy is the left, with all it’s petty hates, small minded lies, cheats, distortions..
Time is on our side.. because we aren’t going away..
“But if the left didn’t lie and accuse us of hating women, they’d have nothing to offer..”
That’s not entirely true. There’s always the racist meme.
It’s amazing, isn’t it, how right wing people don’t understand that Sandra did not call herself a slut, she called for making contraceptives a normal part of insurance coverage and so Rush calling her a slut was not just agreeing with her, but, really, insulting her. And that people who agreed with Sandra’s point of view would not cotton to Rush’s insult. It’s like they don’t really understand how language works.
It’s amazing, isn’t it, how left-wing people don’t understand that Rush didn’t call Sandra a slut and a prostitute to assert that she is literally a slut and a prostitute? He did it to highlight the absurdity of her premise, that she could not afford birth control (because it’s cheap unless you’re copulating with extraordinary frequency) and, further, that her fellow citizens should remunerate her for this extraordinarily frequent sex (by subsidizing her birth control requirements through the federal tax system, which effectively becomes her pimp). If she is not a slut or a prostitute, her case falls apart.
And these people think they’re clever and clear-sighted. If so, they’re also deeply dishonest.
“You are right to sense that Limbaugh’s words did irreperable harm to the share of the vote that went to Mitt Romney”
Why is it that nothing, absolutely NOTHING, no matter how disgusting, rude or degrading (by several orders of magnitude) is ever considered to do political “harm” when it comes from the Mainstream/Hollywood left?
Oh, and Ms Fluke IS a slut.
That “performance” of hers was a JOB INTERVIEW.
An advertisement to Leftist Think-Tanks and Policy Centers that she and her vag were available for political partisanship service. It was nothing less than her “pubic hair on a coke can” moment to establish her career with the right (left) people.
aimai;
Let me make it easy for you to understand:
You and your family are being used as pawns in the steadfast march to American communism.
You will be sacrificed at the earliest opportunity to maintain the legacy of the Democrat Party.
There’s no difference between the Obama Regime driving the American bus, and the muslim pilots that told everybody on board those passenger jets on 9/11/2001 that “You will be fine; We’ve got it all under control”.
To refresh your memory, check out the videos on YouTube for 9/11/2001.
You have to speak the tongue of the masses to communicate, however distasteful it may be.
Criticizing Rush and Ann while defending the passes Matthews & Krugman & Jon Stewart get makes for an interesting observation.
“Coulter is brave because she called the President a retard?”
Given that Mr. Obama arranged for some brownshirts to arrest Mr. Nakoula in the middle of the night I would have to say she is. ^_^
Freedom of Speech was once dismissed by a Canadian politician as an American concept but it looks as though the liberals themselves are dismissing it as something that only a Republican would believe in. >_<
mathmom- my kids’ teacher uses lo-tech versions of this- pvc pipe with bend fittings, cut custom-size for each kid. They can whisper to themselves at their desk, to hear how they sound.
ari -
I have PVC elbows assembled to resemble an old telephone receiver, so my clients can feed their ear and brain with their own voice, while reading aloud at home! Sounds like your teacher thought of something similar, and good for her or him.
When I work in person with a client, there is a sophisticated computer program between the mic and headphones which boosts or removes various frequency ranges and gives the client a sonic bath in the frequencies he needs to help him learn. The headphones also provide the sound of his voice via bone conduction, which helps his balance and coordination at the same time. Learning difficulties and physical incoordination or clumsiness often go hand-in-hand, for interesting neurological reasons.
Thanks for your comment.
mathmom,
super duper company sells an inexpensive feedback device as well. I use it with kids i work with
speech guy.
Propaganda works and from the comments on this page I can see that the lefts propaganda works and it works absolutely. It is a sad day for America when the gentile right buys the lefts propaganda because the right might have said something that was offensive in order to get everyone’s attention.
Politics is a blood sport and until everyone realizes the left plays to win at all cost we will continue losing at extreme cost to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It sounds as if they long for the “good old days” when the Republicans were in the permanent minority. They just need to bend over and be “civil”…you know, like the naked AIDS protesters who broke in to John Boehner’s office today.
“you know, like the naked AIDS protesters who broke in to John Boehner’s office today”
Talk about an inside job!
How can a half dozen people get into the Capital, naked?
Or, where did they have the PRIVACY and the TIME to dis-robe en masse, then ASSEMBLE, before storming the office?
Where were the Police?
A little Union Sympathy for fellow Leftest Travellers, I’ll bet
I’m your huckleberry.
Can I assume that was intended as “gentle”? After all, Romney was no Gentile, he was a Mormon. (The first Gentile mayor of Salt Lake City wwas Jewish.)
Generically, it would refer to an “unbeliever”, as Jews have always used the term to refer to nonJews, and now Mormons use it to refer to nonMormons
Talking over the holiday with average folk who don’t follow politics but who are all educated, employed, married and raising kids, there was a common denominator. All made the off-hand comment about how “extreme” Mitt Romney was and the GOP is in general. The problem is not the right wing commentators. The problem is the casual, off-hand, and oft-repeated smear of those of us on the right from everywhere in the entertainment media – from comics, to news anchors, to sitcoms, to dramas, to letters to the editor, to best sellers, the common refrain is Republican extremism and of course how stupid the GOP is.
The media complex is against us and it’s worse than we thought. Stop blaming our commentators on the right and start fighting for 2014 and 2016 NOW. Don’t let the casual slurs from friends and families slide without correcting it. Someone calls the Tea Party racist, ask for examples. Someone calls the GOP extreme, ask what they mean. It starts with us and we have to stop shying away from confrontation in our everyday conversations. We must not be silent any more and we must stop relying on other people to correct the story – they won’t. Chris Matthews, Diane Sawyer, et al, have spewed more lies and more propaganda than 50 years of Pravda. Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity fight back and they’re derided as hateful. Stop putting up with it, stop buying into the argument and fight back yourself.
Agree wholeheartedly, fight back and give it to them in spades. Be mean and dirty to them with truth on your side. And go farther, do not associate with liberals or the stupid, they are not your friends and should be shunned. Don’t bother trying to convert them, only they can change themselves. Just treat them like you would a rattlesnake. Civility is a sign of weakness to them.
I will allow that a particular leftist is a person of good will when he concedes that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are people of good will — in front of his leftist buddies and associates. But they are notorious for accusing anyone on the Right of harboring evil motives: if not to our faces, then at least when surrounded by their political compatriots. (It’s their “Get Out Of A Losing Argument Free” card.) To me, that expresses the antithesis of good will, and I won’t be shy in saying so — even to you, Mr. Klavan!
Wow, Francis W. Porretto, you’ve set a very high bar – one I have never seen any Leftist reach on college campuses, San Francisco salons… anywhere.
I recall from Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed — a totally invaluable book — a quote to the effect that if you disagree with a conservative, he might think you’re stupid; but if you disagree with a liberal, he’ll probably think you’re evil. This has been so consistently the case in my experience that I regard it as conclusively established.
Ah, I’ve just managed to lay my hand on that invaluable book, and here’s another of its many gems:
I have met no – zero – counterexamples. Our political problem is intractable for this reason above all others.
I married a counter-example.
Thomas Sowell for President in 2016…IF America still exists. And to REALLY screw with the Magogite-liberals…Allen West should be his VP.
Andrew missing the forest for the trees here. Any harsh language or imagery isn’t an issue. Both “sides” use this language, as well as your “average Joe”. Liberal commentators are every bit ans indecorous. Liberals don’t hold it against them because they have been fed a series of preconceived notions that they believe in. They believe liberals are thoughtful, honest, emotionally mature, rational and intelligent, while anyone right of center is bigoted, racist, hateful, mean, greedy, sexist, stupid, rude, and trashy. So when they hear the occasional crudity from a conservative, it is just proof that their stereotype is accurate and that said crudity is the norm, not the exception. When they hear the occasional crudity from a liberal, it’s just an unfortunate slip of the tongue (probably brought on by the stress of having to argue with those barbaric republicans) and a totally forgivable out of character one time slip, because everyone knows that liberals aren’t REALLY like that at all.
They are just doing what humans do — fitting observations into their understanding of the world. Unfortunately their worldview doesn’t really jive with reality, but rather is created from whole cloth for them by the education, entertainment, and media establishments. This is why true libertarians and small government conservatives are losing ground every year — the money and time we are spending on elections is pointless without an even greater effort to break the liberal monopoly on creating and informing people’s worldviews. All we’re doing is bailing out the water, but not patching the leak. And we are falling behind further and further every day.
“Leftists of good will” is an oxymoron whether you get out a lot or not. Their “good will” evaporates the instant you criticize one of their axioms about how the world should work. “Leftists of good intentions” are everywhere, but please don’t confuse good intentions with good will. (And of course leftists don’t give a rat’s rear whether their good intentions lead to disaster, which is usually the case.)
“Leftists of good will”
Yeah, like a REALLY STUPID airline pilot….
He might be a nice guy, but I’d rather not let him touch the controls.
Published on Nov 27, 2012 Sen. Rand Paul on Your World with Neil Cavuto to talk more about the fiscal cliff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X2t_ytAlzs&feature=plcp
As the left likes to say: Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Of course, that defense applies only to them.
I remind the leftards who whip out that bumper-sticker sized slogan that well-behaved men seldom make history either. But equality never satisfies a feminist.
First, it’s utter nonsense. Mother Teresa? Hildegard of Bingen? Teresa of Avila? Margaret Thatcher? Indira Gandhi? Malala Yousouzai? Catherine of Siena?
Second, what Sandra Fluke, Jill Kelley, Eva Braun etc achieved is infamy. Failing to achieve infamy isn’t a bad thing.
During 20+ years as a professor at two different universities in the US, and no one, not one of my colleagues, knew that I was a conservative Republican. Those were the days during the communist menance. Bad health freed me from the university. I did find that in Spain the divisions can be down right hostile, but I will not say more. What I am trying to say is that I experienced a verbal atmosphere relative to which I had no usuable vocabulary to pursue normal professorial life insofar as it entailed political views. I would have never made tenure if my deep dark Republican secret had been known. The point again is the exclusion of vocabulary. There is no discourse in society when terms addressed to leftists, liberals and further to the left leftist are evaluated as “racist”, etc., i.e., disqualify my thinking. Klavan calls it “decorum”, I call it loss of vocabulary. I had “free speech”, only the content of my speech would bring me into difficulty with my academic environment with negative effects for me. The “freedom” of “free speech” becomes meaningless if the “speech” used is stamped as lacking “decorum”. This leads to blocking the use of “free speech”. With no vocabuary to interact with my academic surroundings, I slowly experienced a loss of reality, social reality. The pressure is strong to conform and a vocabulary of defense was disqualified. I am writing from Germany. The impression I get from watching American tv is that the left political class has excluded the vocabulary of dialogue. 1984 was a bit too early of a date. 2012 is more correct. I doubt that Conservaties will regain political power as long as their speech is without effective vocabulary. I have no desire to return to America, though I will retain my citizenship for awhile. I thank Klavan for his article as it supports my desire not to return to a society, whose “fundamental transformation” would cost me the vocabulary for my speech of resistance.
Mr. Klavan;
I wish you hadn’t used the term “decorum”.
It will be used by the Democrat minions as a club now, and will become another term with negative connotations because the Left has deemed it so.
The problem is not Rush, although his slut shaming antics did kick up a whole nest of angry women. The problem is there has ceased to be Buckley-esque, mainstream intellectual conservative voices to balance out Rush and Hannity. I no longer have any alternatives to the bombastic voices because the Hannitys are always given shows and the Krauthammers are always relegated to panels and guest appearances.
The reason conservatives were losing ground in Buckley’s day is that there were no Limbaughs and Hannitys.
For those too young to ever personally experience what that was like, imagine an America in which the only conservative voice of any fame was, oh, Charles Krauthammer.
(Try again.)
Yes. Yes. Yes.
When Spiro Agnew (Nixon’s VP) attacked the media, Edith Ephron of TV guide reported that got a total of three bigoted letters. The rest were along the lines of, “yes, I thoguht that way too, but I thoguht I was the only one”.
This is what Limbaugh is for.
When ridiculing Ms Fluke’s so called “reproductive rights” , Rush Limbaugh’s antics were slut advocacy shaming, or tyranny shaming, not slut shaming.
You couldn’t listen to him without asking yourself (1) What kind of a sex life would a woman have to be having in order to require what Fluke is advocating. (2) Won’t Fluke’s ‘”reproductive rights” incentivize behavior that prevents and destroys committed relationships ?(3) Don’t Fluke’s “reproductive rights” force others to violate conscience by forcing them to subsidize behavioral choices they think are wrong ?
I don’t know anyone who thought Rush Limbaugh was really talking about Ms Fluke’s private life.
You need to get out more. What you thought, and what the majority of women thought, clearly is quite divergent.
aimai
What liberal women now are faced with, is that you trumpeted that you think with your vaginas. At some point, liberal women are going to want to their ideas to be taken seriously by someone and might end up regretting that particular tactic. Whether conservatives say it out loud or not, it’s what we’re thinking.
The “lady part” that conservative women think with, when deciding who to vote for or for any other decision, is our brains. You got your way this election, but at what cost?
Most wmen dont think…they react, emotionally
Which is why most women vote democrat
Its not the party of thinkers
Most “liberal” women don’t think, you mean. At least not with their brains.
Only on the Left is Truth not an affirmative defense, for everything they say is a lie, including “and” and “the”.
There are ways to “cuss out” an opponent without losing “decorum” – I’ve seen it done. Derision, disgust, disdain, utter contempt… you can tell an opponent he’s a retard without using the word “retard.” I suggest the conservatives start studying the English language. Study Australian too – they are also good at it. Americans can learn… Yes, we all speak the same language – we just all do it a bit differently. And conservatives need to learn how to completely insult the opponent while seeming to be very polite. It’s a skill Americans seem to lack.
As a totally off-topic example of rude – take that lovely little checkmark off PJ’s comments that say: “We know you’re busy. Sign up for our Daily Digest email to get a quick look each day at our editors’ picks and readers’ favorite stories. (You will receive an email asking you to verify your email address. If you have previously subscribed, no verification email will be sent.)” NO. I DO NOT want your digests, thanks anyway – and I’m just a tad bit tired of unchecking it every time I make a comment. (And, no, I don’t do cookies either.) The POLITE standard is opt-in, not opt-out. Thanks.
Kathy;
I have to reply because; Have you ever had to converse with anyone that had a limited knowledge of the language you are trying to communicate in? Or vice versa, and convey catastrophe?
And dealing with the internet is like working with a Liberal: Who’s more intelligent?
You can handle it.
The workaround for frequent commenters at PJMedia sites who do not wish the Daily Digest and are tired of unchecking that subscription box is to let it stay checked, then when the subscription starts go ahead and unsubscribe. Ever after, the state of that checkbox will be ignored even if checked.
THANK YOU.
That’s because British (and Israeli) libel law makes it much easier to win a suit that the US equivalent does, so British journalists become expert at the fine art of innuendo. (As per Michael Hay, “Thy Brother’s Blood”.)
Australian language…go listen to a few Kevin Bloody Wilson DVDs. Now there’s a fella who can use the Ozzie language mate. On the air, it would sound like Morse code.
Fine article. Thank you Mr. Klavan.
From what I’ve read, heard and seen from both sides of the ideological divide, both sides sem to think that only they are telling the truth and that only they are offering civil discourse. Both sides claim that the other side is crazy, uncivil and down right mean. In this latter claim, I fear that both sides are quite correct.
The fact of the matter is, both sides have engaged in a weird political and economic form of MAD…while forcing the rest of us to come along for the ride.
Take a ride on THIS, fool.
What next, you regaling us with the notion that the US is equally to blame with the USSR for the Cold War. There is a reason that Communists call us Classically Liberal Christians reactioinaries. It is because we are merely reacting to their aggression.
Im sorry but you are a mental midget, Warren. The culture war is a Leftwing aggressive action. Their can be no truce, because their ultimate goal is the destruction of bourgeois society and norms. They arent going to stop.
But alas…
If ‘the rest of us’ got out and voted, the two ‘sides’ would be out of luck and marginalized.
Do remember that when you complain: the ‘rest of us’ are not bothering to take part and are handing everything over to the two ‘sides’ to do this.
If you want the ‘sides’ to stop, then you must participate and end the insanity… if ‘the rest of us’ can be bothered to take part in their own destiny, of course. Until they do so, do not bring up ‘the rest of us’ because now there are so many that don’t vote that you are only getting that fraction of a fraction that does vote to choose the leaders. The ‘rest of us’ who sit at home are voting with their butts to accept what will be given to them. You are complaining to the wrong people here. You want change and stepping away from insanity? Talk to ‘the rest of us’ who don’t vote, wouldya and do something useful with your ire and actually HELP?
Thanks to the MSM — which is not “dieing” — and almost four decades of public school education leftist rot, “liberals” have a ready audience for their point of view. Very hard to fight that, isn’t it?
It’s going to take decades of building a separate society that has clout and that educates its kids differently to counteract the narrative that has seized the Western world. In the above post, Mr. Klavan has offered no constructive alternatives to being the “crazy man.”
I believe Islam is going to be a bridge too far, and will act as a catalyst for the reflourishing of European Christian civilization.
The latest…
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/11/no-one-expects-norwegian-inquisition.html
First in defense of Rush:
Rush speaks for 15 hours per week with relatively few days off and very few guests. The sheer number of words the man speaks will make it likely that he mis-speaks occasionally and once in a while goes too far. He apologized and walked back his comment and Klavan, supposedly batting for the same team, is holding it up as an example of his typical behavior? That is not right nor fair. I listen to Rush. I was listening the day he was speaking of Sandra Fluke and I took his comment in the satire content he meant it. While I understood where the MSM took it, as a woman I wasn’t offended. He is the most talented person on the radio and while he may be turning some people off our cause, he’s obviously doing something right or so many people wouldn’t listen to him.
Regarding Ann:
Ann Coulter is a firebrand and every movement needs a couple. I don’t want her to lead me to the promised land, but I can appreciate her pithy comments. What seems to be lost in this conversation is the fact that while Ann and Rush are popular, they are our entertainers. Our leaders are people like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, people who communicate in a very different way. The left holds up Ann and Rush as examples of conservative thought, comparing them to Bob Schiffer. How about we compare Al Franken and Chris Matthews to Scott Walker and Chris Wallace and see who comes out looking mature and thoughtful.
It takes all kinds. You need your PJ O’Rourke and Winston Churchill, people who can make a sharp edged joke or comment. I don’t always like how Ann says what she does, but by getting people to watch her and see what she’ll say next she’s managed to make more than one salient point. Let’s give credit where credit is due and at the same time stop letting them decide who defines us, because there will always be some skinhead out there who is half crazy and half conservative who the media will hold up as our spokesperson.
Bingo, you need your Samuel Adams’ and Patrick Henrys as well as your John Adams’ and Ben Franklins.
Yes, and can we remind the purists that Sam Adams was not elected president, John was.
Yes, I need my Sam Adams. Were there more words after that part?
I should mention that my wife, who is quite left-wing, likes Ann’s writing.
I should mention my wife, who is even MORE right wing than I, IS my wife, for that very reason
And yet, there is no mention of Bill Maher? Rush on his most offensive of days (and let’s be honest, he causes offense mainly because he refuses to be PC and for no other real reason) is Miss Manners compared to Maher.
Mr. Klavan,
One day last week I happened to be in the car with the radio on and heard Rush say that Conservatives must find ways to change the culture. I absolutely agree.
To be perfectly honest I rarely listen to Rush these days. I believe the relentless anti-Obama chatter from Conservatives did little to bring in new voters. Perhaps I was among the few that actually believed Romney/Ryan made a darn good team. I was often frustrated by conservatives who, while being anti-Obama, suggested absolutely no reason to be pro-Romney/Ryan. I believe this gave many voters reason enough to stay home.
Knowing the reality of our culture, I commend you and all others who can find ways to break through the daily propaganda/memes to help those willing to think, understand what Conservationism is really about.
When Rush said we must change the culture, I thought that was the most rational thing he had said in a very long time. We must find ways to deliver a message that excites the passion for liberty.
All the best to you.
You admittedly rarely listen to him, but you imply you know Rush’s usual commentary lately?
I’m guessing that you listened to him and realized that he isn’t like the LSM caricature of him.
“We must find ways to deliver a message that excites the passion for liberty”
Compared to the free drug-dealing text messages they receive on their Obama phones, I’d say thats not going to happen
16 trillion in debt buys alot of votes
Accusations of incivility are a classic fake-and-shift defense.
Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was attacked by slavery advocates for explicitly discussing the sexual exploitation of slave women by white men. No real lady would ever talk about such things, therefore she was a Bad Woman and should be silenced.
Funny how they all happened to be Democrats too, huh?
Citizens have ascribed way too much power to these blowhards. I remember it like yesterday, Rush, “folks, take my word for it, Mitt Romney is not a conservative”, as if this guy is an expert at what is a conservative. Ridiculous, but I remember thinking, this will depress turnout down the road. Think about for a minute – the family guy, with the 5 sons, lifetime marriage, doesn’t smoke or drink, etc., is being chastised by someone who has not led a conservative life by any stretch.
Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Malkin, et al, women who are supposed to be pro-family, but are too lazy to bear a child. Sean Hannity who pushed wars, but will not ever go a war zone as a journalist/media guy. My point is these people are not heroes but have been put on a pedestal by simple minded citizens. Yes, I do agree with Rush most of the time on economic and general outlook, but his election strategizing was 100% bad. He kept saying during the primaries – anyone who gets the nomination will easily beat Obama. Really? Why did so many socons think this? Romney supporters always knew it would be very difficult to beat an incumbent, but the socons, they were really in a bubble, and probably still are.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Michelle Malkin has children.
Also correct me if I’m wrong as well, but I also think Michelle Malkin has two children. Yet that isn’t important. Where in the conservative platform does it mention the “proper” roles of men or women in family life? As I understand it the fiscal conservative platform is pretty simple. Limited government, and adherence to the US Constitution and the values expressed by it. The social conservative value is generally freedom of religious practice, and increased goverment control of people’s behavior not in line with religious morals.
This is the dichotomy of “conservatism” as it exists today. A push for and against more government interference in people’s lives. The people who value fiscal conservatism didn’t like what they saw in Mitt Romney’s compromises on “key” fiscal issues in his past political history. Several of those who like social conservatism also didn’t like what they saw in Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation, and his past compromises on “key” social issues.
Mitt Romney was a candidate picked by the GOP as ideal for “stealing” the middle unaffiliated independent voters from Barak Obama. That strategy clearly didn’t work because it only turned away conservatives without a corresponding gain in independents when it came time for the election.
What Rush, Coulter, etc. said essentially didn’t change many minds other than those of already existing conservatives. They are frankly ignored by the majority of the mainstream unless they gift the “Mainstream Media” with a sound bite that can damage the conservative dialog. Rush, Coulter, Malkin, Krauthammer, Hannity, etc. all make their living preaching to the already converted. In reality they do very little to gain the interest of the undecided, and they ARE used as an example against conservatism by liberals.
Certainly the “game isn’t fair”. Politics has never been about fair. It has always been about success. The point being at this juncture in time a slightly increased number of people are willing to buy the “story” on the left than the one being given on the right. The problem with that “story” of the left is that it is such a work of fiction that the promised results can never happen in reality. The problem with some of the “story” of the right is that there is also enough fiction present that many “key” issues are never treated as serious issues by the elected officials once they get into office.
The lesson to learn is simple. Stop buying the stories from either side, and look at what the individual politicians actually do when in office. By their actions you will know their real intent, never by their words.
“The social conservative value is generally… increased government control of people’s behavior not in line with religious morals.”
You would do well to follow your own advice about not blindly believing news stories.
@Jeannette
This is very simple to understand. Do social conservatives want to legislate the nature of “marriage” and the nature of “reproductive services” at the national level. If they do (as many openly profess to want), then yes they are trying to legislate their religious belief system into a single law for the land. If they do not, then I would in turn state you are no longer in the social conservative category.
If they simply don’t want the government funding “reproductive services” and handing out benefits for “marriage”, then congratulations they are actually small “L” libertarians who think less government influence in people’s lives is best. They can abandon the social conservative title, and vote for everyone to have more freedom from government.
Note: I do not believe (as some social conservatives do) that freedom from government means a lack of virtue, morals, or values. People still need to have these things to function as a society. Otherwise the country simply descends into anarchy and a collapse of the nation. I do think the national government needs to get out of the “business” of guarantees of “positive” outcomes for everyone. It does a lousy and costly job of trying to create that scenario.
If you don’t like birth control, or abortions because of your religious beliefs, then don’t use birth control, and don’t abort your children. If some stupid idiot wants to lead a life of hedonistic pleasure then let the real negative consequences of such behavior come down upon their heads. Stop trying to protect the stupid people from their own stupidity. If they need to dwindle and die to learn their lesson, then so be it. Look out for you and your own, and leave the rest alone. It is pretty much as simple as that.
Get your ovaries out of my wallet.
You know, a lot of people are unable to have children. I wouldn’t be quich to judge.
As far as Ann is concerned, we can use a few unconventional people defending the conventional ones. CF Tammy Bruce.
Have these with no children contributed to our society and humanity as a whole?
Have they ensured they will not be a burden to others?
Have they sought to enlighten their fellow man?
Those who are sick, infirm or cannot have children have other ways to contribute, and if they ensure that they do not make themselves a burden to others and are self-sufficient and do not seek the teat of government and forcible redistribution, do you dare to say they are not conservative? If they uphold their extended family, if they seek to help other families, if they seek to be a good demonstration of living good morals, then are they not conservative for lacking in children? Is that your single and sole litmus test of conservatism?
Or can it perhaps stretch just a bit further than to go forth and multiply, and do their best not to subtract and divide and yet still be a dividend in contribution with their life. Or does that not matter AT ALL?
The central problem with every thinking conservative: How can folks that I know and like be so blind to the obvious commitment of the Obama Ad ministration to doctrinaire Socialism? With friends or family asking “How can this caring person possibly vote Republican?
The answer, in my observation, lies in their belief that those who are profit-seeking are, ipso facto, selfish and callous obout the impoverished and suffering and vote the Republiban ticket. , Then, perceiving themselves compassionate and guilty of enjoying all the good things of life while others suffer, overwhelmed by the desire to make this a better world and wanting to do what Jesus would do, they feel their choice must be to vote Democrat. It is a self-gratifying reflex. So they read only the NYT and watch only NBC and hear nothing critical of Obama and nothing good about greedy, heartless conservatives. Proably 50% of those who voted for re-election would vigorously object if you informed them that they were voting for a full- blooded Socialist.
That is why it was so important for Romney to put the Obama team on the defensive, in debate especially, by making him explain how his policies differed fromEuro-Socialism. His failure to do so will have dire consequences, as we shall see as the rapturous Socialists go into high gear.
“The answer, in my observation, lies in their belief that those who are profit-seeking are, ipso facto, selfish and callous obout the impoverished and suffering and vote the Republiban ticket.”
I’m a former “conservative” (put in quotes because the meaning of the term in this environment is unclear to me) who depends on profit seeking businesses for my livelihood as a professional. So I know republican voters aren’t selfish and callous, but the policy choices of republicans in office often ARE callous.
For example, I accept that conservatives favor a more free market healthcare system because they are convinced it would drive down costs and therefore make access more affordable to the working poor. In the interim, in this reality we inhabit, however, we have 10s of millions of working adults, often with pre-existing conditions, who are doing what society asks them to do which is do their job every day, as well as they’re capable, and access to affordable healthcare is simply out of reach. That clerk working part time at Walmart, part time at another retailer, trying to raise children, simply cannot afford insurance, so is one serious accident or sickness away from financial ruin. If he or she has a pre-existing condition, there is NO possibility for insurance that would provide financial stability.
So what does that person, and many millions more like her, do while they wait a decade or more for prices to come down? The conservatives have no answer – go to the ER, literally, is often their answer. That’s not healthcare. And from the perspective of that clerk and millions like her, the “let the markets work for a decade or more and things MIGHT improve” approach simply IS callous, or rationally appears so.
I’d suggest that if republicans want to be seen as less callous, they might pretend to take seriously concerns like these and others that affect the poor and working class. For example, don’t like Obamacare? GREAT! Then come up with an alternative plan that even pretends to dent the 10s of millions of uninsured WORKERS. Go beyond “repeal” to an actual plan to “replace” the socialist alternative of government subsidies, or that predictably works better than a single payer system like the incredibly popular Medicare, or single payer systems in the entire rest of the industrialized world that deliver nearly universal coverage, at roughly half our cost, with outstanding outcomes.
One of the problems with socialist government is that when the government sticks its big butt into solving a problem, it does so very poorly. But at the same time, private citizens are more likely to think they don’t have obligations to the poor because “the government does that”, so individual private assistance goes down. As a Christian, I have an obligation to the poor. When I go to the soup kitchen or pick up leftovers from Panera’s “Dough-nation” program, I’m a lot more efficient (more bang for the buck) AND it helps me to see the poor as God’s children and not hypothetical “lazy bums”. I see the homeless’ reaction and I know it means more to them when I give them some hamburger casserole, than if someone just gave them an EBT card. We do all have an obligation to help God’s children in all ways. I do think each dollar spent privately is better spent than if government were spending it (especially when you look at the bureaucracy, the unwillingness to actually solve problems (because then the govt worker would be out a job)
The biggest problem is, we keep interchanging words that are NOT the same, as if they are.
Heath CARE
Health INSURANCE.
Two completely different things.
Routine Health CARE should be an out of pocket expense. As an average person, my actual monthly Health CARE costs are almost zero. I dont count soap, toothpaste, condoms, aspirin, Band-Aids and cold medicine as health care. I call it “life”, and the cost of it is on me, as it SHOULD be.
Ditto for routine checkups….$300.00-$500.00 apiece twice a year is a bargain, compared to the $800.00 per MONTH most people pay for essentially the same services.
X-ray, Stitches or a broken bone? Maybe even THAT should be mine too….how often do I expect that to happen, twice in a lifetime? Long term, its actually CHEAPER to pay for it myself than go through my Insurance Company..
Its only the things above and beyond that I really need “insurance” for, and their is no legitimate reason premiums for those (unlikely) services it should be so ghastly unaffordable.
Mandatory, tax funded health INSURANCE for the so-called poor, is a sham. What they need 99.999% of the time, is heath CARE, case by case, incident by incident, and as needed. And the best way to get there, is to have a robust economy so they can PAY for these normal, routine healthcare costs, out of their own pocket, and BUY an insurance policy for major medical issues.
Taxing Mary to pay Jose’s MONTHLY PREMIUM over and over again, when Jose’ never saw or needed a doctor that YEAR, is a scam.
And its MEANT to be a scam.
Because scams like that create access to (other peoples) money, in exchange for NOTHING RENDERED, when such opportunities would not otherwise, in an honest system, exist.
Heath CARE and health INSURANCE are NOT the same thing.
We need to stop pretending they are.
Oh, come ON,Mr Klaven! You think the LEFT has decorum? Rush and Ann and Mike Savage stand out on the Right BECAUSE they call it as they see it and don’t censor themselves. On the Left,though, you have potty mouths like Whoopi Goldberg and Bill Maher, and I never HEARD such hate from ANY public figure (possibly excepting George Wallace and Ted Kennedy) as I heard the two times I tuned in the Keith Olbermann show. And think of “The View”, where a panel of Leftist/Liberal WOMEN get to show off those qualities they are so lacking in: intelligence, knowledge AND polite,respectful speech with and about people they happen to disagree with. We conservatives don’t scream and cuss because we have the facts and TRUTH on our side, and needn’t resort to hysterical emotional appeals to convince people we are right.
Cult experts use the term “thought-stopping phrase” to describe words that pull cult members away from “dangerous” ideas. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few that liberalists use, like “settled science”, “reproductive choice”. These phrases are wildly inaccurate of course; “thought-stopping phrases” often are. (in my examples: AGW is far from being settled science, and liberalists are rarely interested in women actually reproducing). The trick is to change our phrases so that they have to play “catch-up” in response to our replies, or to use their phrases against them (I tell people who get nasty about me being a housewife with eight kids that a lot of people are intolerant of my alternative lifestyle, for example, or that many women have abortions “because they didn’t think they had a choice”. I would stay away from actual arguments and just have “discussions” with cult members, and remember that your main target online is the lurkers. They’ll feel guilty about reading “forbidden” blogs, and scared of admitting that they have a problem with the doctrine. As ex-cult member Mary Kochan said, “If you have a problem, you are the problem” (in a cult) so they’re afraid of being “kicked out” of the cult/shunned etc.
Liberals are such nice people. Take a look: [nudity etc. in link - AK]
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
Besides, what’s wrong with preaching to the choir sometimes? As a conservative I’m bombarded with the leftist version of truth and events every day. I appreciate hearing my views articulated by someone with a large enough audience for me to feel less alone. A preacher who instead ignores his choir is likely to return from attempting to convert the populace to find his flock has scattered.
The problem isn’t “decorum” but lack of thought. Politics aside, is anyone else aware of contemporary studies that show young people can read, but they can’t comprehend? They can put the words together but not analyze a thought. People like that will focus on the words rather than the message. We need to teach children logic and the processes of thought and they they will listen beyond the specific word choices to the points being made.
I have some hope that there has been a contraction from the hold the left had over the schools when I was attending. They still run the place, but we now have charter schools and reasonable people who are trying to address the lack of basic skills students have. Better skilled, more informed people who know how to think can only be good for us politically.
I bought it, neither pretending it’s for a young adult nor to secretly read it myself. I bought it for me. It’s mine. Ima read it.
Sure, there are lots of leftists of “good will.” But that’s not the issue. Hitler was a nice guy, too. Very cordial. The issue is, What do people believe, and how do those beliefs affect themselves and others? Liberals can’t hide behind alleged “good will” and escape the consequences for their destructive ideas.
Republicans have separation of church and state. Their spiritual life is at home or at services, and guided by Deductive Reasoning. (Inductive reasoning works poorly in spiritual matters.) In daily life and the world of work, the Republican shifts into Inductive reasoning. The Democrat lives a holistic life. Church and state are smeared together. Basic economic principles are from the Bible, for example.
To a Democrat, a Republican is an apostate and a blasphemer. Anyone who does not accept the Democrat narrative has deviated from the revealed truth. Those who are authoritarian-minded Democrats get especially knicker-twisted.
Read up a bit on cults and how they use language to pull people in, and how forbidden thoughts are dealt with; you’ll see similarities in the way Leftism works.
How can there possibly be decorum when truth is considered treason and when an honest man is considered a traitor? There were few places where an honest man could find refuge before this, and those places are disappearing fast.
Decorum wasn’t the first thing that went out the window in this decadent society. It won’t be the last either.
and Rush aptly called her out for the slut she was, is, and will always be,
I sent several decorously worded comments to an article on the subject
in American Thinker, to the effect that Fluke could both play safe and at
the same time actually improve her sex life by engaging in any of a vast
multitude of sexual acts that had absolutely no possibility of resulting in
pregnancy, and in so doing also cut down on her contraceptive budget.
American Thinker wouldn’t, and didn’t, post any of those comments.