In Defense of Political Anger
“Mad Man,” said the cover of Time magazine that featured Glenn Beck blowing a raspberry at the world. The story inside warned us to be wary of “the angry style of American politics” — an obvious allusion to the liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s 1964 anti-Barry Goldwater essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
We are all meant to tsk-tsk at the prominence of Beck and other supposedly out-there pundits.
But political anger can be a wonderful thing. Being against Candidate X is just as valid a reason to get involved in politics as being for Candidate Y.
Let’s be clear that anger need not have anything to do with violence. If Beck or Limbaugh or Mark Levin have been caught lobbing broken pavement at police, I have missed it. Their anger is simply a really engaged flavor of political philosophy. If anything, political violence is usually associated with the left in American life — from communist Lee Harvey Oswald, to the killers of RFK and Malcolm X, up through the 1999 Seattle protests and on to last week in Pittsburgh.
At the G-20 summit held in Steel Town, Time reported, leftist protesters who refused to apply for an assembly permit pushed dumpsters into the street, pelted police with rocks and macadam, and smashed windows of banks and even a Boston Market and a Mini car dealership. (These guys even hate cute little fuel-efficient Euro-cars? Sheesh.) Dozens of arrests were made. Meanwhile the number of projectiles hurled at law enforcement figures by banned-in-the-UK radio talker Michael Savage remained stuck at zero. The 9/12 protests that drew tens of thousands of marchers to D.C. were consistently painted as threatening because of signs that said things like, “Joe Wilson was right.” But if there were any arrests for violent acts, they weren’t mentioned in the Washington Post’s coverage.
In MSM arithmetic, “conservative anger” = “potentially violent,” even though we know “liberal anger” = “actually violent,” as we saw in Pittsburgh. Nancy Pelosi has set the table for this line of thinking with her tearful comparison of today, when conservatives are feeling their oats, with the time when Harvey Milk was murdered. Yet no one blamed the Beltway snipers or the Unabomber on the “climate” of extreme liberal thinking. You can be sure that if any act of violence is committed anywhere in this country by anyone who has expressed distaste for Obama, headlines will erupt and they will blame peaceful, mainstream conservative pundits.
The MSM aren’t too curious about protesters like the ones in Pittsburgh (Do they watch Rachel Maddow? Do they read Paul Krugman?) because they believe radical leftists kinda have a point. Bankers get huge bonuses. Shouldn’t we all lob rocks at police to express our outrage?
Clearly, some of the 9/12 protesters were angry. But that shouldn’t bother us, should it? Anger, after all, is seen as an essential element of liberal political comment, from Wanda Sykes suggesting Rush Limbaugh be waterboarded at this year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner and Keith Olbermann fulminating about his “Worst Person in the World” du jour, all the way back to Bill Clinton threatening to punch the late William Safire in the nose and sainted figures of liberal protest like Lenny Bruce. Even the once-genial David Letterman spent a chunk of last fall fulminating against John McCain and, before that, against George W. Bush. Michael Moore is one angry fellow.
Even Time magazine, which ran a picture of Beck making little clawing gestures with his fingers, concedes that Beck is funny. His Fox News colleague Shepard Smith, Time reported, calls his studio “the fear chamber,” though Beck himself wittily calls it his “doom room.” Watching Beck, you may well find yourself chuckling more than raging. His cherub cheeks and sparkling blue eyes place him closer to the jokester in the back of the choir than to the freak on the grassy knoll. Beck is enjoying himself.
And so should we. In a recent poll, 72 percent of Americans agreed with the statement, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” Political anger is fun. It’s therapeutic. It’s exciting to watch on TV or read on blogs. It is indicative of a citizenry that cares. It’s a sign of a healthy democracy that is questioning its leadership. It holds those in power accountable and makes them nervous.
The thing they’re nervous about is not being assassinated but being tossed out of office. They should be nervous about us. Because we are their bosses and we can fire them.
“Being against Candidate X is just as valid a reason to get involved in politics as being for Candidate Y.”
Not quite. It’s possible to be “destructively against,” without being “constructively for” anything. Indeed, that was one of the criticisms most frequently made of the youth rebellions of the Sixties, and it was quite valid. Consider, for example, the rage at the corruption of the government of South Vietnam. What replaced it when it fell? Was that better?
Glenn Beck knows both what he’s against and what he’d for. The anger he’s marshaling appears to be of the same quality, which makes its quantity all the more valuable and heartening.
Is democracy dirty? Yes, if you do it right.
While I agree we need a citizenry that cares, that is passionate, that is engaged I am not as sure the level of contention we have now is good for anyone excerpt those in power. They continue to marginalize the right by pointing out the over they top crowd and then lumping people like Beck with them, which of course is not only unfair but disingenuous. While Beck my be passionate, he is also accurate and we all know that in todays liberal driven debate, if you can’t explain or defend the principles”kill the messenger.”
That said, last night I watched a news program on a more balanced network and the panel spent all their time talking over each other. While no one resorted to name calling and labeling, on either side- all were polite and articulate, no one listened to anyone else. They were all so passionate, so engaged, cared so much that in an effort to get their points across they just kept talking, louder and louder. NO one listened, they were too busy thinking about what to say next to actually listen to each other. This is not debate, this is chaos and we have enough of that already. Our politicians are supposed to create order not cause disruption.
We need to start over, this time with people who actually believe in and on the Constitution. Then we need to hold them to higher standards and jettison them if they don’t live up to those standards. Last but not least “WE the people” need to get up off our proverbial fat keesters and live up to standards as well. No more “do as we say. not as we do.” We are better than that, or at least we should be……………… we are not Europe.
The “rage against the corruption of the Government of South Vietnam” wasn’t the reason for the ’60s anti-war movement. That was a red herring. It was the draft. Few people were going to get that upset the going’s on in some faraway land. Getting drafted and sent there was a different matter. (draft number 14)
It is sufficient to be against what you know is wrong. I am adamantly opposed to the Democrat’s attempt to confiscate the health care system so they can accumulate more power. I don’t have to have a ‘better plan’. The status quo, ignoring the dishonest protestations of the people who are trying to change it, works fine way more often than the socialist system it would be replaced with. I don’t fight for the status quo. But I oppose anything that comes out of this Congress because ultimately its only purpose is the accumulation of power.
I fear Obama has awaken a great and determined opposition.
It is ironic: the actual political violence come from the left, which purports to be anti-war, where the political right, which generally supports the American military and the necessary use of force, behaves peacefully, if at times loudly, in protest.
Even more ironically, the capacity of the left for political violence in the United States is limited by the lack of military training, weaponry, and, in many if not most cases, the physical stamina and conditioning necessary for sustained political violence. The left’s ability to commit political violence is almost entirely dependent on the civil authorities’ tolerance and restraint in using force.
On the other hand, the capacity of the right to commit political violence if it so chooses is almost limitless. Those on the right are more likely to be armed and trained to the use of arms, more likely to have military experience or experience in hunting, and survival and other skills useful in serious guerrilla warfare.
And, ironically as well, most of the military and many police (unclear given unionization) are generally on the right as well, and could not be relied upon to enforce leftist ordered attempts to suppress a genuine popular rising on Constitutional principles.
As many people point out, looking at what the left demonizes shows us what the left fears.
I think that a fair number of people on the far left know on some inner level that they’re pushing the American people very far and very hard in ways the people will not approve and, once those things are implemented, will simply not tolerate.
Their fear is that they are close to pushing the “right” — which in this case is really everyone ranging from the slightly left of center on rightward — too far, and that they will be subjected to something like vigilante justice.
It seems to me that the left in this country knows that their hold on power is tenuous, based entirely on the forbearance of the right. I don’t think it would be really wise for the left to continue testing the patience of the American people.
The leftest LIKE anger when it is directed against the right. They deplore it only when it directed against them. Then well control focused anger is racists, potentially violent and wrong.
So in 1964 they called us angry too? Out of that anger emerged Ronald Reagan. Who will emerge for this generation?
Sign up at http://www.handsoffamerica.net to join a movement and maybe help the next Reagan emerge. Now that’s exciting!!!
On the other hand….
http://www.comcast.net/video/facebook-has-obama-assassination-poll/1280125005/Comcast/1279532386/
Angry..? Who in the &^%^ is angry..?
Anger only takes place when you know that it can fix something..
Today, the %^$# MSN and the @#$$ reprobate clowns on both sides of the aisles in Washington, DC are so #$%^^, ^%^%^ed up, there’s no way possible to straighten out the ^#@##@$ mess they’ve made of our country..
Angry..? *(**&( no; I’m not angry – I’m furious; livid as $#$^% and $$##$ and I #$#@$@# well intend to even the score beginning with next election day..
Rotten, no good for nothing, lazy incompetent #$%^^ and *&*($E#$W slobs.
Anger…? What a %^$#$# crock.
Political anger is helpful to the majority of Americans because most of us are adequately forewarned, and we will choose not to vote for the spittle-flecked raging wackos. Just as we didn’t vote for the anti-war left after 9/11.
The majority of Americans are pragmatic people. We don’t want demagogues, we don’t political passion, we want the trash picked up on time and the roads paved. We want the economy to function, and that means trade. We want a reasonable defense and we want the rest of the world to be as safe and stable as possible. That’s not too much to ask for, is it?
Sometimes political anger is popular, but only as a form of entertainment, like fictional car chases or staged explosions. Only a small minority wants that to be part of their daily lives.
The loyalist motto revived in the movie Patriot was “I would rather have one tyrant 3000 miles away than have 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.” This is germane to this conversation. The issues underlying the Revolutionary war are again at stake. Evidently we expected to give up these rights quietly. I think not.
I don’t see another civil war. I see the increasing likelihood of a debilitating attack by foreign powers while we have incompetent leadership and are distracted by internal struggles to preserve the document we are sworn to uphold.
Agreed. Sometimes anger and outrage are MORE appropriate than civil debate.
http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/2009/09/against-civil-debate.html
One large item missing from this article is the use of racism to incite anger and incite race riots by the media. This very media has incorporated the most exploitative dialog it can muster to sell their opinion as news.
With this despicable speech, inflammation of anger is the goal; IT MAKES NEWS TO SELL.
I think maybe Vodkapundid has it all wrong, it’s the Klingons.
So far the vast bulk of the anger has been based on idiotic rumors, deliberate disinformation, and very, very poor news reporting that has done little or nothing to clear up what’s real and what’s butt-based. It’s been a return to good old days where the bulk of information the average person gets from all sources is either scam-based or some shade of propaganda, from white to black, and angry mobs mostly just represented a very successful BS campaign. So much for the Information Age….
As an aside, I see that the Democrats are returning to their Bush-era gutless mode. If nothing substantial gets done by the end of spring, they will deserve to have their butts kicked in the mid-terms. It’s one thing for the average Joe or Mary to be easily confused about what’s really going on, but Senators at the least are suppose have much, much greater resources and so have much, much less excuse for ignorance and confusion. I know you guys have me pegged as a liberal, but basically I just see a lot of stuff going bad, failing, or already broken that needs to be dealt with, and not just debated in circles. I have no use for useless people in general, and politics has nothing to do with it.
Talk of assassination. Odd intimations that assassins of liberals are themselves liberals. Political anger is one thing, but fomenting political violence, and lying about the source and nature of said violence, is a very low place to go.
In general, it is very easy to tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing violence. Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous.
Peace.
DS
The media is responsible for bringing this upon us because they could tell the truth but don’t. They could tell the real story but they choose to support the marxist takeover, at every stage. They are assisting the marxists willingly. They aren’t making mistakes or errors in judgment, they are an integral part of the revolution we are witnessing.
The thing that makes me angry is watching the “left” gut our country, before our eyes, while we watch the republican “leadership” miss the entire event. If I could see what was happening, surely they did as well but not one peep out of them. It is clear to me that some of these people are “owned”. That would be right out of the international marxist’s play book. I see no reason to believe that they won’t follow that play book right down the line, with all the bells and whistles.
If you saw it happen elsewhere, you can be sure that it will happen here. Any negative happenings will be the fault of someone else. The aftermath will reflect no blame to any responsible party unless they can find someone they can’t cover for.
Beware the fury of a patient man.
http://www.bartleby.com/100/191.19.html
An over-taxed patience gives way to fierce anger.
Pedrosito: “I think maybe Vodkapundid has it all wrong, it’s the Klingons.”
Hey — keep Michelle out of this.
David S.- most people who commit political violence are people who hold leftist worldviews who happen to be psychotic.
17. David S: Step One-Remove Blinders. Step Two, Google “Weathermen.”
I happen to believe in anger and demonstrations and citizen action against almost anything and everything, be it war, political leaders, abortion, racism, poverty, human rights or anything people are for, or against.
I served for so many years, and so many of those I served with were not happy about those that dare protest against their own…but I saw these brave people, as they would march and bust things up…creating havoc, asking the tough questions… as being all about …what my country was all about. And brave they were and brave they are. No matter their beliefs.
Though I choose to no longer live in my homeland, I believe in its extraordinary concept of expression. March on.
@22. billslayer:
I take it you did not attempt either step. Why don’t you try Google yourself? Maybe you will learn something about the difference between left wing and right wing violence…
Moreover:
The bottom line is that leftists reject violence against people, while the right embraces it. It’s a fundamental difference in style and substance. This is a natural consequence of the differences in philosophy between the camps.
Peace.
DS
Here’s some of the growing anger (as noted on Huffington) from Democrats regarding canceling Columbus Day break
Thank you Senator Reid. It is time to pass health care reform and it MUST include a strong public option for all who wish to chose it. The for-profit insurers have for too long controlled the debate at the expense of patients and for the benefit of their bottom line and shareholder’s greed.BY Greg Williams on 09/30/2009 at 11:49
Get this done ASAP. Give us the Public Option and forget the Republicans. Reid, show some backbone.BY Susie on 09/30/2009 at 11:52
Right on Harry! Passing a health care bill WITH a strong public option. This is a no-brainer. I guess that is why the republicans and the Yellow, or sorry I mean Blue Dogs oppose it. Get some spine and do right by the people, not the insurance companies.
Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous…The bottom line is that leftists reject violence against people, while the right embraces it.
oh-my-god
You are clearly out on the insanity limb, given the slaughter that has taken place on this planet in the name of instituting a Leftist agenda.
Do the names Mao and Ché and human slaughter on massive scales resonate inside that thing inside your head ? Even the relatively minor revolutionary Bill Ayers claimed many would have to die in effecting his version of a “higher” ideal for society. “the end justifies the means”
Do you honestly believe what you write ?
“That the Left postures as though it is on the side of social justice, but it is on the side of the greatest and most pernicious violators of social justice. And its hands are drenched in human blood in terms ofthe mass murdering ideologies and regimes it has supported and aided and
abetted.”
~Jamie Glazov, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror
You guys (conservatives) lost! It’s supposed to taste like a sh!t taco!
Yes, there is a “Left” that exists only in the heads of David S, which abjured violence throughout the 20th century and didn’t leave a body-count numbering close to 100 million. Nope, all traitors to the Leftist cause, to a person. What’s that you say? The Leftists who were on the sidelines in countries where the Left hadn’t taken power cheered on those traitors to the Leftist cause in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.? Well, that’s only because…[insert utopian fantasy reason that only someone who was already biased to believe the Left is pure as driven snow here].
So there, wingnuts.
Peace. And by “Peace” I mean, watch your *sses because Big Brother is on the march and when He finally arrives, all that BS I said about the Left abjuring violence against persons? Yeah, I’m gonna f8ckin’ show you what that means translated into “Now-I’m-Actually-In-Power-Not-Just-Looking-To-Get-In-Power”-speak.
Excellent column, thank you !
And I appreciate the important sentence:
The muslim killers of MX and of Bob Kennedy and the commie killer of JFK must be carefully remembered in this age of commie-muslims in command.
And these limited crimes of the left are of course nothing when compared to the TENS OF MILLIONS of babies killed by their nazi abortion laws, and to the HUNDREDS of millions killed worldwide by the soviet regime, the chinese regime, Castro, Pol Pot etc. etc.
I would not forget either the victims of commie terrorism in Western Europe in the last thirty five years: Americans tend to forget the horrible crimes committed by the Red Brigades in Italy, by the Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany, by Action Directe in France and by the armed terrorist communist groups in Greece.
The leftists have polluted the world with their hate, their fanaticism, their violence, their murderous rage for TOO MUCH TIME.
And now they have their new allies, the muslims…
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Oh, I forgot.
Talking about the murderous rage of the left, we must not forget the pseudo-”reverend” and “pastor” of our Supreme Leader of the Proletarian Revolution in America, the “pastor” who REJOICED for September Eleven, thundering that America deserved it.
BUT that is OK for the (communist) media.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
#24, so you just copy and paste that agitprop ? I ask again, what planet are you living on ?
One of the last and thankfully unsuccessful plots of the Weather Underground (the bomb went off in the bombmaker’s apartment) was to plant…”a bomb that was to be used at an officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey…not only was the aim to kill and maim soldiers, but to do so at the moment they’re dancing with their wives, girlfriends, and sweethearts.”
As recently as April of last year, that aging egomaniac, Ayers said:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”
24. David S:I’m not going to dignify your idiocy with further argument. You can’t be reasoned out of your stupidity because you weren’t reasoned into your stupidity.
As a note to other people here it’s time to refer to the rationalizations of people like David S as hate speech in code. You might argue that this idiocy is a product of fashion and pop culture, spineless lack of individuality, and the race to the bottom to be hip…but you rejected this, other people need to be held to this same standard.
@26. tanstaafl:
Are you still fighting the cold war, or what? Nobody here is defending the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century.
Do you honestly believe what you write ?
Yes. Yes I do. And I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to point to Mao and Ché as if I had endorsed them. Violence in the name of authoritarianism is not violence in the name of the left. The left stands for fairness, equality, and democracy. The right stands for authority, xenophobia and totalitarianism. It’s not that hard to see.
@31. tanstaafl:
I ask again, what planet are you living on ?
The same one you pretend to live on, except I’m using my mind in the “open” position.
Peace.
DS
Speaking of angry black preachers, here’s one in Harlem recently, letting go on Barack and sundry other subjects under the sun
You might appreciate James David Manning, a rather pleasant alternative to all the race baiters in the race industry…
Must see video: Dr. James David Manning
The same one you pretend to live on, except I’m using my mind in the “open” position.
What a f*cking load. You are the most self-serving POS who posts on this board.
And I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to point to Mao and Ché as if I had endorsed them. Violence in the name of authoritarianism is not violence in the name of the left. The left stands for fairness, equality, and democracy.
OK, so the Left is always telling us we need to learn from other countries. What other countries “stand for fairness, equality and democracy”?
Jesus H. Christ, you are going to make us do this the Socratic way, aren’t you, rather than just admit up-front that you are full of sh*t.
Whatever it is the Left stands for (I think it’s murderous rage at the fact that they are losers, but that’s just me), the American public isn’t buying it anymore, after just a few months:
In the last few years, public opinion on the role of government was driven by the intense unpopularity of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Unhappy with Bush and the GOP, voters recoiled from the image of Republicans as the party of traditional values — even though they basically held to those traditional values in their own lives. Now, however, with a government completely controlled by Democrats, that is, by the anti-traditional values party — in last year’s poll, Democrats were 60-37 against the government promoting traditional values — the public has abruptly returned to its basic pro-traditional values position.
But that period of revulsion at Bush and Republicans from 2005 to 2008 left a legacy: a Democrat in the White House and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, at least until 2010. That is why you see Democrats racing to enact their agenda, even as they see the political conditions around them changing. They have the majorities, based on the public’s very temporary mood of 2005-2008, and they are determined to put their preferred policies in place no matter what the public thinks now.
The Gallup numbers also suggest that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have fundamentally misread their own victories. Did voters elect Democrats because they desperately wanted national health care? Sprawling and expensive environmental regulation? Federal deficits triple the size of just a few years ago? No. The voters elected Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Republicans. Now Bush and the GOP are gone and out of power. Democrats are doing what they thought the voters wanted. And it turns out the voters didn’t want that at all.
Seems like so long as the GOP doesn’t nominate another George Bush or John McCain, they’ll easily take back the Presidency.
So long, Obama. And take that SOS David S with you, OK?
Peace.
Violence in the name of authoritarianism is not violence in the name of the left.
ché guevara was billy ayers’ inspiration.
Probably still is.
You copy and paste the crapola about how the Left, (specifically Billy’s Weather Underground) abjures violence against human beings.
Taking just the one act of planned violence at fort dix, (setting aside all the other violent acts of the Weatherman in the late 60′s & early 70′s)…What was that about, killing goldfish ?
Are you still fighting the cold war, or what? Nobody here is defending the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century.
There’s a flip side to not defending those regimes and that is explaining, in detail, how any conceivable Leftist regime would avoid becoming authoritarian over time.
None of the regimes cited promised mass death and destruction to their initial supporters among the masses, or, if they did, they promised it would only happen to select groups of people and that the supporters would be spared.
Your inability to understand the totalitarian dynamic in Leftist is matched only by your ability to be swayed by its superficially enchanting rhetoric. In layman’s terms, it’s exactly as if you had no functioning cognitive capability whatsoever. Do you ever analyze anything that comes out of a Leftist’s mouth or is that fact alone enough to certify it as “good” to you?
Sure, sure, the lefties are against authoritarianism.
Until the day they win the elections: that day, they free the terrorists from Gitmo and they release a report about domestic terrorism saying that those who support the American Values are all terrorists. Then they proceed sending the thugs of the unions to break the heads of citizens protesting at the townhall meetings, then they call racist anyone who dissents from the building of a socialist dictatorship in America.
And they appreciate the friendship of thugs like Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi and Ahmanidejad.
AND THESE ARE JUST THE FIRST NINE MONTHS !!!!
JUST SAY NO TO COMMUNISM !
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
24. David S.: “The bottom line is that leftists reject violence against people, while the right embraces it.”
Really?
Out of curiosity, I Googled “violent leftist protests” and “violent conservative protests.” You might want to do the same. There is a stunning lack on the conservative side of either property- OR human-targeted violence. In contrast, many of the articles revealed substantial injuries to police and innocent passersby, either collaterally or intentionally. So, I’d appreciate some hard sources as to how ordinary conservatives (versus the extreme white supremacist kind, which represents a miniscule fraction of conservatives in toto) “embrace” violence against people. The worst I’ve seen conservatives accused of is one man bringing a weapon to a Tea Party, and that was to prove a political point. (The weapon was not loaded, and he had a permit to carry it.)
Nancy Pelosi fears “right-wing violence” stemming from recent events, and cites the Harvey Milk tragedy as an example. Guess what, Speaker Clueless: That was Dem-on-Dem. *Sigh.* What else have you got?
Furthermore, I submit that property-based violence is puerile and ineffective; puerile, as it destroys the fruits of someone else’s labor, and ineffective, as it only galvanizes anger against whatever cause the leftist is purporting to espouse. “Peace,” indeed.
As an anecdotal, contrasting postscript: After the Tea PARTY (not “bagging”) I attended in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on April 15, at least half the crowd stayed behind to pick up trash and leave the public park the way we found it.
Bottom line: Conservatives behave way, WAY more civilly at protests than leftists. Shouting out in anger doesn’t count — that’s the LEAST of leftists’ behavior.
Agreed that civil discourse is in order; and once conservatives see that they’re being paid attention to, they’ll calm down. But it must be realized that it takes a LOT to get conservatives out in the street away from the businesses and jobs that keep the fabric of this nation solid. If they see their livelihoods threatened, they’re going to get angry. And, at least in the beginning, shout. But you’re not going to see them destroy anything, either property or lives. (Again, please leave out the fringe elements in any argument — this is about conservatives in general.)
Oh, and 9. biblio44 — Contrast that with the too-numerous-to-count threats, mockery, mainstream media-winked-at death of George Bush stuff.
Assassination obsession around presidents is old hat. Come up with something more relevant. And, along with David S., prove how that generalizes to every single conservative in the United States.
37. tanstaafl wrote:
Taking just the one act of planned violence at fort dix, (setting aside all the other violent acts of the Weatherman in the late 60’s & early 70’s)…What was that about, killing goldfish ?
Peter writes: Having a cousin who was a member of the NYPD and came within 5 minutes of being blown to he## by one of the Weathermen bombs at 1PP, I already know for a fact how the left feel about violence against human beings. They’re all for it if they think it will promote their end objective.
David S has discovered a formulation for absolution more powerful than that of any Pope in history. Guy comes to power on a Leftist platform and only a Leftist platform (power to the people, yadda, yadda, yadda)? Great, David S supports his rise to power because he’s a Leftist. Guy gets into power, realizes Leftism doesn’t actually work, starts rounding up enemies of the people and killing them? Guy was never a Leftist.
Absolutely off-the-charts intellectual dishonesty. Just as bad with debating with a Muslim over whether or not Muslims can ever do anything bad in the name of Islam. Same friggin’ thing.
@35. venividivici:
What a f*cking load. You are the most self-serving POS who posts on this board.
I sincerely doubt I qualify for the title, but I appreciate the endorsement. A heartfelt compliment, no doubt.
OK, so the Left is always telling us we need to learn from other countries. What other countries “stand for fairness, equality and democracy”?
I think there is plenty for us to learn from other countries. I just can’t figure out why you keep pointing to China and the USSR. European nations generally have done a better job maintaining fairness, equality and democracy than the USA has, particularly looking at the last ten years or so. If you want to get into the details, I’d be happy to explain the benefits of universal health care, proportional representation, progressive taxation, and a functioning social safety net. Yes, the USA has a storied history, but we have a damaged reputation due to the failures of the Bush regime. Inequality has increased, fairness has been tossed out the window, and democracy was explicitly subverted. Most western countries have been moving in the opposite direction lately. We have a lot of catching up to do.
Jesus H. Christ, you are going to make us do this the Socratic way, aren’t you, rather than just admit up-front that you are full of sh*t.
I never claimed to be the Christ, but I’ll take your word for it. I’d love to see you prove it, though.
Peace.
DS
I find it appalling that Dem. Leaders and MSM mock and revert to name calling rather than laying out the facts, perferrably in English. Trouble is, Congress leadership is cesspool of corruption, do not know what their doing, and they are looking pretty stupid with a Hollywood President way over his head. Beck sure does seem to take a common sense approach to what he is taking about and viewers are responding.
Re #9 biblio44: Nice try biblio. Funny how the poll about Obama that you linked to was started by an OBAMA SUPPORTER. Why do liberals want to go there? Are they THAT disappointed in Obama already?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10363336-71.html
Re #24 David S: “The bottom line is that leftists reject violence against people, while the right embraces it. ”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10363336-71.html
I just proved you wrong.
This is a quote from our resident genocide apologist David S: “The left stands for fairness, equality, and democracy. The right stands for authority, xenophobia and totalitarianism. It’s not that hard to see.”
What we see from his statements is that, and this is hard for rational people to understand, is that if it was genocide, torture, mass rape and it was done by any of the Communist Regimes… the left had nothing to do with it and you can’t call them on it.
He also said (with a straight face) ” Violence in the name of authoritarianism is not violence in the name of the left.”
Another way to look at this is that if it was bad and done by any of the flavors of genocidal terror regimes on the left…you aren’t supposed to call them on it because they say so.
Seriously. Think about this. If a guy was standing on a corner in a Klan outfit and you were to say, “Hey man, that’s just plain evil.” He would be entitled to say (by the logic of our resident genocide apologist): “Violence in the name of race is not violence in the name of the Klan.”
@40. Eowyn:
Out of curiosity, I Googled “violent leftist protests” and “violent conservative protests.”
Interesting that you elected to compare leftists to conservatives – that’s not a really fair comparison.
You might want to do the same.
I tried this analog:
“right wing violence”: 23,100,000 hits
“left wing violence”: 948,000 hits
But you can probably explain that away, right?
So, I’d appreciate some hard sources as to how ordinary conservatives (versus the extreme white supremacist kind, which represents a miniscule fraction of conservatives in toto) “embrace” violence against people. The worst I’ve seen conservatives accused of is one man bringing a weapon to a Tea Party, and that was to prove a political point. (The weapon was not loaded, and he had a permit to carry it.)
Political violence in the USA is generally a fringe activity, but there are plenty of examples of right wing violence in the US. Violence against abortion providers, violence against gays, violence against minorities, violence against the poor – all of these stem from the right wing. Maybe you don’t recall the outpouring of support here at PJM in the aftermath of Dr. Tiller’s murder. There is no such effort on the left to target any group with violence.
If you want to leave out the fringe elements, just look at the actions of the GOP when in power – illegal torture, wiretapping, detention and murder is not the American way. I would hate to see the fringe in power, if that’s the mainstream.
Peace.
DS
Yes, the USA has a storied history, but we have a damaged reputation due to the failures of the Bush regime.
Europeans have had issues with America since the Founding.
Buffon, one of the most popular authors of his day:
“Besides his many insights, he also propounded a theory that nature in the New World was inferior to that of Eurasia. He argued that the Americas were lacking in large and powerful creatures, and that even the people were far less virile than their European counterparts. He ascribed this to the marsh odours and dense forests of the continent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon
You are a superficially-educated person debating things that have long, long, long histories. You really should leave it to the adults.
Re #48 David S: “There is no such effort on the left to target any group with violence.”
Does President Obama not count? http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10363336-71.html
I guess advocating violence against the President is okay if a liberal does it? Tragic David S. Truly tragic.
There is no such effort on the left to target any group with violence.
I guess you missed the G-20 demonstrators in Pittsburgh last week.
Violence against abortion providers, violence against gays, violence against minorities, violence against the poor –
You first reference acts of a very (very) small fanatical fringe and THEN give zip zilch in the way of examples of your broader examples. Then comes this galumph of knee jerk generalizations from the Leftoid playbook… “illegal torture, wiretapping, detention and murder”
FYI, Barack has kept, even extended, some of the wiretapping authority under FISA.
If he has any sense, he’s wiretapping you.
Liberal political violence.
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/left-vs-right/13087-documented-cases-liberal-violence-intimidation-vandalism.html
I’d love to see you prove it, though.
The funny thing about “proving” something of that nature (that you are full of sh*t when you make your claims about Leftism’s “sweetness and light”) is that I don’t have to prove to you, I have to prove it to the rest of the “audience”. You are a hopeless nutcase, but that matters not to me. It’s that other people, who may not have all the facts or may not see the standard Leftist duplicity (the “iron fist in the velvet glove”) going on, might be fooled into thinking that you are what you claim you are. So long as the rest of the “audience” understands that you are full of sh*t, I’ve done my “job”. You can continue to live in your delusionary world, but the rest of us will move on.
The world can live with a solitary David S spewing his ramblings on deaf ears, and, unfortunately, will probably have to. The world can’t live with a David S with actual followers. If Lenin had just limited himself to practicing his speeches in front of a mirror, who’d have cared?
48. David S.: “Interesting that you elected to compare leftists to conservatives – that’s not a really fair comparison.”
That’s a semantic quibble. I couldn’t, in conscience, call leftists “liberals,” because today’s version has abandoned the tenets of classical liberalism. And “rightists,” to describe conservatives, is awkward. So, in this instance, I’d appreciate more nuanced suggestions.
_____________________________________________
“right wing violence”: 23,100,000 hits
“left wing violence”: 948,000 hits
“But you can probably explain that away, right?”
Hits represent interest, not factual content per se. In that sense, I won’t attempt to “explain that away.” My guess, though, is that leftists are hugely interested, if not obsessed with, finding isolated incidents with which to tar the entire conservative mindset.
I do not condone in any way violence done in the name of abortion, illegal immigration, etc. I would expect any violence, on either side of the ideological divide, to be vigorously prosecuted.
“There is no such effort on the left to target any group with violence.”
PETA?
@42. venividivici:
David S has discovered a formulation for absolution more powerful than that of any Pope in history.
That’s not much of a challenge.
Guy comes to power on a Leftist platform and only a Leftist platform (power to the people, yadda, yadda, yadda)? Great, David S supports his rise to power because he’s a Leftist. Guy gets into power, realizes Leftism doesn’t actually work, starts rounding up enemies of the people and killing them? Guy was never a Leftist.
Sounds like the “compassionate conservatives” that just left town. I say again – leftism does not co-exist with totalitarianism. Rounding up enemies of the people is a quintessentially conservative action. Leftists are far too egalitarian to make such determinations. Heck, we don’t even support the death penalty for convicted mass murderers. Gimme a break with the hyperbole.
@46. AThinkingPerson:
I just proved you wrong.
I don’t think you understand what it means to prove something. But thanks for trying.
@47. billslayer:
Seriously. Think about this. If a guy was standing on a corner in a Klan outfit and you were to say, “Hey man, that’s just plain evil.” He would be entitled to say (by the logic of our resident genocide apologist): “Violence in the name of race is not violence in the name of the Klan.”
I’d be interested in how you would explain the Klan’s philosophy on race. This should be entertaining. Apparently you don’t realize how useless this example is. The basic philosophy of the Klan centers on race relations and white supremacy. There is nothing inherently violent in seeking a democratic and egalitarian society, which is the leftist project. Your grasp of logic is deficient.
@49. venividivici:
Europeans have had issues with America since the Founding.
Yes. Of course. Your point?
You are a superficially-educated person debating things that have long, long, long histories. You really should leave it to the adults.
Yeah, because your off-topic posts really represent an adult perspective. Just face it – there is room for improvement in the USA, and Europe does some things better than we do.
@50. AThinkingPerson:
I guess advocating violence against the President is okay if a liberal does it? Tragic David S. Truly tragic.
Yes, your complete inability to understand what you have cited is indeed tragic.
Peace.
DS
David S: So you are basically saying that having a poll requesting opinions on violence against President Obama is okay if you’re a liberal then?
Just as I thought.
You are just as full of BS as I had thought. When presented with a liberal inciting violence against the President, you conveniently look the other way.
I guess liberals are violent and in denial. Thanks for proving our point David S.
David S. = a liberal hiding behind “Peace” yet an advocate for violence. Tragic but telling.
From singing the praises of the New Black Panther guys standing outside the Philadelphia polling place, one with a billy club, to writing that abortion is “safe, legal and rare” (after being told that 1/6 of the current population of the United States has been aborted since 1973), to being a true believer in AGW, to claiming that the Weather Underground were really just nice, enlightened kids, playing nice, warning their targets of impending carnage…
David S is right there, fast and easy, with every irrational and insane Leftoid talking point on the planet.
I say again – leftism does not co-exist with totalitarianism. Rounding up enemies of the people is a quintessentially conservative action. Leftists are far too egalitarian to make such determinations. Heck, we don’t even support the death penalty for convicted mass murderers. Gimme a break with the hyperbole.
I don’t CARE how many times you say it.
To believe what you are saying would require that, e.g. Fidel Castro PRETENDED to be a Leftist “man of the people” in order to come to power and that Leftists around the globe who spouted the same airy-fairy nonsense you do about peace, love and harmony had NO IDEA what he was doing to the people he considered “enemies of the people” and that 30+ years later people like Stephen Spielberg, Oliver Stone et al. (who, by the way, use exactly the same Leftist rhetoric you do) are only PRETENDING when they say that Castro is a “great revolutionary” and a “visionary”? David S, your own comrades betray you. Your time would be much better spent among them making some actual plans for what you would do if given the chance, than to try to debate people whose brains aren’t turned to mush after a steady diet of Leftism.
Who in their right mind would agree to these hypotheses, all of which are necessary to reach your conclusion about the Left?
Again, I know you are a hopeless nutcase and there is no way I or any other logical person could penetrate your idiotic skull, so don’t think that’s what I’m attempting. I’d rather try to teach my cats Ancient Greek than try to argue you out of your Leftism.
Just face it – there is room for improvement in the USA, and Europe does some things better than we do.
I’m not necessarily one to Europe-bash (although I generally agree with Nietzsche’s assessment of Europeans as priming themselves for a form of soft tyranny that their ancestors would have found galling), so where there are opportunities to learn from Europe, I’m fine with that. I don’t think importing things that go against our Constitution (e.g., using foreign law to determine what is Constitutional), just because they are European, makes a lot of sense. Nor do I think that following them down the path of the “entitlement state” makes sense. It would be like a car company in 2008 saying they want to follow GM’s business model.
So, David S doesn’t consider the individuals killed by Stalin, Mao, etc. as “people”?
Racist.
55. David S:Incorrect. The goal of the leftist political project is the creation of the prerequisites for the emancipation of the proletariat. But good try. You should try reading the manifesto, engels is a much better writer than marx. So far youve got your ass handed to you everytime you’ve opened your mouth. But…hey, keep trying.
…the standard Leftist duplicity (the “iron fist in the velvet glove”)
The most authoritarian crowd I can imagine.
The foot soldiers in the Left’s army of useful idiots tend to confuse their permissiveness & lack of moral standards with notions of anti-authoritarianism.
I can’t imagine any group of individuals in American history more intent on inserting itself into every nook and cranny of every single citizen’s life than the current crowd of ‘toids (rhymes with ‘roids) in DC.
(adios for the nonce)
http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/evidence/MaryscottEnraged!.htm would have made for a much more believable icon on this article.
Gotta love the POS comment function on this site.
Here: http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/evidence/MaryscottEnraged!.htm
HAHA!! Still broken.
Guess we use the kindergarten method, now having lost the point: http://tinyurl.com/ya6kysu .
Oh what about those anti-war demonstrations that drew millions and nary a violent day among them? Oh yeah, well…I didn’t mean them. War is war. Its good for the soul and pocket book.
66. moho:I think you’re confusing fashion events (the anti Iraq war protests) and something else…but I digress. Say, did you know that your messiah got his start in politics turning tricks for a slumlord?
“The Republican Health Care Plan . . . Don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly.”
How great is that? Fantastic. And then he apologizes . . . to the dead! This guy is AWESOME! Deal with it, d-heads!
People, people, don’t you get it??
David S. is THE GREATEST satirist since Mark Twain, maybe even Aristophanes!
Bravo! Great job, David! You should be the straight man on Rush or Boortz!
6. CatoRenasci:
Well said. I do hope you harbor no ill will if I quote you at a place or two I do venture. I see no need to re-invent the wheel.
“17. David S:
In general, it is very easy to tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing violence. Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous.”
Now that would explain why three obama SEIU thugs beat a black man at a Tea Party, and why a obamanut bit off the finger of a 60 + year old man at a Townhall meeting not long ago.
On a larger scale .. how many dead for Marx? Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot .. and those are just the Big playas’ on the left.
On a different note. Are you a regular at Whistle Stopper?
Re #68 Now and Then: I LOVED that Democrat loon showing the how crazy the liberals are becoming! I can only imagine how low they will continue to sink as their health care plan continues to stink up the landscape!! What’s next on their agenda? I mean now that the liberals have compared the US health care system to the Holocaust, it’s pretty hard to sink any lower but with this current bunch, anything is possible right?? Yippee!! Pass the popcorn.
I agree… it’s FANTASTIC that the democrats are showing their depravity! Thanks for reminding us! Anyone else enjoying the Left slowly self destructing??
68
If, as the GOP should push for, your health care dollars are not coming from the public trough, but your own savings, plus whatever private insurance you have, why would the GOP care how long you live while sick or if you get better and live a long life post-illness? In fact, insurance companies would prefer you get better following the illness, so they can recoup some of their spending on your treatment through future premium payments, which they will probably raise, due to the increased risk they will now bear by insuring you.
His “quip” only means anything in the context of government paying for people’s health care. Since that is the opposite of what most of the people opposing ObamaCare want, his statement is a “bon mot FAIL”.
Only an idiot like you could find so disconnected from reality “awesome”.
Civility (and lately political correctness) have for long deterred normal people acknowledge the fact that leftyness is not a matter of convictions but of temper, or rather temperamental imbalance & mental inadequacy.
Sandhra Bernhard – just imagine, visualize her contorted, Gorgona Medusa figure & blasphemous, furious rants and you have the perfect illustration of the left’s innate psychological irregularities.
Not that long ago there was a ripple of headlines about the left’s fury (and this coming from the liberal press, mind you), about the fact that even after their latest successes they are furious – what could be the cause of their fury?
Dogs barking at baren trees, cats clearly not residing on branches are a common sight, and we accept this situation because dogs are… dogs.
Yet liberals, who never fail to remind anyone that they are the humankind’s epitome (apparently) are not dogs. So here comes my question: what odious ancestral sin has caused the gods’ wrath to doom the lefties to perpetual hatred and the miserable life entamed by this?
RE #27/ David S: [...] The bottom line is that leftists reject violence against people, while the right embraces it. [...]
Yes, we can: and from Hitler to Stalin, to Pol Pot to Castro to Mao to Ceaucescu to Kim Ir Sen to… (gosh, this is a long list!) their aggregated murdering of about 150 million people last century was just a justifiable collateral damage caused by the generaous implementation of a superb plan for bettering the planet.
Yes, we can – and we sure are aware that our caudillo-in-wait, Hussein Obama, has keenly studied THIS past in order to implement his superb, bettering plan in a more efficient way.
Peace -
“So long, Obama. And take that SOS David S with you, OK?” Old venividivici looking into his crystal ball again seeing what he wants to see. Actually, Obama’s numbers are ticking back up and are looking pretty good. It’s gonna be a rough eight years for you. You’re a bitter old man. Your comments border on sedition and treason.
#74:
“So here comes my question: what odious ancestral sin has caused the gods’ wrath to doom the lefties to perpetual hatred and the miserable life entamed by this?”
It’s original sin — man rebelled against God, and we’ve been paying the price ever since.
And, the worst is yet to come. This, sadly, is just the beginning.
But, in answer to your question, the left is continually disappointed that their plans and programs fail, over and over, so the result is . . . perpetual rage.
”The USSR didn’t collapse because its economy was strangled by a central command model. Rather it collapsed because any central-controlled complexity is unstable and inflexible. Institutions, corporations, factories, organisms, economies, and robots will all fail to thrive if designed around a central command.”
- Kevin Kelly, “Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social
Systems, & the Economic World.” Perseus Books, 1995.
Old venividivici looking into his crystal ball again seeing what he wants to see. Actually, Obama’s numbers are ticking back up and are looking pretty good. It’s gonna be a rough eight years for you. You’re a bitter old man. Your comments border on sedition and treason.
Time will tell.
I don’t know which is more hilarious to me, the idea of a Leftist talking about “sedition and treason” when their entire ideology is a series of seditious and treasonous beliefs or the fact that you think you know how old I am and that it’s “old”. Even in the days when the saying was “Life begins at 40″, my life would not have yet begun, pea-brain.
“Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.”
- Thomas Jefferson. Letter to William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787.
It seems to me that we must distinguish between rage and outrage. Rage drives people to smash and burn. Outrage drives people to attend TEA parties and cry “throw the bums out!”
Anyone else enjoying the Left slowly self destructing??
Hell yeah! As Michael Leeden always says, “Faster, please”.
I wouldn’t mind a rash of suicides on the Left caused by the failure to get single-payer, a la the suicides which accompanied the publication of Goethe’s “The Sorrows of Young Werther”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther#Cultural_impact
The Sorrows of Young Werther was Goethe’s first major success, turning him from an unknown into a celebrated author practically overnight. Napoleon Bonaparte considered it one of the great works of European literature. He thought so highly of it that he wrote a soliloquy in Goethe’s style in his youth and carried Werther with him on his campaigning to Egypt. It also started the phenomenon known as the “Werther-Fieber” (“Werther Fever”) which caused young men throughout Europe to dress in the clothing style described for Werther in the novel. It reputedly also led to some of the first known examples of copycat suicide.
72. AThinkingPerson:
Who would a thunk the Republicans would be pulling the plug on grandma . . . wow! . . . FANTASTIC . . . He’s like Glenn Beck with a brain, Sean Hannity with a spine, Rush Limbaugh with a lust for non-juveniles. Hey, with all we have to deal with, should Republicans really be spending time on rebuking someone who told the truth? Hey, why do Republicans want sick people to die instead of getting better? Hey, the Republican plan is like death panels only with out the panel part, just the death. Oh, Hosannah! Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. And if I die before I wake, I’ll know the Republicans got their health care plan passed. Amen.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
- Francisco d’Anconia
“Atlas Shrugged” 1957,
by Ayn Rand
Now and Then: I love being a witness to a liberal meltdown. Keep it coming! Nothing like a liberal health care/Holocaust comparison to start the day off right!
The smell of desperation is positively intoxicating! More Now and Then. Definitely MORE (with a few Pelosi crocodile tears if at all possible)!!
@84. Warren Bonesteel:
Thanks for pointing out the basic error of objectivist economic philosophy. It is not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil.
Money indeed is a medium of exchange – and as such it is an indispensable tool in our global economy – but the love of money for its own sake inevitably brings disaster.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up.
Peace.
DS
85. AThinkingPerson:
Wow, powerful argument. And so entertaining! Scared of the fastball. Confused by the curveball. How about you go back to the dugout and send somebody up who’s not afraid to take a swing.
Now and Then: You didn’t disappoint! Thanks for starting off my day on a great note friend. The continued meltdown is enjoyable at best but having a personal window into it here watching you flail about is quite the coup for me.
I’ll say it again…MORE! Why not regale us more about how the health care debate is like the Holocaust? I so enjoy that liberal angle. Very entertaining indeed! I’ll get more coffee and await your next tap dance….
88. AThinkingPerson:
Strike three! You’re out!
86. David S:
That’s pretty much the entire point of “Atlas Shrugged.”
You cannot forcibly take money and thus, expertise, from someone who has earned the fruits of his labor …and give it to someone who is incompetent, corrupt or lazy and expect good things to happen.
Which is what is happening wrt to pretty much everything in America these days.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 29 November 1802
Now and Then: Oh come on. You’re responses are getting shrill now. You’ve lost that edgy liberal Holocaust slant I was enjoying. Do you always flame out at the end?
Money indeed is a medium of exchange – and as such it is an indispensable tool in our global economy – but the love of money for its own sake inevitably brings disaster.
There’s nothing “inevitable” about the love of money bringing disaster, at least not in the real world.
In fact, capitalism, by channeling even the basest of impulses into something productive, can make even the love of money into something quite useful, like a product or service. And, with the rule of law that accompanies capitalism, the “wages of sin” go down, at least on a risk-adjusted basis (i.e. what you could get away with in terms of law-breaking is less under capitalism in a stable society than in “the olden days” when all of these maxims were first uttered). I’m not an advocate of “love of money” but neither do I consider it my business if that’s how someone chooses to live and their relationship to money.
Seeing the Empire State Bldg. all lit up in crazy red & yellow to honor 60 years since that paragon of enlightened virtue, Mao Tse-Tung, spit all over the planet… I’ve had a Michelle Obama moment…
For the first time, I’m proud of my country