So said Obama in his University of Michigan graduation address.
Limbaugh's response:
Now, this from the guy who said in the first month of his administration, you'll remember when I remind you, he had a meeting of Republican and Democrat congressional leaders in the White House and he looked at John Boehner, and he said, "You gotta stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. That's not how things get done in Washington."...What Obama said was "if you’re somebody who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in a while." He didn't mention Fox News. He's still not recommending Fox News (or Rush Limbaugh).
Now, he also said -- we don't have this on the bite -- but he did say if you're a fan of something else you should try Fox News.
Back to Rush:
I mean he tried to balance this out, but the problem with it is that it's not what he does. He's as closed-minded a president as we've ever had. He doesn't listen to opposing points of views. He doesn't want to hear them. Remember the health care summit, the look on his face when Paul Ryan told the truth about health care, you could see the rage. Obama wasn't open to it. He's not open to anybody else's ideas. He may want you to think so, but he's not. What Obama doesn't understand is that you do watch other media. You do read other media. You do listen to other media. You may not do it as much because you don't trust it and like it anymore. You know the New York Times is what it is. You know that the Huffing and Puffington Post is what it is. You know what you're going to get out of TIME Magazine. I play for you on this program what they say.It is true. Limbaugh's show is mainly him reading or playing sound bites from the liberal media and liberal politicians and then commenting on it. The liberal commentary is always there. He's just also there showing you how to be critical of it. It's very much like blogging, where you have a political blogger who is choosing items he disagrees with and then... as we say... fisking.
The sound bites that we play on this show are primarily of people who oppose me or have opposing points of view. I'm not afraid for you to hear what they think. But here's Obama telling the students at University of Michigan Ann Arbor, "Don't be afraid, you know, you Limbaugh fans, don't be afraid." People that listen to this show know more of what Obama and the liberals are saying than people who listen to left-wing shows. We don't hide from it. And the people in this audience are not by any stretch of the imagination uninformed or ignorant about what Obama is, who he is and what he believes.
पोस्ट्स
१३३ टिप्पण्या:
I have defended this President on character and integrity on this blog more than any other conservative - I believe that he is not evil, just wrong, that he loves his country, but is misguided. I'll debate on substance and leave the personal attacks out.
But he sure is doing a lot of stupid stuff lately, not the least of which is using the sexually tendered and derogatory "teabaggers" to classify other Americans. And the examples of Bush, Clinton, Reagan doing this are . . . ?
I'm seriously - seriously - beginning to question his very intelligence level.
The MSM is so biased in their views that Limbaugh will always have show material.
I'll debate on substance and leave the personal attacks out
Fair enough. To your point though I'm not sure how one can sit in Wright's church for 20 years and have a love for this nation (however misguided he may be) or marry a woman that only found pride in her country when it got around to choosing him as a presidential candidate.
To me, your spiritual advisor and wife and pretty substantial influences on your life or at least I would think so. If not that opens up a whole slew of other questions about what type of person he is. Either way I don't have much use for the guy.
Good god does Obama talk about Rush alot. It's getting to where I wonder if he has some secret deal where he gets a cut of the profits when Rush's audience inevitably goes up. And wouldn't it have been more interesting if he said the reverse (Huff po readers should listen to Rush)?
Where does Our Smartest President Ever think Back and Limbaugh get half their material?
I've never really disliked a president, but I seriously don't care for this one. He seems to have a predisposition for certain outcomes which preclude any type of real bipartisan discussion. I suspect his moral and intellectual underpinnings were cast out of associations with individuals who first and foremost believed this country was unexceptional within the pantheon of nations at best, and a deeply flawed, racist, imperial power at worst. The irony of the advantages extended to him by this society in no small part because of his mixed racial background appears to escape his awareness.
As for Rush, well, he's selling a product and he's very talented at doing it (I can't imagine speaking extemporaneously 15 hours a week for years with a set of dedicated opponents out there waiting to pick you apart). He makes a good point occasionally, but he’s not responsible for running the country. President Obama is responsible for leading the country, but every time he speaks I remind myself this is a man who is the living embodiment of “the ends justify the means”. His call for civility and consideration of political arguments on their merits is a simple political haiku. A deceptively simple art form, constructed according to certain formatting requirements, but of no real consequence in his life or where he intends to take the rest of us.
Rush is despised by the left for only one reason.
He beats the left over the head with their own words and ideas 3 hours a day,5 days a week,over and over and over again.
The left had never been exposed in such a way until Rush came along.He leaves them no place to hide...heh.
I come here for counterpoint, do y'all go to any lefty blogs consistently?
He's still not recommending ... Rush Limbaugh.
As I've read many times on this blog, Limbaugh is an entertainer, a comedian. Why would Obama or any politician recommend individual comedians?
master cyl,
I read HuffPo on a pretty regular basis, and I've noticed that most of the blogs I regularly follow appear to read it constantly. I also read Slate almost every day. I originally started following Althouse intensely because I thought that she was more liberal than she is now. (Also, I follow CNN & NYT)
That said, I've tried to find a good liberal blog that didn't mainly consist of name calling (a liberal Althouse or a liberal Instapundit), and I've been unsuccessful. If you have recommendations, I'd be happy to check them out.
- Lyssa
I'm not sure how one can sit in Wright's church for 20 years and have a love for this nation
I'm not sure how a black man could grow up during segregation and have a love for this nation or for the white man's God. But Jeremiah Wright found a theology that liberated Jesus from the slavemaster and the oppressor, and made Him accessible to the black man once more.
I used to check out Daily Kos but it reminded too much of riding on the marching band bus in high school to away games; moments of existential absurdity interspersed with random moments of unexpected violence. That and if you forgot the day's lyrics you were escorted from the building.
@FLS, I'd be interested to know what pre-Wright christian church, or theology, you were speaking of; or, can we assume it's the same source Rev. Wright used for his novel efforts.
But Jeremiah Wright found a theology that liberated Jesus from the slavemaster and the oppressor, and made Him accessible to the black man once more.
Because Blacks had ceased going to church ever since the end of the Civil War, right?
LLR-I like Balloon Juice, but it is snarky. I'm glad to hear that you check out HP...it's better conversation when know more. I will listen to Rush or Shawn a little in the car-I call it spying. For me, it's fun to trace the memes coming from both sides of the aisle.
Remember the look on Vomitbama's face when Paul Ryan exposed the total BS of Obamacare in that conference that was supposed to be all about dialog?
Master cylinder:
Liberal counterpoint can be found here at www.susiemadrak.com
The other day, that blogger was reveling in the hope it was a white Tea Party guy who had tried to bomb Times Square.
I will admit that anytime someone suggests listening to something other than FOX News I automatically assume that they never listen to FOX News.
The assumption that whomever they are speaking to about "listening to a variety of sources" only listens to FOX News is also interesting since, invariably, they have no reason to think that the person only gets their news from FOX or Limbaugh or whatever.
I suppose I don't have any evident either, except for a long history of asking those who hate hate hate Limbaugh or FOX if they ever actually watch it.
MC,
I've looked at Balloon Juice before, and found it distasteful (I'm sure that's what you call snark- usually only funny if you agree with the premise). I'll look again, but I'd really like something more thoughtful and analytical.
FWIW, I do check out HP because it's so widely read, but I generally hate it. The format just stinks- everything's so big and colorful. And the commenters are generally pretty nasty.
Do you have anything that's more comparable to Althouse- analytical in nature, a moderate number of comments (enough to be interesting but not so many that you can't read them all or have a discussion)with a good number of them being more than just namecalling? (I know this site is not w/out namecalling- BTW, ricpic, "Vomitbama?" Really?, but there's a lot of analysis and discussion as well, and that's what I want). If most of the bloggers and commenters are freely and non-ironically using the term "teabagger," I'm not really interested.
- Lyssa
"I'm not sure how a black man could grow up during segregation and have a love for this nation or for the white man's God. But Jeremiah Wright found a theology that liberated Jesus from the slavemaster and the oppressor, and made Him accessible to the black man once more."
This is silly, FLS. The biggest problem Christianity has is that we are all too comfortable. The message of salvation is *all about* comfort to the oppressed. Hey, this life *sucks* but look at the next, Hallelujah!
"As I've read many times on this blog, Limbaugh is an entertainer, a comedian. Why would Obama or any politician recommend individual comedians?"
Indeed, and why would Obama or any politician single out Limbaugh and do the opposite?
fls: "But Jeremiah Wright found a theology that liberated Jesus from the slavemaster and the oppressor, and made Him accessible to the black man once more."
Are you a former law student in your freshman year?
Seriously, what "studies" class did you dredge that up from?
"Do you have anything that's more comparable to Althouse- analytical in nature, a moderate number of comments (enough to be interesting but not so many that you can't read them all or have a discussion)with a good number of them being more than just namecalling?
I'd love to find a lefty site that fits that description. There was only one I found that had reasonably solid commentary, and the comments weren't the cesspool that is DKos, HuffPo or DU, but I lost it.
I haven't checked out Firedog Lake in awhile, how are they doing?
Now why would any of Rush's followers need to check out something else? Maybe because of statements like this: “The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there,” Limbaugh said. “It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is.”
This kind of spewing is not entertainment, but in my book propaganda designed fool the common folks. Try The Baseline Scenario, or Frum Forum for more informed comments.
If The Zero were interested in hearing alternate viewpoints, he would have gone to someone other than Jeremiah Wright for spiritual guidance.
As to Rush, turning the Lefties' words and actions against them is his metier. That the Lefties so often have to distort or lie to get their way is probably part of why they hate him so much. He's got the facts on his side. Even though they never let a fact get in the way of a good lie, it has to be frustrating to be on the wrong side of the truth all the time.
Hey roeschie, the ocean will take care of an oilspill on its own. The timeline might not be fast enough to suit a perfect beautiful person like you, but Rush was absolutely correct.
And everyone predictably FREAKS OUT when Obama suggests reading or watching some other stuff.
I'm liberal, and I've read the Corner for years. I used to read Instapundit until he went batshit crazy during the election. I used to read Powerline until they said "the terrorists won" when the Democrats took the House and Senate in 2006 (look it up). I read the Weekly Standard (sometimes), Megan McCardle, Commentary on occasion, and this very blog. So I'm better than all of you on this, and therefore well positioned to wholeheartedly support Ann's recommendation, which is that you can listen to Rush instead of reading the New York Times because he rips some quotes from it here and there. Or, as John Stewart puts it, "we watch Fox News so you don't have to!"
roesch,
I read that quote, but with more context, earlier today. He is right, the ocean would, over time (a lot of time), take care of this. But I'm pretty sure, based on what I read earlier, that was just a comment about nature, not an arguement. He wasn't calling for us to do nothing and let nature take care of it.
I doubt that that is the sort of thing that he would espouse, and it's not consistent with anything else that he would be inclined to argue for right now (since it doesn't point to Obama's slow reaction being wrong).
- Lyssa
Daniel said:
"And everyone predictably FREAKS OUT when Obama suggests reading or watching some other stuff."
Who is freaking out? Seriously, name names. No one's freaking out here, as far as I can tell.
"So I'm better than all of you on this, and therefore well positioned to wholeheartedly support Ann's recommendation ..."
Huh? Who said anything about being better than anyone else. You're sounding a little bit nuts, you know.
- Lyssa
So is Obama implying that those who listen only to him should listen to the Tea Partiers too? Wouldn't it be nice if he could apply that same sort of logic to himself.
Well I was talking about Obama, who didn't grow up during segregation.
HD was talking about "one", not "The One":
I'm not sure how one can sit in Wright's church for 20 years and have a love for this nation
The core issue here is Wright's alleged anti-American beliefs. If they don't exist, HD's weaselly-worded assertion goes away.
If Wright is anti-America, then did he express these beliefs in church?
If Wright expressed anti-American beliefs in church, how frequently did he do so?
If Wright expressed anti-American beliefs in church, did Obama hear them?
If Obama heard Wright express anti-American beliefs in church, did these beliefs influence his thinking?
If Obama heard Wright express anti-American beliefs in church, in what way did those beliefs influence his thinking?
Another line of inquiry: Is Wright anti-America, or was he merely criticizing America and exhorting it to do better, as when a preacher exhorts sinners to stop sinning?
Has America not sinned and fallen short?
Has America not committed offenses agains the dignity and humanity of black men and women?
Should not America repent?
Did white Christians not use Scripture to justify the enslavement and degradation of black men and women?
If so, how can any thinking black man or woman be a Christian, knowing what Christians have done in His name?
But HD appears to think shallowly, and like a certain Harvard 3L, he does not consider all the implications of what he types at his keyboard.
"If so, how can any thinking black man or woman be a Christian, knowing what Christians have done in His name?"
You're kidding right?
No?
So we can put you down on the "jihadist murderers represent the totality of Islam" side of the ledger now?
Lyssa, let's start with Ann and Rush.
And maybe my sarcasm didn't come out as I meant it (better than...) -- I really just was shocked by Ann's implication that listening to Rush constitutes listening to the other side because sometimes he plays off stuff the other side says.
Huff Po is ugly as sin....no doubt, and a little heavy on infotainment. Daily Beast is cuter, but not very lefty.
I think Andrew Sullivan is great, but no comments!
So, nothing you havent seen Im sure. I do enjoy the reg group of commenters here...mostly.
@ Night2night 11:53 I suspect his moral and intellectual underpinnings were cast out of associations with individuals who first and foremost believed this country was unexceptional within the pantheon of nations at best, and a deeply flawed, racist, imperial power at worst.
His moral underpinnings were forged at the knee of his grandfather who was buds with Frank Marshall Davis, a true red Communist. Grandpa and Grandma were not your typical Kansas Auntie Em pair, as they moved to put daughter Stanley in a "progressive" school in the Pacific Northwest.
He hung out with the radicals at Occidental, and has refused to disclose anything about his social network and activities (anti-apatheid, anti-nuclear, et al) at Columbia.
When he went ot Chicagop it was to work with Saul Alinksy's guys.
When told he needed to join a church to gain cred in the hood in Chicago when he wanted to be a "commnuty organizer" in a place he had never been in community with, he did not choose the local corner AME Zion church. He chose Jeremiah Wright's respectable racist affluent hate mongering church.
He socialized with Rashi Khalidi and Ayers-Dorhns.
So there ya go.
fls -- is your knowledge of law as bad as your knowledge of theology and church history?
Daniel,
OK, good, I was trying to figure out what you were going for with the "better than." I definitely know the "it sounded right in my head" experience.
I don't think that Althouse was going for the idea that you get a liberal media pass for listening to Rush, though, at least, not seriously and completely. But I could be wrong, I guess.
master cylinder said...
...I think Andrew Sullivan is great, but no comments!...
Well that pretty much let you out as one of the "intelligent Lefties." You might as well hang out at PrisonPlanet.com if you think "Excitable Andie" is great. UNLESS, you really believe that Trig is NOT Sarah's baby....
The Abolitionists were all liberation theologists.
Slavery and subjugation have never been tolerated by followers of any religion other than Christianity (and Judaism).
In Dreams of My Father Obama did not cite as an influence on him Rev. Wright's sermon about a world in which "white folk's greed runs a world in need" (but it goes without saying that only white folks can be greedy).
Up is down, in is out.
Daniel,
"I used to read Instapundit until he went batshit crazy during the election."
That statement says a lot more about you than it does about Reynolds.
WV: muzoff -- what investors should have said to Madoff.
Chase,
Perhaps it's finally time for you to question his character and integrity.
Obama isn't just wrong, he's the Manchurian President, and I hope the United States survives him in more than name.
I get the distinct impression that Barack Obama wishes to hear opposing ideas so that he'll be better able to defeat them. To counter their points. To turn them back.
Not necessarily in order to learn from them.
Broad brush strokes, but a fair picture.
Yeah, it's true of Limbaugh as well. Especially so.
Allow me to quote Mill at length. From On Liberty, Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.
"The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means for forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really posess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavored to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensible to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful [sic] devil's advocate can conjure up."
Lyssa, I take Ann's presentation at face value, particularly since she compares it to fisking, which is beloved to her. Meanwhile, what Rush does is absolutely NOT fisking. For instance, you can't fisk without linking to the original, rather than just ripping quotes out of context. If you do take things out of context, you'll get called on it -- Rush can't be called on anything within his medium, so he's free to shape the world as he sees it. Which is why you also need to go elsewhere.
Kirk:
I read Instapundit for almost 5 years before quitting on him. I quit in September 2008, when I felt that his writing became hypocritical, reflexive and blind to counterargument. Further, the vast majority of his blog has a style meant to reduce complexity to faux-objective simplicity, and hide his obvious opinions behind "but I just linked to it". I found it to be a biased, snarky link aggregator and little more (at least on the politics side, not so much on the consumption/emergency preparedness/law side). If you disagree, fine, but let's not just leave it at his traffic=quality.
I listen to Limbaugh and have for years. What is missing here is that conservatism in media is in the minority was and almost non-existent before Rush and Fox. I spent decades listening to left-leaning spin and when I discovered Rush, he was saying exactly what I already thought. But to believe that Rush listeners don't get the lefty media take on things is patently ridiculous. It's like saying black folks don't understand whites because they only watch BET.
And by the way in the majority of Rush's syndicated radio shows the news you get every hour is "ABC NEWS". That news gets through uncommented upon - but Rush doesn't have to, there are plenty of things to lampoon.
daniel, I don't agree with instapundit all the time either, but saying he is crazy is simply a lie.
He's very reasonable. Of course, he's doesn't agree with your point of view on some things, but so what? If you can't enjoy that blog there's something deeply wrong with you. It's no big deal if you just prefer a different aggregate. I do. But to say it's too crazy for your sensibilities just shows you've trying to live in a bubble.
Obey your ruler Obama and read Instapundit and Hot Air!
And this is itself a statement meant to marginalize and isolate. Imagine Bush saying, "if you read the Huffington Post, try listening to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck." Does this not sound partisan and condescending to you Democrats here?
It's offensive in the usual arrogant narrow-minded way of Democrat partisans. It's funny, they really can't see how intellectually bigoted their statements are.
Joe, me saying he's crazy (colloquially, not actually) is an opinion. It cannot, therefore, be a lie. Also, I think I explained what I meant by "crazy". By the way, Bill Kristol is a very reasonable dude. He says everything with a smile on his face. That doesn't mean that everything he says is reasonable. I thought that Insta's reasonable-ness became a veneer in the heated partisanness of the 08 election. But no, I have to read him or I'm in a bubble.
The Corner (National Review), meanwhile, kicks ass, and I disagree with basically every word of it. Victor Davis Hanson actually makes me want to give myself an aneurysm.
So I'm better than all of you on this,
Wow.
If the president was looking for a "counterpoint" to Rush why didn't he mention Olbermann. Both equally "over the top' And you watch both of them you get a balanced view of what the truth is, right!?
I really am waiting for someone on the Left to follow up on Ben Affleck's satire of Olbermann and say:
"Man he's batshit crazy!
Slavery and subjugation have never been tolerated by followers of any religion other than Christianity (and Judaism).
Wow, really? Try again.
It's offensive in the usual arrogant narrow-minded way of Democrat partisans. It's funny, they really can't see how intellectually bigoted their statements are.
Indeed. The big implication here is that if you listen to Rush or Glenn or whoever Obama doesn’t like, you are NOT listening to anyone else. That is what Obama thinks of you. And he thinks you’re stupid, so he sends you to Huff Po. If you read the NYTimes, he thinks your smart so he sends you to the Wall Street Journal.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that you should understand both sides of the argument, but the way Obama chose to present that shows what he thinks of people who disagree with them quite plainly. And it gave him another chance to slam people he disagrees with, which he seems to like to do WAY more often than someone who is freaking President of the US ought to do.
Slavery and subjugation have never been tolerated by followers of any religion other than Christianity (and Judaism).
Hoo-boy.
Um, cite please?
c3, that Affleck version of Olberman was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Olberman is bat shit insane. I really could not agree more. Happy?
p.s. I covered the "better than you" remark above, see my response to lyssa.
Shanna,
And it's as though, upon reading a few Huffington Post columns, that a Rush/Beck listener would say, "Gee, I never thought about it that way.."
My experience is that most people arrive listening to Rush or Beck as a journey. It's not like these two are the first thing one encounters when they seek news, more like the last. The first things I saw and most people see are CNN at the airports, ABC news, This Week with George Spephanopolis before the NFL pregame. CBS news. 60 Minutes, NBC news,Time and Newsweek at the dentist's office, Jon Stewart David Letterman, numerous celebs on Larry King or whatever pontificating on politics... It's only AFTER all that that some people, more and more, find alternatives.
And it's odd that Obama would be talking about this. (Rush says " My God, I'm living rent-free in his mind!")
First, he's talking to U of M students in ANN ARBOR! They aren't listening to Beck or Rush...perhaps 50 of them in secret... Few of them read the NY TIMES much, they are getting all their info from Jon Stewart.
So to whom was this REALLY directed at and for what purpose? Another gratuitous slap at his opponents?
sorry daniel, if your skin is so thin you think instapundit is insane and intolerable, you're a fucking kook and probably lying to yourself to preserve your bubble.
Of course, now you feign that you read all kinds of conservatives. But Instapundit is not very conservative and he's pretty friendly... at least relative to political bloggers.
I don't understand why you would honestly think it's reasonable to call him crazy, but I don't mind. You're one of those nutjobs. Not an opinion, that's simply a fact.
Franco writes:
Imagine Bush saying, "if you read the Huffington Post, try listening to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck." Does this not sound partisan and condescending to you Democrats here?
No, it doesn't. I think someone on the left who doesn't read things from the right will have many problems, including a complete failure to understand other reasonable perspectives, as well as a failure to engage with people who disagree with you on their terms. Now, I don't personally choose Rush or Beck; instead, as I said above, I go with the Corner, Ann, Megan McCardle, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and a couple others more intermittently. Frankly, I find it totally boring to read people I agree with all the time. And since I live in NYC, mostly the only political conversations I have are mutual masturbation fests. So yes, read other things. No, it's not condescending.
This is all a filtering up to the White House of the blogosphere conversation the last two weeks about conservative epistemic closure. Like it or not, it's a bigger problem on the right than on the left. I won't link that statement, since there are too many links and with a little effort anyone who wants can bury themselves in a 100,000 words on the blogs about this.
Slow Joe says:
Of course, now you feign that you read all kinds of conservatives.
You don't have a clue. You really don't. You have no way of knowing me, have no basis for saying that I'm lying, and have no way of conceiving that a person could reasonably disagree with you (see my last post).
Meanwhile, I have read or skimmed every word written on the corner for FIVE YEARS. Seriously, five years. Every word. Except vacations. I make an effort. You don't. You just like to throw around gratuitous insults about people you don't know. I read Instapundit for YEARS before insulting him. And when I quit, I wrote him (about my 100th email to him over the years) about it to tell him why, in as reasonable terms as I could. And then after I said he went crazy during the election on this thread, I followed that up by explaining in detail what I meant.
You just react. Knee, meet jerk.
Slavery and subjugation have never been tolerated by followers of any religion other than Christianity (and Judaism).
Those guys chained to the oars in the Algerine galley?
Volunteers.
"Slavery and subjugation have never been tolerated by followers of any religion other than Christianity (and Judaism)."
Sarcasm can be the only explanation for this mind boggler.
Sorry Daniel, anyone who thinks Andrew Sullivan is great and Instapundit is insane has it ass backwards.
Seriously. Sullivan? Talk about batshit fucking crazy.
"You just react. Knee, meet jerk."
LOL, you're so angry about this!
It's so funny. I don't care that some nutjob think's instapundit is totally intolerable, and feels the need to announce this to the world. Tell us more about who is good enough for you! Who else is insane like Reynolds?
LOL.
Sorry I keep making typos!
Andrew Sullivan is an actual kook. I guess Daniel is just pretending to hold this view, because everyone knows that Sullivan is some kind of truly screwed up fella, especially compared to Reynolds.
Another troll, perhaps a moby or some crazy shit like that. Say silly mean stuff all day and see who decides to correct you, and once someone does attempt to help you, you laugh to yourself that you've trolled well.
Is that really so much fun for you people? Althouse gets so many of your kind.
Franco -
I have a child at UMich AnnArbor. I commented on Bambi making this statement to the crowd. My child responded with "I don't know 20 people who are conservatives at UMich."
The problem with UMich (as with nearly all universities) is the reluctance to listen to people like Limbaugh or Beck. They listen to themselves only and think they're diverse.
I find that I'm more well-read and more informed as a conservative because all I get from those around me are the standard liberal arguments. I have to defend my theses continually. Liberals just assume they're right & that any opposition is ignorance which is dismissible without thought.
I think T-man was being ironic. Read the rest.
Obama is really just yer typical academic lefty. They talk a good game about open discussion, listening to other viewpoints, blah blah blah, but where the rubber meets the road, you are supposed to end up agreeing with them or else you're an ignoramus, hillbilly, racist, bigot, etc., and are not fit to express an opinion.
"We need an open, honest discussion" = "You need to agree with me"
Isnt it weird how many batshit crazy people there are in this world?
Well yes, but at the heart of it we all know watch out for the "Master Cylinder" (Sorry, couldn't resist even though my childhood cartoon viewing pedigree is showing.)
Miller,
I too am and have been surrounded by lefties (in the arts, and was in fashion of all things, too) So i know where you are coming from. I also have traveled and lived in Europe and also the Middle East. I know ALL the arguments.
"Liberals just assume they're right & that any opposition is ignorance which is dismissible without thought."
Pretty much nails it.
However, I don't call them liberals anymore. Words have meaning and these folks ARE NOT liberal. I won't give them that word anymore because they are almost the opposite of liberal. They are narrow-minded self-righteous bigots who are projecting onto others their own personal shame.
The Queen...sucking up to the fat man.
So what else is new?
t-man said...
The Abolitionists were all liberation theologists.
Slavery and subjugation have never been tolerated by followers of any religion other than Christianity (and Judaism).
At the risk of piling on (hey, why not?), you clearly know nothing of the history of the Moslems of West Africa.
President Obama, YOU LIE!
This is what I say to my kids, that "practice of listening to opposing views is essential for" knowing your own mind. I also tell them to learn separating facts from commentary, and looking for context.
As for Obama soundbites, he will say whatever he thinks might play with audiences. He was contradicting himself all through his election campaign, but media was not interested in commenting on this predicament.
Political blogging is fisking impersonated (Is not all political commentary?). Instapundit developed it into an art form with his one-liners (one-worders?)
It's a shame that we don't have a President who urges college students to go and read the philosophies behind what we currently (and often erroneously) call "liberal" and "conservative". Such a President might urge "liberal" students to read Burke, or Mill, or Locke, or Hayek, or Adam Smith. Such a President might also urge "conservative" students to read Rousseau, or Thomas Hill Green, or Marx, or Rawls. Then maybe the students would see that the fiscal and structural form of government favored by most so-called conservatives is actually real liberalism and that the thing that most people consider "liberalism" today is actually socialism. And then maybe they would all see that our current political system is a completely ridiculous joke and the current incarnation of our political parties are desiccated and empty husks with all the deep philosophical differentiation of two bickering groups of fans of two rival sports teams.
But this would be dangerous! Instead we have a President that urges people to look at Ariana Huffington's vanity website or listen to Glenn Beck slobbering to himself. More pointless team sports rivalries. This is what passes for intellectual advice from the Smartest President Ever.
But of course. The State seeks to perpetuate itself, regardless of who is in charge. Intellectual curiosity is dangerous to the goals of the State: pacification, subjugation and theft.
Daniel;
Happy?
Yes
Jeremy;
On time and on point as usual.
As for my right wing sites that I visit:
Here, Instapundit (but I get tired of the "slavery" to pajamamedia), the Corner, The DC. I got so tired of RedState (anger in a can). Right Wing Nut House was pretty good for a while but Rick Moran is on a crusade to be an honest conservative pundit and it gets a little much at times, the American Scene has some occasional good posts but the commentariat is crap, Will Wilkerson has some periodic "deep" stuff but the tinge of arrogance (I'm smarter than you) is tough to deal with. There are others.
For left of center I go to The Moderate Voice (irony much,though to be fair it does have some right of center folks guest posts). The Daily Beast is left of center and at times feels like Cosmo for political junkies. HuffPo is not my cup of tea. I used to visit DailyKos now and again but gosh, its too much like redState.
If Daniel and Obama were ever in the same room, the sheer overpowering waves of SMUG would choke everyone else to death.
You're so wonderful, thank you deeply for sharing your wisdom with us fly-over simians.
Well there's smart criticism and there's stupid criticism, innit. And Limbaugh doesn't aim to make serious commentary or criticism, right? Every time he offends, the non-Althousians are told that they just don't get his humor.
Someone who only knows how to be effective through the use of jokes is not worth taking seriously. Be glad Obama mentioned WSJ and stop pretending that FOX is real journalism. Just because it's conservative doesn't mean it's a good thing.
A reading knowledge of the history of political philosophy doesn't make someone immune to using ideology as a way to solve practical problems, Palladian. Nor, for that matter, does it make knowledgeable liberals or moderates averse to pointing out when those on the other side are doing so.
Such a President might also urge "conservative" students to read ... Rawls.
We all need a little Lou Rawls in our lives:
You'll never find another love like mine
Someone who needs you like I do
You'll never see what you've found in me
You'll keep searching and searching your whole life through
Whoa, I don't wish you no bad luck, baby
But there's no ifs and buts or maybes
You're gonna, You're gonna miss (miss my lovin')
You're gonna miss my lovin' (you're gonna miss my lovin')
I know you're gonna my lovin' (you're gonna miss my lovin')
You're gonna miss, you're gonna miss my lo-o-ove
The problem with UMich (as with nearly all universities) is the reluctance to listen to people like Limbaugh or Beck.
Conservatism used to be embodied by Buckley and Will -- now all that represents it are the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
"Conservatism used to be embodied by Buckley and Will -- now all that represents it are the likes of Limbaugh and Beck."
"Liberalism" used to be embodied by Madison and Jefferson -- now all that represents it are the likes of Obama and Olbermann.
See?! We can all play team sports!
"I'm not sure how a black man could grow up during segregation and have a love for this nation or for the white man's God."
Well I was talking about Obama, who didn't grow up during segregation. But hey, thanks for playing.
I LOVE how conservatives like to trot out the history when it can be used to adulate some partially mythologized aspect of American exceptionalism or one of its personages, but have no capacity for dealing with its warts.
Yep, history and traditions matter to conservatives - except when they don't. Except when they, you know, say so. One generation was discriminated against, and the next is supposed to not care about what his country did to his parents - or even to people who merely looked like them.
Wonderful logic there.
"...used to adulate some partially mythologized aspect of American exceptionalism or one of its personages..."
Wonderful writing there. LOL.
"Liberalism" used to be embodied by Madison and Jefferson -- now all that represents it are the likes of Obama and Olbermann.
Libertarians often seem to have a problem understanding why liberals expanded their focus to address inequalities that were unprecedented prior the industrial revolution.
Before that time, it was easy to focus on inherited royalty as the only illegitimate form of inequality. After that, ideas like "equality of opportunity" gained a whole new meaning.
Regardless of one's stance, how can someone interested in the history of political philosophy not see this?
Wonderful writing there. LOL.
About as funny as something Limbaugh would say and as well-stated as something Beck could come up with?
Don't be an asshole and learn how to judge things on criteria other than just taste sometime - it wouldn't kill you. You sure seem to take substance seriously when it comes to philosophy.
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2010/05/huffpost_burned_by_its_ow.php
Slow Joe you are right Sullivan is a kook, why else would he give all that space to the British election or state the following:
I was thinking like an ideologue, not like a conservative. I have learned my lesson. But when, like Bolton, you are dealing solely with abstractions and raw force, learning lessons is for wusses.
We all want ideologues like Rush and Oberman to make us feel comfortable and not like wusses.
Slow Joe you are right Sullivan is a kook, why
Well Voltaire, you ought to stick with Environmental Engineering...ghe's a "kook" because he spends an inordinate amount of time trying to determine if Trigg Palin is spawn of Bristol or Sarah? This is not really a question, is it?
It is the same sort of question that the kooks at "Loose Change" ask about 9/11. And that IS Kooky.
Now if you want to simply ask questions about how Sarah "faked" her pregnancy and how Bristol delivered two children in less nine months I can't help you. I just hope you don't let your students get away with such poor reasoning.
And finally Excitable Andie is a HACK...Bush was OK, UNTIL he opposed Gay Marraige and THEN Bush was evillllllll and the Republicans were "Christianists." Anyone who allows Andie to "marry" his "husband" will earn Andrews eternal gratitude and will be that person's "b*tch" for the remainder of that person's political career.
Andrew Sullivan is both a Hack AND a Kook.
I read Andi every day. He's a total nutjob, but he's easy to read anyway.
I don't have a problem with his coverage of his nation, though I think there are better places to go if that matters to you. In fact, I think everyone should watch England very carefully.
If that's what you think anyone's mockery of Andi is based on, you're simply uninformed. He's insane. He was insane when he was supporting Bush and calling war protesters traitors. I remember defending him against accusations of advocating torture (stuff that did not appear on his blog).
He's not a kook because he flipped to the left like Charles Johnson. He's always been a simple thinker full of rage. Usually at women, like many bitchy gay men, I've noticed.
"One generation was discriminated against, and the next is supposed to not care about what his country did to his parents "
The GOP has been right about this most of the time, with the exception of Nixon's time. All Republicans should learn what Nixon was and hate that man for what he was.
Anyway, I'm sorry for the birth defect America came with, slavery, and the way the democrats have always been so effective at hating people and twisting people against eachother for some power. The GOP stands for the principle of individual equality under a Republic that affords freedoms and civil rights. While it's good to remember segregation, I don't think it's necessary to be perpetually aggrieved without understanding how wonderful this country is and how far we've come.
The idea that you need to hate 'white man's God' is pure democrat propaganda. It's OK to leave the plantation. We're all in this together, and we don't need to worry about what race we are or how we think that means other races are responsible for things they didn't do. Race is simply not relevant. It's a trick.
"Should not America repent?"
A lot of people conveniently forget that we took up arms against and killed a lot of each other to ultimately rid ourselves of slavery.
Anyway, I'm sorry for the birth defect America came with, slavery,
Thanks for the honesty. Most cons have difficulty grappling with the more troubling aspects of how our national identity was shaped over the years.
and the way the democrats have always been so effective at hating people and twisting people against eachother for some power.
It must be nice identifying with a party that believes in a perfect world where power isn't pursued for its own sake. And that doesn't promote hatred. At least not intentionally, right?
The GOP stands for the principle of individual equality under a Republic that affords freedoms and civil rights.
Principles are great things to have. So is the pragmatism that allows you to contend with how best to implement principles in an imperfect world - and in such a way as to advance your ideals rather than set them back.
While it's good to remember segregation,
It's good to remember history, period.
I don't think it's necessary to be perpetually aggrieved
Grievances are funny things. I'm sure they can be self-defeating, but I don't think that means we should define the end of a grievance on behalf of others.
We might even be wise to listen to them.
without understanding how wonderful this country is and how far we've come.
Yeah, I know.
But people will differ on whether we've come far enough on an issue or not.
The idea that you need to hate 'white man's God' is pure democrat propaganda.
So was this sentence.
It's OK to leave the plantation.
You know, using a slavery metaphor to turn around the principles of a party that represents people you see as unnecessarily aggrieved, might be a clever rhetorical trick, but it doesn't advance the discussion.
We're all in this together, and we don't need to worry about what race we are or how we think that means other races are responsible for things they didn't do.
Race is simply not relevant.
I don't think you get to decide that a component of one group's identity over hundreds of years is suddenly not relevant to them.
Just because you are troubled by the implications of grievances doesn't mean that someone else has to abandon whatever aspect of their identity contributes to that grievance.
It's a trick.
No, it's not.
People don't define themselves according to "tricks".
People have identities that go beyond "American" or any simple national identifier, and it's not meant to simply spite a conservative if they exercise their right to research and find some meaning in those identities.
Did you find the Million Man March or any other aspect of black solidarity, pride, celebration whatnot as troubling as you would find Oktoberfest or some celebration of Polish heritage in America? Did you find it as troubling as you would Saint Patrick's Day?
I hope not. I don't either.
Sullivan is well regarded by a large enough and intelligent enough following. He does go on tangents and commits the unspeakable atrocity of infusing emotion in his ideas and thoughts, it's true. Although the latter should hardly be a sin. And a compulsion for prodigious copy is a gift that no doubt contributes to these shortcomings.
Nevertheless, I can't fault a guy for wanting to smoke out shallow and compulsive liars and betrayers of the public trust, especially when they represent the side he was on. If that means he even questions the veracity of an unusual pregnancy that was later propped up for the sake of popular appeal, big deal.
As for Sullivan's willingness to take personally discriminatory policy choices of the GOP, what the hell is wrong with reflecting that in his politics, or for that matter his writing?
You should worry more about the saleability of the GOP's plank than about Sullivan's writing. He's insightful enough and not everyone wants a robotic dispenser of curt, dry observations.
"I don't think you get to decide that a component of one group's identity over hundreds of years is suddenly not relevant to them. "
I most certainly do, and I have. I hope you get what I've gotten out of this wisdom.
You're trying to hurt people, and I realize you are only dimly aware of what you're doing, but I know exactly what you are going for and I am very sorry that you think that's even justifiable.
In your heart, you know that I'm right.
"I don't think you get to decide that a component of one group's identity over hundreds of years is suddenly not relevant to them. "
I most certainly do, and I have.
If you get to decide what is relevant to someone else's identity, then I get to decide what's relevant to yours. So there. That's where the assertion of arbitrary control over someone else gets you.
I hope you get what I've gotten out of this wisdom.
What wisdom?
I got an arrogant reply where you assert some fictional right that you believe you have to define what is and what is not an important or at least substantial part of someone else's identity.
You're trying to hurt people,
Oh really?
and I realize you are only dimly aware of what you're doing,
Oh, this gets even better! I'm not only bad, but just stupid enough to not realize how bad I am!
but I know exactly what you are going for and I am very sorry that you think that's even justifiable.
You're an idiot.
And one who can't resist resorting to labels and their reliance on proof by assertion.
People better than you identify that behavior as "stereotyping".
In your heart, you know that I'm right.
In my mind, I know you replace the arguments you lack an ability to construct with assertions, labels, and black-and-white thinking.
But keep appealing to my heart! Maybe attraction and emotion will overcome me and I will simply fall head-over-heels in love with your appeals.
They will overcome my brain the same way they overcame yours. Or, at least, that seems to be the strategy here.
Left-wing media has a higher percentage of right-wing consumers than right-wing media does left-wing consumers. In other words, it is the lefties who are deficient in exposure to the other side's views.
This probably isn't due to one side being more open-minded than the other, though. I suspect it is simply due to left-wing media being so dominant.
Ritmo, you're so angry and personal about my kind words because you recognize that I'm right.
We both know it. You can get more and more deranged if you want. That's actually great for me, since I want people to associate racism with derangement. It's time to move away from racism and admit we're all one people and racism is a trick. Stop looking at people that way. It doesn't matter what color or hyphen group you are. It has no bearing on your life if you don't let it, and you shouldn't let it.
Anyway, I'll say a prayer for you. I know what it's like to be mistaken about things, and it's not fun. You're probably miserable.
Brazilian Samba Rhythm/Montana Urban Legend/whatever-the-moniker-is-now isn't miserable.
He's crazy.
There is a difference.
He changes his name in an attempt to run away from a brand that's lost any value, but the crazy follows him whenever he posts.
Some of you new people need to realize he's a name-shifting troll. Not worth engaging.
My mistake.
Trolls are stopped clocks we wish weren't right twice a day.
@master cylinder
Does Crooked Timber count?
BTW, reasonable left and reasonable right exchanging links to what they find to be reasonable blogs. I like it.
But HD appears to think shallowly, and like a certain Harvard 3L, he does not consider all the implications of what he types at his keyboard.
That is pretty rich coming from a guy who called my wife a whore on another thread.
But to the topic at hand, unless you're being deliberately thick, anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size would know I was referring to Obama and no one else.
Hey - what?
FLS, did you call Hoosier's wife a whore?
Hey Hoosier,
If he said that, you're welcome to my favorite insult: "dumber that a field of clover."
Someone: "Anyway, I'm sorry for the birth defect America came with, slavery,"
Oh, gawd. Because Indian wars and various other social inequities and a multitude other horrors don't compare. And other nations are so innocent of this "birth defect" that seems to have only afflicted America. Nothing else, no slavery no oppression in the whole wide world counts, and no amount of blood shed here in a horrific national fratricide *counts*.
"Thanks for the honesty. Most cons have difficulty grappling with the more troubling aspects of how our national identity was shaped over the years."
Not really. Considering how it's being shaped continually by those who would make a fetish of shame for the past, like we're *special* or something, that way. It's like someone flogging themselves in public moaning "Oh, how horrible I am, how impure, how sinful!" when the whole point is actually "Oh, how pious I am, how enlightened, how observant, how much better than those who make no public display."
We aren't permitted to ever put the past behind us because it's such an essential part of that display of superior concern. No one would be able to say anymore, "I'm better than you."
But the truth of human nature is that we live *down* to our identities when our identities are defined by our negative history and we live *up* to our identities when told we have a history of virtue.
So yes, Brazil... you're trying to hurt people.
I like crooked timber....Sullivan is pretty darn well read. Lots of readers.
Must be something there. I think the Pope and Sarah are evil power mongers, I lived in London for a while, and I love hanging out with gay dudes, so it's a fit for me. What should I read today-anybody got a hot conservative piece for me?
FLS, did you call Hoosier's wife a whore?
Hoosier made some boring claim like "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
So I tested the proof of that claim.
At first HD's reaction was very manful, but later he showed that words had indeed hurt him.
Most cons have difficulty grappling with the more troubling aspects of how our national identity was shaped over the years.
Not really, they just don't dwell on the darker aspects of our national history and self-flagellate as if somehow we haven't made a single inch of social progress in our (relatively) short history as a nation.
Maybe that's why liberals tend to be morose and perpetually angry as they choose to constantly focus on the negatives rather than the positives. Its all well and good to point out the good with the bad provided its done with historical perspective. For example, the very angry Rev. Wright who suffered through segregation and discrimination and angrily denounces the America of KKA nevertheless found a pretty good life after all and witnessed one of his flock, a black man, ascend to the highest office of the land. Not bad for a nation that was so horrible a mere 40 some years ago.
But that's still not good enough for liberals who forget what real racism and discrimination was back then and now attribute disagreement with the President as racist.
Yep, we come a long way baby.
Left-wing media has a higher percentage of right-wing consumers than right-wing media does left-wing consumers.
Really? That many right winters listen to Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz? Read Mother Jones, The Progressive, and In These Times?
I don't think so.
Hoosier made some boring claim like "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
So I tested the proof of that claim.
At first HD's reaction was very manful, but later he showed that words had indeed hurt him.
Actually the topic at hand was free speech and you were lamely attemtping to make some kind of 'free speech' point but actually you were just being a jerk. It was pretty obvious. Oh I took it in stride but I like to remind folks what a complete ass you really are, especially when you like to accuse me of thinking 'shallowly'.
daniel said: "By the way, Bill Kristol is a very reasonable dude. He says everything with a smile on his face. ...I thought that Insta's reasonable-ness became a veneer in the heated partisanness of the 08 election."
I know the party's dying down, but I'd just like to say that I had Glenn Reynolds as a law professor, and believe me, he says everything with a smile, too. (One of the problems with the written word is that sometimes it's hard to tell tone.)
- Lyssa
That's right.
Hoosier was championing freedom of offensive speech. So I exercised my Hoosier-endorsed right on Hoosier, to see how sincere he was.
master cyl said: "What should I read today-anybody got a hot conservative piece for me?"
This piece by economist Thomas Sowell, about race and resentment, is amazing:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/04/race_and_resentment_105419.html
I'd love to hear a thoughtful liberal reaction to it.
- Lyssa
(BTW, it shouldn't make a difference, but in case it does to some people, Sowell is both black and old enough to have lived through different times.)
So I exercised my Hoosier-endorsed right on Hoosier, to see how sincere he was.
Are you being sued? Have you all your teeth? Are there Peace Officers on your door? If the answer to all the above is "No" THEN you have "Free Speech."
Free Speech is NOT being able to call someone's wife a "whore" and not be called an @rse for it....
Free Speech means only that the Government ahs not exercised Prior Restraint, not that you won't be ostracized or called an @rse.
You seem to suffer from delusions about the nature and meaning of Free Speech.
Hoosier was championing freedom of offensive speech. So I exercised my Hoosier-endorsed right on Hoosier, to see how sincere he was.
FLS, let me know if you were arrested and imprisoned for your lack of class. Because that was the free speech issue being discussed, not whether you can prove what a ass you are to the world. See, the Constitution says, Congress shall pass no law...which means speech, even offensive speech can't be criminalized.
Thanks again for demonstrating to everyone that in addition to being an ass, you're pretty thick too.
So FLS,
You impugned a third person, an innocent (I suppose) third person, to score a point with HD.
What are third people to you? Objects of warfare?
Free Speech means only that the Government ahs not exercised Prior Restraint
Then Canada has free speech, too.
As a courtesy to her, Ann Coulter's host wrote to warn the outspoken author that hate speech was a crime in Canada. No one wants their guests to be led away in handcuffs. Canadians require civility and respect for others. Hoosier took the opposing view, so I attempted to find out how strongly he supported incivil and disrespectful speech.
(I forget if I used the old "So I hit him with a bag of quarters" joke.)
Then Canada has free speech, too.
As a courtesy to her, Ann Coulter's host wrote to warn the outspoken author that hate speech was a crime in Canada. No one wants their guests to be led away in handcuffs.
Then Canada doesn't have free speech. If one has to be warned not to say certain things or risk imprisonment, then you don't have free speech.
Canadians require civility and respect for others. Hoosier took the opposing view, so I attempted to find out how strongly he supported incivil and disrespectful speech.
No, Canadians will arrest you for violating what they deem is uncivil speech. I do take the opposing view because as much of an asshole as you are, I don't think you should be arrested for calling my wife a whore. See I believe in a nation that doesn't criminalize you for being an asshole. I think its wonderful that you continue to prove my point.
Do please go on.
so I attempted to find out how strongly he supported incivil and disrespectful speech.
And a response:
Are you being sued? Have you all your teeth? Are there Peace Officers on your door? If the answer to all the above is "No" THEN you have "Free Speech."
So I'd say Hoosier supported incivil and disrectful speech, wouldn't you?
Along the way you demonstrated that you are like the Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, an @rse.
I have no rpoblem with you calling Hoosier's wife a "whore" and you an @rse....The fact that I hold you in contempt, is one of the consequences of your "Free Speech."
Exercise your speech as much as you like, just don't expect much love, if that's how you exercise it...
You seem to share the delusion of many Free Speech folks that speech ought have NO consequences, when mostly Free Speech refers to Government-imposed LEGAL consequences.
A little late, but for the benefit of those who may have been confused by my response to fls's idiocy regarding Rev. Wright (Shanna, Sponge, edutcher), my post ended with "Up is down, in is out."
Take from that what you will.
I apologize, Free Speech is NOT absence of Prior Restraint, CENSORSHIP is prior restraint....
So it is true that Canada does not have CENSORSHIP, but it is NOT true that it has "Free Speech."
My bad, confusing these two critical subjects.
A little late, but for the benefit of those who may have been confused by my response to fls's idiocy regarding Rev. Wright (Shanna, Sponge, edutcher), my post ended with "Up is down, in is out."
I thought it was pretty obvious but then I'm used to sarcasm ;-)
"
Oh, gawd. Because Indian wars and various other social inequities and a multitude other horrors don't compare. And other nations are so innocent of this "birth defect" that seems to have only afflicted America. Nothing else, no slavery no oppression in the whole wide world counts, and no amount of blood shed here in a horrific national fratricide *counts*."
I still think it's a shame America was born with the birth defect of permitting slavery. It compeltely contradicted her ideals in a particularly terrible way.
I'm not saying America is worse than other countries, and only an idiot would think the treatment of natives somehow mitigates it. It's just a shame, and if you had bothered to read the whole comment, you'd understand my main idea was that America is a wonderful country whose ideals won the day over that birth defect, and how I feel that commands appreciation.
I'm amazed anyone would be so thin skinned they didn't understand my point. Read the comment again.
An alternative explanation is that Rush has so distorted the landscape and blurred the lines between reality and fiction that the well is poisoned.
If you had a teacher who lied to you about history or sentence contruction, or 2+2 = 5 not 4... a gardener who planted flowers root side up, a farmer who grew poison ivy and called it mint...well after a while you might not go back and drink from that well. Not so with Rush listeners who are lazy imbeciles at best..who take the wastewater that this blowhard pumps out and calls it truth..and when caught...call it entertainment.
I still think it's a shame America was born with the birth defect of permitting slavery. It compeltely contradicted her ideals in a particularly terrible way.
Yeah if we're going to judge late 18th century values by our 'progressive' 21st century ones. Lets keep in mind that Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 but took another 26 years to abolish it altogether (except for a few imperial holdings).
Keep in mind that the ideals that America were founded on were based
on the ideals of a bunch of 18th century thinkers. Some of which were opposed to slaver but would be, by even our contemporary standards be considered racists of the highest order. Lincoln himself abhorred slavery as an institution but didn't exactly harbor any belief that African-Americans were equal in rights. This wasn't exactly a unique concept in the Western world in the 18th and 19th century.
I don't consider it a birth defect as much as a condition of the period, one of which evolved for the better as time went by. History must be viewed in perspective.
"Yeah if we're going to judge late 18th century values by our 'progressive' 21st century ones,"
I think that's not true. I think slavery was obviously wrong and always has been. Perhaps it's helped build, but I actually think it's not hard to imagine an 18th and 19th century American that did not rely on slavery to get labor. I guess some people will insist this is impossible.
Not that I care. Slavery is wrong. Just because a lot of people used it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong by their standards, either. And if our founders had stuck to their principles against Virginia, we would have saved federalism from the civil war. Instead, we kicked a can down the road. So many of the luminaries at the time of our nation's birth actually understood this is exactly what they were doing.
I think that's not true. I think slavery was obviously wrong and always has been.
Really might want to take that up with Cicero,Aeschylus, or Moses.
Just because a lot of people used it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong by their standards, either.
The Aztecs and a number of others to include a number of well regarded Roman Legal Theorists would beg to differ.
And if our founders had stuck to their principles against Virginia, we would have saved federalism from the civil war.
By aborting America's birth, can't have a Civil War if there is NO America. Good plan, great thinking....
Instead, we kicked a can down the road. So many of the luminaries at the time of our nation's birth actually understood this is exactly what they were doing.
Yes they did, reminding themselves of the saying, "Sufficient each day's evil unto itself." By creating a Constitution with slavery, they created a Constitution AND the United States, a political grouping that would ONE DAy deal with the evil, but had they NOT kicked the can down the road there would have been America to deal witht he problem, later.
miller said...
"Not so with Rush listeners who are lazy imbeciles at best.-
I have to say this is priceless. Because you've just said the University of Wisconsin hires lazy imbeciles because your blog host listens to Rush."
There are people who hear Rush. There are people who have his program on so they can find out what the latest GOP talking points are and then there are "listeners" who drink it in.
I don't think Ann actually ingests what Rush has to say. She hears the show but I doubt she buys into it.
HOWEVER you, on the otherhand use the priceless and lazy 'trick' of taking one example and ascribing "all" to it. No the UW isn't in the habit of hiring lazy imbeciles and by supposing that Ann is (shame on you) and generalizing it, you go right off the same one way cliff as most of the uber-fringe.
"Not so with Rush listeners who are lazy imbeciles at best.-
I have to say this is priceless. Because you've just said the University of Wisconsin hires lazy imbeciles because your blog host listens to Rush."
Nice that you move the goalposts.
Your blog host HAS SAID THAT SHE LISTENS TO RUSH. I'm not sure how that doesn't register with you, but you seem that having a keyboard in front of you somehow validates your knight-jump exegesis of data.
Props to you for surviving electroshock therapy.
seem == seem to think
I don't consider it a birth defect as much as a condition of the period, one of which evolved for the better as time went by. History must be viewed in perspective.
I guess the whole War Between the States thing and all the politics that led up to it and have more or less defined the political dynamic of the Republic since were just minor episodes then. Not much of all that big a deal. The North and South have played completely similar roles in America's political culture. One industrialized early and heavily and another didn't, but other than that they have generally had completely similar economies and cultures.
Nothing to see here folks. Moving right along.
Nice to see Miller keeping up with the usual ass-hatery so typical of the underemployed. He's even managed to attract a few of the like-minded (i.e. less articulate) followers.
Hoosier and Synova, OTOH, at least know how to take a serious criticism seriously.
Anyone who tries to make an argument out of what is obviously nothing more than an opinion (cf. "wonderful") must ache for a serious logic deficit. Happiness in itself ends the discussion of an issue? That's the only goal? No reasoning necessary?
Hey, I'm not miserable but I'm not psychotic either. Nor is chronic hypomanic bipolar disorder without its clinical drawbacks.
If Slow Joe weren't any slower he might look up what it means to define facts from feelings - as he encourages me to do.
At 1:29 PM Slow Joe openly declares his ignorance of historical presentism.
God Damn is he one slow fuck!
Maybe that's why liberals tend to be morose and perpetually angry as they choose to constantly focus on the negatives rather than the positives. Its all well and good to point out the good with the bad provided its done with historical perspective. For example, the very angry Rev. Wright who suffered through segregation and discrimination and angrily denounces the America of KKA nevertheless found a pretty good life after all and witnessed one of his flock, a black man, ascend to the highest office of the land. Not bad for a nation that was so horrible a mere 40 some years ago.
But that's still not good enough for liberals who forget what real racism and discrimination was back then and now attribute disagreement with the President as racist.
Hoosier manages to slide or good point or two in with his usual disdain for the left, but what begs further attention is his assumptions of what makes people happy.
Maybe some people care only for personal, material/financial enrichment. For them, there is apparently no personal room left to allow for historical considerations or the suffering of others. But most people aren't like that, fortunately. The moral development of societies would be grossly retarded if it were.
Economists are increasingly arguing for replacing GDP with a measure of "national happiness" as a leading indicator of a country's status.
Of course, we could follow Synova and Slow Joe's advice and just ignore inconvenient facts when they get in the way of our pride!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा