"I will not apologize for my remark, but I will apologize for swearing.... As a Democrat I can no longer sit back and allow the majority party to silence my voice."It's not as though she yelled out "You lie!"
Walker, asked for his response, noted that in-state Democratic Party politicians never say anything supportive to him but that he himself tries to be respectful to Democrats personally and to concentrate on talking about policy.
"You notice, when I'm at the White House — contrary to that approach — I say nothing [but] positive things about meeting with the president. He is the president, whether I agree with him all the time or not."(The bracketed word replaces "about," which I take to be a mistranscription of what Walker said.)
So Walker seems to take the "civility" notion seriously, at least as a code of personal conduct. Obviously, he doesn't — and can't — believe his opponents will show him civility.
पोस्ट्स
१७० टिप्पण्या:
So Walker seems to take the "civility" notion seriously, at least as a code of personal conduct.
Reason #670,483 why he will never attain national office.
"campy said...
So Walker seems to take the "civility" notion seriously, at least as a code of personal conduct.
Reason #670,483 why he will never attain national office."
W did. So it looks like you're back to 670,482.
"As a Democrat I can no longer sit back and allow the majority party to silence my voice."
Cut the pity party. She is an elected official. The only person that can silence her are herself or her constituents.
Democrats will not be entrusted again in running this state if they continue with their whining and hating Walker instead of offering substantive ideas.
Please God give us a president who goes quietly about his work, stays off the Saturday airwaves, refrains from interviews on Super Bowl Sundays [that is not a day for politics] and fixes a couple big things that need fixing.
W did. So it looks like you're back to 670,482.
The country has changed since 2004. Think I'll stay with 670483.
It's not as though she yelled out "You lie!"
That, of course, remains one of the great moments of the circle of hell called the Obama presidency.
It was correct. It was called for.
But it has, sadly, not been repeated, to the shame of every gutless politician who fails to yell it out.
What stopped her from getting up and walking out? What stopped her from not going in the first place?
What a whiner
Is it too much to expect these journalists to ask "Erin Andrews" follow up questions?
"Ms. Sinicki, who is silencing you? How are they silencing you?"
Please God give us a president who goes quietly about his work, stays off the Saturday airwaves, refrains from interviews on Super Bowl Sundays [that is not a day for politics] and fixes a couple big things that need fixing.
God's confused- He's already sent two boats and a helicopter
"...he doesn't and can't [and shouldn't] believe his opponents will show him civility."
Fixed.
"As a Democrat I can no longer sit back and allow the majority party to silence my voice."
What does this even mean? How is the majority party silencing her? What's keeping her from putting her fat fucking face in front of a camera and microphone. Or standing on a street corner. Who stopped her moronic facebook post
Sinicki should go back under her bridge.
So Dramatic. Poor woman, forced to stay against her will. Poor democrats, never allowed to say what they want, always silenced.
Recall the bitch. If she's so frail that Walker can "silence" her, she's incapable of representing her constituents.
" campy said...
W did. So it looks like you're back to 670,482.
The country has changed since 2004. Think I'll stay with 670483."
W was POTUS until January 2009. Back to 670482.
If we ask Ms. Sinicki some follow up questions, are these nuclear weapons examples in the "War On Women"?
I'm really trying to be careful with how atomic the words are that come out of my mouth. I don't want to scorch anyone.
Wisconsin has a long history of the Republicans being the majority party and silencing the voices of Democrats. Its 2014, its time to change that.
"Fen said...
Recall the bitch. If she's so frail that Walker can "silence" her, she's incapable of representing her constituents."
Frail? Uh, no. Imagine the offspring of Vince Lomabardi and Jabba the Hut.
Awww, poor babies. Dear Leader was disrespected :(
No truer words were ever spoken. Walker is 100% full of shit.
W was POTUS until January 2009.
When did he win his final election?
Try again.
Big Brother was a piker. Only TWO minutes of hate? With the Donkeys it's a constant 24/7/365..
If Legislators are using Facebook and twitter, is it any wonder that no kid is?
SOTSA and SOTU addresses aren't very interesting though. They are long campaign speeches, full of roses. All the thorns are hidden.
Looks like Sinicki is angling to be the Wendy Davis of Wisconsin. Kinda creepy.
"garage mahal said...
Awww, poor babies. Dear Leader was disrespected :(
No truer words were ever spoken. Walker is 100% full of shit."
I would venture to guess that most Walker supporters, like Walker himself, think this is funny.
She should organize a trip to Rockford!
Ann, I want to thank you. We're it not for you, I would know nothing about this man. I like everything I see about him.
If she had shouted out "You lie", it would be best if she had the same basis in fact as did a SCOTUS Justice at a joint session of the Congress.
I can't believe how many of the comments from the article mention being angry about Walker giving back some of the property taxes they pay. "How dare you give me my money back!" Wacky world indeed . . .
I would venture to guess that most Walker supporters, like Walker himself, think this is funny
Exactly. Like accusing Keith Richards of using drugs. What's he going to say? That it's not true?
As to the incivility of it all, meh. I didn't mind Joe Wilson and I don't really care about fb posting during a SOTSA. But I would like to have some evidence for why Walker was full of crap. He sounds like he's being fairly prudent with the surplus.
Losing popular elections = "silencing Democrats" now.
Not allowing her to rudely interrupt the Governors speech = "silencing Democrats".
Hey stupid whiney entitled bitch, win the Governors election and your side can say what they like for the SOTSA speech.
I think the (D) stands for Dramaqueens.
When people use profanity in professional settings, the movie Idiocracy really was prophetic.
Taking the high road is a smart move on Walker's part.
As for the horror of rude politicians during state of the [whatever] speeches... meh.
Also I find the use of "OMG" to just as disturbing. Not for referencing God, but the level of immaturity.
Althouse's cruel neutrality in action!
It's not as though she yelled out "You lie!"
At least that guy has the satisfaction of knowing that he was right......Obama was lying to us.
Btw, remember when Walker fired that kid from the regent's seat because he signed a recall position?
He's a paragon of reaching out and civility, obviously.
So what was in in his speech that she actually objected to?
"(Walker's) a paragon of reaching out and civility, obviously. "
If so he's just following the example of our dear leader.....
How conservatives relate to leftists depends on whether they consider the leftists political opponents in the usual sense who share common goals but have different ideas about how to reach those goals or if the new left are like their predecessors who plundered and murdered their way through Russia, China, Cambodia etc.
We know the American left had no moral qualms about the mass murder which happened in Russia and China -- i.e. you have to break a few [million]eggs to make an omelette. To this day, the American left has never apologized for their support of Communists. They still strut around in self righteous fury at the supposed wrongs in traditional Western society without any trace of introspection into their own moral depravity. Under the circumstances, one can only assume that when the American left have the opportunity they will repeat those same crimes against humanity perhaps in a more muted form like we see in Venezuela. Republican politicians need to acknowledge that politics as usual in the USA is dead.
""(Walker's) a paragon of reaching out and civility, obviously. "
If so he's just following the example of our dear leader....."
Do as I say, not as I do. But say I do as I say.
Btw, the Althouse posts re: Walker are pretty fawning and Dear Leader-ish, so there's a bit of slavish devotion on the Walker side of things, it appears.
Facebook post - passive aggressive
"You Lie" - aggressive aggressive
People telling journalists "I won't be silenced" -- total irony.
remember when Walker fired that kid from the regent's seat because he signed a recall position?
If I signed a "my boss should be fired" petition and my boss responded by firing *me*, my response would be along the lines of "... I probably should have seen that coming."
So Walker seems to take the "civility" notion seriously, at least as a code of personal conduct.
Various exceptions noted, executives are generally expected to present themselves better than legislators.
"We know the American left had no moral qualms about the mass murder which happened in Russia and China -- i.e. you have to break a few [million]eggs to make an omelette. To this day, the American left has never apologized for their support of Communists. They still strut around in self righteous fury at the supposed wrongs in traditional Western society without any trace of introspection into their own moral depravity. Under the circumstances, one can only assume that when the American left have the opportunity they will repeat those same crimes against humanity perhaps in a more muted form like we see in Venezuela."
1/24/14, 11:29 AM
----------------------
OMG... this comment is so full of bullshit.
So what was in in his speech that she actually objected to?
lol, reporting
I'm afraid reporters just blog now. Just live blog anything. Who cares about quotes? Who cares about getting answers? Just listen, post, and be comfortable in your jammies.
I, like some other commenters and (I hope) most regular folks, prefer my political officials to be civil, but that creates an asymmetry problem.
On the one side you've got the civil politician who says of the opponent, I appreciate that you sincerely believe that the policies you advocate are the best for our state/country, but I believe that my policies are better; here's why.
On the other side you've got the uncivil politician who says of the opponent, You are waging a War on Women, you seek to disenfrachise minorities, you oppress the poor and needy, your programs are just shit, you are a hater!
The latter approach has been working pretty well lately, don't you think?
The latter approach has been working pretty well lately, don't you think?
Yes, and wait 'til you see how well it'll work this fall. And in 2016.
Your right, Inga, the Left had "qualms" alright, they just didn't let them get in the way of their support for the USSR. I was alive for some of the cold war. I remember it better than you, I think, who have only been exposed to the revisionist retelling of the Left's history there.
It was Lefties who gave the USSR the secrets of the atomic bomb (see how old I am to call them that?) soon after WWII because they feared a world in which the US could have unquestionable military superiority. Can you honestly say you are unsympathetic to that position? No? That's what I am talking about not letting "qualms" get in the way of one's vision of the USSR.
On the other side you've got the uncivil politician who says of the opponent, You are waging a War on Women, you seek to disenfrachise minorities, you oppress the poor and needy, your programs are just shit, you are a hater!
Andy said:
"Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."
Inga said:
"OMG... this comment is so full of bullshit."
Nice intellectual rebuttal Inga.
Which part do you think is BS? Perhaps you would like to post some apologies from members of the new left for their past support for totalitarian regimes?
That would be a good start to a real converstaion.
Inga channels The Worm on Althouse!
If I signed a "my boss should be fired" petition and my boss responded by firing *me*, my response would be along the lines of "... I probably should have seen that coming."
Precisely.
Look, this woman is a politician whining about the politics that come with her job. She is free to go bake cookies if she doesn't like it.
"So Walker seems to take the "civility" notion seriously, at least as a code of personal conduct."
Some commenters upstream seem to think that Walker's conspicuous adherence to Midwestern values will hurt him going forward. I suspect his approach will do the opposite, especially after 8 years of Team O's equally conspicuous adherence to Chicago values.
"As a Democrat I can no longer sit back and allow the majority party to silence my voice."
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system!" Christine the Peasant
If I signed a "my boss should be fired" petition and my boss responded by firing *me*, my response would be along the lines of "... I probably should have seen that coming."
Except Walker wasn't this kid's boss when he signed the recall. It wasn't until afterward they found out because Walker has unbelievably inept staff, like the rapist he showcased in his SOTS speech as the new face of the Wisconsin economy. Of course Walker could have done the right thing and accepted someone with a dissenting opinion, [he signed it because his mother is a school teacher], but Walker is a thin-skinned, vindictive little jackass.
Interesting, the word "bullshit".
As Inga demonstrates, this single word can be used to decisively refute any argument.
Before she comments on the question of the left's infatuation with mass violence, Inga should learn something about her leftist ancestors. She might start with the French Revolution and then work her way up to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.
When will Wisconsin realize that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government?
"campy said...
W was POTUS until January 2009.
When did he win his final election?
Try again."
Touche
You know Garage, it almost seems as if you have some kind of personal economic stake in getting rid of Walker that colors your every opinion regarding him.... Naaah!
Revenant@11:38
I thought the very same thing.
At the very least, my boss would say "It's obvious that you would be happier reporting to someone else. I don't want to stand in the way of your achieving your full potential."
Apparently, Heyooyeh expected them to attend couples therapy.
What I posted a Lem's when this originally came up:
Can I ask an honest question?
If Theodore Cruz had tweeted that during an Obama SotU speech, would the reactions at Twitchy been the same, or would they have more of a "speak truth to power" vibe?
I'm legitimately wondering if this is just playing sides, or if there's a real, true concern about profanity in the statehouse.
"Heyooyeh said...
Btw, remember when Walker fired that kid from the regent's seat because he signed a recall position?
He's a paragon of reaching out and civility, obviously."
No, because that never happened. The kid wasn't fired, because he never was a regent. Walker was going to nominate him, and then changed his mind.
Of course the little bitch was all butthurt.
How is her voice being silenced, exactly?
She seems to be able to speak, both literally and figuratively, anything she wishes, to anyone who wants to listen.
but Walker is a thin-skinned, vindictive little jackass
Really? Given the childish and boorish way the Left and the democrats have been talking about him and treating him, he has been remarkably calm and concilatory.
Imagine the way Christie or Obama would have responded to the way walker has been treated!
Damn these Democrats seem small next to Walker, don't they?
like the rapist he showcased in his SOTS speech
So how do you feel about De Blasio who had a rapist preside over his swearing in?
"garage mahal said...
Except Walker wasn't this kid's boss when he signed the recall. It wasn't until afterward they found out because Walker has unbelievably inept staff, like the rapist he showcased in his SOTS speech as the new face of the Wisconsin economy. Of course Walker could have done the right thing and accepted someone with a dissenting opinion, [he signed it because his mother is a school teacher], but Walker is a thin-skinned, vindictive little jackass."
More misinformation. This little asshole was never a regent. He wasn't even nominated to be one...he was going to be nominated. And apparently some of the concern was his nomination being accepted by a GOP legislature. But regardless, I have no problem with Walker not nominating someone who has declared him not worthy of his position.
On the one side you've got the civil politician who says of the opponent, I appreciate that you sincerely believe that the policies you advocate are the best for our state/country, but I believe that my policies are better; here's why.
And nothing's more civil than falsely claiming that American liberals supported the Soviet Gulags, as some yammering idiots (was that uncivil?) have stated here. And no, such people don't deserve more of a response than that.
On the other side you've got the uncivil politician who says of the opponent, You are waging a War on Women, you seek to disenfrachise minorities, you oppress the poor and needy, your programs are just shit, you are a hater!
Well, facts are stubborn things. And how about that Mike Huckabee and his expertise regarding the female libido and its implications for public policy?
Walker was going to nominate him, and then changed his mind.
"I'd just say in the interest of not pulling him through the details on this, we withdrew the nomination and we'll be submitting another name."
""I'm pleased to appoint Joshua to the UW System Board of Regents," Walker said. "The student's perspective is especially vital to the effectiveness of the Board of Regents, and I know he will serve the UW System and his fellow students well."
Link
You're wrong again.
"...he has been remarkably calm and concilatory."
Actually, I'd call his response (as quoted in the post) as quite passive-aggressive.
So, it stings him, a little. He'll get over it when he uses it to fund raise. The concern for him is kind of amusing.
Is it asking too much for all of the senators and reps and everyone else to put away their cellphones and other devices just for an hour or two and watch the state of the state address? We need more adults.
So how do you feel about De Blasio who had a rapist preside over his swearing in?
ZING!
Thank you, somefeller, for illustrating so well the point I was trying to make.
"And nothing's more civil than falsely claiming that American liberals supported the Soviet Gulags"
"facts are stubborn things."
Both from somefeller.
There are two common and unifying characteristics of the lefties:
1. Scratch one, and you've revealed a tyrant screaming to get out; and
2. On the whole, they are nasty, sneering little pricks.
- Krumhorn
somefeller said:
"And nothing's more civil than falsely claiming that American liberals supported the Soviet Gulags, as some yammering idiots (was that uncivil?) have stated here. And no, such people don't deserve more of a response than that."
Many Americans are old enough to remember Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. Those of us who were alive then know that she was not a aberration but was representative of many lefties. After Nixon signed a treaty and withdrew our troops, the lefties cut off aid to South Vietnam and thus ensured that they would lose to North Vietnam.
The holodomor is too far back for people to remember the left's excuses for Stalin's atrocities. The Ukrainians have an informative post about Walter Durante a New York Times reporter who was their man in Russia and how he supported Stalin knowing full well that he was lying. Anyone who is interested in that aspect of leftie support of the atrocities in Russia can visit the site:
http://www.ukemonde.com/news/usefulidiot.html
The immaturity on display in that FB remark is the most annoying thing.
She sounds like one of the less-articulate of my daughter's (seventh grade) friends. "OMG you are so stupid Mom. I'm going to my room!"
I don't think American Liberals supported the gulags, they just overlooked them in their support for the USSR.
Sinicki, Garage, somefeller, Inka, and their ilk are all useful reminders of the stubborn pervasiveness of useful idiocy in service of the pomo assault on reason and progress. They are an unfortunate but real feature of the American political geometry that will probably be with us for a long, long time. As adults must do with adolescents, a firm but unruffled approach is best in the long run.
Perhaps this is why Scott Walker drives them so batshit.
But tim, they did support the gulag:
"Russian dissident and Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke bitterly about Angela Davis in New York City on July 9, 1975.
"In our country, literally for an entire year, we heard nothing at all except Angela Davis. We had our ears stuffed with Angela Davis. Little children in school were told to sign petitions in defence of Angela Davis. Although she didn't have too difficult a time in this country's jails, she came to recuperate in Soviet resorts. Some Soviet dissidents–but more important, a group of Czech dissidents–addressed an appeal to her: "Comrade Davis, you were in prison. You know how unpleasant it is to sit in prison, especially when you consider yourself innocent. You have such great authority now. Could you help our Czech prisoners? Could you stand up for those people in Czechoslovakia who are being persecuted by the state?" Angela Davis answered: "They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison." That is the face of Communism. That is the heart of Communism for you.”
I do want to address the issue about civil discourse. Civil discourse doesn't mean that you hide the truth and pretend that things which happened never happened. Civil discourse is when people are willing to discuss differences honestly even if they are unpleasant. That is what the left has been unwilling to do.
The left wins arguments by manipulating language to hide facts. The left prefers to use slander and epithets destroy their opponent's credibility in order to block discussion and to avoid the substance of the debate.
Here's how Schumer describes the Tea Party:
...Schumer said the Tea Party is successor to "the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlin, and Huey Long."... In other words, he believes the movement is a collection of hicks, yahoos, neo-Luddites, fascists, male chauvinists, and racists fearful of what leftist academics might call The Other.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/schumers_plan_to_abolish_the_tea_party.html#ixzz2rLbroNtn
Ah yes, Walter Duranty. The massively important American politician who defined American liberalism in the 20th century more than FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton combined. Really, it's sad the way American conservatives trot him out as their one good and powerful example of liberalism as stalking horse for Stalinism. And of course, the hardy perennial, Jane Fonda, conflated with the desire of most Americans to get out of Southeast Asia in the early 1970s.
Anyway, examples of liberals for the Gulags that actually have much to do with real American politics as it's actually practiced aren't being provided here. Which is no surprise, because as I said, it's a false example provided by yammering idiots who are beneath contempt, if they can even rise to that level.
And Godfather, the only point of yours that's proven is an apparent inability on your part to notice incivility from the Right. Personally, I don't worry too much about that incivility, other than to point it out when people clutch their pearls about mean liberals. After all, what can one expect from the political tendency that was created in its modern form by George Wallace, Sarah Palin and Jerry Falwell?
And don't forget Angela Davis! She's totally up there with MLK, Barbara Jordan and Barack Obama in the pantheon of important, politically-influential African-American liberals!
Schumer said the Tea Party is successor to "the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlin, and Huey Long."... In other words, he believes the movement is a collection of hicks, yahoos, neo-Luddites, fascists, male chauvinists, and racists fearful of what leftist academics might call The Other.
That's actually a good analysis.
"The left wins arguments by manipulating language to hide facts. The left prefers to use slander and epithets destroy their opponent's credibility in order to block discussion and to avoid the substance of the debate."
1/24/14, 1:58 PM
Are you seriously attempting to say that this very thing is not engaged in by rightists toward any lefty who happens to post a comment here on these mostly right leaning comments sections? That is either disingenuous or unobservant.
I don't think that Democrat politicians in the past supported the Soviet Union. Democrats used to care about this country's security in a serious way. Jimmy Carter may have enabled them, but I am pretty sure he was pretty hurt by it when they rolled their tanks into Afghanistan. It was far more the American Left which supported the USSR explicitly.
We have Coates, over at The Atlantic, not a couple weeks ago confessing to a certain fondness for that hell on Earth known as the USSR and expressing bewilderment (his term was "chaos") over the crimes committed.
It is nice to have lived long enough to see the American Left finally disown those bastards though.
Watch as somefeller denies each lefty, one by one, as if each were a lone individual without any kind of base of support in the US.
garage,
How many Tea Party members do you personally know? Or do you get your information about them from people in whose interest it is to demonize them and belittle them to decrease their power?
Do you think about questions like that?
Somefeller. Stop digging.
"As a Democrat I can no longer sit back and allow the majority party to silence my voice."
Pathetic.
Nice backtrack, Timmy. So, in other words, some extreme Leftists, who by definition have some followers, who had and have little or no relevance in American politics, supported the USSR. Whoopee. That's a really big powerful enemy you are fighting there, chief. But the problem is, of course, that idiot conservatives (not all of them, just the idiot subsection, some of whom are represented here) like to claim that the existence such extreme Leftists (most of whom hate the Democratic Party as the party of bourgeois capitalist liberals, by the way) has some relevance and importance in how American liberalism has actually expressed itself politically. One could be polite and call that a strawman, but that's giving such people way too much philosophical credit.
Inga said:
"Are you seriously attempting to say that this very thing is not engaged in by rightists toward any lefty who happens to post a comment here on these mostly right leaning comments sections? That is either disingenuous or unobservant."
It doesn't matter who uses them, epithets are thought blockers.
somefeller said:
"Anyway, examples of liberals for the Gulags that actually have much to do with real American politics as it's actually practiced aren't being provided here."
Lets be clear here. Leftists are not traditional liberals.
Mr. Somefeller's defense for the left is very versatile and can be expanded almost infinitely. No matter how many examples one presents to demonstrate the state of mind of the left in the past he says that they are nothing.
And of course, the liberalism = communism is another hardy perennial. One can remember when conservative icon Jesse Helms used to refer to the University of North Carolina as the University of Negroes and Communists and intimated that MLK was a communist. Plus ca change.
Inga said:
"Are you seriously attempting to say that this very thing is not engaged in by rightists toward any lefty who happens to post a comment here on these mostly right leaning comments sections? That is either disingenuous or unobservant."
----------------------
"It doesn't matter who uses them, epithets are thought blockers."
1/24/14, 2:23 PM
----------------------
Yet you claimed that the left engages in this, without a word about rightists. Now you are forced to backtrack.
And of course, the liberalism = communism is another hardy perennial
So who was writing all the articles and editorials in the 1920's and 1930's praising Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini?
Progressives and liberals......it is a fact, you can look it up.
Or just read Liberal Fascism, because Goldberg already did and provides footnotes.
tim in vermont said...
"I don't think that Democrat politicians in the past supported the Soviet Union. Democrats used to care about this country's security in a serious way."
Good point. The modern Democrat party is not your grandfather's Democrat party.
Inga said:
"Yet you claimed that the left engages in this, without a word about rightists. Now you are forced to backtrack"
I'm not sure what you mean that I'm backtracking. I've always believed that epithets are thought blockers.
Potty Mouth Princess.
And of course, the liberalism = communism is another hardy perennial
So who was writing all the articles and editorials in the 1920's and 1930's praising Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini?
Progressives and liberals......it is a fact, you can look it up.
Or just read Liberal Fascism, because Goldberg already did and provides footnotes.
1/24/14, 2:31 PM
OMG... His comment is so full of bullshit. The old canard again that Facists were left leaning.
And nothing's more civil than falsely claiming that American liberals supported the Soviet Gulags,
If you didn't support them, you definitely ignored them.
OMG... His comment is so full of bullshit. The old canard again that Facists were left leaning
What type of evidence would persuade you that in fact it was the truth?
Direct quotes from American Liberals and Progressives not being good enough apparently.
That still doesn't change the fact you attributed this behavior soley to leftists.
--------------------------
"The left wins arguments by manipulating language to hide facts. The left prefers to use slander and epithets destroy their opponent's credibility in order to block discussion and to avoid the substance of the debate."
1/24/14, 1:58 PM
---------------------
Disingenuous.
Using somefeller's argument one could deny that today's Democrats despise the Tea Party. After all, Schumer is just one individual. Who are we to assume that he speaks for a large constituency of the Democrat Party? No matter how many examples we present, we could say, but that is just one individual and means nothing. Here's the thing, people who have lived through history know that those voices were and are representative of a large group.
garage mahal said...
Walker was going to nominate him, and then changed his mind.
"I'd just say in the interest of not pulling him through the details on this, we withdrew the nomination and we'll be submitting another name."
""I'm pleased to appoint Joshua to the UW System Board of Regents," "Walker said. "The student's perspective is especially vital to the effectiveness of the Board of Regents, and I know he will serve the UW System and his fellow students well."
Link
You're wrong again."
No I'm not Corky. Regents are appointed with "consent of the Senate". That had not happened. Nothing you posted contradicts what I said.
Inga said:
"Disingenuous."
My statement about the "debating" tactics of the left is the truth. If you compare Schumer's loaded language which I quoted with a man such as Rush Limbaugh there is no comparison.
Trivia Question #1:
What did Mussolini do before he founded the Fascist Party and how did he become famous?
What is interesting is that prior to WW II no one tried to deny that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, and in fact the American Left bragged about it.
Go look it up, it really happened.
Using somefeller's argument one could deny that today's Democrats despise the Tea Party. After all, Schumer is just one individual. Who are we to assume that he speaks for a large constituency of the Democrat Party?
Um, no, because Sen. Schumer is an influential politician in the Democratic Party, not some fringe activist or writer with little or no ties to mainstream liberal politics. Try again, this time with reading comprehension.
"Nice backtrack, Timmy. "
I didn't backtrack on anything.
The closest I came to your characterization of my position is when I speculated that most American lefties today, including many liberals, I just added, would be sympathetic to the idea that the US should not be the sole nuclear superpower with supreme military might.
Are you saying you would be OK with such a world? Inga?
Someffelar:
So who would you consider as leaders of the Left (Liberals and Progressives) in the 1920's and 1930's?
Nothing you posted contradicts what I said.
You said Inglett was never nominated. Walker said himself he withdrew his nomination.
Fascists believe in a large and strong government, exactly the opposite of what the Tea Party wants.
It is not hard at all to make the case that the ACA is a fascist idea.
I will be happy to if you promise to respond.
somefeller said:
"Um, no, because Sen. Schumer is an influential politician in the Democratic Party, not some fringe activist or writer with little or no ties to mainstream liberal politics. Try again, this time with reading comprehension."
Let's see if we get somefeller's argument here. Does this mean that the only examples which can be used to demonstrate the opinions of the left are politicians? Following that logic can we assume that Karl Marx is not a reliable indicator of the left because he wasn't a politician?
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin. As far from the Tea Party as one can get.
Myth: Hitler was a Leftist
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.
Adolph Hitler 1927
Gahrie, I'd consider them to be people in a different time, who by definition didn't have the historical experiences (like WWII, the Civil Rights Movement, etc.) that we do. I'd also probably consider them to be better than you in many ways, but that's an aside. But hey, if the best you can argue is that some lefties (along with a lot of righties) said some nice things about fascists in the 20s and 30s, knock yourself out. Like I said, how sad. But you'll always have Walter Duranty to keep you warm at night.
And don't forget, Hitler built the autobahn, which is why we shouldn't build highways. Plus, everyone knows that the most notable aspect of Nazism was its health insurance system.
Inga:
Your link makes that arguement that Socialism has never existed. So yes, if you believe that Socialism has never been tried, it is easy to say that Hitler and Mussolini weren't Socialists, even if both Hitler and Mussolini say they were socialists.
Hitler on Marxism.
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)
"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)
"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (36)
"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)
Funny. Being called out for childish vulgarity by the public now becomes being silenced by The Guv'nor.
The modern Democratic Party has become a collection of putative adults whose real emotional age averages out at 14. Pee Wee Herman was a more sophisticated intellect that most of these bozos.
I'd consider them to be people in a different time, who by definition didn't have the historical experiences (like WWII, the Civil Rights Movement, etc.) that we do.
Maybe you aren't paying attention. I am not currently making the arguement that today's Left supports Fascism....I am saying that historically the Left has embraced Fascism, and that both Hitler and Mussolini were Socialists.
Inga,
Do you seriously believe that socialism has never been tried?
yeah, Marxism and Fascism have always been at each other's throats. That is because they are so similar, like Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, for an example.
Anybody who says otherwise is being ahistorical. Still, both are strong central planning, strong central government ideologies which puts them both on the left, if we are applying a left right paradigm here.
fascism and communism are the same. But they compete against each other! Like an Alien vs Predator movie.
I think each saw the other as the dangerous enemy, each considering capitalist democracy to be a weak sister to be conquered at will when the time came.
It is sure easy to make snarky remarks by changing words and pretending not to understand what you read.
Why are you guys defending communism from being compared to fascism anyway? I thought you all despised the communists and disowned their blood soaked, starvation ravaged, prison states?
So who is defending commmunism from being compared to fascism? It is American lberalism that is being defended from being compared to either communism OR fascism.
Why are you guys defending communism from being compared to fascism anyway?
Argue it all you want. It's just a dumb argument not supported by historical facts.
fascism and communism are the same. But they compete against each other! Like an Alien vs Predator movie.
My god, for the first time garage got something exactly right.
A blind squirrel........
So who is defending commmunism from being compared to fascism?
Garage, somefellar and every modern Lefty out there.
I would like to expand a little about somefeller's criterion for who he will accept as a reliable indicator of the left. The American Communist movement was an insurgency movement during Stalin's lifetime. They were not winning many elections at that time. If he is serious that only politicians can serve as indicators of the group, then he has provided himself unlimited deniability about what was going on within the left.
Inga said:
"It is American lberalism that is being defended from being compared to either communism OR fascism."
Inga, have you ever heard of David Horowitz? He was a leader in the New Left movement for years until he recognized their inherent immorality. He indicated that after the archives in Russia were opened and the left could no longer deny the massive crimes against humanity they decided to rebrand themselves as Liberals. This creates confusion about the difference between genuine classical liberals and leftists who call themselves liberal. The confusion by the left is deliberate. I never apply the term liberal to leftists because leftists are not liberal in any sense of the word.
Please forgive me for leaving the conversation now but other things have come up.
Fascism was and is predicated on the idea that the State should manage private industry and police social behaviors to the benefit of the volk, who were the authentic citizens of the nation.
In practice, of course, Fascism and Communism share the properties of any system that will not tolerate dissent. Demonization of The Other, acceptance by adherents of State crimes, abuse of the mechanisms of local justice systems, etc.
In none of these systems is reduction of the power of the State over the individual an acceptable outcome. In none of these systems is the fallibility of those in power an acceptable concern.
Worrying about whether the wearer of the boot on your neck calls himself a Communist, a Fascist, or a Jihadist takes a special kind of stupid.
garage mahal said...
"fascism and communism are the same. But they compete against each other! Like an Alien vs Predator movie."
Gahrie:
Exactly correct. Both are alien monsters antithetical to liberty and individual freedom.
The left in this country was all agog about both the USSR and Germany/Italy in the 1930s precisely because they both called themselves "socialists". Then Hitler committed the mortal sin of attacking Uncle Joe and his potemkin villages. They then concocted this ridiculous dime's worth of difference between how the two systems operated, and called the "evil" one "rightwing" to make them feel they had been betrayed by something totally different from what it was - the No True Scotsman fallacy writ large.
Now they can target the "right" as Nazis without a shred of cognitive dissonance. It's how they try to control the lanquage and thus the narrative.
And Inga, Democrats are now far to the left of what used be the definition of "liberal" not so long ago.
The only two things Orwell got wrong were the year, and the melanin content of Big Bro'.
"Hitler on Marxism.
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)
"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)
I could go on.
Anyway, if I could join you guys for a drink I would, or garage for a bit of ice fishing tomorrow, but as it is, I am headed out for drinks with some local friends, some of whom are as liberal as Inga though I don't have the personal acquaintance of anybody as far left as somefeller.
Later.
"So who is defending commmunism from being compared to fascism?" Garage, somefellar and every modern Lefty out there.
Actually, neither I nor Garage nor anyone else here (nor any modern Lefty I'm aware of for that matter) is defending communism. Most thinking people consider both communism and fascism to be Very Bad Things. What people are reacting against is the argument that somehow liberalism is on any continuum with fascism (Liberal Fascism!) or communism.
But it's no surprise that you'd make such a claim about me, Gahrie, given that you are an idiot and loser who is well within the mainstream of the political tendency (a minority within the GOP, but a loud one) represented by people like Sarah Palin and the late, unlamented (except by Ted Cruz) Jesse Helms. Oh, was that uncivil?
Later, Tim.
given that you are an idiot and loser who is well within the mainstream of the political tendency (a minority within the GOP, but a loud one) represented by people like Sarah Palin and the late, unlamented (except by Ted Cruz) Jesse Helms
I would much rather be governed by Palin than Obama, that's true. I was never a supporter of Helms.
I used to Like Al Gore Jr quite a bit, but then he dreamed of being president and shifted far to the Left.
My modern political heroes are Thatcher, Reagan, Walesa and Pope John Paul II.
That's nice, Gahrie. Would you like a cookie or something?
And Tim, I'm not very far left. I do know enough about politics to know the difference between my views and that of the far left, however, even if you can't figure that out. But I do agree, you probably don't know anyone quite like me. Why would someone like me hang out with you?
That's nice, Gahrie. Would you like a cookie or something?
Weeelllll....
I would like the U.S. to return to being a Constitutional republic.
From Inga's link:
"In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world."
Yes, serious source there.
Hitler was a Leftist. The only difference between Stalin and him was that Hitler wanted Germany to run the show while Stalin wanted Moscow to do so.
There was nary a difference otherwise.
fascism and communism are the same. But they compete against each other!
Who did the hippies go after the most?
Democrats.
I suppose that means hippies and Republicans had similar philosophies.
It is American lberalism that is being defended from being compared to either communism OR fascism.
The only difference is the uniform worn.
Actually, neither I nor Garage nor anyone else here (nor any modern Lefty I'm aware of for that matter) is defending communism. Most thinking people consider both communism and fascism to be Very Bad Things. What people are reacting against is the argument that somehow liberalism is on any continuum with fascism (Liberal Fascism!) or communism.
But it's simple reality.
A philosophy based on smaller government would not lead to authoritarianism. It'd lead to anarchy.
But it's no surprise that you'd make such a claim about me, Gahrie, given that you are an idiot and loser who is well within the mainstream of the political tendency (a minority within the GOP, but a loud one) represented by people like Sarah Palin and the late, unlamented (except by Ted Cruz) Jesse Helms
Preferable to be an apologist for an ideology that murdered over 100M last century.
But, hey, whatever floats your boat.
Palin, Cruz, and Helms hurt your feelings. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot murdered generations worth of people.
I can see how that's comparable.
Shall I compare you to the noted dimbulbs of the Occupy movement or the CBC?
Why would someone like me hang out with you?
Based on your posts here, to make somebody see how useless a person can be?
Preferable to be an apologist for an ideology that murdered over 100M last century.
Unfortunately for you and your fellow red-baiters, liberals in general or here in particular aren't acting as apologists for communism. But you have shown yourself to a member of the idiot faction of the greater conservative coalition. Good job. Golf clap.
Unfortunately for you and your fellow red-baiters, liberals in general or here in particular aren't acting as apologists for communism.
Until you come to grips with what your political preference has done for decades -- oh, yes, you are apologists.
Heck, I am expected to apologize for segregation to this very day and that ended at least 20 yrs before I was born.
But you have shown yourself to a member of the idiot faction of the greater conservative coalition. Good job. Golf clap.
Again, the opinion of a Nazi and Communist apologist holds little weight in civilized society.
Again, the opinion of a Nazi and Communist apologist holds little weight in civilized society.
Again, I'm an apologist for neither. And I suspect I carry more weight than you do in civilized society. But please proceed, Governor. It's always fun to watch a clown do a little dance.
Venomous snakes are kittens.
Why aren't you agreeing with me that venomous snakes are kittens?
Why are you apologizing for venomous snakes?
"A philosophy based on smaller government would not lead to authoritarianism. It'd lead to anarchy."
So twenty years ago we were in the throes of anarchy? The wonder years for Dems, the fifties?
Absurd statement.
somefeller said:
"Unfortunately for you and your fellow red-baiters, liberals in general or here in particular aren't acting as apologists for communism. But you have shown yourself to a member of the idiot faction of the greater conservative coalition. Good job. Golf clap."
Unfortunately, by somefeller's own standards, unless he has been elected to represent the American left, he can only speak for himself not for the left in general.
Funny how that works isn't it. A Pulitzer prize winner, writing for the New York Times, Walter Duranty, doesn't in anyway represent the left of his day but somefeller is empowered to speak for today's left. Got it.
Thomas Sowell's article today seems to describe Sinicki, garage, Inga, and somefeller pretty well, don't you think?
Here is a quote from the article by Thomas Sowell which Big Mike linked.
"From the 18th century to today, many leading thinkers on the left have regarded those who disagree with them as being not merely factually wrong but morally repugnant. And again, this pattern is far less often found among those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum."
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/24/factfree-liberals-part-iv-n1781573
That is why we should take every opportunity to deflate the left's moral arrogance -- self righteous people are extremely dangerous.
"From the 18th century to today, many leading thinkers on the left have regarded those who disagree with them as being not merely factually wrong but morally repugnant. And again, this pattern is far less often found among those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum."
Of course, as shown by those who say that liberals are apologists for fascism and communism and thus are at least somewhat responsible for the millions of deaths caused by both. Such a pattern of good faith and commitment to facts!
But, hey, it's good to see that Big Mike stumbled in. Did you get that article handed to you at a recent Tea Party meeting? And while there, did you work on a cool "keep your government hands off my Medicare" or Obama is a secret Muslim sign? It's good for you to keep your hobbies going.
Of course, as shown by those who say that liberals are apologists for fascism and communism
Guilty.
and thus are at least somewhat responsible for the millions of deaths caused by both.
I have never said nor implied this. Primarily because as a conservative, I don't treat people as members of a group, but rather as individuals.
My passion in this arguement comes from the historian in me.
Somefellar:
Wow..you're really going the full Alinsky today! Bravo!
My passion in this arguement comes from the historian in me.
That's one tiny, incompetent historian.
Actually, somefeller, I've been off leading a healthcare project which will save people's lives. Including, perhaps, your own.
And I read Sowell because he makes sense. He understands how to integrate information, and find the root cause. I don't think he'd like you very much, him being a Ph.D. economist and you being condescending to Blacks.
Michael, it's based on taking a philosophy to its most extreme.
Smaller government cannot logically lead to authoritarianism. The most extreme example of smaller government would be anarchy.
Thus the farthest right possible is anarchy...not Fascism.
Actually, somefeller, I've been off leading a healthcare project which will save people's lives. Including, perhaps, your own.
Good for you! Assuming that's true, which I doubt. But what about your hobbies? Those signs don't make themselves.
I don't think he'd like you very much, him being a Ph.D. economist and you being condescending to Blacks.
I have nothing against PhD economists. In fact, I bet more of them agree with my views than yours, unless they are on the faculty of Regent or Liberty University. And nice work with the race card. I'll challenge you to find any comments of mine that are hostile or condescending to Black people. That's more the tendency of your team, which is why African-Americans are overwhelmingly on my political side of the fence, including the man in the White House.
somefeller said:
"Of course, as shown by those who say that liberals are apologists for fascism and communism and thus are at least somewhat responsible for the millions of deaths caused by both. Such a pattern of good faith and commitment to facts!"
The American left as a movement was responsible for their support of totalitarian regimes over many years including Communism. That does not mean that individuals born now have direct personal responsibility for what people within their ideology did in past generations but it does require an explanation. Let me use an example which will drive somefeller crazy but is appropriate. White skin heads and modern Nazis are not responsible for what happened in Germany before they were born, but very few people are willing to exhonerate them for choosing that ideology or to overlook the previous crimes committed by the Nazis. They shouldn't. Rather than owning up to the crimes committed by the Nazis in the past, many modern Nazis shield their movement from blame by denying that the holocaust ever happened. By refusing to acknowledge the crimes committed by followers of that ideology in the past they set themselves up to repeat those crimes.
David Horowitz describes the disappointment among the American left when the records were opened and when it was no longer possible to deny the massive crimes done by the Communists in Russia. Many of them were so disillusioned that they dropped out of politics. Unfortunately the leftist ideology is very attractive to some people who could not give it up. These individuals, such as Angela Davis, formed the new left which is very active to this day but they have not been forthcoming with an explanation about how their form of leftism is better than that which the old left practiced.
And Illuninati compares liberals with Holocaust-denying neo-Nazis. This must be part of that pattern of good faith that Sowell was talking about. Looks like Gahrie has competition for the title of most incompetent historian of the day.
somefeller said...
"And Illuninati compares liberals with Holocaust-denying neo-Nazis. This must be part of that pattern of good faith that Sowell was talking about. Looks like Gahrie has competition for the title of most incompetent historian of the day."
I have not said anything against liberals.
Unfortunately, after the fall of Communism in Russia we moved on without airing the inherent immorality in Marxism. Both Nazism and Marxism resulted in millions of murders of innocent civilians.
Robert Cook accused us conservatives of being unable to handle the 'fact' that the Nazis were right wing and that therefore we must accept that conservatism leads to the Holocaust. I provided him with the National Socialist German Workers Party's political platform, which reads in many parts like a modern "progressive's"
litany of demands.
He runs from that question every time.
Socialists like cookie, somefeller, Inga, and garage are simply caught up in their own bigotry.
Underneath it all, they know where their philosophy leads. They just don't care.
And I don't give a shit about 'good faith'. I care about honesty and solving problems. When Inga talks about a war on women in Texas because they passed legislation limiting most abortions to 20 weeks, after she herself had previously advocated limiting abortions to the first trimester, then I know she's not commenting in 'good faith'.
I don't fall for that Alinskyistic 'make them live up to their own standards' crap. I'm willing to crawl down where you live. And I brought a shovel.
Socialism gave us Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Death camps, gulags, and cultural revolution. I do not see much to recommend it.
"A bigger problem was arguably that, as Hobsbawm admitted in 'Interesting Times' (2002), 'To this day, I notice myself treating the memory and tradition of the USSR with an indulgence and tenderness'
See I read that, and I see a deeply appealing intellect. Who doesn't have these sorts of vulnerabilities?"
Ta-Nahisi Coates.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा