In 2003, anyone who criticized George Bush's policies, especially, but not limited to, the invasion of Iraq was called a traitor.
Any Democrat who spoke out against that idiocy was called a hundred ugly things, weak on terror, weak on defense, anti-American, etc..
Even as recently as last fall, Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann called for Congressional investigations into "Anti-American sentiments/feelings."
Now, Rush Limbaugh, the defacto leader of the remaining Republican extremists, says, 'Well if it was okay for the Democrats to object to Bush, why isn't OK for me to object to Obama trying to turn the country away from free enterprise..."?
Because Rush, you didn't say it was OK then, you called them traitors and worse. You accused them of seeking to provide 'therapy' to terrorists as a response to bombings. So that either makes you the world's biggest traitor (in your words), or, as always, the world's biggest hypocrite. In the time of the greatest economic crisis since 1929, your reaction is not to offer to temper the potential proposals of Obama, but instead to hope he, and with him, the country fails, so that your brand of extremism (and your voice with it) can be resurgent.
Instead of suggesting something other than ONLY tax cuts, instead of trivializing the problems of pay and profit inequities, the destruction of US productive capacity, the offshoring effects, you continue with your hyperbole about how 'taxing job creators kills jobs' and worse that 'Obama wants to destroy what's best about America.' I for one won't fall into your rhetorical trap - because arguing your nonsense is exactly what you want.
Instead, I'll point out what a colossal hypocrite you are. YOU called Democrats traitors, YOU referred to them as anti-American, YOU called torture 'fraternity pranks', YOU demeaned Michael J Fox for over-medicating himself (which he did to try to be sure his symptoms DIDN'T appear) and accused him of purposefully UNDER medicating to exaggerate his problem. You've been the chief architect of hate in this country for nearly 30 years - purchased by the rich to defend them against populism, not the other way around. NOW you seek to ensure that the work at the edges of the economy - because that's all the Government can do - you seek to block thw work the President and the responsible people, the adults, want to do to try to stave off collapse. You want to ensure that fails, mostly for your own political purpose, and because you can't possibly stomach - with your $1B fortune made off of spewing hate - the idea that maybe the rich SHOULD take a little bit less, so that the rest of us can have a little bit more. So you preach your hate, your desire to see us fail, in time of great crisis, you lie and say that the left wants to destroy the rich, destroy the country.
Dissent is still legal, and I'll defend to the death your right to spew. But make no mistake, you are nothing NOTHING more than a mewling hypocrite. And the great and funny part is, Obama has made your hate-speech the center of the debate - he has made you the icon of your party, and while you're not really a traitor, you certainly have become a tool. Such is the plight of bullies when confronted by their superiors.
"Obama has made your hate-speech the center of the debate - he has made you the icon of your party, and while you're not really a traitor, you certainly have become a tool. Such is the plight of bullies when confronted by their superiors. ""
ReplyDeleteRush is making the GOP irrelevant, and to a much lessor degree, the Right Wing of the Local Blogosphere is working right with him. They spew hate and venom and hide behind it by calling it satire and simply Un-PC behavior.
They scoff at me when I thank them for electing democrats one slime at a time. GREAT, if they never figure that out, they will make their party as inconsequential as they are! *grin*
Flash
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that President Obama has successfully defined "the opposition" to a number of his plans as being led by Mr. Limbaugh, to the point where the GOP leader (Mr. Steele) is apologizing to the guy. K-Rod can bluster all he wants, but the fact is that the president has shifted the paradigm to the point where those who might be "on the fence" regarding his policies nonetheless are a bit more tempted to stand with him than with Mr. Limbaugh.
ReplyDeleteLook at the numbers: in the recent Wall Street Journal poll, about 54% of Americans said they like the stimulus plan, but the president's approval rating is above 60% and his like-ability rating is almost 70%. If you can make 54% support translate to 60% or above for any given battle, you've not only won the battle, but you've won it convincingly.
The president is winning what might otherwise be closer battles by substantial numbers nationwide right now, and he's doing it in part by making the opposition look as though it's led by the likes of Mr. Limbaugh. And the Right is at present in a tizzy about what to do about it.
Like him or not, the president is a very skilled politician, and what he has done is at present good for him, the Democrats, and Mr. Limbaugh, and bad for the Republicans.
They need to come back with something more coherent and politically attractive than Mr. Limbaugh's radio show and Governor Jindal's Republican response to the State of the Union Address, which came across as a creepy take on channeling the spirit of Mr. Rodgers. Let's wait and see if they can and will regroup and do just that. They're certainly capable of doing it.
By the way, suggesting that one should not conflate "conservatives" with the GOP might be something with which I agree. More importantly, saying it also helps the president, because it highlights more ruptures in the rudderless fabric of the Right. As a supporter of the president, I say keep highlighting these divisions!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod,
ReplyDeleteYou'll get one warning - if you behave badly, you'll be banned.
You step perilously close here.
I - or other liberals - focus on Limbaugh far less than the right wing extremists - but you ducked the issue.
The point is, Limbaugh was the chief chearleader for calling anyone who dissented a traitor - so to say now "Well, if it was ok then".. it WASN'T for Limbaugh, that's the point.
My counter to Limbaugh would be to ask 'Was it ok for them to dissent?" If he said, "yes", my reaction would be "Then you owe them all a huge apology for your ugly, hate-mongering speech" - speech professing liberals are idiots, are working against the country, seeking to undermine America, hate the troops, etc...THAT's what hate speech is K-Rod - it's fomenting personal animosity toward opponents rather than focusing on the topics themselves.
In your reply, you do the same thing, you ask rhetorical questions, then pretend it's a conversation to pretend that no one will answer you. I didn't listen to Bobby Jindal, instead my parents live in LA, and know what a clown the guy is - and I happen to trust their opinion - should you care, I suppose I can get an example of what a clown he is. However, I did hear about his story about how he confronted beaurocracy during Katrina, a pure fiction - that's clownish, it's sure as hell also dishonest.
In short, if you choose to discuss topics, you may comment, if not, you'll be as gone here as you are from Centrisity for your uncivil conduct.
Fair warning.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod,
ReplyDeleteIf you insist on asking rhetorical questions and then pretending someone failed to reply - then you're going to get pilloried for it if I'm in the mood, or booted if you push me further than you have any right to.
Let me point out what is 'perilously close' - you started with calling us 'looney lefties', you moved on to suggesting we're gladly eating crap.
Limbaugh is the spokesperson for the conservatives, he was roundly cheered at CPAC - I may not be talking about YOU specifically K-Rod - and that's something you're going to have to understand. He is the lead spokesperson out there for neo-conservative, take-no prisoners, slash-and burn approach, an approach you seem to emulate - so it's more than a reasonable assumption you support what he says, even if you don't agree with everything he utters.
I have provided specific examples of Rush's approach - for example, calling Democrats traitors, and of Jindal's daffeyness - he lied about an incident during Katrina - it seems to me you missed both - so I'm sorry, but your complaint is falacious. What's worse, however, K-Rod, is I'm quite certain you know full well that Rush utters a LOT of pretty vile stuff, are you suggesting he doesn't?
So here's the question, K-Rod, do you believe Rush Limbaugh routinely conducts discourse on political topics in a meaningful, constructive way, with respect for well-founded opinions of others?
Rush Limbaugh said that Barack Obama wants WANTS to turn America away from free enterprise and individual creativity (paraphrase) in a speech before CPAC - that's a bogus statement, and in my mind, an outright lie intended to enrage his audience. Obama wants no such thing, he may be pursuing policies Limbaugh (in error) believes will lead to something down that line, but Limbaugh positioned the discussion PURPOSEFULLY at the extreme end, and told everyone the intent and thoughts of Obama, neither of which he knows, and both of which are insulting on their face. That's demogaugic hate-speech K-Rod. Don't infer intent - and don't overstate the issue - that's what reasonable people do when they talk/converse.
So, I ask you, do you feel Limbaugh has or has NOT said things which were hateful, for that matter, do you or do you NOT feel Limbaugh overstates things, foments resentment toward liberals? If you don't, I suggest you are ill informed, if you do, then you are arguing against something you KNOW to be true, and are therefore simply creating fatuous strawmen - for which, I have NO time.
I believe you've called me a 'fascist liberal' in the past, and I've given you facts before and facts herein, so it's your turn to answer my questions now, please.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to point out a couple other things Limbaugh has said:
"Femi-Nazis" - it's a term he uses over and over again, do you find that kind of term:
a. Resepctful?
b. Constructive?
c. Demeaning?
d. Insulting?
How about when he said,"Obama, Osama. Osama, Obama"
As for being an entertainer, if you find rhetoric which insults, degrades and demeans those you don't agree with, entertaining, well, ok, that says quite a lot.
I don't listen to Mike Malloy or Rhandi Rhodes or a host of other liberal 'talk show hosts' like Limbaugh. I don't because they exagerate the issues, and what's more, by doing so, they purposefully structure the debate in a way that is intended to slight the good and reasonable people who might disagree with them.
For this same reason I find Limbaugh (and those who agree with his approach) profoundly objectionable. They intend to do harm to the reputation of others, to dismiss by character assassination the logical argument of others, rather than argue fact They don't argue whether tax policy has meaningfully lead to jobs, they use hyperbole to say that anyone who favors taxes on the rich desires to destroy free enterprise. They don't argue against women's rights, they call people Femi-Nazis, they don't talk about foreign policy, they use ugly illeteration to associate their political opponent with a terrorist.
In short, Limbaugh cherry-picks facts, uses them to shape a discussion into a corner of his chosing where the target is basely insulted, and purposefully striped of dignity. That's not about facts, or logic, or reason or decency, it's about being afraid of having a real debate, because you know on all facts, in a real debate, you'd loose (Rush would loose).
BTW, K-Rod, in my original post I also pointed out that Limbaugh attacked Michael J Fox - saying he'd failed to medicate as a way to drum up sympathy, when in fact the opposite was true. He didn't know what he was talking about at slandered the reputation of a decent person. He apologized for that conduct only under durress, if that isn't hate-mongering, I think the person who may need to check the meaning of the word is sitting at your keyboard, looking through your seemingly very wilfully blindered eyes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod,
ReplyDeleteYou crossed the line, your posts have been deleted. You may NOT call 46% of this country an insult as base and offensive as referring to them as fascists. You don't understand the word, and you don't use it properly - moreover, you don't grasp just how insulting it is.
You may post again if you like, but the term "Liberal Fascists" is simply not something I'll abide. Your reply ducked the point - which I don't particularly mind, but you then proceeded to do something I warned you about. This will remain a civil discussion, period.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteYou used HIGHLY offensive terms to directly insult people, you can disagree with me all you like, so what you've posted above is both a lie, and inapproriate. However, I won't delete it as you are only indicting yourself.
As for banning books, I'm afraid that's normally the province of totalitarian governments. I oppose it without reservation - inlcuding the actions of some on the extreme right in this country to ban things like Catcher in the Rye or Catch-22.
However, this isn't a free speech issue, this is an issue that I lay out specific rules of conduct, warned you specifically about them, warned you specifically about one in particular, and you then violated it. This is a private blog, which I own the rights to, and the right to moderate. I thought you respected private property rightts?
Rush Limbaugh is the primary spokesperson of US Conservatives - if you desire to shift the discussion to Obama, that's your choice to try, but thos particular post isn't about Obama, it's about the duplicity and hypocrisy of Limbaugh who attacked Democrats for disagreeing with Bush, but then wants to pretend he didn't, and demand free speech protection.
This is REALLY about the fact that Conservatives have allowed a hate speech purveyor like Limbaugh to run the party - if you don't think he's running the show, or shouldn't, then stand up to him and it. There is NO such equivilant person on the left, so complaints asking me to name someone akin to Limbaugh are silly, that person doesn't exist - and doesn't exist for a reason.
The fact is the party CAN'T be drug as far to the right as Limbaugh (the GOP) and survive, because he is such an extreme right end voice - but that it doesn't have the strength to put him in his place. He's far further right than Pelosi is left - his proposals completely discount the needs or even input of the other party - whereas Pelosi has repeatedly engaged Republicans in the House. This disussion is about how Limbaugh has hijacked the GOP, the effect of it, and the duplicity of claiming that it's ok to criticize the President (and of course it is) when you (the GOP and Limbaugh) spent 8 years calling those who did traitors.
If you want to take this off-topic, as long as you do so with some sense of civility - you're welcome to try, but I'm not obligated to oblige.
However, if you simply want to insult and make bogus claims of lack of fact - well, then you're not going to be very welcome here except as an example of ugly vitriole. For your sake and reputation, if that's your desire - to speak only in insults, I suggest you move on.
BTW - Wiki entries drafted by extremists carry no wesight - as I'm sure you'd agree leftist leaning wiki entries do not either.
ReplyDeletePartisanship presented as evidence is no such thing, it's merely evidence of how partisan you are.
It seems to me that exactly two things are necessary to carry on an actual adult political argument:
ReplyDelete1.) One must be capable of--and willing to--follow the thread of the argument closely. This leads directly to...
2.) Then one gives one's counter-points in a manner that suggests one can disagree in a constructive and thought-provoking way. (This means disagreeing without acting like a petulant child.)
I agree with Penigma's decision to ban K-Rod's comments, though it is doubtless the case that those who get banned will claim that he is "deleting the comments of people who disagree with him."
If you cannot decipher the difference between disagreeing on the one hand and acting like a complete moron on the other, your comments should be deleted, and you should pick up a debate book and start reading it in a serious way.
Or read just about any book, for that matter....
(Oops, it seems that I was being "elitist" just there....)
Hass.
ReplyDeleteTsk.
Not Tsk Tsk, but tsk.
:).
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteYou've again crossed the line, this time not just your remarks are being deleted, you are banned. Move on.