Democrats & Liberals Archives

Ann Coulter Dishes, But Does Not Take It.

Vs. The Mob?

Really, lady. Glenn Beck as victim. Sorry, but I don’t think you quite grasp the situation.

I find it amusing that Ann Coulter is getting outraged, first and foremost, about Glenn Beck being heckled. It's not like he was chased out of the park by people with torches and pitchforks. This man, who constantly threw the vilest of insults at Liberals is shocked that when people recognize him, they aren't too terribly kind to him.

Beck's version is dramatic, as expected.

Conservative radio host Glenn Beck stole the show at an outdoor movie screening in Manhattan this week. Moviegoers tweeted pictures of Beck and his family at the event. Though the pictures look like nothing's wrong, on his radio show Beck said it was a "hostile situation" and that he was "harassed." His daughter had persuaded the family to go to the screening of Alfred Hitchcock's "39 Steps." Beck choked up on his show when explaining that his daughter later apologized. He said, "I called my daughter and I said 'honey, it's not your fault.'" When Beck and his family got up to leave, he said, the audience applauded. "I swear to you I think, if I had suggested, and I almost did, 'Wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there's a tree here. You could just lynch me.' And I think there would have been a couple in the crowd that would have."

Oh, poor Glenn Beck.

But some people at the event tell a different story. One person tweeted that though Beck was taunted, it was "no more than any other celeb would be at an NYC event." The person sitting behind Beck who allegedly spilled wine said it was "100 percent accidental...and apologies were made." This is like a traditional media vs. social media version of "he said, she said."

Me, I'm all for showing people good manners. I might ask an uncomfortable question for kicks, but shouting insults and curse words? No so much. But then, I'm a Texan, not a New Yorker, so there is a deifference in culture involved.

And who should come to his defense, but Ann Coulter!

Ann should know something about insulting liberals. And by that, I mean her insulting them. Let's just take a selection of Ann's book titles over the last few years:

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton

Okay, fair enough. Politics isn't beanbag.

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right.

Oh well, you don't believe us.

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

Oh, darling, tell us what you really think.

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter

That's alright, Ms. Coulter, I don't think you're being condescending at all.

Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Yes, I just feel God's love in a political philosophy that chooses billion dollar oil subsidies, trillion dollar tax breaks and trillion dollar wars, over programs meant to help the elderly, the disabled, children at risk, and the poor.

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans

The best charm offensive of the century keeps rolling on.

Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America

Yep, liberals think of themselves as victims. That's why they're constantly saying that the media has it in for them, that the government's taking away their rights, that they're out to disarm them, give all their jobs to minorities, revive Soviet Communism in America, destroy the family, and take everything they got with taxes.

Wait, that's Republicans.

But at least Ann Coulter isn't demonizing anybody.

Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America

****. Thanks for stepping on my point. I was trying to defend you there!

Seriously, folks, Ann Coulter has, just like Glenn Beck, made a career of insulting and degrading liberals, even elevating their charges to the point where they're accusing Liberals of wanting to destroy the country from the ground up.

So, on to her defense of Beck:

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest p****** on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn't play a sport and have never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising them during toilet training.

Look, most of the time, the honeybees are busy, helpful, productive creatures. They buzz around, not looking for trouble, not looking for confrontations. But you if you take a stick and push it into their hive again and again, it's not a question really, you are going to get stung.

Liberals ARE like most Americans, and it would be more helpful in trying to understand them to understand that. For her information, I have been in several fights during the course of my life, and I was never the one that got left on the ground bruised and battered. I did play sports. In fact, I played football as a defensive lineman. I played tennis and learned some Karate in college.

And really folks, I don't think I'm atypical. I think Coulter has this hateful little vision of what we're supposed to be, and she just doesn't want to think of us any other way. And that's a problem. That's a very neat little way to make any argument you have with a liberal a pointless one, because any liberal with an ounce of self-respect isn't going to agree with you when you're calling them slanderer, traitor, victimizer playing victim, a brainless, godless demonic person who you should talk down to at all times, if you have to talk to them at all.

It's a good way to get into an argument where there is no reasonable compromise.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

By Ann Coulter's logic, these people would have to be sad leftists with crappy jobs.

This next one is particularly cute.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces no charges -- she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, "Well, you provoked him."

This right here is the incident she's speaking of. Just watch it.

That's right, the one where a bunch of burly men wrestled a woman to the ground, and with her unable to move or resist further (an important threshold in self defense, to say the least) stomped on her head.

"My Hero".

Lady, you should pick your heroes more wisely, more appropriately. If your idea of heroic is stomping on the head of a woman who can't resist... well, then what kind of strength and courage are you really talking about?

I'm reminded of another Rand, Ayn Rand, and her admiration for a man who kidnapped and killed a young girl And no, it's not libel for me to write that, after all, truth is a defense for libel. The worst parts of what that man did- well, you should read that in the article.

Here's what I think, after everything is said and done: a little heckling of a public figure, while potentially obnoxious, is not a bad thing. If Glenn Beck wanted to avoid exciting such hatred in people, he might have started by not exciting so much hatred for those people. If what Glenn Beck claims about his fears were true, then he had the right idea the first time. You can't slander people, demonize them, day in and day out, and not expect to become a controversial figure, not expect to be met with anger and hatred on the street. You shouldn't have to fear for your life, but you shouldn't blame people for wanting to take the rare opportunity people rarely get, to give you a piece of their mind on the matter.

We should be good to one another, and treat others in a way that reflects well on us.

If you want to walk the streets in peace, it would not be a good idea for you to use your books, your TV show, and your public appearances to foment hatred and disdain against the people you want to walk amongst as a respected figure.

I look at Glenn Beck and others, and what I see is a culture that is, by fits and starts, is moving towards trying to justify using force in order to mandate that other people defer to their views, a culture that sees the ruthless tactics they employ as not merely expedient, not merely necessary, but in fact as a good thing, delivered to people who deserve it. And this attitude is taken with only the wish to avoid negative press holding them back, not an organic belief that such behavior runs against decent principles, and are undesireable on their own account.

There's a certain naivete to the way that many of those who follow these philosophies behave. They rage at people and belittle them, but seem to expect that those people will just sit there politely and take it. They seem to expect that if they just stonewall and frustrate everything these people want, that they aren't goiing to get angry or want some payback for it.

The reality is, against such opposition, defiance inevitably emerges. 2006 and 2008 were not accidents, and neither was 2010. People will want to get back when they feel they've been sidelined, unfairly denied their say, their representation in Congress. Liberals are Americans just like you, and like most Americans, they believe in standing up for themselves.

Republicans have built their politics for so long on the mythical liberal villain that the propaganda has become their perception of the truth. They literally can't understand why folks have turned on the once triumphant governors of this last election, or why even their own voters turned against their Medicare plan.

The thing is, they've gotten wrapped up in selling Conservatism to the media, and trashing liberalism. That's become their main way to moderate and modulate their popularity. Problem is, if you don't make your party's purpose to build its reputation on practical policy, then all you're really going to do is spend your time talking yourself into and out of trouble, all while your policies drag down your popularity. I mean, you do leave yourself vulnerable to unfortunate events when you base your reputation on practical things. After all, we all make mistakes, and not all of the things we do succeed. At the same time, though, having real successes, real results on your side means that despite those occasional mistakes, your actions will have made things better, not worse, and a good policy will do the work of a thousand pundits in helping your reputation. The opposite is certainly true as well. Bad policy will bankrupt you politically, and persisting in that policy is the political equivalent of opening up a vein and taking a warm bath.

The problem for the Republicans these days is that they've enshrined all those ideas as infallible, unquestionable, and won't budge on anything else. Their punditry attacks both Liberals and their Democratic Congresspersons, hoping to sell people on these things, but ultimately, if a policy doesn't work, even if you sell it successfully, you're just going to turn around and watch that policy do further damage to your reputation.

To me, it seems, that the best thing for Republicans to do is heal the divisions, calm down the rhetoric, and set down roots in the American mainstream again. They need the flexibility that comes from having your policy platforms being the starting point for discussions and compromises, not the final, non-negotiable offer. They need to relax, and stop relying on politics that almost obligates them to alienate and offend those who aren't part of the party.

In short, if they want to be loved, if they want to be popular, they ought to start from the outset with a friendlier, engaging, respectful message. Otherwise, they will have to endure slings and arrows in return, from the people they've been taking potshots at.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2011 8:53 PM
Comments
Comment #325200

What’s the matter Stephen, are we running out of conservative women presidential candidates to attack and slander? Stephen, you may be important in your own eyes; but Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck don’t even know you exist and I seriously doubt they want socialist liberals to love them.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 2, 2011 11:08 PM
Comment #325201

Oh, by the way SD; Ann Coulter has probably made enough money off her books to buy and sell you a few thousand times. I just wonder how many of her books have been on the NYT’s best seller list? I say it’s sour grapes. I believe you envy her popularity…I’ll tell you what SD, become a conservative and you might be able to write something that the American people want to hear.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 2, 2011 11:13 PM
Comment #325205

stephen

“I find it amusing that Ann Coulter is getting outraged, first and foremost, about Glenn Beck being heckled. It’s not like he was chased out of the park by people with torches and pitchforks. This man, who constantly threw the vilest of insults at Liberals is shocked that when people recognize him, they aren’t too terribly kind to him.”

what an absolute crock. the man goes to the park with his family and is harrased by a group of a$$holes who also poured beer down thier backs. his teenage daughter was with him. this is typical of liberal behavior. claim you believe in free speech but attack anyone anywhere, anytime when you don’t like what they have to say. this happens anytime a conservative speaker appears at college campus. there are alway a group of loudmouth liberals shouting down that person to prevent them from speaking. there’s a time and place for everything, in a public park when he’s out with his family is neither the time nor the place. if this had been chris matthews out with his family and a group of coservatives had behaved this way the left would be outraged.

BTW stephen what “vile” things has beck said about hte left. or is it that you don’t like the truth about your parties marxist agenda being publicly aired with the facts and statistics right there to back it up?

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 9:16 AM
Comment #325206

Conservative “thinker”? No, there is no thought there. Nor any effort to answer. Nothing but bile. Some American people may think Beck and Coulter are valuable, but most of us know they are hateful, spiteful crazies. And those of you who support them are unthinking dupes.

Posted by: Jake at July 3, 2011 9:18 AM
Comment #325213
…I’ll tell you what SD, become a conservative and you might be able to write something that the American people want to hear.

Con it seems we agree, I also believe that is why many of these Coulter and Beck types write so much conservative drivel, it sells just as mindless movies sell, no thought is required.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2011 10:46 AM
Comment #325214

“But you if you take a stick…”

You are not really in a position to insult anyone. You write like a high schooler and in the same broad strokes. Grow up.

Posted by: J. at July 3, 2011 12:16 PM
Comment #325217

Ann Coulter grew up in the household in which Joe McCarthy resided after his downfall. It’s no wonder she’s such a wackjob.

Posted by: Phil at July 3, 2011 12:43 PM
Comment #325218

If she had a heart, she’d have a shape.

Posted by: wrymind at July 3, 2011 1:33 PM
Comment #325219


Ah, Glen and his persecution complex that follows him around like a shadow. If he needs a standing ovation, he should attend the opening of the remake of Birth of a Nation.

I love it when conservatives tell us how much more willing they are to give their hard earned cash to propagandists.

It is amazing how conservatives have managed to merge Christian identity and Darwin into one unified belief.


Posted by: jlw at July 3, 2011 1:40 PM
Comment #325228

I don’t know what the purpose of this article is…And more importantly, what does the title have to with it? Coulter takes her share of blows, but defends herself quite well as she did on Larry King when Joy B filled in and even Katie Couric tried to spar with her. Next!

Posted by: Bob Lee at July 3, 2011 3:46 PM
Comment #325233

Conservativethinker-
I don’t have their name recognition, true enough. But that’s not going to stop me from speaking my mind, because I am, as an American, their equal.

You’ve been taught to despise people by folks like Coulter and Beck, but the folks you think beneath you are every bit as American as you are. You constantly call me a socialist liberal, but guess what? That’s not going to deter me, because for all your attempts to put me in my place, as an American, as your equal, you cannot keep me there unless I consent to stay there myself.

As for Coulter’s popularity, Beck’s popularity?

As a person who has long been interested in film and television, I’ve seen what comes with fame. You know, it goes both ways. Fame doesn’t equal love. Attention doesn’t equal adoration. Communication doesn’t equal persuasion.

Ann Coulter can sell her books. But J.K. Rowling sold her share, and so did Barack Obama! That’s the beauty of a free society: the marketplace of ideas has competition, and it’s my basic principle to compete, rather than move to censor. Why? Because I believe the flaws in your logic, in your ideas will much more easily be revealed when they are put to the test.

As for writing something people want to hear? You act as if we compete on even ground. I’m a thirty-one year old Texan who blogs in his free time. If I become famous, it won’t be for this, at least I hope not. I’m comfortable with the fact that I’m not famous. But I don’t feel intimidated enough not to speak back.

I regard Ann Coulter as no more elevated in status than I am, as a human being. She might be richer, more powerful in a sense, but there’s nothing about those sides of her status that make her inherently better than me. If she’s smarter, wittier, or whatever, she would be that way if I were the nationally televised figure, and her the amateur blogger.

But with anybody who knows where who comes on this sight, and reads what I write, I have a chance, mine to make good on or fail with, to make all her advantages worthless.

If ideas are powerful enough, CT, then it doesn’t matter what you paid to distribute them, they will spread. And maybe it’s not some overwhelming influence I wield, but a role more complex and unpredictable in its implications.

dbs-
You share his hatred for us, so you don’t appreciate that much of the things you agree with ring falsely to us as libels and slanders. You don’t appreciate the depth and the intensity of our visceral reaction against what he’s been saying about us, because you’re too wrapped up in his propaganda.

The simple truth is, You ought not to believe much they say about us. You have our motives and our intentions incredibly wrong.

The accusations we despise are the same ones you make, with no awareness of the anger you stoke against you.

J.-
Actually, I thought that was a rather vivid and appropriate metaphor. These people are professional provocateurs, and yet they expect to be left in peace. At least those who are wise about what they do know to expect that they’ve burned bridges of civility with people.

Bob Lee-
To bring some awareness to people. She cries out about how terrible what’s happened to Beck is, yet fails to appreciate that this is a natural consequence of being a provocateur like each of them is.

It seems to be endemic with Republicans. I mean, just look at Conservativethinker! He rarely passes up an opportunity to call us socialists. I keep on telling him we’re not, but nope, he doesn’t listen.

Now you tell me, should CT expect positive, respectful responses? Should he expect concessions? He seems to operate from the perspective of how he would wish us to respond, how he believes we should respond, rather than anticipating what we would actually do.

Coulter and Beck, as well, can’t believe people’s hostility, despite their near unremitting demonization of those same people. They’re so locked into the echo chamber that anything that isn’t an affirmation of what they believe is unbelieveable to them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #325235

“I don’t know what the purpose of this article is…And more importantly, what does the title have to with it?”

Posted by: Bob Lee at July 3, 2011 03:46 PM

Bob Lee, the purpose of the article is apparent; to attack and ridicule another conservative woman. Of course you must remember; these are the same people who support NOW, and would claim to be the defenders of women’s rights. Of course, that only means liberal women’s rights. Their comments speak for themselves:

Stephen Daugherty is jealous because Ann Coulter is a successful writer and public speaker.

Jake thinks Coulter and Beck are “hateful, spiteful crazies. And those of you who support them are unthinking dupes.”

j2t2 thinks Coulter and Beck’s writing is “conservative drivel, it sells just as mindless movies sell, no thought is required.”

Phil believes, “Ann Coulter grew up in the household in which Joe McCarthy resided after his downfall. It’s no wonder she’s such a wackjob.”

wrymind thinks, “If she had a heart, she’d have a shape.”

So they have attacked her upbringing, her intelligence,her supporters, and her personal looks.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 3, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #325238

“So they have attacked her upbringing, her intelligence,her supporters, and her personal looks.”

Hurling personal insults has been Ann Coulter’s stock in trade. I doubt that she would be offended. Ditto for Beck. They thrive in that environment.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 6:54 PM
Comment #325239

Ok Stephen, you have convinced yourself you are equal to conservative leaders and that you are not a socialist liberal. Now, all you have to do is convince everyone else. And then you will say, “I don’t have to convince anyone on the right” and I will say, “That is all you ever do is try to convince us…”

By the way Stephen, when was the last time conservatives became violent at public gathering, attacked people, and destroyed property?

We don’t have to research very far to find liberal socialists and union leaders becoming violent and destroying public property, do we? Here is a partial list of liberal violence and since I know how concerned you are about copyright laws, I will include the link, if you dare read it. And then Stephen I want you to justify all the violence and I want you to give me a legitimate link showing conservative violence:

“LEFTIST VIOLENCE IN AMERICA - A LONG HISTORY

The hatred of the Left erupted yesterday when a left-wing kook murdered a federal judge and shot Congresswoman Giffords, and some other innocent Americans, killing 6 and wounding 12. In fact, AZ State Senator Linda Lopez on Fox News early on the 8th blamed the Tea Party even though the Daily KOS had Giffords on their site with a bulls eye on her, likely because she stood with AZ Governor Jan Brewer on immigration. So, the Left, it appears, needs a crash course on their violent past.

Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dorhn, of the Weather Underground, didn’t think his group went far enough in committing violence against the government.

Communist and left wing extremist Van Jones, who resigned as Obama’s Green Jobs Czar, now calls for violent revolution and now works for Media Matters.

And WHO can forget Obama’s pastor of twenty years, Rev. Wright, who preaches black liberation racist theology and hatred of whites and America.

Trumpka of the AFL-CIO calls for violence to achieve “social justice.”

Andy Stern, Obama’s buddy, allowed his SEIU thugs to beat up a black conservative. “

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 3, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #325241

CT,

Well, we could start with the Oklahoma City bombing.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #325245

Not to mention the wing nuts shooting Doctors and blowing up clinics the past few decades.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 3, 2011 9:21 PM
Comment #325246

The accusation by SD and other leftist is that the likes of Beck and Coulter cause hate and violence in the ranks of the conservatives. So Rich, do you have any proof that Tim McVeigh was part of a vast right wing conspiracy? I do have this:

“On April 19, 1993, the standoff between the FBI and the Branch Davidian cult (led by David Koresh) at the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas ended in a fiery tragedy. When the FBI tried to end the standoff by gassing the complex, the entire compound went up in fire, claiming the lives of 75 followers, including many young children. The death toll was high and many people blamed the U.S. government for the tragedy. One such person was Timothy McVeigh.


McVeigh, angered by the Waco tragedy, decided to enact retribution to those he felt responsible — the federal government, especially the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). In downtown Oklahoma City, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building held numerous federal agency offices, including those of the ATF.”

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm

After reading as much as I could about Timothy McVeigh; I have in no place where he was involved in a conservative political movement. Perhaps you could show me something. I have found he was a survivalist and anti-government radical, but that has nothing to do with conservatives. It appears his main reason for the bombing was Waco and Ruby Ridge and this was by his own comments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1321244.stm

However Rich, I did find this comment, which seems to agree with your assessment:

“I’ve been there at least a half dozen time since, as recently as last fall, and each time, I came away convinced that history constantly confronts us with haunting reminders of the good and evil that human beings are capable of. Oklahoma City, it seemed to me, still bears many scars, physical and emotional, from that terrible day 15 years ago. But I was always comforted by the feeling that it had found strength and solace in a place where compassion and kindness overcame an evil act of terrorism.

Now, however, I’m not so sure. I hear the expressions of rage and hatred directed towards Washington and the Obama administration from the Tea Partiers and those who see the federal government as oppressors and enemies of the people. And I see those who insist on carrying loaded weapons to public rallies, as they did in Virginia today, and I wonder if there are more Oklahoma Cities in our future. I certainly hope not, but I suspect there are more Timothy McVeighs out there, waiting to imitate his crazed impulses.”

The article was entitled, “Pondering Timothy McVeigh’s Lethal Legacy” and was found at :


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-eisele/pondering-timothy-mcveigh_b_543807.html?show_comment_id=45164159

As usual, it was the same old liberal drivel that only offers theories and never proof.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 3, 2011 9:28 PM
Comment #325247

Rich and j2t2; then I am sure you will agree with my new theory that ALL Muslims were involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers, resulting in over 3000 deaths. Since we are using your logic…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 3, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment #325249

CT,

Sure, McVeigh probably wasn’t a right wing radical. He just hung out with some right wing militia types and read radical treatises (The Turner Diaries, etc.) for fun. The fact that some of these guys actually participated with McVeigh in the conspiracy says nothing about McVeigh’s beliefs.

I fail to see what logic you are referring to when you said it was similar to painting all muslims as involved in the twin towers destruction.

You invited these responses by issuing this challenge: “By the way Stephen, when was the last time conservatives became violent at public gathering, attacked people, and destroyed property?”

If you wanted a serious response, it would take a few pages to document the actual attacks on persons and property. If we were to add to the list the statements of right wing organizations and leadership calling for violence (as you did for examples of left wing violence), it would take a full book.

Posted by: Rich at July 3, 2011 10:32 PM
Comment #325250

Conservativethinker-
It’s funny that you should attempt so many ad hominem attacks in order to condemn what you’re pushing to be an ad hominem attack.

My point is simple and logical: Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are hostile to these people. Should they expect no hostility in return, if they’re realistic about human psychology?

You keep on talking about me being jealous of Ann Coulter. Nice that you pick a claim that only I can speak directly to the truth of, especially since you take the additional position that nobody can trust what I say about my true motivations and goals. I’ve been blunt and spoken about my true feelings and philosophies on multiple occasions, but you always seem to come back with such unproveable claims about who I am, and what I stand for.

Which strikes me as an lazy kind of argument.

You rarely argue the sense of what you’re saying. Instead, you argue what horrible creatures we liberals must be.

An argument from the Anti-Liberal Zone, right?
(No, folks, I’m not kidding.)

This is where your argument gets kind of complicated. First, Jared Loughner was insane. Left or Right, there’s not much point comparing him to the average liberal, because the average liberal does not worry about people being mind controlled through grammar. Same for the average conservative.

The Bullseye? a fake. Unlike Sarah Palin’s map which was very, very real.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn are long retired. Their main violent years were behind them. They’re just bourgeouis college professors whose association with Obama, while great for inflammatory headlines, amounts to a fundraiser and several board meetings Several Republicans served on the same board as Obama. Did they suddenly become Marxist bomb-throwers?

Speaking of such accusations, Where is your source getting his information about Van Jones besides the very smear merchant that you’re defending here?

Kind of nice when you can call Liberal ideology inflammatory by citing Glenn Beck’s accusations, which have included things like FEMA concentration camps, Communist influence on the Rockefeller Center’s architecture, and that the Arab Spring would help contribute to the creation of some sort of Caliphate that would sweep Europe.

As for Reverend Wright? If it were Obama’s tendency to be constantly inflammatory, that would be one thing, but that’s not what his reputation is like. He’s not a firebrand, and doesn’t tend to push for the most extreme version of a given liberal policy. He’s constantly in one negotiation or another. His press conference was noted by many for the harshness of his rhetoric, which led a Republican friendly commentator to claim he was being a bit of a d***. Well, gee, why is this all notable if he’s just like Rev. Wright?

Given the choice, Obama chose to leave Wright behind, when the man doubled down on his offending rhetoric, that despite giving a fairly eloquent, and very moderate speech on racial issues.

As for the claims of Union violence?

I find it funny that with so many so-called “union thugs” roaming around the countryside, we don’t get dozens of injuries. Instead, we hear about one or two, and that gets sensationalized into the myth you present us. I really doubt the orders from the top are to pick fights and punch people out. In fact, I think most of them are telling their people not to do so, precisely because your ideologues will come in to exploit it.

Which is not to say that there aren’t idiots out there on the left who call for violence or get violent. But to the average Democrat, they are not an aid to our cause, they are a hindrance, and we treat them like so.

We don’t start talking about Second Amendment Remedies to politicians we don’t like, or paint targets on them. We don’t flirt with secessionism, nor give aid and comfort to the militia culture.

I remember the GOP Rhetoric before 1995, and the Oklahoma City bombings. I remember the anti-government rhetoric that’s soaked the movement, and can only wonder where that really takes a political movement when folks escalate it in the name of purifying the party of “liberal” influences.

You folks say a lot of things that give people pause, which you roll back by saying you didn’t quite mean. As time has gone on, I’ve seen the rhetoric operating more seriously, policy dragged along towards stricter and stricter interpretations of political dogma.

You need to look at a lot of the things your people are saying, and wonder what will manifest if people truly take what they’re saying at face value, not merely at the value given to it by rationalizations from less hardline Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 3, 2011 11:03 PM
Comment #325251

stephen

how about answering the f#$king question i asked?

Posted by: dbs at July 4, 2011 12:20 AM
Comment #325253

dbs-
People get offended and angry when folks say false things about them. Your question was just rhetorical trickery, a “heads I win, tails you lose” false dilemma designed to force an answer that I have no inclination to comply by given.

What folks like you say about Democrats is mostly just bull****. It’s conspiracy theory perpetuated by an echo chamber media that just gets more and more isolated from reality as time goes on. You don’t realize that many of the basic things you say about us strike us as untrue, and more to the point, anger us as false accusations. I’m not a communist, not a socialist. I don’t want unlimited illegal immigration so my party gets more votes. I don’t want terrorists attacking my country, I don’t want a police state or a nanny state, I don’t want to destroy businesses, or wreck the economy. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and my differences from your intepretation do not come out of some notion of undermining the Republic.

The question isn’t whether I have any proof. The question is where I could start. It’s an absurd proposition you start with here, that Glenn Beck hasn’t said anything inflammatory. That’s what the man is known for. I already listed four examples, and that was without digging for it real hard.

I answered your question. You just didn’t like, or apparently understand the answer.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2011 9:42 AM
Comment #325254

Thanks Stephen for not disappointing me in defending the most violent, radical, socialist lefties in America’s recent history and also trying to justify their actions. You never disappoint me; however you did say one thing that was interesting:

“Which is not to say that there aren’t idiots out there on the left who call for violence or get violent. But to the average Democrat, they are not an aid to our cause, they are a hindrance, and we treat them like so.”

First of all, “no you don’t treat them as a hindrance” and secondly, why do you paint all conservatives with the same brush and yet say radical violent democrats are not representative of all liberals?

You talk with forked tongue SD…

dbs’ question:

“BTW stephen what “vile” things has beck said about hate left. or is it that you don’t like the truth about your parties marxist agenda being publicly aired with the facts and statistics right there to back it up?”

Posted by: dbs at July 3, 2011 09:16 AM

Stephen’s answer:

“Your question was just rhetorical trickery, a “heads I win, tails you lose” false dilemma designed to force an answer that I have no inclination to comply by given.”

Stephen’s real answer: “I DON’T LIKE WHAT BECK SAYS, BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH; SO I JUST WON’T ANSWER”

But I will say, it has always been Beck’s claim for each person to do their own research and not take his word for anything. He also includes the evidence for all claims he makes, and it is easy to go to his web site and research for one’s self. But, SD would rather just give the same old Huffpost and Dailykos socialist talking points.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 10:33 AM
Comment #325255
Of course you must remember; these are the same people who support NOW, and would claim to be the defenders of women’s rights. Of course, that only means liberal women’s rights. Their comments speak for themselves:

Con because we criticize a person such as Coulter for the inane nonsense she spouts on a daily basis does not mean we are violating anyone’s rights, we are simply exercising our rights.
It seems you cannot connect the dots on this issue so let me explain. Coulter has the right to spout her half truths misinformation and outright lies, I have the right to expose her for what she is, I have not shut her up nor harmed her in any way, nor would I. Her rights have not been violated. Your statement is conservative drivel.

Rich and j2t2; then I am sure you will agree with my new theory that ALL Muslims were involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers, resulting in over 3000 deaths. Since we are using your logic…

Since when is your theory new Con? Conservatives have been unable to differentiate between Al-Qaeda and Muslims for years. Next you will be trying to tell me Al-Qaeda aren’t conservative far right religious extremist.

My logic? seriously Con? You used this little diversion to get the thread off of the poor pitiful Beckster and one of his enablers with the logic you now have the audacity to say is my logic? Using guilt by association is a familiar tactic of the far right, as you have done in comment 325239.

Asking the question “when was the last time conservatives became violent at public gathering, attacked people, and destroyed property?” seems to indicate you wanted an answer.

BTW Do you really think McVeigh and the doctor killing theocrats are leftist? Get a grip on yourself man, according to you we are all atheist. The extremist far right are much more violent than the union “violence” you claim to be so widespread.


“Many videos posted on the Hutaree’s website support several right-wing organizations, politicians, and news commentators”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree


“Scholars have referred to groups like The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, and the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh, as also falling under the definition of Christian terrorism. [64]”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

What is the difference between Al-Qaeda and these homegrown right wing Christian extremist Con?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2011 10:35 AM
Comment #325258

Here is a great example of the liberal democrat’s love fest. “Can’t we just all get along”:

Stephen Sweeney, the President of the NJ Senate, unloaded on Gov. Christy simply because Christy is trying to correct the budget problems that have been created by the democrats for many decades:

“This is all about him being a bully and a punk,” he said in an interview Friday.

“I wanted to punch him in his head.”

“You know who he reminds me of?” Sweeney says. “Mr. Potter from ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ the mean old bastard who screws everybody.”

“He’s just a rotten bastard to do what he did.”

“He’s mean-spirited,” Sweeney said in the Friday interview. “He’s angry. If you don’t do what he says, I liken it to being spoiled, I’m going to get my way, or else.”

And: “He’s a rotten prick.”

http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2011/07/democrats_cry_foul_at_gov_chri.html

You must remember; these quotes are coming from the Democratic President of the Senate. I wonder if the libs consider this as hate speech or is it justified? I might suggest you read some of the comments on this post, they are good.


j2t2, so you are saying that because ALL conservatives think the same, then all muslims must think the same, and all liberals also think the same? Or are you agreeing with SD that ALL conservatives think the same, but not all muslims think the same and not all liberals think the same.

Pertaining to Bachmann; it’s not hard to see a conserted effort on the left to attack ALL conservative women, whether running for office or not. Why, the left even went after Palin’s daughter. Pelosi is still considered one of the most disliked women in America; but how does the left feel about her? It wouldn’t be that bad if the attacks were just about conservative women’s political views; but the majority of the attacks are about their looks, personal life, and families.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 11:09 AM
Comment #325259


I wonder if the libs consider this as hate speech or is it justified?

No it is one man’s opinion of another man. To help you out Con here is a definition of hate speech for your perusal.

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence….”

http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/


j2t2, so you are saying that because ALL conservatives think the same, then all muslims must think the same, and all liberals also think the same? Or are you agreeing with SD that ALL conservatives think the same, but not all muslims think the same and not all liberals think the same.

Con. I never said all conservatives think the same. IMHO many conservatives follow their movement leaders without thinking. They believe any silly conspiracy Beck and other right wing propagandist put forth without any critical thinking. Your comments in this thread serve to reinforce this opinion.
There seems to be different types of conservatives, talk radio conservatives being the most misinformed and unthinking of the bunch. Unfortunately they are also the majority of conservatives in this country. The ones that believe if we cut taxes all of our problems will be solved, the enablers that allow corporate control of the government.
The ones that believe the progressive era ruined the country. Those that believe the Patriot Act and never ending war is the way to liberty. Those that believe a return to the constitution is needed, the constitution where only landed gentry could vote. The ones that believe “God” wants the preachers to control the country and then all of our problems would be solved, you know the type.

There are also intelligent and thoughtful conservatives that can see through the ideology that blinds most of them to foolishness. These are the ones that offer solutions to the real world problems of the day putting aside the foolish mythology of the TRC’s when it is best for the country. They seem to be few and far between these days.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #325261

j2t2 said:

“Con. I never said all conservatives think the same.”

Then j2t2 goes on to say:

“IMHO many conservatives follow their movement leaders without thinking. They believe any silly conspiracy Beck and other right wing propagandist put forth without any critical thinking…There seems to be different types of conservatives, talk radio conservatives being the most misinformed and unthinking of the bunch. Unfortunately they are also the majority of conservatives in this country.”

Can anyone say CONTRADICTION?

“The ones that believe the progressive era ruined the country.” Is this a code word for liberal socialist era? I love the way you guys try to re-invent yourselves to America, but a progressive is still a liberal socialist.

“Those that believe a return to the constitution is needed, the constitution where only landed gentry could vote.”

This is silly talk; guess what, we have a Bill of Rights that even gives women and blacks the right to vote.

“The ones that believe “God” wants the preachers to control the country and then all of our problems would be solved, you know the type.”

Yes, I believe I do: the Rev. Jessie Jacksin, the Rev. Al Sharpsin, the Rev. Wright, the ? Farrakan, and dozens of mullahs and muslim leaders. Is that who you were talking about, because I don’t know of any Christian leaders who want to control the country?

“There are also intelligent and thoughtful conservatives that can see through the ideology that blinds most of them to foolishness.”

Yes j2t2, we of the Tea Party call them RINOs and we are trying to send them to the unemployment lines.

And I saved your best comment for last:

“No it is one man’s opinion of another man. To help you out Con here is a definition of hate speech for your perusal.

“Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence….” But you forgot the rest, “It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.”

And j2t2, here is a partial list of the hate speech from the left for your perusal:


“Did MSNBC have a problem with Keith Olbermann dubbing Bristol Palin ‘Worst Person in the World’ last week?

According to Bill Zwecker at the Chicago Sun-Times “an MSNBC insider reports the talk-show host was “called on the carpet” by his bosses for declaring Bristol Palin “the worst person in the world” on his show last week — calling it “tacky” and “a cheap shot that was uncalled for.”


http://www.businessinsider.com/keith-olbermann-gets-called-to-the-floor-for-brisol-palin-worst-person-segment-2010-12#ixzz1R9otcy7J

“Well, keep it up boys, just keep it up, um except for one thing: you rat bastards are going to cause another Murrah federal building explosion, you are. And then - what is Beck - maybe at that point Beck will do the honorable thing and blow his brains out.


Maybe at that point, Limbaugh will do the honorable thing and just gobble up enough - enough Viagra that he becomes absolutely rigid and keels over dead.


Maybe then O’Reilly will just drink a vat of the poison he spews out on America every night and choke to death! Because that’s what’s gonna to happen, that’s what they are pushing these right-wing, nut case, fringe, militia jerk-wads to doing!”

http://www.hapblog.com/2010/03/libtalker-to-rush-limbaugh-glenn-beck.html

“The grass-roots conservative FreedomWorks organization has received so many death threats in the run-up to the midterm elections that the organization is moving its headquarters.


“Yes, it’s constant, and we are going to have to move up to Capitol Hill,” FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon tells Newsmax.


The threats are coming in via phone and e-mail, and have escalated to the point that the organization has decided it must move into a high-security building near the Capitol building.”


http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/freedomworks-death-threats-move/2010/08/26/id/368506?s=al&promo_code=A9EA-1

“Sandra Bernhard Calls Bristol Palin a Hooker on ‘Joy Behar Show”


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/25/sandra-bernhard-calls-bristol-palin-hooker-joy-behar-show#ixzz1R9qX205Q


“Democrats Issue Death Threats Against Sarah Palin & Eric Cantor”

http://citizenpalin4president.blogspot.com/2010/03/democrats-issue-death-threats-against.html

Here, why don’t you just read the list liberal democrat threats for yourself?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653895/posts

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 1:29 PM
Comment #325262

j2t2, and other liberals; by the way, your comments about Christians qualifies as hate speech by your own link…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 1:33 PM
Comment #325264

stephen


you said
“false dilemma designed to force an answer that I have no inclination to comply by given.”

question #1

ok stephen……what “vile” things has beck said about the left on his show? no trickery there.

question #2

what “vile” things has beck said on his show without providing proof to back them up? no trickery here either.


you said
“and more to the point, anger us as false accusations.”

i see…..and this anger gives you the right to harass a man and his family in a public park like a bunch of 9 year old school yard bullies? a bit childish, don’t you think? it would seem a more appropriate, and adult response might be to pick apart his arguments piece by piece, by refuting each of his points with facts to bolster your argument.


you said
“The question isn’t whether I have any proof.”


you’re right……as usual with the left it is the severity of the charges not the actual facts that matter.


you said
“The question isn’t whether I have any proof. The question is where I could start. It’s an absurd proposition you start with here, that Glenn Beck hasn’t said anything inflammatory.”

yes stephen….that’s right. attempt to discredit the question in order to avoid answering it. obfuscation is much easier.

BTW, since when is it ok to molest someone in public because you don’t like what they have to say?

i don’t think that’s a trick question, but who knows.

you said
“I’m not a communist, not a socialist. I don’t want unlimited illegal immigration so my party gets more votes. I don’t want terrorists attacking my country, I don’t want a police state or a nanny state, I don’t want to destroy businesses, or wreck the economy. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and my differences from your intepretation do not come out of some notion of undermining the Republic.”


really? if this is truely how you feel, then i would have to say you’re on the wrong team. it is your party that has passed laws to dictate what people can and can’t eat in a restaurant. trans fat bans. laws that forbid the spanking of your child. laws forbidding a person from taking there son or daughter into a store that sells firearms( oakland ca.). laws that forbid a father from allowing his son to shoot a legally owned rifle, while under his supervision. ( ca. assault weapon law). laws forbidding a child from bringing a sack lunch to school.(NY). i supose we can’t trust a parent to provide a suitable meal for thier own child, so a school principal just takes over. and this is just for starters.

Posted by: dbs at July 4, 2011 1:56 PM
Comment #325265

Conservativethinker,

“IMHO many conservatives follow their movement leaders without thinking…”

“Can anyone say CONTRADICTION?”

Do you understand the meaning of the word “many”?

For years we have heard conservatives berating liberal women, but now, using a conservative woman’s words in context is considered an attack.

Can anyone say CONTRADICTION?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2011 1:58 PM
Comment #325266

I have returned. Short week.

I am a Christian. According to the rhetorical left tripe above, because I am a Christian I am hateful and my speech is hate speech.

My answer: The blind are the only ones who cannot see.

j2t2

What is your definition of a Christian. There are a lot of people who say they are christian but are not. That is true with many labels. SD says he believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many do. How many walk the talk. There are many on WB that do not walk the talk. Typical liberal, left-wing symantics.

BTW-the news this weekend has a team of challengers for the democratic presidential and vice-presidential race.

Anthony Weiner has thrown in his hat and has chosen Eric Holder as his running mate.

Ya, you get it. WEINER-HOLDER. lol

Posted by: tom humes at July 4, 2011 1:59 PM
Comment #325267

TH, great to see you back…Weiner-Holder was good, my wife and I had a good laugh. I must warn you TH, your Weiner-Holder statement may, I say may, be considered hate speech. LOL

And now we have RM throwing his hat in the ring:

“For years we have heard conservatives berating liberal women, but now, using a conservative woman’s words in context is considered an attack.

Can anyone say CONTRADICTION?

Rocky”

You know the rules Rocky: name, date, subject, and link. Other than that, it is just more liberal hearsay…

But, if you really want to contribute to the conversation; perhaps you could help j2t2 and SD defend the hate remarks that I gave LINKS to concerning personal attacks and threats by liberal socialists on conservatives. Because I am j2t2 and SD will do their best to refute the facts…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #325268

Conservativethinker,

“You know the rules Rocky: name, date, subject, and link. Other than that, it is just more liberal hearsay…”

Gee I don’t know…

Do the names Pelosi, or Boxer, or Clinton ring a bell?

Other than that it’s just more fascist hyperbole.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #325270

Contradiction

: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction

What I said was not a contradiction Con, had I said “I never said all conservatives think the same. All conservatives think the same” then that would have been a contradiction.

“The ones that believe the progressive era ruined the country.” Is this a code word for liberal socialist era?

No Con it is a code word for what historians called the Progressive Era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

This is silly talk; guess what, we have a Bill of Rights that even gives women and blacks the right to vote.

Con, Conservatives have went from poll taxes to ID’s to vote. Here is a brief history of voter suppression that contradicts your statement.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/27/153179/report-from-poll-taxes-to-voter-id-laws-a-short-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/


Is that who you were talking about, because I don’t know of any Christian leaders who want to control the country?

Here is some reading for you Con.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/dominionists-over-america

Con I didn’t forget the rest of the definition of hate speech, I linked to it. In lieu if copying the whole thing I copied a part of it and linked to the rest as is the way here on WB.

And j2t2, here is a partial list of the hate speech from the left for your perusal:

Con once again read the definition and tell me where the hate speech is, rather than defend these comments I will defend my own as it seems I am being accused of “hate speech” because I dared say Christian. I fail to see hate speech in what I wrote guys and it seems to me your understanding of the term hate speech is at best fuzzy so be specific as to what you consider my hate speech.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #325272

ct

I think it is great when certain people on WB learn a new word.

Here it is:

c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.

It is a great word to use when you don’t know what else to defend yourself with; just call the opposite expression a conspiracy. I’ll even call that a $1 word.

There are also certain contributors who were accused of calling situations a conspiracy. I went back and reviewed the postings here and found that a handful of people representing the extreme left wing of politics were using that word.

I am only a few years older than the resident pinnochio here, but I’ve been around the track a few more times.

One of the posters above said he believed in the constitution and the bill of rights and some other things. The caveat here is believe has a simple word right in the middle spelled l-i-e. What that fellow writes does not fit the pattern of what he says he believes. You can’t tell whether it is oleo or butter, but you know it is greasing the skids.

Oh well, I just wanted to put in my nickels worth. Where do I get my change?

Posted by: tome humes at July 4, 2011 3:32 PM
Comment #325273

It’s become abundantly clear The right wing has lost all touch with reality. And to think I once thought of myself as a republican maybe I still am but..wait a minute I can’t be I’m still sane.

Posted by: Jeff at July 4, 2011 3:36 PM
Comment #325275

I’m sorry Rocky, I forgot all about the attacks on Boxer, Pelosi, and Clinton. You mean when they were called whores, when their educations was ridiculed, and when they were accused of being the one who gave birth to their daughters baby.

Why don’t you actually post what was said about Boxer, Pelosi, and Clinton?

More words of wisdom from j2t2:

“What I said was not a contradiction Con, had I said “I never said all conservatives think the same. All conservatives think the same” then that would have been a contradiction.”

No, what you said was, that any conservative who listens to conservative news of conservative radio are “the most misinformed and unthinking of the bunch. Unfortunately they are also the majority of conservatives in this country.”

So now we are playing word games; what is the difference between “all conservatives” and the “majority of conservatives”? I stand by your statement being a contradiction.

You continue to amaze me with this link:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/27/153179/report-from-poll-taxes-to-voter-id-laws-a-short-history-of-conservative-voter-suppression/

And here is the title of the fantasy article:

“REPORT: From Poll Taxes To Voter ID Laws: A Short History of Conservative Voter Suppression
By Guest Blogger on Mar 27, 2011 at 6:00 pm”

By a liberal blogger no doubt, this is kind of like SD linking to his own post on dailykos as proof. You are using a liberal blogger’s editorial as proof, hahahaha.

Then, here is your proof that Christian pastors are going to take over the world:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/dominionists-over-america

“PoliticusUSA was founded in February of 2008 by Jason Easley. Jason had a vision of a liberal and independent news site which would offer a mix politics and opinion in an unfiltered environment, not beholden to any specific political or media agenda. PoliticusUSA is by design accessible to all levels of readers. Whether you are a casual follower of current events or a policy wonk, there is something here at PoliticusUSA for you.”

So we should believe another liberal post as being proof for your argument, again, hahaha

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 5:14 PM
Comment #325276

I really can’t believe you guys have nothing better to do today than to trade insults here. And I thought today was the day to celebrate the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, which launched the greatest social experiment in all of mankind!

Whatever…at least I’ll be hearing the Boston Pops play Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture tonight.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 4, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #325277

Conservativethinker-
The problem is, it’s too damn easy to prove that Beck’s inflammatory.

Really, it’s much easier than proving otherwise.

Indeed, we have plenty to complain about.

Thanks Stephen for not disappointing me in defending the most violent, radical, socialist lefties in America’s recent history and also trying to justify their actions.

You know, maybe you should just write your own blog. And then, writing your own blog, you can sock puppet all the comments! That way, you write up your opinions, and then fake the liberal opinions out of whole cloth, instead of trying to distort the words and the intentions of somebody who can bloody well speak for himself!

I’m here to speak for myself, and I’m sorry, but I actually believe the things I say, so this isn’t some intricate game of what I do I say to defend myself from the master debater here, it’s just simply me saying what I believe with words I expect people to take at face value.

Van Jones, so far as I know, doesn’t seem to be a violent radical. Most of what I’ve heard of him is more along the lines of good old community organizing, and peaceful change in the political world. But of course, whatever Glenn Beck says, you take to be an inconvenient truth that we’re just in denial about.

Rev. Wright may have been a bombastic preacher, but to portray his most controversial sermons as if they were the only ones he ever made is to deliberately misunderstand him, and by that, deliberately misunderstand what Obama’s relationship to him was.

And really, if Obama essentially learned his politics at that guy’s feet, there is no way he would have been as moderate in his rhetoric or his decisions as he’s proved to be. Of course, you don’t consider that moderate, but from where I’m looking, from a comparison of what I see black-pride oriented folks actually saying, and what Obama says and does, I don’t see the connection you apparently do. If he wasn’t half-black, nobody would see it, because his policies are not tremendously different in their attitudes from Bill Clinton’s.

And Bill Ayers? By the time Ayers figured into Obama’s life, we’re talking about college professors who had long since put their violent activities behind them, however unrepentant they might be. Obama was in grade school, so unless these sixties radicals took a very long trip overseas to tutor Obama, there’s not much point to trying to draw a connection. He’s not even that close on things like Education.

So, I don’t see where I’m advocating for, or apologizing for violence on the left. I think your issue here is that you’re so busy manuevering on the rhetoric that you can’t even be bother to recognize what a pointless game guilt by association is, given the kind of radicals that figure into your party’s fringe. Shall we discuss the party associations of Sarah Palin, or the associations of guests who showed up on Glenn Beck to promote his theories?

Yes, those theories.

Glenn Beck pushed theories like Obama using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to confiscate trillions of dollars in property, in order to establish a new currency. The previously mentioned FEMA internment camp, something I first heard about on The X-Files. Communist influences on Rockefeller architecture. “The Environmentalists Are Now Worshiping The Ancient God Of Babylon, The God Of Weather.” (That’s a literal quote from him.)

The hawking of gold coins, of survival kits for the apocalypse, the claim that Obama would allow the deaths of ten percent of the country’s population, that he wants to knock everybody’s income down to 14,000 dollars…

Why am I the one here who has to prove his point? Why aren’t you having to prove that this crap is real?

I think, looking at these things, that he’s utter BS about Democrats and Liberals, and if you believe stuff like this then you really have no idea what liberals are actually like. In fact, if you believe Beck about so many of these things, then you probably don’t have any solid graps on political reality at all.

I’m not afraid that Beck is right, I’m afraid that all the people who think he’s right are going to be a drag on bringing this country back from it’s terribly dysfunctional state.

tom humes-
If I were trying to demonstrate that I was an unhypocritical Christian, I would not follow up such a declaration with a penis joke making fun of somebody else.

I think you need to concern yourself more with your own behavior, the strength and the fidelity of your own beliefs. After all, that’s what the Gospel says as well.

tom humes -

One of the posters above said he believed in the constitution and the bill of rights and some other things. The caveat here is believe has a simple word right in the middle spelled l-i-e. What that fellow writes does not fit the pattern of what he says he believes. You can’t tell whether it is oleo or butter, but you know it is greasing the skids.

You can find lie in the midst of “belief”, or “believe?”

Wow, I am floored by your logic. You have your own idea of what the constitution says, and I have my own. That’s part of the reason why we have a judiciary, to resolve disputes in the law, up to and including that of the constitution.

There is no lie in what I state to be my beliefs. That you’re playing word jumble with the word I used to express my sentiments doesn’t make a difference.

After all, l-o-g might be the first three letters in logic, but that doesn’t mean you have to start your thinking process by sitting on a piece of wood. t-u-t may be found in the middle of Constitution, but that doesn’t mean the constitution favors the crowning of a pharaoh. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and overall, that’s really what your crap about the integrity of my beliefs is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #325280

“Why am I the one here who has to prove his point [Beck]? Why aren’t you having to prove that this crap is real?”

Good question.

Posted by: Rich at July 4, 2011 7:41 PM
Comment #325283

SD - Her whole schtick is being divisive. Have you seen the movie, “The Last Supper” with Cameron Diaz? If you haven’t, check it out sometime. I think you’d find it very interesting. It’s one of my favorites. Happy 4th of July!

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 4, 2011 8:14 PM
Comment #325284
So now we are playing word games; what is the difference between “all conservatives” and the “majority of conservatives”? I stand by your statement being a contradiction.

Of course you do but then again you are also wrong Con. If you cannot differentiate between “majority” and “all” then let me help you. The “majority” of voters in the past election voted for Obama “all” the voters did not. It is really not a word game Con.

By a liberal blogger no doubt, this is kind of like SD linking to his own post on dailykos as proof. You are using a liberal blogger’s editorial as proof, hahahaha.

S0 this is your rebuttal Con? You have not disputed one fact mentioned in the link. Yet you find it necessary to dismiss the facts because it may have been a liberal blogger and laugh as if that is how intelligent people discuss the issues. You must feel like the one legged man in the a** kicking contest if this is the best comment you can come up with. Do you have any proof this site has been breitbarting the posts they write?

So we should believe another liberal post as being proof for your argument, again, hahaha

Again Con, when you refuse to refute any of the arguments made by the site your laughter rings hollow and the logical fallacy of your ad hominem attack on the site leads one to believe you are shooting blanks. Once again do you have any proof of breitbarting at this site? It is the easy way out to laugh it off Con but then you gotta do what you gotta do right?

In comment #325262 you accused me of “hate speech” yet despite requesting the specifics of this speech you have failed to deliver Con. Is this comment as hollow as the rest?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2011 8:35 PM
Comment #325285

Conservativethinker,

“I’m sorry Rocky, I forgot all about the attacks on Boxer, Pelosi, and Clinton. You mean when they were called whores, when their educations was ridiculed, and when they were accused of being the one who gave birth to their daughters baby.

Why don’t you actually post what was said about Boxer, Pelosi, and Clinton?”


You forgot? Perhaps your vast life experience is beginning to take it’s toll.
I am continually amazed at your ability to toss out stink bombs and then blithely continue on as if nothing had happened.

But then that seems to be a far right trait.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 4, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #325290

So we have Stephen Daugherty back on WB defending the violent radicals:

“Van Jones, so far as I know, doesn’t seem to be a violent radical. Most of what I’ve heard of him is more along the lines of good old community organizing, and peaceful change in the political world.”

Stephen Daugherty, who knows everything, all of a sudden doesn’t know anything about Van Jones except that he is a former community organizer. Well Stephen, perhaps you should do a little word search:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Van_Jones

“Rev. Wright may have been a bombastic preacher, but to portray his most controversial sermons as if they were the only ones he ever made is to deliberately misunderstand him, and by that, deliberately misunderstand what Obama’s relationship to him was.”

There can be no doubt that Jeremiah Wright is an absolute radical, bent on hatred of whites, America, and the Jews. This isn’t debatable, it’s a fact. But what I find interesting is that Obama could set under Wrights teaching for 20 years and declare Wright to be his mentor and only when Obama had to answer for some of Wright’s teachings; did he deny Wright and withdraw his membership for Wright’s church. Oh, the convenience of politics. Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could refresh his knowledge of Jeremiah Wright too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy

“And really, if Obama essentially learned his politics at that guy’s feet, there is no way he would have been as moderate in his rhetoric or his decisions as he’s proved to be.”

Mr. Daugherty, are you nuts? Obama is about as far to the left as one can get. There is nothing moderate about him.

“And Bill Ayers? By the time Ayers figured into Obama’s life, we’re talking about college professors who had long since put their violent activities behind them, however unrepentant they might be. Obama was in grade school, so unless these sixties radicals took a very long trip overseas to tutor Obama, there’s not much point to trying to draw a connection.”

If what you say is true, then why did Canada refuse to allow him entry into the country in June, 2011? It’s interesting that a liberal nation like Canada could refuse to allow Ayres into the country because he is considered dangerous and yet Obama could not see this. You Mr. Daugherty are blowing smoke again.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37633

“That’s part of the reason why we have a judiciary, to resolve disputes in the law, up to and including that of the constitution.”

So Stephen, you have no problem supporting the WI State Supreme Court that upheld Gov. Walkers laws? And you will wholeheartedly support the US SC when they find obamacare unconstitutional? I’m glad to hear you support the findings of the SC.

J2t2 said:

“S0 this is your rebuttal Con? You have not disputed one fact mentioned in the link.”

Why should I rebut a liberal editorial?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 4, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #325291

conservativethinker-
Conservapedia? The folks who wrote that Einstein’s theory of relativity was a liberal conspiracy?

Do I look that gullible?

Look, you’re going to point at everything else than Obama’s own behavior to try and justify this idea that he’s some sort of fire-breathing radical. But it’s not going to work. For one thing, people like me know a hell of a lot of people to the left of Obama, and they’re still nowhere near the socialists you claim Obama to be.

You simply have no perspective on what a liberal is. You look at them from such a distance that everything is flattened together, and you can’t tell a blue dog from a rabid marxist.

You push distorted narratives that make it seem like Wright made his controversial sermons every time he got up to the pulpit. In fact, most were not like that at all. It didn’t help, in the end, that he insisted on pushing those buttons again, but Wright cannot be summed up merely by the right’s limited knowledge of him, so your contentions about his effect on Obama, steeped in the notion that he was always this bombastic, always this politically incorrect, don’t hold water in the context of weeks and weeks of more standard fare.

You also discount that Obama might disagree freely with what the man said. You discount that Obama might have a mind of his own.

You actually believe that one party and a few foundation meetings are going to pass on Ayer’s more radical politics. Again, you act like Ayers would always be pushing that stuff, and like Obama would just be fed the attitudes and ideologies like some Manchurian Candidate.

And Van Jones? I don’t think you have him nailed at all. I think you listen too much to Glenn Beck.

You’re just covering for a party which itself is getting nuttier by the moment, and has to compensate for this by either spinning every off-color or nutty comment, or by trying to paralyze those trying to hold you account by claiming they’re equally radical.

But we’re not equally radical.

So Stephen, you have no problem supporting the WI State Supreme Court that upheld Gov. Walkers laws? And you will wholeheartedly support the US SC when they find obamacare unconstitutional? I’m glad to hear you support the findings of the SC.”

Support isn’t quite the right word. It’s more like I support due process. If it can be shown that the court reached its judgment improperly, then I support redoing the decision. As for the SC declaring the Affordable Care act unconstitutional? If that happens, I won’t be happy, hell, a lot of people won’t be happy, but that’s the law of the land, isn’t it?

I also support investigation into Judge Prosser’s physical attack on a fellow judge. Isn’t it marvellous that you folks elected somebody with so little impulse control? Reporters better hold their mics close, or he might take them!

For folks who complain about judicial activism, you seem to expect them to make a lot of decisions your way. Do you not consider that the law might not turn your way? After all, invalidating ACA, especially on your point, might turn out to be a bridge too far for conservative judges, who would then have to legislate from the bench on all kinds of other regulations and laws concerning regulating inactivity.

You’re so wrapped up in fighting us, that you don’t even register the foolish implications of deciding the law the way you want it to be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 4, 2011 11:46 PM
Comment #325293

I perceive a lot of pent up anger.

“It’s more like I support due process. If it can be shown that the court reached its judgment improperly, then I support redoing the decision.”

What does this mean; if it don’t go your way?

“Look, you’re going to point at everything else than Obama’s own behavior to try and justify this idea that he’s some sort of fire-breathing radical. But it’s not going to work. For one thing, people like me know a hell of a lot of people to the left of Obama, and they’re still nowhere near the socialists you claim Obama to be.”

I’m certainly happy that people like you, only represent 20% of the American voters.

Stephen, we have one of two situations: either obama is one of the most ignorant men that ever sat in the oval office and is in way over his head; or he is bent on the destruction of America. It really don’t make a difference, because the result is the same, and whether he is damaging America on purpose or not, he is still a socialist liberal. I know that you would defend obama to your last breath, so it’s really a waste of time discussing anything with you. You have proven yourself to excuse and defend every ignorant liberal who has held a political office and attacked every conservative politician. It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented, you manage to deny the source and yet you and other liberals are the first to link to liberal editorials as evidence. I fear you are in complete denial as to what happened last November and you will still be in denial in November of 2012.

I have read some of the crap on dailykos from a liberal blogger by the name of Steven D. Do you know who he is?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 5, 2011 12:44 AM
Comment #325295
Why should I rebut a liberal editorial?

Because it would give you some credibility Con. As it stands you have embarrassed yourself with the foolish comments you have made. Using illogical arguments and propaganda does not serve your cause Con. Attacking the writer not the writing is the work of the ignorant and foolish Con, it is what trolls do.

Your false accusations that I have used hate speech in this thread appears to be baseless as you have not been able to respond.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 5, 2011 1:45 AM
Comment #325297

conservativethinker-
There is indeed a Steven D. at Daily Kos.

But let’s leave the truth of that little matter to the end, and see if you read that far.

First, why should you rebut a liberal editorial? I don’t know, what are you doing right now? Me, I don’t pass up the chance, because it gives me the opportunity to fully demonstrate the error of your ways. I treat opposition as an opportunity to debate and win. Are you less competitive of a political commentator than I am? That would a shame.

I’m certainly happy that people like you, only represent 20% of the American voters.

Ah, yes. You know, that is a problematic argument, because it relies on self-identification. In this poll, there are fewer people who self-identify as Republicans than Democrats. The other problem for you, is that self-identification along internal lines has self-identified liberal democrats being only 39% of the party.. 37% identify as moderate, 23% as conservative.

Compare that to your party’s balance: 72% conservative, to 24% moderate, to 3% liberal. Democrats, on the grounds of self-identification, can both be judged to be more ideologically balanced, as well as less dependent on our self-identified base. We also boast a stronger moderate wing to the party. Sixty percent of Americans self-identify as either moderate or liberal, meaning your party is in the minority, which by your logic undermines their authority.

Additionally, if you look at other surveys, our position on how the budget impasses should be dealt with, our individual policy stances are much more popular than yours. If you want to get into a fight over poll numbers, go ahead. Just keep in mind that what lives by popularity dies by it, too, and no poll number can tell you if a policy is truly wise.

Stephen, we have one of two situations: either obama is one of the most ignorant men that ever sat in the oval office and is in way over his head; or he is bent on the destruction of America.

No, you’re not trying to force a false dilemma here, are you?

No, we can also have a Republican Party that is bent on defeating him at all costs, and lacking good candidates, instead turn to economic arguments. But what can you argue? A nervous acceptance of a status quo that has already failed us spectacularly just a few years ago? More policies that take money out of the hands of the very consumers we need to start buying things in order to help the economy?

You know, the problem for Republicans is that the economic policies they’re depending on has actually been tested, and found wanting. The Gold Standard, for example, was not some ideal system, because it restrained growth to our ability to mine gold, and any time we paid too much for imports, we’d go into recessions, even depressions!

But the same people who find it’s simplicity so attractive aren’t willing to undo the real cause of the instability, which is the inordinate growth and overleveraging of the derivatives market, which has most banks’ finances, even now, teetering on the brink of disaster.

Okay, now to truth. I am not the Daily Kos user who posts under the name Steven D. I think you can find me easily enough, though. It just takes a willingness to face obvious facts. If you can’t find my true username on Kos, you’re not trying hard enough.

Me? I think you’re taking the completely wrong approach with me. When somebody attacks me, I don’t stand for it. I don’t stand for the lies, the smears, or anything else. It only motivates me to push back harder, and to be merciless in cutting apart your argument. Now, many folks like you have tried this approach, and what ultimately happens is that they get so contemptuous that they overstep the rules of this site. This while I keep my “pent up anger” in check, using argument and debate to vent my feelings, rather than personal attacks.

At this rate, I’m confident that I can outlast you. You’ve been brought up in a culture that justifies losing one’s cool in the name of taking the fight to liberals. I learned how to channel my political passion into a cold and sharp focus that does not require me to tell you what I really think of you, or use personal methods in order to fight back.

Besides, if you could win that way on this site, with me, would you really have proved yourself right? Or would you have merely proved yourself to be so obnoxious as to repel other commentors for posting? One reason we do have the rules we do, is to make sure that the people who stick around don’t run other people off.

So why don’t you try being part of the debate, instead of trying to push anybody whose politics you don’t like off the site?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2011 9:06 AM
Comment #325298

SD

“…liberal democrats being only 39% of the party.. 37% identify as moderate, 23% as conservative.

Compare that to your party’s balance: 72% conservative, to 24% moderate, to 3% liberal.”

Those numbers are deceiving. Thirty seven percent moderate democrats means middle of the party that represents socialism, left-wing, liberal, progressive, etc. idealism.

Twenty four percent republicans represent something less than conservative. Even these numbers are deceiving. Too many RINO republicans.

Those numbers are just something to use up space and prove nothing.

You fail to grasp the purpose of putting gold as our standard of financial operations. Gold has value. Paper has extremely less value. Other precious metals likewise. To pay a debt to you would you accept an IOU from a stranger? Yet you will accept paper with printing on it from the Federal Reserve. What is its value? Using the 1934 standard the one dollar bill today is worth about 3 cents. If gold is how you believe it to be, then why do all the financially wealthy people own it and other precious metals? Why do crowns have rubies and diamonds instead of cut glass?

“The Gold Standard, for example, was not some ideal system, because it restrained growth to our ability to mine gold, and any time we paid too much for imports, we’d go into recessions, even depressions!”

You fail to understand how the Federal Reserve was instituted and how it operates today. It is a private firm that manipulates financial institutions. They do own gold.

“Additionally, if you look at other surveys, our position on how the budget impasses should be dealt with, our individual policy stances are much more popular than yours.”

Does the democratic party have a policy? Why is it not publicized? If you are an insider, please reveal that policy to us; enlighten us. The only policy I have heard the democratic party say is to spend and go deeper in debt. That is precisely why we have a financial problem today. And, yes, the republicans contributed to it. There is no finger pointing that should be going on here to one side or the other. Those in both parties were and are liberals or any of the other labels applied to that type of spending activity. To me it is un-American to spend money that will have to be paid by our children and their children and their children and more generations to come. Why not try to reduce that load for future generations by reducing the debt and reducing the spending.

“This while I keep my “pent up anger” in check,…”

Why do you use the four letter dictionary if this is true?

More balderdash.

Wisdom will change you SD. Until then same ole same ole.

Posted by: tom humes at July 5, 2011 11:52 AM
Comment #325301

tom humes-

Those numbers are deceiving. Thirty seven percent moderate democrats means middle of the party that represents socialism, left-wing, liberal, progressive, etc. idealism.

Twenty four percent republicans represent something less than conservative. Even these numbers are deceiving. Too many RINO republicans.

Those numbers are just something to use up space and prove nothing.

Okay, let me try this out by modifying your argument:

Those numbers are deceiving. twenty four percent moderate Republicans means middle of the party that represents fascism, right-wing, conservative, tea-party, etc. idealism.

Twenty-three percent Democrats represent something less than liberal. Even these numbers are deceiving. Too many DINO Democrats.

Those numbers are just something to use up space and prove nothing.

Nyech. It just seems to me to be a rather loaded way to argue things. After all, this is just your commentary on what you think people mean when they say something, which is always a difficult thing to argue on rational grounds, since you can’t step into people’s heads and test it.

Why can’t you allow for the possibility that Democrats are not the extremists you think they are?

You fail to grasp the purpose of putting gold as our standard of financial operations. Gold has value. Paper has extremely less value. Other precious metals likewise. To pay a debt to you would you accept an IOU from a stranger? Yet you will accept paper with printing on it from the Federal Reserve. What is its value? Using the 1934 standard the one dollar bill today is worth about 3 cents. If gold is how you believe it to be, then why do all the financially wealthy people own it and other precious metals? Why do crowns have rubies and diamonds instead of cut glass?

The only thing Gold has going for it is a natural supply limit. Other than that, it’s got major limitations, especially if you want strong growth in an economy.

Regardless, it’s all a crock anyways. If the whole world got hit by a meteor tomorrow, and we got all knocked back to the dark ages, you know what the most common medium of exchange would be? Barter.

For medieval societies, gold was useless for most other applications. It was too soft to keep an edge, and electronic purposes were far in the future.

Gold became a medium of economic exchange because of its rarity. The problem is what happens if we send our gold overseas in the process of working out trade. See, your money supply is dictated by how much gold you have, so a gold shortage means an economic shortage, even if you have many willing and able workers around, ready to be productive.

A fiat money supply has its draw backs, but frequent economic depressions were not among them. Since we went off a gold standard, periods of growth have been more common and periods of shrinkage less so.

People went the liberal route because it worked. People are willing to go with the Gold Standard now, because they’re foolish enough to listen to political idealists who have no living memory of a complete gold standard’s actual implications.

Does the democratic party have a policy? Why is it not publicized?

If you can’t be bothered to listen to the President speak, or go to the party website and read their platform, I can’t be blamed for your being unaware of this. It’s not that complicated, and you won’t get far with me kicking up fake controversies like this.

The only policy I have heard the democratic party say is to spend and go deeper in debt. That is precisely why we have a financial problem today. And, yes, the republicans contributed to it.

That’s interesting. First, it’s not the national debt that got us into trouble. It wasn’t a Sovereign Default, it was a financial crisis with the banks that was pretty much entirely about private assets becoming of uncertain worth.

You villainize and demonize spending more money now, but that’s the traditional way to handle recessions. When you try austerity in a recession, you only make it worse, and that in turn compounds your revenue problem. That makes your fiscal problems worse.

There’s a simple way to deal with the deficit: let the Bush tax cuts end. Charge people higher rates.

The reality is, it’s not domestic discretionary spending that’s gone up. It’s actually even with where it was a decade ago. It’s military discretionary spending and the rise in the costs of programs like Medicare, thanks to medical inflation, that have increased the deficit.

That, and the systematic reduction of revenues caused by the tax cuts.

Of course, facing this means you have to pick the roofbeam out of your fiscal eye, before you get to pick the sawdust out of ours. You don’t want to take responsibility for the real life implications of your political theories. You don’t want to have to admit you were wrong.

I have no problem in reducing the burden, but the numbers don’t lie: your approaches will only increase those burdens, either through the shifting of cost burdens to the elderly, the debasement of our currency through a debt ceiling failure, or the increase of the deficit on account of economic issues.

Without the Medicare cost-burden shifting, in fact, the Ryan plan fails to balance the budget EVER.

So you tell me: why should I accept, as wisdom, plans where the numbers don’t do what you tell me they will? Why should I take your approach, when your predictions are likely to fall flat. There’s nothing to be gained by current Republican instransigence. It’s only taking this country closer to the edge of the very default they claim they would have us avoid.

What we need is a different approach, one which actually works, unlike the unrealistic tax policy of Reagan and Bush. Let’s get this economy back into shape, and then let’s start trying to solve the deficit problem. I think we’ll find, just as with Clinton, that it’s a lot easier to do it in good times, when we have the tailwinds of the economy with us, rather than the headwinds of an economic downturn and productivity decline against us.

As for my cursing (always censored?) I’m not a vulcan. But I do tend to back much of why I say, rather than just back my claim with the rhetorical force of the cursing and everything.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2011 1:36 PM
Comment #325306

Stephen Daugherty

“There’s a simple way to deal with the deficit: let the Bush tax cuts end. Charge people higher rates.”

Since you want claim yourself as an expert (you really aren’t), what do you think your new higher rate should be?

Posted by: tom humes at July 5, 2011 4:58 PM
Comment #325307

SD says:

“First, why should you rebut a liberal editorial? I don’t know, what are you doing right now? Me, I don’t pass up the chance, because it gives me the opportunity to fully demonstrate the error of your ways. I treat opposition as an opportunity to debate and win. Are you less competitive of a political commentator than I am? That would a shame.”

Stephen, I have link to editorials many times and you have always discounted them as editorials; and now you want me to debate not facts, but editorials. Your double standards know no bounds…

“No, we can also have a Republican Party that is bent on defeating him at all costs, and lacking good candidates, instead turn to economic arguments.”

Do you remember this phrase Stephen, “It’s the economy, stupid” was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush. For a time, Bush was considered unbeatable because of foreign policy developments such as the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. The phrase, made popular by Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, refers to the notion that Clinton was a better choice because Bush had not adequately addressed the economy, which had recently undergone a recession.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

Again, socialist double standards; it is wrong for Republicans to talk about obama’s economy, but it was ok for Clinton to talk about Bush’s economy.

“Me? I think you’re taking the completely wrong approach with me. When somebody attacks me, I don’t stand for it. I don’t stand for the lies, the smears, or anything else. It only motivates me to push back harder, and to be merciless in cutting apart your argument. Now, many folks like you have tried this approach, and what ultimately happens is that they get so contemptuous that they overstep the rules of this site. This while I keep my “pent up anger” in check, using argument and debate to vent my feelings, rather than personal attacks.”

I personally don’t give a crap what you believe. Since when is it possible to persuade a socialist that he is wrong. And by the way SD, your feelings do show up on the pages of WB.

“At this rate, I’m confident that I can outlast you. You’ve been brought up in a culture that justifies losing one’s cool in the name of taking the fight to liberals. I learned how to channel my political passion into a cold and sharp focus that does not require me to tell you what I really think of you, or use personal methods in order to fight back.”

I don’t care if you outlast me. You were spouting liberal propaganda before I read WB and you will certainly still be doing it long after I stop reading. You have been watching too many Star Wars shows, “learned how to channel my political passion into a cold and sharp focus”; that’s what comes from living in the dark side for too long.

“So why don’t you try being part of the debate, instead of trying to push anybody whose politics you don’t like off the site?”

Alright Stephen, you want to debate; perhaps you could tell me, when was the last time a conservative caused you to concede a point? I have never seen you concede, even when overwhelming evidence proved you wrong. So, in closing, it is not about debate and never was; it is about you defending liberal socialist politicians, no matter what evil they do. So to say this is about debate is a joke. You want to somehow accuse me of being obnoxious and yet the liberal side on WB have some of the most hateful, mean-spirited people I have ever seen whose sole purpose in life is to attack one’s religion, family, or personal beliefs.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 5, 2011 5:40 PM
Comment #325309

Conservativethinker,

“You want to somehow accuse me of being obnoxious and yet the liberal side on WB have some of the most hateful, mean-spirited people I have ever seen whose sole purpose in life is to attack one’s religion, family, or personal beliefs.”

For years you peed in the pool. You insulted people at will, and now are whining because you’re being attacked?

For the longest time you supplied no source for your facts (opinion) and expected everyone to kowtow to you.

Now, finally, you are supplying links and demanding that others supply them as well.

Frankly, I could give a rat’s a** about your family, your religion, or your personal beliefs. However comments like, “Since when is it possible to persuade a socialist that he is wrong.” aren’t going to endear you to anybody except those that already believe as you do.

I have been here for many years. I’m not always right, and I am perfectly willing to admit that. I don’t always agree with Stephen, but he has been completely consistent throughout all of his posts, and yes, I have seen him admit he was wrong, just as I have seen David, Jack, and even Tom Humes admit they were wrong.

You on the other hand, have never conceded a point, no matter how trivial.

Coulter and Beck play to the crowd, and have made a lot of money doing so. They are entertainers, just as Alec Baldwin, or Bono are entertainers.

The difference is that I am not going to rely on Coulter or Beck for the truth any more than I would Baldwin, or Bono.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 5, 2011 7:12 PM
Comment #325310
“For years you peed in the pool. You insulted people at will, and now are whining because you’re being attacked?”

Well RM, I am about to admit I was wrong; I was not talking about personal attacks on myself, I could care less what you have to say about me. I was talking about the attacks upon conservative leaders in the political circles. So I must have been misunderstood. Conservatives are attacked simply because they are conservative, and the attacks do not dispute or debate what they believe; the attacks are upon their religious beliefs, their looks, or their families, i.e. Palin, Bachmann, Christy, Walker, Bush, etc.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at July 5, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #325311
“Conservatives are attacked simply because they are conservative,”

and liberals are attacked simply because they are liberals. So, what’s new.

Posted by: Rich at July 5, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #325313

No - Conservatives are attacked because they are Conservative and Liberals are attacked because they are Socialists.

Posted by: Pete at July 5, 2011 8:51 PM
Comment #325314

CT,

Ever since Agnew first used the word “Liberal” as a pejorative it’s been open season. Years and years, decades of open season.

Politics is a full contact sport, and if the politicians, and the others you mention who have put themselves in the spotlight can’t handle the pressure, or the verbiage, they don’t belong in politics, and they are welcome to remove themselves from the spotlight.

Really, I mean how can we miss them if they won’t go away?

As I said in another post, Bachmann handled the situation she created fairly well, Beck, Palin, Coulter, et. al, not so much.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 5, 2011 9:01 PM
Comment #325315

Pete,

You only prove my point.

Posted by: Rich at July 5, 2011 9:17 PM
Comment #325316

Pete,

“Liberals are attacked because they are Socialists.”

Do you actually know what a socialist is?

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 5, 2011 9:32 PM
Comment #325317

It seems to me that hurling insults, labeling and prejudging any and all policy positions is a juvenile way to debate important issues. Liberals are always socialists, communists, etc. and therefore cannot possibly have any valuable contributions. Conservatives are always fascists, corporate weasels, etc. and cannot have any valid contributions. The debates go on and on without much substance as to the real issues or a serious discussion of the actual policy proposals. Its all about the tribal identity.

Posted by: Rich at July 5, 2011 9:35 PM
Comment #325318

Rich,

“Its all about the tribal identity.”

If you listen to talk radio it’s all about the enemy, it’s all about sides.

Unfortunately, because of the cacophony being pounded by both “sides”, the real message, or the legitimate points each of us has is lost in the noise.

We are all more similar than we might think.

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 5, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #325323

tom humes-
Look, tax cuts will cost about 3.9 Trillion over the next ten years, Republicans are looking for about four trillion in spending cuts.

I claim no great expertise, beyond making the simple observation that dropping how much revenues you will collect always has the first and primary effect of lowering your revenue, and only luck, or some secondary effect, can bring you higher revenues.

It really hasn’t happened. Bill Clinton increased taxes moderately, and his budget eventually balanced. Should we try the approach that worked, or should we keep on trying to force the failed measure to work, even though it creates some of the most obvious fiscal problems?

Conservativethinker-
Hmm. You might want to reconsider that tu quoque argument, for a couple reasons.

The first reason is, I use a mix of sources. I don’t just post editorials, and expect that to be the end of the discussion. I pick a broad range of sources. Fact is, , when I pick a non-neutral source, I often pick Talking Points Memo, the reason being that they do a decent amount of journalism and fact-based news analysis, which I find more useful than the standard rhetoric I could easily find on Kos.

The second reason is, the argument traps you in a loop of a kind. Put simply, by arguing that my use of editorials entitles you to ignore what I write, you legitimize me doing the exact same thing to you in return.

Just think about that for a second: is that a winning outcome in your argument?

Do you remember this phrase Stephen, “It’s the economy, stupid” was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush.

George H. W. Bush’s problem was that he never appeared to be doing anything for the average person. That’s not a problem Obama’s going to have. He’s got plenty of policies that have been job creators. He can point to the fact he saved the domestic auto industry.

What can Republicans do to claim they were doing something for the economy? Not much. If you’re going to try and take a ride on the economic populism express, you’d better have paid for the ticket, if you don’t want to be tossed off on the next stop.

Again, socialist double standards; it is wrong for Republicans to talk about obama’s economy, but it was ok for Clinton to talk about Bush’s economy.

I’m curious as to whether you can rebut anything I say without sticking “socialist” in there. ;-)

Republicans can’t talk about Obama’s economy, because they’ve done everything they can to make sure it remains, policy-wise, identical to the Bush Economy. They’ve even done their plum best to weigh down the national economy with hundreds of thousands of job losses, which they tout, in their typically paradoxical way, as being good for the economy.

You can’t take over Congress, also, and claim you have nothing to do with the economy, especially when yours is the side that keeps on monkeying with the economy by causing instability in the government’s finances. You can’t claim you have nothing to do with it. When you have even David Brooks wondering what hardline conservatives like you are thinking, you know you’re in trouble.

Your people have failed to get more than eight percent of people to believe that the current economy is mainly Obama’s fault. There’s a very simple reason for that: people appreciate the reality of what happened in 2008. They’re not pretending that the economy didn’t suffer its worst hit since the Great Depression.

More to the point, they’ve seen the Republicans jobs plans, but you tell me, where are the bloody jobs? And no, don’t try to spin that around on me, why don’t you just answer the question: where are all the jobs you’re supposed to be creating? At this point, you are more likely to have lost a job because of Republican policy than gained one, and the numbers bear that out, I believe. I mean, add together all the state, local, and federal jobs you cut. That’s what your people have to make back simply to break even on job creation. At that rate, Obama has you cold on the economy.

I personally don’t give a crap what you believe. Since when is it possible to persuade a socialist that he is wrong. And by the way SD, your feelings do show up on the pages of WB.

Oh, I’m devastated. You know, my approach is that even if I can’t persuade you, there are a heck of a lot of bystanders who will be. I don’t just berate people for not sharing my views. I make a case for them to voluntarily take them up.

As for my feelings showing up, I think I said that I let them show up through my arguments, through the way I debate. I didn’t say they didn’t show up at all.

I don’t care if you outlast me. You were spouting liberal propaganda before I read WB and you will certainly still be doing it long after I stop reading. You have been watching too many Star Wars shows, “learned how to channel my political passion into a cold and sharp focus”; that’s what comes from living in the dark side for too long.

I’m glad we’ve got it cleared up that I’m not going anywhere. As for the other stuff?

I like to be elegant in my approach. Logic is like a martial art. Anybody can argue. A person who understands logic can argue with greater force, less wasted momentum. It’s not insult to be compared to a Jedi, not with the way a Jedi cuts through their opposition in the fewest strokes.

If I am to be passionate, I should be in control, and I should be passionate about the right things, things worth upholding as truth.

Alright Stephen, you want to debate; perhaps you could tell me, when was the last time a conservative caused you to concede a point? I have never seen you concede, even when overwhelming evidence proved you wrong.

The problem with a categorical statement like that is it only takes one example contrary to its point to disprove it.

Overwhelming evidence proved me wrong on the Weiner case. I admitted I was wrong, and dropped that entire line of theory without a second thought, just like that. I still thought Breitbart shouldn’t be trusted.

If you want to provide every excuse to keep calling people socialists, and dismissing their opinions because you say their socialists, and so on and so forth, fine. Don’t expect to be taken seriously. There’s more to all this than just pie fights and name calling between the different sides.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 5, 2011 11:32 PM
Comment #325329
Alright Stephen, you want to debate; perhaps you could tell me, when was the last time a conservative caused you to concede a point? I have never seen you concede, even when overwhelming evidence proved you wrong.

Does Weiner ring a bell,Con?

So, in closing, it is not about debate and never was;

Overwhelming name calling, misinformation,half truths and outright lies is not evidence Con, When you divert the thread to a different topic that is not posting facts it is stealing the thread.

it is about you defending liberal socialist politicians, no matter what evil they do. So to say this is about debate is a joke. You want to somehow accuse me of being obnoxious and yet the liberal side on WB have some of the most hateful, mean-spirited people I have ever seen whose sole purpose in life is to attack one’s religion, family, or personal beliefs.

Read this again Con and ask yourself the obvious question,”If I were to stop the name calling myself would others treat me a bit more respectful?”. Look you seem to be the typical conservative that can dish out the name calling but when it is returned your comments reek of “whining like a new born baby”. Do you really think you have a free pass or a get out of jail free card here? Get over yourself. If we can start here then perhaps it can spread to the media and talk radio and we can discuss issues, just saying…

I was talking about the attacks upon conservative leaders in the political circles. So I must have been misunderstood. Conservatives are attacked simply because they are conservative, and the attacks do not dispute or debate what they believe; the attacks are upon their religious beliefs, their looks, or their families, i.e. Palin, Bachmann, Christy, Walker, Bush, etc.

Attacked just because they are conservative? Really, how insensitive of us. Have you ever noticed that the same can be said when conservatives attack those to the center and left of center, Con? In fact the conservatives via Limbaugh and the rest of his ilk have been doing it for decades and have gained big audiences by doing so. Where was your outrage then, or do you actually believe it is not the same thing when conservatives do it?

When you interject your religion and family into political issues on a political blog it seems to me you are holding these beliefs up for review and comment. The same holds true for the public political figures such as Palin, Bachmann et al. Especially when the righties use religion and family values and such as a political tool. Look at it this way Con, when these politicians use these values as tools for their political gain the tools should be held to close inspection. Would you want it any other way?

You,Con, put all of us in a group and call us atheist and such. You seem not to have a problem with it, yet when the slur is returned you whine like a conservative, what do you expect to happen in these cases?

That being said there are times when the media and bloggers do go to far, on both sides of the aisle. However that does not mean we here at WB must fall prey to this type of attack. If you think it is just the lefties you are mistaken. Lead the way Con, show some respect for differing political views and perhaps the respect will be returned.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 6, 2011 12:10 PM
Comment #325341
If you listen to talk radio it’s all about the enemy, it’s all about sides.

Unfortunately, because of the cacophony being pounded by both “sides”, the real message, or the legitimate points each of us has is lost in the noise.

We are all more similar than we might think.

This is God’s truth right here.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at July 6, 2011 11:17 PM
Comment #330900

like.Let`s make your house life wonderful.
5854 UGG Classic Mini Boots
jordan sneakers
Classic mini boots is one style of the best selling boots new jordan sneakersin our online shop,which feature soft foam insole and

Posted by: rtyu at October 22, 2011 4:21 AM
Post a comment