Remember civility?: Roger Simon, racism, and polemics
Roger Simon (not to be confused with PJ’s Roger L. Simon) was long a respected and supposedly objective journalist. And yet take a look at his column:
Question: If Ted Cruz and John Boehner were both on a sinking ship, who would be saved?
Answer: America.
Harsh? Look around you at what is happening to America and you will see harsh. I am not talking about closed parks and monuments. I am talking about the funds cut to nearly 9 million mothers and young children for food, breastfeeding support and infant formula.
That is harsh. Making a war against babies is harsh. And for what? Because Cruz, Republican senator from Texas, has grown so drunk on the sound of his own voice and so besotted with illusions of his own grandeur that he believes halting government today will propel him into the White House tomorrow?
You can read the whole thing if you wish, but that’s a sample of what passes for political discourse from a respected and middle-aged reporter-now-turned-opinion-writer. And from the comments section there (which you are welcome to peruse) the “Tea Party Racists” theme that Simon is flogging has become entrenched truth among Democrats (although if you want to see racism, just read some of the comments about Thomas Sowell in the comments section to Simon’s article).
It’s a feeding frenzy on the left because the sharks think they smell the blood of the dying GOP. It’s not the display of an isolated fringe, either, but a mainstream display by people who don’t think of themselves as polemicists.
Polemicists? Noted journalist Roger Simon neglects to convey a few itty bitty facts when he writes:
Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.
Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”
“Admit it,” the article said. “You want a white Republican president again. Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.”
America has come to a sorry pass. Not because there are still racists among us, but because the racists among us think they can tell us what makes an American.
Sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? But here are the facts: (1) Joe the Plumber didn’t write the article, although he did put it on his site; (2) the article was written by a black man, Kevin Jackson, and is actually quite different than what one might think from reading the title (have a read). In it, Jackson is saying that if we had a white president people couldn’t argue that every criticism of him was due to racism.
Ironic, isn’t it, how Simon turns that around, and accuses Jackson (or whoever he thought wrote it) of racism? Either Simon didn’t even do his homework and failed to read the article and/or find out who wrote it, or he knows all of this and prefers to dissemble to his readers. I would bet on the latter.
[NOTE: Note, also, that Simon fails to link to the Jackson piece. Perhaps he doesn’t want his readers to actually read it and see what it really says.]
There is no reason not to dismiss everything said or written by a liberal – on those grounds alone: that a liberal wrote or said it and Liberals are liars. Period. End of story.
For the living life of me I cannot fathom why one decent person gives even the dignity of trashing it to anything they say.
Nothing but accusation should be thrown at them always, everywhere, all the time, no exceptions.
Why would I care what Roger Simon says, if I know already he is a liar – and that that is no doubt the nicest thing that can be said about him?
Dear Roger: You ain’t NO Roger L. Simon. Nope, just a blue bottle fly on a pile of Poop.
“Either Simon didn’t even do his homework and failed to read the article and/or find out who wrote it, or he knows all of this and prefers to dissemble to his readers. I would bet on the latter.” neo
Should read, “prefers to LIE to his readers”. He’s NOT ‘dissembling’ he’s an outright liar, an ideological shill for a traitorous administration and one of the great majority on the left who constantly lie to advance the left’s agenda.
Those on the far left (not the low info liberal) are far past merely ‘dissembling’, they long have been actively engaged in purposeful deceit, theft and even murder.
What else to call knowingly telling an untruth?
Using the power of the mob to confiscate the wages and assets of those whom they envy?
Hamstringing American troops with insanely dangerous ‘rules of engagement’ and then abandoning them in time of war?
Remember the fake but accurate memos? Dan Rather knew they had to be true, so he had no hesitation about spreading lies. No need to conduct a due diligence. It’s SOP for a democrat to lie about a republican.
Making a war against babies is harsh.
Would that be before or after Obama stomped on failed abortions and threw out the bio mass?
“It’s not the display of an isolated fringe, either, but a mainstream display by people who don’t think of themselves as polemicists.”
IMO this is the best thing that can happen for those of us on the right-of-center. The more these “credible” voices ascribe to histrionics and foam at the mouth the less credible they become. Their political emasculation will be self-inflicted. Does Paul Krugman carry the same rhetorical weight that he did three years ago? Does Obama?
Keep in mind that although traditionalists lost the 2012 presidential election, it was lost by a narrow margin. The left threw everything it had into that election: A corrupt IRS; a corrupt and syophantic media, etc., and their cause was even supported by the moron-conservative factor who stayed home because Mitt Romney “wasn’t conservative enough.”
Evidence? MSNBC viewership is in the toilet. CNN vierership is slipping. Newsweek sold for $1.00 and, it turns out, it was overpriced at that.
This is why I believe that Ted Cruz’s recent opposition in the senate is crucial. He establishes conservatism as something other than “Democrat lite.” He encourages people to view the right as credible and principled while the Roger Simons, Piers Morgans and Ed Schultzes continue to demonstrate a lack of credibility by the opposition. Did I write “opposition?” Hell, they’re the Enemy.
(Tangentially, see Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com. Although he questions the numbers in this study, at the very leasy is is cause for hope and principled opposition.)
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/15/nbcesquire-study-concludes-51-of-americans-are-centrists/
What’s the difference between the so called soft core liberals and this Leftist? They believe in the same things and say the same things. If it is their jobs, then if a soft core liberal got the same job as Simon here, would they then become a Leftist?
Mike:
Because liberals sometimes read this blog and they might actually pay attention to the fact that he’s lying, if it is made very clear and if they still care about truth (I know some who do). And someone else in the media might pick up on it, too, and spread the word in a way that reaches those who can still hear it.
A person can hope, anyway.
I’ve actually met Kevin Jackson – he came and did some Tea Party events for us. He is – if I can use the word – a mensch.
We had a public event, basically a kind of town meeting on the first anniversary of establishing the San Antonio Tea Party, where we had invited every candidate running for office in the next election to come and talk to us. IIRC we did have quite a few – including some local Democrats. They could set up a table, talk to people about their platform. Kevin was one of the keynote speakers.
Meantime, outside the event we had about twenty protesters, of the usual sort, holding up signs, and yelling about how we were all rich people, racists, Republicans and all. They could have come in, of course – it was an open event. Kevin went out and engaged them in the middle of the street. He took them on, head to head. It was magnificent.
“Because liberals sometimes read this blog and they might actually pay attention . . . .”
I agree. It is important to fight the good fight.
I am very involved in our local community group. I live in a blue-collar community in a heavily Democrat urban area (redundant, I know). I’m sure I’m the only non-Democrat in our group. We all get along and are all working for the benefit of our community. Many people are shocked when they find out I’m a non-Dem because we (they and I) seek the same results. Without realizing it, they’ve swallowed the Dem=good and working class/Repub=rich and anti-worker myth and haven’t yet realized that Reagan-Democrats are actually not philosophically Democrats at all.
Hopefully my presence, work and cooperation is “schoolin’ ’em” one person at a time.
IMO this is precisely what blogs such as this have the opportunity to do which is why it is so important for us to not descend into their rhetoric and damage our own credibility with potential changers. No one ever won a convert by typing #@!$$%^&*.
“Why would I care what Roger Simon says, if I know already he is a liar . . . .”
Because repeated often enough, a lie is perceived as the truth. E.g., the Democrats are the party of the poor and working class and want to protect the black communities. Right! Would that be the Democrat Bull Connor or the Democrat George Wallace or the Democrat Lester Maddox or . . . .
“Civility” in US national politics lost all chance of survival when a presidential candidate of the two major parties, Obama, gave the finger to one of his opponents, Hillary.
and the crowd cheered such a crude gesture!
And then he won!
That showed us that civility is dead.
The reason Romney lost, and squish Republicans continue to lose is because they have a quaint 1950’s view of America: the party in power and the loyal opposition.
Bah!
The party in power are not our opponents, they are the ENEMY!
(also, I’ve been drinking)
Matt_SE,
IIRC, there are statments by Romney that he realized that Obama was the ENEMY, not a loyal opposition.
But how do you market that? The media doesn’t have your back (they have a knife to it). Most voters will think its nuts.
@Don
I don’t remember that. I remember Romney saying that Obama was a nice guy, but simply in over his head.
In reality, he’s a 60’s radical leftist with ties to America-hating black supremacists and Communists!
How do you market that? By repeating what I’ve just typed!
(though, full disclosure: I’ve been drinking)
“I’ve been drinking”
I did that a few weeks ago and felt embarrassed enough to refrain from posting until recently. My bad.
I think that it is the Democratic party that is in danger of imploding.
Civility was dead once democrates like Jackson, Nunn, Moynihan, and Humphery left the scene.
We should at least gives the Dems the decency to join the fight they are engaged in.
I heard the Shutdown Deal went down tonight, and I almost detected the smell of fear from Dems. They had already been starting their victory lap….and then, out of nowhere and in an almost suicidal move, some Rs said Not Yet!
There was that scene in Rocky when Apollo Creed was sure Rocky was down and not getting up….and that scared tired look on his face when he realized that he was.
@parker
Veritas in vino
Damn…is that grammatically correct in Latin? I don’t speak Latin.
We are going to beat these bastards. Not sure when, but it is going to happen.
Also, to be honest I haven’t been drinking wine.
What’s that latin word for “beer?”
In vino veritas…. in wine, truth…
gpc31 has the measure of the times: Barry is hollowing out the Democrat party — and they’re too stupid to see it.
He’s defunding it via OFA. The DNC can’t have any relevance with no money in the cupboard.
No money means that the party ‘farm system’ is unable to support young politicians.
American political history indicates that the House will be even more strongly in Republican hands in thirteen months.
Whatever you might say, it’s a fact that Obamacare is a massive poll tax that’s going to land right on top of the vast bulk of the voting public.
The impact is sure to alienate the affections of many a low information voter.
Look how the big unions are protesting.
I am talking about the funds cut to nearly 9 million mothers and young children for food, breastfeeding support and infant formula.”
Ya know……. if all of these women don’t have the ability to provide for the BASIC needs of their prospective children, ie., the ability to breast feed, the presence of a responsible father, the dedication to utilize their meager income to support their infants, perhaps, PERHAPS, they might consider the possibility of NOT BECOMING PREGNANT. There are innumerable resources available to them to prevent their future pregnancy and they cost NOTHING. What is wrong with you morons??? Regardless of any government assistance, you are condeming them to the same worthless life that you are living!!!!
I am in agreement with the great blog commenter Subotai Bahadur, who coined the phrase TWANLOC: Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen.
These are people who have no connection with the American Republic that the Founders gave us, and indeed are sparing no effort to tear it down and “fundamentally transform” it into a totalitarian socialist state.
They believe that middle class white Americans are the source of all evil in the world, and aim to stamp us out.
I am not interested in sharing a country with leftists, who want nothing more than to kill me and confiscate my property. And they are becoming more and more open and vocal about it.
They are my enemies, plain and simple. There is no longer any common ground or room for compromise.
Look at the looters over the weekend, when the EBT cards briefly had no limit for a couple of hours. They tore through stores like tornados, sweeping up everything in their paths. These people have no morals, and see nothing wrong with stealing anything that isn’t nailed down.
That was just a taste of things to come. What do you think will happen when the EBT cards go down altogether? Once the supermarkets and Walmarts are emptied, they will come to your neighborhood.
We are getting very close to outbreaks of open violence. Which Obama wants, and is encouraging at every opportunity.
“Once the supermarkets and Walmarts are emptied, they will come to your neighborhood.”
Let them come to my neighborhood. I will not fall victim to needless or spineless fear. If necessary I’d introduce them to my very good friends Messers Smith and Wesson. Oh, and lest I forget the German neighbors, the Mossburgs. I say this not as false bravado. The only thing that rankles me more than seeing someone victimized by bullies is when I’m the guy they’re trying to victimize.
I keep thinking of something Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O’Hara about Melanie Wilkes.
“Miss Melly is a fool but not the kind you think. It was obvious that someone had told her about you and Ashley but she didn’t believe it. Even if she saw, she wouldn’t believe. There’s too much honor in her to conceive of dishonor in anyone she loves. I don’t know what lie Ashley Wilkes told her– but any clumsy one would do, for she loves Ashley and she loves you. I’m sure I can’t see why she loves you, but she does. Let that be one of your crosses.”
Honorable people, honest people, have a very hard time putting on the mindset of the wicked, the dishonest who have no shame.
Beverly, 1:46 am — Yes. Apt.
Not *quite* the same, but . . .
It certainly has been occurring to me lately that the relationship of the messiah-in-chief to his subjects* is akin to that between an abusive lout and his battered wife.
* some, quite loyal, rendering it all the more pathetic
Sgt Mom: “Kevin went out and engaged them in the middle of the street. He took them on, head to head. It was magnificent.”
Been there, done that. It matters to have your own narrative refined enough to repeat to any audience, but don’t think you’ll convince the other side of it. The activist game is adversarial, not inquisitorial. It’s about competition, not Truth.
I would think any potential defectors have already defected from the Left. There might be some progressively older and more mature individuals coming from Leftist indoctrinated schools, but there’s no end to those people.
If the Left offers them goodies for their loyalty, what exactly would make the insurgents come over to our side, if we offer them “more goodies”? Or would it be better if we offered them something that the Left cannot give them.
When AQ in Iraq could not offer security to the tribes, the tribes reversed their position on American occupation forces almost. When American occupation forces could no longer offer security to Iraqis, the results were predictable. I believe General Diversity Casey in 2004 ordered confiscating the AKs of the various tribes, in order to perhaps put a better “iraqi face” on his security facade (illusion, Fallujah 1, his Iraqi face deserted, it was just a face, not a gun). All that did was make it easier for AQ to terrorize the population into obedience. Which is similar to how gun confiscation works for Democrats in the cities and California.
At what point do the mass majority of Democrats deserve to be labeled a hard core terrorist rather than a soft core tribalist that can be swayed to our side? Is it the hardcore that actively kill Americans, but the soft core that agrees with them and gives them money, who we should make defect? What’s the carrot here vs the stick.
The Democrats of the Reconstruction era always put out the propaganda that blacks didn’t have enough brains to vote. That they could only vote at the behest of their white Republican puppetmasters trying to take over the South’s politics, have blacks marry your white daughter, have blacks control your business, and have blacks/Republicans take your money.
So now that blacks are once again in Democrat hands, with some free slaves running around causing trouble (Sowell, Kevin Jackson mentioned here, etc), they are re-introducing old methods.
Kevin Jackson is either an UNcle Tom race traitor, or he is under the thrall of the white, Joe.
From that, you can easily derive the conclusion that the article was really Joe’s thoughts, racist at that, or a race traitor’s thoughts, Jackson’s. They chose to go with the racist Joe line, since obviously few people know or care about a Kevin Jackson. Joe the Plumber, even Obama directed to be destroyed. That’s important.
their cause was even supported by the moron-conservative factor who stayed home because Mitt Romney “wasn’t conservative enough.”
This idea that people are property and that you get to have their support, whether they like it or not, is a Leftist propaganda project and meme.
This polluted concept, which spreads itself around, has people talking about convincing and not using &*&^*^$ on Democrats, so they can “convert”, at the same time talking about “moronic” voters who withheld their support.
Let me tell you something, a pristine shard, the ones we’re going to shoot come the Re Evolution isn’t the Democrats or Leftists. It’s everyone who has a hankering for some slave ownage, whether they are over on that side or on this side.
When Leftists or Demoncrats stop supporting evil and get rid of their slave owning ways and corrupt desires, then they might become useful allies, like Sunni Iraqis. Until then, people should ask themselves what why they deserve or don’t deserve the support of the people.
Ymarsaker,
I couldn’t disagree more. You seem to thoroughly misinterpret what I say. Let me clarify:
Politics is about building coalitions. I am not suggesting being obsequious to do so and selling principles down the river. I am suggesting that compromise is precisely that—each side gives something up. In a good negotiation, neither side should walk away happy.
Now, there may be times when it is important to stand on principle just to make the point. You and I can differ about when those times are, and I’d be the first to admit that the current Republican party (aka the “Conservative” party) does that all to rarely and ineptly. I would offer that the 2012 election was not that time because by standing on rigid conservative princple one’s non-vote for Romney became a gift to the Progressive cause. It’s one thing to lose a battle, it’s quite another to cede it to the enemy without a fight. It’s not at all, as you write, about people being property and about any candidate deserving support. Sometimes it’s about not allowing the enemy to win.
As to reducing ones self to the *&^$&#!% name calling so frequent on the left side of the aisle, again, that does not mean be obsequious. One can debate and disagree with one’s adversaries and even with one’s enemies. If they say something ridiculous, call it out and identify it as such, but the ad hominem name calling so preponderant in leftist discourse neither wins arguments nor converts bystanders and onlookers to your cause. In fact, it’s a sign of having given up the argument’ it is a sign of having lost.
T,
They’re not trying to win an argument.
Eric,
No one knows that better than I. When one argues with a leftist, one is never arguing to convert the leftist one argues for the benefit of neutral or low-information bystanders and observers. (the rare occurance of converting he leftist is merely icing on th cake.)
If one can end a debate with just one onlooker thinking “I never knew that until now” one has set the stage for a possible conversion of allegiance down the road. Now do that fifteen times more and, as Neo heself admitted in her own conversion, the bystander begins to see the discord between what s/he, himself, thinks and believes vs what the left has been parroting for decades. That is what I refer to as “the good fight.”
Take Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary last year. When he tromped on Scott Pelley, do you think he changed Pelly’s mind or outlook? That wasn’t Gingrich’s goal. His argument, although directed at Pelly was to the eyes and ears on the other side of the camera that had yet to make a decision. That’s how and why one argues with a leftist.
Jmu Green repeated that joke on Hannity’s panel last night.
A reverend also repeated hostage taking talking points.
If I were Hannity – I would’ve asked them both to leave right then and there.
We can’t tolerate the lack of civility. They have a mental disease that needs to be eradicated.
They should only be allowed back at such time as they apologize whole heartedly. Then they can be forgiven and we can move forward with civility until such time they do it again…. Then they should be removed by security.
Apologies are not enough.
People think everything will be okay if they apologize? Get real.
What I “understand”, T, is that you expect loyalty from certain people in that political coalition regardless of whether those individuals like it or not, and play nice with others who aren’t part of your politics because you think you’ll get something from them, whereas you merely demand it from your political slaves.
That’s what I understand.
I would offer that the 2012 election was not that time because by standing on rigid conservative princple one’s non-vote for Romney became a gift to the Progressive cause.
If people want to vote for Obama or not vote for Obama, that’s fine by me. They aren’t my slaves. Doesn’t mean I agree with them, just that I don’t have a right to command them otherwise. They must suffer the consequences, either way. That is for the Left decide, as they will change the world and bring the boot of tyranny on the heads of the Unbelievers. What people believe after that, isn’t my problem any more.
So in your world, it makes someone a moron to take an action you think is wrong. Come the war, the first person that says something like that will be categorized by me as “target” and “enemy”. I don’t care if a Leftist or Democrat voted for Obama or not, although others might profile based upon that. I only care whether they act like an evil mofo. Being an Obamacan is just a helpful reminder, but even if they voted for Romney, if they act like a wannabe slave master, then that’s how I will treat them as.
If they say something ridiculous, call it out and identify it as such, but the ad hominem name calling so preponderant in leftist discourse neither wins arguments nor converts bystanders and onlookers to your cause.
Are you trying to be labeled a hypocrite on top of those other things now?
Keep in mind that although traditionalists lost the 2012 presidential election, it was lost by a narrow margin. The left threw everything it had into that election: A corrupt IRS; a corrupt and syophantic media, etc., and their cause was even supported by the moron-conservative factor who stayed home because Mitt Romney “wasn’t conservative enough.”
Or are you trying to argue to yourself that being a moron is just the natural conservative factor for those who refused to support Mitt Romney, against your desires?
Your perspective is similar to Jimmy’s here (J.J.)
My response would be the same, which is that even if 500,000 more Republicans voted for Mitt Romney, 550,000 more Democrat “voters” would be found to have voted for X. Or maybe 600,000 absentee votes would have been “lost” and then “recovered”.
Thus whether I agreed with people who voted for or against Romney isn’t really an issue with me. Because I was neutral in that fight. I considered the election pointless, for many different reasons.
The problem was never the problem (of policy or politics), the problem was always the Left.
In the end, if you can’t afford to give your non Romney and non voting conservatives the benefit of the doubt that they are not morons for choosing as they did, that they might have had good reasons to give their support or not give it, then who are you to tell the rest of us we should be playing nice with the Left?
Agreed Ymarsakar.
But the alternative would be to look like we don’t forgive.
I say the punishment gets worse each time they do it. I believe in my heart Fox News should make it a workplace requirement that these people (Jmu Green and the reverend) behave and speak civilly. The second or third time should be grounds for firing with a clear warning and explanation the first time of the consequences.
Liberals need to DEAL with the ISSUES raised by conservatives but instead they name call and act inappropriately.
This extends to Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all the liberals that did so on Hannity’s panel.
Why were they aloud to continue speaking on the panel. I would’ve marched them out. Complete dismissal.
We have to forgive individuals. Period. If they continue a second or third time. Lower the boom.
Ymarsaker,
Once again you misinterpret what I write.
Who said anything about them being forced to vote? If one believes that the future of the country is at stake (which many of this identified group do) and fail to vote for a candidate because he simply isn’t conservative enough, then they are supporting a political entity that they despise by virtue of their inaction. I have no qualms about calling out such activity as “moronic.” It evinces a preference for a foot-stomping visceral reaction over intellect in spite of one’s fundamental belief. As for me, I outgrew “holding my breath” temper tantrums a long, long time ago.
Once again, lack of understanding and misinterpretation. You seem to interpret what I’ve written as “shut up, get with the program and vote conservative” then cite me as a hypocrite for discussing debate with the opposition. You just don’t get it. You see is as a hypocrisy because of your intial premise (interpretation) which is flawed and incorrect.
FYI, my initial position was in support of Newt Gingrich; if there was any “desire” in play it was the desire to not have Obama win reelection. In the words of Instapundit, I would have voted for a syphilitic camel before I enabled a win by his Petulance, so, yes, I did support Romney. When the choice became Romney or Obama I wasn’t going to sit out an election and let a philosophy I despise as anti-American retain power. Those who did so were willing to allow the “perfect” to be an obstacle to electing the “good.”
Ah! Now, perhaps, I get it. You sat out the election and you’re taking my criticism personally. How progressive of you. Your comments on this blog (and you very presence here) lead me to believe that you have traditionalist/conservative leanings. Yet, in a contest between a flaming liberal Progressive (Obama) and, at the very least, a less liberal opponent, you claim that you were “neutral in that fight.” And you cite me as the hypocrite?
You sat out the election and you’re taking my criticism personally. How progressive of you.
No, you don’t. I didn’t choose to sit out of anything, particularly the election.
Mitt Romney was not a bad candidate in my view, since last time I wished he and others won the primary (rigged by Democrats) instead of McCain.
Your criticism is too weak and shallow for me to “take personally” to begin with. I do take personally people who think they can BS me by talking out both sides of their mouth, however.
you claim that you were “neutral in that fight.” And you cite me as the hypocrite?
Certainly. I was neutral in the political infighting and arguments. Because the war wasn’t going to be determined by the politics so much as the other things that were present. Thus I was neither on the Pro Mitt Romney side, nor am I on the “Mitt Romney is not a conservative” side.
You see is as a hypocrisy because of your intial premise (interpretation) which is flawed and incorrect.
Since you seem insistent on evading this point, I’ll clear it up for you.
I don’t consider someone here, or elsewhere, who likes to talk about not using ad hominems against X, and then in the same length of time, uses an ad hominem against Republicans he doesn’t like.
I’ve read through your so called clarifications and re-clarifications, but none of them deal with this point of the sword. It’s not that “interpreted” you wrongly, it’s that the word “moronic” only has “one” interpretation given the context of what we speak of. It is up to you to justify yourself, not up to me to “re-adjust” my interpretation.
then they are supporting a political entity that they despise by virtue of their inaction.
Right, this is close but no cigar. The idea that if you don’t support some political god, means you are now a traitor and enemy of the US? That is more Leftist revolutionary talk.
People like you that think folks should tag along on your journey because “not supporting you” leads to helping the enemy by virtue of inaction, have no idea how leadership and power is distributed amongst organizations and people.
But even if you really thought the Republicans that exercised their right not to vote were on the side of the enemy, your own talk about not using ad hominem on Democrats paints your internal inconsistency into full view. You treat Democrats and Leftists better than you treat your own so called “allies”.
And you think everyone is just going to line up and follow That Kind of Slave Drivel, do you now?
I believe in my heart Fox News should make it a workplace requirement that these people
It’s up to the people who own it and run it to decide. I won’t tell them what is right or wrong, unless they flat out ask me.
So I have no personal resistance to letting Fox News set their own standards, which I think is all anyone can do with human run groups if they want things to work. Top down stuff doesn’t work, period.
However, the various multi million victims of the LEft, slaughtered, raped, rendered into bio waste, and exploited for their entire lives and then harvested for the Left’s Greater Utopia… I have yet to be given their permission to Forgive Anyone.
I cannot forget, I cannot look away, and I am not allowed to forgive the Left, period. The hate and vengeance of untold millions, for centuries of our time, weighs on me.
I hate the Left not because I’m an American, a patriot, a Republican, or any other “social label”. Since people might get the impression that if I was Russian, hated America, or a Democrat, that I wouldn’t fight the Left, destroy the Left, kill the Left, make them suffer in hell the Left. Even if the entire world disappeared and human society itself broke down, my emotions would not cease to drive my motivations. I guess I feel what I feel because I’m human. I consider the Left enemies of humanity, not just enemies of America or enemies of patriots or enemies of Republicans.
My motivations are personal. It is for my own benefit. Thus even if America, Americans, and the GOP disappeared off the Earth, I would not cease my hate. I would not cease my desire for their utter destruction, for them to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
When I pull the trigger, it is not because my nation, my society, or my officer commanded me to. It is because I want it. I remember advice from an instructor that is apt here when it came to using physical violence up close and personal, “you have to want it, otherwise you won’t get it done. You have to want it more than anything you have ever desired in your life, more than water in the desert, more than food while starving”. Something like that.
In so far as the world is made a better place, America becomes less corrupt, those are all good things. But when it comes down to it, I think my primary motivation is personal. The abstract motivation may be the benefit of other people, in the long term, but abstract motivations don’t necessarily motivate people to get their hands dirty with blood.
Btw, just now I got a bunch of amber alert messages. If I am getting this correct, it’s due to the shutdown being over because the GOP leadership caved. The Amber alert, I believe, was created to give out information on cars that have kidnapped children. The Obama Regime shut it down. Right. Sure.
I don’t think my motivation is political or even due to patriotic feelings. Not any more at least. But that also means I don’t consider someone with conservative values “good” and someone with socialist views “bad”. It’s a more individual judgment than that, for my conscience is my own.
As is true for most Americans that like freedom and liberty. The world would be a better place if people acted according to their will, instead of trying to use authority to put a boot on somebody else’s will for personal benefit.
Let’s start at the end”
There you go again. Never said that. Never implied that. We’re discussing an “all or nothing” approach v. a matter of small steps when necessary. The simple fact is that those who were against Obama politically and philosophically and who refused to vote for his opponent aided in Obama’s election and his reelection. Call it what you will, excuse it away any way you choose; it is what it is.
Moronic is an adjective. You may find it in poor taste but it is decidedly not an ad hominem attack (mo-ron: Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment. http://www.Dictionary.reference.com). My thesis all along is that conservatives who refused to vote against Obama lacked good judgement. We used to call this “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
That was supposition on my part stemming from what you’ve written here. Of course I don’t know that for a fact. If I’m mistaken, I apologize.
My responses to you have been either defense my own position or criticism of yours. Your rebuttals, however have become increasingly personal and off-point.
“Your criticism is too weak and shallow”
If I made that charge I would provide justification.
“people who think they can BS me by talking out both sides of their mouth”
I’ll allow readers to decide that. Have I accused you of anything like this?
“People like you that think”
People like me? Do I detect an ad hominem over the horizon?
“That Kind of Slave Drivel”.
?????
You and I have exchanged ideas on this blog before and we have mostly been in agreement. In whatever way, on this thread I seem to have inadvertently pressed a button. By my estimation you have become quite vitriolic and defensive and it seems to be ramping up with each additional exchange.
I wish you well.