The idiots at the fake cable news outlet, FAUX NOOZ, had a hell of a time earlier this month making sure their moronic followers believed that Secretary Hillary Clinton faked her concussion to avoid testifying on the Benghazi tragedy.
Secy. Clinton has subsequently been hospitalized for a blood clot which, according to reports, is a result of the concussion she suffered.
The conservative blogsphere, and its harridans, were grunting like wild swine about Secy. Clinton's feigned injury for days, mocking her and her condition.
Now that it is crystal clear that their wild imaginings never happened, we're waiting to hear the biggest of the idiots--John Bolton, Charles Krauthammer, and all of the pea brains at FAUX NOOZ apologize for their insults to Secretary of State Clinton.
I doubt we'll hear anything of the sort. The biggest and loudest mouths are also the smallest minds.
Here're the reactions when Secretary Clinton first suffered her concussion:
Fox's Evening Shows Mock Hillary Clinton's Concussion
December 20, 2012 12:26 AM EST ››› ANDY NEWBOLD
Nearly all of Fox News' evening news shows ridiculed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for having to postpone her testimony on the Benghazi attack because of a concussion she suffered after fainting due to dehydration.
Their mockery was an attempt to downplay the concussion and suggest Clinton was faking injury to avoid giving testimony, a notion the State Department has called "wild speculation based on no information."
The Washington Post reported on December 15 that Clinton sustained a concussion after she fainted due to dehydration while at home a week prior. After the incident, the State Department explained that Clinton would have to postpone her testimony about the attack on Benghazi due to the concussion.
Following the State Department's announcement, Fox News contributor John Bolton, appearing on On The Record, suggested Clinton was faking "diplomatic illness" to avoid testifying about Benghazi. The State Department's Victoria Nuland lashed out at Bolton for his remarks, labeling them "wild speculation based on no information."
Now Fox News' evening shows have decided to join Bolton in accusing Clinton of faking her condition and make it seem she is trying to avoid giving her testimony.
Co-host of Fox News' The Five, Kimberly Guilfoyle, accused Clinton of running "a duck and cover" after suffering the concussion. Co-host Greg Gutfeld went on to ask, "How can she get a concussion when she has been ducking everything [related to Benghazi]?"
Yesterday's TWEETS:
roadkillrefugee@rkref
John Bolton was top adviser to Romney and expected to get a cabinet post in a Romney admin. Bolton argued Hillary was faking her concussion.
Andrew Kaczynski@BuzzFeedAndrew
Charles @krauthammer called Clinton's concussion "acute Benghazi allergy."
Jeff Greenfield@greenfield64
Wonder if those sarcastically doubting Sec. Clinton's health will have the decency to apologize....I'm not exactly holding my breath.
30 Dec 12
Krauthammer is a particular sort of worm:
"How Low Could Krauthammer Go?
This low: he accused the secretary of state of lying about her concussion, saying that she had the equivalent of "acute Benghazi allergy". He wasn't the only one. I'm used to the true crazies casting wild accusations about Hillary Clinton - but this is a test case of how deep the rot has gotten." --Andrew Sullivan
Gutter politics brought to us by the GOP and its "news" outlet.
The Character Assassination of Hillary Clinton by Kathleen Parker
I must admit that I find it puzzling how otherwise intelligent individuals morph into members of the group think crowd. Something I once thought was exclusive to liberals. Funny how things change.
ReplyDeletePolitics can indeed bring out the darker side. Only the naive or fools believe it is limited to a particular party.
Its because John "Banzai 天皇陛下万歳" Bolton has Benghazi of the brain.
ReplyDeleteAccusing the U.S. Secretary of State of lying about a concussion was a particularly nasty piece of business, even for the extremists on the right.
ReplyDeleteNow that they've been shown to be unrepentant, dissembling knotty-pated jolt-heads, will we see any of them apologize?
I think not.
That would take character, and those who defamed Secretary Clinton have none.
RN,
ReplyDeleteIntelligence is no barrier to cruelty and hate. The Right is far more in its lockstep authoritarian groupthink than the Left. That's why they have such power. A quarter of the population exhibit characteristics of authoritarian personality. Authoritarians almost entirely self-identify as "conservative". Science supports the difference in world view by discovering the primitive part of the brain called the amygdala is more active in conservatives. This explains the effect of fear and emotion in their world view.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342239/Brain-study-reveals-right-wing-conservatives-larger-primitive-amygdala.html
"Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion."
Dave,
ReplyDeleteA prominent Republican, Jon Huntsman, pretty much agrees with you and me:
" 'The party right now is a holding company that's devoid of a soul...We can't be known as a party that's fear-based and doesn't believe in math... In a recent interview with The Huffington Post, he took issue with the obstructionist policies of the GOP, describing them as "thwart the opposition, stymie the opposition, obfuscate, be a flamethrower, go out there and destroy the system, and here we are.
In my party, compromise cannot be seen as analogous to treason, which it has been recently,' he said."
Most conservatives refuse to see what is in front of their faces. Instead, we'll hear "The liberals do it too!"
Which, of course, is patently untrue. No opposition party has been as obstructionist and uncompromising as this one. They've disgraced themselves and hurt America.
Well, she is a Clinton, so I can understand them being dubious.
ReplyDeleteThis is all a big shoulder shrug to me. How do you tell when a politician is lying? Her lips are moving.
@ Dave: A quarter of the population exhibit characteristics of authoritarian personality.
ReplyDeletePartially right, my friend. Human beings are bastards, and we all harbor a will to power and control. It is stronger in some than in others, and it is by no means the exclusive domain of conservatives.
Leftwing totalitarianism killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century.
We could also quibble over definitions. Conservatives in this country do not resemble Pinochet or Francisco Franco any more than liberals resemble Pol Pot or Chairman Mao.
Che and Churchill: There's a Little Eichmann in All of Us
Well said Silver. Quite non partisan as well. My hat's off to ya.
DeleteOff topic... Everyone here at PE... Wishing you a wonderful, prosperous, and joyous New Year!!
Interesting to watch the Republicans back off their lies. Now they need to be held responsible for their policies that bankrupted America.
ReplyDeleteMillions voted for Nixon, but few admit that now. Millions voted for the Republican philosophy of cut taxes but not spending, yet, all those who supported those policies then, deny they supported those policies now. They should not be trusted in negotiations now, when we try to fix their mess. I don't trust anyone who supported such obviously failed policies, now blame both sides, and want a seat at the table of realistic policies to fix their mess. Losers should not be listened to, or those who created this mess.
I am a practicing general/trauma surgeon here in Cleveland. Hillary Clinton's blood clot (or "deep venous thrombosis") is almost certainly related to her recent closed head injury. Trauma patients, particularly those with significant head or spinal trauma, are considered high risk for the development of these clots. The fact that Mrs Clinton developed a clot a few years ago additionally raises her risk portfolio. We see this all the time in medical/trauma practice. Head injuries alter the coagulation parameters of the body in unpredictable, potentially deleterious ways. As a result of this, I would expect her to require anticoagulation therapy for the rest of her life.
ReplyDeleteLiberalism to extreme, is Socialism
ReplyDeleteConservatism to extreme, is fascism.
Was Hitler a Socialist/Communist?
Is it the liberals who are being extreme today?
Are people rioting around Europe today because of liberal austerity?
The same idiots who thought she and hubby killed Vince Foster are not beyond any depraved lunacy.
ReplyDeleteLiberalism to extreme, is Socialism
ReplyDeleteConservatism to extreme, is fascism.
This is incorrect and it is a product of muddled thinking.
Mussolini was a man of the left, not the right.
Hitler instituted national socialism, as opposed to the international communist version being driven by the hated Russian Bolsheviks, hated for being Russian, not communist.
Also, true classical liberalism, to the extreme, is libertarianism.
History is replete with both far left and far right hijacking the state for their own nefarious purposes.
Regardless of ideology, I think we can all join to wish Secretary Clinton a full recovery.
All?
ReplyDeleteWe will have to exclude those who claimed she was faking.
Keep it classy, Teapublicans:
ReplyDelete“I’m not a doctor, but it seems as though – that the Secretary of State has come down with a case of Benghazi flu,” Florida Rep. Allen West said on Fox News after Secretary Clinton's concussion report.
Where's the asshat West now?
The TGOP is infected with too many of these vicious cretins.
From Wonkette:
ReplyDeleteFirst, we had Benghazi. We can all agree that Benghazi is the single worst thing that has happened to ‘merica in our lifetimes, right? Yes, olds, even if you lived through World War II. This is WAY F***ING WORSE. Far worse than history’s greatest tragedy, though, is the cover-up of the truth of history’s greatest tragedy. Yes, this is just like Watergate, sheeple. First we had nefarious devious mendacious Hillary Clinton infecting her staff with a stomach virus to cover up her fake stomach virus to cover up her fake fainting to set the stage for her fake concussion. But the cover-up doesn’t stop there. IT NEVER DOES. Now Hillz faked a blood clot so she can keep avoiding testifying about Benghazi. This woman will stop at nothing!
Republican Racism said...
ReplyDelete"Interesting to watch the Republicans back off their lies. Now they need to be held responsible for their policies that bankrupted America.
Millions voted for Nixon, but few admit that now. Millions voted for the Republican philosophy of cut taxes but not spending, yet, all those who supported those policies then, deny they supported those policies now. They should not be trusted in negotiations now, when we try to fix their mess. I don't trust anyone who supported such obviously failed policies, now blame both sides, and want a seat at the table of realistic policies to fix their mess. Losers should not be listened to, or those who created this mess."
And those like RR who seek only to further divide and conquer should NOT be listened to either.
As the wheel turns...
We all wish Secretary Clinton well and hope for her speedy recovery.
OK, I'm outta here. Have fun with yourselves.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year!
Hey Shaw! HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and your family. You are a gem. Stay strong.
ReplyDeleteTo readers, all the best in 2013. When you realize you want the rest of your life to be a positive experience; you will start acting like that as soon as possible.
Happy New Years to everyone!
ReplyDeleteWhen one of the nation’s most admired figures collapsed after effective and exhausting service as Secretary State, the nasty buzz began about it as a ploy to evade responsibility for a single event late in her four-year tenure.
ReplyDeleteFor less twisted onlookers, the gravity of Mrs. Clinton’s condition was clear when she failed to appear with the President ten days ago when he announced the nomination of John Kerry to succeed her, but in the bizarre, bitter world of GOP survivors of last month’s election, simple decency goes by the boards.
While most observers hope for her quick recovery and a restorative period of rest and hibernation for Hillary Clinton, unhappy new year wishes to those who can only see her health in terms of the 2016 elections.
Ms. Shaw, you are certainly entitled to express your opinions and to quote whatever sources you like -- as every American citizen still is under the Constitution -- but please think of the particular tone of many of your own contributions here when you visit
ReplyDeletehttp://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/?zx=da63e836789862c5
and say the kinds of things you have recently posted under the admittedly scurrilous item called Lest We Forget - The Benghazi Blues.
Please don't get me wrong. I am always glad to see you at FreeThinke's Blog, even though it's unlikely we'll ever agree on most political issues. At the same time, however, I'd like you to remember that "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
From where I sit I'd say each of our more ill-tempered utterances is something of a mirror image of the other. ;-)
Vilification and political pornography -- i.e. mercilessly lampooning and exaggerating the flaws of The Opposition in cruel and scurrilous fashion, along with outright character assassination -- is a time-honored practice in American Politics and British ones as well.
Feigning outrage when others do what we ourselves do -- blatantly and flamboyantly all the time -- is rather silly. It causes any hope of seriously grappling with the issues to turn into a Screaming Match or an Orgy of Finger Pointing and Loud Theatrical Denunciation.
All that aside, I don't suppose it honestly occurs to you that those of us who intensely dislike the prominent public figures "Progressives" seem to favor do so because we greatly fear for the health and strength of our country and because we greatly fear the loss of our Constitution and our very Identity as a People.
I admit it's childish to mock public figures and hold them up to ridicule, but all I can say is, "When the Opposition puts a halt to the practice, most of 'us' will gladly follow suit."
Till then it's SLASHANBASHERAMA!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
~ FreeThinke
FT,
ReplyDeleteHere is what I wrote in reply to Always On Watch's comment on Secretary Clinton [AOW wrote that Secy. Clinton's concussion is a "story," which implies it's a fiction]:
AOW: "I see the concussion story as setting up a legal defense, which will be accepted by many."
My answer to AOW: "Well the concussion story has now turned into a fake blood clot story, wot?!
Imagine Secretary Clinton's power! She can get a reputable hospital and its doctors to lie about not only a concussion, but now a blood clot! Miraviglioso!
It is instructive to observe the level of hatred and contempt you carry around inside yourselves for this woman.
Luckily, it harms her not. But makes those who denigrate her look like small-minded tosspots."
IMO, my "tone" fit the implication by AOW that Secy. Clinton is a liar.
Your entire post denigrated and insulted her, which you are pleased to do, and I used whatever skill I have, admittedly small, to counter your unproved allegation that Secy. Clinton is a liar.
I then posted another comment where I asked why you needed to attack Mrs. Clinton's looks. It seemed rather childish to read your subjective remarks about her appearance--which, btw, I think is quite pleasant. She's a beautiful woman, IMHO.
Here's what I wrote:
"Mrs. Clinton's looks have nothing to do with her ability to carry out her duties as SoS. Why bring what she looks like up at all?
I understand you and your pals here not liking her, but promoting the lie that she faked her recent concussion is about as low as the opposition can go. Except if someone also has to throw what she looks like into the nasty mixture of character assassination. Why? Isn't calling her a liar and cheat enough to satisfy yourselves--you have to insinuate she's ugly, too?
That is some heavy load of hate you guys need to carry around.
It's one thing to dislike someone's politics but quite another to slander her with such vengeance.
It reveals more about the sort of people the accusers are than it does harm to Mrs. Clinton, who always manages to look far more dignified and kindly than do her detractors.
Hope you have a healthy and peaceful 2013."
I don't see any disrespect in my "tone."
Unlike your most recent post that shows President Obama to be a blue, blood-sucking vampire.
Extremely childish and boorish, IMO. But one can't account for other people's taste these days, can one.
Also, FT, there are very many Americans who are hopeful for the health and safety of this beautiful country BECAUSE Mr. Obama is our president.
ReplyDeleteShaw,
ReplyDeleteThe denial is evident here. I’m amused to see your insight affirmed shortly after you wrote: Most conservatives refuse to see what is in front of their faces. Instead, we'll hear "The liberals do it too!"
And then sure enough: ....no means the exclusive domain of conservatives. ...Leftwing totalitarianism killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century.
I note scientific support of my point, and it is rebutted with “Partially right, my friend.”
I’m not going to quibble with someone who disagrees with every historian and scholar claiming Mussolini and Hitler were not right-wing fascists. In their view there was no such thing as a right wing dictator. They’re all “leftists”. Amazing. No point in trying to clear that muddled thinking. It’s like telling a Teabagger Obama is not a Muslim Communist and is our legitimate American-born president.
In reality Hitler hated German communists and socialists. I can’t recall the number of times those of the far Right insist Hitler’s fascism is “socialism” because the word is used in the party name. I guess they must believe the Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic. Go figure.
While I must assume my linked article wasn’t read, or dismissed due to ideological barriers, I went to the supporting link offered by Mr. SF.
Just as I thought, more confirmation bias like:
But there are many on the left preaching peace and brotherhood who would do great violence to achieve this dream.
It's just that so much of this on the left gets overlooked or romanticized while the right is inevitably tied to Hitler.
Hitler was not a "Right-Winger" anyway.
One must surely have a selective memory to forget how liberals were called “unpatriotic” and “socialist traitors” for calling out the Bush/Cheney warmongering lies. Peace advocates are still spied upon as potential terrorists.
Yet somehow this is the perception: the left gets overlooked or romanticized while the right is inevitably tied to Hitler Yet “many on the left preaching peace and brotherhood who would do great violence to achieve this dream.”
Sheesh.
“leftwing totalitarianism” was invoked along with denial of any right wing manifestation of totalitarianism. Who thinks Stalin was a progressive pro-democracy liberal anyway? He was a very conservative authoritarian personality. Just look what happened to anyone advocating civil liberties or social reform under him.
Not to quibble over definitions, but what can we call the Party that would not publicly disavow a crazed fringe nut like Allen West saying there are, “78 to 81 Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party”? Give me a break. This is not “conservative”. This is radical Right wing hate and lunacy, and it is tolerated by a major party.
What do we call a group of voters that has over 49% of them believing ACORN stole the election for Obama this election, not the last one, when ACORN actually existed? It is paranoid delusion, likely fueled by racism and other extremist Right wing hate. Again, this is not conservatism.
“Conservatives” in this country do not resemble conservatives anymore.
There are real differences in perception of reality. FOX(R) has done a heck of a job.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteOrwell: To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell
What is it about highly political people that they need always to make those they disagree with monsters?
RN spcifically insulted me when I never mentioned him, but you refuse to let me respond. And you wonder why your blog is under attack
ReplyDeleteWell, dear friends, this really does say it all:
ReplyDelete"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
~ George Orwell
I couldn't agree more, but one deadly serious question hangs in the air:
How could it be that two individuals can gaze intently at ONE particular object for a protracted period of time, and see TWO entirely different things?
I've blithely explained it away many times by referring to the Parallel Universe Phenomenon, but that doesn't begin to explain it.
"For now we see through a glass darkly ..."
Will we EVER be able to comes to grips with the Truth -- whatever it may be?
Four authors have told us well in advance exactly what we are doing to ourselves:
E.M. Forster - The Machine Stops (1909)
Aldous Huxley - A Brave New World
George Orwell - Animal Farm and Nineteen-Eighty-Four
Margaret Atwood - The Handmaid's Tale
I find it highly ironic that these authors all considered themselves creatures of the left, [although I'm not quite sure about Forster, who came from a more decorous age, but given the constrained circumstances of his personal life it seems likely].
At any rate, despite their acknowledged Marxian-Fabian-liberal-progressive-socialist orientation, the dystopian societies they described in brilliant painfully evocative detail most closely resemble the nightmare worlds created by the Russian, Chinese, North Vietnamese, Cambodian, North Korean, and Cuban Revolutions.
It doesn't matter whether despotism parades under the banner of Communism, Fascism, Islamism, Puritanism or the Roman Catholic Theocratic States that produced The Inquisition, the Star Chamber, and hundreds of other murderous foul deeds.
TYRANNY is TYRANNY no matter what banner it parades under, and what the left advocates, however unwittingly, IS in fact TYRANNY, even if it is falsely crowned with golden haloes, clothed in white robes and outfitted with angels' wings.
I know you on the left can't see it, and so you are likely to say I am either insane or a vicious liar -- or both. The truth, however is that we are looking at precisely the same things, and each of us seeing something that bears no resemblance to whatever it is the other imagines he sees.
It's quite confounding -- or should be. We need to look into it.
Oh well, HAPPY NEW YEAR and the best of luck to everyone regardless of our differences.
~ FreeThinke
FT, perhaps you don't see it when tyranny is promoted on the right?
ReplyDeleteA few examples:
The proposal by a rightwing conservative governor of Virginia to to have vaginal probes forced on girls and women by the state, which have absolutely nothing to do with any medical procedure.
The various laws passed by conservative governors in conservative states that make the legal medical procedure--abortion--more and more difficult for girls and women for whatever reasons they, their families, and their doctors deem necessary. That amounts to state-enforced pregnancies on girls and women.
The efforts by conservatives to use their religious beliefs to deny equal protection under our Constitution for our gay brothers and sisters to marry the person they love.
That too is tyranny of the state--the state imposing the will of the religious few on the many. A distopian idea if there ever was one.
There are many other examples of conservative ideas of state enforced transgressions on people's liberties.
Eye witnesses are often unreliable. We see what we want to see.
ReplyDeleteFT,
ReplyDeleteYou pose an excellent question, kind sir.
How could it be that two individuals can gaze intently at ONE particular object for a protracted period of time, and see TWO entirely different things?
Let’s try to answer that, shall we?
First, what “particular object” shall we apply in this case? And then let’s identify the separate observations and frame them as well as possible into an understandable picture, and, then we can see how the two perspectives diverge and how the view from each perspective may shape the observations.
You see, without explanation, you reached quite a shocking and accusatory conclusion with “what the left advocates, however unwittingly, IS in fact TYRANNY”.
Is tyranny the particular object you have chosen in your question? Or is it the political satire of tyranny by the authors you mention?
This reminds me, there’s one sentence that strikes me at the moment.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Yes we know this satirizes Stalinism and dictatorships but...
Has our secretive and almost unrestricted “money is free speech” factor in our elections taken us to the point where some animals are “more equal” in the right to speech than others?
Shaw,
There are many other examples of conservative ideas of state enforced transgressions on people's liberties.
Amen. The war on drugs is one of the most oppressive and enduring of these transgressions.
A few examples from Bush/Cheney come to mind as well. The 2000 election, overturning democracy, decided by conservative Supreme Court cronies of the Bush Cartel comes to mind. Torture, Warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, voter registration suppression, and poll access restrictions are a few more that pop up instantly.
Government and politics, by their very natural purpose, attract individuals with the desire for control and its natural cousin power. This is, if not checked by the rule of law, a sure recipe for eventual tyranny.
ReplyDeleteAs long as this nation continues to be guided by our Constitution and rule of law, based in the principles set in our Constitution we will continue to be fine.
It would do well for some to revisit our early history and the compromises that were forged following great and contentious debate between our founding fathers that resulted on the formation of our great republic.
Honestly Shaw I do not want your site under attack as a result of something I posted, irrespective of how true my comment may or may not be in someone else's view. Therefore, given RR's thin skin let him respond to my comment. I have thick skin and will continue to stand by my commemt. The truth is an impermeable shield. I am comfortable in my knowledge that my comment was appropriately stated in response to RR's open remarks.
ReplyDeleteRN: "It would do well for some to revisit our early history and the compromises that were forged following great and contentious debate between our founding fathers that resulted on the formation of our great republic."
ReplyDeleteWe need to remember that one of those compromises was to accommodate the southern states and their insistence on not addressing the slavery issue, which eventually led to our bloodiest war.
Our Constitution also reflected the thinking at the time of 18th century propertied males.
It was a great but flawed document that has had to be amended over the years, to achieve, as President Obama rightly says, "a more perfect union."
Had there ever been a perfect document? The great compromise that created the USA was necessary to achieve that goal.
DeleteYes the founders were wise to create the process of amending as deem appropriate by future generations. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak. The Constitution, and its framework, including the ability t amend, remains one of the great documents of human history.
Funny how everyone seems to quote Orwell, but few have actually read his essays.
ReplyDeleteHe would find himself just as disgusted with Democrats as with Republicans.
Hitler hated the German communists because they were aligned with the Soviet Union. Read some history.
I defy anyone to step up and be so stupid as to deny Mussolini's documented history as a Leftwing thinker and writer. Again, go read some history and educate yourself.
I tried to throw out an olive branch by saying these historical left-right historical arguments have little relevance to us in the US, but the screaming lefties always insist on proving Godwin's Law.
It is the charge of an intellectually vapid moron, but it seems to make the MSNBC nutballs feel better about themselves, so have at it. You want to play that game? Great. Your Leftwing confreres in Russia and China killed way more people that Hitler.
And anyone who thinks Democrats come in for no blame is the one who is blind.
And speaking of not seeing what is in front of one's face, how long can a government continue blowing a trillion more than it takes in?
You guys like to talk about sustainability, so explain how our government is sustainable?
"Your Leftwing confreres in Russia and China killed way more people that Hitler."
ReplyDeleteAn absurd statement, since political extremists in Russia and China have nothing to do with the Left here in this country.
If you want to continue to play that game, then we can observe that your Christian confreres are the ones who burned "witches" and tortured thousands of innocents during the the counter reformation and inquisition, as well as planted the seeds of anti-Semitism, which led to the Holocaust [see Martin Luther, a hideous anti-Semite].
Trying to make a connection to Mussolini's and Stalin's politics with the present liberals in this country is nonsense.
Our Founding Fathers [not Adams] owned slaves and continued to support that evil institution. Does that make their contributions to the founding of this country evil?
Get a grip.
PS. I own Orwell's "A Collection of Essays."
ReplyDeleteRN said,
ReplyDelete" I am comfortable in my knowledge"
You did not express any knowledge, just an insult to someone who did not address you.
Making you a jerk, and of course, Shaw allows such childish tripe showing no serious discussions going on here, just games. As usual for Shaw, like letting you slide when you write your Jew hate. That's why she would not print my response, because I mentioned your well documented Jew hate. She won't print this either.
@ Shaw: "An absurd statement, since political extremists in Russia and China have nothing to do with the Left here in this country."
ReplyDeletePrecisely my point!
Dave slinging around Hitler comparisons is no better than a righwinger accusing democrats and Obama of being communists. That is my point. It's idiotic and does nothing to advance the debate.
I said this earlier in the thread, remember?
"We could also quibble over definitions. Conservatives in this country do not resemble Pinochet or Francisco Franco any more than liberals resemble Pol Pot or Chairman Mao."
Your buddy Dave DubbleWaah is the one who set out talking about authoritarianism, not me.
But what can we expect from a blog post that labels people you disagree with idiots.
Kinda sets the tone, doesn't it?
C'mon, SF.
ReplyDeleteLet's not get huffy over my assessment of FAUX NOOZ and calling them idiots.
Your pal, Free Thinke, had a post up yesterday depicting President Obama as a blue-faced, fang-baring, blood-sucking vampire. You and he disagree with Mr. Obama and his policies, but were your sensibilities offended by that bit of adolescent graffiti? No, of course not. Neither you nor anyone at FT's blog complained.
Nor did you or anyone else at his blog complain about referring to Secy. Clinton as "Her Heinous."
Your indignation seems a tad one-sided.
FAUX NOOZ's gallery of fools had a grand time telling their sheeple that Mrs. Clinton faked her concussion. That sort of "reporting" IS idiotic. And her subsequent blot clot proved them to be stupendous fools.
Dave Dubya is a valued commenter here. His opinions are just as passionate as yours.
Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State ... Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual.
ReplyDeleteFascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.
– Benito Mussolini
"Dave Dubya is a valued commenter here. His opinions are just as passionate as yours."
ReplyDeleteI understand that, and I sure wasn't calling for him to be silenced. Just providing context for where my comments were coming from.
Dave: Liberal and Conservative in Europe is different from the terms here in this country.
Communists hated the liberals.
The Democrat party is the party of the state.
RR, With what little respect that is due you I respond only by saying Shaw is a fine individual with whom I have serious differences of opinion. Yet I respect her greatly even in my disagreement with her positions. It is you RR that has the issues, not Shaw.
ReplyDeleteAs to your drivel about Jew hate, fine, live with your delusion. The Jews I have worked with and the Jews my wife is now working with seem to be just fine with my positions. Perhaps that is because I now, and always have supported the Jewish people and their right to their homeland and legitimate right to their state.
So, now that you have had your say (Thank you Shaw for allowing this) why not find another site to visit and attack. Leave Shaw out of your issues with me.
Isn't it revealing how not one "conservative" condemns the false accusations and hate from those FOX(R) liars.
ReplyDelete“Conservatives” in this country do not resemble conservatives anymore.
Dave slinging around Hitler comparisons
And just where is that, "idiotic" behavior to be found, son?
False accusations just fly out of Right Wing brains for some reason. Perhaps thought, reason and compassion are not required for the new radical Right ideology?
Communists hated the liberals.
This is true. Fascists and Republicans also hate liberals. Fascists, Communists, and Republicans all share their opposition for democracy and unions too. That tells us something.
And please, no one will respect lectures about history, or liberalism and conservatism, from someone who can't name the Democratic Party.
Why should I find another site. I'm not the one who comes on here and insults people. You are.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you just not address me? Why just insults? Why not state your reasons for disagreements instead of simply insulting people?
My guess is a lack of intelligence on your part. It's much easier for you to just insult people, rather than state in detail, with evidence why someone is wrong? And not just because they are liberal, which is the only reason you give for disagreeing with liberals.
So try it again without the insults, or be known for being a jerk.
"And just where is that, "idiotic" behavior to be found, son?'
ReplyDeleteGo look at your irresponsible comments that started it all, old man.
Maybe in the future you should be a little more circumspect before slinging you slobbery leftwing rhetoric. It is absurd and only serves to hijack the conversation, which is what people who can't defend their point of view usually do.
"Also, FT, there are very many Americans who are hopeful for the health and safety of this beautiful country BECAUSE Mr. Obama is our president."
ReplyDeleteOf course, and THAT, dear lady, is PRECISELY the problem that afflicts our nation, and has placed her on The Critical List.
Our common Enemy is TOTALITARIANISM -- in ANY form. I have that said thousands of times over many years long before we met.
The difference between "my side" and "yours" if we must use such terminology. is what-appears-to-be fanatical, unswerving loyalty of the left to crypto-Marxist ideals, while we "on the other side" are fragmented in our loyalty to the one party that purports to represent "our" beliefs and goals, but in truth does no such thing.
We frankly detest the Democratic Party and most of its authoritarian accomplishments cloaked in the guise of benevolent "advances." The fruits of these machinations appear -- to us -- to be largely deleterious to the best interest of Americans who still want to remain free to exercise self-determination.
None of that means, however, that we wholeheartedly embrace the Republican Party. I, myself, believe the GOP has grown unduly complicit with the supposed "Opposition." The GOP appears to me to be weak, spineless, and suffering from hopeless confusion about the nature of its identity.
How many on "your" side would say that about your own party apparatus?
Not many, I suspect.
I don't wish to entangle myself in an endless dispute over whose brand of satire, scurrilous rhetoric, name-calling and outrageous caricatures are more offensive. It's a waste of time.
A key tactic of the left is to exhaust opposition by asking the same questions over and over and over long after they've been more-than-adequately answered. The technique -- and I see it as that, because few of you deserve to be called "stupid" -- is part of the Critical Theory dreamt up by Antonio Gramsci and brilliantly adapted by The Frankfurt School of which every leftist is an ardent disciple -- whether he, she or it REALIZES or ACKNOWLEDGES it or not.
This is why attempts to argue with "Progressives" -- or whatever you're calling yourselves these days -- usually end up in a shouting match. Leftist Utopians have rendered themselves impervious to the logic of anything that runs contrary to their aims.
It really is as simple as that.
Most of you treat every challenge as an "outrage." Which is, of course, an outrage in and of itself.
All the best to you anyway for 2013.
~ FreeThinke
Shaw,
ReplyDeleteI see our list of Right Wing transgressions was completely ignored. Their denial and selective perceptions are glaringly evident again. We have openly condemned Obama continuing the Bush/Cheney violations of rights and they fail to acknowledge that. In fact they add another of their endless accusations saying “not many” would call the Dems “weak and spineless”.
Meanwhile a question was posed that I offered to help answer. I was ignored.
FT and SF,
BOTH of you made accusations toward Shaw, me, or liberals in general, and refuse to cite any specific substantiation for them. Unless you can do so reasonably, you come off as typical closed minded hateful radical Right Wingers.
If you don’t want to be compared to fascists then stop acting like them. Tossing out false accusations is what people who can't defend their point of view usually do, right, laddies?
Dave:
ReplyDeleteDo you suffer dementia?
Where have I made an accusation?
I responded to Anon, and you become increasingly unhinged. Sit down old man, and check your meds, before you blow a vessel...
Thanks for proving my point, Dave:
ReplyDeleteONCE MORE WIH FEELING:
A key tactic of the left is to exhaust opposition by asking the same questions over and over and over long after they've been more-than-adequately answered. The technique -- and I see it as that, because few of you deserve to be called "stupid" -- is part of the Critical Theory dreamt up by Antonio Gramsci and brilliantly adapted by The Frankfurt School of which every leftist is an ardent disciple -- whether he, she or it REALIZES or ACKNOWLEDGES it or not.
This is why attempts to argue with "Progressives" -- or whatever you're calling yourselves these days -- usually end up in a shouting match. Leftist Utopians have rendered themselves impervious to the logic of anything that runs contrary to their aims.
It really is as simple as that.
Buh Bye!
FT: "ONCE MORE WIH FEELING:
ReplyDeleteA key tactic of the left is to exhaust opposition by asking the same questions over and over and over long after they've been more-than-adequately answered. The technique -- and I see it as that, because few of you deserve to be called "stupid" -- is part of the Critical Theory dreamt up by Antonio Gramsci and brilliantly adapted by The Frankfurt School of which every leftist is an ardent disciple -- whether he, she or it REALIZES or ACKNOWLEDGES it or not.
This is why attempts to argue with "Progressives" -- or whatever you're calling yourselves these days -- usually end up in a shouting match."
FT: "TYRANNY is TYRANNY no matter what banner it parades under, and what the left advocates, however unwittingly, IS in fact TYRANNY..."
FT, you are aware, are you not, that using all CAPS is, in cyber talk actually "SHOUTING!/"
It appears that it's you, not any of the liberal/progressives here that is shouting while making a point.
Good God, the density around here...
ReplyDeleteSF's false accusation:Dave slinging around Hitler comparisons
FT's question I offered to help answer, which he ignored: How could it be that two individuals can gaze intently at ONE particular object for a protracted period of time, and see TWO entirely different things?
And this is A key tactic of the left is to exhaust opposition by asking the same questions over and over??? LOL!
FT's rabid Right lunatic accusation: what the left advocates, however unwittingly, IS in fact TYRANNY
FT's additional unfounded accusation: Democratic Party and most of its authoritarian accomplishments
Still no comment on our list of Right Wing transgressions? And there’s no such thing as a Right Wing dictator?
Yeah more willful cult blindness, a tactic of the radical Right. Crybabies don’t want to defend their witto tantwums, do they?
Of course not, just more throwing out false accusations and ignoring facts we present.
If you don't want to be compared to fascists then stop acting like fascists.