Peace loving Progressives

[onmyknees]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/07/na...ssive-protest/


This is what is meant by liberal hypocrisy. It reeks of the same sort of pathology Trish laid on us regarding political rhetoric and political speech. Whereas she safely condemns all “inflammatory speech” generically , she refuses to condemn specific, obvious examples, or provides us with an intellectual lecture about nuances and the subtle difference between Obama’s hypothetical speech verses Palin’s metaphorical . And then incredulously asks where are the conservatives who should be condemning this fiery rhetoric !!!!!! This is precisely the liberal mind set. Lecture us from lofty positions with condemnation, about how crude and dangerous we are, while not understanding the nuances of liberal hate speech. It’s the exact same thing the NAACP does, the National Organization for Women, and Big Labor. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I’m starting to feel all these people attended the same university lectures together because they all process the identical orthodoxy.
Recall how many times the NAACP ran to the cameras on CNN and MSNBC and the 3 major networks to peddle phony studies ( with no hard data) about how racist the tea parties were. Racist, Racist, Racist…we heard it at nausea…( and Trish is perplexed as to our anger) Yet here we have obviously blatant examples and their collective outrage mysteriously seems to have waned since the election !!!!!!!!!! To borrow a phrase from Trish...."Any sane person" knows precisely why the NAACP won't call this one. It's because Justice Thomas although as black as any man I know, is a conservative, and the protestors are liberal, so it doesn't take a Political Science major to figure out the play here . .......so the obviously conclusion is it's not about race, but rather ideology...but that's not the charter or history of the NAACP.
The larger point that in my opinion Trish misses ( perhaps intentionally) is that she may be blessed with the academic background to dissect the nuances in Progressive rhetoric, and tell us it’s really not harmful because it’s hypothetical but the average American ( right and left) does not. Could Obama’s reference to guns and knives have been taken out of context by a potential unhinged individual? Absolutely. Therefore ALL potentially dangerous political speech must be condemned, or none of it...or one runs the risk of finding themselves in the position she along with the NY Times and NAACP finds themselves… ….HYPOCRACY.

[trish]

I'm not usually into name calling, so forgive me..but I'll make an exception in your case....you're a simpleton and it has nothing to do with your political views which you're hard pressed to express. Your posts are one sentence, two at most.....and you essentially parrot what Trish says. They have an avatar for guys like you...."I agree" . Use it !!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but I've read hippiefried's posts, and though I often agree with him, I rarely find them to be derivative of mine. Take this thread for example. Hippiefried is explaining that you haven't established any facts that warrant a lengthy response. That's pretty much the whole story. My responses on the other hand have been quite lengthy. So how is that parroting? Actually I think there's something else going on here.

Every time I read one of your posts, it's trish this and trish that. Even in your response to other people you want my attention. Try to pay some attention to what's being written and less to who writes it.

This is what is meant by liberal hypocrisy. It reeks of the same sort of pathology Trish laid on us regarding political rhetoric and political speech. Whereas she safely condemns all “inflammatory speech” generically , she refuses to condemn specific, obvious examples, or provides us with an intellectual lecture about nuances and the subtle difference between Obama’s hypothetical speech verses Palin’s metaphorical .

Which is it? Do I refuse to condemn, or do I condemn while pointing out distinctions? You have yet to show us exactly where my distinctions are inaccurate or irrelevant. Are you just complaining that I found distinctions to make?

And then incredulously asks where are the conservatives who should be condemning this fiery rhetoric !!!!!!

WRONG. And I've been insistent on this point...NOT FIERY RHETORIC, BUT THE USE OF VIOLENT METAPHORS TO MOVE PEOPLE TO POLITICAL ACTION. There's distinction and it's not nuanced. I have yet to see a conservative speak against the latter. Why? Are they afraid it would be self-condemnation?

This is precisely the liberal mind set. Lecture us from lofty positions with condemnation, about how crude and dangerous we are, while not understanding the nuances of liberal hate speech.

I just gave a nuanced analysis of Obama's "If they bring a knife,..." blunder. I condemned it. You didn't. You literally said:

Unlike you....I don't condemn neither what Obama said...nor what Palin said...

So is it dangerous or not? Am I too critical of liberal uses of violent metaphor because I condemn it and you don't. Or do I not sufficiently appreciate its dangerousness? You can't have it both ways.

[hippifried]

I'm not usually into name calling, so forgive me..but I'll make an exception in your case....you're a simpleton and it has nothing to do with your political views which you're hard pressed to express. Your posts are one sentence, two at most.....and you essentially parrot what Trish says. They have an avatar for guys like you...."I agree" . Use it !!!!!!!!!!

There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with. As for political views: You don't know mine & I don't care about yours. You know absolutely nothing about me. Everything you think you know is just somebody elses opinion of what I should be thinking, based on some convoluted associative illogic. Like I said: No original thought. If you ever find a there there, let me know. In the meantime. I'm perfectly happy laughing at your gullibility.

[Faldur]

There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with.

Excuse me, I started this thread and I don't believe it began with a lie. I think it was a factual video describing the threads main topic, (how ever sarcastic it was).

People who live in glass houses, Hippi.. you have been challenged on several topics to back up your verbal accusations with some facts and they never seem to appear. Seems to me OnMy regularly backs up his statements with pics, links or videos.

[trish]

Excuse me, I started this thread and I don't believe it began with a lie. I think it was a factual video describing the threads main topic, (how ever sarcastic it was).

People who live in glass houses, Hippi.. you have been challenged on several topics to back up your verbal accusations with some facts and they never seem to appear. Seems to me OnMy regularly backs up his statements with pics, links or videos.

Pics, links and videos aren't always the evidence they're cracked up to be. First of all, you guys are cherry picking. You aren't going out and picking random links to violent language, are you now? Now lets take the video that begins this thread. The questioner is clearly baiting these people and yes they're being suckers by eventually fall into step, but not until after several cuts and a lot of coaxing. We never see the beginning of the interviews and we never see the time code so we don't know how long the cuts are. Consequently we don't know how long it took the Breitbartesque reporter to coax the violent language out of these people. I do indeed condemn their language, but I also condemn the reporter for giving them a small megaphone and then all but squeezing that language from his subjects. So is the clip a lie? No one is depicted as saying something they didn't say. Yet, Christians will tell you that there's such a thing as a lie of omission. That's the lie the video tells. You think that was a factual video? LMAO Whaddya think we should to do those demonstrators then? Come on, give me a real answer. What should we do? What do they deserve? Come on. You can answer. What should we do to 'em? What should we do after that? Then what? That's not all is it? What else do we do to 'em? Huh? What else?

[onmyknees]

There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with. As for political views: You don't know mine & I don't care about yours. You know absolutely nothing about me. Everything you think you know is just somebody elses opinion of what I should be thinking, based on some convoluted associative illogic. Like I said: No original thought. If you ever find a there there, let me know. In the meantime. I'm perfectly happy laughing at your gullibility.

Wow...that's 3 sentences....

You're right, I do name call....but is an insult to be called what you are? Liberal and progressive??? . Here's what I do know about you....you take drive by swipes, like the guy who drives by you in the car and yells insults knowing full well he'll be safely away by the time you realize what's happened..."LIAR, GULLIABLE" TEA BAGGER" but you rarely state what your position is and why. There's no crime in that , but it's superficial and simplistic..therfore you warrant scorn, IMHO...Instead of laughing at me , why don't you try your literary skills and tell us what you think and why you think it. Look...I know you'd prefer to be yanking your crank to the pics on the general discussion board, but bring some game here.

[thombergeron]

That's pretty funny that you brought up Alan West.

Remember his totally reasonable takeway from The Untouchables? "If they put one of yours in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the morgue."

Remember his measured response to the Obama Administration's (nonexistent) gun control policy? "You must be well-informed and well-armed because this government that we have now is a tyrannical government." (West was, incidentally, totally wrong about the Nazi's banning of private gun ownership.)

Remember when the women who was his chief of staff for about five seconds said, "If you commit a crime while you're here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it."

Good times.

[thombergeron]

Also kind of inconvenient for your argument that you keep railing against the NYT when conservative darling Ann Coulter said, “My only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building.”

Apparently, she agrees with you!

[thombergeron]

Can't leave out peace-loving Glenn Beck, who's program is watched by 3 million kind-hearted critical thinkers:

“Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could.”

[thombergeron]

Tough to beat Michael Savage for cool, collected rhetoric: “I say round liberals up and hang em’ high. When I hear someone’s in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-25.”

Although, in fairness, the AR-25 is an Army manual, not an assault rifle, so perhaps he's wanting to just bore liberals to death.