« It's not about 'daddy's ego' | Main | The impractical side of the Amnesty Bill »
June 22, 2007
'Progressive' totalitarianism
Move over Hugo Chavez, it seems a couple of Dems (in a hallway gossip moment) let the Free Speech and Tolerance mask slip.
Again.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okl, claims he overheard Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barbara Boxer, D-Calf, chatting about how out of control talk radio had become.(h/t Jeff Goldstein)“They said we’ve got to do something about this,” Inhofe told a talk radio host. “That ‘these are nothing but far right wing extremists, we’ve got to have a balance, there’s got to be a legislative fix to this.’”
Of course, Boxer's and Clinton's offices are both denying the conversation. I mean, where in the world would those ladies get any idea at all that political speech in the one free market that they don't control is fair game. It's not as if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid haven't been talking about the Fairness Doctrine, right?
But hey, Hillary and the rest of the putative Dem candidates for Prez sure do respect those they have policy agreements with ... that's why they are so eager to hold their debates on FoxNews.
Couple this with Billy Jeff's comment on erstwhile GOPer Bloomberg
Clinton told reporters at a news conference for his foundation that Bloomberg's a "very smart fellow and I suppose he just couldn't bear to be in the Republican Party anymore, which I thought showed good judgment on his part."To the illiberal Left, not agreeing with them isn't just mistaken. It's not a debate over values or policies.
For such as Babs Boxer, Cad Reid, Botox Nancy, et al, it is that conservatives hold illegitimate views that come, not of sincere beliefs or values but from nefarious and malicious motives.
Hell, free porn for everyone, but POLITICAL speech? If it's popular but unapproved by the Left, then it screams out for a "legislative fix."
Posted by Darleen at June 22, 2007 12:38 PM
Comments
Liberals continue to pine away for the halcyon days of radio as if that time and type of regulatory environment would change anything. It won't though.
If Citadel, Cumulus and Clear Chanel were busted up today and the stations were owned by the many owners that once owned them what is it that would change the profit motive of the previous owners? Nothing. They would broadcast whatever sold the most ads, just as the consolidators do now.
Talk radio is market driven (what a novel concept!) and liberals have failed to present an alternative that can survive in the marketplace. So what do they want to do? Regulate broadcast radio as we know it today into some form of broadcast radio that suits their needs. Rather than compete in the broadcast marketplace of ideas and product, they want to rig the game...again.
Posted by: HughS at June 22, 2007 04:47 PM
For such as Babs Boxer, Cad Reid, Botox Nancy, et al, it is that conservatives hold illegitimate views that come, not of sincere beliefs or values but from nefarious and malicious motives.
This is rich, from a person who regularly accuses liberals of hating Jews.
Good to see you're willing to believe whatever James Inhofe says like a good little GOP foot soldier.
Posted by: Josh at June 25, 2007 07:12 AM
Josh
I point out actual anti-Semitism. I source it. But even if I were to accept your charge that I accuse "liberals" of anti-Semitism (and the LEFT is where most contemporary American anti-Semitism resides) where have I advocated that these Judanhass statements be censored by legislation?
Please, quote a statement from me where I want to have a LAW passed to shut up the Jew-haters.
Good lord, stop the mushiness.
Posted by: Darleen at June 25, 2007 07:24 AM
I point out actual anti-Semitism. I source it.
A http="http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog/archives/2006/11/jihadist_appeas.html"lie. You just throw the accusation around recklessly when arguing the merits is beyond your ken.
Please, quote a statement from me where I want to have a LAW passed to shut up the Jew-haters.
I never said you did. My point was about the richness of your complaining about the rhetoric of your political opponents while you traffic in the vilest of smears. Read for understanding.
Posted by: Josh at June 25, 2007 11:44 AM
"And - coded or not - we damn well know where those causes lie.
Yep, those goddamned Joooos, shelling Gaza day after day in their genocidal lust.
Darleen's characterization isn't a smear, it's an accurate representation of Preston's comments. Try again, Josh, and this time try reading for comprehension.
Posted by: Pablo at June 25, 2007 01:46 PM
Oh, and you think that's the "vilest of smears"?
Grow up, Josh.
Posted by: Pablo at June 25, 2007 01:47 PM
There we go. Pablo mouths the anti-semitism smear like a well-trained parrot. Give him a cracker, Darleen.
Posted by: Josh at June 25, 2007 02:46 PM
Can you read, son? What the heck do you think Preston was saying?
And while we're at it, what exactly was your comment here? (The first in the thread) Was that the "vilest of smears"? And how about the one here? (April 17, 2007 08:53 AM) And how about the same thread at April 17, 2007 03:01 PM.
A classic case of the pot calling the refrigerator black. :-)
Posted by: Pablo at June 25, 2007 04:02 PM
Yeah, Josh, Darleen is fine with Jews. Can't you read? Look at the map on the front page of the blog. Good thing she's not prosecuting anyone in the Detroit area, where a lot of Muslims live
It's the Muslims she dislikes.
Posted by: tb at June 26, 2007 07:34 AM
Because Iran = Muslims, tb? Is that what you're saying?
Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 07:37 AM
tb, I know Darleen isn't anti-semitic. She just accuses everyone she disagrees with of being anti-semitic. Apparently she can't make an argument on the merits, so she has to resort to smears. Pablo is even worse - he doesn't even pretend to make a point.
Posted by: Josh at June 26, 2007 07:58 AM
Oh, I know, it's just that I wanted to work in "Darleen can't stand Islam", because I'm always amazed at her bigotry and fear toward them.
I was just using your comments as a Trojan Horse for my attack.
Pablo is a professional blog commenter. He's like Lewis and Clark: wherever you go, he's been there... defending outrageous right wing positions with smears and attacks. He's an asset to us all.
Posted by: tb at June 26, 2007 08:08 AM
You're getting quite the collection of trolls here. Shout a little louder, boys, I can't quite hear your exquisitely crafted arguments.
Posted by: Chris at June 26, 2007 12:44 PM
I was going to comment on your post - but the comments are almost as interesting.
Your trolls prove the point you are making, I think. Agree with them are be subjected to all sorts of accusations, name-calling and having your words twisted.
Point proven ....
Posted by: beth at June 26, 2007 02:49 PM
Ah, and now we've got tb in the Josh mold. All ad hominem, no argument whatsoever.
So, is that the "vilest of smears" you were flinging there, Josh?
Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 03:59 PM
As I demonstrated in that thread, Falwell did make anti-semitic statements. You didn't rebut my argument, Pablo, you retreated. And of course the other thread had nothing to do with anti-semitism, just your absurd claim that pointing out the difference between working in a DA's office and actually being a DA is somehow anti-woman. You'd do better if you'd try making an actual argument, but I suspect that's far beyond your grade level.
Posted by: Josh at June 26, 2007 05:51 PM
As I demonstrated in that thread, Falwell did make anti-semitic statements.
No you didn't. Your lame attempt was debunked quite handily. What you found was a Christian preacher espousing Christian dogma. And that preacher, in one of the very few things I agreed with him about, was a staunch supporter of the Jews. Preston, on the other hand, is the polar opposite of that.
You didn't rebut my argument, Pablo, you retreated.
Feel free to quote me doing that while having the last word on the thread.
And of course the other thread had nothing to do with anti-semitism,
No, you were accusing me of hatred toward another group based solely on whatever it was you had pulled out of you ass. Then I rebutted you and you retreated.
You'd do better if you'd try making an actual argument, but I suspect that's far beyond your grade level.
Pointing out your utter hypocrisy through your previous comments is a fine argument when all I'm arguing with is ad hominem.
Posted by: Pablo at June 26, 2007 08:03 PM
Feel free to quote me doing that while having the last word on the thread.
Here you go: "I'm not interested in defending Falwell, and I have no plans to miss him." That you stuck around and yelped like a child may satisfy you, but your inability to defend the substance of Falwell's statements except by invoking a variant of ad populum speaks for itself.
Also, repeating yourself and hopping up and down doesn't constitute a rebuttal. Just FYI.
Posted by: Josh at June 27, 2007 08:15 AM
Josh, can you really be that stupid?
I don't care for Falwell and I never have. That is all that statement says. But that's beside the point. You called him an anti-Semite, which I'm told is the "vilest of smears", and you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I don't have to be a Falwell fan to point that out. I just have to be cognizant. You also completely failed to defend your slur, and then you tucked your little tail between your legs and ran away.
Perhaps the problem is that being a progressive means never having to do any independent thinking. It's really not that hard, Josh. You should give it a try.
Maybe after that we can move on to introspection.
Posted by: Pablo at June 27, 2007 08:17 PM
Actually, Pablo, Falwell's words speak for themselves. Your only response was "lots of Christians believe that", as if that was relevant. Once you master basic verbal reasoning, perhaps we can have a fruitful discussion. All you've shown so far is the ability to mouth right-wing cant, which makes responding to you largely a waste of time. I could argue your side better than you can.
Posted by: Josh at June 28, 2007 08:01 AM
Yes, Falwell's words speak for themselves. That you fail to comprehend and feel a need to impute your own meaning into them them is not Falwell's failing. You could point to where he said "Jews are bad" or anything like it. But you haven't. You could understand that a Christian of Falwell's ilk would believe those things about anyone who isn't also a Christian of Falwell's ilk, and how that relates to the evangelical interpretation of the Gospels. But you haven't. You could have a look at what the ADL's Abe Foxman had to say upon Falwell's passing. But then, you'd probably manage to make progressive hash out of that too.
This is who you are and this is what you do...while you defend the likes of Peter Preston's comments.
Nobody is buying it, Josh.
Posted by: Pablo at June 28, 2007 07:29 PM
You could understand that a Christian of Falwell's ilk would believe those things about anyone who isn't also a Christian of Falwell's ilk, and how that relates to the evangelical interpretation of the Gospels.
I do understand it. What you fail to understand, even after several attempts to point it out to you, is that the fact that Falwell's beliefs were founded in sectarian doctrine has absolutely no relevance to whether they express an anti-semitic viewpoint. Nor does what I assume is the endorsement of one self-appointed spokesman (I can only assume because your link doesn't work). Is this really the best you can do?
Posted by: Josh at July 1, 2007 09:48 PM
"What you fail to understand, even after several attempts to point it out to you, is that the fact that Falwell's beliefs were founded in sectarian doctrine has absolutely no relevance to whether they express an anti-semitic viewpoint."
True. What is relevant is that they don't express a hatred of Jews, aka anti-Semitism, which is the blazingly obvious point that you cannot seem to grasp.
The link works for me, and Abe Foxman did not appoint himself to the National Director of the Anti-Defamation league, ya moron. I don't think I need to do any better than that in the absence of any evidence on your part. And no, your bigoted opinion is not evidence.
Posted by: Pablo at July 7, 2007 10:28 AM