community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Right Wingnut Debate Dictionary
by Sam
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2003 at 6:46 PM
Courtesy of Atrios... Dedicated to Irving, George K, and 2beers, with love.
Courtesy of Atrios...
Dedicated to Irving, George K, and 2beers, with love.
-----------------------------
AAA
acoulteration
- providing outward trappings of evidence in order to acculturate viewers to believe obvious lies. (renato/DavidNYC)
Ad Ad Ad Hominem
- Complaining that critics are making ad hominem attacks on you after you have made ad hominem attacks on them. AKA Triple Strength Preparation AH. (Hawthorne Wingo)
Adelmania
- The insistence that pre-emption must be continued as a primary foreign policy, precisely because it has proven to be such an incredible disaster. It may also be used with other failed Movementarian policies, such as tax cuts for the rich, "Healthy Forests," and so on. Or: "You can't argue with failure." Named for Defense Policy Board member (and pool-boy of Satan), Ken Adelman. (Seraphiel)
ad hankering
- The practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks, even if what they said had nothing whatsoever to do with an ad hominem. (Pandagon)
Ann Coulter does this all the time. When someone dares to point out one of the nigh-on-infinite lies and misrepresentations in her "books", she responds, "Why are you attacking me?"
All-or-nothingism
- This is when one is mocked because his/her recommended policy does not completely solve some problem.
Amelia Earhardt Defense
- A four part shell game: (1) I can't find those facts; (2) there are lots of theories; (3) oh, that was a long time ago; and (4) nobody cares anymore. This is useful when the quote, facts, or figures have been "disappeared", as in the recent K.Parker Affair, or the White House Website Follies. (chris c)
Andyrogenous
- to be both a social conservative and a social liberal. (Ben)
anorecdotalism
- when presented with statistics, they respond with a story about meeting an anonymous little old lady @ bus stop or grocery store & whatever she told them is more credible than ANY kind of facts or figures we can provide.
Argument by Attribution
- In which any argument you make is immediately conflated with whatever they think Noam Chomsky/Robert Scheer/Susan Sontag/Michael Moore said about something. Mark Safranaski does this incredibly well - essentially, any argument you make, you must first answer for any argument that anyone else sharing a vague political connection to you has made. You also see this in the presidential debates, where the entire field wants to withdraw from Iraq because Kucinich is the only one saying that. (jesse)
Atriosciousness
- spoiling a good argument by introducing facts and logic?
audio'reilly
- To adjust the sound level relative to the opponent, either electronically or vocally, to make ones argument appear stronger.
Awolunteer (v)
- To posture, for example thru the use of body language, bold statements and proclamations, or the use of costumes and special effects, that one is serving or a part of a noble cause, when in fact one wants to have nothing to do with the cause in question. See also: chickenhawk. Also, of course, Awolunteer (n): one who merely awolunteers when the going gets tough, leaving others to pick up the pieces. (thingwarbler)
BBB
Blognostication
- 1) an indication in advance: FORETOKEN, delivered through the internet, via a Weblog, or 'blog. Usually most effective when done after the fact.
Borkellatio
- the act of declaring reactionary religious beliefs to be perfectly adequate justification for enacting anti-civil rights laws.
CCC
Cableism
- An obvious lie repeated so many times it functions as a truth, for the time being.
Cheney's razor
- a philosophic rule that the most complex explanation of an unknown phenomenon is probably correct.
CLENIS (Clinton + penis) Syndrome
- An uncontrollable urge to blurt out "Clinton did it!" or "Oh yeah? What about Clinton?" rather than using logic and reason to make one's point.
colmes (adj.)
- characterized by an affable and inoffensive demeanor while being repeatedly emasculated on national television.
Colmestrato (n.)
- An emasculated, harmless "liberal" stand-in included for purposes of fairness and balance. (section29)
colmny
- what Hannity dishes out but can't take
Condilyzing
- perpetual unrepentant lying, unable to tell truth from fiction, altered reality. Synonyms: Bushspeak, Cheneylyzing. (spek)
Condiment
- A statement that needs to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. (Ben)
Cotton Dandy (n)
One who attributes greatness to his political patrons in the most saccharine, cliched, idealistic prose available, which under even mild scrutiny, fails to have any substance behind it. (see, Sullivan, Andy) .
Coultering
- the act of adding copious endnotes in an attempt to give the sham appearance that one's writings are scholarly, methodically researched and based in fact.
Coulterintuitive
- Making shit up that has nothing to do with the known universe. (Holden Caulfield)
Coulternating
- The old lawyer trick of throwing out a zillion arguments/talking points to see what will stick. This will lead to JFKs Tweetys and Stepfords exclaiming that the one valid point makes for a "great read". (Hawthorne Wingo)
Crying Wolfowitz
- telling lies to achieve an objective. (spek)
DDD
DeLaying Tactics
- the delaying of bills or issues that will be damaging to the GOP until they can be coopted for political gain or to bash Democrats with when the Republican spin machine gets rolling. (John Lotts Calculator)
Demagogarrhea
- Gut wrenching sickness brought on by hearing RNC talking points spouted by yet another Bush apologist.
den Beste ex machina
- The creation of a fake political movement, such as Transnational Progressivism, that has virtually no basis in reality in order to disparage ideological opponents.
Anti-feminists have done this for years. The best known examples are Christina Hoff Sommers' creation of "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" to differentiate points of views she likes (equity feminism) from those she doesn't like (gender feminism). She and other anti-feminists disparage any opinion or movement about women they oppose by labeling them "gender feminism." (Pandagon)
deus ex rectum
- when arguing an increasingly unsupportable position, one suddenly and out of nowhere pulls a totally non-sequitur BS long-discreted right-wing meme out of one's ass.
Disinglennuousness (n.)
- The practice of saying, after the fact, that just because you linked to something outrageous with 'THIS IS INTERESTING' or 'EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS', you don't necessarily agree with the linked sentiments, their having been exposed as utter pig-bollocks. (Nick Sweeney)
Dobbselganger
-To substitute one poll question for another midway through the vote to arrive at the desired result.
EEE
electoralmapism
- A curious synaesthetic condition in which the sufferer perceives certain American states as being "red" and others as "blue", leading to the belief that those living in "red" states are completely virtuous and incapable of sin or misjudgment, while those who live in "blue" states are unspeakably evil.
Elmer Fuddocrats
Candidates, officeholders, and party members who, having the opposition cornered at point-blank range, decide instead to shoot their own party in the face. See: Senate Elmernority Fuddership, the Fuddocratic Branch of the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman, also, ReFuddican impeachment management.
Even the Liberal...
- If one liberal, anywhere, makes an argument that goes against liberal orthodoxy, all liberals are wrong. (jesse)
Extreme Leap
- Democrat: "I think there might be better ways of dealing with this situation." Repub response: "So you would rather see Saddam in power." (Derelict)
FFF
False DickChenomy
- The arguer offers only two options in a situation, one of which is objectively pro-saddam.
Freepler Shift (n.)
- Claiming a source is further in one partisan direction than can reasonably be claimed. From Free Republic. (Lakema/Renato)
Fucksimile
To create a double-post in a comments section. Usually preceded by the ejaculation, "Aw."
GGG
George Chuvalo, The
- A comment thread denizen who just won't quit. Nobody could knock George Chuvalo down. He just kept smashing the other guy in the fists with his face until the fight was over. [Chuvalo was a heavyweight fighter in the 1970s who fought Frazier, Ali, etc.] (Zizka)
Glenndemma ("reaching a" or "being in")
When the disconnect between what you believe in and reality grows to such a degree that you become confused and either docile or unusually aggressive.
Glennuendo (n.)
- The act of drawing a darkly ominous inference from an opponent's failure to discuss a political issue. From Reynolds, Glenn. (Vaara)
Godomy (godomizers, godomizing)
- Shamelessly and repeatedly invoking God in support of your partisan agenda, and implying that your opponents are less- holy-than-thou.
Godwinuous
- A debating pose employed by fascists to declare that they've "won" a debate by invoking "Godwin's law," even though the accusation by tehir opponent that they were advocating a Nazi-like policy was justified on the merits."
Gorinecrophilia
digging up the carcass of a dead dog and fucking it in order to score rhetorical points.
GOTO Reno, or the Reno Gambit
- When confronted with anything Ashcroft does, change the subject to Janet Reno as if she were worse. So many use this it can't be named after a particular individual, though "Rush to Reno" might be fitting.
HHH
Hannitizing
- Standing in front of the American flag and quoting from a patriotic song to show what a great American you are. (Hawthorne Wingo)
Hobbsian: (as in Bill Hobbs)
- (a) to argue pointlessly and tirelessly because it shows team leader potential and blind loyalty to the GOP even in the face of documented incorrectness; (b) fully subscribes to the rules of Calvnball, even when (especially when) shown to be wrong.
Homer-the-Trollism
- Accusing your opponents of bigotry for merely noting your far-fetched, divisive, and perhaps racist tactics and platform.
III
inKausinstent
- adj : displaying a lack of consistency with a position claimed to be held for the purpose of "proving" one's contrarianism.
InKausouciant
- adj : marked by intentionally focusing on the superficial; nauseatingly thoughtless [ant: professional]
Inner Santorum
- (n): a place where stupidity and bigotry is worshipped; where logic, common sense and decency is shunned, and a fun time had by all rich, white, heterosexuals. See also GOP HQ (thingwarbler)
Iron Butt
- Someone who parks his butt on a comment thread and matches the rest of the world, comment for comment. (Zizka)
It's My Fact and I'll Lie If I Want To
- This allows the wingut to transform a statement which may be somewhat complicated: "the economy grew at an annual rate of 7.2% in the 3rd quarter" or misleading: "the average American family will get $1089 in tax cuts" into a fuzzy fabrication: "the economy grew 7.2% last month" or an outright lie: "Every American will receive a $1000 check thanks to the Bush tax cuts." (R. Porrofatto)
JJJ
JFK
- (v.) To perform one's political accomodation by engaging in nonstop talk-radio-warblog-Reynolds-Sullivan-style left-baiting while claiming still to be a "strong liberal." (from the standard code-word remark "I'm a JFK liberal")
Examples: "He's useless...he JFKed a long time ago", "He started reading Hitchens, and before long he JFKed", "Yeah, they're JFKing all over that den Beste essay over at Armed Liberal and Lake Effect"
Note: JFKing is symbiotically related to the "Even Some Liberals Agree" gambit, since JFKers quickly establish their roles as the reliable house liberals who provide neocons with all their even-some-liberals-agree examples. See also Zellmanella, Zellot. (T.V.)
KKK
kettle
- (v.): 1. to note the wealth of one's opponent as an insurmountable bias, while failing to note one's own considerable wealth. Also, to engage in same with respect to one's political donors.
Kim Du Toitnology
- A sophisticated neural-net language program, which is able to translate splattered monkey turds into semi-coherent English- language blog posts. Most humans can't tell the difference.
LLL
limbaughcrisy
- loudly denouncing 'degenerate' and illegal behavior, which one nevertheless secretly practices.
Little Green Echo Chamber
- a technique where those who post dissenting viewpoints in comments threads are banned from further commenting in the website, ensuring that the Conservitards will only have other Conservitards to argue with.
Little Green Eyed Monster
- From the website littlegreenfootballs.com. The envy that conservatives feel over the ability of Islamic states to oppress their own people. Also known as "projection." (SWR)
luskin
- (v.): 1. to secretly desire the status and intelligence of one's opponent while engaging in a systematic misrepresentation of him/her. 2. to stalk
MMM
Malkinization (n.)
- Usage of questionable or irrelevant anecdotes in support of a position when statistics disprove the position. Cognates: Malkious, malkiniously. From Malkin, Michelle. (Hesiod)
Malkirony
- Projecting your self-hatred on immigrants even though you are from a family of immigrants yourself. Also characterized by a skewed vision of liberals because you went to a predominatly liberal college even though you know how its going to be (eg: Oberlin). (Hawthorne Wingo)
matthewsize
(v.) 1. to wildly speculate upon a Democratic candidate's deep seated and dastardly motivation for doing anything. 2. to explain and/or praise an otherwise condemnable act by Bush, or other male GOP politician (see verbal fellatio).
millerism
- Stealing someone else's footnotes so people will assume you read the original language they were printed in.
NNN
Neoconstipated
- The inability to pursue a sound foreign policy because the organs of power are clogged with neoconservative ideologues."
Neonanism
- The propensity of the neoconservative spin machine to circle- jerk a fact into a lie that "everyone knows" by playing a deliberate game of "telephone" with it where the infonugget is massaged further and further along at each step of the process, with the previous steps cast as somehow being corroborative, rather than as a forensic trail of the deception.
Nethercutting
- v. the act of appending an insincere, phony line to the end of an offensive speech, in an effort to obfuscate everything that was just said. (Steve Smith)
Newter
- (var. Newtralize) To restate the position of an opponent, followed immediately by the phrase "The fact of the matter is..." and then your own opinion. Example: "Liberals say they support national security. The fact of the matter is liberals are treasonous scum who should be lined up and shot (quick edit) er.... slapped."
(No)Onanism
Attributing your political views to worthy strangers, based solely on their possesion of positive traits you would like to associate with your side.
Noonanism
- Wet, rapturous bombast about the feet and other appendages of Conservative Real Men caused by internal vibrations that must stimulate all the wrong nerve cells - habitually used in comparison to Bill Clinton. (See also Pegstasy, a mystic trance state which produces exalted visions of magic dolphins and the innermost thoughts of delimen.)
OOO
Obsession with Irrelevant Context
- That's when we get to claim that people were "quoted out of context," when the missing context is completely irrelevant. I'd say Mick the Hack probably wins this one hands down, though self-proclaimed Krugman stalker, and my good friend, Don Luskin is providing some pretty tough competition. Another version of this is the Chewbacca Defense - which is to throw so many irrelevant details into the discussion that is ceases to make sense. (Atrios)
Occam's Pretzel
- (n): The logical fallacy of attempting to deduce the policy of the Bush administration by assuming that Bush makes the decisions. (SWR)
O'Reillyus Interruptus
- (v): being cut off from making a really good point or argument by a radio or cable TV talk show host. Usually involves being loudly shouted down, having one's mic cut (if in a studio), or being "potted down" (if calling in to a radio program). Odds of this happening are greatly increased the closer one gets to the truth.
Origin of Insult
- "When I said you were an ignorant simp that knew nothing, and that you were a stupid jerk, that wasn't an insult. Calling me a liar, however, is." (jesse)
oughtism
- (n.): 1. the act of providing unsound political advice for one's ideological opponents.
PPP
Parkerbation
- To misquote the anonymous source you invented in the first place.
Partisanification
- (n.): The declaration that an opponents argument is "partisan" and therefore de facto without merit.
Pee Wee Herman Defense
- From Pee Wee Herman's famous cry of "I know you are, but what am I?" This one has been deployed recently on everything from racism (Democrats are "racist" because they won't rubber-stamp judicial nominees. Never mind the GOP attempts to trash affirmative action, strongly supported by the Dems) to fiscal responsibility (GOP continues to insist that Democrats are "tax and spend liberals" despite demonstrating their ineptitude at handling money with the nation's largest ever budget deficits) to the fires in SoCal (according to wingnuts, caused by "liberals not allowing trees to be cut" rather than Bush refusing the money requested by SoCal to clean up the deadwood that caused the fires to burn out of control). This may be the most popular tactic of all. (Jennifer)
Penis Glennvy
- (n) the belief that by linking to Instapundit and his posts, rightwing bloggers can extend their influence and reputation into the blogosphere. Indeed.
Photo-optimism
- n. employeeing a photo that is redolent of feel-goodness in hope to impart a similar feeling whenever the subject of said photo is mentioned or seen.
Pick the Definition
- Used to cover your ass when you say something stupid and to attack your opponents. Often words mean many things. There are things called dictionaries which list these multiple meanings. So, you can use an alternative definition to claim an opponent meant something other than what is clearly obvious, or you can claim you meant something other than what was clearly obvious (such as Don Strangefeld's musings on the word "slog," which to his credit was admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek). This one is so widespread I'm not sure we can pick a winner. (Atrios)
Powell Movement
- when a moderate allows him or herself to be used by conservatives for their own ends. From Colin Powell. (Robert Green)
Profanity Always Loses
- It doesn't matter how many times they say you love Saddam, but if you use the word "fuck", you lose. (jesse)
RRR
rancho-commute
- v. To work hard on world problems by spending a lot of time playing golf and relaxing back at your ranch.
Reagantology
- the cult of Ronald Reagan, who was obviously a perfect human being with no character flaws, and the 4th member of the Holy Trinity. Its adherents are known as Reagantologists.
Red Herring Partisanification
- (n.): Drawing attention to an opponent's supposedly partisan motives when this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. (Closely linked to "Hopeless Complification.")
Reductio ad Hannitum
- To ask your evil liberal guest something patently ridiculous, then, while they roll their eyes, accuse them of "dodging the question".
Reno Gambit
- See GOTO Reno.
Resort to Ad Hominem
- In which any negative characterization of anything, no matter how valid, is an ad hominem attack. (jesse)
Rosh Herring
- A post by a person, supporting himself, but posted under a pseudonym and pretending to be someone else.
Follow-up: I really have to protest the "Rosh Herring". There is a perfectly good internet-term for this technique: the "sock puppet". The history of it is quite amusing, do a Google search for "sock puppet" and "Earl Curley" (failed internet psychic, drunk, net abuser, and source of malapropisms). It's good to see John Lott is keeping such esteemed rhetorical company. (Satan luvvs Repugs)
Rosh Hosannah - Alt. for Red Herring. (The Cunctator)
rush
- v., to defend hypocritical right-wingers with logic that appears to be drug-addled.
SSS
Sacred Cow
- Republicans have mastered the art of just designating some subjects as untouchable. Best example in the still (very) recent past... the now cancelled Reagan film. It never mattered whether anybody saw it. There was never any real discussion about whether it had real objectionable content in it or not. Even discussions about whether it was right for a political party to step in and pressure television producers is off limits. They didn't need to resort to any of these techniques so aptly described by Atrios because they were able to evoke the Sacred Cow theme. Even Democrats are falling over themselves to agree Ronald Reagain is too sick... too whatever. It's wrong to talk about Reagan now (or ever). Whether factual or fictional, unless it is authorized propaganda put out by a trusted GOP functionary. Period. Sacred cow trumps all other arguments. (Joe Briefcase)
Saddamite
- (n.): 1. one who engages in the production of weapons of mass destruction and poses an imminent threat to the people of the United States of America. Except not. (Draeton)
Santorium
- where rich Republican women can go for...well any medical procedure involving reproductive rights with no fear of prosecution, humiliation or public scrutiny.
Scaliosis
- (n): condition wherein the afflicted develops a preternatural ability to read the minds of Constitutional framers at a remove of over 200 years.
schizodittohead
- (n.): 1. one who exhibits a split personality with respect to moral judgements, completely dependent upon the political affiliation of the actor.
Schtickism
(1)an argument which demands the DNC adopt the GOP Party Platform or risk becoming irrelevant; (2)Alternate meaning: an argument in which it is assumed the extinction of Islamic and brown-skinned people who don't shape up is a virtuous act.
Seelye
- To report, when a candidate has clarified his or her position on an issue in a way that requires a minimum of two clauses, that he or she has "introduced some new confusion" as to what that position is. (forked tongue).
slate
- (v) -- to take a smugly contrarian position in print in a bid to be the koolest kid in the room; to snark for snark's sake.
Stepford Democrat
- (n.): Term used for political hack who is Democratic in name, but relentlessly supports the GOP (if a Republican is President) or pushes a corporate and culturally conservative agenda (if a Democrat is President). The Stepford Dem is differentiated from its more agressive, openly right-wing brethren (see: Zellouts, etc.) by its touchy-feely rhetoric (eg: "I feel your pain!") and its pretense of being genuinely sorry that it has to abandon its traditional constituency & support its enemies because of "pragmatism", "political reality", "the need to compromise", etc. A curious byproduct of this species is that its constant caving-in and appeasement does not, in fact, please its enemies, but usually makes them more psychopathically angry & all the more eager to hurt & humiliate their targets, which in turn, prompts the Stepford Dem to become ever more craven and subservient in its efforts to grovel before those who openly express their wish to destroy them. See also DLC. For the UK version, see Tony Blair, New Labour. (John D./Jesus Christ)
sullivan
v. To base your argument on a source that actually argues the opposite what you claim it does.
Sullivanish
(v). For an issue to conveniently "be disappeared" when inconvenient facts appear to prove a pundit wrong; often to be replaced with a close variation on the same issue, but one that enables the same pundit to take the exact opposite position with ease and apparent inpunity. (thingwarbler)
Sullivating
- Misrepresenting your opponent's position, and then proceeding to bash them over the head with things they never said. If the opponents complain that they are being taken out of context, then squeal that they are backpedaling and declare yourself the "winner."
Sullogcabinism
- The philosophy that one political party is usually right and more virtuous because of its strong sense of right and wrong, except on the one issue that affects you directly and personally. Then it's a "big tent" even though 99% of the party's members want to make your behavior or hobby a felony.
Sully
- (v.) - To pretend people who were clearly speaking metaphorically were speaking literally, and criticize them based on that. Also known as the "War on Metaphor". From Sullivan, Andrew. (Matthew Yglesias/Andrew Northrup)
TTT
Technical Difficulties
- Defending a plainly false statement by saying that it was "technically accurate" when a technical interpretation of the statement is equally false. Ex. - the defense of Bush's SOTU claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium as supposedly "technically accurate" because it referred to the British, rendered technically innacurate by the use of the word "learned".
Thesaurus Defense
- "The president never said it was an imminent threat! He said it was a looming danger!" (pbg)
Thrasymachan Gambit
- After Thrasymachus, one of the nastiest opponents Plato's character Socrates (as opposed to the real Socrates) faced, in the first book of the Republic, which is trying to put down one's opponent right before introducing a bad analogy (presumably in order to stun one's opponent into silence). It's sort of like the Chewbacca defense [ this is a rough paraphrase of stuff you can find for yourself on the 'net]
threadjacking
- the redirection of every discussion unkind to Dear Leader, preferrably to The Clenis or point of moral equivalency. (Ras_Nesta)
Timesosophy
- As it's in the Times, enough said.
To Fruminate
- Named after the man who turned 2/3 of a three-word phrase into his very own 15 minutes of fame, frumination is the opposite of reason, and is the thought process whereby one comes to the conclusion that it is intrinsically moral to be right, and you are wrong. (It also helps to believe that, not unlike Caligula, a certain former Arbusto executive has become divine.) (R. Porrofatto)
Tottenology
-Needlessly repeating your position while desperately searching for a rationale for it.
Tucker Gambit
- Baiting opponent into seemingly hypocritical position by using an irrelevant triviality as if it were germaine to the topic; usually followed by shock and outrage at opponents (expected) response.
tweety
(v.) - To brutally and truthfully contest an invalid answer or lie by a talk show guest, then immediately suck up to them to the point where the criticism seems never to have been made. Ex. Matthews performed a tweety when he discounted Coulter's lie about George C. Scott, then called her a "great writer" and said "I can't wait to have you back." (BudMan)
UUU
ubaldi
v. To hide a spectacularly weak argument behind a facade of tortured metaphors and pretentious vocabulary. See also will, safire.
VVV
Vaccingating
The process of accusing your opponent of doing what you're already doing in an effort to prevent your opponent from being the first to make that accusation.
WWW
War on Analogy
- When conservatives pick apart an analogy by bringing in utterly irrelevent details. For example, if I write "Iraq is, in many ways, like Vietnam," a graduate of the wingnut debating school will respond with "You're wrong! Iraq is in the Middle East!" Or, if one points out to Andrew Sullivan the similarity between Jayson Blair and certain journalistic lapses under his own watch, he could respond with "They're nothing alike! Jayson Blair is lefthanded!" I think Jay Caruso is current champion of this technique. (Atrios)
War on Metaphor
- Where conservatives pretend people who were clearly speaking metaphorically were speaking literally, and criticize them based on that. Andrew Sullivan's been excelling at this one lately. (Atrios)
Why Do You Hate America?
- This one needs no definition.
Wolfuscation
- to darken (hide) or confuse an issue. (spek)
WWIIism (aka WWWCD?)
- an offshoot of the "Everyone is a Nazi" technique (widely practiced on both sides): compare *every* argument, no matter how small, to WWII. You, of course are on the right side, the stern, square- jawed Churchill.
ZZZ
Zell-manella
- Claiming that you are a "life-long Democrat," but now you're disgusted by their negativity, and you've fallen for the steely-eyed Dubya. Sufferers are known as Zellots or Zellouts.
about time!
by c.
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 12:18 PM
excellent...I don't think this could have been done any better...
kewl
by durutti
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 12:28 PM
I can't believe my eyes.
This wasn't from the DU, was it?
Who, me or the article?
by Sam
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 12:59 PM
Atrios (who writes the Eschaton blog) compiled the dictionary.
And yes, I do post to DU as durutti.
Something else the FReepers could use
by Sam
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 1:15 PM
A guide to logical fallacies:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/
Maybe it will persuade some of the ones who actually believe the BS they unwittingly parrot to change their minds.
oh goody - a game to play!
by Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 1:36 PM
Indyrogenous
- to be both a member of the Indy Collective and a member of the RatSewer at the same time. (durutti)
2
by illogical
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 1:40 PM
Appease-o-mania -
The insistence that Americans are to blame for all the woes and ills of the world must be continued as a primary foreign policy and also as something akin to a religion, precisely because it has proven to be such a balm against the utter realization that Leftists are nothing but mentally disturbed cowards, bereft of any sense of self preservation. It may also be used with other incredibly boring mindless chants, such as "tax cuts for the rich", "trees, not bombs," "whatever those bad men say that terrifies me I agree with, as long as they won't hurt my widdle feelings", and so on. Named for Sam durutti.
ooooh, this IS fun!
by Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 2:12 PM
Awolunteer (v)
- To posture, for example thru the use of body language, bold statements and proclamations, or the use of costumes, vomiting and defecating and special effects, that one is serving or a part of a noble cause, when in fact one can't cash the check it's mouth wrote.
Origin - Human Shields - when the going gets tough and the cameras vanish, awolunteers leave others to pick up the pieces.
is this illegal?
by tribal Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 3:07 PM
All-or-nothingism
- This is when a Conservative is mocked because his/her recommended policy does not completely solve some problem instantly, and/or doesn't commit genocide against Caucasian Males or Christians or Jews or heterosexuals or starving Africans in the process. Leftist adolescents expect a diverse homosexist FemiNazi Marxist Utopia, complete with bread lines and golf course, within the next 5 minutes.
rate my vomit.com
by Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 3:29 PM
anorexialism
- when presented with statistics and stunning incontrovertible logic, or when facing the fact we're in a fight for our very survival, Leftists respond with infantilism, of Freudian childhood fixations of body orifices, such as "vomit for Peace" or collective masturbation or defecating on sidewalks in front of federal buildings to get some, ANY form of attention.
Also known as "It's all about ME! ME! ME!"
fun fun fun
by durutti pygmy
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 6:49 PM
A.N.S.W.E.Ration
- providing outward trappings of evidence in order to acculturate highly suggestive grade school cowards to believe obvious lies.
Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Hominem
- Complaining that critics are making ad hominem attacks on you after you have made ad hominem attacks on them. AKA The only true defense a Leftist has.
ad hankering
- The practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks, even if what they said had nothing whatsoever to do with an ad hominem. (See " Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Hominem' above). Ann Coulter is accused of this all the time. When she dares to point out one of the nigh-on-infinite lies and misrepresentations from the Left in her books and columns, she's attacked, but always and without fail responds in such a way that sends the Leftist freaks to their analysts.
Rachel Corrie Defense
- A four part shell game: (1) I can't find those facts I just pulled out of my buttocks; (2) there are lots of theories and I helped create them just now; (3) oh, that was a long time ago; and (4) it's not the Fad of the Week anymore (re Kyoto, or of womens rights and childrens rights, expendable due to an edict of A.N.S.W.E.R.). This is useful when the quote, facts, or figures have "disappeared", as in when Leftists are confronted to provide actual workable data and/or historical proof, not conjecture and guesswork.
Argument by Attribution
- In which any argument you make is immediately conflated with whatever they think Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Victor Davis Hanson or Thomas Sowell said about something. Eric Altered-man does this incredibly well - essentially, any argument you make, you must first answer for any argument that anyone else sharing a vague political connection to you has made. You also see this in the presidential "debates", where the entire field wants to distance themselves from Kucinich because he's such a freak, embarrassing the 2 dozen decent liberals left in America by self promoting his acceptance by a character from a childrens book!
Atriotrocity
- roping in highly suggestive grade schoolers with yawn inducing repetition of Borgasms instead of using critical thinking. Also when Indyrogenous posters with the minds of children suffer from delusions of grandeur, and post links to web sites about "logic and fallacies", afterwards running to the Democratic Underground and crying like a baby "I hate IndyMedia. So THERE!"
audio vanHuevel
- To adjust the sound level relative to the opponent, either electronically or vocally, to make ones argument appear stronger, such as when Laura Ingraham appeared with the insignificant Klinton groupies on The View, or when the editor of The Nation just won't shut the hell up!
?
by 2wheels
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 7:36 PM
things at the police station a little slow tonight? or is forced retirement a bit boring?
Re: oh goody
by Sam
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 7:58 PM
I'm not involved with the IndyMedia collective. Honestly, I think IndyMedia has outlived its usefulness. But debunking all the crap you guys come up with is a good way to kill time.
re: illogical
by Sam
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 8:42 PM
"Appease-o-mania - "
Note that the name itself is an example of WWIIism.
"The insistence that Americans are to blame for all the woes and ills of the world must be continued as a primary foreign policy... "
A strawman. I've never seen or heard any leftist say anything similar.
First of all, *Americans* aren't to blame for anything. They aren't the ones who make policy. A tiny elite is.
Secondly, France, Russia, Germany, etc. are all just as imperialist as the United States, and would behave similarly if they were superpowers.
There are plenty of terrible things that happen in the world that have nothing to do with the United States. Many of them are the fault of other states. Others aren't the fault of any state, but people themselves.
But the fact is that the United States is the world's lone superpower -- the main imperialist state. U.S. hegemony is a fact. It's only logical to assume that U.S. policy will impact what goes on in the world. And when the U.S. supports tyrants like Somoza, Marcos, and Pinochet, one can reasonable conclude that that impact very often isn't positive.
And when you reduce people to living in conditions of poverty and repression, it's to expected that some of them will lash out, endangering Americans.
Even American intelligence has confirmed that the attack on Iraq has *strengthened* al Qaeda by encouraging recruitment and opening up new sources of funding. The neoconservative policy of "prevantative" war will not work. This isn't just a question of compassion. This strategy will put Americans in even more danger.
..."and also as something akin to a religion"
As opposed to the religion of neo- and mainstream conservatives (as well as many "liberals"), which teaches that American can not but act out of motives that are Virtuous and Pure, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"...precisely because it has proven to be such a balm against the utter realization that Leftists are nothing but mentally disturbed cowards, bereft of any sense of self preservation."
Typical ad hominem attack.
Of course, we know that conservatives aren't cowards. When they see a war they like, they go and fight it themselves! Right? They don't sign up for the National Guard, then not show up for 7 weeks to hide their cocaine use, right? Thought so.
And I mean, just look at all the high-profile conservative hawks who served in the U.S. military. Like John Ash-... oh, wait, no... how about Ann Cou-... nope, not her... David Horowitz... no... oh, that's right, there ARE NONE!
Gotta love their sense of self-preservation too -- with their love of nuclear arms, taking actions they know will incite terrorism, destroying the enviroment, and so on.
"It may also be used with other incredibly boring mindless chants, such as 'tax cuts for the rich', 'trees, not bombs,' 'whatever those bad men say that terrifies me I agree with, as long as they won't hurt my widdle feeling'", and so on."
Because the rich don't have nearly enough money already and trees cause pollution, right?
Because despite the fact that investing money from the military budget and welfare for the rich in healthcare and education would employ more people, increase demand, increase opportunity for the vast majority of Americans, reduce inequality, reduce poverty, and improve the way the rest of the world sees the United States, it's still a bad idea. Why? Because Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al. say so.
, precisely because it has proven to be such a balm against the utter realization that Leftists are nothing but mentally disturbed cowards, bereft of any sense of self preservation.
Human Shields
by Sam
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 8:46 PM
"Origin - Human Shields - when the going gets tough and the cameras vanish, awolunteers leave others to pick up the pieces."
Hmm... kind of like conservative hawks who won't enlist!
strawmen and panty shields
by tribal elder
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 9:35 PM
How do you I'm not in the Service, or was?
Add chickenhawk to the list of cliches'. That word makes cowards feel better. The psychiatric term is "projection". Alcoholic parents sometimes lash out at their children, calling them "it". Is that too hard for you to understand, "Sam"?
Are you "it", Sam? Are all you Leftists "it"? Is there anything about your home, your friends, your country, that you like? Anything worth defending, instead of hating and inviting the terrorists to destroy it?
Maybe I'll address some more of that deeply depressing shit you scrivened later. Right now I'm enjoying taking your little list and turning it right back in yer face.
------------
Hey, 2training wheels, good to see your "brain" still spasms every so often. We missed you....
re: is this illegal
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 4:07 AM
"All-or-nothingism"
Man, at least come up with your own term.
"- This is when a Conservative is mocked because his/her recommended policy does not completely solve some problem instantly..."
Conservaitve policies don't solve problems, by definition. They deny that problems exist. Thus, these policies often end up not only not solving problems, but aggravating them and creating new ones.
"...and/or doesn't commit genocide against Caucasian Males..."
Caucasian males like me, or half the leftists in Pittsburgh? Yeah, we want to commit genocide against ourselves.
"...or Christians..."
Like the Quakers? Or the Catholic Workers movement? Or the Thomas Merton Center?
Here's what I want to know: where were you people in the '80s when populist priests were being persecuted and killed by U.S.-backed dictators and death squads? Where are you today when Palestinian Christians (around 7 percent of the Palestinian population) are humiliated and abused by Israel?
"...or Jews..."
Right. Like Abbie Hoffman, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Shalom, Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shahak, or any of the scores of other leftist Jews?
Pat Buchanan, who even William F. Buckley calls an anti-Semite, is close to the heart of many conservatives. He's run for president as a Republican several times.
The George H. W. Bush campaign was revealed to be staffed by a number of avowed anti-Semites and white supremacists.
Former KKK leader David Duke is a leader of his local Republican Party in Louisiana.
Trent Lott and other prominent Republicans have associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, an openly racist, anti-Semitic organization.
And perhaps most pertinent to today's situation: "Christian Zionists" like Pat Robertson want to see all Jews emigrate to Israel. Why? Because they want to see the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy in which all Jews are forced to convert to Christianity or die.
And which party's Web page recently contained a thinly-veiled anti-Semitic rant about George Soros?
Who wants to see genocide, again?
"...or heterosexuals..."
Because there are no heterosexual leftists.
"...or starving Africans in the process."
You're the ones who've promoted the World Trade Organization and the austerity programs of the World Bank and IMF, which have reduced countless millions of Africans to poverty. These policies are responsible for (conservatively) the deaths of around 20 million people, most of them African.
You're the ones who think we should turn a blind eye to AIDS in Africa.
You're the ones who have backed countless terrible dictators throughout Africa -- and still do (in Egypt, for instance).
re: rate my vomit.com
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 5:08 AM
Irving, I've never seen a right-winger present "incontravertible logic" or statistics regarding anything -- only the logical fallacies and propagand techniques I highlighted in my first two posts.
However, I have confronted you with logic and statistics on this newswire consistently, and you've never responded in kind. You only respond with this kind of childish dreck.
re: rate my vomit.com
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 5:09 AM
Irving, I've never seen a right-winger present "incontravertible logic" or statistics regarding anything -- only the logical fallacies and propaganda techniques I highlighted in my first two posts.
However, I have confronted you with logic and statistics on this newswire consistently, and you've never responded in kind. You only respond with this kind of childish dreck.
Re: fun fun fun, Pt. 1
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 5:22 AM
"A.N.S.W.E.Ration
- providing outward trappings of evidence in order to acculturate highly suggestive grade school cowards to believe obvious lies."
Hmm... obvious lies...
Like Saddam Hussein is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction?
Hussein is allied with al Qaeda?
The air in Manhattan wasn't poisoned after September 11?
Like providing $10 million to fight AIDS in Africa (except not)?
Like trailers of mass destruction?
Like uranium from Niger?
Like selling Harken stock after being informed prior to the company's setback?
Like Ken Lay didn't support Bush politically?
Those kinds of obvious lies?
"Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Hominem
- Complaining that critics are making ad hominem attacks on you after you have made ad hominem attacks on them. AKA The only true defense a Leftist has. "
How original! The difference, of course, is that it actually *applies* to right-wingers.
fucksimile
by Irving
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 6:51 AM
You forgot to say "Aw"....
re: fun fun fun, Pt. 2
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:08 AM
"ad hankering
- The practice of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of ad hominem attacks, even if what they said had nothing whatsoever to do with an ad hominem. (See " Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Ad Hominem' above). Ann Coulter is accused of this all the time."
Ann Coulter does, in fact, routinely employ ad hominem attack. A few examples:
-- In a debate with a disabled Vietnam vet, she said, "People like you caused us to lose that war."
-- She compared Katie Couric to Eva Braun.
-- When the National Review fired Coulter, she referred to the editorial staff as "girly boys".
-- "While having dinner recently with John Lott, author of 'More Guns, Less Crime,' one of life's enduring debates came up: Are liberals evil or just stupid? I was surprised to discover that Lott vigorously disputed those of us staking out the evil position." (March 8, 2001)
-- Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00
-- On Clinton: "We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time
-- "It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.
-- "Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00
-- She began her 1/18/01 column by calling Ted Kennedy a "blowhard" and an "adulterous drunk".
-- She accused Clinton of having "crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree."
"When she dares to point out one of the nigh-on-infinite lies and misrepresentations from the Left in her books and columns, she's attacked, but always and without fail responds in such a way that sends the Leftist freaks to their analysts."
Nothing Ann Coulter says has any basis in reality. Her books (especially Slander) and articles have been thoroughly debunked. Ann Coulter is not a thinker. She accuses liberals of attacking her, not her ideas. In fact, she has no ideas.
See:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072202.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072602.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h051502_2.shtml
http://www.fair.org/extra/0211/annslanders.html
"Rachel Corrie Defense
- A four part shell game: (1) I can't find those facts I just pulled out of my buttocks; (2) there are lots of theories and I helped create them just now; (3) oh, that was a long time ago; and (4) it's not the Fad of the Week anymore (re Kyoto, or of womens rights and childrens rights, expendable due to an edict of A.N.S.W.E.R.). This is useful when the quote, facts, or figures have 'disappeared', as in when Leftists are confronted to provide actual workable data and/or historical proof, not conjecture and guesswork."
And of course, you give no example of the above -- because, I suspect, you don't know of one. I can't speak for all leftists, but every position I take, I do after thoroughly examining both sides of the issue. Having been interested in politics since I was about 13, I've come to the conclusion (at this point in my life) that the right is correct about pretty much nothing.
I challenge you to convince me of *any* conservative position on a basis of empirical evidence.
And then you pull another strawman by bringing up ANSWER. I am not affiliated with answer, nor is anyone I know personally. ANSWER is a tiny clique that has helped to organize a few protests. Of course, acknowledging this fact doesn't make for good demagoguery, so you'd best ignore it.
"Argument by Attribution
"- In which any argument you make is immediately conflated with whatever they think Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Victor Davis Hanson or Thomas Sowell said about something..."
The difference, of course, is that many conservatives *are* just parroting what Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh say.
Many conservative positions simply have no basis in reality. The only way anyone could *possibly* believe in them is to parrot unquestioningly what's said by certain right-wing pundits.
Atriotrocity
"- roping in highly suggestive grade schoolers with yawn inducing repetition of Borgasms instead of using critical thinking. Also when Indyrogenous posters with the minds of children suffer from delusions of grandeur, and post links to web sites about 'logic and fallacies', afterwards running to the Democratic Underground and crying like a baby 'I hate IndyMedia. So THERE!'"
On the contrary, I think that IndyMedia was a great thing before it got taken over by people like you.
Of course, you don't read anything about logical fallacies, because logic isn't an integral part of your belief system.
"audio vanHuevel
- To adjust the sound level relative to the opponent, either electronically or vocally, to make ones argument appear stronger, such as when Laura Ingraham appeared with the insignificant Klinton groupies on The View, or when the editor of The Nation just won't shut the hell up!"
Which exists only in your imagination. But Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly employ this tactic as a matter of course.
BTW, the only times I ever remember seeing anyone from The Nation on television were when David Corn was on O'Reilly to criticize the anti-war movement, and when Corn talked about the Valerie Plame leak (which -- despite being a big fucking deal -- has all but disappeared from the media).
Re: strawmen and panty shields
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:29 AM
"How do you I'm not in the Service, or was?"
I assume that if you were, you'd say so. In any case, it's irrelevant. Numerous people who were or are in the service oppose the war. Several of them have spoken at rallies held in Pittsburgh and elsewhere.
But pro- or anti-war, they're not the ones who make policy. And the fact is that those who *do* make policy -- those who came up with the idea of invading Iraq -- are all chickenhawks. That's pertinent.
"Add chickenhawk to the list of cliches'. That word makes cowards feel better. The psychiatric term is 'projection'."
Another ad hominem attack. Grow up.
BTW, conservatives accusing progressives of being "hateful" or "angry" is a great example of projection.
"Are you 'it', Sam? Are all you Leftists 'it'? Is there anything about your home, your friends, your country, that you like? Anything worth defending, instead of hating and inviting the terrorists to destroy it?"
And now you're completely (and presumably, knowingly) altering the meaning of what I said.
You seem to have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between a country and that country's social, political, and economic system.
There are a lot of things I like about this country. It's certainly one of the best places to live in the world. But we have problems, too -- and if we can improve them, we should.
When I said "it", I refer to the people who run the United States as a state (i.e., as the mechanism by which one class rules over another). The President, the Fortune 500 CEOs, the heads of the military, and the union bureaucrats. Not just in this country, but in every country. The difference between them and the other 80 percent of the world is larger and deeper than any difference between nations.
I wouldn't do what I do or believe what I believe if I didn't think it would benefit this country (and all countries).
You, on the other hand, are willing to ignore history and swallow whole whetever this administration feeds you. You're the one who doesn't care about this country. And by advocating this suicidal foreign policy, *you* are inviting terrorists to destroy it.
"Maybe I'll address some more of that deeply depressing shit you scrivened later. Right now I'm enjoying taking your little list and turning it right back in yer face."
And by that, you mean not responding to it, because you and your compatriots aren't used to having your "ideas" challenged.
Well?
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:41 AM
You two (or one, or however many of you there are) say you employ "facts and statistics" in your arguments.
Let's see some.
About anything. Go for it.
You can't.
sam i am sir
by I hate IndyMedia
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 9:01 AM
I'm so full of hate and demand someone talk to me. I demand someone debate the same old shit with a Collaborating loser. It's my way or else. I'll go to the DU and pee my panties. You'll see! Just you wait!
Wow.
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 10:27 AM
"I'm so full of hate and demand someone talk to me. I demand someone debate the same old shit with a Collaborating loser. It's my way or else. I'll go to the DU and pee my panties. You'll see! Just you wait!"
That's some incontravertible logic!
crushing a DU cockroach under my heel
by Irving
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 10:38 AM
Sit back and marvel, everyone, while I absolutely slap the shit out of a dime store Leftist.
"audio vanHuevel
- To adjust the sound level relative to the opponent, either electronically or vocally, to make ones argument appear stronger, such as when Laura Ingraham appeared with the insignificant Klinton groupies on The View, or when the editor of The Nation just won't shut the hell up!"
"Which exists only in your imagination…."
Though I have so many choices as illustrations, I'll just go with this one. Ingraham was on the View and couldn't get in a word edgewise. Walters was even on the set that day, so I'm not name dropping and pulling lies out of my butt like Leftists. I heard it again Friday night, on one of her "best of" reruns, since it was a holiday weekend. That I heard it so recent is why I used it for an example.
And van Huevel was on O'Reilly last night! Tammy Bruce hardly had any time to speak because of vanHuevel's obviously prepared speech, and O'Reilly even made a comment he'd have her mike "cut" if need be. (Personally she reminded me of that moron Jim Goldman, formerly head of NASA, a smarmy ass if ever there was one).
You have absolutely zero credibility, Little Precious™. You said I "imagined" something from last night, something they even reran twice.
All you can do is what Leftists typically do - when confronted with facts you call your opponent a liar or he/she imagined it. Well, here's the facts you demanded, asswipe.
cockroach grinding part 2
by Irving
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 10:40 AM
Here's the best I can do about the Ingraham deal, Little Precious™, and I'm sure you'll dismiss the facts and attack what kind of web site it is instead, but at least I'm not pulling it out of my behind.
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031110.asp#5
Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham received a hostile reaction last week from crew on ABC’s daytime show, The View, to the premise of her new book, Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America. Other than Rachel Campos, one of three finalists auditioning to join the show permanently, the co-hosts were all appalled by Ingraham’s contention that elites on the coasts are out of touch with “the heartland.”
When Ingraham argued “that the Democratic Party is not connecting with the people who are its logical constituents, from the South and from the Heartland,” Barbara Walters shot back: “Excuse me, neither is the Republican Party, at this point, necessarily connecting.”
Though she was raised in Manhattan as the daughter of a nightclub owner, Walters claimed “I’m from the Heartland” and simplistically saw Ingraham as attacking people’s patriotism: “Whether it is someone in the United Nations or any actor or anyone who has a strong, liberal point of view is, therefore, to you elite and unpatriotic?”
Joy Behar became upset by Ingraham making fun of Hollywood liberals: “Why do you have to make these generalizations about liberals?” Behar came to the defense of Barbra Streisand: “Why are you against Barbra Streisand? She’s a very, very patriotic American....All she does is speak from her heart about American values. Why do you have to go after Barbra Streisand?”
The second that Ingraham took on the “elite tendencies” of George W. Bush, citing the coddling of Ken Lay, Behar exclaimed: “Now you’re talking sense!”
MRC analyst Jessica Anderson took down Ingraham’s session on the November 4 The View.
Star Jones: “Now, first of all, the title of the book is 'Shut Up and Sing.’ Now, it’s an explanation of how the 'elites’ -- which I can’t stand that word -- from Hollywood, Washington and the United Nations are subverting America. What exactly do you mean, Laura?”
Ingraham: “We’re supposed to have government of the people, by the people and for the people, and there are elites in this country who are Republicans and Democrats -- Hollywood just comprises one small section of that. The point is, on issues from illegal immigration to gun rights–“
Jones: “You got a governor into the governor’s mansion.”
Ingraham: “Let me finish. Illegal immigration to gun rights to patriotism to support for the military. A lot of people in the Heartland feel like the elites and groups from Hollywood and politics and the UN and universities aren’t really listening to their concerns, and most of them don’t much really care about them.”
Joy Behar: “Wait a second. Does the Heartland encompass Staten Island?”
Ingraham: “No, no.”
Behar: “Just checking.”
Ingraham: “The point is, the country really is comprised of people who generally think we have good intentions. Our country tries to do the best. We’re fallible, we make mistakes, but there’s an increasing group in this country, I think, that’s sort of tired of the voters. The voters are pesky.”
Jones: “You’ve been interviewing people in the Heartland?”
Ingraham: “Oh, I actually have a show every night where I talk to, you know, hundreds of thousands of people across the country.”
Jones: “Alright, but I’m curious.”
Ingraham: “And they are saying time and time again that when, for instance, Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders says we deserved to get 'blanking’ bombed, I hope the Muslims win, and when someone like Madonna says–“
Behar: “Wait a second. Just call her an idiot.”
Rachel Campos: “Star, I live there and she’s absolutely right.”
Ingraham: “They don’t feel like, and let’s go to the Democratic Party–“
Behar: “Laura, why can’t you just say that she’s an idiot? Why do you have to make these generalizations about liberals?”
Ingraham: “Because it’s not just coming from me. People like Zell Miller, who’s about to retire as a proud Democrat in the U.S. Senate, says – and very convincingly – that the Democratic Party is not connecting with the people who are its logical constituents, from the South and from the Heartland.”
Walters: “Excuse me, neither is the Republican Party, at this point, necessarily connecting.”
Ingraham: “I’m not sure that’s right. George Bush is still pretty popular, Barbara.”
Behar: “He’s not the whole Republican Party.”
Walters: “Yes, he is, but there are questions also about how they’re handling things, but you talk about Hollywood. You criticize Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins -- as a matter of fact, who live in New York, they don’t live in Hollywood.”
Ingraham: “Right.”
Walters: “And Sean Penn, giving their views on the war in Iraq. We have presidential candidates who are giving their views on the war in Iraq and you don’t criticize Republican movie stars for giving their views, so why can’t–“
Behar: “She agrees with them.”
Walters: “Because you agree. Free speech! That’s part of the American dream.” [Audience cheers and applauds]
Ingraham: “We’re all citizens. Everyone has the right to speak out, of course, but the point of the matter, as it would be ridiculous for me to lecture Bruce Springsteen on the chord progression in 'The Rising’ or lecture Susan Sarandon about her terrific acting -- I’m a huge fan of hers -- it’s similarly silly for them to talk about international policy, foreign policy.”
Behar: “Why?”
Meredith Vieira: “As an American citizen, they have a right to do that.”
Ingraham: “No, of course they have a right to speak out, but the point is it goes to a question of credibility. When Sean Penn is given an hour on Larry King Live to talk about his fact-finding mission in Iraq, that might be interesting TV, but the people are sitting out there going 'huh?’”
Walters: “But Larry King also talks to Hollywood people who he gives time to talk about that they’re against gun control. Not everybody–“
Ingraham: “But the point is most Americans, I think, would rather watch a continuous loop of Yentl than hear Barbra Streisand talk about politics. I think that’s true.” [Audience applauds]
Campos, applauding: “I do, too.”
Behar: “Why are you against Barbra Streisand? She’s a very, very patriotic American.”
Ingraham, pointing at the audience: “A lot of Yentl fans out here.”
Behar: “Wait a second. Barbra Streisand is a very patriotic American.”
Ingraham: “I’m sure she is.”
Behar: “All she does is speak from her heart about American values. Why do you have to go after Barbra Streisand?”
Ingraham: “It’s not about Barbra Streisand. During impeachment and all the Clinton scandals–”
Jones: “That nasty comment was about Barbra Streisand, okay? It was about Barbra.”
Ingraham: “Did you hear Mel Gibson or Kelsey Grammer or Kevin Costner go on cable television and slam Bill Clinton time and time again during 1998, 1999?”
Campos: “No.”
Behar: “But every comedian did! Oh, please! I have boxes of jokes about Clinton -- please!”
Ingraham: “No, but they weren’t going on giving their political views.”
Behar: “Oh, please!”
Walters: “Laura, is it just that anybody who has a liberal point of view?“
Ingraham: “No.”
Walters: “Wait a second, let me finish. Whether it is someone in the United Nations or any actor or anyone who has a strong, liberal point of view is, therefore, to you elite and unpatriotic?”
Ingraham: “No.”
Campos: “Can I come to her defense?”
Walters: “She does okay.”
Campos: “Well, I live in the Heartland that she’s talking about and I think she’s actually right. I have said this the last time I came on here. People in the middle of the country do not think, act or vote like people on the coasts, especially New York and specifically L.A. and San Francisco. And this is what she’s talking about, this flyover zone.”
Behar: “Then how did Bill Clinton win twice?”
Campos: “Because he appeals only to people in Manhattan. People in Arkansas don’t vote for him.”
Behar: “Oh, well, Manhattan is not the country -- excuse me!”
Jones: “Excuse me?”
Ingraham: “Bill Clinton was actually very smart. Bill Clinton also did Sister Souljah. Bill Clinton campaigned as a real moderate, he carried the Bible in and out of church -- people liked that about him.”
Jones: “Wait, we got a lot of people in Manhattan, but they can’t elect a President, okay? So what are you talking about? That don’t make sense!”
Ingraham: “Barbara, let me answer your question about the liberals because that’s wrong.”
Walters: “I’m from the Heartland, too, and I agree with you that, you know, that you may hear -- but there are people in the Heartland who don’t get upset if someone doesn’t speak their point of view.”
Ingraham: “Sure, but Barbara–“
Behar: “Whose children, wait a minute, there are people in the Heartland whose boys are going to this war who disagree with it.”
Ingraham: “In the book, in 'Shut Up and Sing’ I point out that George Bush has elitist tendencies, a lot of them, and one of them is on illegal immigration. Seventy percent of the country wants our borders enforced. Why aren’t the politicians doing anything about it? Why aren’t more Enron people put in jail? Those are two elite tendencies of the Republican Party.” [Audience applauds.]
Behar: “Now you’re talking sense!”
Campos: “Because the Heartland is about common sense. Because the Heartland cares about common sense.”
Behar: “And people in New York don’t?”
Ingraham: “This is an elite echo chamber, this is an elite echo chamber. People in this audience make this country great – not celebrity elites, not UN elites, not European elites and not business elites. They don’t make the country great. The people who work every day do.”...
I spelled Mzzzzzzz. Vanden Huevel's name wrong, so I'm sure that'll be the focus of your response, assuming you can respond at all. But hey, you can always pretend you imagined it, ain't that right, Little Precious™?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104579,00.html
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, December 1, 2003.
Watch The O'Reilly Factor weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the Radio Factor!
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Will the liberal strategy to gain power succeed? Joining us now from Los Angeles is Tammy Bruce, the author of the book The Death of Right and Wrong. And she is a FOX News contributor. Also here in the studio, Katrina vanden Heuvel , the editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine.
All right, Ms. Vanden Heuvel, is this strategy on the left going to succeed?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, THE NATION, EDITOR: I hope it does, because if it does, America will be a safer, healthier, better educated, more secure society.
O'REILLY: I know you're...
VANDEN HEUVEL: And you know what? George Bush ran as a uniter. He has divided this country in unprecedented ways. At that meeting, and there are millions of meetings like that going on around this country, not just Hollywood, but Republicans and centrists are coming. What Bush has done, he has united progressives.
O'REILLY: Well, I agree with you.
VANDEN HEUVEL: People wouldn't have understood. So you have now the beginnings of a progressive infrastructure.
O'REILLY: Your magazine's up 50 percent, right? In certain...
VANDEN HEUVEL: The Nation's circulation is up 50 percent...
O'REILLY: Absolutely.
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...but that's not just because of George Bush. That is because of a sense that the core American values of the decency, fairness, equality, opportunity and accountability have...
O'REILLY: Then why are only 20 percent of Americans liberals, then?
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...been distorted by -- no, the progressive values of this country rank much higher.
O'REILLY: All right.
VANDEN HEUVEL: The tax cut that George Bush rammed...
O'REILLY: No, no, no...
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...down this country's throat.
O'REILLY: ...look, they do a poll, Ms. vanden Heuvel...
VANDEN HEUVEL: Not what Americans wanted. If they wanted health care, they wanted education for their kids.
O'REILLY: Look, okay, speeches are fine.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Let us hope President Bush...
O'REILLY: You're a journalist. You deal in facts.
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...is unseated in 2004 because America will be a better place for it.
O'REILLY: Okay, good. Yes.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But more important...
O'REILLY: I'm going to stop you...
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...as someone who believes in democracy...
O'REILLY: ...Ms. vanden Heuvel, I'm going to stop you now because your speech is lost on this audience. They know you're an ideologue. We don't care that you have a speech prepared.
VANDEN HEUVEL: You don't like to hear from anyone who disagrees with you.
O'REILLY: No, I don't disagree with you at all.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Mr. O'Reilly, don't you believe in the marketplace of ideas?
O'REILLY: You won't answer the question.
VANDEN HEUVEL: This country is better and more democratic.
O'REILLY: Ms. Vanden Heuvel...
VANDEN HEUVEL: It's not just the right wing dominating our airwaves, our media, our national debate.
O'REILLY: This is an incredibly boring diatribe you're going through. This is incredibly boring.
VANDEN HEUVEL: But then you do it on Fox every night, Mr. O'Reilly.
O'REILLY: No, I don't do this every night at all. I'm trying to get to the bottom of a question. And we'll get to Ms. Bruce in a moment.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Let us hope the liberal strategy...
O'REILLY: But here's the deal. What you just said...
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...has some potency.
O'REILLY: ...is the perfect example of spin. You spun it. You had a rehearsed speech. You came in and you regurgitated it. The audience knows it.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I believe in the politics of passion and principle.
O'REILLY: Twenty percent of Americans say they're liberal. If what you said were true, 80 percent would. There's a problem with the liberals.
VANDEN HEUVEL: There's a problem because people don't see...
O'REILLY: So let's go to Ms. Bruce.
VANDEN HEUVEL: ...their views reflected on media.
O'REILLY: Yes, I know.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And they don't know that there are views out there that are just distorted by the media, that aren't even shared with them.
O'REILLY: All right, Ms. -- let's get to Ms. Bruce.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Polls show Americans want universal health care.
TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I'd love to pipe in here.
O'REILLY: Yes, and I'm going to have to cut Katrina's mike if she's go more.
BRUCE: Please, please. That would be a FOX touch.
O'REILLY: Go ahead.
BRUCE: Well, first of all, let me say as a Democrat and as a feminist and as a progressive, and as an openly gay woman, I also have an investment in progressive politics. And the reality is that once you have -- you've got FOX News, you've got talk radio, and you have the Internet, has finally been a way to show the American people that this stranglehold on mass media and entertainment, which is controlled by the far left and liberals is not necessarily indicative of the fact that everyone is thinking the same, that Americans do care about the information. They do like what George W. Bush is doing. And what Ms. vanden Heuvel has shown is that, and what they normally keep complete control of is that you can have a speech like that, and usually, whether it be on David Letterman or any other kind of television program or The View or anywhere else, you're not going to hear a rebuttal.
O'REILLY: No, they'll let it go.
BRUCE: And what they can't stand...
O'REILLY: But look, Ms. Vanden Heuvel is right when she says that there is a polarization in the country right now. She's wrong when she says most Americans agree with her. They don't. And the polls show that.
BRUCE: No, they don't.
O'REILLY: The polls show that President Bush's approval rating is well over 50 percent. So Ms. Vanden Heuvel was spinning and engaging in propaganda. But I'm going to come back to you in a moment to be fair. But what you're saying, and you're a Democrat, is that...
BRUCE: I am.
O'REILLY: ...is that the liberal basis of they can't get their message out is a bunch of bunk.
BRUCE: Well, it's because -- one of the problems is, in this meeting tomorrow night here in Los Angeles is called the Hate Bush event.
O'REILLY: Well, no, it's not.
BRUCE: And the problem is...
O'REILLY: No, no, it isn't. That's wrong.
BRUCE: You know...
O'REILLY: That's erroneous reporting. I had the guy on who's organizing it. That got out from one nut. It's not a "Hate Bush" event.
BRUCE: Well...
O'REILLY: It is a let's get him out of power event.
BRUCE: Here's what I can tell you with the phone calls I've been getting is that while they may not be calling that officially, that's what the gathering is based in.
O'REILLY: Well, I'm sure most of them dislike Bush.
BRUCE: And the problem that I have that I worry about is the Democrats that are doing that, they're hoping that Americans are going to vote against George W. Bush and for Democrats out of an emotional basis. And there are no new ideas coming out of the Democratic party. They're not meeting to discuss the future or progressive benefits for this nation. They're talking about how to try to make Americans hate this president.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, Tammy.
BRUCE: And it is also about seeing how Fox News and the complaints about alternative media is so dangerous because these are elements that are reminding Americans that there are different ways to think about politics.
O'REILLY: OK. Look, I'm more sympathetic to your point of view. But I certainly got to -- and I've got to come back to Ms. Vanden Heuvel for a minute. But I still haven't got a straight answer. And I'm going to ask you both this to wrap it up. Is the strategy going to work?
Now look, Ms. Bruce is a liberal woman. All right? She is a Democrat.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Let's not engage in categories.
O'REILLY: Right? And she -- no, but she doesn't agree with you. So don't give me this supercilious attitude that...
VANDEN HEUVEL: I don't think everyone should agree with me, Bill. And I don't think everyone should agree with you. I think there should be a marketplace of ideas in this country that reflects the full range...
O'REILLY: And there is.
VANDEN HEUVEL: We have unfulfilled democracy.
O'REILLY: And there is.
VANDEN HEUVEL: There isn't. There isn't. Where do you hear the full range of views in this country?
O'REILLY: Everywhere.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Where do you hear those who want universal health care?
BRUCE: Not in "The Nation," I'll tell you.
O'REILLY: Wait, Ms. Bruce, let her finish.
VANDEN HEUVEL: The Nation has...
O'REILLY: Look, you've got NPR, you've got FOX News, you've got CNN, you've got The New York Times, you've got every point of view expressed.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Oh, we have...
O'REILLY: Every one.
VANDEN HEUVEL: That is just not true.
O'REILLY: Yes, except -- come on.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And you know what? We are now seeing the beginnings of a progressive infrastructure. You have "Move On," which is going to hold this administration accountable.
O'REILLY: It's an Internet thing.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Which The Nation does, but this media operation doesn't. We need a full-fledged airing of views...
O'REILLY: All right. I only have a minute left. So you believe this strategy is going to work?
VANDEN HEUVEL: And you know what? I believe that if it does, we will have a greater country for it.
O'REILLY: I know. Every -- all the problems are going to be solved, just like they were under eight years of Mr. Clinton. All the problems were solved, yes.
VANDEN HEUVEL: George Bush has squandered our future.
O'REILLY: Squandered our future, I know.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And he is the great pretender.
O'REILLY: All right.
VANDEN HEUVEL: He campaigned as a compassionate conservative.
O'REILLY: Let's give Ms. Bruce the last word.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And we (unintelligible.)
O'REILLY: Let's give -- be polite here. Go ahead, Ms. Bruce. Now look, please answer my question.
BRUCE: Sure.
O'REILLY: Is the strategy, the Hollywood left allying itself with the DNC, with George Soros and moveon.org, and all of these -- is it going to work? Go.
BRUCE: I don't think so in the end, because they underestimate the president. They're underestimating the intelligence of the American people. It's going to take more than just hating George W. Bush. It's going to take some ideas. And here's Ms. vanden Heuvel complaining about FOX News. Look who you've got on your program.
O'REILLY: Yes, but we always knew that. She knows that. She's always welcome here and so are you.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I think your audience knows, too.
O'REILLY: All right, ladies, thank very much. We appreciate you coming in.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you, Bill.
O'REILLY: And we will have a report on that meeting tomorrow night. We have a mole. So we'll tell everybody what happens.
where's demanding Sam now?
by Irving
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 5:31 AM
Where's Sam? it demanded someone show up and give it attention, said nobody could choose any subject and righteously defend it.
What happened, little Sam? Cat got your tongue? Or did those mean widdle moderators cut it out like one of Husseins henchmen?
How ironic, that Collaborators bitch about how things are, but at least live to tell the tale physically intact.
bump to the top
by Sam
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 8:01 AM
An "I have no credibility" bump to the top....
to Irving
by Dean for President!
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 9:14 AM
You must be right. The hypocrite Freepers are all over themselves wanting to screw a lesbian Democrat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033154/posts
Your Answers
by The Real Sam
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 11:19 AM
What a non-response!
Sorry, but I can't sit and correspond on IndyMedia all day. I have to work and go to class.
First of all, you the Media Research Center as a credible source. It's anything but. Rather, it is a right-wing organization dedicated to bullying the media into omitting even the most vaguely progressive views. It is funded entirely by conservative foundations.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/mrc.htm
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/brent_bozell.htm
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h030402_1.shtml
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010723-sidebar.html
Bozell and the MRC have made a myriad of false claims in the past. Some of the most notable: that the media focused too much on Salvadoran death squads and not enough on Nicaraguan ones in the 1980s (even though Amnesty International confirms that the atrocities in El Salvador were much more widespread and conducted with infinitely more impunity); and that TV wrestling was responsible for the deaths of four children (a claim for which Bozell sued and forced to pay about $3 million dollars).
It's also worth noting that the MRC is funded entirely by right-wing foundations. Over the last 12 years, the MRC has received $1,767,000 in grants, all from the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Castle Rock Foundation, and the Scaife foundations. He (or she) who pays the piper calls the tune, apparently.
But, of course, it's not enough just to attack the MRC (though it would be logical to skeptical of claims it makes). So, on to the press release and the transcript themselves:
"Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham received a hostile reaction last week from crew on ABC’s daytime show, The View, to the premise of her new book, Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America. Other than Rachel Campos, one of three finalists auditioning to join the show permanently, the co-hosts were all appalled by Ingraham’s contention that elites on the coasts are out of touch with “the heartland.'"
The View is an opinion show. That the hosts express their opinions shouldn't come as a surprise.
"When Ingraham argued 'that the Democratic Party is not connecting with the people who are its logical constituents, from the South and from the Heartland,' Barbara Walters shot back: 'Excuse me, neither is the Republican Party, at this point, necessarily connecting.'"
What's wrong with this statement? Half the population doesn't vote in presidential elections. Walters is merely making the point that people are jaded with and suspicious of politicians in general.
"Though she was raised in Manhattan as the daughter of a nightclub owner, Walters claimed 'I’m from the Heartland'..."
Actually, Walters grew up in Boston, and currently lives in New York. I can't find where Laura Ingraham grew up, but she currently lives in Washington, DC. She attended Dartmouth and worked as a defense attorney for white collar criminals. Talk about an "elite".
"...and simplistically saw Ingraham as attacking people’s patriotism: 'Whether it is someone in the United Nations or any actor or anyone who has a strong, liberal point of view is, therefore, to you elite and unpatriotic?'"
From the publisher's description of the book:
"They think you're stupid. They think all freedom loving Americans are stupid. They think patriotism is stupid. They think churchgoing is stupid. They think flag-flying is stupid. They despise families with more than two children. They are sure that where we live-anywhere but near or in a few major cities-is an insipid cultural wasteland."
I read through the MRC's transcript. I was able to find exactly 2 instances of Ingraham being cut off. She's not being prevented from promulgating her views at all.
The View has a handful of regular hosts. The network decides who to put on the show. They don't decide to put Laura Ingraham on, then find people who will agree with her.
As it is, Ingraham is given more the adequate time to make her views known, with colums in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and USA Today. She appears frequently as a commentator on various networks. In contrast, how often do you see Noam Chomsky? Ralph Nader? Joe Conason? Ted Rall? Greg Palast? Norman Solomon? Mike Malloy? Norman Finkelstein? Tariq Ali? Medea Benjamin? Roy Bourgeois? Doug Henwood? Arundhati Roy? Edward Herman? Stephen Shalom? Glen Rangwala? Howard Zinn? Even John Sweeney?
But Ingraham, like Coulter, gets so much airtime she could have her own channel. On top of that, we have Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, Brent Bozell, Lou Dobbs, David Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Tony Snow, Bill O'Reilly, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Paul Weyrich, Dinesh D'Souza, just to name a few.
Now on to the O'Reilly transcript. It's really pretty absurd to try to use the O'Reilly Factor to demonstrate this point, since O'Reilly (as I'm sure you well know) is the king of shouting people down and cutting people off. Anyway.
"BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight. Will the liberal strategy to gain power succeed? Joining us now from Los Angeles is Tammy Bruce, the author of the book The Death of Right and Wrong. And she is a FOX News contributor. Also here in the studio, Katrina vanden Heuvel , the editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine."
I wonder why he calls the nation "a liberal magazine" but doesn't call FOX "a conservative network"?
Heuvel came prepared to get her message out, knowing that O'Reilly tends to bully those with whom he disagrees (I can provide many examples, if you're interested).
O'Reilly asked Heuvel a question. Heuvel responded. It's difficult to say just from the transcript who's cutting off who -- but if she's cutting off O'Reilly, I wouldn't be bothered by it. O'Reilly, after all, does the same thing every night -- and Heuvel is about to allow it to be done to her.
Moreover, Heuven is right. Although only 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as "liberals", this demonstrates nothing more than the demonization of liberals by the media. When asked about specific issues: universal healthcare, increased funding for education, abortion rights -- a majority of Americans consistently favor a progressive stance. The only exception that I know of is gun control (and I'm against gun control myself, albeit for what I think are progressive reasons).
Then we get hear Bruce...
"BRUCE: Well, first of all, let me say as a Democrat and as a feminist and as a progressive, and as an openly gay woman, I also have an investment in progressive politics. And the reality is that once you have -- you've got FOX News, you've got talk radio, and you have the Internet, has finally been a way to show the American people that this stranglehold on mass media and entertainment, which is controlled by the far left and liberals is not necessarily indicative of the fact that everyone is thinking the same, that Americans do care about the information. They do like what George W. Bush is doing. And what Ms. vanden Heuvel has shown is that, and what they normally keep complete control of is that you can have a speech like that, and usually, whether it be on David Letterman or any other kind of television program or The View or anywhere else, you're not going to hear a rebuttal."
Note that O'Reilly doesn't challenge Bruce's claim to have an investment in "progressive politics", yet parrot GOP talking points. Also notice that he cut off Heuvel after after one sentence, but lets Bruce proceed with this long spiel.
And since when is Letterman a political show?
"BRUCE: And it is also about seeing how Fox News and the complaints about alternative media is so dangerous because these are elements that are reminding Americans that there are different ways to think about politics."
This is truly funny. FOX, owned by one of the largest media corporations in the world, run by a former GOP spinmeister, is "alternative media"? Rush Limbaugh' show, which is syndicated on 600 radio stations, almost all of them owned by major media corporations, is "alternative media"?
Then O'Reilly lets Heuvel talk again, and cuts her off 4 times. Bruce cuts her off once.
Then O'Reilly goes back to Bruce. He mentions Soros and MoveOn funding the Democrats -- he doesn't mention Scaife, or any of the myriad other reactionary sociopaths who fill the coffers of the GOP, the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute.
He also mentions the ever-present (in conservative propaganda) "Hollywood left". So when liberal celebrities express a viewpoint, we're supposed to be mortified. But when it's Ronald Reagan, Kelsey Grammar, Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Jean-Claude van Damme, Shirley Jones, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Gene Simmons, Gary Oldman, Drew Carey, Gloria Estefan, or Dennis Miller -- than it's O.K.
In summary: your first example consisted of a regulars on a show called "The View" giving their views. Your second example consisted of Bill O'Reilly cutting off Heuvel, then accusing Heuvel of cutting off Bill O'Reilly. Doesn't hold much water.
And you didn't respond to any of my other points. But I'm not going to challenge you to do better -- because some posters have taken to impersonating me, I'm going to stop posting any articles or making any comments, to disassociate myself from anything that might say.
All that said, I will concede that there may indeed be instances in which conservative guests are cut off or shouted down. In fact, I know there are. But through shows like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes, conservatives have made it an art form.
At first, it may seem petty to say that conservatives do it more often -- even much more often. But it's relevant, because it underscores an important point:
In most cases, right-wing positions are not argued for on not on any rational basis, but ultimately on the basis of either a.) emotion or b.) deception.
Of course, the right has a lot more money than the left. So while conservatives can afford to repeatedly fall back on such manipulative techniques, progressives cannot. That's not to say that no liberal ever *has*; but it is to say that progressives are less likely to do so, since they can less afford to do so.
punch drunk
by the Sam smasher
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 12:52 PM
Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
That you didn't have all day to respond doesn't wash, since you've been posting on other threads around here today, and considering the fact I posted that at 3:38PM yesterday! I gave you until 10:41AM, this morning. Weren't you the impatient one yesterday(?), who said at 1:41PM -
Well?
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 01:41 PM
You two (or one, or however many of you there are) say you employ "facts and statistics" in your arguments.
Let's see some.
About anything. Go for it.
You can't.
---------------------------
And of course I ground you under my heel without any effort whatsoever.
And let's check your timeline from yesterday, shall we?
--------------------------------
re: is this illegal
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 09:07 AM
re: rate my vomit.com
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 10:08 AM
(posted twice- one of your facsimiles - hardy har har)
Re: fun fun fun, Pt. 1
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 10:22 AM
re: fun fun fun, Pt. 2
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 01:08 PM
Re: durutti-frutti
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 01:10 PM
Re: strawmen and panty shields
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 01:29 PM
Well?
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 01:41 PM
Wow.
by Sam • Tuesday December 02, 2003 at 03:27 PM
------------------------------------------------
And yet here you wrote a completely schizophrenic piece of rambling trash, denouncing transcripts, (when even 2nd graders understand that a transcript can't possibly convey emotion, or that one won't shut up, or 4 tries to out-talk one, etc), because you just can't accept the fact a Freeper type soundly and effortlessly whooped your lice covered ass in front of your "friends"?
I suppose Tuesday was your day off, right?
cockroach crushing continued
by Sam smasher
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 1:38 PM
"BTW, conservatives accusing progressives of being "hateful" or "angry" is a great example of projection."
Read the last paragraph, Little Precious. If you have the time, that is.
http://www.uwire.com/content//topops120203002.html
Hostility toward dissent unpatriotic
By Jamey Bainer
The Daily Aztec (San Diego State U.)
12/02/2003
SAN DIEGO -- On Nov. 17, I wrote a column that called for a progressive movement away from the polarizing stagnation of "left vs. right" in American politics. For once, I wanted to be optimistic. I wanted to believe that most of the people in this nation were sensible, compassionate individuals who could put aside differences of opinion in order to determine what was best for the nation as a whole.
As it turns out, I was completely f**king wrong.
I began to suspect this as I watched the rousing half-time show of the Dallas-Miami football game on Thanksgiving Day. There was great American crooner Toby Keith, spewing forth a load of Skoal-flavored hatred while scantily clad red, white and blue victory bunnies danced the night away. The term "pseudo-event" didn't even come close to describing what I was seeing: Brave General Keith, patriotically hung over, promises to slaughter every last dissenter he can lay his hands on, backed by an unstoppable army of silicon soldierettes. A sight for sore patriotic eyes, to be sure.
Of course, by that point in the holiday, I had already been exposed to hours worth of news footage on the "biggest event of the year." George W. Bush had single-handedly flown a Stealth bomber through exploding anti-aircraft shrapnel, landed on a completely blacked out runway and personally served hundreds of fresh turkeys to the troops.
Well, at this point in history I should be used to seeing ridiculous images on television, but this assault on the senses seemed a little uncalled for, too blatant, too extreme. Little did I know I was one of the lucky ones. While I was watching these propaganda festivals from the safe distance of my living room, some of my best friends were actually dealing with this vitriolic menace face-to-face.
The horror stories I received from friends who had spent the holiday with their far-right leaning families shattered my idealistic vision of a progressive America. One close friend barely escaped a physical beating at the hands of a favorite uncle after expressing the mildest sentiment of dissent over the conflict in Iraq. My friend was told that he was worthless scum and that he should be bombed out of existence with the rest of the terrorists. Another friend was almost ejected from his family's dinner when he expressed his displeasure with the fact that his younger brother was shipping out to Iraq in March.
My friends were not rude, disrespectful or antagonizing in expressing their perspectives on the issues, yet one of them was almost killed right there at the dinner table, and the other became the instant black sheep of his family.
So is this what it comes down to then? All it takes to get blacklisted is an unpopular opinion? It seems we have entered the Keep-Your-Goddamn-Mouth-Shut era of man. America itself has become a pseudo-event, a place where everyone likes to give lip service to big words like liberty and freedom while they do everything in their power to repress those concepts in our institutions.
I extended the olive branch, just once. I drew on reason, logic and my own understanding of the Constitution our nation was founded upon, and I actually dared to think that I could communicate with the "other side." Hell, I even thought I could remove that barrier that created an "other side." But I forgot something very important: Y'all love your barriers; you want separation, you want hate, you want repression. I thought I could deflate the conservative argument by using your own fondness for the founding fathers against you. In truth, the founding fathers never would have approved of the kind of silencing of dissent we are now seeing, but that doesn't matter much, does it? All of you brave and patriotic Americans don't really give two sh**s for the founding fathers or the Constitution. You would prefer that we not have the rights to dissent and freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution. Why not take it out, then y'all can finally get rid of all those pesky rebels who actually understand what liberty is.
I've been called an elitist many times but I never really owned up to the title. Well I'll tell you right now: You're goddamn right I'm an elitist. You, and by "you" I mean all those "patriots" and "neocons" and all the rest who are fueling this hate crusade in America; you are the true enemies of freedom, and you'll do more harm to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to. If you want a war with your own citizens, you'll get it. Forget about the olive branch. Until that day when you finally drag us kicking and screaming to the firing squad, we'll be fighting you tooth and nail.
Collaborators who use the Founding Fathers as a shield
by cockroach smasher
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 1:45 PM
Article 3 Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
How Washington Funded the Taliban
by Ted Galen Carpenter
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 2:21 PM
The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.
When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.
Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.
To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.
Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.
Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."
Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy
www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html
Bush Ancestor's Bank Seized by Gov't
by JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 2:32 PM
President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show. Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.
Reports of Bush's involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection.
Trent Duffy, a spokesman for President Bush, declined to comment.
Union Banking was owned by a Dutch bank, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaardt N.V., which was "closely affiliated" with the German conglomerate United Steel Works, according to an Oct. 5, 1942, report from the federal Office of Alien Property Custodian. The Dutch bank and the steel firm were part of the business and financial empire of Thyssen and his brother, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the report said.
The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists.
E. Roland Harriman, the bank chairman and brother of former New York Gov. W. Averell Harriman, held 3,991 shares. Bush had one share.
Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II.
Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh.
"We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said.
Fritz Thyssen broke with the Nazis in 1938 over their persecution of Catholics and Jews, and fled to Switzerland. He later was arrested and spent 1941 to 1945 in a Nazi prison. His brother lived in Switzerland from 1932 to 1947 but continued to operate businesses in Germany.
The new documents were first reported by freelance writer John Buchanan in The New Hampshire Gazette.
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031017/ap_on_re_us/prescott_bush...
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)