The Old Lies! The Old Lies!
The Good Old Lies for me!
I love to tear down Neo-Cons
For their stupidity!
The basic rule of any dictatorship is to first control the media. This can be done directly or indirectly, through loyal followers. When the latter is used these followers can do everything from throwing their sabots into the presses, to flooding the media with non stop propaganda. With their political fundamentalism in hand, these people seek to expose the political heathens for what they are; enemies of the glorious state!
Such people often do not have the ability to fully argue their position on the merits. For this reason they often switch from attacking the opposing argument to attacking the person who makes the argument. Such attacks are the most effective when they become personal, degrading the person making the argument and in so doing implying that the argument is therefore equally faulty.
Raise your eyes and look about! Yes, look around Gather and you will see this in abundance. You will even find it in the Mainstream Media (sometimes referred to as MSM, an acronym that sounds too close to a real network acronym) where sagging ratings cause some to tear down opposing media who do not have similar sagging ratings.
While this can on occasion be seen on the conservative side, it is the liberal mindset that does this with a passion and a fervor not normally seen by otherwise intelligent folks. Those who do not believe in the direct link of man made CO2 and global warming, for example, are Neanderthals. Those who believe in conservatism are cave men (stubbornly refusing to get better auto insurance because they feel their honor has been slighted, with one exception, of course). Those who had worked in the previous administration are those who go around with a scarlet letter (the letter "B" by the way) emblazoned on their foreheads for all to see; who must go ringing bells and crying "unclean!"
We see this in the constant personal attacks against the likes of Rush; especially in constant attempts to suggest that he is personally seeking Republican leadership. This is especially both ironic and insulting to Rush since the last thing he wants to be is either a Republican (he is a conservative) or a leader (he has stated that if he were the leader he would immediately resign because he feels that the current Republican party is a disgrace). We see this in the constant attacks against Chaney and Rove.
This attitude is not just seen in the party faithful attack dogs; it goes all the way up the liberal hierarchy. The current administration from the Secretary of State to the President himself will go out of the way to spread, around the world, the message that the previous administration (and by extension all Americans) were all idiots and now that they are in charge enlightenment has come into the world. It is a gospel that no one is buying; petty dictators who starve their citizens launch missiles in defiance; petty pirates plunder our vessels; allies who give us lip service but as with the previous administration do nothing to help our causes; enemies who look at our calls for dialogue and who respond by calling us crazy (with the exception of Castro who at least knows how to show the Congressional Black Caucus a good time and a good falsehood).
Raise your eyes and look about! What is proper for the goose is proper for the gander! If protests against California's Proposition 8 is right, so too are protests against Roe v. Wade, and so too are protests against high taxes. Yet there is a strange paranoia about the liberal's attitude towards the growing number of "tea parties" throughout this nation. You can see it even here on Gather, with one poster's attempt to rename "tea party" to "teabagging" in order to prove their obscene point of slander and insult.
Naturally, I expect this post to be slammed and ridiculed. Some may say that I am preaching to the perverted. Perhaps I am; perhaps you are so blinded by those liberal colored glasses you are wearing; perhaps you have been so accustomed to calling the enemy names that you can't think of any other way of thinking. But perhaps, for some, it is time for a "resurrection" of sorts, from the death of personal attacks to the art of proper rhetorical debate; where one argues for ones issues and not against the personal character of the opposition. To paraphrase the words of Anthony, you are all noble men and women, are you not? Yes indeed you are all noble men and women.
(Sorry about that; I had to end this with a sense of irony. For those who thought they heard the space shuttle going over your head, in Shakespeare's speech of Anthony against those who had just assassinated Caesar, he was forced to insist that the assassin's action was noble. Instead he used this phrase "they are all noble men" as an ironic insult to assault the character of the assassins, the very opposite of my argument to debate the merits of the case and not slander the opposition, although in Anthony's case he did both.)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
But even given that the paragraph above is true, that does not excuse attacks on individuals. Though I believe that history will conclude that the last Administration was one of the weakest and least successful, there is no point in blaming the individuals. For one thing, they are out of office now. For another thing, blaming them doesn't solve our problems of today. Finally, the French have an old saying, to understand all is to forgive all. I wouldn't go that far but I will say that the beam in my own eye doesn't let me see quite well enough to be the judge of others.
Bush was a weakling who had not the mental capacity to look beyond broad mythologies to the practical effects of those myths in practice. He was surrounded by a self interested cabal of despots who held lies repeated often enough to be true. These were individuals accountable for their deeds. Cheney, Rove, Bolton, Wolfawitz, etc., etc. These people need to be excoriated for 100 years. Their names should blaze in the public memory as epithaphs like Benidict Arnold, Jefferson Davis or Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. It was these latter day individuals who led America to the low state of today.
Obama is telling the world what it wants and needs to hear: He is NOT Bush. Those dark days are ended. The world greets him with resounding cheer and thankful good will. The problem with America is so many of your morons simply do not get it.
I think many here on Gather are leftist ideologues.
They can not simply disagree, they must hate the other side, and they do not see the other side as simply wrong but as evil.
Would that be the same Rush Limbaugh who personally attacked a 13 year old girl using the bully pulpit of his radio program?
Sam says “attacking an ideology is not enough.” If an ideology is wrong then it is enough. The nicest man in the world, the richest man in the world, the most elegant man in the world can propose a stupid ideology and the dumbest man in the world can propose the most intelligent ideology. He then goes on to character assassination of the Bush administration that makes Boris Badenough (extra points to guess where he comes from) look like an all American patriotic saint.
Finally, Eric proves my point by calling me “paranoid.” Why am I wrong Eric? Why don’t you prove how I am wrong? Why did you instead resort to the attack of calling me paranoid? For the record, I am not paranoid; I’m disappointed. This post is a perfect example of my argument; issues are not debated; blame is debated; opponents are slandered. It’s just outright disappointing.
I find much hatred and arrogance in the Republican party . And of the people I meet, the arrogant, angry, hateful, bigoted ones are almost always Republican.
I am sorry but I am a Republican. I am active in my town Republican Party. I can name all the Republicans in the committee, the club, town government, county government, and even the person who represents us at the state level and all of them would have attached “The nicest person you would ever want to meet.” (To be honest, I can say the same for a lot of local Democrats and Independents as well so there.) Leo, no disrespect, but I think you should “move.” You don’t appear to live in a “nice” neighborhood.
I didn't call you paranoid.
" Entirely wrong, but funny, in a frightwing paranoid kind of way. "
That was a commentary on your post.
That was a paranoid response though.
Um-m-m-m... Sounds pretty much like Sean Hannity's insanity and the bloviations of the Blowhard of eIB, to me. But I'm a biologist - what do I know?
Here's an example to make a point: I taught in a public school with about 100 employees. I developed close friends and chose to avoid some people. Over time I learned people's political parties. I learned AFTER choosing my friends which political party they supported. All of my friends were Democrats. As I remained in that school, over time I eventually learned almost everyone's political leaning. Every one of the people I avoided turned out to be Republican. In general, I found them, to degrees, arrogant, bigoted, racially prejudiced, hard hearted, or intolerant. Many of the women were married to wealthy men.
Isn't it interesting that pirates have not attacked an American ship for 250 years?? What did Obama do in regards to the North Korea missle launching?? Oh yeah, he expects the UN to handle the situation, why not send out Carter to go appease them again??? I see way too many people missing the point of an article, but instead of discussing their points in a civil way, they choose to attack anyone with any type of dissenting viewpoint. How is that tolerance or being open-minded, which once again I emphasize isn't that what the Democratic party is suppose to represent??? Great article Christopher!!! Keep up the good work!!
Yes indeed, this was the party who could not stand liars; that could not pardon the first Bush for his transgression of "No new taxes." Likewise the lie of Obama's "no earmarks" pledge, broken within his first 100 days of office.
It's astounding that you'd complain about anyone spouting the party line, when that's all you do.
"certain individuals assume I know nothing of politics because I don't play childish games to get my point across. "
That's laughable.
People assume you don't know anything about politics because your opinions are straight from the "Stupid thing from Republicans to post" email list.
"Isn't it interesting that pirates have not attacked an American ship for 250 years??"
It's interesting, but not cogent and not accurate. The Maersk Alabama is a Danish ship. I'm not surprised, however, that you didn't know that.
"What did Obama do in regards to the North Korea missle launching??"
What he didn't do was start another war with a regime on the border of China. We're not global policemen.
"I see way too many people missing the point of an article, but instead of discussing their points in a civil way, they choose to attack anyone with any type of dissenting viewpoint. "
The entire piece is an attack on people who don't think like Christopher.
They were in control of Congress from 1995 - 2007, so yes, they had a major part in it.
"Was it the Republicans who prevented the reforms of Freddie and Fanny by the Bush administration? "
The Republicans did not pass ONE piece of legislation out of committee during the years they had total control of both branches of congress and the executive branch. Simply, it wasn't a priority for them.
Was it the Republicans who allowed the derivative market to be completely unregulated? Or was it Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, two Democrats in charge of committees who were responsible for oversight."
Nice try, but it was Richard Shelby and Michael Oxley, both Republicans, who were in charge when the derivative markets were totally unregulated. And they did nothing.
"Yes indeed, this was the party who could not stand liars; that could not pardon the first Bush for his transgression of "No new taxes."
The American people repudiated Bush 41 for that transgression: he took the fall for the first, but not last, failure of Reaganomics.
"Likewise the lie of Obama's "no earmarks" pledge, broken within his first 100 days of office. "
Actually, it was John McCain who promised no earmarks, a lofty goal seeing that the president doesn't have a line item veto. President Obama promised earmark reform.
Nice attempt to put all the fright wing lies into one post, but ultimately, like your post, a failure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031101499.html
BY THE TIME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REALIZED FANNIE AND FREDDIE WERE IN TROUBLE?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What you're saying is that during their watch, they were too busy implementing their neocon agenda and cutting taxes for the rich to pay attention to what was actually happening in the country. The majority of the bad loans were made during the time they were in power.
I never said all Democrats are sinless angels and all Republicans are vile demons. In fact, I blame Bill Clinton for not fighting Republican deregulation hard enough during his administration. But the facts remain that most of the partisanship and division in the country is not coming from the left, but from the increasing deranged remnants of the Republican party.
In 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Sununu (R-NH)[2], would have increased government oversight of loans given by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like the 2003 bill, it also died in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, this time in the 109th Congress. A full and accurate record of the congressional attempts to regulate the housing GSEs is given in the Congressional record prepared in 2005. [19][20]
Gerald P. O'Driscoll, the former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become classic examples of crony capitalism. Government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage-underwriting. They returned some of the profits to the politicians, sometimes directly, as campaign funds, and sometimes as "contributions to favored constituents." [21]
^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
^ http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/profiles.php?cmte=SBAN&cmteid=S06&congno=108&chamber=S&cycle=2002
^ Labaton, Stephen (2008-07-27). "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print. Retrieved on 2008-09-27.
^ "GovTrack: Senate Record: FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM... (109-s20060525-16)". Govtrack.us. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
^ http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-7896:1
^ O'driscoll Jr, Gerald P. (2008-09-09). "FANNIE/FREDDIE BAILOUT BALONEY". New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/fannie_freddie_bailout_baloney_128135.htm. Retrieved on 2008-09-27.
Sources: The first presidential debate, Sept. 26, 2008
Richard Shelby (R) was chairman of the committee at the time. A simple majority, which the Republicans had at the time, would have put the bill on the floor. What happened?
The Republicans didn't have the political will, or interest, to do anything about it, Barney Frank's opinion not withstanding. He was not the chairman of the committee.
"In 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Sununu (R-NH)[2], would have increased government oversight of loans given by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like the 2003 bill, it also died in the Senate
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, this time in the 109th Congress. A full and accurate record of the congressional attempts to regulate the housing GSEs is given in the Congressional record prepared in 2005. [19][20]"
Again, what happened? The Republicans had the votes in committee to put the proposal on the floor, and it didn't happen. Again, either they didn't have the political will, or this was more window dressing.
"
Gerald P. O'Driscoll, the former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become classic examples of crony capitalism. Government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage-underwriting. They returned some of the profits to the politicians, sometimes directly, as campaign funds, and sometimes as "contributions to favored constituents." [21]"
There's no doubt about that.
""And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
And that's what I said, and what is quoted here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031101499.html
In your haste, you prove my points, and yes, you are still deaf to the truth.
That eventually stopped being a Repub talking point and maybe soon the Dems will wise up and drop it too.
Back away from the bottle of Oxycotin, and put down that glass of Jack Daniels.
The Republicans managed straight party line majorities on the bills they really wanted to put on the floor, but somehow they didn't have the political will (but mainly the interest) to do anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Barney Frank wasn't even a player when the Republicans had a majority.
"Republicans were borg like Nazis in perfect unision with fearless leader."
That's a great description.