Ah, Time: My Old Enemy
Late on a misty spring evening, and especially on such an evening before catching a 5:30 AM cab to the airport, and thence conveniently away from the Internet for several days, one is naturally drawn to the classics, such as the evergreen work of John Hawkins of Right Wing News. Another way of saying this is that I will be gone by the time anyone checks the date on this Hawkins thing.
The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives
Because what if we’ve missed one of them, and aren’t firing on all seven cylinders, as it were?
Liberals spend much of their time trying to hide what they believe from the public while conservatives are perpetually frustrated by the fact that the American people don’t seem to understand what we really believe.
Ah, it’s the old backwards trick. “Trying to hide what they really believe” is the very contradiction at the heart of modern conservatism — the proverbial elephant-in-the-room, where the elephant is drawn with a big ‘GOP’ on its flank so as to deliver the joke with postage to spare.
Well, John, we can address this for you. What conservatives must try to hide all the time, causing spectacular screw-ups and flame-outs, and ensuring the doom of any sincere effort to ‘reinvent the party,’ is that their core motivator, once you cut through the bread-and-circuses issues like gay marriage, immigration, and abortion, is the removal of governmental and societal checks on the power of private interests, in order to funnel off the wealth collected and held since World War II by a large and prosperous middle class.
Of course, if you went around saying it like that, the public would chase you with sticks. So coming up with plausible cover stories, inventing clever topsy-turvyisms and philosophical whack-a-mole routines in order to sell policies specifically designed to disempower and impoverish the public — well, there’s the trick, right there. Right there you have the basic and irreducible project of ‘conservatism’: a philosophical and practical movement that coalesced in the early 1950s largely as a reaction against the New Deal (and largely funded from the beginning by self-interested business figures), and with the intention of dismantling those parts of government that were set up, then and earlier, to protect citizens from powerful private interests, while strengthening the parts of government that protect those powerful interests from citizens.
Conservatives don’t agree as to why we should do this, or what the effects will be. For instance, if told that the wealthiest 1% of Americans gets 19% of the total wage income, then one conservative might say, “I guess all that extra productivity is how they got to be the wealthiest 1%, huh?” while another might say, “Only 19%? We ought to raise it to 25% so more wealth will trickle down!”
A third and fourth might see these figures and conclude that the lowest 1% might be making 20% or more for all we know, but nobody ever says anything about that, do they, because liberal fragga politically-correct yag-hack MSM rack-a-frap illegal immigrants with the flab-jabbin’ jaggity-shrap socialism shickin’-frickin’ Jimmy Carter with the robblety-hack racka-frazz. A sixth might be John Hawkins, and just want to be in the game.
But mainly, if there’s a law saying that you’re not allowed to hire fourteen-year-olds for two bucks an hour running a lumber saw with no safety attachments on it, while clear-cutting Yellowstone to supply paper rifle targets to a Chinese prison-supply company, then that law should be taken away for some reason or another. Also, if abortion or gay marriage makes you angry, conservative groups will affirm your anger in exchange for your help on the Lumber Saw Freedom issue.
Well, I hope that clears that up.
Both problems spring from a single source: liberals lie incessantly. That’s not to say that there aren’t conservative liars or truthful liberals; there are, but for liberals, lying is the rule, not the exception.
This is like one of those logic puzzles where you’re on Gödel Island, and half the people lie all the time while half always tell the truth, and you have to ask questions to tell which is which. Because if you ask me, conservatives would not disagree that I am not telling the truth about their truthfulness, disproving that they are not the false liars.
There are two reasons why liberals lie much more than conservatives. First off, this is a center-right country and liberal beliefs are much more unpopular than conservative ones. If liberals told the truth about what they believe and want to do, the Democratic Party would practically be wiped out in much of the country.
Oh gosh, time to go. Oh, ruin! Nothing good or funny enough! We’ll get to the actual list next time. [exeunt]
[exeunt]
Gavin M. is a collective entity?
OK, so looksism = bad, but Jesus fucking Christ, man.
Also, check out the mug shot on the Clownhall page. The orange shirt and grey background make it look as if it was taken in a prison yard.
Me rob from poor to give to rich, but when me come to your world, me am very unpopular! Me not understand. In Bizarro World, me am big hero!
Me need re-messaging. Perhaps me should do ‘listening tour’…
Mr. Hawkins writes straightforward sentences. Mr. Hawkins writes straightforward sentences that are declarative. Mr. Hawkins writes straightforward sentences that are declarative and assertive. Mr. Hawkins writes straightforward sentences that are declarative and assertive and rhetorical absolutes. Mr. Hawkins writes bullshit.
Well, I am sure I am unlike conservatives who believe that most Americans share conservative values. Kinda what makes me liberal.
Thankfully I already know what conservatives think so I don’t have to go thru all the bother of getting spittle on me listening to them tell me their thoughts.
Oh fuck me. Another example of right wing wingnuts that got the GOP into the place where they are today.
“Someone who disagrees with me can’t have a different point of view, it’s because they are lying.” Because obviously Mr Hawkins speaks for everyone*.
*Everyone that is so far up there own arse they can see the back of their own eyeballs.
You’re right that there’s not much of interest in those seven techniques. The one thing that jumps out at me is that Lane is still trying to claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. Or, at least, that ‘all reasonable people’ believed Hussein had WMD’s.
The overwhelming message from the GOP is that America still wants their message. The conservatives say
“X percent of America is conservative and Y percent are moderate,
so X+ Y = the center/right America”.
But that assumes that the moderates agree with the right. They don’t. Moderates went for Obama by more than twenty points. Moderates and liberals agree on homosexuality, on diplomacy, on values, on almost all issues, except the quest for small government – ironically because Republicans showed the danger of big government. But moderates do want effective government.
One poll showed that most voters said the Republicans lost due to excessive conservatism, but the Republicans themselves, by a 17-point margin, thought they weren’t conservative enough.
The gap between the far right and the rest of the country is so wide that McCain was unable to bridge the gap with his VP choice: his staff told him that choosing a moderate – who could have helped him win — would cause a riot at the convention and among the GOP base. Thus, Sarah Palin.
The Republicans clung to the belief that Obama philosophically is miles away from the center-right country he will govern (in fact both he and the country are centrist).
The main thrust of the Republicans today is that America still embraces their philosophy — tax cuts for the rich, deregulating Wall Street, holy wars abroad, culture wars at home — but Bush and McCain betrayed those ideals – the spending, nationalized banks, deficits, the prescription drug plan, the wiretaps. They think their platform will still sell.
It sounds as though the narrative is hardening: GOP principles are good; Bush and McCain strayed from them. This works in a number of ways: they try to stick to the fiscal message which is the only thing they have that might sell, and they steer the blame to two guys nobody likes much anyway. And they don‘t have to admit any mistakes.
Why is this important? Because all American presidential campaigns are won and lost on the same battlefield: the political center. Win the moderates and centrists and go straight to the White House. Obama is staking out the center for himself. If the GOP insists on adhering to its far-right standard, they are simply surrendering that battlefield and ensuring more losses.
Pragmatism has an undeserved bad reputation. To some it betokens betrayal of principle. During the Bush era the notion fell even further into disrepute: blind faith was prized over common sense, with predictable results.
The Republicans don’t want anyone to see that Obama is a centrist who voted with Bush half the time and supports tax cuts, FISA, hunting down bin Laden, free-market economics, merit pay to separate good teachers from bad ones, nuclear power, more faith-based programs, an effort to cut government waste, more troops for Afghanistan, strong support for Israel, possible military action against Iran, the right to bear arms, the death penalty, outreach to evangelicals, and the Patriot Act, which he voted for twice. He is rock solid on family values.
He is determined to govern from the center, and Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel and Hoyer have all publicly backed him on that point. Howard Dean rejected the notion that the election was a mandate for a new New Deal. They drove the point home by seeing to it that Joe Lieberman kept his committee chair.
In setting up his administration Obama relied heavily on Brent Scowcroft, a Republican pragmatist, and Robert Rubin, a centrist money man whom traditional liberals view with suspicion. Likewise his cabinet picks: praised by the right, grumbles from the left.
Come visit at http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/ .
Go ahead, Gavin. Run away when your country needs you the most.
John and Mike went up the hill
To fetch social legislation
Mike fell down
Spouting jive talk
And John came tumbling after
Hawkins is a fine looking man, though.
I bet he’s popular with the Republican ladies.
Well, of course we liberals can’t tell the public that our real plan is to impose Luo-Satanism on the public so that we can force them into gay-marrying triad organgutans to work in our socialist reeducation camps where we’ll teach conservatives how to abandon modern technology in favor of Islamosexual poetry.
John Hawkins has never told me that he doesn’t wear a tutu and fuck goats.
I’m a liberal, so you know I’m telling the truth.
for liberals, lying is the rule, not the exception.
Oh yippee, a diatribe on the Epimenides Defense. 3000 years on, this stuff never gets old.
But wait a minute — I thought we liberals hated rules and couldn’t abide their sweet, sweet discipline? Aren’t we thus all driven like the hippie star-children we all are to then disobey our own rule and not lie?
“The Republicans don’t want anyone to see that Obama is a centrist who voted with Bush half the time and supports tax cuts, FISA, hunting down bin Laden, free-market economics, merit pay to separate good teachers from bad ones, nuclear power, more faith-based programs, an effort to cut government waste, more troops for Afghanistan, strong support for Israel, possible military action against Iran, the right to bear arms, the death penalty, outreach to evangelicals, and the Patriot Act, which he voted for twice. He is rock solid on family values.”
Unfortunately, this is all too true and the Republicans should be happy that there is someone in the White House who supports their agenda. And don’t forget the efforts of Obama to cover up and absolve the Republicans of all their war crimes
Gavin M. is a collective entity?
One of two things:
It’s that “We’re pregnant!” thing.
or
Liberals lie incessantly.
Hawkins is a fine looking man, though.
I bet he’s popular with the Republican ladies.
Oh you know it. Porkins just sidles on up to the bar with a stiff drink and a rakish smile, and says, “hey baby, wanna ride my X-Wing?”
“… while conservatives are perpetually frustrated by the fact that the American people don’t seem to understand what we really believe.”
Eh? After the last eight years of George Bush with a GOP-dominated Congress for most of those years; I think it is virtually impossible to not know EXACTLY what the Republicans stand for. Actions speak louder than words and so there can be no doubt, none whatsoever, about what the Republicans stand for when given the chance to rule virtually unchecked: corporate greed, war, torture, anti-science “faith-based” superstition, and massive redistribution of wealth to a few oligarchs at the very top of society at everyone else’s expense.
I mean, come on, they had their chance to show America in no uncertain terms EXACTLY what they are about and they did so. What the hell is this idiot on about?
George Bush was the most liberal president evar. Government = bad. Blart.
Why won’t he twitter us with his device?
But mainly, if there’s a law saying that you’re not allowed to hire fourteen-year-olds for two bucks an hour running a lumber saw with no safety attachments on it, while clear-cutting Yellowstone to supply paper rifle targets to a Chinese prison-supply company, then that law should be taken away for some reason or another. Also, if abortion or gay marriage makes you angry, conservative groups will affirm your anger in exchange for your help on the Lumber Saw Freedom issue.
You forgot the part where you need to refuse to give money to black people (‘cept the ones who’ll be Good Negros and repeat the GOP line) because they’ll just spend it on 40-ouncers and guns and destroy the economy just like we see happening now.
Oh, and that the dumping of the toxic waste from the manufacture of those paper targets in the Colorado River thus poisoning water for miles downstream is just an expression of property rights and anyone who objects to all the dead fish must be a freedom-hating Socialist who’s just arsed ’cause he has no trees left to hug. And after all the Bible says “man dominates Earth” yadda-yadda blibberty-blooo.
More wingnut truth-telling (Krauthammer backpedals on torture):
Via Benen.
Today I learned that when someone says something stupid and you quote them, you’ve written something called a “ransom note.”
Also, Seymour Hersh makes shit up because John Hawkins is ignorant of the New Yorker’s fact-checking department.
Liberal-biased MSM will never tell the truth!eleventyone111!
“A third and fourth might see these figures and conclude that the lowest 1% might be making 20% ”
Did you mean “highest” 1%? I can’t quite follow the logic in an otherwise great post.
Ransom note: RUsh sEZ he WAnTs uSA to FAiL.
I’d like that in unmarked bills, pls. And NO COPS or the GOP gets it.
Hey John Hawkins,
It’s not just the seven lying lies (or whatever) “Liberals are always trying to confuse us by making false analogies but conservative ideology is based on rejecting false equivalencies and making important distinctions.“
@ henry lewis at 14:16
Gavin left the pills he needs to rise to the occasion of twittering at home. Wait, is “twitter” or “device” the phallic metaphor?
trying to hide what they believe from the public
The thing that really pisses me off about liberals is that they try to hide what we say they believe by not believing it.
“There are two reasons why liberals lie much more than conservatives. First off, this is a center-right country and liberal beliefs are much more unpopular than conservative ones.”
Irony!
The Top One Technique Conservatives Use to Talk About Liberals:
1. Projection
Don’t you people see?! Gavin’s gone Galt!
First off, this is a center-right country…
They declare, with much sincerity, from their gathering place on the extremist fringe.
A crude approximation:
Conservativism: Hay voters, we will help you by giving all the money to this small group over here, so they can magically transmogrify it into more money for everyone!
Liberalism: Hay voters, we will help you by taking some of the money from this tiny group who have far more than they can dream to spend, and spread it around.
Yeah, I can totally see how the liberal line is so much more deceptive! It requires a convoluted series of non-sequiturs to believe that one could take money from those with too much, and give it to those with too little and somehow end up with the bulk of people having enough. Crazy!
Why won’t he twitter us with his device?
Gavin is a married man, you scoundrel!
Did you mean “highest” 1%? I can’t quite follow the logic in an otherwise great post.
No, I think he’s pointing out the disingenuous* argumentation of some on the Right: the top 1% make 19%, well, that leaves 81% so the poorest 1% might make like 20% or something! The fact is that’s MATH because shut up that’s why address my post libs PWNED shan’t be back. Hence the gibberish as they sputter out in all their bug-eyed, foam-flecked glory.
*also: dumb.
Liberal fascists are all about “making politics a religion” while also “trying to get beyond politics”.
First off, this is a center-right country…
I believe that this issue is to be discussed only between a man and his tailor.
And that’s the whole story arc right there. Nicely done.
Why does Michael Steele have his arm around that young white woman? Is he trying to emulate Clarence Thomas?
What is it with conservatives and these “lists of techniques”?
Is it part of the authoritarian pathology?
Why won’t he twitter us with his device?
I think that may be illegal in the state he’s going to.
They declare, with much sincerity, from their gathering place on the extremist fringe.
Didja see that the GOP is going to meet next week and officially adopt the “Democrat Socialist” as part of their je nai se quois?
Whee! Palin/Miss California 2012 may not be a joke at this rate, though it will entail a lot of laughing on our part.
I think he’s right that America is a center-right country, using a more global measure of political leanings. It’s just that in the two party system, when the Republicans drifted right, that mean the Dems could cover the rest of the spectrum. Thus you have center-right DLC democrats and the occasional smattering of left-center democrats. When they want to fire up the liberal base, they tease us with national rail, health care, and not bombing people.
I mean, the big irony is that Obama isn’t some sort of radical liberal. He’s been the sort of leader he said: a centrist. There were liberal dog whistles in the phrasing of speeches, but no promises. I votes with open eyes, though. He’s at least (a) competent and (b) he didn’t misrepresent himself as a centrist. Bush did that back in 2000. Funny that it’s so long ago, and so dissonant with his presidency that it’s hard to remember his speeches on the importance of fiscal responsibility, non-intervention, and limited government.
The Anonymous Smear: Want to launch an attack at a conservative, but don’t have a credible source handy? No problem. Just take a vicious critic or an unreliable source and make them “anonymous.”
Then he turns around and says he “strongly suspects” Seymour Hersh is guilty of this tactic — without offering any evidence whatsoever.
Unintentional irony, thy name is John Hawkins, Top score.
Naw, you have to make a 200 page speech first and even Gavin isn’t THAT wordy…
Yes, it is a new hair net. Thank you for asking!
Republicans should be happy that there is someone in the White House who supports their agenda
This was largely true during the ’90s as well. They basically hate popular, centrist Democrats who want to enact a good portion of the conservative agenda. No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either.
I love the wingnut convention of trying to make the most godawful bullshit appear rational by enumerating it into a list. Good to see Newt’s tried and true routines aren’t being lost on the young folks.
Well said and thank you for saying it. Whoever has the money has the power, and whoever has the power will get the money. The middle class have only a few potential sources of power: essentially government, labor unions, and purchasing. With the engineered demise of unions, the unchecked influence of money on politics, and the consolidation of entire industries, conservative corporatists have managed to undercut all of these—the worst being the elimination of government protection for labor. Unions, good or bad, used to be the most effective power the middle and working classes had, which is why they’ve been rendered impotent and cowed. The bread-and-circuses issues helped create the species of imbecile known as the Reagan Democrat, and the southern strategy has now been extended to white males everywhere to.. blah blah…oh fuck me.. never mind.. Sorry, I’ll stop now.
conservatives are perpetually frustrated by the fact that the American people don’t seem to understand what we really believe.
Possibly they’d have more success if they could dislodge those beliefs from the panoply of chins Jawhnny hauls around with him…
This was largely true during the ’90s as well. They basically hate popular, centrist Democrats who want to enact a good portion of the conservative agenda. No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either.
I get the feeling that the political class doesn’t like it because it cuts out their legs. The base doesn’t like it because the centrist Dem doesn’t go with their “flavor” issues, the low-importance BS that substitutes for substantive engagement with the nation’s problems. Things like abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. The political class I think has always known that these things are small potatos. They don’t care, except when they have to to whip up the base.
That photo may be the single strongest argument against gay marriage I have ever seen.
The middle class have only a few potential sources of power: essentially government, labor unions, and purchasing. With the engineered demise of unions, the unchecked influence of money on politics, and the consolidation of entire industries, conservative corporatists have managed to undercut all of these…
It is pretty amazing what they’ve accomplished. But I’d add that “liberal” (or centrist) corporatists have been there too. Look at the current financial melt-down. The money that FIRE sloshes into congress has prevented any real solution to the crisis. The fucked part is that the wingers can’t possible imagine the bankers having done bad, so they’re stuck with cognitive dissonance splitting their skull. People with money know best, limited regulation is best … but it didn’t work … so it must be those liberal parasites! Turn the mob back from AIG! They aren’t to blame. No, let’s march against taxes! No, let’s march off into the wilderness and go galt! Well, first let me finish this sammich.
At least on the left, there’s a tradition of calling for the heads of those responsible. (Or at least calling for the heads of authorities, good ole’ fashion suspicion of power.)
Oh Jesus. That man next to Steele is the author? I thought he was someone with Downs Syndrome that Steele was using as a political prop…
Where was that photo taken? A Days Inn?
Of course, if you went around saying it like that, the public would chase you with sticks. So coming up with plausible cover stories, inventing clever topsy-turvyisms and philosophical whack-a-mole routines in order to sell policies specifically designed to disempower and impoverish the public — well, there’s the trick, right there. Right there you have the basic and irreducible project of ‘conservatism’: a philosophical and practical movement that coalesced in the early 1950s largely as a reaction against the New Deal (and largely funded from the beginning by self-interested business figures), and with the intention of dismantling those parts of government that were set up, then and earlier, to protect citizens from powerful private interests, while strengthening the parts of government that protect those powerful interests from citizens.
Connecting your thoughts back to his original complaint, it’s not so much that the people won’t “listen” to conservatives ideology any longer as much as a) they’ve proven themselves to be a one-note kazoo playing bunch of assholes and b) people hear but ignore conservatism because they see through the trappings of homophobia and virulent anti-intellectualism and realize that if two men want to marry, it affects their 401(k)s less than letting the foxes run the henhouse anymore.
They basically hate popular, centrist Democrats who
want to enactsteal a good portion of the conservative agenda.Fixed for accuracy and to make sense.
To return the favor, I propose Confederate Falangist Republic Party of God.
To return the favor, I propose Confederate Falangist Republic Party of God.
Federation of Unabashed Conservatives Know-nothingS.
Federation of Unabashed Conservatives Know-nothingS.
Federation of
Unabashed
Conservatives
Know-
Nothings –
Political
Influence
Near
Half
Even
As
Democrats
Succeed
Unlike liberals, conservatives believe most Americans share our values and so, if you want to know what we think, all you have to do is ask us and we will tell you.
Over and over and over and over and over again. And the more you tell us, the more Americans wonder how things went so wrong in a time of yellowcake from Niger, Abu Ghraib, Terri Schiavo, and those blond GOP country club women who wore “purple heart band-aids” mocking a decorated veteran who volunteered for the Vietnam War.
Among other things.
Y’know, this all makes me wonder. How will the modern conservatism movement be portrayed in the history books? I mean, if we were going to be honest here about their motives, it would obviously be exactly what Gavin said: The allegiance to corporate power and special interests.
And as we know, history books (at least public school ones) don’t address the modern political atmosphere with much accuracy, fearing reprisal. But give it a few years and they (usually) have it on the dot.
So how do you guys think the conservative movement will be portrayed in the history books? Personally, I think it will be viewed like much of the opposition to the late 19th century/early 20th century Progressive movement. While not as blatantly violent as the Pinkertons, they clearly have the same goals: disenfranchisement of labor unions and the weakening of the worker.
I didn’t get around to reading the post yet but wasn’t it nice of Michael Steele to take time to visit with the developmentally disabled. Is this only part of the Republican re-branding or will they be supporting increased funding?
How will the modern conservatism movement be portrayed in the history books?
The word “farce” leaps to mind.
But, Dylan, to give your point serious contemplation, I suspect the term “know-nothing” will be bandied about readily, since there are eerie echoes of that movement, nativist and anti-immigrant and anti-any-religion-not-Christian.
NDP,
“No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either.”
Please contemplate the mindset of “respect my authoritah!!!111!1!!”
Speaking of know-nothings, what is noted constitutional scholar Sarah “laughing at me violates my rights” Palin been up to today?
http://sports-odds.com/entertainment/051409-sarah-palin-defends-carrie-prejean-nude-photos.html
Actor, that’s true as well. I suppose I forgot to include that, because… well, there’s so many slimy things the conservative movement espouses, it’s hard to pick just one.
How will the modern conservatism movement be portrayed?
I’m thinking Muppets or maybe talking babies with John Travolta and Kristie Alley as their parents.
So how do you guys think the conservative movement will be portrayed in the history books?
To paraphrase Eric Blair, “Imagine a head shaking sorrowfully forever”.
sarah-palin-defends-carrie-prejean-nude-photos
Oh, NO SHE DI-UNT!
Ooops, can’t go to the Palin link. What’s the “logic” (I know that’s hard to apply to Palin) behind defending Prejean? Is it defending such photos in general, lying about them, or is it a wholesale defense on the fact that she’s a conservative so anything she does is OK?
g,
Actually, she doesn’t say word one about the photos. It’s the usual booshwash.
[quote]If liberals told the truth about what they believe and want to do, the Democratic Party would practically be wiped out in much of the country.[/quote]
…as opposed to Repulicans, who at the current rate of defection will be about as popular as visible swine flu by this time next week.
And what kind of editor does this guy have – “Democratic”? I thought the RNC inner circle banned that term.
What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe
Jeebus, she’s just trying to jump on Carrie’s tailgate on this, that’s what she’s doing.
She just wants to get her name in the news. She’d probably make a statement on any old thing, so she’d show up on a google-search “gay marriage + beauty queen.”
g,
A quick scan of that site shows they accept ads from Palin’s PAC, so that story might even have been planted specifically on the site.
Which says a lot, that a the presumptive GOP frontrunner in 2012 has to plant stories on a gambling/bikini shoot site.
Tom65:
Try < instead of [ – and the word WordPress likes is ‘blockquote’.
I like how they’ve been uncomfortably dancing around the fact that Michael Phelps is/was railing Prejean, the moral Christian fundamentalist.
So nothing new, then? She still thinks that the Constitution protects Republicans from being criticized, and protects them from non-government actors.
What did someone say the other day? She’s dumb as a bag of rocks that’s been crushed by a bag of hammers. Something like that.
I like how they’ve been uncomfortably dancing around the fact that dope fiend/Speedo wearing Michael Phelps is/was railing Prejean, the moral Christian fundamentalist.
Fixed your post
First off, this is a center-right country and liberal beliefs are much more unpopular than conservative ones.
That is true. A majority of Americans approve human torture, as long as it is done to brown people. A majority of Americans hate unions because we all know that each person is fully capable of bargaining, mano o mano, with the CEO.
What did someone say the other day? She’s dumb as a bag of rocks that’s been crushed by a bag of hammers.
While eating a bag of dicks.
Oh yippee, a diatribe on the Epimenides Defense. 3000 years on, this stuff never gets old.
Well it is appropriate for Dawkins since all cretins are liars.
That is true. A majority of Americans approve human torture, as long as it is done to brown people. A majority of Americans hate unions because we all know that each person is fully capable of bargaining, mano o mano, with the CEO.
—
Not a spelling flame, just an FYI for future reference: the phrase is “mano a mano.”
“Mano o mano” means “hand or hand” instead of “hand to hand.”
Some years ago I saw someone write it as “mono o mono,” which means “monkey or monkey.”
So nothing new, then? She still thinks that the Constitution protects Republicans from being criticized, and protects them from non-government actors.
Sounds suspiciously like a defense of political correctness – “Criticizing my unpopular views is an unfair attack on my rights as a Conservative-American.”
Speaking of real, bona-fide censorship on a massive scale, someone posted this link in an earlier thread, and I think it deserves re-posting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_of_the_Earth
Other participants who made the film and were blacklisted by the Hollywood studios include: Paul Jarrico, Will Geer, Rosaura Revueltas, and Michael Wilson.
The film was denounced by the United States House of Representatives for its Communist sympathies, and the FBI investigated the film’s financing. The American Legion called for a nation-wide boycott of the film. Also, film-processing labs were told not to work on Salt of the Earth and unionized projectionists were instructed not to show it.
After its opening night in New York City, the film languished for 10 years because all but 12 theaters in the country refused to screen it.[5]
Lee Hockstader writing for The Washington Post wrote: “During the course of production in New Mexico in 1953, the trade press denounced it as a subversive plot, anti-Communist vigilantes fired rifle shots at the set, the film’s leading lady [Rosaura Revueltas] was deported to Mexico, and from time to time a small airplane buzzed noisily overhead….The film, edited in secret, was stored for safekeeping in an anonymous wooden shack in Los Angeles.”[6]
Weenies at Big Hollywood take note: Now that’s what I call “blacklisting.”
‘Tis a pity that the Constitution failed so miserably in protecting the makers of that film from people who disagreed with them.
But at least they didn’t make fun of them. THAT would be beyond the pale.
A real man, a Randian man, bargains verga a verga.
Not a spelling flame, just an FYI for future reference: the phrase is “mano a mano.”
I can’t stand it when TV people it mispronunce it as “mano y mano,” which, if my grade-school Spanish is correct, means “hand and hand.”
Or even mispronounce it. Not to mention misspell it.
A real man, a Randian man, bargains verga a verga.
Also, PENIS!
Or you could have Torgo come by and negotiate for you “Manos y Manos”.
“I’m AfrAID we need to ELIMinATE the CUTS in healTH BENEfits. The MAsTER would NOT ApPRove.”
The Hands of Fate are on me now,
They pick me up and knock me down.
Check out the rest of Hawkins’ œuvre. He sure does like his little lists, doesn’t he? The man is living death not only to straw men but to scratch pads.
I’m s’posed to take this gunt seriously, when every ‘citation’ he includes is from the same damn hack website ‘rightwingnews.com.’ I especially love that the one quote he uses to bolster his WMD assertion is from HRC in the gibbering clusterfuck which was ’02 – and the moron even included the date.
I appreciate the lists. Turns everything he does into trivia.
That’s his, I think.
Yeesh. From the photo it looks like he went to the Limbaugh School Of Impulse Control.
every ‘citation’ he includes is from the same damn hack website ‘rightwingnews.com.’
That’s his website. He’s citing himself. He must consider himself a trusted source.
Check out the rest of Hawkins’ œuvre. He sure does like his little lists, doesn’t he? The man is living death not only to straw men but to scratch pads.
To wit:
Feb 24, 2009
Fifteen Reasons I’m Already Tired of the Obama Era
Give the guy a break. I bet he worked on those for the entire month that Obama was president.
John Hawkins runs Right Wing News (www.rightwingnews.com), Conservative Grapevine (www.conservativegrapevine.com), Right Wing Video (http://www.rightwingvideo.com) and writes a weekly column for Townhall.
Truly, a Man for All Seasons.
every ‘citation’ he includes is from the same damn hack website ‘rightwingnews.com.’
Jeez! Fact-checking simplified – just make shit up, post it on your “news” site, then reference it on your blog! Wheee!
He also assembles a lot of polls or, uh, somethings of right-wing web sites that provide much amusement.
For instance.
By Edward Olshaker
Now that President Obama has opened the door to prosecuting Bush administration officials for legal opinions allowing waterboarding of al Qaeda leaders, it would be monumentally ironic and unjust if the door were not also open to prosecuting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for funding the murder of David Berger, the American-born member of the Israeli Olympic team slaughtered in Munich in 1972.
Berger is merely one individual on a long list of American victims of the 4-decade killing spree in which Abbas boasts of having fired the first shot. Ironically, the slain weightlifter was “a pacifist in the truest sense of the word,” according to his father Benjamin, a Cleveland-area doctor quoted in an article on ESPN.com about efforts to keep alive the memory of Berger and his teammates.
Although prosecutions of officials of the previous administration now appear less likely, the mere possibility that emergency anti-terror efforts might be punished while terrorist atrocities go un-investigated, must be an Orwellian nightmare for the families of the hundreds of American victims of Palestinian terrorism, as well as anyone who has empathy. And didn’t the President insist, on the occasion of Justice Souter’s retirement, that empathy is one of the foremost qualities he values in our system of justice? The Israeli civil rights group Shurat Hadin has spent years appealing to US and German law enforcement to investigate the role of Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) in the Munich Massacre. According to their research,
Abu Mazen, then a high ranking PLO official, provided financing for the terrorist attacks being perpetrated by Yassir Arafat’s PLO faction Fatah under the nom de guerre Black September.
Shurat Hadin is basing its information on published statements by the terrorist who masterminded the the Munich attack, Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (“Abu Daoud”). In his French-language autobiography, Palestine: From Jerusalem to Munich, Abu Daoud describes the role of Abu Mazen in providing the funds to carry out the Black September Olympic attack.
Furthermore, in an interview with journalist Don Yaeger of Sports Illustrated Magazine in August 2002, Abu Daoud reiterated his charges that Abu Mazen supplied the money for the deadly attack…
Abu Daoud’s allegations have been confirmed by sources within the Palestinian
Authority, according to Shurat Hadin.
Moreover, as Yassir Arafat’s deputy for decades, the extent of Abbas’ role in other atrocities, including the torture and execution of American diplomats Cleo A. Noel, Jr. and George Curtis in Khartoum on March 2, 1973, demands investigation.
It is possible for a terrorist to evolve into a statesman and peacemaker over the span of 3 or 4 decades, yet as Abbas proudly announced, he has not changed one iota from 1965 to today. The perception of him and his faction as moderate might be the world’s most inexplicable shared hallucination. As Jeff Jacoby reported on April 5:
In recent weeks, the Palestinian Authority has warned Arabs that it is “high treason” punishable by death to sell homes or property to Jews in Jerusalem; shut down a Palestinian youth orchestra and arrested its founder because the ensemble played for a group of elderly Israeli Holocaust survivors; and celebrated the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history — a PLO bus hijacking that left 38 civilians dead — with a TV special extolling the massacre. On Thursday, after a Palestinian terrorist used an axe to murder a 13-year-old Jewish boy, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — a wing of the supposedly “moderate” Fatah party — issued a statement claiming responsibility.
The axe murder, and the choice of such a young victim, was no aberration. Abbas’ faction seems to revel in the slaughter of children. This mindset was evident in the way the PA reacted in 2004 to the fate of Tali Hatuel, who was driving with her daughters — Hila, 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, and Merav, 2 — when Palestinian terrorists shot the eight-months-pregnant mother in the stomach and shot the screaming girls repeatedly in the head. A Jerusalem Newswire headline reported at the time that the US taxpayer-funded PA “Honors Killers of Jewish Family.” The PA also called Tali Hatuel and her four daughters “terrorists.”
Similarly, when 16-year-old American Daniel Wultz died 27 days after being wounded in a Tel Aviv homicide bombing orchestrated by Abbas’ al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Abu Nasser, one of the terror gang’s leaders, gloated, “This is a gift from Allah. We wish this young dog will go directly with no transit to hell…”
Following Israel’s recent release of Samir Kuntar, whose murder victims included a 4-year-old girl whose head he bashed in, Abbas and other PA officials did not mask their excitement over Kuntar’s freedom and his deeds. The Zionist Organization of America described Abbas meeting with Kuntar in Beirut at the time, and noted:
Abbas’ meeting with Kuntar is only the latest in a series of actions by Abbas and the PA honoring Samir Kuntar. At the time of the multiple murderer’s release, Abbas personally congratulated Kuntar’s family on his release (‘Abbas congratulates Kuntar’s family for killer’s release,’ Haaretz, July 16, 2008). Moreover, Abbas’ Fatah party organized a celebratory rally to mark the occasion in Ramallah, while a senior advisor to Abbas, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, hailed the release of Kuntar and other terrorists by Israel saying, “This is an historic victory over Israeli arrogance” and praised Kuntar as a “big struggler” (Khaled Abu Toameh, ‘Haniyeh: Release thousands for Schalit,’ Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2008). Additionally, Ziad abu al-Enain, director-general of the PA Ministry for Prisoner Affairs of the Salam Fayyad government and one of Fatah’s senior members in the territories, said “The Palestinians congratulate Hizbullah and its leader and send their best wishes to all the Lebanese people and to all the Palestinians upon the completion of the deal and the release of heroes, headed by the prisoners’ leader, Samir Kuntar” (Ali Waked, ‘Abbas congratulates Kuntar’s family; Haniyeh: Israel will pay more,’ Yediot Ahronot, July 16, 2008).
Obama said in Sderot that he would not tolerate rocket attacks that endangered his own daughters. If Samir Kuntar’s beating-death victim had been Malia or Sascha Obama, rather than 4-year-old Einat Haran, and Abbas celebrated the killing, would Obama treat Abbas as a moderate peacemaker and negotiate with him? We all know the answer.
Immediately after being sworn in as president, Obama gave Abbas the unique honor of calling him before any other world leader, yet promises to “hunt down and kill” Osama bin Laden. Why the dramatic double standard? The apparent answer is that terrorists get a free pass-not to mention billions in US taxpayer dollars-when their targets are Jewish. Is there any other explanation?
At the same time that Abbas receives royal treatment, this administration is eagerly prosecuting a teenage Somali pirate who, unlike Abbas, did not kill anyone. One might argue that the difference is that Abbas is a high-profile national leader and therefore “too big to allow to fail.” Yet Panama’s dictator Manuel Noriega languishes today in prison, convicted by the US government of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering-minor offenses compared with the Munich bloodbath.
Attorney-General Eric Holder has insisted, “We owe the American people a reckoning.” Vice-President Joseph Biden has emphasized, “We will not be stopped from pursuing any criminal offence that’s occurred…no one is above the law.” Both were referring to investigating US officials in connection with actions that included rare instances of waterboarding al Qaeda leaders, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after he ominously gloated that a second wave of attacks was imminent.
In the case of Abbas, is Biden correct that “no one is above the law?” And if not, in what kind of upside-down justice system is the door open to prosecuting efforts to stop terrorism, yet not open to prosecuting terrorism?
Huh! Meatloaf.
That may be my favourite capsule explanation of conservativism yet. Thank you Gavin.
Shorter Cut’n’Pasta:
Legal jurisdiction? Never heard of it.
In addition, Obama needs to prosecute movies for killing vaudeville, video for killing the radio star, and interview Arthur Miller as a suspect in the suspicous death of Willie Loman.
He also assembles a lot of polls or, uh, somethings of right-wing web sites that provide much amusement.
And such as:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/01/the_top_20_most_popular_conser.php
13) Unbelievable leftist hate of the day. (Little Green Footballs)
Pot, meet kettle.
And what does it say about conservatives that 5 out of the top 20 “most popular Conservative Grapevine stories from Right of Center blogs (courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department)” are Cassy Fiano writing about boob jobs, photos of herself in a bathing suit and a Halloween costume, lesbians, and other assorted important topics?
Huh! Meatloaf.
What kind of meat? I’m a Muslin so I can’t eat pork.
Will Obama’s Justice Department finally prosecute Jefferson Davis for Treason?
We all know the answer.
Then why ask the question?
I could just keep on posting all day on this dead thread, couldn’t I?
Oops, sorry, g, didn’t see you there. Not dead yet.
“Republicans should be happy that there is someone in the White House who supports their agenda.
This was largely true during the ’90s as well. They basically hate popular, centrist Democrats who want to enact a good portion of the conservative agenda. No, it doesn’t make any sense to me either.”
Well, their neandrathal base is made up of the small-minded, the mean-spirited, and the not-particularly intelligent, i.e. the Schoolyard Bully crowd, the kind of ‘people’ who have an almost desperate need to have to something to hate in order to feel good about themselves.
Centrist/Corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama are perfectly equipped to give these cretins exactly what they want: A modern day conservative Democratic President will do everything the Rethugs tell him to, so there’s no real danger of him ever fighting back. (Clinton certainly never tried to hit back at the bastards in any meaningful way, and Obama seems to be coming along nicely in this vein.) But since the President is “a Demmy-crat!!” (to quote Grampa Simpson) in name, if nothing else, it upholds the GOP base’s pathetic fantasies of being underdogs; The scum get to whine about how “oppressed” they are while continuing to behave like thugs themselves. The Rush Limbaugh School of Thought, if you will. Being able to simultaneously whine and gloat is at the very heart of Limbaugh’s whole schtick.
What kind of meat? I’m a Muslin so I can’t eat pork.
I thought Muslims couldn’t eat pork, but Muslins couldn’t eat porn.
OOH! Scary Muslins
http://www.joann.com/joann/catalog.jsp?CATID=cat2555
I can’t stand it when TV people it mispronunce it as “mano y mano,” which, if my grade-school Spanish is correct, means “hand and hand.”
Or in Spanglish, “man and man” and is therefore an endorsement of GAY MARRIAGE!
Some years ago I saw someone write it as “mono o mono,” which means “monkey or monkey.”
Just shorthand for “monkey knife fight.”
He must consider himself a trusted source.
Well, sure. If you had a resumé like Porkins, you’d confidently cite yourself too.
Best succinct definition of Conservatism A=A-VAR!!!
Another bravura performance, Gavin.
“Of course, if you went around saying it like that, the public would chase you with sticks…”
Big, heavy sticks, or those little Latte stir-sticks? Both of them scare me.
That photo may be the single strongest argument against gay marriage I have ever seen.
Owlbear1 rolls 20, hugs for 2d6 extra damage.
thought he was someone with Downs Syndrome that Steele was using as a political prop…
&
I didn’t get around to reading the post yet but wasn’t it nice of Michael Steele to take time to visit with the developmentally disabled. Is this only part of the Republican re-branding or will they be supporting increased funding?
This is a dispatch from the future, the Republican convention in which the Trig Palin/SteeleClone 2036 ticket is made official.
Not a spelling flame, just an FYI for future reference: the phrase is “mano a mano.”
When two Polynesians vie for prestige, it’s a mana a mana struggle.
the panoply of chins Jawhnny hauls around with him…
What do you have against Goitre-Americans?
Big, heavy sticks, or those little Latte stir-sticks? Both of them scare me.
Look Marge! A new whacking stick!
When two Polynesians vie for prestige,
Some have doubts about taking part in the endless cycle of competition and revenge.
Taboo or not taboo?
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
When two Polynesians vie for prestige, it’s a mana a mana struggle.
An da winnah kine say “Mana wanna leia”
You know, Mana Wanna Leia looked pretty hot in that slavekini.
Here’s my machavellian plan: liberal activists should start an American People’s Party that is socially conservative (no to abortion, immigration and gay marrigages) and economically socialist just to see how many votes they can siphon off the republican party.
Here’s my machavellian plan: liberal activists should start an American People’s Party that is socially conservative (no to abortion, immigration and gay marrigages) and economically socialist just to see how many votes they can siphon off the republican party.
Holy crap. That’s brilliant.
You could sell it as the party of Faith. After all, Jesus teaches us that as we treat the least among us, so shall we treat Him, so the Bible thumpers will eat this up!
#
Will Obama’s Justice Department Prosecute Abbas for Murder? said,
May 14, 2009 at 19:31
By Edward Olshaker
Now that President Obama has opened the door to prosecuting Bush administration officials for legal opinions allowing waterboarding of al Qaeda leaders, it would be monumentally ironic and unjust if the door were not also open to prosecuting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for funding the murder of David Berger, the American-born member of the Israeli Olympic team slaughtered in Munich in 1972. […] –Edited by the management. Surely a link would have been sufficient?
umm, no they won’t.
Because the bibble-thumping is just a facade; what they really get off on is authoritarianism and scapegoating.
Although the APP would still give ’em the scapegoating, I concede.
But the possibility that an undeserving brown person may benefit from economic justice would make it a non-starter.
conservatives are perpetually frustrated
He could have stopped there.
The wingnut is right in one regard; Liberals DO lie – to themselves – more than Conservatives do. A Liberal is more likely to believe in world peace and global justice, despite evidence that it is logically impossible and personally ruinous.
A Conservative would be just as bad about lying to others, however.
Teh Fugly: Conservativz haz it.
Right Wing News was the first conservative blog I ever read, way back when I was a freshman in college. I kept reading that trainwreck for years and years. Teh unintentional funny is strong there. I mean, at first it was bad enough just with Hawkins and the jackhole trolls that infest the comments (seriously, the comment section there is like scraping the bottom of a barrel located in a septic tank). But now that he’s got all those guest writers, man, the hilarity just does not stop.
this is a center right country . . .
No. No. No it is bloody well not. See, John, studies have shown that a decent number of Americans are “ideologically” right-of-center. This means that if you ask them, for instance, whether they want more government programs, or whether they think the government should spend less money, a lot of people will usually say “no” and “yes” respectively (this is where most wingnuts stop reading). BUT – if you then ask people whether Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid should be cut, the answer is a resounding no. Ideologically conservative, operationally liberal. Or, as Jon Henke put it, leave me alone vs gimme a hand. I realize that this is not a new insight, but wingnuts are real dumb.
But by all means, continue deluding yourself into thinking that you live in a conservative nation. Doing so will only ensure that you sink further into obscurity.
And of course I fucked up the link:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4137
Yeah to everything, but you know what?
We nominated this guy. We also nominated Bill Clinton. And Jimmy Carter, for that matter.
What does it say about hardcore liberalism that it can’t seem to produce a similarly popular figure? What does it say about the Democratic Party that it doesn’t know how to help a liberal win? It’s a nominally liberal party that keeps making centrists President, who then become the public face of a party whose base is to their left; no wonder the whole spectacle gives the impression of a certain dishonesty. The winger fallacy is simply that all this is somehow intentional.
I love Hawkins’ line about “Unlike liberals, conservatives believe most Americans share our values and so, if you want to know what we think, all you have to do is ask us and we will tell you.”
That explains the unprecedented secrecy of the Bush regime, the disappearing White House visitors’ logs, the secret energy policy meetings, the spying without warrants, the ghost detainees, the insistence on not giving straight answers (and especially not sworn testimony), the secret memos, and the general desire to avoid investigation into all the crimes that took place behind their resolutely closed doors.
Conservative politicians love to talk about their “values,” but they also feel a need to hide the huge disconnect between their rhetoric and the reality of their actions in office. Hmm…I wonder why?