An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Sometimes, Comment Is Not Necessary
Sep 14th, 2009 | 38 responses
38 Responses to “Sometimes, Comment Is Not Necessary”
Seeing (and hearing) is believing.
Thanks, Kathy
In the spirit of the threads title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M
And another, this one really beyond the pale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G9SMnVNBUM&feat…
Leonidas, your response simply proves what I have been saying: there is no difference between the Left nutjobs and the Right nutjobs. They equally offend and are offensive. That's why I highlight the sane and credible at all times.
Been doing the same myself. That why when I see a post like Kathy's I am quick to point out the other side, and when I'm one other more conservative forums and someone points to progressives acting like buttheads, I find an example of far-right nuttiness to counter them. People need to be made aware of the nuttiness on both sides. I applaud Kathy for bringing nuttiness to light, but I criticize her for only doing it for one side. I hope to help balance her partisanship with the examples she chooses to leave out.
However, most people at political rallies are pretty sane, that goes for anti-war/anti-Bush demonstrators as well as Anti-Big Government/ Anti-Obama protestors. Let me share something a friend of mine an ex-marine and an ex-police officer posted about the DC rally:
Oh BTW: my friend is also an ex-Republican, he was disgusted with their lack of fiscal conservatism when in power and is now a Libertarian. He is still very much a Conservative though.
Kathy this and Joe's post on calling Obama a child molester has left me speechless and heavy of heart. . .as much as we all hold free speak as paramount am beginning to see why the British banned hate speech a few years back. . .truly what is seen in this video is about a toxic hate and not based on substance. . .
” There is such a thing as a crime against the soul of a nation. A person or a political party can deliberately incite actions that diminish the strength, the integrity, and the overall well-being of a nation's inner core. America's soul is in a fragile state. It has suffered severe violations over the course of this past decade and to lesser degrees, in previous decades.”
“It is through discussions such as these that skills of introspection are awakened and a foundation is put in place for the wisdom arts: personal reflection and accountability, discernment, personal virtue, and stamina of spirit. Is it any wonder that as a result of the horrendous decision of the American Congress to “dumb down” our educational system, we now have a public that cannot discern lies from truth? Are we really surprised that we are now living in a society in which the news media saturates us with entertainment instead of actual news and that most of America was too asleep at the wheel to even notice? Should we really have to wonder for more than three seconds as to why so many media reporters have turned into nothing more than gossip mongers and paparazzi, lacking all courage to do actual hard core news, substituting their own hysterical opinions for informed reporting? I'm not surprised at all.”
“There comes a time when we have to just stand up to these carnies (slang for carnival barkers) and tell them to stop polluting the soul of America with their constant and endless transmission of psychic free radicals in the form of lies, negative press, ridiculous criticism, overall lack of intelligent ideas and comments, and complete absence of creative thought. . . .Just stop it. We've had enough. I know I have. And I deeply believe the soul of our nation can't take much more of their strategy of deliberate division against the people of their own nation. That is a true crime — and perhaps their greatest crime — against the soul of this great nation.” Caroline Myss
for the full text:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-myss/cri…
“I applaud Kathy for bringing nuttiness to light, but I criticize her for only doing it for one side. I hope to help balance her partisanship with the examples she chooses to leave out.”
Perhaps the reason Kathy didn't post videos of the event you linked to is because it happened in February of 2007, not yesterday.
Puhleeze… we al know there's nuttiness on both sides. The difference is that the Republican nuttiness these days is supported by mainstream Republican leaders. I didn't see Pelosi calling for progressives to protest the Iraq War by marching on Washington or burning soldiers in effigy. (And the anti-war protestors in Leonidas' clink were very few. And nowhere came close to the two million Republican nuts at the tea party thsi past weekend.) Nor do I recall seeing progressives waving “Pelosi for President” signs. Unlike the Republican protestors who have signs supporting both political and media leaders for president and veep.
And during the Bush years the Republicans claimed anyone who even questioned the president was a terrorist sympathizer. Now in order to be a Republican one has to prove their mettle by wishing for Obama (and the country) to fail. Questioning the president, slamming his policies, his family and disseminating flat out lies seem to be the Republican values these days. No wonder so many moderate Republicans are leaving the party.
StockBoySF, I agree with what you write except for the attendance figure. If there was 100 thou, they lucked out, half that is a good guess. Nuts? Yes.
No comment on the peace activist burning a US soldier in effigy? or the Congressman telling his constituent that “I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg”?
Leonidas,
The second video is nauseating; in fact, I could not watch more than a few seconds of it. It's sickening and deeply upsetting. Anyone would be justified in pointing to it as an example of bad behavior on both sides.
The first video has no commonalities with the video I posted at all. I am truly puzzled as to why you think it does. It's Pete Stark at a townhall meeting, being told by a constituent not to pee on his leg and call it rain, and responding in kind. If your point is that Stark should have been better than that, I totally agree, but there's no point of comparison between that, and my video of thousands of marchers saying crazy, stupid things, not even being able to answer questions about what they supposedly believe, and in at least one marcher's case, displaying a lack of education, or under-education, or something, I don't know what, to the point that she did not understand that the word “army” in “army of volunteers” is being used metaphorically. I mean, you want to talk about national security? Democracy? An informed electorate? What can one say about an adult American, presumably normal intelligence, not neurologically impaired, who got through school without learning what a metaphor is, and how to recognize metaphoric or figurative language?
And perhaps pigs fly.
Also note the Stark video was from only 3 days ago, on Sept. 12 2009, the very same day as the protest. The date is on the clip.
I find this to be self contradicting. Showing that the side that wasn't mentioned in Kathy's thread (Has she EVER started a thread critical of the far-left? No, she has not, she is an ideologue by all appearances) is needed to show equivalency so that paired with Kathy's one-sided posting it can be seen that there are lunatics on both sides. When I post a point that is not in response to a one-sided partisan propaganda post I generally condemn both sides for such actions. I do not see that in Kathy's posts nor in that of many other partisan liberals here, and partisan conservatives as well, though mostly on more right-leaning blogs and forums, the conservatives here seem much more critical of Conservatives in general than the progressives are of Progressives, who for many here can do no wrong or at least not wrong enough to be criticized. I welcome anyone to post a counterpoint example if I ever do, its good for a healthy understanding of all the factors.
That being said there are some progressives here that have earned my respect for being fair minded.
imavettoo….. the conservatives claim 2 million attended. I wasn't there. If they were, I'm fine to use that number.
Yes, I've seen the debates about the attendance. If it makes the conservatives happy to quote that figure, then I'm not going to dispute it. Quite frankly there are a lot of people who couldn't travel to the event of the week who feel the same way.
Thanks!
Leonidas, if the point you are trying to make is that there are lunatics everywhere on the political spectrum, then fine. We agree. But it always looks like you are trying to establish some kind of equivalency with your counter examples, and in so doing you end up looking a bit like a lunatic yourself.
Yes, exactly. And in addition to this mania for equivalency in every situation, whether there actually is equivalency or not, there is also the fact that those Tea Party protesters, with their hateful, ignorant signs and attitudes, are actively *supported* and *encouraged* by the Republican leadership. As ghastly as that second video was (and I truly cannot overstate how ghastly it was, in my view), those individuals are not supported by powerful forces in the government and media. That makes a huge difference, because a big part of what frightens me about the kind of people interviewed in the video I posted is that they have the ear and the agreement of the people who can actually put their desires into law. You can be revolted by seeing a U.S. soldier burned in effigy, but you know that viewpoint is not shared by anyone in a position of power.
Stockboy, I hadn't seen this before I posted my comment, above. I said basically the same thing as you did. Except, I have to say I think that two million figure is wildly inflated.
Thank you Kathy you just restored some respect from me with that comment.
I missed something but I totally didn't get the Stark video. I only watched about half of it but it was of Stark answering his constituents' questions.
There were also some drivel commentary in the form of interposed comments on a black background… For instance a woman felt that people should prove their citizenship before being treated in an emergency room…. and Stark said that he didn't know how he would prove his citizenship in such a situation…. The “drivel commentary” flashed, “How about showing your driver's license?” (Or something similar.) First, a driver's license does not establish citizenship. Second if you were pulled from an auto accident with the jaws of life and your license (or passport) is being burned in the car…. then how do you prove citizenship? What if you're shot and robbed with no ID? What about people without licenses? Doctors have compassion and treat patients and are not police, except for certain commenters who apparently lack compassion and feel that doctors should also be police.
Anyway I thought it sort of proved my point that Republicans are kooks these days.
I think Kathy left out the videos of the event you linked to because she was talking about another topic- the Republican nut cases at the Tea Party.
But if we want to tell Kathy what her topics should be and what videos to put up I vote for this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJyuNiLev0&feat…
I have to agree I don't think 2 million were there, I do think hundreds of thousands seems to be the most reasonble estimate. Maybe in the 200,000+ range, thats a long cry from 2 million, but it is still a lot more than the 30,000 who signed up, the organizers can only consider this an amazing success.
Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or two million…. I'm not getting into that numbers game and it doesn't matter how many showed up- many more couldn't travel to the weekend event for various reasons. The point is that there are a lot of crazy people in the GOP these days.
As far as the Stark video (which I commented on above)… the only other comment I care to make is that I didn't much care for Stark's comment about not peeing on the guy's leg (but what would the reaction have been if he said that he WAS going to pee on his leg?) I thought the way Republicans showed respect to others was to call someone out on their crap, which is what the GOP lawmakers have been doing all summer and claim they want the Dems to do. So when Stark, a Democrat, did this suddenly the Republicans whine and rush home to their mommies because a Dem had the nerve to call them out. Whatever. The language and even tone Stark used doesn't even rise to the level of the foul invective the GOP lawmakers have been hurling at Dems all summer. <Yawn>
Kathy: “….. I have to say I think that two million figure is wildly inflated.”
I see you agree with Leonidas again! Didn't you two just agree on something on Saturday, too?
Glad I can be a get you two to agree here.
Perhaps 2 million is overstated but if I use the lower “liberal social commies' ” figures I'd get hanged by the right. There's just no pleasing the conservatives, is there? Sigh…
Anything is possible, one day you might be surprised to find that I consider myself left of center on many social issues as well. Those topics haven't come up much lately though. When it comes to economics I'm very conservative. Same with gun control and States' rights. But with regard to gay rights, censorship issues, obscenity laws, decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution, etc., you might find me more often with progressives than conservatives. I'm kinda a cross between a strict Constitutionalist, a Burkean Conservative, A Libertarian, a 19th Century French Liberal and a romantic.. Multiple Personality disorder might be an apt description as well, LOL.
A different view of tea party's from the 9/12 protest in LA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbYXAq4qy_0
and in fairness a peaceful peace demonstration with mostly normal folk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4gqboBdKNg
Nuts aren't quite as prevalent as cherrypicked clips by those of the other side.
Oh BTW the Bury Obamacare with Kennedy signs seem to have been handed out by a group called AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE. This is an anti-abortion catholic group. That explains the disespect for Ted Kenedy.
Here is what Jodi Brown the organizations President had this to say about Kennedy's Funeral:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/sep/090901…
She goes on to say with more venom:
So I think that explains who was behind those signs and why.
LOL, Stockboy. It's nice to get an email notification of a new Disqus comment that makes me laugh instead of infuriating me.
“This is an anti-abortion catholic group. That explains the disespect [sic] for Ted Kenedy”
Here's where we are losing our moral compasses.
Nothing can explain such disrespect..
Just as nothing can explain calling the President of the United States a child molester, or a Nazi, or a Communist, or a traitor, or a terrorist, or…
Just like nothing can explain child molesting.
Thank you
And as to “equivalency,” “the other side does it, too,” etc., excuses, rationalizations it reminds me of a defense attorney tryng to use the defense, “But, Your Honored, look at how many others have done the same thing, too.”
An extreme example, extrapolation? Perhaps
Trying to make a point? Definitely.
Successful? I am sure you'll let me know
OK, Leonidas, I'll take you at your word that you're just trying to add some balance to TMV. But if that's the case then I gotta tell you – dude, you're doing a terrible job.
Instead of being a moderating voice to “The Moderate Voice” you come across as an unbalanced nut job who has no understanding of the basic concept of analogies or comparisons. Your counter examples and the context in which they are presented have the tone and likely effectiveness of the schoolyard taunt, “Well, same to you but more of it.” Instead of causing us to reflect on our own possible hypocracies, we are left with the impression that you are just another pig-headed idealogue unable to see anything wrong with your world view. I assume that's not what you intend. Right?
Of course this is just my opinion. Others may feel differently and I would like to hear their take on it.
In the meantime, Leonidas, let me ask one favor of you – before you crank out a response to me, step away from the computer for just two minutes. Two minutes. Then ask yourself:
1. What do I really want to accomplish with these posts?
2. Is my approach working?
“you come across as an unbalanced nut job who has no understanding of the basic concept of analogies or comparisons.” . . .
“Of course this is just my opinion. Others may feel differently and I would like to hear their take on it.”
I'm new here and when I first saw Leonidas's posts, that's the first thing I thought. Then I started reading them closer in case I was missing something. Nope. My first impression was correct.
“There are not thousands saying crazy things in your video, just the cherry picked few.”
It is intentional. The slander of the building (intelligent) public opposition to Dem excess is driven by resentment as well as continued childish impatience to get bad legislation passed and naive dreams fulfilled.
Hi there fellow 'nut job' lobbers. It's just me. Again. The rules of comments at TMV are no attacking, no name-calling other commenters or the writer. There are other ways to express. Please use them. Thanks
Dr.E
DM Editor for TMV. And no, that does not mean 'dang muffle-muffle' editor. Except some days. I hope that made you laugh.
I suspect that was directed at least partially at me, so let me clarify.
Nowhere have I called anyone names or attacked them personally. I have told Leonidas that I felt that his posts were perhaps not having the intended effect of enlightening anyone but rather making him look like a nut job and lunatic. Advising someone that their efforts are possibly creating a perception vastly different from what was intended is a far cry from calling names.
I hope no one saw my comments as ad hominems, but I suppose I should consider the possibility that my own posts are being perceived quite differently that they are intended.
Dear ElZagna: Thanks for your comment. Mine was to the entire group. All is well now.
thanks,
dr.e
Kathy, i read Maureen Dowd's off ed piece on Joe Wilson about underlying racism with the “You Lie” screech and thought, give them benefit of the doubt. . .but seeing this video and hearing the degree of rancidness without conceptual foundation, the emotion expressed by these people seems all too familiar and consistent with racial hatred. . . sad to agree with Maureen Dowd. . . .
i wish someone would past legistation that both parties could only talk about what they are for. . . perhaps there would be a chance to heal the racial/political/social divides for we spend so much time taking about what we hate, that kind of fear only divides. . .and when we talk about what we are for we speak from a place of affirmation and love that has the only chance of bridging the gaps. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dow…
“underlying racism with the 'You Lie' screech”
The professional fake-victim, bogus-racism-accusation-makers are already at it. Tim Wise has even extended public opposition of Dem extremism in general, and the Tea Party protests, as “racism” [sic] examples.
Is there a reason why there's music playing over the majority of what's being said in the first video, or is it that perhaps this video is edited in such a way to make the people talking look better? That being said, they did a horrible job of editing if that was the intention. They forgot to take out the talking points and show the people who could actually explain the reasoning behind them.
When folks can give a substantial response — THEN I'll believe they know what they're talking about rather than just being the glassy-eyed faithful.
Perhaps so, why don't you take up the torch then? I look forward to seeing your counterpoints to progressives, haven't seen any yet.