’)You could write a macro to write it. This time around it’s The Chicago Tribune, but frankly it’s all over the place.
blah blah blah “The Left” and the Democrats have gone too far blah blah their message is too extreme blah blah the American people are really right wing blah blah etc.
The left is always going too far, always offending someone by clearing our collective throats. In a world of Republican faith based jihadists and trickle-down zealots gleefully discussing drowning the government in a bathtub like a baby, it is always the left who is going too far according to the MSM and their script writers in the Republican party.
In 2002 it was the anti-war left. In 2003 it was Howard Dean. In 2004 it was Michael Moore, John Kerry and George Soros. In 2005 it was having the nerve to say how screwed up Katrina was. In 2006 it was Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha. This year it’s MoveOn. Next year it will be whoever the Democratic nominee is.
No liberal can ever speak up and express a common sense opinion, because some jackass journalist and his Republican puppetmaster is going to be so offended they have to put down their cocktail and actually respond for a second.
The nerve.
MoveOn’s ad was, well, spot on.
THE TRUTH HURTS. Don’t it, chumps?!
This is a point that must be pushed more, especially when jerks like O’Reilly insist Dem poiticians shouldn’t associate with “disreputable” blogs like Daily Kos, etc. But if not Daily Kos, who would O’Reilly and Fox News find acceptable?
O’Reilly & Hannity have railed against Daily Kos.
O’Reilly & Hannity have railed against Moveon.org.
O’Reilly has railed against Media Matters (not sure if Hannity has smeared them).
Hannity has belittled Firedoglake (not sure if O’Reilly has ever gone after them or not).
O’Reilly has gone apoplectic over Pandagon and Shakesville.
O’Reilly & Hannity have railed against Howard Dean.
O’Reilly & Hannity have railed against the “nutroots”.
So the question must be asked: What exactly is a liberal blog or organization that would be “acceptable” or “respectable” to these people? There isn’t one. As soon as a liberal organization or website becomes successful or prominent or widely read, that makes it, ipso-facto, “dangerous”, “suspect”, “vituperative”, “vicious”, etc etc etc. The terms successful and respectable are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE as far as these jagoffs are concerned when it comes to ANY left-leaning organization.
It is time to “move on”.
Those who have nothing better to do than regularly attack alternate (rival) commentators are really demonstrating an apparent lack of meaningful dialogue to add to the discourse.
O’Reilly makes it his daily mission to marginalize the NY Times, LA Times, NBC, “viscious liberal websites”, etal. After all, if you can only trust any of the unmentioned news sources (FOX, Limbaugh, Malkin, et al) you needn’t waste your time on the named offenders.
It’s time to forget him and his ilk. There are a rare few who watch his show and hang on every word of these modern day McCarthyites. There is no fertile ground there for independant thought so let’s move on without them.
Bush is rolling out his surge product just like he rolled our his Iraq invasion product. Whike still choking on the latter the critically thinking majority in this country isn’t buying the former.
Newspapers have lost their reliability, talk radio has turned into hate radio, and cable network news has become Tabloidia.
These established “sources” are so fearful of the netroots that they have no alternative but to try and convince their dwindling subjects of the evils of free speech and thought.
It’s just a matter of time before they go the way of any other fringe group that attempts to subvert the will of the masses. Their grip is getting more tenuous each day. Enjoy watching them writhe because it is entertaining watching the O’Reilly types become totally unhinged.
In about 1 or 2 years, I predict we’ll find out that Patraeus was full of shit and that he knowingly lied, so Moveon’s add will be 100% correct.
But in the meantime, they’ll have to survive the right wing shitstorm.
It’s really too bad the right wingers never have to live by their own standards, though.
I really rather wish that they’d avoided the “Petraeus/Betray Us” line, though. It’s childish. It’s the sort of thing conservative talking heads do (see also “Obama rhymes with Osama”). It shows a lack of message discipline to make that shot.
“No liberal can ever speak up and express a common sense opinion…”
You miss the point entirely. It isn’t about “expressing an opinion,” it’s the manner in which the opinion is expressed. If you can’t see that, well, I feel sorry for you.
To be vocal in opposition to the war or to General Petraeus is fine. In fact, opposition is welcome. To do it in a childish manner, well, you see what happens.
You are a good example of this. I love this little quote:
“In a world of Republican faith based jihadists…”
In a single sentence, you just equated conservative Christians with radical Islamists who go around setting off car bombs and beheading innocent civilians.
This is precisely the reason why I dismiss people such as yourself and MoveOn out of hand. It is also the reason why I dismiss many right-wingers out of hand. You, and they, don’t have the slightest clue how to express an opinion in a mature manner.
Funny, but are you missing the big picture (or more correctly, the extremely small picture)? Experiencing the seemingly separateness of things, say Howard Dean,(or even Bush himself) and yourself, the viewer, as two different entities is deceptive, when in fact we and everything in the universe are all a bunch of swirling tornados of molecules and atoms, and, if you really want to get down, quarks and their various attracting/repelling strong/weak forces, running into each other and giving the false reading of separate “things”, keeping in mind that none of this would be possible if it weren’t for the uncertainty principle which forced the relative ordered and unified Big Bang to fly apart and then coalesce into the objects we see today, you know, galaxies, stars, planets, people, and pints of lager. It’s the third law of thermodynamics and you just can’t drive around it, nor does it respond to “WTF!”! Instead of everything everywhere flying apart at faster and faster rates of speed, just like you would assume when a uniform singularity like the universe before the big bang would be like, as it would result in a “uniform” explosion, the assumption is that there would be no anomalies to slow down enough that their gravity would instead cause random sections to collapse within themselves and form “things”. But I’m getting way ahead of myself here. We’re all illusory parts off the same thing. And some of those parts have a fake Texas accent and are criminally stupid. And so can babble on (Babylon?) incessantly and confuse at even greater levels.
In a single sentence, you just equated conservative Christians with radical Islamists who go around setting off car bombs and beheading innocent civilians.
Yep.
“In a single sentence, you just equated conservative Christians with radical Islamists who go around setting off car bombs and beheading innocent civilians.
Yep.”
Precisely why you’re considered irrelevant and immature…
In a single sentence, you just equated conservative Christians with radical Islamists who go around setting off car bombs and beheading innocent civilians.
See Rudolph, Eric. Or here.
And child #2 shows up.
Yep, let’s take the actions of a couple of individuals and compare them to the hundreds and hundreds of car bombings that take place on a yearly (almost monthly) basis. Yeah, that will work.
So, let’s take the actions of ELF and smear the entire environmental movement. Yeah, that will work.
Grow up…
To be perfectly honest, Conservative Christians (and DINO’s) are responsible for more atrocities than Al Qaeda ever visited on us, albeit indirectly.
And to call Oliver irrelevent while you spend time on his blog is a bit ironic.
General Petraeus and the White House are allowed to keep 160,000 soldiers and 30 million Iraqis in harms way, but we mustn’t be uncivil. Never that.
So irrelevant you’re here saying somehow a wacko environmentalist is in the same category as mass murderer Tim McVeigh.
Last comment as, quite frankly, it truly isn’t worth any time or effort when you’re dealing with infantile logic.
When you cannot get your point across in a civil manner, you will be ignored by the vast majority of level-headed people.
I, for one, would like to see our troops home immediately. However, even though they share my viewpoint, I will not listen to the people from Code Pink, because they are incapable of acting like adults.
I will not pay any attention to Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter not because of what they have to say, but because of how they deliver their message.
Feel free to continue to act like children. Don’t be surprised when no one pays attention…
Hey, guess what Steve? Most of America supports Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan’s work because its about getting our troops out of Iraq. I’m afraid you (and many) buy into the hype that the MSM tells you about these groups, but the Americans I talk to want someone to stand against this war because the “very serious” Washington pundits and pols will not.
35-40 years ago, the “very serious” people criticized the student generation for their radical action, but guess what they were a big part in ending the war. 7 years ago, the shrill wingnuts spreading lies about Al Gore were a big part in Bush’s being close enough to steal the election.
If 1-2 million people (including me) had the guts to do what Code Pink was doing, those troops would be coming home. Unfortunately, leaving your hopes in the Joe Lieberman’s of the world is just going to result in more death and destruction. While the Young Republicans stay safely away from the fray spreading lies.
In a single sentence, you just equated conservative Christians with radical Islamists who go around setting off car bombs and beheading innocent civilians.
Well, they do both hate America…there’s one equality.
I can see why Duros62 would get this wrong. The word “jihadist” gets tossed around enough to be a corollary of Godwin’s Law.
However, the only sense in which faith-based Republicans here in the United States are not “jihadists” is insofar as the term is specifically referring to Muslims only. In every other sense, the term is a clear, concise, and accurate description of the world-view that faith-based Republicans generally subscribe to.