>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What I intended to do in my rather strident initial comment was to smack some sense into folks who seemed to be [engaged in] a loathsome intellectual scavenging of misery. It could not go unchallenged.

To be honest, I have the same motivation behind about 80% of my comments. It the "someone on the Internet is WRONG" syndrome.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Are there people out there who are using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric? Not as many as are typically implied. I cannot name a SINGLE person who I would hold up as “the example” of a person that routinely uses ‘violent and apocalyptic rhetoric’. When such rhetoric exists it is typically very isolated.

Let me give two examples of something I found both pervasive, and an incitement to violence.

The first one is Sarah Palin's invention of the "death panel":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That was never something even remotely part of the Affordable Care Act, but you had it repeated and defended almost to a man by conservatives. Even the normally anti-talking point libertarians we have around here felt compelled to occasionally add "perhaps that's the basis for the 'death panels' the Republicans keep talking about..." to their criticisms of the ACA.

If you think that what liberals are trying to do is, as Senator Chuck Grassley put it, "pull the plug on Grandma", then it justifies trying to stop it by all means necessary. If talking about it doesn't work, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, and ultimately armed rebellion is okay, because it's all self defense against an unconscionable act of nihilistic genocide.

The second one is the talk about revolution and secession. The most famous are Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" about Cap & Trade, and Gov. Rick Perry winds up on TV a lot for talking about secession.

I'd also say that when I compare left vs. right on this topic, it's not so much about the quantity, but the quality and authority. The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election, while left-wing ones never did. Glenn Beck is making the case, night after night, that Obama and liberals aren't metaphorically taking us down the path of fascism and genocide, but literally doing so. That's qualitatively different from the average boisterous protester drawing a Hitler mustache on Obama or Bush's face, or some nobody like me calling him that in a comment.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'd just be a bit happier if they'd return the favor, and admit that liberal philosophy has a legitimate place in American politics, rather than talking about it like it's a cancer that must be completely eliminated.
Conservatives feel the exact same way. It’d be nice if liberals treated conservatives like human beings instead of vermin to be eradicated. Classic example: like how liberal pundits & politicians treat the Tea Party.

Okay, again, I think there's a big difference. The criticism of the Tea Party from the left has mostly been to call them:

• Racist
  
• Angry
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Believe a revisionist version of history
  
• Believe in a revisionist version of the Constitution
  
• Quick to resort to intimidation or violence
  
• Run by corporations
  

That's a pretty negative set of attributes. Well earned too, IMO.

Thing is, we don't really want them gone, we want them to snap out of it. We want to demonstrate to them the value of what we believe, and we want to show that the things we want and what they want aren't really so different when you come down to it.

Their criticism of us is:

• Elitist
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Weak (on terror/drugs/Ruskies/welfare parasites, etc.)
  
• Lazy
  
• Naive
  
• Run by special interests (mostly Unions and enviro-terrorists)
  
• Propagandist (we supposedly control all media, remember?)
  
• Unpatriotic
  
• Un-American
  
• Baby-killing
  
• Grandma-killing
  
• Job-killing
  
• Troop-hating
  
• Gay-loving
  
• Flag-burning
  
• God-hating
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Fascist
  

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them. They're not okay with a government that's part-conservative and part-liberal in inspiration. It's an all-or-nothing game to them.

I think that's less true in the broader right-wing movement, but the Tea Party-style of argument is in ascendance over there, and it seems like hardly anyone on the right thinks they should be trying to cool down that eliminationist streak.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But most of the time the reality is that the guy we want to believe is such a jerk is nowhere near as bad as we imagine in our head.

I agree.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when some politician says, “Hey – Limbaugh (or whoever) is poisoning our national discourse with their violent rhetoric”, all too many people are ready to lap up the demagoguery. Politicians who do so are manipulating us for votes. Pundits who do so are manipulating you for ratings.
Don’t be a dupe. We live in a free country, where speech – even speech you don’t like – is protected.

I agree with where you start here, but not where you end. Throughout, I am talking about condemnation, not criminalization.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

I think the kind of political junkies who come and get in my face here are kindred spirits, but I get so very, very tired of trying to break through the vitriol, and I mostly just write off responding to the people who seem to only speak to provoke.

To be frank, you have been a pretty borderline case in my book. You come across to me as someone who's commentary often only serves to raise the amount of heat and useless vitriol in conversations. I know I can dish it out myself, but I tend to dial it way back if I sense someone wants a real conversation.

I'm glad to see you do that at least a bit here.

Like you said, don't be a dupe -- don't be one of these people who carries nothing but a burning hatred of people who disagree with you, especially if you like to hang out in a place you think is 90% people who disagree with you.

I hate this shit. It shows an Obama quote, where he explains what the opposition is saying, cut out the part where he explains what's really going on, and then pick back up where he says that what's going on isn't the simplistic death panels. So it looks like he's saying, "This stuff where we're killing grandma to cut costs ... weel, we're not going to have death panels." Leaving room for my mother to say, "See? He is for killing the elderly, just not for calling them death panels." Spreading misinformation knowingly should be outlawed.

Thanks for posting this. When I get enough stars, I can do my own posting from this ...aargh!!! .... sites.

Gritting my teeth is the least of my reaction to this topic.

I'm curious -- how did it come about that you ended up posting this? Since netrunner turned me down? Just idle curiosity....

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
http://videosift.com/video/Fox-News-Holy-shit-death-panels-are-back
gotcha covered. Damn I'm gritting my teeth after watching it.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels

Here's a link to the site, so you can get your own embed code....

If you want.

There was a long article in The New Yorker a few months back. I can't remember the topic of the article, but at one point the author discussed Medicare. There was one hospital in the Midwest that had the lowest Medicare costs for terminal folks than any other in the nation. By a long shot.

You know why? Because that hospital REQUIRED all patients to have health care directives and end of life consultations BEFORE the crisis occurred.

Tens of thousands of dollars less spent. Better quality of life for the patients. Better peace of mind for the surviving family members. Less depression for family members after the patient died.

Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility but they would rather score political points than actually do something to help the deficit.

And the "death panels" were a Republican idea. That was embraced by Democrats because it was smart.

I can't hardly stand this.

Those are all interesting "common goods" that I would love the Right Wing to actually embody.

It is only individual freedom and responsibility, I've noticed, when it is your freedom and somebody else's responsibility. (I can provide anecdotal evidence in proof of that statement, from the lives of my super conservative relatives.)

Being fiscally responsible is a great thing -- so why the continuing huge tax cuts to the wealthy, where it has been proved over and over that those cuts will not help the economy and only drive us deeper in debt? And all that crap about death panels, when it has been proven that when folks plan for end of life issues, huge amounts of unnecessary, expensive and ultimately painful prolonging of life treatment are avoided?

Following the Constitution. You support the ACLU, right? They fight for the Constitution all the time. The Right Wing doesn't own the Constitution, it belongs to all of us. Including the checks and balances inherernt in the document.

Free markets. Huh. Well, Teddy Roosevelt was conservative, but he recognized that truly "free" markets are not in the best interests of the country. Unless you like lead paint in children's toys?

Life is lived on a curve -- with the far right and the far left holding positions that try to drag the middle around.

We're on the same curve, though.

Liberals don't disagree with your list of common goods. They just want to implement them in differing ways. For example -- individual freedom. Libs get behind that in a big way for personal choices in the bedroom. Gay marriage and the reproductive rights are individual freedoms, right? But Libs get a little torqued when someone else's individual freedom may cost innocent lives -- hence their concern over gun control.

All this is off topic, though. Tucker Carlson is a raving red baboon butt of a human being who cares nothing for a reasoned conversation when he can make a living out of his Monkey Island antics. (Primate Island, I know, that just isn't as funny.)

The fact that Jon Stewart hates him makes me very happy.



>> ^lantern53:

Which part of the 'right wing drivel' is BS?
The part about individual freedom and responsibility?
The part about fiscal responsibility?
The part about following the Constitution, which is the founding document of this country?
The part about free markets?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/return-of-death-panels

Here's a link to the site, so you can get your own embed code....

If you want.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4475784&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com</noscript>

I can't post this video. It is about the "Return of Death Panels?"

I am so angry, I can't hardly stand it.

Maybe you can get the embed to work. I don't have enough starriness to get a Fox News embed to work.

This just disgusts me. This whole "death panel" crap.

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think".

It’s actually quite the opposite. I’ve thought about this topic about 10 levels deeper than everyone else. They just don’t like it because I’m daring to bring up politically incorrect, uncomfortable truth.

You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good.

Responsible home ownership does say good things about a person. It does not mean you are a good person, but it does generally show a person is good at managing their finances.

Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

No I’m not. I’m applying the idea fairly, and that disturbs some people. Is it not logical to say that the people who took out subprime loans they knew they could not afford did “something to society” far more harmful than the collective actions of U.S. mass murderers? So, why are people mentally comfortable with limiting the voting rights of murderers (who do comparatively little damage to overall society) but are uncomfortable limiting the voting rights of bad borrowers who cause far more societal damage?

IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with.

When the full public has unlimited voting rights, the eventual dynamic result is that the primary concern of the voter becomes the claiming & retention of personal benefits. The resulting loose, debt-heavy fiscal policy collapses the government. Is that not a “slippery slope” at least as alarming as the slippery slope of limiting voter rights? Which slippery slope do you choose? Regardless, the left has routinely pooh-poohed the entire ‘slippery slope’ argument. The opposition to Obama’s health care bill was based on ‘slippery slopes’ of death panels and socialism but it was mocked as ridiculous. Why is the ‘slippery slope’ so absurd when it is applied to leftist political philosophy, but so pertinent on voting rights?

Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Easier? Sure. But more restricted too. A good start would be to require a valid U.S. birth certificate, and current photo ID at the site of voting.

This is abhorant, fascist thinking. Godwin be-damned if I can't call a spade a spade. I normally ignore your comments, but this latest set of talking points needs to be called out for the bull that it is.

I think that your hyperbolic overreaction suggests that your policy of self-recusal should be reinstated, because this entry into the crucible of debate is woefully inadequate. Clearly you are unable to control your emotions when grappling with issues, and therefore you should quit the field to spare both yourself and others from your abecedarian efforts. Or you could just go breathe into a paper bag for a bit and come back and try again. Your call.

What's different is that the left understands that we shouldn't be taking away people's civil rights because people use them in ways we disapprove of instead we think we need to do a better job of getting the facts and our point of view out to people.

When the left loses in the court of the national discourse, they do not just shrug and try to ‘get facts and a point of view out’. They demonize, attack, insult, and slander. When that fails they dictate by fiat against the will of the people. In short, they take away people’s civil rights when those people use their freedom in ways they disapprove. So your statement is patently false. The left is only interested in ‘civil rights’ insofar as it advances their pet agendas.

Liberal electoral reforms are always aimed at making it easier for people to vote, and growing the percentage of the populace who vote.

You need to correct your position, because it ignores a lot. The left always finds a way to make it easier for the people it WANTS to vote, but always seems to oppose easy voting for groups it opposes. Regardless, the whole civil rights argument is a cheap rhetorical dodge. Nations routinely monitor, restrict, and regulate voting rights. Requiring vital documents, proof of citizenship, and basic intellectual capacity is not some sort of crazy, dictatorial power grab. It happens all the time in every civilized country.

Mostly these days that's making sure there are paper trails for electronic voting machines, but it's also making sure the people working the polling places are treating everyone the same. Curiously, the right always finds a reason to oppose every one of the above.

I disagree. The left that is the routine, documented, proven opponent of a rigorous, fair voting process.

> He might look OK at first, but that was brutal. I'd get checked at the hospital if I were him.

I have seen the rest of this story, unfortunately he had Obama Care and a death panel decided that his hematoma was too expensive to address. He died.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:
Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.
Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.
The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.


Wow, you know, once in a great, great while, you make sense, and come off as someone who actually investigates things and comes up with their own view and opinion. Then invariably, as in your last paragraph, you end up talking out your ass.

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:

Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.

Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.

The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.

Other pieces of chalk include the out-of-control spending, socialized death panels health care, coming higher taxes, radical leftists snuck onto the "Supreme" Court, unemployment...

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Chalk up one piece of ammunition for the Republican campaign in 2012. This is too easily exploitable for them not to take advantage of it.


Hurry November 2nd!

>> ^rottenseed:

I believe, however, that the tea party movement is a legitimate movement consisting of people with legitimate political concerns that are not founded in anything other than a devotion to their political beliefs. Sometimes you get fringe crazies in every movement that view that movement as a way for their voice to be heard or that cling to a tangent of the movement and make it about something else.
For example:
General teabagger: "Down with Obama, down with taxes!"
Weird fringe teabagger: "Down with Obama because he's a n gger, muslim, communist fascist socialist! oh, and hitler!"


The "legitimate" movement you described is called the conservative movement. The Tea Parties are almost by their own definition the extremist fringe of that movement.

What they sound like is:

General teabagger: Down with Socialist, Communist, Fascist Nazi Hitler Obama and his death panels and Marxist redistribution of wealth!

Slightly less common teabagger: Same as above, add references to Kenya, birth certificate, Muslim, picture of Obama-as-Joker, picture of Obama-as-Witch Doctor, accusations that Obama wants slave reparations, accusations that Obama is a racist, accusation that Obama is trying to enslave whites

Truly rare teabagger: uses the word nigger in reference to Obama, or openly endorses a white supremacy group, makes reference to some racial stereotype about Obama.

I mean, not to let it go to his head, but I consider blankfist to be the poster boy for what the Tea Party wants people to think their average member sounds like, and even he is quite happy to say that first line.

The NAACP did not call the entire tea party racist.

This is the same kind of thing where Obama says his health care plan will not have "death panels" and yet at then in a few weeks he recess appoints a guy to be in charge of rationing health care. I will dissassemble the weasel-speak of the NAACP, if I may...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/16/tea.party.resolution/

Instead of joining us to repudiate racism, Tea Party leaders have attempted a tit for tat and demanded that we condemn the New Black Panther Party for reported hate speech.

This statement implies that the Tea Party has not repudiated racism. This is a blatant falsehood. When racism shows up, the national movement has condemned it. They do so repeatedly.

http://thenationalteapartyfederation.com/press_room.html

"The Federation does not and will not tolerate any form of racism, violence or hate speech... We believe to our core that racism and hate speech have no place in civil political discourse and debate..."

So Jealous & the NAACP are full of crap. The Tea Party does condemn racism. That doesn't stop left wing astroturf from showing up to promulgate it, nor does it stop racist hanger-ons who just show up. But the accusation that the Tea Party does not reject racism is patently false.

"And the New Black Panther Party is not a member of the NAACP. What we are asking the Tea Party to eschew is not the racism of some outside organization, but the bigotry within."

So - because the NBP aren't members of the NAACP means that their racism is OK and not worth condeming? A lot of the people who are accused of being racists aren't members of the Tea party officially (show me the proof) - so by his logic that makes them OK, right? This is a hypocritical double-standard of the worst kind and for the NAACP to make this argument makes them the lowest form of race hucksters.

With increased influence comes increased responsibility

Physician - heal thyself.

In fact her response has been to claim there are no racist elements in the tea party.

in the first place, Palin isn't a representative of the Tea Party as far as I am aware. She agrees with their positions, but is not a spokesperson. Second, she's right. The OFFICIAL position of the Tea Party - their mission statements and their objectives - have absolutely no racist element to them whatsoever. Period. End of story. As shown above - their official position is to condemn racism and racists.

What is happening here is the NAACP & left wing kooks are using the actions of a small fraction of extremist hanger-ons to try and condemn a larger movement. It is disingenous, false, and slimy. To use such tactics makes THEM the racists - not the tea party - because they are deliberately (and falsely) using race to advance their cause. The tea party does not do this, which is why they make the charges of reverse racism at the NAACP. And the charge has merit because the NAACP is the one running around looking at the world through race colored lenses.

Wow, you sound beaten down.

Honestly, does this surprise you? Republicans have successfully exploited the Tea Party movement, and they mastered the politics of fear ages ago. Now they have a bunch of people pissing their pants, who honestly believe our president is a Manchurian candidate who wants to take away their guns, kill granny with death panels, and put them in FEMA camps. When you're up against that kind of ignorance, can the voice of reason successfully penetrate their gray matter? Not when the audience is wearing Patriot Pampers.