Where has the rational left of the 60s gone, and who has replaced them with these hate filled monsters?
Recently, every time I've started to write an article about the situation in New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina and surrounding events, I've gotten a few words down and then become distracted by something I read while browsing the internet. I've come on statements like these:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
>>Another thing. You have this visceral emotional reaction to Krugman and his polemics.<<
I have to admit to finding Krugman creepy as hell. I saw him on Russert once, spouting what were blatantly lies, and Russert called him on it and he kept backing and filling and talking down to Russert and I realized that he wasn't about truth, but about tailoring facts to fit an agenda of negativity and defeatism which I find unappealing.
>>But everything you write is polemical itself. And Krugman's a way smarter version of Dave Nalle and BABsie who does WAY more research. You can disagree with some of his conclusions, but to attribute personal hatred to anyone who could possibly take a contrarian view says more about your psychology than theirs.<<
My take on Krugman is simple. He may be smart and he may have facts at his command, but his primary motivation is negative, and he only uses his intelligence and his knowledge to serve destructive and negative ends. That's not something I find appealing.
>>I don't hate Bush. I don't hate you. But I think you have vague hatreds against anyone who hates the things and people you never tell us you value. So who even knows where your outrage stems from?<<
You're dead on. I do hate people who are opposed to truth, reason and liberty.
>>Not only is this some of the worst writing I've seen from you (or almost anyone else on this site) to date, it could also accurately describe the way people might think of you (not knowing much beyond text) based on your dismissive attitude and the way you frame your positions, like this piece.<<
The Lovecraftian hyperbole was a way of framing my emotional reaction to what I read. I deliberately wrote it in his idiom to emphasize the point that these people are removed from normal consentual reality and in their own creepy alien reality.
>> verything you write drips of fury and a lack of regard for the feelings and emotions of others.<<
Frankly I think you're confused. Because I don't choose to write articles about happy puppies and instead focus on injustices and problems in society, that makes me insensitive? The happy puppies don't NEED to be exposed and discussed. Those who do harm do.
>> I'm not being a liberal hippie here and I'm pretty emotionless myself (we've already had this talk about our similar stylistic perceptions), but this post and your comments on the Cindy Sheehan topic make me think you're pretty paranoid and a little beyond reasonable debate yourself. Calm down, Dave :) You're smart, but you're losing your grip.<<
I'll admit that this article was prompted by emotion and frustration. The opening paragraph is literally true. I can't concentrate on writing good, useful articles because I'm distracted by the madness and fanaticism which I see intensifying right now.
>>I have this problem too, but not everything is a political argument with two clearly defined, diametrically opposed sides that needs to be won at all costs. There are some things even Dave Nalle doesn't know and it's possible even someone other than Dave Nalle might have a valid moral or political point that you can agree on.<<
I'm pretty sure that calling Barbara Bush a bich and a cunt or cheering on the murder of the entire Bush family or calling the entire Republican Party racists isn't a valid moral or political position. Do you disagree?
Dave
27 - Dave Nalle
>>Who the hell is "the Left" anyway?<<
I only refer to the left in my last two paragraphs. It's a broad category which includes a number of different specific political philosophies and generally includes the Democratic party, a portion of independents, and a lot of fringe and extremist groups. It's about as well defined and consistent a group as 'the right'. I like to use the term because I don't want to call people like these liberals, because they really have lost track of what that term means.
>>And who do you stand with?<<
I stand with people of reason and good sense and against fanatics and ideologues.
>>These are such sloppy emotional misgivings from a man who takes such care to point out the illogical views of others.<<
I've written plenty of non-emotional pieces, I'm entitled to a little venting.
Dave
28 - Shark
Wow.
What Bob A. Booey said.
And just to emphasize what a few dozen others have pointed out:
1) Cherry picking irrational, hate-filled statements from Left & Right is like shootin' straw men in a barrel.
2) Dave, in this "essay" -- you're as fucking distorting and disengenuous as you accuse others of being. This is Irony on crack.
3) I've contributed a few of my own emotional, angry, hate-filled statements against the Bush Junta, but I regret them now.
4) Using IRON-CLAD LOGIC, REALITY, AND REASON -- I can PROVE with a piece of paper and a #2 pencil that the world would have been a better place if Barbara Bush would have scraped her womb with a rusty coat-hanger instead of giving birth to George W. [who, btw, has a "666" tatooed on his scalp].
5) As the ever-astute Booey pointed out: based on writing quality, this "essay" should have started out with:
"IT WAS A DARK AND STORMY NIGHT..."
This was a terrible "Steven Kingish" wannabee diatribe -- but I think it shows that Dave's true aspiration is to be a hack pulp horror novelist.
...brrrrrrrr... [shark shudders in fear]
Crack of thunder. Fade to black.
29 - Adriana
Well, if you (Bush) sow hatred by invading a country and killing its citizens, then you harvest that hatred in your own country. Bush should be impeached.
30 - Bob A. Booey
First, I don't trust or respect most who define themselves as "moderate." Let me be clearer: I often find they're the greatest ideologues and extremists and using that empty, loaded word as cover. It's a weaselly evasion meant to avoid having to identify what you actually believe while allowing you free license to attack and tear down at will. All great libertarian thinkers, especially, were radicals.
Like Senator Al Barger, I'd have much more respect for your views if you just came out and said that you almost always agree with President Bush (one would certainly come away with that impression from reading your political comments on this site) and have a decidedly hardened take on libertarian politics, especially when it comes to the war and social issues that is decidedly at odds with most libertarian ideas about the best uses of government.
I find libertarians in this country (especially if this site is any indication) as politically incoherent and unprincipled a group as any I can think of. I get no sense of genuinely liberal thinkers like Mill, Nozick, Locke, and Rousseau in the things I hear and read from you or Al. I get a lot of knee-jerk defenses of an administration that has been largely atrocious when it comes to transparency, accountability and civil liberties, all things principled libertarians would presumably be interested in. I've heard NONE of you so-called libertarians have the balls to go out on a limb and oppose or criticize the administration on civil liberties, for example. If you want to be a Republican but don't want to give up the childish pseudo-rebellion of being difficult and claiming membership in a small party, just call yourselves GOP in spirit.
I'd love to read a post from you about creationism in the schools. Please do write it. I'll read it and I'll give you credit for saying something that the conservatives who usually agree with on the site might find anathema.
I'd also have more respect for you if you just had the courage to come out and say things like the African aid article were things you believe. Don't be evasive and say you merely find them "interesting."
No one believes you're moderate anyway. So we can at least be honest and forthright.
Now for some of the things you said:
"institutionalized, organized hatred. [...] the culture of hate where a whole body of people agree that Bush is an idiot and his mother is a bitch, and they take it as fact, which I object to."
I think you need to step away from the Internet bile for a while. This strikes me as borderline paranoid and there is no INSTITUTIONALIZED mass belief in this that I'm aware of, particularly the bizarre comments about Barbara Bush that you quote above. I think people generally like Barbara Bush and as a history teacher, I'm sure you're aware that the list of Presidents who never had to suffer through being called "idiots" by the opposing party and by the public would be a very short one indeed.
WHO are these evil leaders that are leading duped masses that you're talking about? Who's doing harm? I see a lot of you defending or denying the current harms of political leaders, but I can honestly say there's no clear pattern of who your enemies are when it comes to who's doing harm to people. You're a knight without a mission or a discernible core of moral values and that's why I say your outrage seems directionless.
I think it's too easy (and disrespectfully elitist) to dismiss disturbingly reactionary comments as "ignorant, stupid, foolish" and naive because "people don't know better" while attributing some sort of devious, mastermind intentionality from allegedly "liberal" idiots. I think, for example, the silly posts by Bambenek and others accusing anyone asking questions about the adminstration's response to Katrina of a grievous moral sin are extremely silly and even calculated political hatred. It's a red herring meant to distract us from legitimate civic conversation about the efficiency and competence of our government's response. Similarly, I think your comments about "black Democratic leaders" is also a broader issue that seems to have little to do with the real suffering of people in the wake of Katrina. For me, it isn't some political debate that MUST be won in favor of or against President Bush -- it's a legitimate concern that the people of New Orleans were let down in a big way. I'd raise the same questions if it were President Clinton, Gore or Kerry. I guarantee it. And I can't understand people who want to view it as part of some larger ideological debate and project their partisan concerns and moral predation upon anyone who would discuss the situation. I'm also pretty sick of the ugliness in this site's discussion of Katrina, so perhaps we share that. I'm pretty much done with discussing it.
I think a part of your problem is this pretty poor and overly broad definition you use for those whom you are "confronting":
"the left [... is] a broad category which includes a number of different specific political philosophies and generally includes the Democratic party, a portion of independents, and a lot of fringe and extremist groups."
Dave, your choices in web browing probably don't help with your paranoia. You go to sites you know you'll hate, not to look for more information to understand politics or the world better, but to find things you can latch onto, be outraged by, and disconfirm easily. How realistic is it to look at the website of something as irrelevant as the CPUSA in 2005 and assume that it speaks for a wide variety of people on "the Left"? You also cite European leftist/anarchist sites on other threads on this site and your suspicion about socialists from your days in Russia -- socialism proper has NOTHING to do with the political debate in this country. Your historical outrage at the evils of Marxism have you stuck in some sort of odd Manichean worldview that I think you're incorrectly applying to American politics. The war's over, Johnny Rambo. Either you're really out of touch or you're just going out of your way to find things to get pissed off about. If I wanted to waste my time reading crap on white supremacist sites or only got all my news from NewsMax or read right-wing blogs for things to use as ammunition for some broad, sweeping moral indictment of anyone on the "other side," I'd really have to wonder if I had any nuance or complexity in my understanding of the arguments and stake. I'd also have to really re-examine how invested I was in my process of finding objective information from which to draw truth and in my own insecurity about the quality of my own beliefs and ideas if my primary mode of argument were to tear down the ideas of the worst, most extreme, cartoonish examples of those I disagree with. Outrage and knocking down cheap, easy targets is easy. Going into issues with a relatively open mind and a willingness to listen and test my ideology against data and the views of others is much, much harder. It's easy to win in political debates if you always go for the "win" in a limited narrow, semantic way that supports one shaded interpretation that's only true in the narrowest sense. Those aren't very meaningful victories of rhetoric or insight.
Reason without perspective and objectivity will inevitably become frustrated and misdirected. A focused, disciplined intellect that has no substantive connection to the world of human society and interests can be dangerously myopic and caught up in its own alternate reality that can barely be called reasonable or rational in functional terms. Reason isn't just a method of the mind and argument -- it's a willingness to have a complete view on the world where facts and ideas have context and are enfleshed in the lives of real people. That's not just a liberal bias -- that's a truth that militates against any internal mental fascism that would force ideas and arguments to be always abstract and internal to the mind at all times.
Do you realize that EVERYONE else who disagrees with you probably throws out the same canard about how irrational their opponents are? Have you ever tried arguing with religious conservatives about their faith in your younger days? It's ten times worse than arguing about the faith in government, I guarantee you.
Truth is even more universally claimed.
And poverty and exclusion have a funny way of making many people quite unfree.
You don't have to write anything personal about your family, by any means, but write something about yourself, what you believe, on something, anything OTHER than politics. We already know Dave Nalle's not the impersonal political robot -- your emotions are on your sleeve quite often and especially in outbursts like this one. Share with us your emotional reactions on culture, art or music, for example. I find people who are largely incoherent on politics (like RJ, for example) are quite humanized and relatable when we talk about other things. That's how people who don't always agree find things in common in the human world, my friend.
"I'm pretty sure that calling Barbara Bush a bich and a cunt or cheering on the murder of the entire Bush family or calling the entire Republican Party racists isn't a valid moral or political position. Do you disagree?"
These aren't moral OR political positions, Dave. And only an ideologue would think they were. I don't know anyone who's advocating assassination -- if they are, they should be investigated.
"these people are removed from normal consentual reality and in their own creepy alien reality."
Again, who are THESE people? Is it the entire broader class of people you define as "the Left" later on? This is too imprecise and not based in real knowledge outside your own fearful projections grouping people together. It's also, once again, paranoid, which itself might be considered a "creepy alien reality" where everyone's no longer human but must be opposed.
And do you see how it can be counterproductive to assume class membership or group status whenever people engage in specific discussions about discrimination or racism? If we're in the business of assuming that all indictments and moral opposition is broad and sweeping and denying any claims by the oppressed as a result, then can you see why that might seem insensitive or unempathic?
Libertarians especially, in their desire to seem economically-minded and technical despite the fact that almost all their rhetoric is general and even vaguely philosophical, seem to neglect the philosophical importance of ensuring that the reactionary elements in society deny certain clases of people the freedom to pursue their lives and fortunes free from hatred. This isn't some Star Trek mission of public policy where the duty is "non-interference" where we can stand by idly while people call for women to lose their reproductive rights or for gays to be denied basic rights we take for granted simply because we like their style of politics slightly better on other issues. Public policy and civil society aren't a gameboard where you want to avoid hit points from your opponents and destroy their points of view before they can be heard. It should be about the search for the best ways to improve people's lives, whether it's through government or civil society.
All politics involves morality, including the decision to abdicate the moral responsibility to help others. That too has moral consequences, as we see in the case of genocide in Africa (more on that later with Darfur).
And I think it's your compartmentalization of morality apart from politics that makes you so willing to overlook the deception and lack of openness which should trouble any concerned citizen in today's political climate. You automatically assume that politics is already immoral and corrupt and in so doing, lose any moral high ground you might want to have to criticize the excesses of government. Principles libertarians should take it as a moral imperative to criticize states that manipulate information and employ self-serving moral language to justify their "pragmatic" policies.
Frankly, Dave, I don't think you're a pragmatist at all. You're like a lot of people who are interested in technology and information who think they're political technocrats because they're able to access information without realizing that being a true political pragmatist entails eschewing ideology and gut reactions. I think you're in some odd way a moralist who refuses to have any foundation for his morality, which makes your moral outrage unpredictable and occasionally incoherent.
"I stand with people of reason and good sense and against fanatics and ideologues."
This is what all fanatics and ideologues say as well. What determines whether one is "reasonable" or "fanatical" is their approach to information and ideas as much as the substance of their positions.
"Reason," "truth," "freedom," and "good sense" aren't substantive values, they're loaded value statements that have little meaning beyond their emotional impact. They're emotive words. Surely, as someone who claims to be divorced from the pernicious influence of emotions and the danger of the tug of moral conscience in politics, you can see that all these terms aren't pragmatic descriptions of good government but emotional images that are constantly re-deployed in all manner of ways by protestors and soldiers, watchdogs of power and cynical manipulators alike every day.
Fundamentally, I think that your approach to politics and social issues is colored by an intense cynicism and mistrust of people, their intellect, and their motivations. There's something fundamentally unfree about your prose (and the prose of the other libertarian writers on this site) and I don't understand where the anger comes from if what you propose is a world where speech is valued, even cherished, and people can be free to exchange ideas without prejudgment and exclusion from the marketplace.
And about Darfur, you just posted a couple days ago claiming you never supported the idea of intervening to prevent genocide. Which is it? This is the kind of equivocation and amoral posturing which troubles me and which lets ACTUAL evil in the world (like genocide) take place unopposed. The US is actively resisting the UN's efforts to have language requiring intervention in Darfur and it's consistently undermined the political will of other nations who would consider support for peacekeeping and monitors because of so-called "national interest" postures which allow the US to stand by idly as it did in the injustice of Rwanda. We were even slow to call these horribly shameful sins of history "genocides" when we knew very much what was going on. In the case of Darfur, so many have already been killed that a great moral crime has already been done by self-interested nations. Clinton had blood on his hands for Rwanda -- Bush has blood on his hands for Darfur. So do all of us for treating it as another abstract policy discussion.
You want to confront real evil? There are people being exterminated, raped and destroyed for no good reason on a mass scale in parts of the world not named Iraq. The hypocrisy of the tough military talk about Iraq contrasted with the weak, unsure language about a place like Darfur would be almost comical if it weren't so sad. The fact that we chose a misguided and profoundly unsuccessful mission now justified on humanitarian terms while far, far greater humanitarian evils take place under our nose that we've known about for as long as we've been at war or longer is almost sociopathic.
"Long-term dependency" is a cop-out. Saving the lives of your fellow man isn't something that should lend itself to the language of drug addiction. Similarly, the crippling poverty and neglect that helped create the background social conditions for the humanitarian crisis in New Orleans aren't a reason for shunning victims or condoning a late and inadequate response to human suffering.
That's why I'm glad to see your donation efforts. I just wish that your political statements and intellectual approach to political discussion and information reflected more of that care and openness to ideas and people.
That is all.
31 - Bob A. Booey
"...ensuring that the reactionary elements in society deny certain clases of people the freedom..."
That should say "CAN'T deny."
"Principles libertarians should take it as a moral imperative ..."
And that should read "PRINCIPLED libertarians."
I can't type right when I wake up in the middle of the night.
That is all.
32 - Dave Nalle
First off, Babs, on consideration of your original comments I want to compliment you on being on a higher level of sophistication than your compatriots. Instead of just shouting at me and throwing in a few 'fascists' and 'bush is hitlers', you instead did a fine job of trying to divert discussion from my legitimate complaint and trying to turn the tables and make it into a sort of cheap combo psychoanalysis and subtle personal attack. Bravo. Much higher on the level of evolution of intolerance.
And I'll keep playing along up to a point, because I have the all-emotion, no reason response of Shark and the sheeplike 2-line response of Adriana to make my point for me better than I ever could.
>>First, I don't trust or respect most who define themselves as "moderate." Let me be clearer: I often find they're the greatest ideologues and extremists and using that empty, loaded word as cover. It's a weaselly evasion meant to avoid having to identify what you actually believe while allowing you free license to attack and tear down at will. All great libertarian thinkers, especially, were radicals.<<
I've only recently begun to think of myself as a moderate. I was a radical libertarian for a long time, but I realized that extreme radicalism was incompatible with any kind of political effectiveness, so while I continue to hold my basic liberal/libertarian beliefs, they are MODERATED by common sense and pragmatism. That's what makes you a moderate, the willing to compromise between pure principle and practicality.
>>Like Senator Al Barger, I'd have much more respect for your views if you just came out and said that you almost always agree with President Bush <<
Except that neither I or Al Barger DO agree with Bush on a great many points. He's in the same position I'm in, of finding ourselves having to uncomfortably defend Bush, because we are thrust into that position because we agree with him on a few key points which get us lumped in with him indiscriminately by others, and because we find the irrational attacks on him more troubling than any of his actual flaws.
>>(one would certainly come away with that impression from reading your political comments on this site)<<
A statement which can only be made by someone who reads JUST the comments - which are reactions to topics which others bring up and not the actual articles I've written.
>> and have a decidedly hardened take on libertarian politics, especially when it comes to the war and social issues that is decidedly at odds with most libertarian ideas about the best uses of government.<<
I can't imagine what social issues you think I disagree with other libertarians on. Unless you think most libertarians are pro-life - some are - and I do disagree with them. And as I've said before, I'm not pro-war, but I'm also not pro-disastrous failed foreign policy leading to isolationism.
>>I find libertarians in this country (especially if this site is any indication) as politically incoherent and unprincipled a group as any I can think of.<<
Then you have zero familiarity with real libertarians. There really are no ideologically pure ones on this site. Ideologically pure libertarians shy away from discussions like this because they have no basis for discussion with people who have more mainstream political opinions. Their views are too extreme and dogmatic to find even enough common ground for discussion.
>> I get no sense of genuinely liberal thinkers like Mill, Nozick, Locke, and Rousseau in the things I hear and read from you or Al.<<
Odd, those would be among the philosophers I most revere - along with Godwin, Burke, Montesquieu and Paine. Perhaps you get no sense of them because I never get to discuss anything relevant to their philosophies because I have to constantly deal with countering hate from the left. Or it could just be that your reading of them was tainted by your own biases so what you got out of them differs from what others have gotten from them.
>> I get a lot of knee-jerk defenses of an administration that has been largely atrocious when it comes to transparency, accountability and civil liberties, all things principled libertarians would presumably be interested in.<<
It comes down to the issues which are forced on us by a sense of justice. When we see the administration being attacked unfairly we come to its defense. Defending it when it's being unfairly attacked doesn't mean I approve of everything it does. This is the simplistic reasoning which you and particularly people like Shark are constantly guilty of. You assume that because I support the war, or choose to debunk ridiculous criticisms of the administration that means that I'm a Neocon, or I support everything that comes out of the Whitehouse. That's fallacious reasoning.
BC won't let me post links to all my articles, but go to the list and look for these ones: Send for the Ethics Czar, Do or Die Time on National IDs, A Republican Voice of Reason, Your Papers Please, Securing Bush's Legacy, The Time for Medical Marijuana is NOW!, Welcome to the Police State, Welcome to the DEA House of Horrors or any of a number of others. If you can read those articles and think I'm still a big fan of the administration and in lockstep with Bush, then you're sadly deceiving yourself. While you're at it read some of my personal philosophy in Take Responsibility!.
>>I've heard NONE of you so-called libertarians have the balls to go out on a limb and oppose or criticize the administration on civil liberties, for example. If you want to be a Republican but don't want to give up the childish pseudo-rebellion of being difficult and claiming membership in a small party, just call yourselves GOP in spirit.<<
Not sure what you're getting at here. Civil Liberties are the core value of the Republican Party. If I support the party then I have to support Civil Liberties, it's the cornerstone of the party. If other Republicans vary from support for civil liberties then they have betrayed the ideals of the party, not me.
>>I'd love to read a post from you about creationism in the schools. Please do write it. I'll read it and I'll give you credit for saying something that the conservatives who usually agree with on the site might find anathema.<<
Why should I write a post on something which has already been covered ad nauseum on BC? I'm not here to write the same old thing over and over and over again. You want my take on religion in the schools read my article on The National Day of Prayer.
>>I'd also have more respect for you if you just had the courage to come out and say things like the African aid article were things you believe. Don't be evasive and say you merely find them "interesting."<<
It's not as black and white as you want to force me to make it. I agree that Shaktili has a very good point. I don't however, believe that all aid is bad. So while I support what he's saying, I'm not going to come out and take an extreme position the way you'd like me to.
>>No one believes you're moderate anyway. So we can at least be honest and forthright.<<
This is exactly the problem. Others choose to define me as all sorts of things because they are ill-informed. Oddly enough, that doesn't make them right.
Now for some of the things you said:
>>I think you need to step away from the Internet bile for a while. This strikes me as borderline paranoid and there is no INSTITUTIONALIZED mass belief in this that I'm aware of, particularly the bizarre comments about Barbara Bush that you quote above. <<
That I quote THREE different versions of above, out of scores I had to choose from. When a belief is shared by a group of people who all accept it as an article of faith and fundamental truth, even if outsiders see it as subjective, then it has become institutionalized.
>>WHO are these evil leaders that are leading duped masses that you're talking about? Who's doing harm? I see a lot of you defending or denying the current harms of political leaders, but I can honestly say there's no clear pattern of who your enemies are when it comes to who's doing harm to people. You're a knight without a mission or a discernible core of moral values and that's why I say your outrage seems directionless.<<
It would certainly be easier if they just elected someone truly evil as president, but we've got a few years to go before Hillary has her shot at the White House.
The fact that you look at a small sampling of responses whose content is determined mostly by the outrageous things that other people have said, doesn't give you a meaningful sampling of my beliefs or the ability to come to a rational conclusion about anything but the specific issues I'm discussion.
All you can draw from this particular article is that I don't like people making irrational and hateful attacks on Bush and his family. That doesn't tell you one thing about my political beliefs. Hell, this isn't even really a polticial post, it's a post about common decency and the triumph of emotion and hate over reason.
If you want an example of evil, you need look no further than the democrat leadership of Louisiana who kept the black population of New Orleans in poverty and isolation so they could use them as a voting block, and are now scrambling desperately to figure out a way to get them back, now that they've seen that there's a bigger and better world for them here in Texas.
>>I think it's too easy (and disrespectfully elitist) to dismiss disturbingly reactionary comments as "ignorant, stupid, foolish" and naive because "people don't know better"<<
When did I use any of that terminology? You're reading things into what I write which aren't there. That said, do you think the comments in the original article show a high level of reason and analysis?
>> while attributing some sort of devious, mastermind intentionality from allegedly "liberal" idiots.<<
I'm not calling them idiots, and I'm not even calling them liberals. They are leftist ideologues who have very little of liberalism in their belief set.
>> I think your comments about "black Democratic leaders" is also a broader issue that seems to have little to do with the real suffering of people in the wake of Katrina.<<
Sorry, you're just wrong. The way that democratic leaders - and I never referred to them by race - have exploited and oppressed the african american population, is one of the great crimes that party has to answer for.
>> For me, it isn't some political debate that MUST be won in favor of or against President Bush -- it's a legitimate concern that the people of New Orleans were let down in a big way. I'd raise the same questions if it were President Clinton, Gore or Kerry. I guarantee it. And I can't understand people who want to view it as part of some larger ideological debate and project their partisan concerns and moral predation upon anyone who would discuss the situation. I'm also pretty sick of the ugliness in this site's discussion of Katrina, so perhaps we share that. I'm pretty much done with discussing it.<<
That's exactly what prompted my post. I don't even read most of the Katrina threads anymore. The hate - coming almost entirely from the left - is pointless and leads nowhere except to suppress any legitimate, serious discussion of the problems which this crisis has illuminated.
>>I think a part of your problem is this pretty poor and overly broad definition you use for those whom you are "confronting":<<
I don't think it's a problem. There are lots of people who deserve confronting for a variety of different reasons. In fact, to me, there's almost no difference between the extreme right and the extreme left.
>>Dave, your choices in web browing probably don't help with your paranoia.<<
Thanks for the gratuitous insult.
>> You go to sites you know you'll hate, not to look for more information to understand politics or the world better, but to find things you can latch onto, be outraged by, and disconfirm easily. How realistic is it to look at the website of something as irrelevant as the CPUSA in 2005 and assume that it speaks for a wide variety of people on "the Left"? <<
You are really, sadly deluded here. You should go to these sites yourself. There's a clear pattern of how new talking points get generated on the left. They start at CPUSA or SWP and get picked up by sites like moveon.org and dailykos and spread from there. It's not paranoia, it's a demonstrable fact.
>>You also cite European leftist/anarchist sites on other threads on this site and your suspicion about socialists from your days in Russia -- socialism proper has NOTHING to do with the political debate in this country.<<
You're living in absolute denial. Neosocialism is at the heart of the left in America today. Most of them even admit it.
>>Reason without perspective and objectivity will inevitably become frustrated and misdirected. A focused, disciplined intellect that has no substantive connection to the world of human society and interests can be dangerously myopic and caught up in its own alternate reality that can barely be called reasonable or rational in functional terms.<<
Can I use that? It's a perfect description of Paul Krugman.
(a bunch of stuff about reason which I don't necessarily disagree with deleted)
>>You don't have to write anything personal about your family, by any means, but write something about yourself, what you believe, on something, anything OTHER than politics.<<
More than half of my posts here are basically apolitical. If you look at the essay on responsibility I cite above you can read some of my personal beliefs. If you'd like another personal essay, read The World of Eric Sloane. It troubles me that you think you can form a valid opinion of me and yet be completely ignorant of exactly the kind of writing you're asking me to produce which is already abundantly available here on BC.
>> We already know Dave Nalle's not the impersonal political robot -- your emotions are on your sleeve quite often and especially in outbursts like this one. Share with us your emotional reactions on culture, art or music, for example. I find people who are largely incoherent on politics (like RJ, for example) are quite humanized and relatable when we talk about other things. That's how people who don't always agree find things in common in the human world, my friend.<<
Just click on my name in the leaderboard and read some of my book, food and cultural articles then.
>>"these people are removed from normal consentual reality and in their own creepy alien reality."
Again, who are THESE people? Is it the entire broader class of people you define as "the Left" later on? <<
No, it's the specific people spewing hate. You brought up the general left. They're not addressed in my article.
>>And do you see how it can be counterproductive to assume class membership or group status whenever people engage in specific discussions about discrimination or racism? If we're in the business of assuming that all indictments and moral opposition is broad and sweeping and denying any claims by the oppressed as a result, then can you see why that might seem insensitive or unempathic?<<
Frankly I have no idea how what you're talking about here applies to anything I've said.
>>Libertarians especially, in their desire to seem economically-minded and technical despite the fact that almost all their rhetoric is general and even vaguely philosophical, seem to neglect the philosophical importance of ensuring that the reactionary elements in society deny certain clases of people the freedom to pursue their lives and fortunes free from hatred.<<
Right. This is one of the reasons why I can't be in the pure libertarian camp. It's part of their general inability to find ways to moderate their philosophy and make it practical.
>>All politics involves morality, including the decision to abdicate the moral responsibility to help others. That too has moral consequences, as we see in the case of genocide in Africa (more on that later with Darfur).<<
Moral responsibility as you define it is too vague to be the basis of policy. This is what has led the extremes on the left and the right astray. By putting morality first and common sense second they end up doing more harm than good.
>>And I think it's your compartmentalization of morality apart from politics that makes you so willing to overlook the deception and lack of openness which should trouble any concerned citizen in today's political climate. You automatically assume that politics is already immoral and corrupt and in so doing, lose any moral high ground you might want to have to criticize the excesses of government. Principles libertarians should take it as a moral imperative to criticize states that manipulate information and employ self-serving moral language to justify their "pragmatic" policies.<<
I find moralizing and politics to be a very, very undesirable combination. It's when the government starts trying to impose morality that we run into trouble. This is exactly why most issues of morality should remain in the private sector.
>>Frankly, Dave, I don't think you're a pragmatist at all. You're like a lot of people who are interested in technology and information who think they're political technocrats because they're able to access information without realizing that being a true political pragmatist entails eschewing ideology and gut reactions. I think you're in some odd way a moralist who refuses to have any foundation for his morality, which makes your moral outrage unpredictable and occasionally incoherent.<<
Frankly, I think you're arrogant to assume any of this and to lecture me on it. If you can't even see the basic difference between morals and ethics I certainly don't think you are qualified to judge me or analyze me. You've clearly shown that you're ignorant of my basic beliefs and form your opinions based solely on a few comments made in reaction to extreme positions held by others. You're like a blind man who sticks his finger up someone's nose and thus assumes that all people are runny and covered in mucous.
>>"I stand with people of reason and good sense and against fanatics and ideologues."
This is what all fanatics and ideologues say as well. What determines whether one is "reasonable" or "fanatical" is their approach to information and ideas as much as the substance of their positions. <<
No, what determines fanaticism is whether your beliefs are absolute and whether they are based on faith rather than reason. If your beliefs are absolute, and there are no gray areas, then you are a fanatic. If your beliefs originate in faith, even if they are then later justified or explained through reason, then you are an ideologue.
>>"Reason," "truth," "freedom," and "good sense" aren't substantive values, they're loaded value statements that have little meaning beyond their emotional impact. They're emotive words.<<
They may have emotional connotations - they're all positive things. But they do have real definitions too.
>> Surely, as someone who claims to be divorced from the pernicious influence of emotions and the danger of the tug of moral conscience in politics, you can see that all these terms aren't pragmatic descriptions of good government but emotional images that are constantly re-deployed in all manner of ways by protestors and soldiers, watchdogs of power and cynical manipulators alike every day.<<
How others misuse the terms is certainly an issue for concern. It doesn't make believing in them any less valid, however.
>>Fundamentally, I think that your approach to politics and social issues is colored by an intense cynicism and mistrust of people, their intellect, and their motivations.<<
I think that you're basically nuts and grasping at straws. If anything I'd say the exact opposite is true. I have a fundamental optimism and a belief in the goodness of people and their desire to do the right thing. How else could I support Bush at all?
>> There's something fundamentally unfree about your prose (and the prose of the other libertarian writers on this site) and I don't understand where the anger comes from if what you propose is a world where speech is valued, even cherished, and people can be free to exchange ideas without prejudgment and exclusion from the marketplace.<<
You think I'm prejudging people who say things like the hate expressed in the quotes in this article? I didn't go out and look for people spewing hate. They came to me. They're all over the Katrina discussions. Can there be a free exchange of ideas in an environment where a good portion of the participants are completely irrational, overcome with emotion and incapable of expressing anything but blind hate?
>>And about Darfur, you just posted a couple days ago claiming you never supported the idea of intervening to prevent genocide. Which is it? <<
I'd have to see the quote. It's clear that you're taking it the wrong way. My position on this has never changed and is very clear. I'm against an interventionist foreign policy in general. But I do believe that there are situations where the international community, including the US has to take a stand against things like genocide. Because the UN is failing to fulfill that role we're entering a very dangerous area where the US is being called on more and more to deal with those situations unilaterally, and I think that's very undersirable.
>>This is the kind of equivocation and amoral posturing which troubles me and which lets ACTUAL evil in the world (like genocide) take place unopposed. <<
But since it's entirely in your head and bears no relationship to my beliefs, I'll leave you to discuss it on your own. Darfur is no more the topic here than my personal belief system is. Maybe you should write an article for BC on the Darfur situation and we can discuss it there.
>>That's why I'm glad to see your donation efforts. I just wish that your political statements and intellectual approach to political discussion and information reflected more of that care and openness to ideas and people.<<
As long as I'm just posting in reaction to hatred, lies and distortion, where's the opportunitty to express any greater philosophy? Read my articles for that since you're clearly only reading my comments.
Dave
33 - kittygogo
Dave, quit while you're behind, you're just blathering now.
34 - Dave Nalle
kitty, why don't you go read those quotes in the article a few more times and tell yourself everything is okay and that hate is good because it makes you feel all warm and righteous.
dave
35 - Deano
Dave, I'm not sure why the low level of the rhetoric surprises you, it has been sliding in that direction for many, many years...and it is hardly an invention of "the left".
Don't believe me? Go back and check out some of the venomous swill posted by the "right" on the Clintons. It makes some of the current hyperbole on Bush etc. look like a walk in the park. The visceral demonization of political figures and parties has a long and happy history in America, long before the invention of the Internet allowed anyone a ready-made speaking platform.
Here's a prime example from a speech for the Hayes Campaign (1880):
"Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a democrat. The man that assassinated Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat...Every man that wanted the privilage of whipping another man to make him work for him for nothing and pay him with lashes on his naked back, was a Democrat."...and it goes on further but its probably not worth quoting, its just more of the same.
Severe political rhetoric serves exactly the same point - it is designed to inflame and incense, deride and delude. Bush and the Republicans rode that horse for many years and now, in office, they will face the same petty destructive process. Why is this a surprise?
It is what we have made it.
36 - Eric Olsen
Dave, I see two issues here: one is whether or not an event or sequence of events has a foundation of political culpability, and I'm with you there. This situation is mostly just one of those things.
The other is, is one "side" more hateful than the other, and I don't think it is. Jeliel (in #1) has a pretty good point that it functions something like jet propulsion.
But there is no question in my mind that there has been a shitload of unnecessary and unhelpful politicization going on
37 - DJRadiohead
But there is no question in my mind that there has been a shitload of unnecessary and unhelpful politicization going on
And it is that kind of shit that keeps the lights turned on.
38 - Al Barger
Dave, I'ma have to disagree with your police work here: "And everyone regardless of political persuasion wanted and tried to help out."
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
On the other hand, you're right on it with this description of our mutually uncomfortable support of danged Dubya: "He's in the same position I'm in, of finding ourselves having to uncomfortably defend Bush, because we are thrust into that position because we agree with him on a few key points which get us lumped in with him indiscriminately by others, and because we find the irrational attacks on him more troubling than any of his actual flaws." I would particularly emphasize that "more troubling" part.
The fact that you get my meaning so clearly reassures me that I'm not just failing to make my point, but that some schmucks are simply determined not to get it.
I'd like to challenge our Dear Leader [comment 36] to show me anything coming from anyone prominent on the right even vaguely in a league with the total hatey-hate of this BusHitler crowd.
39 - Natalie Davis
I agree that the hatred -- on both sides -- is scary. Disagreement, even profound disagreement mixed with anger and fear does not equal hatred. But know that there are people on the left who can't abide the hate either.
At the same time, I can't help but wonder about an anti-hate opinion coming from a human who once wrote that he supported marriage equality for everyone except for me.
40 - Al Barger
Yeah, well bullshit right there, Miss Natalie. Having questions about re-defining marriage to suit you does not constitute disapproval, much less being hatred. You know better.
It's just exactly this kind of dishonesty that forms the foundation for the inflamed hatreds that Dave's documenting here. Declare any disagreement with your policy position "hate" and then you're off to the races, since he started it. Throw in a little ends-justifies-the-means nonsense, which you'd probably be doing already to justify the original dishonesty, and straight on till the cows come home.
41 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, I'm not sure why the low level of the rhetoric surprises you, it has been sliding in that direction for many, many years...and it is hardly an invention of "the left".<<
Yes, but the combination of the build up and the negativism and the particularly vicious attacks against Mrs. Bush got awfully toxic after a certain point.
>>Don't believe me? Go back and check out some of the venomous swill posted by the "right" on the Clintons. It makes some of the current hyperbole on Bush etc. look like a walk in the park. The visceral demonization of political figures and parties has a long and happy history in America, long before the invention of the Internet allowed anyone a ready-made speaking platform.<<
I never saw anything coming from such a large segment of the right about the Clintons that was this vicious or this pervasive. But maybe because I wasn't negative on the Clintons I didn't notice it.
>>Here's a prime example from a speech for the Hayes Campaign (1880):
"Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a democrat. The man that assassinated Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat...Every man that wanted the privilage of whipping another man to make him work for him for nothing and pay him with lashes on his naked back, was a Democrat."...and it goes on further but its probably not worth quoting, its just more of the same.<<
This does have the significant distinction of being absolutely TRUE, of course. It does help a little when it's true, even if it's not really fair, because while every slave owner who had a political affiliation at all was a democrat, every democrat was not pro slavery. Kind of harsh on good old Stephen Douglas.
>>Severe political rhetoric serves exactly the same point - it is designed to inflame and incense, deride and delude. Bush and the Republicans rode that horse for many years and now, in office, they will face the same petty destructive process. Why is this a surprise? <<
It's not a surprise, it seems to have sunken to new lows. There's also a difference between rhetoric that serves a political purpose and is just rhetoric and what we're seeing now. These people actually believe this stuff. They think the lies and half truths and distortions are gospel. That's troubling.
Dave
42 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, I'ma have to disagree with your police work here: "And everyone regardless of political persuasion wanted and tried to help out."
Exhibit A
Exhibit B<<
True enough, but I am inclined to write those off as they come from a position of such pure extremism that it goes beyond any logic or even any content. Those two posts are basically "i'm going to take my marbles and go home" childishness which I don't take to have much real meaning.
>>The fact that you get my meaning so clearly reassures me that I'm not just failing to make my point, but that some schmucks are simply determined not to get it.<<
I'm glad to have the fact that we're on the same page - more or less - confirmed. I thought I might be unfairly putting words into your mouth. And truthfully, I'd rather have you on my side than a dozen Bambineks or Grandes. I find it very unpleasant to have to spend so much time defending Bush, when in a more reasonable world I'd like to be attacking him.
Dave
43 - Shark
Oooh, goody! I'm EXHIBIT B!
I've made it!
[shark dialing mom to tell her the good news]
44 - Dave Nalle
>>I agree that the hatred -- on both sides -- is scary. Disagreement, even profound disagreement mixed with anger and fear does not equal hatred. But know that there are people on the left who can't abide the hate either.<<
Do they speak up about it? Where are the cries of outrage on Kos about the comments I quoted. Go look. I did. There aren't any.
>>At the same time, I can't help but wonder about an anti-hate opinion coming from a human who once wrote that he supported marriage equality for everyone except for me.<<
Ah, but that was purely personal. You had been pretty vicious to me, and kept mischaracterizing my opinion and telling me what I thought, so I sniped back at you. I apologize. You should know by now that I'd never support law which excluded anyone from its protection even if I found them irritating.
Dave
45 - Al Barger
Yes, Shark, as Francis "Psycho" Sawyer would say, "You just made the list, buddy."
46 - Natalie Davis
"Do they speak up about it? Where are the cries of outrage on Kos about the comments I quoted. Go look. I did. There aren't any."
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Kos' readership represents all of those on the Left. I myself avoid DK like the plague -- all that lockstep BS gives me the creeps. Who on the Left speaks against the hate? I do. Regularly.
If you perceived my words as being "vicious" toward you, I apologize as well. But do know that my goal has never been to mischaracterize ANYONE'S words. I can only call 'em as I see 'em.
47 - MCH
Nalle:
Do us all a favor and stop whining, it's ruining your self-promoted macho image.
48 - Eric Berlin
Couple of quick points:
Al: Great references to Stripes and Fargo (thought no one would pick up the latter, eh?). You won some points there.
BAB: I consider myself a moderate, but maybe I'm simply a flat out liberal / partisan Democrat. Or maybe I'm really pure evil manifested as virtual world digital type.
Who knows?
49 - Silas Kain
As someone who rarely gags, I've been doing a lot of that today. Sorry, Al Barger, I did that for you.
Anyway back to the subject matter. Many weeks ago I opined that GW Bush is more Barbara's son than GHW Bush. I bring that point up again after hearing Mamma's comments yesterday that have enraged so many. I still maintain that in order to get how GW Bush thinks, one has to study his mother. She is his driving force. She's an astute politician with an armour coat that only an armadillo could appreciate. She is fierce, opinionated and knows how to work conservatives to her bidding. And if you think she's right wing you are quite mistaken. And, in the end, if you really ponder what she said, is she wrong? How many people's lives will improve in the wake of Katrina? What does that say about us as a Nation when tens of thousands of lives get improved in the wake of a natural disaster?
50 - Dave Nalle
That's exactly it, Silas. She's not really wrong. She may have said it in awkward words, but a lot of these people had little to lose and were in a hole it was hard to get out of. They're out now. They're moving to Austin and Dallas and Houston and they're all over the TV saying exactly the same thing she said - but they're not being called racist. Though they are scaring the hell out of the democrats who see their power base disappearing.
>>What does that say about us as a Nation when tens of thousands of lives get improved in the wake of a natural disaster?<<
You have to remember what we here in Texas have known for ages. Louisiana isn't part of the united states. It's a third world country. It even has its own despotic third world legal system and a history of demagogue dictators.
Dave
51 - Al Barger
Yes Dave, perhaps the thing I personally resent most about the danged pinkos is that they put me into the position of having to defend Dubya so much.
Monsieur Berlin, good pickup on the Fargo. You're right, I wasn't expecting a catch. I really dig Marge Gunderson the most.
You're gagging for me, Brother Silas? I'm guessing that's something bad.
52 - Natalie Davis
"Though they are scaring the hell out of the democrats who see their power base disappearing."
They're scared? Then they are in good company with moderate non-Dem Barbara Bush: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas."
53 - Dave Nalle
Now that quote from BB is actually kind of intriguing. My guess is that she's mystified why anyone would WANT to stay in Texas in August, or making a joke along those lines. That makes a lot of sense.
Dave
54 - JELIEL
Comment 2 posted by Dave Nalle
Yes but when it's your "side" getting the hate, it cuts deeper, than when you are dishing it out. As brutal as the left if with Junior and I recognise the level of brutality. It was nothing compared to Clinton and all he did was get a blow job. He didn't go to San Diego, Arizona and GMA before even looking at NOLA. Clinton was getting some action in the office, and yeah that's abuse of power but he was not letting people litteraly ROTT in the streets.
I believe the current event in NOLA are a disgrace for the GOVERNMENT (I say government, not republican, not conservative, but GOVERNMENT) and that it should be disolved for failing its own people. If FEMA had a competent leadership, it would have stripped the POTUS of his powers.
I don't care if mistakes were made at the local level. Mistakes were made on all levels. But the federal government has no excuse to justify taking so long to respond especially since the event was predictable, the government had a heads-up days before the hurricane hit the coast and they did nothing. The goverment headed by the "elected" president that said:
"I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people." (sept 3rd 2004)
"America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens,"(Nov 3rd 2004)
I don't think he lived up to his own rhetoric.
55 - Dave Nalle
>>It was nothing compared to Clinton and all he did was get a blow job. He didn't go to San Diego, Arizona and GMA before even looking at NOLA. Clinton was getting some action in the office, and yeah that's abuse of power but he was not letting people litteraly ROTT in the streets. <<
Bush had the appropriate federal agencies on the ground at appropriate times. His personal presence was not relevant. Thinking that having him there would have made a difference is foolish.
>>I believe the current event in NOLA are a disgrace for the GOVERNMENT (I say government, not republican, not conservative, but GOVERNMENT) and that it should be disolved for failing its own people. If FEMA had a competent leadership, it would have stripped the POTUS of his powers. <<
Huh? This last part makes no sense at all. Bush did what he needed to do and assumed that his agents on the ground would do their jobs. They did do their jobs, just with some screwed up priorities. I don't see how you can hang this on him in any logical way.
>>I don't think he lived up to his own rhetoric.<<
He certainly hasn't lived up to his promises, but that has nothing to do with New Orleans and even less to do with why some on the left hate him so much.
Dave
56 - DrPat
Yeah, Jeliel, Dubya shoulda gone to New Orleans the VERY DAY OF THE HURRICANE and stood right at the water's edge, commanded the storm to BACK OFF!
[snicker]
57 - Al Barger
Perhaps Jeliel has mistaken President Bush for Charlton Heston.
58 - Eric Berlin
Come on, guys -- can you honestly tell me that Clinton wouldn't have handles EVERYTHING about this crisis 100% better? Billy C. was born for this kind of thing -- micro-managing agencies, incredible wonkish knowledge, compartmentalizing, feeling the pain of the afflicted, and on and on.
Bush may have his pluses, but he imploded as a leader on this one.
59 - Al Barger
"If FEMA had a competent leadership, it would have stripped the POTUS of his powers."
I see there, Jeliel. So you're so disgusted with Dubya that you're supporting a coup. I mean, screw that election crap if the voters are just going to make the wrong choice, right?
60 - Al Barger
Eric, disaster relief is not the primary job of the POTUS, nor is it primarily his responsibility.
It is entirely possible, though, that Clinton might have handled this type of thing better. I certainly would not object to such an assertion- but that's a LONG way from the complete malicious partisan hackery being thrown at W.
Plus, more importantly, the main job of the POTUS is commander in chief defending the country from attack. On that, he's clearly FAR above Clinton, who basically just kicked the can down the road with the tough stuff in foreign policy.
61 - Eric Berlin
Al -- The chief job is "national security," not defending from attack, and that takes many forms. Bush has hinged his entire presidency on national security, so his reaction to this crisis, I think, heightens a perception of failure.
And while disaster recovery may not be a "primary job" the buck stops with the President. He's the leader and commander-in-chief of the American people. If he's not coming out of a helicopter to save people, he should at least have the appearance that he's doing everything within his might to make it happen.
62 - Natalie Davis
Right, in one of the Shrub's election-campaign debates with John Kerry, he boasted that he would be great in dealing with disaster situations. Looks like those who believed him were sold a bad bill of goods.
63 - JELIEL
Comment 56 posted by DrPat
No he should have deployed assistance when everyone knew that a Cat5 hurricane was gonna hit NOLA 2 days ahead, not 4 days later.
Comment 57 posted by Al Barger
Heston, like Junior, is a git.
Comment 59 posted by Al Barger
If I'm not mistaken, FEMA has that authority, though it might have changed when it was assimilated into Homeland security. But then I think I prefer Junior over a guy who was let go from Horse Judging duties.
Comment 60 posted by Al Barger
Yeah cuz going after Saddam "Not-Osama-Bin-Laden" Hussein was the logical thing to do in defending against attacks from Osama Bin Laden
64 - Milleniagirl
I am black and I can't believe Dave's twisted interpretation of what Barbara Bush said. Dave you are not well and need to seek medical attention, if you really believe what you said. The things George Bush has done and said in his admin have spawn a hate and disrespect of a President that I have never seen. This is a free country and if people don't like him, they don't have to appease people like you by not expressing it. And in this case, he has become quite hated. He has squandered this country's money to create contracts for Halliburton and whatever other companies he has interest in and will leave a messy legacy that ultimately we, the taxpayer, will pay for down the line. From the deficit to our children dying overseas. I almost feel sorry for the next poor man that gets his job. He's makin sure he fucks it up right nice before he leaves. If we remember him for anything later on, it'll be messes like Hurricane Katrina and it's aftermath.
65 - evelyn
THE BUSH DID'NT FALL FAR FROM THE TREE !
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. AND YOU SAID A MOUTH FULL.
THANKS BARBARA BUSH BITCH
66 - Dave Nalle
>>Yeah, Jeliel, Dubya shoulda gone to New Orleans the VERY DAY OF THE HURRICANE and stood right at the water's edge, commanded the storm to BACK OFF!<<
Now THAT would be paleo-conservative. Let's go back to good old Anglo-Danish law like King Canute passed! No need to rebuild any houses in New Orleans, just give everyone Weregeld, and since they were poor people make it all in copper coin. Silver for the businessmen, and of course gold for those in the garden district.
Dave
67 - Scoobie
David Gregory Story
The activist readily acknowledged that he had referred to Republicans as "white racist thugs" and called the United States "the most dishonest, ungodly, unspiritual nation that ever existed in the history of the planet."
But, when Gregory hesitated in his responses, Hannity turned to Morano for confirmation.
"You don't have to confirm what I said," Gregory charged. "I've already said it. So I don't need no white boy to come on and say yes, he said it."
Surprised by Gregory's reply, Hannity repeated, "No white boy? No white boy?" and asked Gregory if he wanted to apologize to Morano for calling him a racially charged term.
--just thought I would add a bit more nutty talk--scoobie!
68 - Dan
So Dave is beginning to realize the futility of reasoning with those who won't reason. Dishonesty, and modest familiarity with reason are the cornerstones of contemporary liberal extremism.
It'll be sad to see you give up. I enjoy reading these exchanges. When I read some of the "vomit of lies, deception, slander and spite" that you counter with facts and appeals to reason, I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "The Excorcist", where the excorcising priest calmly pauses to remove a handkerchief and wipe the nastily delivered expectorant from his glasses before resuming his firm incantations.
I do think you're self described "moderate conservative" or "moderate libertarian" description is more an attempt to garner respect and avoid being seen as extreme, than an accurate political self analysis, regardless of your dis-avowment of Limbaugh, and Coulter, or your advocation of same sex unions. Thirty years ago-- maybe. But the goal posts have moved. Liberalism has made many destructive in-roads. But it is waning. Conservatism has won the war of ideas. Moderates, these days, are mainly those who still cling to failed ideas. Why pussy foot? Be proud of your compassionate, capitalistic, conservatism. It lifts all boats.
69 - DrPat
Dave, my suggestion to remove the nasty taste from your mouth is the panacea I have linked from my own blog, The DUmmie FUnnies.
The name isn't a typo -- the writer excerpts some of the more loony stuff from Democrat Underground, and puts it into his own wry perspective.
BTW, I know the (gasp!) real identity of the 30,000 year old reincarnated being from the 5th dimension who writes this, PJ-Comix. You'd be amazed!
70 - Bob A. Booey
Geez, this is stupid.
Somehow every conversation with Dave Nalle turns into "I know you are, but what am I?" nonsense.
My "cheap psychoanalysis" is way better than what you pass of as political commentary, especially when you infer psychological states and hatred to people like Krugman and others who write in far more reasoned a fashion than you do in your posts or comments.
Senator Al Barger, for someone who doesn't have the courage to actually argue for what he believes when challenged and backs off every poor idea, you tell me what kind of libertarian "schmuck" is against gay marriage?
That is all.
71 - Dr. Forbush
Why do you think that the hatred has just appeared?
The hatred was here when Bill Clinton was president. The hatred rose to such a level that even the US Congress chose to focus its hatred on the President who cheated on his wife. Only Hillary was hurt by this, and the right hates her even more than Bill.
So, when thousands of people die because of the stupidity, or stupid design or other reason why wouldn't you expect the same anmount of hatred from the other side.
The irony here is that George W Bush has claimed to be a Uniter, not a divider while his actions say just the opposite.
Not why, but how can you be surprised?
72 - flypaper
Hey I'm one big queen
No one can stop me
Red light red green
Sat back and watching
I'm your new one
Second to no one
No sweat I'm clean
Nothing can touch me
Tell you my name
F U and C K
50ft queenie
Force ten hurricane
Biggest woman
I could have ten sons
Ten gods ten queens
Ten foot and rising
Glory, glory
Lay it all on me
50ft queenie
50 and rising
You bend over
Casanova
No sweat I'm clean
Nothing can touch me
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I, hate the rain and sunny weather,
And i, hate the beach and mountains too;
(and) I don’t like a thing about the city, no, no
And i, i, i, hate the countryside too!
73 - Bob A. Booey
The irony is that your name is "Dr. FOR BUSH."
Are you a medical doctor, a PhD or is that a clever Internet handle?
That is all.
74 - Dave Nalle
Like Bush's efforts at unity - and there were many in his first administration - were met with anything but scorn, derision and hatred. After a while I'm sure he decided it just wasn't worth it to reach out. I still see him reaching out to the people, but he's clearly given up on reaching out to the political opposition because they're not interested.
As for hate - it seems to be peaking now, which is why I brought it up. Some of the responses here have pretty clearly confirmed my beliefs.
Dave
75 - Dave Nalle
>>Somehow every conversation with Dave Nalle turns into "I know you are, but what am I?" nonsense.<<
Babs, that's the response your kind of 'critique' tends to encourage. At least I had the courtesy to go through your thinly veiled smear attacks point by point and respond.
>>My "cheap psychoanalysis" is way better than what you pass of as political commentary, especially when you infer psychological states and hatred to people like Krugman and others who write in far more reasoned a fashion than you do in your posts or comments.<<
There ya go. I find you much more convincing when your insults are open and honest and you aren't trying to appear reasonable or anything but motivated by anger and scorn.
Dave