On Wednesday after first blogging on the eagerness of the Administration and its MSM allies to attack Rush Limbaugh personally rather than address his criticisms of their policy directly (or just plain ignore him), I realized they reacted to this outspoken entertainer in the same manner as many on the gay left (alas)Â react to any opposition to gay marriage.
In both cases, those on the left side of the political aisle demonize their opposition in a manner reminiscent of a political campaign where the goal is to prevent an opponent’s election. In short, they seem to see politics as a battle of personalities not ideas. They always need a villain. Yes, I grant this is true for many on the right, especially certain extreme social conservatives.
Why is it they believe they can best advance their argument not by taking apart their opponent’s case, but by taking that opponent apart (or defining someone as their opponent so as to eviscerate him)?
In the case of gay marriage, the adopt-a-villain strategy is backfiring, in large part, because they lose support from many otherwise sympathetic to the villian du jour. But, when you make a case for gay marriage, some of those “sympathicoes” who might otherwise be turned off by your rhetoric might end up listening to your argument.
On Thursday evening, I met up with a long time friend who is a liberal. His opening welcome thoughts included the warning that I should not bring up the name of Rush Limbaugh.
Last year he wore a Bush “countdown” watch and so I asked him what actually happened when it hit noon on January 20. He told me it played “taps” followed by a loud “Happy Days are Here Again” and then went blank.
Then he said that “Happy Days” didn’t last very long because Rush Limbaugh …blah …blah …blah. So, I said: “Sorry, Roger, I forgot that I was not supposed to mention him.”
Then he launched into full-bore Limbaugh Derangement Syndrome.
At least he has a Bush substitute to enliven his need to hate.
It is amazing…….Last night I attended a cocktail party for a colleague, and sure enough, along came a woman I know is a big democrat supporter and she couldn’t resist getting in a jab at Rush. She’s a very bright woman, but when it comes to politics she’s simply rabid. The occasion was with people in higher education, so everyone was simply polite and no one dared challenge her on it. I hate remaining quiet, but I know my sarcastic type of reply would not go over well. I’ve discovered that sarcasm is not appropriate as humor when used with liberals. But used cleverly, and called satire, it’s completely appropriate to use for skewering conservatives.
So why does everyone say it’s better to be a homosexual in the city or on the coasts? I live in Central Nebraska. I’m a Christian. I don’t want multiple partners. I don’t do drugs. I don’t drink. I want a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. I believe in Intelligent Design. I admire Sarah Palin. I think marriage was designed by God for heterosexals. I think homosexual civil unions are the way to go. Am I going to find acceptance by the “urban gay community?” Or am I better off in a place where people largely share my basic values and hope one day to meet their “confirmed bachelor” Uncle Jack who needs a roommate?
#2 – Its almost like talking to a conservative about ACORN, ACLU, Media, Gays or Clinton.
It IS amazing how people on both sides have their foils….isn’t it?
Gillie once again proves the old saw, “If you want to infuriate a conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to infuriate a liberal, tell him the truth.”
Conservatives tell the truth about ACORN, the ACLU, the Left Wing Media, and Gay Activists. The left responds with lies and smears about Limbaugh and Bush. Same old, Same old.
#4
Wow…are you so roped in to your own propaganda that you can’t see there are distortions and vitriol frrom both sides???
Whed did the conservative mindset become so fragile? Has it always be so?
Compare and contrast:
Conservative truth: Obama’s projected budget deficits will increase the national debt more than all previous presidents combined. His socialist policies of redistribution and government spending have failed wherever they have been tried. Less than 20% of the “Stimulus” package is actual stimulus.
Leftist Lies: Bush knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq, but he invaded to enrich Cheney’s friends. `Bush’s deregulation of the mortgage industry caused the economic disaster in. (Although no one can point to any regulations that were repealed under Bush that deregulated the mortgage industry. And Bush’s attempts to impose regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fought by congressional Democrats.)
Conservative truth: The ACLU defends terrorists and child molesters, has a jihad against the public expression of Christian faith while giving Muslims a pass, was founded by Communists with the explicit purpose of tearing down the American system, will not defend the Free Speech rights of anti-abortion protesters, and never defends anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Liberal Lie: The ACLU is a non-partisan group whose only goal is equal protection of everyone’s Constitutional rights.
Conservative truth: The Mainstream Media (the NY Times, NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Hollywood) has a demonstrable, pronounced, and consistent left-wing bias.
Liberal Lie: The media can’t be left-wing because they are owned by corporation. (Note to idiots: Content, not ownership, determines bias.). Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addict who spews hate speech every day. (Only true if all opposition to the left wing agenda is defined as “Hate Speech”).
Conservative truth: The agenda of gay left activists is to take marriage rights through the courts without persuading the public to accept them. Many gay activists are hostile to traditional, monogamous models of marriage. Gays display public depravity at events like the Folsom Street Fair and Southern Decadence.
Liberal Lie: Republicans want to exterminate gays. Christian Pride camps cheer for the extermination of gays. The only reason to oppose gay marriage is hatred of gays.
Devastating smackdown of Gillie’s idiotic talking point posted here.
Gillie – I am so happy to see that you have given consideration to both sides in your critical thinking and that you see distortions on both sides as you mentioned. Just so I can use this information to move my own thinking forward, please make me a quick bullet-point list of the current significant distortions the left is employing. I need to know how I am being deceived so I don’t fall into any trap of poor analysis. Your information should be most helpful in making an informed decision…..and I know you’d like to help.
Ouch… Good one, Scott.
gillie – I hate to be a burden but perhaps while you’re crafting your response to Scott in #8, would you be so kind as to let us know how Limbaugh, et al, are impeding our president’s efforts to lead us back into the light? Thanks.
I guess Bill Cosby was right: “Every plot needs a villain.”
So I guess every libtard needs a personal enemy.
Regards,
Peter H.
You know what’s hilarious, Democrats villainizing Rush Limbaugh, calling him “outrageous” for saying socialized health care legislation will be named after Ted Kennedy, then admitting that, socialist health care legislation will, in fact, be named after Ted Kennedy.
#3: “So why does everyone say it’s better to be a homosexual in the city or on the coasts? I live in Central Nebraska. I’m a Christian. I don’t want multiple partners. I don’t do drugs. I don’t drink. I want a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. I believe in Intelligent Design. I admire Sarah Palin. I think marriage was designed by God for heterosexals. I think homosexual civil unions are the way to go. Am I going to find acceptance by the urban gay community?”
Ashpenaz, if I were single and this were your personal ad, we would be honeymooning in Des Moines right now.
#3: “So why does everyone say it’s better to be a homosexual in the city or on the coasts? I live in Central Nebraska. I’m a Christian. I don’t want multiple partners. I don’t do drugs. I don’t drink. I want a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. I believe in Intelligent Design. I admire Sarah Palin. I think marriage was designed by God for heterosexals. I think homosexual civil unions are the way to go. Am I going to find acceptance by the urban gay community? Or am I better off in a place where people largely share my basic values and hope one day to meet their confirmed bachelor Uncle Jack who needs a roommate?”
Ashpenaz, if I were single and this was your personal ad, we would be on our honeymoon in Omaha right about now.
#7
Funny.
But I think you got the word “truth†mixed up with the word “spinâ€â€¦no?
Or perhaps that is the crux of the modern republican problem. They can’t see beyond their spin..
#9 I am happy to see that indeed you are open minded enough to accept the obvious fact that both sides engage in such demonizing tactics. I did a quick search on google to find such examples on the left but didn’t come up with to much, mostly left thinking folks being pissed at sports for taking away revenue from schools… If only there was more time in the day..I would ask for similiar content from you, but V the K’s link was a good enough example of such rightist demagoguery
Thanks V!
#11Are you atempting to build a straw man? I think so!
Gillie – I didn’t find anything particularly difficult about your assignment. You were quite clear that you had considered the deficiencies (distortions) of both political sides and it appeared these were applied in your critical thinking analysis of the situation. Apparently you were mistaken about it and engaged the keyboard before accessing the information which seemed to be so easily available to you. Wow, even a google search didn’t reveal anything. As an educator, I am at least relieved that you didn’t use something from Wikipedia. That would have been an instant loss of points in any of my classes. But I am sorry to inform you that you will need to either (a) rewrite the assignment demonstrating a better command of your thesis, or (b) accept an F for the content of your response. I’m so sorry, but I have to treat everyone the same…….which should make you very happy indeed. Assuming you choose (a), please, take a few days to gather your thoughts. Otherwise I suggest you take a withdrawal (W) from the class and repeat next semester with a more liberal instructor.
And in Gillie’s previous response, you hear the squeals of a man desperately trying to weasel out of the check his mouth wrote that his butt couldn’t cash.
To follow up, which “conservative truth” I cited isn’t actually true? –
Also, it does get tiresome the way these leftist trolls always fall back on “the clear meaning of my exact words was not what I intended to say” excuse when they get called on their bs.
#6
So now you’re reduced to arguing with yourself?
RDS has replaced BDS because “Rush” is so close to “Bush”, spelling-wise. You only have to add a tiny stroke to one letter and kindergartners and liberals – oops, sorry for the redundancy – will barely know the difference.
(or remove a tiny stroke)
#15
What “thesis” are you talking about?
I seriously doubt there is anything on this in which you disagree with me on.
Is there?
#17 perhaps we wouldn’t have to if you didn’t create fiction out of what we say. The fault is not in what was written but in the warped interpretations that you manufacture.
They’re trying to do two things with the Rush strategy:
1) Change the subject from the stimulus, budget and bailouts. These are deeply unpopular policies that if scrutinized only get worse. So a media distraction is in order to suck away all the air from the pork, money for ACORN, and crashing market, not to mention the corruption already manifesting in both congress and the WH. Politics sucks all the air out of the debate about policy.
2) Polarize the electorate, so that they are “immunized” against substantial critiques. This shores up their base, which is very concerned about the bailouts and deficit, and is having trouble defending the stimulus.
Our best defense is to laugh, then shift the conversation to the huge gaffes and scandals. Keep them talking political tactics and keep our side talking about helping the American people.
Perhaps calling views you disagree with “extreme†and/or accusing those who hold them of having dishonorable motives is just a clever way of saying that you don’t want an “honest conversation†at all.
Any homosexual can get married. A homosexual man would just have to get married to a willing woman, or a homosexual woman would have to get married to a willing man.
See: Homosexual marriage is not the issue. The issue is changing the nature of marriage. Now I would be the first to suggest that homosexuals should piss away their money on parties when they marry, and lawyers and shrinks when they divorce. I don’t want my insurance rates as a married man to go up because of poor health practices by other men who will now claim married status.
Why is it they believe they can best advance their argument not by taking apart their opponent’s case, but by taking that opponent apart (or defining someone as their opponent so as to eviscerate him)?
It’s because they don’t think they can win on the merits.
Sorry, we don’t speak dumbass ’round here.
#30: “Sorry, we don’t speak dumbass ’round here.”
Yeah, TGC, but you know how this works. Any day now, ACORN’s well-financed Dumbass Division is going to hit GP.net with a shakedown and force the blog to accommodate the native language of this recent wave of Dumbass illegal immigration (individuals fleeing evil dictatorships like DailyKos and HuffPost to make a better life for themselves). Can’t you just hear the silky, robotic voicemail greeting: “Hit #1 to comment in English. Hit 7+4=2 to comment in Dumbass. Hit Zero if your comment is trapped in the filter.” It’s inevitable. They’ve shown no sign of having either the capability or inclination to assimilate.
Why is Rush a villain?
Eric Hoffer said “A mass movement can survive without a god, but it will always fail without a devil. Mass movements must have someone or some thing to hate.”
True. I’m actually seeing anti-RL yard signs. So it seems to work at some level.
I’ve noticed (we all must have by now) that any gov confrontation works this way. Look at wars, they need a single / simple bad guy target that the masses here can hold in their head for more than a trip through a sit-com season.
Among Libs it’s considered an irrefutable fact that Limbaugh spends 3 hours a day, every day, smearing gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., when in fact it NEVER HAPPENS. Once in a great while he will misspeak, which is not surprising given that he talks 15 yours a week, but he apologizes.
All you have to do with a Lib attacking Limbaugh is ask for details.
“When did he say that?”
“Which show?”
etc.
Of course, the answer will come, “Well, I never listen to him.” All you have to do at that point is stare. Or laugh. Or launch a serious zinger if you are in the mood.
Sensible people do not spend their lives going around pontificating on subjects about which they possess NO KNOWLEDGE. I’ve pointed this out with satisfaction to these humps numerous times.
Try it; it’s fun.
Here is the standard pattern of a libtard response: “Reject first, ask rhetorical question later.”
This is not my phrase, BTW, it is from a psychologist who studied liberals and conservatives and found that conservatives were consistently able to understand liberal arguments, even when they rejected them, but liberals were hardly able to summarize a conservative argument. That they can hardly ever listen to one, and that there response, which gillie follows pretty consistently, is usually a fusillade of rhetorical questions. If you think about it, rhetorical questions are nothing more than appeals to a common belief system. They basically all say, everybody here agrees with this, and they go over big on leftard troll sites where conservatives are banned because everybody there does agree. They think that rhetorical questions are excercises of logic.
To get back on track with the post, politics for the left is a narrative, it is for the right too, but on the left, it is a narrative of good and evil. Evil sports teams taking the food out of the local school nurse, “Sweet Polly Purebread”‘s mouth. For the right, the narrative is that no matter how noble the ideas of the left sound, for hundreds of years of trying, they have only led to hunger, gulags, genocide, mass murder, or pathetic dependence on non socialist powers like the US first republic, which has now been overthrown, for economic growth of any kind.
You can never get them to admit defeat in an argument, you can only show them to be fools, as has been adequately done in the case of gillie.
If any liberal is still reading this post, I ask only that you remember that we conservatives are predicting massive unemployment and stagflation from Obama’s policies. I was a liberal too, and I voted for Teddy Kennedy for president. It took years of watching liberals promises, and looking at the results, to change my mind.
Replying to a specific example with a sweeping generalization. Quite telling, that.
Well gillie, I’m so sorry but you will have to take an ‘F’. If it’s one thing I can’t tolerate, it’s a student who resorts to projection as a defense.
This teaching moment was meant to have you perform some critical thinking and analysis by actually having you consider the distortions and weaknesses of your side, which you readily indicated were present. But your Google search indicated, to your surprise I guess, that there were none. It’s interesting that you visit a site such as this, I assume to gather information that doesn’t coincide with your current knowledge base so you may come to a deeper understanding of an issue. I think that is a wonderful thing to do, and I do it myself to help sort it all out. It appears you really visit here to reinforce your groupthink mindset and are not interested in pursuing a greater understanding. That is a shame, and I hope that you reconsider that your unwavering opinion is likely a deeper rooted psychological difficulty, one that in all likelihood you may not be aware. That’s the way it is with polarization and groupthink. They are very nasty phenomena that afflict many. But keep your chin up and keep battling, and perhaps with some luck the pharmaceuticals will find a solution in pill form. We’ll give it another try sometime.
Watching one of the Little Letter People get gang-curbstomped… priceless.
Scott, I’ll remember that one.
Dennis Prager comments on this all the time, the left preferes to attack individuals vs debating ideas.
ahhh…filter
Dave P –
Huh?
I said:
“It IS amazing how people on both sides have their foils….isn’t it?”
And the folks who post here couldn’t even admidt that such an obvious fact is true.
sad
Golly, I despise Gavin Newsom. I am for full equality, Gavin. I am for all the ideals America was based on. I am against gay marriage. It is not the same as interracial marriage. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are different and their relationships have different dynamics. Civil unions can establish legal equality. Homosexuals can then make those unions separate but better.
It’s really dumb to deny a previous comment when all we have to do is scroll up.
Challenged to post the vitriol and distortions from his own side, Gillie wussed out.
Huh?
So you honestly disagree with this:
“there are distortions and vitriol frrom both sides”
really?!?
yow
(btw – the response to that “challenge†is in filter)
I think there’s a fringe of the right that engages in vitriol and distortions. I think hatred, vitriol, and distortion are mainstream in the left. The leftists who post on this blog validate that belief daily.
#44: “I am for full equality, Gavin. I am for all the ideals America was based on. I am against gay marriage.”
See, this is what is known as cognitive dissonance.
How so?
Great website. AS to normally rational, intelligent people who buy the leftist garbage, I’ve decided that they look at politics as a hobby. It’s an escape where they can take out their brains and play with them for a while without having to fire the synapses of judgment and rationality in their normally well-organized brains.
Yeah, how so? Why is calling a homosexual relationship a “marriage” somehow an intrinsic American ideal? I believe marriage was created by God for heterosexuals. I believe God blesses same-sex covenants like those between David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth, Daniel and Ashpenaz, etc. But a same-sex covenant has a different dynamic and a different set of responsibilities than a heterosexual marriage–hence the difference in names. I think same-sex covenants are separate but better.
I think Ashpen and I are on very similar wavelengths.
Rush delivers a speech that is a commentary on the Obama agenda which is diametrically opposes to conservative principals that raises the liberals ire and he is attacked for it. Jack Cafferty has made a career out of attacking Republicans but nobody attacks him.
#51
I was asking Attmay how your comment was “cognitive dissonance”
Bristol and Levi Split! Yup…..predicted that one; how long it would take was the only question… (especially given that Palin didn’t become VP) So where is “doing the right thing” now? Unmarried teenager who is now saddled with a baby (even though she has family support, it’s her responsibility – her early adult youth gone forever). So much for abstinence only (which Bristol said on national TV doesn’t work) in lieu of real sex education.
“I believe Marriage is a sacred bond between 2 unwilling teenagers” Tina Fey as Sarah Palin
“I believe I like little boys and should bugger then whenever possible.” -The Livewire as Kevin.
I’d not heard that Bristol and Levi split. Maybe Levi should have been more responcible instead of posting here.
Kevin, so when condoms fail, when the pill fails, when nuvaring fails, does that mean we should scrap sex education completely? This seems to be your arguement.
Unfortunately both of them were young and more full of passion than common sense. Personally I wish both of them well and hope their private lives continue to be, well, private.