A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous liberal atta

[NYcarbineer]

What's so shameful about this?

4. Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, January 9, 2011

Republicans and even Tea Partiers will have the sense – again, for a while – to steer clear of directly gun-related rhetoric. We won’t be hearing much in the near term about “second amendment remedies” and insurrection and so forth.

But this will be temporary. Guns are simply too central to the mythology of the American right, as is the idea of liberty being wrested from tyrants only at gunpoint. For the American right to stop talking about armed insurrection would be like American liberals dropping the subjects of race and gender. It’s too encoded in conservative DNA.

… Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill. The Beatles weren’t responsible for the messages that Charles Manson heard in their music. But there’s a difference. Paul McCartney had no earthly reason to think that an innocent song about a fairground ride (Helter Skelter) would lead a man to commit barbarous acts of murder.

Today’s Republicans and conservative commentators, however, surely understand the fire they’re playing with. But they do it, and a tragedy like Saturday’s won’t stop them, as long as they can maintain a phoney plausible deniability and as long as hate continues to pay dividends at the ballot box.

Seriously. Someone argue to me that those points are worthy of being labeled the most shameful of the week. Bring it on.

 

[teapartysamurai]

yes, and nile gardiner is a political commentator from the heritage foundation.

so all this bullshit about journalistic standards do apply to this political hack how?

you'll have to ask the spouter callybrat for that.

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

The problem is, you let the liberals in this thread deflect you away from the actual substance of the article (that being the shameless attacks from the left after this tragedy) to harp on "integrity."

It wouldn't matter if this had been printed in the Enquirer or the NY Times.

Unless he they can prove the quotes from the left are false (which they are not), the argument about the "integrity" of the blog is irrelevant and a deflection.

I recognized it as a deflection and an attempt to derail the thread.

The only thing I did was make fun of his assertion that the "Heritage Foundation" can't be trusted as IF sources from the left can be trusted.

And now you explain this all to me as I don't understand?

 

[mudwhistle]

110 percent is a fallacy.

Football coaches use it all the time.

100 percent is the max possible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What happened to mental healthcare under Reagan

Do you feel Ronnie kicked you to the curb?

 

[G.T.]

What's so shameful about this?

4. Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, January 9, 2011

Republicans and even Tea Partiers will have the sense – again, for a while – to steer clear of directly gun-related rhetoric. We won’t be hearing much in the near term about “second amendment remedies” and insurrection and so forth.

But this will be temporary. Guns are simply too central to the mythology of the American right, as is the idea of liberty being wrested from tyrants only at gunpoint. For the American right to stop talking about armed insurrection would be like American liberals dropping the subjects of race and gender. It’s too encoded in conservative DNA.

… Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill. The Beatles weren’t responsible for the messages that Charles Manson heard in their music. But there’s a difference. Paul McCartney had no earthly reason to think that an innocent song about a fairground ride (Helter Skelter) would lead a man to commit barbarous acts of murder.

Today’s Republicans and conservative commentators, however, surely understand the fire they’re playing with. But they do it, and a tragedy like Saturday’s won’t stop them, as long as they can maintain a phoney plausible deniability and as long as hate continues to pay dividends at the ballot box.

Seriously. Someone argue to me that those points are worthy of being labeled the most shameful of the week. Bring it on.

I take issue with "phoney plausible deniability."

It contradicts the rest of his statement, because what's the opposite of denying?

 

[teapartysamurai]

SNIFF Tuna fish...................... What proof do you have that the "Telegraph employs quite strict journalistic standards on its bloggers?"

Go and find out for yourself. Idiot. I'm not here to teach an idiot... I don't speak your language.

A claim you won't back up with evidence is a baseless claim. You're notorious for making baseless claims. That's certainly your privilege here, but I would think that putting yourself in the credibility category of, say, a teapartysamurai, would not be high on your do-list;

it is however what you're accomplishing.

See CG?

They are deflecting you away from the actual SUBSTANCE of the article to put you on the defence when it is they that should be on the defence.

And then you lecture ME about debate?

You fell for it. I didn't.

 

[G.T.]

110 percent is a fallacy.

Football coaches use it all the time.

100 percent is the max possible.

If you get a ten percent raise, what do you gross this year in comparison to last year, as a percentage?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good thing the Left is acting civil and has toned down the harsh rhetoric

 

[teapartysamurai]

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

Allowing your bloggers to inject opinion is the lack of standard everyone's telling you about. That it's opinion based in fact or not doesn't change that, it's injecting an opinion at all.

Helloooooooooooooooooooo!

Asside from you guys trying like crazy to deflect away from the actual substance of the article, what about THE OPINIONS OF THE LEFTIES IN THE ARTICLE?

They are supposedly in "respectable" papers like the NY Times and it didn't stop them from making opinions. I notice you sure don't want to talk about that!

 

[California Girl]

For the benefit of the thread: Here is an example of the journalist standard that I referred to. This, to anyone with a reasonable intellect will clearly demonstrate the difference between media that employ an ethical standard, and those that do not.

Less than an hour after the event, the NYT ran this from one of its bloggers:

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist.
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.

For an example of the standards required for the Telegraph, see the link in the OP.

Now, if you cannot see the difference, then I can't help you.... you are beyond stupid.

The blog from the Telegraph accurately backs up the opinion of the writer, with factually accurate evidence from the liberal media.

The blog from the NYT makes a baseless claim.

Can anyone not see this?

 

[mudwhistle]

NYcarb, the point of this discussion is the left's attempt to define the debate, not to state facts.

Showing us that quote proves what their goal was. And that was to stifle pro-gun rhetoric. Thank you for blowing your argument all to hell.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ote=California Girl;3215721]

SNIFF Tuna fish...................... What proof do you have that the "Telegraph employs quite strict journalistic standards on its bloggers?"

Go and find out for yourself. Idiot. I'm not here to teach an idiot... I don't speak your language.

A claim you won't back up with evidence is a baseless claim. You're notorious for making baseless claims.

.

Sorry, CG does not make baseless claims. You may not agree with them, but she picks her battles. And she doesn't even bother arguing a point she can't prove.[/QUOTE]

She is notorious for making baseless claims, and lying.

 

[Truthmatters]

Pointing out the facts about how Reagan's policy effected mental illness is not being uncivil.

Its talking about the issues in terms of facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pointing out the facts about how Reagan's policy effected mental illness is not being uncivil.

Its talking about the issues in terms of facts.

Is this your cry for help? Do you miss your daily electro-shocks?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Heritage Foundation????????????

Oh we can't trust those people!

Better call Media Matters!

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

do go on, when conversing with TPS you will actually stand a chance, phony.

Well TPS was the one that DIDN'T FALL FOR THIS LAME DEFLECTION.

When you guys are done trying like crazy to deflect away from the actual article, let me know.

But, I notice you don't want to talk about the opinions cited in the article, many of whom are quoted in "respectable" left wing sources.

Like, just because you fool CG, you thought you fooled me?

So, when you are done OBVIOUSLY TRYING LIKE HELL TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM THE SHAMELESS LIBERALS QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE, do let me know.

How "respectable is this guy? Funny you don't want to talk about that!

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 9, 2011

it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

… So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before? If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.​

A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous left-wing attacks on US conservatives following the Arizona shootings – Telegraph Blogs
​

 

[G.T.]

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

Allowing your bloggers to inject opinion is the lack of standard everyone's telling you about. That it's opinion based in fact or not doesn't change that, it's injecting an opinion at all.

Helloooooooooooooooooooo!

Asside from you guys trying like crazy to deflect away from the actual substance of the article, what about THE OPINIONS OF THE LEFTIES IN THE ARTICLE?

They are supposedly in "respectable" papers like the NY Times and it didn't stop them from making opinions. I notice you sure don't want to talk about that!

Well, I already posted what I thought about them, maybe you should go fucking look. In this thread. Over an hour ago.

 

[Truthmatters]

Here is a good example of why we have so many problems solving this countrys issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the benefit of the thread: Here is an example of the journalist standard that I referred to. This, to anyone with a reasonable intellect will clearly demonstrate the difference between media that employ an ethical standard, and those that do not.

Less than an hour after the event, the NYT ran this from one of its bloggers:

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist.
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.

For an example of the standards required for the Telegraph, see the link in the OP.

Now, if you cannot see the difference, then I can't help you.... you are beyond stupid.

The blog from the Telegraph accurately backs up the opinion of the writer, with factually accurate evidence from the liberal media.

The blog from the NYT makes a baseless claim.

Can anyone not see this?

Blogs are opinions, not news. You need to add that knowledge to your act; it might help with your pathological lie that you're a professional writer. No writer with half a brain would not know that difference.

The Telegraph blog is not 'factually accurate'. It merely cites examples that the writer THINKS makes his case. I already posted one that doesn't make his case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because people refuse to take their meds

 

[mudwhistle]

110 percent is a fallacy.

Football coaches use it all the time.

100 percent is the max possible.

If you get a ten percent raise, what do you gross this year in comparison to last year, as a percentage?

In comparison, yes, but not your total.

A better question is how much Obama will raise you're taxes.

Figure out the difference in you're net income. Then get back with me.