With enemies like that, who needs friends among the electorate? It has no where else to go. --CGE
On 4/30/10 11:22 AM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> what a fucktarded essay. in the first place, clinton was writing on
> the anniversary of the bombing of the OK federal building. The point
> was that McVeigh was driven to blow up that building, in part due to
> rancorous political conflicts at the time. He points at today's
> rancourous conflicts asking "the left" to take care with what they say
> lest they set of someone like McVeigh.
>
> He hardly characterized the TP as "delirous" and "unhinged" and
> instead argued that among among us, there were people who were
> "serious" and "connected" as well as "delirious" and "unhinged".
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html
>
> And, even if he did call them all unhinged and delirious - and never
> suggested there were "serious" and "connected" folks among them - that
> is hardly an indication of snobbery. It's called political warfare in
> the u.s., where using logical fallacies against an opponent is
> perfectly normal and an excellent idea. Calling them fucknutted
> jackoffs or whatever else comes to mind just means: "I disagree with
> your fucking politics, but we are in such huge disagreement that it's
> a waste of my time to engage. Furthermore, I think your politics are
> so reprehensible I feel ZERO need to engage in some ritual of
> deference and demeanor while I pretend to respect your ideas. Sorry
> dewds, line in the sand: some ideas and ideologies ARE the mortal
> enemy of mine. Ta!"
>
> But anything to parade around an identity politics which advances the
> normal average white guy as an embattled identity oppressed by the
> elitist left.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Sean Collins, for Spiked:
>>
>> The Tea Party? Get over it already
>>
>> In their discussion of the Tea Party as 'delirious' and 'unhinged',
>> liberals
>> like Bill Clinton are exposing their own snobbery.
>>
>> ...there has always been an anti-party, anti-politics strain to the
>> Tea
>> Party. It is ironic that the group has 'party' in its name, since it
>> is
>> clearly not a party, and is arguably anti-party. The incoherence of
>> views
>> beyond the anti-tax message, the generational differences, the calls
>> for
>> 'taking back our country' - all suggest that the Tea Party is neither
>> coherent nor really just about policy; rather it is the product of
>> disarray
>> amongst Republicans and the confused, anti-political times we live in.
>>
>> So, the Tea Party may be novel in some respects, but it is not that
>> difficult to recognise its limitations. But the discussion of the Tea
>> Party
>> in the American media has always been out of proportion to its size
>> and true
>> influence. From the conservative side, it is understandable why they
>> would
>> want to hype up the Tea Party. Fox News and right-wing talk radio, in
>> particular, have promoted the movement in an attempt to refresh
>> conservatism
>> after its recent setbacks. But what is less obvious is why liberals
>> are so
>> preoccupied, even obsessed at times, with the Tea Party.
>>
>> Given that the Tea Party is relatively small and skewed towards older
>> Americans, liberals could have ignored or downplayed it. Instead, they
>> exaggerated the Tea Party's numbers and influence. They portrayed the
>> organisation as a growing mass movement and a dangerous threat...
>>
>> More at http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8775/
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>