Look at the hatred for the Right that Gore Vidal is spewing as he voices his unbelievably twisted comments about the Right and virtually anyone he disagrees with, including Obama.
We don’t begrudge this incivility. Far from it. We celebrate it as a way of telling Obama, yet again, reign in your own before you ask us to be civil. If you don’t even try to do it; why on Earth should we listen to you.
And to Gore Vidal, here’s a not fascism-fascism “right back at ya,” you twit.
As conservatives, we have families; we raise them to be good citizens. When the war in Iraq just started out, our kids were younger. If you aren’t too senile or fossil-brained to remember those days, Mr. Vidal, you’ll remember that the Left was quite unpopular, but they protested to speak their convictions. They seemed civil at the time; but this was probably because they knew that they were such a small minority and couldn’t get away with incivility. (It’s hard to imagine that they were truly civil of heart.)
We had young children at the time. One of us was on errands with his kid, and they passed a group of protesters. Our colleague said to his 10 year old child, “You see these guys protesting the war? What do you think should be done with them since they oppose President Bush.” The child answered, “Jail?”
Our colleague smiled and said, “No. These people are misguided, but they have the First Amendment protections. You’ve heard of the First Amendment?” “Freedom of speech?”
“Yes – well, let me ask you. If people say things you like, do you feel like punishing them?”
“No.”
“So people who say things that most people like don’t need to have their speech protected, right? Only the people who say unpopular things need to have their speech protected.”
How we wish there were people on the Left who could articulate something similar towards those they disagree with.
But since they can’t or won’t; since they impugn by hallucination (Maureen Dowd style) or through double-standards (Whoopie Goldberg style); we will not worry too much about their rights anymore.
No – we’re not hoping that the Government will silence them. Even idiots have First Amendment rights; especially idiots in the mainstream fringe press.
But we will no longer be mindful of the need for them to be protected from incivility.
And we will be ever mindful and thankful to Maureen Dowd and Whoopie Goldberg for giving us rhetorical templates to meet political correctness head on.
When we say things that are mean towards certain people with dark complexions, we’ll use Whoopie’s method and acknowledge that it’s not “racist-racism,” but is really that other kind of thing, where you just speak the truth, regardless of someone’s race. Thus we are considering the use of the Scandinavian word for miserly just to tweak the politically correct. But probably not.
Mainly because we want our meanings to be exceptionally clear; and the use of homonymnistic words does not add to that clarity – especially when there are other words that are perfectly suited to the task, like miserly, stingy, etc.
But tweaking the politically correct is great sport; the ninnies that they are. And the call for civility is now falling on our increasingly deaf ears.
- Off-the-cliff.com
… is right here.
Can you imagine – just imagine – what would happen if anyone but someone on the idiot Left said anything like what Whoopie Goldberg said about Roman Polanski’s actions; that it wasn’t “rape-rape,” which we suppose is her relatively inarticulate way of saying, that the drugging, the sexual molestation, and the coitus between an adult and a 13 year old girl wasn’t “real rape.”
We get so blasted tired of the double-standards foisted on us by the Left. We’re just sick of Whoopie and all her idiot friends.
Now – interestingly, in one of the stories about this we saw a brilliant comment; worthy of paraphrasing here. The author of the comment suggested that we use this as a template: It wasn’t “rape-rape” could be used to say, for example, it wasn’t “racist-racism.” Or perhaps it wasn’t “homophobic-homophobia.” Just watered down versions of these.
This also fits well with the Maureen Dowd template of giving voice to your hallucinations, fairly or unfairly, so that others can then treat them as newsworthy statements that are on the record, as when Dowd “heard in her mind, fairly or unfairly, that Joe Wilson really meant to say, “You lie, boy.”
So perhaps we can use this with Whoopie (who we used to admire back in her Star Trek NG days – let’s see if anyone gets upset with the standard abbreviation for that show). We can say, fairly or unfairly, that what we heard in our minds was that Whoppie meant to say, “Because Roman Polanski was such a cool liberal guy, it mattered not that he drugged and raped a girl and then fled to avoid his sentence, because all that matters is he’s a liberal and liberals should not be held to the same standards of the law to which non-liberals should be held.” Oh we know she didn’t really say that, but in our minds, this is what we couldn’t help hearing that she meant.
Nice, Whoopie, real nice.
- Off-the-cliff.com
So two of the biggest nut-jobs on the foreign stage, Hugo Chávez and Muammar Gaddafi, are calling for a redefining of the word “terrorism.” We will be interested to see if Mr. Obama (a) agrees that a redefining is needed and (b) if he does what he has done with health care – outsource it to others, and finally, (c) if he outsources it to Chávez and Gaddafi. Wouldn’t that be cute?
- Off-the-cliff.com
Fence-sitters may find this interesting, but really, we’re directing this post to the Left who are just a whisker smarter than the most stupid woman in America – Pelosi – but are doing everything they can to show that she’s not stupider than they are. (After all, they elected her. But our response is, you were too stupid to know better.)
In any event, here we go again – it’s Iraq deja vu all over again. We have the world intelligence agencies telling us that Iran is very close to having nukes. The one hold-out on this opinion is the American intelligence community which says that they haven’t been actively pursuing nukes since 2003. (story)
So this is kind of like when all the world intelligence agencies said Read more
So – let’s suppose you’re a fence sitter. You didn’t like hated Bush so intensely that anyone associated with him was Pavolvian-style automatically bad. Thus McCain – indeed any Republican – was toast with you … from the jump. But since you’re sitting on the fence you’re wondering if you haven’t got a bit of buyer’s remorse, what with all the centralizing of control.
You see the Democrats not giving a rip about what we the folks want. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 56% of us are opposed to the health care reform efforts we’ve heard about so far. And yet Read more