American Elephants


The Right’s Hate Speech? Uh huh. by The Elephant's Child
14 Comments so far
Leave a comment

It is Egypt that has inspired all these nuts.
Here is a union thug busted.

Here is more commies using this “crisis” and
admitting it’s Egypt (Facebook)

This time some clean humor

Like

Comment by Ron spins

Oh dear Lord: “Workers of the World Unite.” Well, Madison’s always been a hotbed of lefty professors and students. Everything old is new again. Trying to present the world’s oldest technologies (wind and solar) as something new and very 21st century. Bringing back Keynesian economics from the 30s and now we’re going to have the union movement with mobs and riots again. They never never learn.

Like

Comment by The Elephant's Child

I’m not bothered about the language drawing parallels with Mubarak. Exaggerated, of course. Suggesting violence? No. But to use the same language as ex-Governor Sarah Palin (“Don’t retreat, reload”) is indefensible and hypocritical.

Like

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Subsidy, you must be a city boy. Among people who hunt and shoot, served in the military, or are simply rural people, language is often peppered with references to hunting and shooting, guns and ammunition. It doesn’t mean anything and is not suggesting violence in any way. I was shooting a .22 by the time I was 6 or 7 at least (viciously at tin cans). I have never done any hunting, except for varmints, and I am especially deadly with woodrats. Sarah Palin said nothing for anyone to get excited about, it’s ordinary American rhetoric. You are not just trying to make a mountain out of less than a molehill, you’re being sappy.

I think language comparing Walker to Mubarak is uncalled for. The vulgarity surprised me, and I found it offensive. Union members were being paid to be there, by the taxpayers. The media kept claiming that Walker was trying to end the union’s right to collective bargaining, which was false. And the culture has indeed become far more squalid. You should be more concerned about that than about the ordinary and quite proper vocabulary of Governor Palin and many others, including me.

Like

Comment by The Elephant's Child

Like many political bloggers, you seem to feel free to be presumptuous about others, and want to pigeon-hole them: liberal, city boy, whatever.

Actually, I grew up in rural Maine. My father had lots of guns, and most of our red meat was deer, with the occasional black bear. I shot my first 0.22 at the age of 4. I have no problem with gun ownership, though I am in favor of gun registration (and so is my father).

Your defense of Sarah Palin’s catchphrase is telling. My guess is that the majority of Americans would see it for what it is: violent imagery. Some might nonetheless LIKE that imagery, but it has nothing to do with hunting (one does not retreat from a deer), and everything to do with armed conflict. (I would have thought you would instead have tried to evoke the imagery of Concord Bridge or some other patriotic battle.) Thus, given that “reload” obviously refers to guns (or cannons), and given that the “target” is a human, I regard THAT as hate speech.

Comparing Walker to Mubarak may be vulgar and inappropriate. But it certainly does not suggest violence, and not even in my mind “hate speech”, any more than I would regard a group of Republicans comparing Obama to Mubarak as hate speech. In either case it simply sounds stupid to anybody who has the least bit of knowledge about the people being compared.

Like

Comment by Subsidy Eye

My sentence regarding Mubarak was unclear. I find language comparing Gov. Walker to Mubarak and Hitler uncalled for. It’s just ordinary Democrat hate speech which we endured for the entirety of Bush’s two terms. It is stupid, but not vulgar. Many signs and comments at the Wisconsin mob demonstrations were vulgar, meant to be vulgar(or did you not bother to look at the link) and highly irresponsible from demonstrating teachers who are supposed to garner respect from their students, else how can learning take place. Teachers dragged their students along to the demonstrations, some as young as 8 or 9, encouraged them to make their own signs, and wrote it off to learning American history or civics, while they called in sick, and taxpayers paid their salaries.

The idea that Palin used violent language, appeared suddenly, I assume when Center for American Progress found the gun-related words, and decided to make a big deal of it. Instantly, every liberal media person was repeating, in the same exact words, the offense that Sarah Palin was supposed to have committed. I think you are getting Palin’s speech confused with Michelle Bachman’s who did use the term reload, but I simply do not have Palin’s words in front of me. In any case it was clear that there was no violent intent. When you first took offense at Palin’s speech, it was over “Take a stand”, if I remember correctly. And when was “retreat” ever not a part of ordinary speech? I use the term ‘shoot’ frequently, I take a stand, I advance as well as retreat, capture, and so on. Liberals are inclined, and there have been constant examples of it, to blame Conservatives for what they themselves are doing. Conservatives are not inclined to call politicians Nazis or Hitler. They do call their opponents socialists when they seem to be members of the socialist party, but in general Conservatives understand the economics and evidence behind their policies and do not need to descend to name calling. We get a little tired of being accused of using hate speech when there has been no such thing; being accused of being racist–when we are not the party that sees everything through the prism of race/sex/ethnicity.

Like

Comment by The Elephant's Child

Comparing Walker to Mubarak or Hitler is just a
really bad analogy.
I regard Hate speech as free speech.
Sarah Palin never used any violent metaphors.

I would feel safe around Sarah Palin if she
had a gun and I didn’t.

I would not feel safe around Al Franken if
I had a gun and he didn’t.

Like

Comment by Ron spins

“Sarah Palin never used any violent metaphors.”

I am in no doubt that you and TEC really believe that, Ron.

Like

Comment by Subsidy Eye

In January President Obama after the Tucson shootings
made a call for civility in politics.
Now the entire Democrat machine has been unleashed
in Wisconsin with all of it’s incivility.

Who will be the civility Czar?

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/1/773193.html

http://nicd.arizona.edu/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/who-is-the-expert-on-extreme-rhetoric/

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171 Dem’s targeting

Like

Comment by Ron spins

You ask, “or did you not bother to look at the link”? I looked at the video, twice, when I made my comment. Your later link (in your comments) contains photos of additional signs, some of which are vulgar, some of which are not. “Tea Baggers = Rich Man’s Whores” is pretty vulgar, and uncalled for; “Walker Sucks Koch” is less vulgar and more humorous, and falls well within what Ron Spins calls free speech.

What I find fascinating, though, is how your column consistently holds up an idealized view of “conservatives” as a group of only oh-so-polite people, while ignoring some of the very impolite — indeed, vulgar and angry — people who identify themselves as conservatives. (I would feel more comfortable around Al Franken with a gun then around Rush Limbaugh with a gun, though I would trust neither with my tax money.)

If you are going to scrutinize the behavior of the rank-and-file on what you call “the left” (apparently, anybody who belongs to a trade union), then the comparison should be with the rank-and-file on the right. And while that contains many people who are well-behaved, it also contains people like Ted Nugent, columnist for the Washington Times. I invite you to read this column, and especially the comments from the people who agree with him:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/19/muslim-mosque-teers/

Want to talk about offensive? I find much in the column and in the comments pretty offensive.

That there is hate speech being used by both sides of the political spectrum needs to be acknowledged.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-finds-extensive-use-79402.aspx

Does that mean we need to curb it with regulations? Personally, I would be loath to do that. But my advice is that you be less tone deaf when it comes to bad behavior within the Republican base, and be equally ready to condemn it.

As for Palin, she certainly has used the phrase “Don’t retreat, reload.” She can deny until the cows come home that such a phrase has no violent subtext contained within it. And perhaps she really did mean it innocently. But if that is the case, then she is clearly out of touch with the way such imagery is heard by a large percentage of Americans, and naive to the extreme.

What is heartening is that Palin is approved only by 36% of conservatives.

Like

Comment by Subsidy Eye

We disagree on what is humorous and what is vulgar. I am not familiar with Ted Nugent, isn’t he some kind of weird hunter type? The column was badly expressed, but the ground zero mosque was an offense. Commenters on many blogs seem more interested in showing off their cleverness or their rudeness. Many blogs have eliminated comments, others moderate them carefully. I read comments at serious websites occasionally, but not often. I have a very large circle of websites that I visit regularly — so there is a extensive bunch of conservatives with whom I share basic ideas of what conservatism is about. I can’t get to all of them even in a week.

I’m a firm believer in freedom of speech. I don’t want to forbid anyone’s speech. That doesn’t mean that I have to subject myself to that which I find offensive or stupid or worthless. Just because someone has a soapbox, doesn’t guarantee them an audience. Liberals have a number of outspoken people who will say anything, no matter how false, I suppose because they believe that any comment or vulgarity is justified in the name of politics. Politics has changed, and the far left has taken over the Democrat party. They are interested in social justice and power. Union leaders worked closely with Reagan to aid Solidarity in Poland and bring down communism in eastern Europe. Wouldn’t happen now. Disagreement is not hate speech.

Like

Comment by The Elephant's Child

“Politics has changed, and the far left has taken over the Democrat party. They are interested in social justice and power.”

The Democratic Party taken over by the FAR left? Like Communists? I don’t think so, though I agree that at the federal level there are too many who do not share the pragmatic approach of politicians like Clinton and his ilk. That they are interested in “social justice” doesn’t bother me (but then we must have different definitions of that term), but I am very much concerned with HOW they pursue it.

As for being “interested in … power”, land sakes! And Karl Rove, master political strategist under the previous Bush administration wasn’t?!!!

Like

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Not quite that far left. No, I don’t believe that the Democrat Party has been taken over by communists or socialists, but there are communists and socialists, and they are Democrats. The problem with “social justice” is that there is no such thing. It exists only in leftist Utopian dreams, and refers to equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity or equality before the law. Equality of outcome is not possible. If you give everyone exactly the same income, some will save it and some will simply spend it. Countries that pursue economic freedom get prosperity as a bonus. Central planning is doomed to failure because it kills the human faculty that makes things work. When Utopians succeed politically, they deliver tyranny in practice.

Power, to the left, represents the opportunity to control others, to regulate annoyances out of life, to tell people what to do. Like telling people what kind of shower head they must use, what kind of lightbulbs they must use, what kind of toilets they must buy, what kind of dishwasher soap they should use, what they should eat, force resturants to put calorie counts on their menus, tell schoolchildren what they must eat, tell people what kind of cars they must drive and what kind of transportation they must have and on and on and on. That the reasons for all this control are specious does not matter. Democrats are not interested in evidence or facts. They are perenially dissatisfied and want to make the world better according to their lights. It’s just that since they ignore facts and evidence, and they don’t make anything better. All of the above current interferences in the life of citizens are based on faulty informationm, and don’t fix anything.

Republicans, of course, want to win elections too, but they want to make government smaller and less intrusive, to return more freedom to Americans — because they believe that Americans respond to freedom with greater creativity, innovation, and more productive lives. Free people and free markets, and standing firmly on those principles. Yes, nobody’s perfect and everybody makes mistakes — we are all, after all, human. Both parties have political strategists — Obama has David Axlerod, Bush had Karl Rove –so what? They try to win elections for all the above reasons.

Like

Comment by The Elephant's Child

Free speech is just that.
You get to say whatever you want , you just pay a price for it.
Example: Yelling fire in a crowded theater.

A moderated Blog like this is moderated by the
owner’s own tastes and dislikes.

My poker forum is different since I have a
different process for dealing with trash
and stupidity.

A person (or a group) will be relevant or not.
Everyone now sees what the Democrats are doing
in Wisconsin.

Like

Comment by Ron spins




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: