Random Photo
Linkblog- The Tax System Explained in Beer | Mr. Conservative[…]
- Democrats Deny Social Security’s Red Ink | FactCheck.org[…]
- Liu Bolin - Eli Klein Fine Artamazing […]
- Ultraviolet light reveals how ancient Greek statues really looked[…]
- girl quits job on dry erase board exposes farmville boss called her hopa theCHIVEawesome […]
- The Tax System Explained in Beer | Mr. Conservative
April 16th, 2005 at 10:37 am
That kind of irrational or hysterical behavior isn’t something that defines liberals. Some people are just like that. And it isn’t limited to liberals, there are plenty of conservatives who are given to such extreme statements. It’s also important to remember that when people get angry or frustrated they are given to make such statements. And let’s not forget that we didn’t here what Mr. Sajak had said to her to evoke such a response.
April 16th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Well put Khayman!
April 16th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
I agree either side is prone to have idiots, but what I /personally/ found is that the traits he describing are more prevalant on the Left and they’ve been increasing. I’m not saying that as Left vs. Right, I’m saying it as something I believe that’s really hurting the Left. Look at Farenheit 9/11.. or the “Jesusland” pics — that’s exactly that kind of thing he’s talking about.
April 16th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
I dunno about you but I’m very concerned about activist judges, personally.
April 17th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Why do you believe those traits are more prevalent on the left? Is it just a gut impression? If so you have to accept that there might be some of your own social and political bias in that impression. How many right wingers do hang out with anyway? It seems that you spend most of your time with us liberals. Maybe you just haven’t been listening to what your compatriots are saying.
April 17th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Are we agreeing?
April 17th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
No.
April 17th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
So what are we disagreeing about?
April 17th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Well I suppose it’s less that we are disagreeing and more that I think that you should revisit your perception that more liberals tend to spout hysterical rhetoric. I think that you are getting a skewed view on things because you are a conservative who tends to hang out with liberals. Hmmm, come to think of it, it is odd that you hang out with all the lefties Bill. Do you secretly wish you were a liberal? Yes, yes, that must be it. You are a latent liberal! Come out of the closet Bill! Join us! You know you want to.
April 17th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
Hmmm… well, I do tend to hang out with you pinko commies. Maybe it’s because you’re easy to manipulate & fetch things for me so I don’t have to get up off the couch.
Anyway, FWIW, I wasn’t (and I don’t think Pat Sajak was either — not that I’m one to speak for Pat Sajak) trying to make it a matter of speaking of the Left versus speaking to the Right, which is how you’ve taken it.
As someone who does talk a lot to pinko commies, I do often find myself frustrated when trying to understand their views or positions. And not from arbitrary talking heads, but people who I know should know better. (It might be that last bit that gets me the most.)
April 18th, 2005 at 12:13 am
You did make it a left vs. right issue. You “…/personally/ found is that the traits he describing are more prevalant on the Left”. I was merely continuing the conversation in the thread you began.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
This Liberal/Conservative business simplifies the matter too much. Of COURSE there are hystericals on both sides. Some people think Hillary Clinton is an evil bitch and others think the courts are stacked with judges worse than Hitler.
I tend to think the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle, and they pick a party based on which platform they agree with more. In some cases it’s abortion, in other cases it’s all about fiscal conservatism, but I’m betting few people buy a party’s message hook, line, and sinker.
That said, I agree with Pat Sajak. I like talking politics, but it’s not interesting or worthwhile if there’s no give and take in the conversation. I’m just lucky to hang around with people who agree with my point of view.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
I agree that there is too much overheated name-calling and not enough reasoned discourse. Politics has become a contact sport for much of the public and the television news has become another episode of the Jerry Springer. But that isn’t what Sajak said. This piece is about how he perceives the liberals. You can read all the generalities into his statements you want. But regardless of how true a picture of the world that may be, that is not the point that Sajak made. He may have been thinking of it his message in a greater context, but that isn’t what ended up in words. And that is where I sought to provide another point of view in my first comment. And why I take issue with the blanket agreement of what Sajak has to say.
Do I agree that it’s hypocritical to call for the resignation of the president of Harvard for public statements while screaming “censorship” over the plight of Churchill? Absolutely. Much of what Sajak has to say is an important call to arms for progressives in this country. Not a call to censor him or organize protests. But like so many other critics we must use his analysis to help shape the movement. To help frame our message and go about the business of trying to convince people to vote our way, rather than yelling at them.
But does that mean I can read such and indictment of the Left and not respond that it is a half measure? Absolutely not. He has sage advice, but he’s left out at least half the story.