The American Spectator

Smitty| 8.12.09 @ 1:22PM

Whenever I read about this liberal propagandist, I always remember Rush's joke: " Lakoff, it rhymes with jack___." Rush is funny.

Spicy Joker| 8.12.09 @ 1:52PM

George Jackoff is out of touch with reality. Apparently, he didn't notice that the Democrats won the last two elections despite this Republican "message machine."

west_rhino| 8.12.09 @ 2:08PM

Somewhere I'm missing the whole truth part of the condescention. Willie Fulbright found out that folks in flyover country aren't the hicks the DNC thought, after a while they do come to the right conclusion, a half truth is a whole lie.

Francis Beckwith| 8.12.09 @ 2:39PM

"The Democrats still believe in Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the truth, they will come to the right conclusion."

George, George. There's only "reason." There is no Enlightenment reason, just as there is no classical good, medieval true, or postmodern beautiful. You see, the problem, George, is that you believe reason is chronologically relative. You diminish reason by doing so, since if reason is a tool by which assess things in time, then reason itself cannot be subject to that flux. "Reason" can't ain't what it used to be, since it's always been.

The Enlightenment called, they want their historicism back.

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 3:26PM

Shakespeare said it (from Hamlet), "... ay, there lies the rub." Liberals are relativists; we are not, and as Kipling stated, "Never the twain shall meet."

Rush is right--Lakoff is a jackoff.

paultex| 8.12.09 @ 3:30PM

Republican "message machine?

As in 2008 John McCain for President message machine?

That one really worked well.

kingsmill| 8.12.09 @ 3:38PM

Right, that Dem mainstream message machine, the Mainstream Media, is like two tin cans and a piece of string!

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 3:39PM

Conservatism was once the cultural zone of decorum, civility, and -- many people felt -- a kind of uptightness and excessive formality.

Now, "conservatives" feel condescended to if someone even speaks in plain, reasonable language. The only discourse they recognize as "like them" is incoherent rambling or red-faced shouting.

Increasingly, it's not a liberal bias they seem to resent in journalism, science, and the education system: it's reasoned discourse itself. The very act of making an argument, offering evidence, acknowledging doubt, and suggesting a possible conclusion is now classified by people on the right as a liberal conspiracy to destroy America.

Sarah Palin has issued her fatwah on the health care debate -- the national conversation itself --, not the solutions proposed by liberals. By injecting an irrational fantasy, entirely unhinged from the facts, into the conversation, she shows her contempt from those people who might otherwise want to listen to and learn from the opposite side. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck do the same thing.

The conservative critique of the government does not seem to be so much with what liberals would do, but with the aspirations of Liberalism (capital L) itself, which are dependent upon an informed citizenry engaging in reasoned debate. Liberalism is based upon the Enlightenment ideal of a free society that safeguards individual rights while providing for strong, just, flourishing communities. Such an ideal is never attainable and only with great difficulty striven for. And it requires hard work, diligence, decency, and people who enter the public sphere in good faith. The country just isn't getting that from "conservative" leaders -- or grass roots -- today.

Marc Jeric| 8.12.09 @ 3:55PM

"Liberal" reader indeed. In the 1930 the same kind of benevolent creeps called themselves, honestly, communists. They believed in that bright future of social justice, equality, and of course in their own enlightened governance over the stupid masses and corrupt capitalists. Then, after the so-called "destalinization" which dethroned that mass murderer mainly because he murdered too many communists, our commies changed their name to "liberals" - in total contradiction to the term. Today it is a sign of being behind the times (you see, Americans though slow will catch up eventually with what those liberals really are) for anybody to call himself a liberal - it is dangerous to be misunderstood. So they now call themselves "progressives". All those White House czars are now progressive and scientific. But to this former refugee from communism they are still the same potential mass murderers of yore.

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 4:01PM

Daisy --

You're in poetic mood today. Shakespeare, Kipling, and that incomparable maker of rhymed couplets, Rush Limbaugh.

I'd like to encourage this budding predilection in you (at the risk of sounding condescending). Reading poetry is good for the soul. And I'd encourage you to start with Hamlet, too: "the rub" is something serious to wrestle with, even if it's summer, and I say, let Limbaugh himself do what he may: the cat will mew, and dog will have his day.

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 4:04PM

And as for Hamlet, keep this in mind there might have been something of the relativist in the sad Dane himself:

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

"Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?"

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 4:54PM

Hush, troll--I'm in a good mood today. I shall ignore your silly fascist propaganda so that you don't hurl a big F-Bomb at me.

Funny, I don't recall the Bard of Avon hurling many filthy epithets. It is beneath you to use such foul language. Shame on you, Jeremiah.

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 5:04PM

Hey, LR/Jeremiah, What do you think of our "IRRELEVANT" North Star, Sarah Palin? Not too shabby, I say!

Sarah had the temerity to tell the truth and use two words , "Death Panels"-- and now, the Knockout from the North, is driving the national health care debate and making you liberals nuts. LOL!!

SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT 2012

Dave| 8.12.09 @ 5:13PM

It would appear that Liberals seem to think that the 1st Amednment is a privilege rather than a right. You Kool-Aid Drinkers are going to destroy this Country with all your commie ideas !

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 5:37PM

Daisy --

I'm glad you're in a good mood. And I don't mean to rain on your parade, but Shakespeare is a master of profanity. Not comparing myself to Shakespeare.

Now, I'd really love it if you could explain how you construe my post as "fascist propaganda." For now, I have to assume you don't know the definition of this term.

Dave --

Sorry for spreading my "commie ideas." It's just what I do when I'm not sitting on one of Obama's death panels or plotting to destroy America.

Amerigo| 8.12.09 @ 6:03PM

Liberal Reader:Thank you!I fear profit outweighs reason for these folks.

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 6:05PM

You can't rain on my parade, dope.

You know very well I understand the meaning of fascist, and I also know it royally pi$$es you off! lol!

Cite examples of Shakespeare's use of profanity; and yes, thank you for not comparing yourself to him. Gag reflex and all.

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 6:12PM

Dave --

Another thing.

You should understand what the 1st Amendment says before you go crying about your rights being violated.

The 1st Amendment says that the Congress cannot pass laws limiting freedom of speech. The amendment now applies to the states as well.

The 1st Amendment does NOT say that your fellow citizens can't criticize you for how you choose to exercise that right.

C4P| 8.12.09 @ 6:13PM

Amerigo--we object to the loss of our liberty more than anything else. If you want insurance, go get a job and pay for it yourself-- don't destroy insurance coverage for everyone else. That's reasonable.

You liberals are bloodsuckers!

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 6:16PM

C'mon, LR/Jeremiah, cite the profanities.

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 6:58PM

Daisy --

'Sbood!

Simply swearing by a part of Jesus's body ('Sblood, 'S teeth, etc.), a habit of the coarse in Shakespeare's day, was considered the worst kind of profanation, and after 1606 it became illegal. Shakespeare continued to do it, and sometimes it snuck past the censor.

In Shakespeare's day, language related to sex and bodily functions was not the home of profanity that it is for us. Shakespeare's characters speak what's called "bawdy" all the time.

For example, Hamlet asks Ophelia: "You think I speak of country matters?"

Here, country includes a word that is offensive to women, and his audience would have heard it. In fact, however, that word was not nearly as offensive to the prudish as religious profanation.

There are entire books (collections of printed pages bound together) written about Shakespeare's use of vulgar, profane, and irreverent language.

First thing you need to do, however, is understand that profanity is relative. What people in Shakespeare's day considered profane is different from what people now consider profane.

The great Pistol, in Henry V, all but "throws the F bomb," when he cries to the captain: "A fico for thy friendship!"

Now --

What about my posts sounds "fascist" to you?

You say you know the meaning of the word; I'd be curious to know what I said that made you think I was a fascist.

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 7:01PM

One last thing on profanity, Daisy:

There is nothing more profane that playing to the worst instincts of one's fellow citizens; using all the "f bombs" in the book is infinitely more decorous than claiming Obama is a "fascist" or a Nazi.

Saying the "f bomb" is impolite; calling a fellow citizen a "fascist" is hateful, divisive, unproductive, rude, stupid, and nasty.

Melinda| 8.12.09 @ 7:03PM

Hey, now. Let's keep the Bard out of this, shall we?

As an English teacher and a HUGE fan of Shakespeare, and having read most of his 37 plays, I can attest that he was, in fact, quite a dirty boy. His plays are too laden with profanities to cite here, unfortunately. In fact, he brought the creation of profane phrases to an art form.

How do you think I get students to read Shakespeare? I tell them that it's pretty dirty, and that they probably can't handle it. :-)

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 7:09PM

Melinda --

Indeed. All great literature is filled with profanity.

I'll never forget the day my Latin teacher explained what Catullus meant when he said Lesbia enjoyed "stripping the bark" in the alleys of Rome.

Chaucer, Boccaccio, Rabelais, Shakespeare: they're not for the prudish, priggish, or faint of heart!

Liberal Reader | 8.12.09 @ 7:17PM

correction:

Hamlet says to Ophelia: "Do you think I meant country matters?"

Had to check.

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 7:19PM

Jeremiah, remember: If a fascist duck quacks like a fascist duck and walks like a fascist duck--it's a fascist duck.

Don't whine now--you promised you wouldn't.

Liberal Reader| 8.12.09 @ 7:31PM

Daisy --

Unless you don't have a response, I'd like you to clarify for me what exactly I've said that reminds you of fascism or that convinces you I'm a fascist.

You're talking about fascism. You say you know what it is. You know that hundreds of thousands of Americans died fighting it in Europe.

You're saying I'm a fascist. What about anything I've written suggests I have a loyalty to fascism.

Give me just one example.

Daisy| 8.12.09 @ 10:02PM

Listen, you little snot: You constantly insult Vadum and accuse him of racism--without cause; so save me your phony outrage when I turn the tables on you. At least I'm telling the truth.

JD| 8.12.09 @ 11:08PM

'Republican "message machine? As in 2008 John McCain for President message machine?'

"McCain 2008" was less a "message" than a suicide note. ;-)

Joe

G. A. Kevis| 8.12.09 @ 11:31PM

So, a guru for the Democrat party avers:

" ... If you just tell people the truth ...."

Ho, ho,ho - ho!

As the Duke once said " that'll be the day".

Solo| 8.13.09 @ 9:32AM

Quote:

"The Democrats still believe in Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the truth, they will come to the right conclusion."

Buuuuwaaahahaha! How's that for a 'disconnect'?

"Truth" professor? The "truth" according to whom, professor?

If the good professor would like to take the time to actually read a little something about "Enlightenment Reason" as it pertains to politics, he would quickly realize how absurd it is to attempt to cobble together the terms "enlightenment reason" and "truth" with "democrat" as related concepts or entities.

Even the most casual reading of the enlightenment era political philosophers such as John Locke and Montesquieu reveals the modern-day democrat party as standing in direct contradiction to the philosophical principles upon which this Republic is predicated.

The "truth" revealed in "enlightenment reason" is that the mob-ocracy that the democrats are busy constructing is a sure pathway to tyranny.