Right wing rhetorical tactics described in What Happened When I Took on a Bunch of Gun Nuts in a Deeply Red State | Alternet
Those really don't mean anything until you fix income inequality. Democrats seem too interested in generating victories and wins and statistics that look good, you know, the little victories, then putting them in a context toward the big win. They don't have the integrity to remind people that these factoids could be pieces to fix a larger problem.
Why watching Meet The Press is a waste of your time.
Remember this the next time you hear a gun control opponent utter some kind of jargon rationalizing that every man, woman and child be armed with a gun. Call them on the bullshit.
Got a Minute-And-A-Half? Take a look.
This guy is a real winner.
This kind of crap has been festering for longer than the past couple weeks. I had the misfortune of reconnecting with a guy I went to high school with on Facebook. His mind has been completely dominated by Fox Noise and A.M. talk radio. I can see him in his job in carpentry: the sun baking his head, reducing his critical thinking capacity to the same level as a snail.
Try as I might to talk to him about the politics in a civil manner, he usually responded with logical fallacies, most commonly using ad hominems. I've noticed that this is the most common tactic that right-wing ideologues fall back on: they lack the capacity or integrity to argue a point, they fall back to using ridicule of some sort. They also have this kind of immature / narcissistic denial of responsibility for others.
These right wing ideologues have this kind of solipsistic view of the world which denies the existence of people who they agree with like this scumbag in the picture or people who are alien to them like those who depend on public assistance. They toss around abstractions like Welfare Queen and Nanny State when they talk about the poor without knowing anything about the people or how hard it is to get from that state of existence to the kind of self-sufficience that one hears from Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Fox News, A.M. talk radio, ad nauseam. Try and talk to them about the bigots at their shoulders like the turd in the picture and you'll watch their heads explode.
I've tried reasoning with them — sane people cannot. I've come to the opinion that one needs to fight back with fire to over come them.
Lady, can you just answer one question asked of you about Scott Walker?
Rush Limbaugh from "Unhinged," "Deranged": Conservatives React To Joe Biden's Speech About The Middle Class With Scorn And Ridicule | Media Matters for America
...look at who is calling Joe Biden deranged
This is What A Cop Out by A Lazy Ideologue Looks Like
@diegueno when working on the web, you use links at the point of reference. This is not a high school writing format.
— Doo Doo Economics (@DooDooEcon) May 17, 2012
It's a common device by right-wing ideologues when challenged to show their work to demean the challenge and duck it's propriety.
Brett Bozell: professional right wing hot air source for decades
I knew something smelled when I read and heard analyses of this opinion piece on the radio this weekend, I was ready for some kind of revisionism or centrist rhetoric when I saw that the article is 6 pages long trying to tie those registered voters who identify as liberal to the Democratic party. Then when I read this passage of euphemisms:
This aspect of the liberal style expresses itself as a persistent desire to improve not just policy but politics itself. Progressivism developed a century ago out of a desire to cleanse politics of bosses and transactionalism....
Now there is a word that's not in my browser's dictionary: transactionalism. Nice of Chait to spend five bucks on a word that could mean either:
...Republicans are focused only on dismantling government, and the great movements to reform politics have all come from the left. Some liberals attribute their disappointment in Obama to the excessive hopes he raised about representing better, cleaner, more uplifting politics. But the euphoria surrounding Obama’s election differed only in degree from that of previous presidents. Clinton was the Man From Hope, touring the country with Al Gore and promising the renewing spirit of a younger generation. Carter frequently pledged, “I will never lie to you,” and moved the 1976 Democratic convention hall to tears.
The reality of governing can never fulfill this hoped-for version, and so inevitably liberals recoil. Chris Matthews, who famously thrilled to Obama’s inspirational rhetoric, now complains, “Word is out that Obama is a ‘transactional’ politician.” Jon Stewart put it in even more anguished terms, expressing his disappointment that politics itself did not change under Obama: “He ran on this idea that the system and the methodology are corrupt. It felt like the country was upset enough that he had the momentum needed to reevaluate how business is done. Instead, when he got elected, he acted as though the system is so entrenched that it has to be managed.”
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writing in 1949, assailed liberal idealists who were abandoning Truman for the millennial promises of Henry Wallace and his Progressive Party. Schlesinger defined this impulse as a “fear … of making concrete decisions and being held to account for concrete consequences.” Schlesinger was writing about the left, but his description applies just as well to centrists. Indeed, the unhappy moderate liberals may be the most irrational component of Obama’s let-down supporters. Enraged left-wing bloggers may harbor unrealistic notions of what Democrats could achieve, but they are at least correct that Obama does not fully share their goals.
There was similar tortured, wordy logic of another pundit just a notch or two to the left of Chait whose reply ignored the elephant in the living room, too: the Reuplicrats(sic) are beholden to corporate interests because only corporations have enough money to pay the astronomical amounts of money necessary to fuel campaigns for federal offices.
Where both Chait, Kornacki and most other pundits fail is to treat their readers honestly and talk about everything except the systemic flaws that liberals won't talk about because [1] the pundit class won't get access to the sources that provide them with content for being that honest and [2] liberals don't want to confront how politicians who are their ideological antithesis are beholden to the same powers as their own partisan leaders. The state of denial that liberals live in is so reasonable.
A monk is holding the serf back: pitch perfect.
Whatever label you use, the right has gained control of the framing, and framing controls cognitive function. Cognition does not require logic. Those who have been watching the Republican debates have been able to witness cognitive activity that is almost totally devoid of logic, yet the candidates have been well versed on framing. It is the moral worldview of freedom from government that prevails, while dismissing the logic of the great benefits that we receive as a people joining together to establish and operate our own government. This worldview allows them to dismiss the obvious logic of an improved Medicare program that would cover everyone.
We do need to recapture the framing from the conservative ideologues who would destroy as much government functioning as they can. Why they would is beyond the capacity of many of us to understand, but then we are looking for logic where it may not exist.
emphasis added