On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

    On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
    On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

        Hi Stephen P. King
        Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as

    Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to
    avoid talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this
    time and again. Look back at your own messages here. Did you post
    a link about a politically neutral topic and have a Liberal say
    that you must be a Right Winger and how that makes your thinking
    clouded by patriarchal racist idiocy? No. That did not happen.
    Instead, you politicize this for no reason, repeatedly making
    weird hostile remarks that have no basis in science or
    philosophy, and then accuse Progressives of taking it personally.
    Dear Craig,

        Please link some examples. Let me present you with a
    counter-example to your claim:
    <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc> You might consider
    Penn Jillette to be a progressive, but he would disagree...

        "[By 1994] "Newt World" was now far-flung, from GOPAC to the
        National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee; the
        Friends of Newt Gingrich campaign committee; a weekly TV show
        on the conservative cable TV network, National Empowerment
        Television, and a think tank called the Progress and Freedom

        Its messages were coordinated with talk-show hosts such as
        Rush Limbaugh and with Christian Coalition groups. [...]


        Mr. Gaylord is one of the brains behind Gopac ... . [He] wrote
        its how-to textbook, which urges challengers to *"go negative"
        early and "never back off". They must sometimes ignore voters'
        main concerns because "important issues can be of limited
        value". *The book suggests looking for a "minor detail" to use
        against opponents, pointing to Willie Horton as a good
        example. Though it says a positive proposal also can be
        helpful, it counsels candidates to consider the consequences:
        "Does it help, or at least not harm, efforts to raise money?"
Mr. Gingrich has called the book "absolutely brilliant".
    Even more has been written about the most famous Gopac document,

        ... a memo by Gingrich called "Language, a Key Mechanism of
        Control", in which the then-House minority whip gave
        candidates a glossary of words, tested in focus groups, to
        sprinkle in their rhetoric and literature. For example,*it
        advised characterizing Democrats with such words as "decay,
        sick, pathetic, stagnation, corrupt, waste, traitors"*. (LA
        Times, 12/19/94, pages A31)"

 (from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/002.html)

I have heard Penn speak before. I would say his positions are mostly Right-leaning Libertarian but socially Left-leaning Libertarian. Which part of the video should I watch? Penn's ok. He's a blowhard though. Does he insult Beck? Because Beck is not ok.


    Watch the whole thing, at least for context.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to