On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:18 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>  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 personal.
>> 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 Foundation. 
>> 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.
> Craig
>     Watch the whole thing, at least for context.

Ok, I watched the whole thing, and I will admit that Beck is not as bad in 
that video as I have seen him before. He seems more open minded than he was 
in the past, although maybe he's just making common ground with Penn.

Still, they are both project the stereotypical ugly American attitude, 
loudly explaining how the world should run. They're wrong in 
underestimating the problem of explosive wealth inequality and Beck's whole 
blackboard geopolitical reductionism is grotesque to me.

Anyhow, if you want some opposing video fare, have you seen the Rachel 
Maddow election night video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwXA7sHUlE

It's three minutes. I'm generally not much happier with Democrats than 
Republicans, but she lays out some reasons why there might have been a 
difference between a Romney win and an Obama win.


> -- 
> Onward!
> Stephen

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
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