September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« What might have been | Main | Relativistic Time Dilation »

Jul 27, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lex

They also ran another LTE in which the writer was allowed to repeat the falsehood regarding Obama and "You didn't build that." Paging Roch.

Spag

Ed has a history of complaining about the N&R having the audacity to print conservative columns. I suppose that using the phrase "my hometown paper" repeatedly will let them know that this is simply unacceptable to important people who know better.

Sean

spag, that's an idiotic column. if you want to associate with it as a conservative, feel free.

Ed Cone

I meant for my criticism to be much more specific than "eek, a conservative," so I apologize for any lack of clarity.

I object to the particulars of Bachmann's campaign, and the particulars of the column written in its defense, and thus to the decision to print it in our newspaper.

Sam, what are your views on the Bachmann's allegations, and Thomas' treatment of them?

Spag

Thomas isn't defending Bachmann on this particular. He is saying that it raises a larger question that is being avoided because of political correctness. I think he is right about that. Your post is proof of that.

Blair is no flaming right-winger and he says the West is asleep on the issue. Ignoring the possibility because it may be unpleasant is foolish. I also believe it is highly hypocritical considering the way many politically correct folks on the Left are always complaining about Christian influence on policymakers, or the Koch Brothers, or any other group that tries to put its own in positions of power.

He tried head in the sand. It didn't work.

"Running this stuff on a regular basis" implies an indictment beyond this one post.

Spag

"We tried...."

Andrew Brod

It takes a particular (one might say Spag-like) reading of Thomas' column to claim that he's not defending Bachmann. After all, Bachmann's concerns are both general but also focused on Huma Abedin. When Thomas asks, what if Bachmann is right?, he's obviously defending the potential common sense of her views, and he doesn't isolate the general from the specific.

But in spite of that, I want the N&R to run this tripe. I'd be upset with my local newspaper if it didn't.

Bill Bush

Cal Thomas was the first person I ever put on my "Do Not Read" list. Years ago, he had a column about a little girl who was killed by random gunfire while walking to school. He blamed the school for the shooting. I just marked him off the list of people I thought were worth paying any mind. It was evidently a good decision, like putting Glen Beck on the "Don't Watch" list after having observed enough of his stuff to be sure he was not joking and was really just sick. Limbaugh is on there, too, along with Bortz. Bachman, I must confess, I watch from time to time. Schadenwhateveritis still has a grip on me.

Spag

So he is defending Bachmann by stating her particular concern, offering an opposing view from McCain, and then pointing out that there is a "larger issue" that he goes on to discuss?

That takes a particular results oriented reading to achieve.

Some might say X, others may say Y, but the real issue is Z. Yeah, that's logically a defense of X.

Andrew Brod

Sure, Thomas "offers an opposing view from McCain" but he immediately dismisses it ("Even if he is correct...").

Also, your symbolic logic is off. It's not X, Y, and Z. It's x, not-x, and X, where X is a generalized version of x. You're right that Thomas says that X is the real issue, but saying so hardly amounts to a rejection of the more specific case x. He could have agreed with McCain's view, but he didn't.

But again, if the issue is whether the N&R should print innuendo like this, I say let it print.

Bill Yaner

Cal Thomas has the most consistent record of being on the wrong side of every debate as any columnist I've seen. Of course the N&R has the right to publish his nonsense. But what if....what if, they could find a more legitimate and qualified voice from the right?

Would that not be a good thing?

sittinginthemiddle.

"Cal Thomas has the most consistent record of being on the wrong side of every debate as any columnist I've seen. Of course the N&R has the right to publish his nonsense. But what if....what if, they could find a more legitimate and qualified voice from the right?

Would that not be a good thing?"- Bill


You mean someone who would more closely align with your and the mindless left's world view? NO, but thanks for playing.

Andrew Brod

BY, I agree with SITM. If the N&R is going to run conservative columnists (and I think it should), then it should run conservative columnists who are representative of current conservative thought, no matter how weird and extreme that's become. I don't want a bowdlerized view of what conservatives think.

bubba

"...this is simply unacceptable to important people who know better."

You left out "self-appointed elitist 'expert'" between "important" and "people", Spag.

Also, have you noticed how they're still desperately trying to re-write Obama's "you didn't build that" remark to make it say something he didn't say?

As we know, Lex is an expert at re-writing other people's words.

Spag

Once again Andrew attempts to paint conservatives as weird and "extreme", completely ignoring the fact that it is the Left that represents a minority viewpoint in this country- by far.

"Extreme" usually means outside the mainstream of thought. That would make liberals the weird and "extreme" ones.

It's funny how liberals can complain about the Christian Right attempting to take over politics but then label anyone who dares to caution about an extremist Muslim infiltration of government as "extreme". That explains it in a nutshell- conservative Christians are a greater threat than Islamic Jihadists to this crowd. How mainstream do you think that opinion is?

A Rasmussen poll that came out last week showed that voters view Obama as more ideologically extreme than Mitt Romney by almost 2 to 1. Yet, a number of liberals don't believe that Obama is liberal enough. What does that tell you about who represents the extreme in America ?

bubba

"Yet, a number of liberals don't believe that Obama is liberal enough. What does that tell you about who represents the extreme in America?"

That's just one of the many "progressive" fairy tales touted as "The Truth". It ranks right up there with Arnold's Krumaniacal talking point about how "we just didn't spend enough" in excuse for the failure of the stimulus that was supposed to make us all financially whole, and save us all from the deprivation of unemployment over eight percent.

It tells us that the constant lefty loony toon-ing is well beyond its "use by" date.

Lex

Bob, the antecedent for the pronoun "that" in Obama's statement clearly was government-funded infrastructure, not private businesses, and you have to be ignorant of basic grammar or in very deep denial to insist otherwise. Or, in your case, perhaps both.

bubba

"Bob, the antecedent for the pronoun 'that' in Obama's statement clearly was government-funded infrastructure, not private businesses, and you have to be ignorant of basic grammar or in very deep denial to insist otherwise. Or, in your case, perhaps both."

You have to be ignorant or in very deep denial if you think that the rules of grammar somehow change what he clearly said. Even if we accept your pedantic posturing, it still would make no difference to in light of what he said.

Ed Morrissey gets it right about your point here:

The context which Obama claims is that he was talking about small business owners not building the infrastructure, not their businesses. But who pays for infrastructure? Government doesn’t pull the money off the magic trees of the Progressive Sunshine Forest; they take capital from taxpayers, either current or (increasingly) future taxpayers. Small businesses generate a large amount of that tax base, thanks to the point-of-sale transactions conducted and the labor they use, as well as property taxes and the like. If anyone should get credit for the infrastructure for successful markets, it’s the small businessman. Even in context, Obama and Elizabeth Warren treat small businesses like parasites rather than the foundation for the economy which makes all their beloved infrastructure possible at all."


In addition, let's not forget that the Obama campaign is also telling us that Obama got the grammar wrong.

Excerpt:

"The Obama campaign claims that the 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that' comment is being taken 'out of context' and that Obama's 'didn't build that' words were referring back to the 'roads and bridges' in the prior sentence.

They're maintaining that Obama just got the grammar wrong, misaligning a plural 'roads and bridges' with a singular 'that.' The campaign is arguing that it may have sounded like he was saying 'you didn't build that business' but what he was really saying was 'you didn't build that roads and bridges.' "

So which is it, Lex?

Was Obama's grammar right, as you want us to believe, or was it wrong, as the campaign insists?

THAT is a big deal.

Bill Bush

Thirty-six year of dealing with infelicitious phrasing led me to deal with ideas and expression separately when it came to evaluating written products. It is not unusual to see a good idea wrongly spelled. It is evident that President Obama did not mean that people did not build their own businesses, but rather that we do not do things in isolation. It is tiresome to see politics discussed in the "gotcha" mode. That is why I usually avoid responding to parsing by personal prejudice. Could we please move on? And spare me your equivalencies. The number of flies on a cow pattie is insignificant.

polifrog

Lex

Bob, the antecedent for the pronoun "that" in Obama's statement clearly was government-funded infrastructure, not private businesses, and you have to be ignorant of basic grammar or in very deep denial to insist otherwise. Or, in your case, perhaps both.


Obama - "If you own a business, you did't build that."

Of course business owners both built their businesses as well as the bridges and roads.

The reality is that government is not the source of prosperity, government is dependent on private sector taxation.

Obama clearly believes otherwise, which makes him a Marxist pure and simple. His prompter driven message is scripted otherwise but his off prompter musings lay the lie to that script as Obama regularly falls to the comfort of his parentage and mentoring in Marx during those moments. This mirrors Obama's scripted claims of faith. His consistently hostile policies toward Christianity while bowing to Islam speak an unscripted truth that is the source of America's confusion regarding his faith.

But if one has faith in the script one may point to the antecedent to the pronoun.

Andrew Brod

"Of course business owners both built their businesses as well as the bridges and roads."

You're right. But that's not the distinction being made by the Romney campaign. It's nice that you understand that Obama was talking about roads and bridges and the Internet, but Romney and his people are claiming otherwise.

"The reality is that government is not the source of prosperity, government is dependent on private sector taxation. Obama clearly believes otherwise, which makes him a Marxist pure and simple."

Government is not the source of prosperity, and no one's saying it is. It's not a sufficient condition for prosperity, but it is a necessary condition. The libertarian utopia may involve neighbors contracting with neighbors to build streets, but there's a reason we don't do it that way. It'd be really inefficient.

Also, everyone understands that government is "dependent on private sector taxation." Republicans understand it, Democrats understand it, libertarians understand it, Marxists understand it, tribesmen in Papua New Guinea understand it. It's not deep. It's accounting.

Andrew Brod

And yes, it's weird and extreme to believe otherwise.

bubba

"But if one has faith in the script one may point to the antecedent to the pronoun."

Our boy Lex, as usual, got it wrong. "Business" was clearly the antecedent for "that".

The underlying context just expands the obnoxiousness of the "If you own a business, you didn't build that" absurdity.

bubba

"The number of flies on a cow pattie is insignificant."

Grammar's not your strong point, is it, Bill?

Obama said "that", twice. It was a clear reference to "business", not the "roads and bridges" of the previous sentence. He did not say "those" or "them".

There is no mistake made of the intentions. Obama meant EXACTLY what he said, and what he said was something obnoxious and revealing of the mindset that produced it.

polifrog

Brod:

Also, everyone understands that government is "dependent on private sector taxation."


One can not claim a tax cut is an expense unless one first assumes that government is the source of prosperity.

It is a fact that it has become an essential part of liberal lexicon that government is the source of prosperity. Keynes in a sense even makes that argument via his multiplier effect.

What one thinks they understand is not necessarily indicative of what one has internalized.

Also, I do not believe Obama was talking about roads and bridges. His previous concepts were that 'if you think you're smarter than everyone else, you are not' and 'if you think you work harder than everyone else, you don't'. It follows that Obama was claiming that "If you own a business, you did't build that". And he said precisely that.

Although my biases drove me to give consideration to the question of Obama the Marxist prior to his "you didn't build that speech", I rejected the notion. Not anymore.

Andrew Brod

"One can not claim a tax cut is an expense unless one first assumes that government is the source of prosperity."

Both sides use the phrase "tax expense." Don't play semantics.

And I apologize for giving you more credit than you deserved regarding Obama's quote.

bubba

"Both sides use the phrase 'tax expense.' Don't play semantics."

"Tax expense" is a political phrase, not an accounting or audit phrase. Don't play arrogant semantics, Arnold.

Bill Bush

The subject of my sentence is "number". It is a singular word. The predicate "is" reflects that. Do not be distracted by the flies. That is a good demonstration of the topic I was addressing.

Lex

That's right, Bob, he said "that" when he should have said "those." There are many reasons for criticizing Obama, but what he said here is not, numerical disagreement between pronoun and antecedent aside, one of them. Get over it.

Sean

right-wing whack jobs created their nest of bullshit on which the sane folks could create successful debates to whittle down their stupidity one comment at a time. they didn't build that...

bubba

"Get over it."

Pay attention, Ace. He said "that" twice". It's pretty clear what his intent was, unless you want to make the case that Barack Obama is a complete, blithering idiot, and a public embarrassment.

You weren't even sharp enough to make that excuse until I provided it for you. Why don't you ask Cone if you can edit your comment to eliminate your failure, as is your standard operating procedure in cases like this?

My description of Obama above also describes you, a so-called "journalist" who likes to play the roll of an expert in his commentary, despite the evidence that proves otherwise.

bubba

"Do not be distracted by the flies. That is a good demonstration of the topic I was addressing."

The topic was Obama's speech. Your comment was an attempt to deflect attention away from the comment.

bubba

"right-wing whack jobs created their nest of bullshit...."

Left wing wanker drama queens can'tunderstand the broader issues involved, nor can they understand the actual implications of the diseased mindset that produced the comment under discussion.

Why?

They possess the same insidious disease that produced the Obama comment.

Ed Cone

The original topic was the N&R's thumbsucking approach to racist McCarthyites and their defenders.

Carry on.

bubba

"The original topic was the N&R's thumbsucking approach to racist McCarthyites and their defenders."

The initial comment in response changed the topic, Bill Bush responded, incorrectly, as it pertains to the different topic.

If you don't like that, what don't you delete every comment that doesn't address the original topic

polifrog

Regarding Bachmann recognizing a threat to America in the form of a religion perverted:

We now have a Marxist president, a sympathizing press that kowtows to him, an anti-American Hollywood that funds him, academics that have co-opted higher education and rationalize Marx for him - even going so far as to create a faux-science of such rationalization in economics, and avowed socialists and Marxists in speech and policy if not self designation in congress --- all enabling our Marxist president.

Is it not about time we recognize that McCarthy was right -- that he predicted accurately our socialist, communist, Marxist predicament today?

There is nothing wrong with identifying enemies of America within. If there was a mistake made by McCarthy it was in not weighing the strength of fiction, narrative, and scripting against the life choices and policy that reveal the lie of fictional personal narratives. He was unprepared for the result of a society weighing reality against narrative through the distortion of what was then new media but is today the old media.

Once again we see the conflict between fictional personal narratives and the reality of life choices and resultant policy being played out this time between Bachmann rather than McCarthy and Islam perverted rather than Marx perverted.

Let us hope that in this iteration that society recognizes the threat behind the mask of scripted narratives and we avoid the scourge of un-Americanism that we have been plagued with since McCarthy's failure.

And since when is Islam a race to anyone but racist bean counters?

bubba

"And since when is Islam a race to anyone but racist bean counters?"

It's the same thing as their "George Zimmerman is White" meme.

Ed Cone

McCarthy's shame lay not in identifying enemies, but in branding people as enemies without evidence.

Ditto Bachmann.

polifrog

Yes, that would be the myth, Ed.

Thomas

Why study history when you can make up your own? It's much simpler.

Thomas

Polifog makes it hard to follow the blog at work. The boss hears me suppressing laughter and he knows good and well there is nothing funny about a TPS report.

TL

Please, polifrog, share with us the golden tablets that destroy all myth and radiate the truth that channels through you.

polifrog

TL --

Please, polifrog, share with us the golden tablets that destroy all myth and radiate the truth that channels through you.


Do you deny that politicians attempt to control and present palatable images and narratives of themselves?

You are required to do so if you deny that there is a more honest and truthful presentation available.

This is not a matter of my truth; it is a fact of political life that of which you appear to unaware.

Thomas

There you have it, folks. The secret truth that only polifog sees. Politicians try to make you like them.

Andrew Brod

So simple. So profound. And it explains so much.

Andrew Brod

About Frog.

julian56

Years ago, when I applied for a security clearance, all the way up to a TSI clearance, the information always asked me whether I had any relatives that were members of the Communist party (or other similar questions). That was a recognition that, even if I wasn't selling governmental secrets, I could be at risk because of these family ties.

We don't worry about the Communists anymore, but there has been little doubt in the past that the Muslim Brotherhood is of radical thinkers that advocate against the US.

Bachmann's group was not accusing the State Department official of anything, but just questioning why someone at that high level was not vetted more closely or vetted at all.

polifrog

And what if enemies of the state want "you [to] like them" and are willing to resort to false narratives to advance their perspectives?

Is that worthy of ridicule? And by who?

I would venture that the first to ridicule the concept that weaponized false narratives are used by those who wish harm on our nation would be those who sympathize with the enemies of America for various reasons.

As I said previously. If Obama proves anything, it is that McCarthy was right that enemies of America were hiding antiAmerican ideology behind false narratives.

Modern examples: Obama feigning environmental concerns gives China access to Canadian oil or look to Honduras: following their constitutional law and removing a man from power for unconstitutionally attempting to remove his term limits, who does the administration support? The would-be tyrant and friend of Chavez, of course.

Clearly Obama's governance has been in the service of the enemies of America.

How does this comport with the preferred liberal narrative of Obama. Is the truth what Obama does or what he pretends to be?

Sean

"If Obama proves anything, it is that McCarthy was right that enemies of America were hiding antiAmerican ideology behind false narratives."

can i borrow your hat? i'd like to broil some bruschetta and ran out of foil.

polifrog

Sean, do you believe that Obama's gift of Canadian oil to the Chinese is good for America?

Do you believe that Obama gifting Poland and the Chech Republic to the Russians is good for America?

Do you believe that Obama's supporting a tyrant over democracy in Honduras is good for America?

Do you consider Obama's repeated disrespect toward traditional allies and uncontrolled bowing to non American allies good for America?

Do you consider Obama's relaying to Putin that he will have more flexibility after the election good for America?

If you consider any of this to be good for America, it is likely you would also believe you could broil some bruschetta in a ball cap.

The comments to this entry are closed.