DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on April 21, 2014, 02:47:09 PM
-
Liberals Must Choose Between Freedom And Fascism
Kurt Schlichter | Apr 21, 2014
Honest liberals are having their Andrew Breitbart moment. Andrew started out as a liberal, except he was the kind of liberal that’s exceedingly rare today. He was a liberal who actually believed in the things liberals say they believe in, like free expression and personal autonomy.
But they don’t.
Andrew’s change began when he watched the Clarence Thomas hearings. He saw a “high-tech lynching,” as racist Democrats intent on stamping out dissent among black Americans channeled their former Majority Leader/KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd in attacking the black jurist for refusing to toe the liberal line.
Andrews’s views didn't change. What changed was his understanding of who actually stands for freedom. And it isn’t liberals.
Which brings us to the recent kerfuffle involving popular comic Patton Oswalt. He is known as a sarcastic, snarky, underdog with genuine stand-up chops. He’s also an occasional movie and television star who recently had a memorable role on “Justified,” a conservative favorite due to its general awesomeness and the presence of right wing acting legend Nick Searcy.
By all accounts a funny, decent guy, Oswalt thinks of himself as a liberal, and he frequently bickers with conservatives on Twitter. That's fine. Many conservatives died to give him that right. Conservatives don't resent him for doing so even as they disagree with what he says. But that's not true of his allies on the left. They want to shut him up. You see, Oswalt pulled a Clarence Thomas and left the reservation without the chiefs’ permission.
What was Oswalt’s crime? He tweeted approvingly about a Mark Steyn column (http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/) in which the conservative raconteur took on the global progressive assault on free expression. He made the mistake of characterizing Steyn’s forceful advocacy of free speech as “hitting it out of the park.”
That, the Left cannot forgive.
You see, Mark Steyn is evil. He has ideas liberals don’t approve of. So to cite him as he took on the left’s Ball Gag Caucus was simply unacceptable to the progressive conformity enforcers. Soon Oswalt found himself swamped by a tsunami of Twitter outrage.
Oswalt, stunned but so-far uncowed, tweeted back that his erstwhile allies were proving Steyn’s point. And he was right.
The challenge for honest liberals is to get their collective heads around the fact that the liberalism they think they subscribe to is being advocated and defended only by the very conservatives their prejudices and ignorance have led them to believe are undermining it. The real enemy of free expression isn't the conservative John Lithgow in “Footloose” banning dancing because of some idiosyncratic take on Jesus’s teachings. The real threat is the pseudo-enlightened schoolteacher on “Glee” enforcing his rigid progressive vision of diversity. And his vision of diversity is a diverse collection of those ideas he approves of and no others.
So is Oswalt going to stand up for freedom and take his lumps, or is he going to take the easy path of submission and obedience to the politically correct commands of the gatekeepers of liberalism?
It's a lot easier to submit, to not fight, to not make a fuss. What happens when you make a fuss? Remember John Lovitz? He’s another liberal who stood up to political correctness on social media. Do you see John Lovitz in a lot of movies these days?
Did Lovitz suddenly become unmarketable about the same time he became uncontrollable, or are people just afraid to be seen with him lest his new reputation for heresy rub off?
The temptation for someone like Oswalt, when faced with the braying mob of radical feminists, crypto-fascist academics, and assorted other progressive weirdoes, losers and mutations, must be overwhelming. It's so easy to surrender, to redouble your attacks on conservatives to prove you’re still one of the gang. All you have to do is hand over your autonomy and they'll give you a pass. Sure, it's humiliating, but who needs self-respect when you can guest star on “Two and a Half Men?”
Oswalt can submit, or he can face the fact, as must other honest liberals, that the side they think they are on doesn’t remotely believe in free expression. It doesn’t believe in free thought. It doesn’t believe in diversity. It believes in a crushing conformity enforced by a creepy Red Guard of politically correct goose-steppers with gender studies degrees, Twitter accounts and the burning need to bend others to their will.
We don't have to agree with what Patton Oswalt says, but the difference is that we conservatives aren’t the ones trying to silence him. We will argue with him. We will fight with him. But we won’t try to stick a rag in his pie hole. That's what his “friends” are trying to do.
Oswalt and other honest liberals need to decide who their friends really are. (http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/04/21/liberals-must-choose-between-freedom-and-fascism-n1826257)
-
Incomprehensible drivel.
Nom one wanted to censor Clarence Thomas, they just found him to be a bad choice for the Supreme Court. And this has been proven out very well. Thomas is a dink.
-
The silencing effort came in the form of trying to trivilize nothing more than a perceived rudeness into some mountain of sexual harrassment, and pushed by the left, especially when defending Thomas.
The silencing effort comes from those "tolerant" folks on the left that decry that "the debate is over" (be it global warming, gay marriage, Obamacare, abortion, etc.), and proclaim how any further effort to criticize anything liberal/obama is tantamout to hate speech, racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc.
The silencing effort comes in the form of those citing that conservatives should just shut up and/or no one should listen to them. The silencing effort is exactly how Oswalt describes it
-
Free speech includes saying the words "Shut the fuck up, you moron".
Morons need to hear it rather often.
-
Saying it is one thing. Pushing for it is quite a different tact
-
I follow him on twitter and it`s doesn`t seem to be that much of effect on him. but then I mi8ght be using twitter wrong . I got the feeling I`m not using it as intensely as I should be. I mainly post kitten videos once in awhile for my niece. lets just say if I do something highly unpopular cyberbullying will not work on me at all.
-
Exactly. I have a renewed respect for Patton now, because he appears to be an honest liberal vs the other sort that would want to squelch opposing viewpoints
-
what I`ve observed about patton is he might stand his ground possibly dare a face to face the critics. remember he`s a comedian meaning he`s normally dealt with harsh critics to begin with. it all depends on how tough politics is compared to the entertainment world. I found out the music world is harshier then politics.
-
Nom one wanted to censor Clarence Thomas, they just found him to be a bad choice for the Supreme Court. And this has been proven out very well. Thomas is a dink.
Could you point to an opinion or decision that supports this assertion?
-
Pretty much all of them. Plus, he is mute on the bench and has nothing to say. His wife is a lobbyist and that is a conflict of interest in my book.
-
Thomas has written a lot of stuff ,speaks too, you think him mute because no one you trust at all will repeat anything he has to say.
-
Perhaps Progressive Democrats should start practicing what they preach, and begin tolerating ideas with which they disagree
-
but is this really a liberal thing or a tendency of party polarizations. notice nobody is admitting going toward the middle
-
Yea, it really is a liberal thing Kimba. You don't see any other party or movement within any other ideology that not only wants the other side to "shut up", but will pull all forms of rhetoric to try and shame folks into remaining quiet, such as anything critical of the President, must be racist. Anyone(s) that don't support bigger, more intrusive government, must be racist. If you don't support gay marriage, you must be hateful & homophobic. If you don't support a wonman's right to terminate an unborn child, you must hate women and want government to force them to seek back-ally abortions.
And we won't even go into the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". It goes on and on and on and on Kimba, garbage primarily coming from those so called "tolerant folks" who couldn't be more intolerant of ideas, people, and policy that doesn't agree with them. That's not saying that every side has their bombastic mouthpieces. But even the bombastic ones on the conservative side don't demand that the other side shut up, or that they shouldn't be heard. They actually support as much of their ignorance and vileness to reach the public as possible
-
I`m not so sure . it maybe more of a back and forth thing. what you say is true about liberal but eventually they`ll go too far again Ex. prop 8 and pull back the same goes with conservatives Ex. mitt romney.
again not a party thing but maybe a polarization thing which encourages extemes . not too different than a kid who test the parent how far he can go before his internet privilege goes away. the core problem is all parties unknowingl;y answer to the middle and sadly very little gets done.
-
I agree that eash side has their perceived extremes, as repeated by the other side, Ann Coulter & Rush of course, topping the list, but my point is specific as to who's pushing the notion of not just intolerance towards an opposing POV, but actual efforts, including legislation, to try and squelch opposing POV's. And that's really only coming from progressive liberals
-
We`ll see if thiers a push back from the rest of us. I say this because I used to live in san francisco and I do notice abit of a weakening of the liberal movement . people are getting tired of the increasing presence of homeless but negative attacks on gogle employess. movement for mandatory treee but full financial liability to homeowners.
eventually someone will say "all this craziness is fun but somebody gotta pay the taxes "
-
I guess I'm not following you Kimba. That, or we're talking about 2 different things, unless you can find some examples of conservative minded folks pushing the idea that liberals and/or Democrats should just shut up....that they shouldn't be listened to.
The closest thing I could reference is when certain anti-abortion folks will paintbrush those who support abortion as baby killers. Now, that's an accurate conclusion, though its both overtly emotional, and paint brushes everyone who's not anti-abortion, as supposedly advocating the killing of an unborn child. That's a little unfair, and over the top, since I'm sure some folks just want to advocate the freedom of the woman to do whatever she wants. Now, I'd even support that....if it didn't involve the life of an innocent unborn child, that has no say in the matter. Point being, that's rhetoric used to try and shame folks into either changing their position or simply not voicing their opposition.
But as I said, the folks that demonstrate the greatest amount of intolerance to opposiong POV is the same group that brands themselves as being the "tolerant" ones....that being liberal progressives......bordering as fascists
-
I`m talking about the flow of extremes going from one to another. I`m badly stating we should not favor either sides to be trusted with our freedoms.
my stance on abortions is abit complicated in the fact I believe abortion is just a marketing thing to get folks to not use birth control. but that broader subject has alot of overlaps in support. ex. christian pharmasist denying birthcontrol pills without giving options to go somewhere else. some would say just go somewhere and order it there. but I personally know getting medication not related to birth control can easily be very difficult and very life threatning.
-
Nor would I be in favor of extreme elements to any political party running things. Currently we have an extreme liberal running the executive branch, literally setting the precedent for any future President, regardless of party, being able to pretty much ignore rule of law, enforcing only that which he/she likes, and tell any congressional committees to go pound sand, and then claim how poorly they're being treated
And I really don't want to take this into an abortion tangent. My point about abortion was that's really the only place you'll see some hard line conservatives trying to use extreme over the top irrational rhetoric to try and squelch the opposing position that pro-abortionists have. Everywhere else you look however, and its hard line liberal progressives who are leading the charge to silence viewpoints they don't agree with
-
as i said with examples we`ll see if this will backfire on them. remember you did say freedoms will be lost such things don`t always go un-noticed.
-
They're getting lost as we speak >:(
-
We'll simply sit back and see if it'll work it's way out. Untill the parties learn how to play the game which actually get the moderates to do something we're stuck with this.
-
Addressing the issue that's not really the issue I started this thread on, the only compromise to seeking more and more power to control people's lives is sharing that power....which is also unacceptable. Moderates, I'm afraid are more concerned about getting along, than actually addressing the onslaught of economic, and now military, ruin, at the hands of policies and precedent being employed currently, by liberal progressives, at every level of Government. Moderates can't and won't fix this, IMHO. They just want everyone to get along better. Compromise for the sake of compromise isn't a fix. It's merely a slightly slowing down of the careening out of control bus, headed for a cliff, while giving everyone on the bus blankets, so as not to get a chill from the outside air coming in
-
but isn`t this view what gets less moderate to cooperate with conservatives?
-
Good question, though as I said before, compromising for the sake of compromising doesn't fix what's going on. Compromsing to simply let Government continue to grow in oppression, regulation, bureacracy, and control, but just more slowly than what progressive liberals would want, isn't a viable option either.
You tell me Kimba, what exactly do Conservatives, who support limited Government, as designed by our founders, and clearly established in our Constitution, should be doing to bring about more cooperation from moderates?
-
no idea
despite I designate myself a conservative I tend to find my group quite abit stand offish and follow the "my way or the highway' . personally I would avoid all social media and request as many face to face as possible. I just don`t see any use for them in negotiations if anything they makes things worst.
another thought it might not be compromise but good old fashion politics. deals that only benefits themselves not the public. can prisons handle a low crime rate. Al Sharpton exist with no racism.
etc.
-
no idea
oh boy.......that's going to be problematic if neither of us have any bright ideas to bring about improved cooperation between moderates and conservatives, though I think they both can agree that Government is getting far too big and out of control ;)
another thought it might not be compromise but good old fashion politics. deals that only benefits themselves not the public. can prisons handle a low crime rate. Al Sharpton exist with no racism.
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm still not following you on this one, Kimba
-
meaning liberal and conservative is way too broad a stroke and as such these terms has weaken the disscussion. avoid those terms and focus specific incidence and say outcomes instead of using the term losing freedom.
-
To be honest, I don't think changing definitions & accurate terms to make things more palatable does much, though I'm open to suggesstion. To me, that's kinda like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
-
language useage is how laws & policies get made or rejected. one small phrase or even a word can totally effect the acceptance of a proposal. awhile back I mentioned interest in learning philosophy and even with my half-assed approuched I learned how incredibly important language has been. I noticed a very strong similiarity to philosophy and the legal documents I work with in my job. note it`s very common for lawyers to minor in english lit and/or philoshy. it`s no coincident.
If given a choice I would tell kids today to study eng.lit. along with thier core interest.
-
Nothing to which I could disagree with there. Still doesn't change my previous post however. You'll have to provide some more concrete examples vs philosophical ones
-
I only recall wrong phrases that has backedfired on a presentor. Sucessful ones tends to not get noticed. The very nature of it.
I simply have not learned enough to point out examples yet. Just know enough to know how incredibly influential language can be.
-
Agreed....which is why Fascist Progressives use it as bows in a quiver, when trying to squelch opposing viewpoints....in the name of "tolerance", of course. Because there is an element of trying to shame/coerce, thru language, reactions, or in the case I'm making, inaction
-
Hmm
I wouldn't call it inaction. Actually I'm pretty upset with conservatives with how they go about it. Supposedly we're a proactive kind of people but after quite afew bad desicions abit of turtle behaviour is going on. I wished abit more learning from mistake and continue was going on.
-
the notion of not just intolerance towards an opposing POV,
but actual efforts, including legislation, to try and squelch opposing POV's.
And that's really only coming from progressive liberals
(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10306775_781428278535665_4588141943819982781_n.jpg)
-
Ayn Rand was full of crap. Give it a rest.
-
Hmm
I wouldn't call it inaction. Actually I'm pretty upset with conservatives with how they go about it. Supposedly we're a proactive kind of people but after quite afew bad desicions abit of turtle behaviour is going on. I wished abit more learning from mistake and continue was going on.
As I inquired before....I need concrete examples to work with, Kimba. I've given you a plethora of such examples as it relates to fascist/progressive liberals, punctuated by their push for the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"
-
ALL YOU DO is squeal about some kind 0f fairness doctrine, sirs. You always want to know what "they" would say if Juniorbush had said this or that that you disagreed with Obama about, what would have happenbed if Juniorbush, rather than Obama has done this or that.
-
I've never been curious as to what "they'd say", as it relates to Bush, Republicans, or Conservatives. I pretty much know what "they'd say". And none of that has squat to do with the Fairness Doctrine. As far as the rest of your blurb....whatever deflection effort it was, it had no coherency to it. Then again, perhaps that was its intention
-
You don't even understand your own posts, asshole.
Truly pathetic.
-
You always know when the Professor's rhetorical firearm is empty. Nothing but blanks, like the last meager shot 8)
-
I've never been curious as to what "they'd say", as it relates to Bush, Republicans, or Conservatives. I pretty much know what "they'd say".
Case in point...notice how with this whole Donald Sterling debacle, no one is mentioning his staunch support of Democrat causes and politicians. So if anyone, for an instance, thinks that if this were some outed conservative racist, there wouldn't be wall to wall headlines of who he supported, along with the repetative question, "so will you now return those donations?", they'd be on crack. Because if anyone didn't, as ridiculous as it would be, then by implication, they'd all be supportive of said racist's rhetoric
But since the big D was a Big lib supporter....it's *cue the crickets*
-
................................................. Donald Sterling debacle, no one is mentioning his staunch support of Democrat causes and politicians. ...................................
But since the big D was a Big lib supporter..................
Really?
I didn't know that.
Where do you see this?
-
................................................. Donald Sterling debacle, no one is mentioning his staunch support of Democrat causes and politicians. ...................................
But since the big D was a Big lib supporter..................
Really?
I didn't know that.
Exactly, that's the goal. It's not being reported. If he were one of the Koch brothers however......gads, Reid and the Democrats wold be screeching appopletically...and making sure to connect Sterling to every cause and politician he donated to, with demands that they return his donations, or else they must be supportive of his racist nature
Where do you see this?
Been hearing it on the news, when it is mentioned...ususally on talk shows. The MSM is pretty much staying mute on that. A "registered Republican" who has pretty much donated & supported only Democrats and their causes
-
Hmm
I wouldn't call it inaction. Actually I'm pretty upset with conservatives with how they go about it. Supposedly we're a proactive kind of people but after quite afew bad desicions abit of turtle behaviour is going on. I wished abit more learning from mistake and continue was going on.
As I inquired before....I need concrete examples to work with, Kimba. I've given you a plethora of such examples as it relates to fascist/progressive liberals, punctuated by their push for the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"
Speaking of more concrete examples, as the bad news on both the anemic economy, skyrocketing healthcare costs, and complete stagnation of the job market, right on cue, we have intentions, by Democrats of course, to push legislation to make it that much harder to highlight and criticize said abhorrent Domestic & Foreign policy news....
Plan 1 (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/204788-senate-democrats-plan-vote-to-reverse-citizens-united-decision) Senate Democrats plan vote to reverse Citizens United decision. It'll go no where, but again becomes fodder for ignorant voters and to try and motivate their base
Plan 2 (http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2014/04/editorial_markey_s_mission_creep) Proposed Senate Democrat Legislation to empower an obscure federal agency to begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds "threatening", using its own "judgement" as to what is or isn't threatening, or what is or isn't "acceptable"