Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Let me explain the word "dissent" to you, Mathew.


Blogging Tory Mathew Siscoe does what Blogging Tories do -- makes an ass of himself:

On the Limbaugh 'controversy'

You know, it's weird - I've heard a couple of different 'pundits' on CNN exclaim that they just don't understand why Rush Limbaugh is saying what he's saying. That this is supposed to be a time of unity, and that it's wrong for Rush to be saying the things he's saying about wanting Obama to fail.

Putting aside the fact that I think Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, where the heck do these people get off? Just because the President says it's time to get past partisan rhetoric doesn't mean everyone has to start bowing at the alter of the Obamamessiah. I think the President understand that, but the media seems to be of the opinion that if you criticize Obama you're some sort of demon.

And I thought dissent was patriotic?

Here's a thought, Mathew. When you point out that you disagree with President Chimpy McChimpster because there's no evidence for WMDs, and that an invasion will simply inflame the Mid-East and promote terrorism, and will inevitably kill countless civilians not to mention put American troops at risk, and is in a whole lot of ways a really, really bad idea, that's "dissent."

When you're a waddling, fat fuck of a serial divorcee and drug addict who simply announces that you want Obama to fail, that's not dissent -- that's being a waddling, fat fuck of a serial divorcee and drug addict who's a traitor and hates America.

I'm glad I could explain the difference.

12 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

I left this comment over there, since Siscoe is one of the more "reachable" BT's (after all, he's sentient enough to know that Limbaugh is a blowhard):

It's distressing when Americo-Canadians (ie. Conservatives) miss the point: the issue that needs to be addressed here is not whether he has a right to express his opinion or that dissent isn't noble, but whether what he says is rational and in whose interest it is to feature him on the public airwaves all the time.

It's certainly not in the public's interest to have an blowhard take up so much media space, is it?

But that's really a question for Americans.


Frankly, CNN is part of the problem when they even report on Limbaugh.

Siscoe said...

It is dissent - he looks at Obama as a person who is threatening his preferred state of the nation, and he disagrees with the policy goals of the new administration. From dictionary.com - to differ in sentiment or opinion, esp. from the majority; sounds exactly like what Limbaugh did.

Of course he wants Obama to fail - he's like every other blind partisan in the world - if they're on the other team, here's hoping everything goes to hell in a handbasket on their watch so we can be the white knights.

I take issue with the media acting like this is somehow un-American all of a sudden. For every person with a legitimate gripe against Bush, there was some other wacknut who screaming nonsense of soem type or another. Same deal with Clinton. I'm too young to remember Bush I, but I'm guessing it was the same then to.

Kusotarre said...

Limbaugh want's 4 years of Obama failing to fix their economy.

Gee, I wonder what the social and personal side effects of that might entail.

Cameron Campbell said...

ALL OF A SUDDEN? ALL OF A SUDDEN!!!

Holy motherfucking jumping jesus on a pogo stick, WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS?

If we on the left didn't immediatly begin rimming Bush or the nearest conservative when his name was mentioned we were being anti-american.

ALL OF A SUDDEN?

CC, you're right. They are all crazy over there in BT land,

CC said...

Take a deep breath, Cameron ... this is why we here in not-crazy land refuse to engage those folks -- they're simply not worth engaging.

Any thoughtful and nuanced attempt to disagree with Bush/GOP policy for the last eight years was met with screams of "Traitor! Terrorist-lover! Troop-hater!"

And now, you have that festering sack of pus Rush Limbaugh just coming out and making it clear, "I want Obama to fail." And, somehow, hey, that's his right, free speech and all that.

Let it go, Cameron. We can't fix these people. We can only point them out so that others can avoid them.

Siscoe said...

Any thoughtful and nuanced attempt to disagree with Bush/GOP policy for the last eight years was met with screams of "Traitor! Terrorist-lover! Troop-hater!"

And now, you have that festering sack of pus Rush Limbaugh just coming out and making it clear, "I want Obama to fail." And, somehow, hey, that's his right, free speech and all that.


Point out the instance where I said you don't have that right - I'd love to see it. Heck - find an instance when I called someone a traitor for the simple act of dissent (as opposed, of course, to actually siding with the enemy), and I'll apologize.

Of course you have the right; that's free speech. I didn't come over and scream that you don't have the right to say the stuff you do about me - of course you do.

Anyway - Ti-Guy posted something thoughtful on my site, very much in opposition to a commenter but respectful nonetheless - I came over to see what the debate was about - you all decided to "point [me] out so that others can avoid [me]". Fair enough, I'll wander away.

Quick note to Cameron, though: You seem rather jumpy, kind of agitated. I'd either up the meds or try to get some exercise to work off all that energy.

Cameron Campbell said...

A quick note right back: real address so I can six the CMA on you.

8 years of being called a terrorist, of being told that I support saddam, of having any real disent described as Bush Derangement Syndrome (as if people who live in kookoo fantasyland are in a position to diagnose mental illness) has left me with a bit of a hair trigger.

Siscoe said...

A quick note right back: real address so I can six the CMA on you.

Yeah, I don't really know what this means. Do you mean 'sic' the CMA on me? And if so, why? Did I let me union dues go unpaid or something? Oh, and asking for a 'real address' to do anything is just kind of lame - the tough guy on the internet thing went out of vogue a while ago.

8 years of being called a terrorist, of being told that I support saddam, of having any real disent described as Bush Derangement Syndrome (as if people who live in kookoo fantasyland are in a position to diagnose mental illness) has left me with a bit of a hair trigger.

Well that all depends on what you've said in the past - but again, it wasn't me, so projecting your rage onto me probably won't help.

And by the way - using the 'they did it first, so we can do it now' argument is kind of a pathetic way to go through life.

Ti-Guy said...

Point out the instance where I said you don't have that right - I'd love to see it.

It's not about you personally, but about your unbalanced observation about dissent and *smart* people are sick and tired of it. Conservative Americans don't even know what dissenters are anymore, since they've been disappeared from public discourse. How many times have you seen Noam Chomsky or Bill Ayers or Barbara Ehrenreich or Lewis Lapham on teevee in the last few years? And it's creeping up into Canada, with this shrieking about the "liberal media" when people as apolitical and un-extreme as Maude Barlow and David Suzuki are thought of as far-left radicals.

My advice is to stop watching American television news for at least a year until some sanity is restored (although I doubt that will happen). It only makes you crazier.

psa said...

hmm. siscoe, please forgive the occasional outbursts that will occur over the present period of adjustment. cameron is quite correct detailing the loudest and most obnoxious, rote insults being spun by the righter nuts of wing.

it has been a very effective tactic for conservative commentators to look at an issue, say support of continuing the mission in afghanistan. if you doubt the wisdom of remaining in the conflict... you don't support the troops, you hate our boys that are fighting for your freedom, you love terrorists like dirty jack layton, you're a commie, pinko bastard. you're not a real canadian, you hate our country ya damn traitor.

issue after issue, the same game gets played. it is petty and small and it works... for a while. the leftward leaners have spent the better part of a decade having to defend themselves first against skewed arguments, outright lies and ludicrous smears before any issue under debate actually got consideration. then when we raise a point, because the previously stated slur is a matter of record, obviously we can't have any credibility.

funny but the much maligned pinko/left has been a damn sight more economically successful than the conservatives. and it has been the cons spending like drunks at a titty bar pretending to know what they're doing. they slashed their own revenue stream whilst pillaging the coffers. if the left was tax and spend, at least the bottom line got covered. cut tax but spend big anyway makes a lot less sense.

point is there is a difference between forms of dissent. the left has fought hard against policies against politicians and personalities. that is the nature of politics. we fight for our issues and interests and we get slagged off as traitors. and that is where the divergence occurs. we're fighting on point for policy and direction. what rush has done is state that he wants the president of the united states of america to fail. the president's mission is to guide the ship of state through this very troubled time. and rush wants the ship to capsize and be dashed. and just who is he willing to see go down with that ship to get his partisan way?

even as a canadian, i understand the sort of very american patriotism that is being piddled on by the world's loudest sex tourist. it shouldn't matter whether they are democrat or republican, if the president fails, the nation fails with them. that's not dissent in the truest sense. you don't intentionally smash you're car because you don't like the cd that's playing. that is foolish, self-destructive, antisocial and anti-american.

Siscoe said...

ti-guy - I would argue that some of those on your list of American dissenters are not too far out of public view - Chomsky in particular seems to always have a book in the front of the Borders I go to in Buffalo, on the best sellers list.

Someone like Ayers has made the bed he currently lies in - he founded the Weathermen Underground, they bombed a couple of different places on the US East Coast. He's admitted these things, so if people want to question his patriotism, they've got a leg to stand on.

Wrt to the 'creeping' into Canada, the shrieking occurs on both sides. I'm not about to defend it, because frankly its tiring and we should be better than that.

As to watching American news - I try to avoid it at all costs these days. I watch neither CNN, nor Fox, nor MSNBC. At least not anymore. And I feel better about it already.

psa - all very interesting. My guess is you (and ti-guy, CC and Cameron) and I will agree on very little. Over the life of my blog I'd like to think I'm getting better at avoiding the petty crap which bogs down Canadian politics in the hole its in. I've tried to stop reading the worst offenders (like Kinsella) because it's not entertaining. And although I wholeheartedly disagree with many f your opinions, I always find it interesting to do the debate thing.

Anyway, I appreciate both points of view. Thanks for taking the time.

Ti-Guy said...

I would argue that some of those on your list of American dissenters are not too far out of public view - Chomsky in particular seems to always have a book in the front of the Borders I go to in Buffalo, on the best sellers list.

He's rarely on network television. The old joke goes that for the networks to be "balanced" they'd have to invite 35 rigthwingers onto the same panel as Chomsky.

Someone like Ayers has made the bed he currently lies in - he founded the Weathermen Underground, they bombed a couple of different places on the US East Coast. He's admitted these things, so if people want to question his patriotism, they've got a leg to stand on.

You're missing the point. That's what a dissenter looks like. I don't care for any of these hippy holdovers myself, but if you like dissent (and I do), that's what you have to put up with.

Wrt to the 'creeping' into Canada, the shrieking occurs on both sides.

Well, when you have two sides shrieking, one side has to stop. And until the Right gets its tone under control, it's not going to be the rest of us. We're lucky that our mainstream media, television at least, doesn't have much tolerance for the shrieking; lets keep it that way.