YouTube is changing the game. Adapt or die.
Rant Roundup
MSM rally to "government is broken" meme:
Government is only "broken" b/c the MSM have rallied around the meme. Dems are not delivering what the MSM want, and therefore the MSM are thumb sucking the "government is broken" meme.
Government is not broken. What the MSM want is too far left and/or too-much-too-fast for even the Dems to rally around in sufficient numbers. Lots of Repubs are willing to be picked off by skillful Dem political action: the Maine sisters, Grassley - yet Dems have not been skillful enough to rally even Dems in sufficient numbers, much less pick off Repubs.
Cue Jack Nicholson - the left/Dems/Obama can't handle the truth about what America wants:
The left/progressives/Dems/Obama are in psychological denial: are unwilling to face the truth that the nation, by large margins, doesn't want comprehensive health care reform. It matters not that voters favor single issues which comprise parts of a comprehensive plan: voters are frightened at the thought of instituting large numbers of those single issue changes all at once - and properly so: if some or many of the changes are failures, then the nation is worse off. Voters, wisely, prefer to make fewer changes, then see how things go. It's a bitter truth for the left. Yet, it is truth, even for people who do not believe in truth. Polling numbers could not be plainer. It's not that voters don't understand: voters understand exactly, and exactly reject the comprehensive approach.
Cue John Lennon, and imagine, imagine, imagine your opponents are motivated by malevolence:
As for the meme that "wingnuts" are intentionally wrecking the nation in order to regain power: I wish I could read minds as well as the left can. It's not clear, at all, that comprehensive health care reform is the best way to go. If it was clear, then the left would not have to read minds, and could instead expend it's mental energy on destroying the feeble reasoning of those who opposed the shining light which would be comprehensive health care - yet is not, b/c of that nagging problem of it not being at all clear whether comprehensive health care will help the nation or damage the nation. If "wingnuts" are intentionally damaging the nation, then the left has no need to debate the issues. Such circumstance, for the left, would be comforting and self-validating - which is why the left keeps imagining it to be truth.
Given an opportunity to care about corruption, the left choose to fantasize about McCain's motivation:
The left's constant supposition about the right's motivation does not help the left. The attempt to read John McCain's Health Care Summit motive, i.e. "He wants revenge on Pres. Obama!", is an example. No one knows McCain's heart, therefore no one knows McCain's motive beyond what McCain represents his motive to be: duty, honor, country. OTOH, McCain's argument was in the open: the bill is untenable, partially due to corrupt deals which are built into it. McCain's argument is plain. If McCain's plain argument is plainly wrong, the left ought refute it, ought make quick work of it. Does the left ever THINK about their arguments? Here's their argument: when McCain points to inarguable corruption inside the bill - how dare he?! He's only pointing to corruption b/c he hates Obama!
Limbaugh = expert at marketing an intellectual and entertaining product:
The use of Limbaugh -- to justify accusing the right of malicious obstruction -- is either ignorant or deceptive. Limbaugh provoked: "I want him to fail!", yet Limbaugh later made his meaning clear: Limbaugh wants Obama to fail to institute Obama's policies b/c Limbaugh knows Obama's policies cannot succeed. Limbaugh was being provocative, yet was also being intellectually honest: it would be dishonest for Limbaugh to hope for the success of a hopeless cause. When the magazine asked Limbaugh: "Do you hope Pres. Obama succeeds?", what was Limbaugh to do? He chose to be intellectually honest, and he chose - for entertainment and marketing purposes - to be provocative. Limbaugh never chose to wish bad things for America, never chose to obstruct for obstruction's sake. The argument that he did is both a losing argument and another example of fantasy.
Partisanship is good:
It's a feature, not a bug.
Rant Roundup
MSM rally to "government is broken" meme:
Government is only "broken" b/c the MSM have rallied around the meme. Dems are not delivering what the MSM want, and therefore the MSM are thumb sucking the "government is broken" meme.
Government is not broken. What the MSM want is too far left and/or too-much-too-fast for even the Dems to rally around in sufficient numbers. Lots of Repubs are willing to be picked off by skillful Dem political action: the Maine sisters, Grassley - yet Dems have not been skillful enough to rally even Dems in sufficient numbers, much less pick off Repubs.
Cue Jack Nicholson - the left/Dems/Obama can't handle the truth about what America wants:
The left/progressives/Dems/Obama are in psychological denial: are unwilling to face the truth that the nation, by large margins, doesn't want comprehensive health care reform. It matters not that voters favor single issues which comprise parts of a comprehensive plan: voters are frightened at the thought of instituting large numbers of those single issue changes all at once - and properly so: if some or many of the changes are failures, then the nation is worse off. Voters, wisely, prefer to make fewer changes, then see how things go. It's a bitter truth for the left. Yet, it is truth, even for people who do not believe in truth. Polling numbers could not be plainer. It's not that voters don't understand: voters understand exactly, and exactly reject the comprehensive approach.
Cue John Lennon, and imagine, imagine, imagine your opponents are motivated by malevolence:
As for the meme that "wingnuts" are intentionally wrecking the nation in order to regain power: I wish I could read minds as well as the left can. It's not clear, at all, that comprehensive health care reform is the best way to go. If it was clear, then the left would not have to read minds, and could instead expend it's mental energy on destroying the feeble reasoning of those who opposed the shining light which would be comprehensive health care - yet is not, b/c of that nagging problem of it not being at all clear whether comprehensive health care will help the nation or damage the nation. If "wingnuts" are intentionally damaging the nation, then the left has no need to debate the issues. Such circumstance, for the left, would be comforting and self-validating - which is why the left keeps imagining it to be truth.
Given an opportunity to care about corruption, the left choose to fantasize about McCain's motivation:
The left's constant supposition about the right's motivation does not help the left. The attempt to read John McCain's Health Care Summit motive, i.e. "He wants revenge on Pres. Obama!", is an example. No one knows McCain's heart, therefore no one knows McCain's motive beyond what McCain represents his motive to be: duty, honor, country. OTOH, McCain's argument was in the open: the bill is untenable, partially due to corrupt deals which are built into it. McCain's argument is plain. If McCain's plain argument is plainly wrong, the left ought refute it, ought make quick work of it. Does the left ever THINK about their arguments? Here's their argument: when McCain points to inarguable corruption inside the bill - how dare he?! He's only pointing to corruption b/c he hates Obama!
Limbaugh = expert at marketing an intellectual and entertaining product:
The use of Limbaugh -- to justify accusing the right of malicious obstruction -- is either ignorant or deceptive. Limbaugh provoked: "I want him to fail!", yet Limbaugh later made his meaning clear: Limbaugh wants Obama to fail to institute Obama's policies b/c Limbaugh knows Obama's policies cannot succeed. Limbaugh was being provocative, yet was also being intellectually honest: it would be dishonest for Limbaugh to hope for the success of a hopeless cause. When the magazine asked Limbaugh: "Do you hope Pres. Obama succeeds?", what was Limbaugh to do? He chose to be intellectually honest, and he chose - for entertainment and marketing purposes - to be provocative. Limbaugh never chose to wish bad things for America, never chose to obstruct for obstruction's sake. The argument that he did is both a losing argument and another example of fantasy.
Partisanship is good:
It's a feature, not a bug.
Related: Democrat Dan Gerstein, a former staffer to Joe Lieberman, looks at the Dems' health care dilemma with clear eyes.
`
`
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment