To: Senator Inhofe
From: Mitch Berg
Re: Deaths of a thousand cuts.
Senator Inhofe,
Not that it matters, but when you say…:
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma says he doesn’t need an eye exam or a hearing aid and that he clearly remembers hearing Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Hillary Clinton of New York talk about the need for a “legislative fix” to curb conservative talk radio.
…I believe you without reservation. It’s totally in character for both of them – Senator Boxer, who since Mark Dayton left office is the dumbest person in the Senate and needs to have all opposition silence by government fiat, and Senator Clinton, at whose thought the body of Niccolo Macchiavelli cringes in horror.
But little things like this…:
But Inhofe now says the conversation he overheard took place three years ago, not “the other day,” as he told KFI talk radio host John Ziegler on Thursday night.
…will kill you. Because while any reasonable person can understand that for most people “the other day” is a midwestern synonym for “past tense”, you’re dealing with liberals, lawyers and the media, here.
And so to them, now, it’s not about whether you heard the Senators plotting to muzzle talk radio. No…:
Boxer early Friday said the Oklahoma senator “needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked” if he thinks he heard her and Clinton having a conversation about talk radio.
After Inhofe clarified his remarks, Boxer’s spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, added:
“Perhaps he should have his memory checked too. I don’t know anyone who thinks three years ago was ‘the other day.'”
…now, the only issue the media will care about, to the extent that they care at all (given that talk radio is the competition) will be your “flub”. Never mind that both Boxer and Clinton are actively working to tie the First Amendment to a pool table and sodomize it…:
“I’ve been telling this story for three years and told this story 100 times,” the Oklahoma Republican told FOXNews.com. “I have it memorized … I tell it the same way every time because it gets a very good reaction.”
…because to them, and the peabrains who listen to them, the exact timing of the story will be the story.
Remember; it’s like arguing with a moderately bright but spoiled nine-year-old; “Yesterday you said we’d have ice cream someday soon, and the other day you said “soon means like a day”, so you have to get ice cream now”.
Don’t let this happen again.
That is all.
“Because while any reasonable person can understand that for most people “the other day” is a midwestern synonym for “past tense”, you’re dealing with liberals, lawyers and the media, here.”
Zat so? You sure you don’t mean a synonym used by brain-damaged or retarded midwesterners?
Or am I being redundant?
Maybe we should analyze the typeface of Inhofe’s office stationery. Or quiz him on his precise proximity to the Cambodian border when he made the statement.
Or Angryclown could just paraphrase that book by his favorite author, The Bible, by Jesus H. Christ, and point out that you reap what you sow, wingnuts.
You want we should all cut Inhofe some slack for lying about when a conversation that only wingnuts actually believe took place? With all due respect, fsck you.
Angryclown worried “Or am I being redundant?” in insulting a huge swath of America in another disgusting display of bigotry, to which I feel compelled to respond. When have you ever been anything but redundant? You have yet to display one original thought or actual position, preferring to present your effete snobbery in the form of juxtaposition with “wingnuts” that you have obvious contempt for. And all the while carping on a website you disagree with written by someone you claim to be a friend. A website that no one forces you to visit (although several people would like to do the opposite).
In other words, you are a supreme personification of a Liberal: arrogant, self-satisfied, contemptuous and more than a little bit masochistic.
They can have you.
It’s a darn shame when a centrist (everybody looks loony-left when you’re on the right-wing fringe), indulges in some of the rhetorical tactics you on the right have perfected. I’ll take you seriously, Kerm, when you raise the faintest word of protest to the online thuggery of folks like swiftee. Or disagree with the continual “alpaca-sipping, latte-wearing” caricatures of people who disagree with you. Until then, Angryclown can only judge that it’s the contrary opinions, not the manner in which they’re expressed, that you don’t like.
Mitch is free to ask Angryclown to leave at any time, a request that would be immediately honored. Then you’ll have your little online rightwing clubhouse where you can slag everyone to the left of Mussolini without fear of contradiction. That doesn’t seem to be what Mitch wants. But who knows? Maybe you will convince him. Until then you can expect, in the words of a late, great resident of Minneapolis:
“A little song, A little dance, A little seltzer down your pants.”
Your right Mitch. I think the real story here is that Inhofe reports that he addressed Senators Clinton and Boxer as “gals”, that anything that might be considered a balance to Limbaugh et al is “liberal tripe” and that there is no market for the progressive view.
Good point, Doug. I was saying the same thing to Sen. Kefauver the other day.
angryclown said:
“I’ll take you seriously, Kerm, when you raise the faintest word of protest to the online thuggery of folks like swiftee”
I would like to point out that you seem able to hold your own in the “online thuggery” department, angryclown. Also, it may not be reasonable to expect everyone to your right to “protest” everyone to your right with whom you happen to disagree.
That said, I sincerely look forward to reading what you have to say on a daily basis. It wouldn’t be the same without you, angryclown. 🙂
Shorter Blogger Berg on ‘How to Argue with Liberals’
!) Call them names
2) Ignore the truth whenever convenient
3) Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Flash
“I’ll take you seriously, Kerm, when you raise the faintest word of protest to the online thuggery of folks like swiftee”
No, you won’t. Let me point out that swiftee aims his barbs directly at you, wheras you slime whole groups of people on the basis of geographical location. That’s called bigotry, isn’t it?
“Angryclown can only judge that it’s the contrary opinions, not the manner in which they’re expressed, that you don’t like.”
No, it’s really the delivery. I deal with contrary opinions on a daily basis. If I didn’t like them, I wouldn’t blog. We debate constantly over at the Homepage, rarely with the contempt you display.
“Shorter Blogger Berg on ‘How to Argue with Liberals’
!) Call them names
2) Ignore the truth whenever convenient
3) Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Flash”
Good Lord, swap out “Liberals” with “Conservatives,” and you have the template for Daily Kos, Oliver Willis and pretty much every liberal blogger this side of Jeff Fecke.
Trojan Man said: “I would like to point out that you seem able to hold your own in the “online thuggery” department, angryclown.”
I appreciate the compliment, Trojan Man. Angryclown is a clown of peace, but is not one for unilateral disarmament (sort of like Jesus would be if He were a pissed-off clown).
Angryclown will retire “wingnut” as soon as the wingnuts retire “moonbat.” Angryclown will stop the broad swipes at Little House on the Prarie-land (“another disgusting display of bigotry,” fretted Kerm) as soon as you all stop broad insults of liberals and people on the coasts. Not likely anytime soon, in other words.
angryclown said:
“…as soon as you all stop broad insults of liberals and people on the coasts.”
But I thought you were a “centrist”? 😉
But if moonbat is to be retired, what to call those who believe (not just say for political gain, but actually believe) that 9/11 was a controlled inside demolition job? That Bush is worse than Hitler? That Cheney is worse than Bush. That Rove is the anti-christ? That Castro and Chavez has some really good ideas and should be models for what we strive for? Moonbat serves a purpose. Now if wingnut was reserved for those who were convinced that Clinton was AR biggest cocaine dealer, or that he was setting the USA up for an invasion of the UN back in 2000 I could see continued use. However, broadly applied to anyone that doesnt live in NYC seems a bit much.
Angryclown is a centrist, Troy. But liberals are fairly defenseless, so they need an enraged clown to protect them. Plus they mean well.
Not all of them.
“Plus they mean well.”
Two words: Rosie O’Donnell.
Rosie O’Donnell is an evil harpie. She’s the exception. Liberals are generally soft-hearted people with heads to match. That makes most of them nicer than conservatives, the majority of whom are mean people.
and yet they seem to donate to charity more than liberals. How to explain?
That creationism museum was very expensive.
So … angryclown is like the liberal Zorro, but with a seltzer bottle instead of a bendy sword?
Shorter Blogger Berg on ‘How to Argue with Liberals’
!) Call them names
2) Ignore the truth whenever convenient
3) Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Hm. Interesting theory.
Of course, none of it applies here: I’ve called nobody names, and the truth is whatever Inhofe heard.
Thanks for playing, though.
The creation museum is feeding the poor in this country and helping those poor people in Africa? Geeze, now I feel bad about making fun of it.
“and yet they seem to donate to charity more than liberals. How to explain?”
Because Libs expect Government to take care of everything so they can go about their socially conscious, alpaca-drinking, latte-wearing, Godless lives?
I don’t think it’s the conservatives “feeding the poor in this country and helping those poor people in Africa,” buzzkill. Trying to convert ’em to Jesus maybe. And of course your rich Republicans keep the opera singers in twinkies and Viking hats.
have you not followed the surveys and polls in who gives in America? I would have assumed a well-informed clown would be up to date on this. I will try to find the links as I know a conservative such as myself might make up this stuff, but as it turns out the liberals are very generous with other peoples money and the conservatives are more generous with their own. Huh. And its not opera so much any more. For me its been Ween and the flaming lips this past couple of years, although admittedly I probably am the only conservative in their fan base.
Here you go, buddy.
A little excerpt:
“The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.”
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116458874558333139.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323
dammit, I sent a bunch of links and they disappeared. I will try again.
Try this again.
Here is an excerpt:
The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116458874558333139.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323
ok, third time is the charm.
Here is an excerpt:
The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
http: //www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
http: //online.wsj.com/article/SB116458874558333139.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323
Alrighty. 4th time with fewer characters?
Here is an excerpt:
The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323
buzz, He doesn’t care.
Of course, none of it applies here: I’ve called nobody names…
June 11: “The usual pack of clowns got the nod…”
May 22: “Not that he’s a DFL monkey or anything…”
May 21: “You were, are, and shall always be a morally repugnant scumbag.”
March 30: “Schmuck. “
Feb. 13: “(Learned)Foot – an actual lawyer…”
Feb. 13: “…nominate this hamster.“
Nice job, Tim66.
You’re right, Kerm, Angryclown prefers mockery to debate in this venue. But the idea that one of you fellows might attempt to post facts in support of an argument has Angryclown all atwitter. Link away, buzzkill. Angryclown will honor you by yoking his mighty intellect and considering your purported evidence.
And Kerm, thank you for remember to capitalize your pronouns when referring to Me.
I’m all about decorum. You seem to thrive on emphasis.
In this post:
1) Senator Boxer, who since Mark Dayton left office is the dumbest person in the Senate
2) Senator Clinton, at whose thought the body of Niccolo Macchiavelli cringes in horror
3) and the peabrains who listen to them
4) a moderately bright but spoiled nine-year-old;
as for this:
“”“the other day” is a midwestern synonym for “past tense”””
No, it means the other day, like the last day or two, maybe three. But weeks, sorry!
well, I sent it 4 times and none of them posted. Dammit. Well, if you google “conservative charity”, or “Arthur Brooks” you will see the information I was talking about. Or better yet, tell me what I am doing wrong trying to post links. Oh, and I never heard Boxer was the dumbest person in the senate after Dayton left office, I had always heard Boxer was the dumbest person pretty much since she was first elected.
buzz-
I think that WordPress only allows one or two links at a time. Comment spam prevention.
I don’t think Tim66 get any points, but only because he probably took ‘here’ for ‘this blog’ and not ‘this post’ (which is what I think flash was referring to in his first post).
I think flash gets one point though for #3, but #1, #2, and #4 do not fit “Call them names” definition. They may not be complimentary characterizations, but since flash wrote the definition in the first place, I don’t feel bad about holding him to it in a strict sense.
Now “the other day”? When someone says that to me it makes me think of a day in the recent past, maybe within the last month. On the other hand, “the other day” is nothing if not imprecise, and says the speaker doesn’t believe the exact time of the event is all that important. *shrug*
Here’s one you neglected to link to, buzzkill:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/12/10/who_gives/
angryclown, I am not shocked that a reporter from the Boston Globe found people with doubts about Arthur Brooks book.
But Professor Jim Lindgren’s point is countered by the correction, and “correcting for cost of living and tax burden” as Boston College’s John Havens does seems to be a self serving way to analyze charitable giving. Also, I am thoroughly unimpressed with the reporting of what an MIT economist “suspects”. At the end of it all, the article doesn’t live up to the hype of what sits above the byline.
Here’s that correction at the bottom of the article:
“(Correction: Because of reporting errors, the Critical Faculties column (“Who gives”) in the Dec. 10 Ideas section misstated two figures cited in the book “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks. According to the book, of those citizens who attend worship services irregularly or not at all, 66 percent give to charity, not 71 percent as the article stated. In addition, the book states that 71 percent of weekly worshi pers give to nonreligious charities, not 66 percent, as the article said. Also, the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, on which the book’s author draws, is based on local samples in 42 communities, collectively totaling 26,200 individuals, plus a national sample of 3,000 — not on just 3,000 residents in those 42 communities.)”
I forgot, Trojan Man. Any source that disagrees with you is biased. “Beliefnet” is a much more neutral source.
As for the correction, if you don’t think there’s any difference between “the other day” and “three years ago,” Angryclown doesn’t think you’d care about a few numerical mistakes.
Actually I don’t care about it too much, angryclown. I just wanted to pick on your source. I’m sorry for being so mean. 🙂
I thought I clearly explained what “the other day” means to me, angryclown, but I guess I did not make it clear that that I also think “the other day” could mean different things to different people. For some it is three days tops, for me it is considerably longer.
Does the phrase “the other day” mean three years to me? No , it doesn’t. Do you want to say there no possibility that “the other day” could mean a day three years ago? I won’t, but you go ahead and play the “English Nazi” if you think that’s the right thing to do. *shrug*
Angryclown is confident that, if Obama or Schumer had come out with “the other day” claiming to mean three years ago, you would totally have cut them some slack. Because that’s the kind of fair, even-handed guy you are, Trojan Man.
Point taken, angryclown. I do try to be fair and even-handed, for the most part anyway, but I’ll admit I might be less forgiving of an Obama or Schumer than an Inhofe. However, I probably would not come crashing through the gate with a “fsck you” if you tried to defend them, if only because it seems such a small transgression.
I’d probably just call them soft-headed. 😉
“Fsck you” was probably a little over the top, Trojan Man. On the other hand, Angryclown is, like many supergeniuses, a mercurial character. And it’s not a bad thing that extreme right-wingers like yourself don’t know exactly when Angryclown will be all up in your grills. For example, try saying something bad about Sinatra and Angryclown will be all over you like spit on a baby.
Isn’t Sinatra all corpsified and gross now? *runs*