Union Fleebaggers Get Violent; Media Doesn't Notice

The media is forever calling upon Republicans to denounce strident language. Their theory is, as far as I can tell, that moral norms are established by group consent, so if a group gives its implicit blessing to political violence, a very important restraint on human action is removed and political violence becomes more likely.

If political violence is what they seek to avoid, then of course they should patrol their own group for strident language -- Did you know Governor Walker was Hitler? Odd, I sure heard how dangerous this message was when applied to Obama -- to insure that the group for whom they help establish moral norms doesn't get the idea that violence is okay, either.

And if one of their own assaults a five-foot-two girl, they should certainly say something about that.

“This just can’t be tolerated anymore. It’s one thing to be called a violent teabagger. It’s another to be called a violent teabagger while you’re being assaulted. They’ve been comparing themselves to the Egyptians ousting Mubarak. Looks like they’re not too far off, given that they share the tendency to assault women with cameras.”

Jim Treacher dares the left to defend this miscreant. Enter George Soros token hire Oliver Willis (scan down) to call the incident "manufactured."

One thing I notice as a political writer is the usefulness of imprecise and vague words. What does "manufactured" mean? Checking the idiot token's oevure, I notice him using that word a lot. Can we be more specific?

"Manufactured" is a slippery term indeed because it embraces a very fat range of meanings. It can be a literal term -- something can be literally manufactured, created in whole. It can be more figurative -- we say something is "manufactured" if it's incited by craftiness. In baseball, they speak of "manufacturing" runs, by which they mean relying on less-spectacular methods of run production such as the combination of a walk, a steal, and a sacrifice fly.

Or "manufactured" may refer to the outrage over an incident, which is postulated to be false, and not the actual incident itself.

So a fat, dull, talentless hack like Oliver Willis can offer a general denial of an incident without really specifying in what particular way he denies it. He claims it's "manufactured." What does this mean? We don't know, and in all likelihood, neither does he. Being obese of mind as well as body, he is lazy and hasn't bothered to figure it out.

But he knows that his job relies upon him vomiting a steady stream of propaganda (as well as half-digested Filet O'Fishes), and so he obliges with a meaningless statement that pleases the leftist lunatics he preaches too and dissatisfies anyone with a working intellect.

The media slips an awful lot past the public with the word "context." They frequently claim they don't carry stories like this because the "context" doesn't support making it worthy of mention.

What does "context" mean? Well, it actually means additional information that sheds a different light on the known information. So what specific information are they referring to when they vaguely dismiss a story as not news worthy when one considers the "context"? What context do you specifically mean?

They don't say because they wish to be vague -- which is the difference between a true writer or reporter and a political operative. Vagueness and verbal fog are hateful to a writer; but they are the stock in trade of a political operative.

What "context" does the media have in mind when it tanks this story? I can think of several possibilities, not a one of which would the media dare admit to be the additional information they're considering "in context" when spiking the story. So that is why they won't specify these, and insist on the Silly Putty word "context."

1. We don't have to patrol the left for violence because the left is entirely non-violent and law-abiding. This assumption is of course false on its face and absurd even in postulation.

2. We don't have to patrol the left for violence because we have such moral certitude about the goodness of our ends that we are justified in using otherwise-immoral means, such as violence, to attain them.

As 1 is false on its face (check the videotape), I can only assume they mean 2, and can only assume then that "in context" they consider some lives to be less worthy of protection than others. That, given the choice between protecting people on the right from the infectious idea that violence is permissible by soundly rejecting it or accepting the benefits of some intimidation, thuggery, violence and even political murder, they choose the latter.

"Context." "Manufactured." Those who don't wish to say the truth -- and those who don't even wish to know the truth, to discover the horrors they actually believe in -- content themselves with such evasions.

Thinking men and women reject them, push past the gauzy haze of such vague words and demand to know (including demanding to know of themselves) what these words actually mean and what assumptions, precisely, we believe in.

If an assumption is too odious to be stated aloud -- there is a very good chance that assumption is false and hateful, isn't there?

What honest intellect needs to resort to lies and obfuscation about his actual philosophy?

More Hate? I think this one is a bit ticky-tack but the anti-American, violent leftists and the media (but I repeat myself) highlight such ticky-tack infractions when it's in their interest so here's a Fleabagger calling a good American "a bad Jew."

This isn't about the anti-semitism so much as it's about the (of course unstated) assumptions packed within: That ethnic authenticity requires fidelity to a certain political party.

Yeah, that's a big one for them. And yet they rarely state it explicitly, because they realize how odious it sounds when stated clearly. So instead they just imply it. "Uncle Tom," etc.

If your beliefs are good and true, why must you hide them in the basement like whores and thieves?

"Edited:" There's another political-operative evasion which was used by the anti-American, violent leftist and the media (but I repeat myself) to suggest that Breitbart's ACORN sting wasn't real.

See, it was "edited."

What does that mean? In what way was it edited? News is edited; "edited" alone doesn't make it false.

Please specify the precise ways in which you claim it was edited which makes it false.

They've never been able to claim the conversations didn't occur precisely as presented. When they got specific (after months of vaguely saying "edited") it turns out their one example of falseness was interstititial/set-up footage of James O'Keefe dressed as an outrageous pimp stereotype in walking down the street, when in fact he wasn't dressed that way at ACORN.

But that was lampoon, and furthermore, the guy says directly to ACORN that he is a pimp and has a stable of whores, many underage. So in what way is this "edited" in such a way to undermine the basic story?

Answer: In no way. But they just keep on repeating the vague word "edited" and rely on their leftist propaganda consumers to supply their own meaning to to the word.

And:

And they also assume that the right side of the spectrum is comprised of people who, by definition (since they do not accept the politics of the left) are intellectually challenged and insensitive at best; or more likely evil, knuckle dragging, bigoted, hate-mongers. -- RM

Very true, and I sure wish they would state this assumption forthrightly so we can have an open and straight debate about it, rather than it always being gauzily implied as a secret assumption.

But they can't confess that assumption, since their false claim of objectivity would of course be scorched to dust by such an admission. You can't claim I'm objective and neutral as between lovely, intelligent human beings and Evil Monsters.

We are Evil Monsters in their eyes, and this is the open-secret assumption that is the special "context" that actually justifies, in their minds, the double-standard. But because they refuse to state it openly, we have proxy fights over the elephant in the room.

"Sometimes You Have To Get Out Into The Streets And Get A Little Bloody, When Necessary." And he said this flanked by a Democratic Congressman.

Hate speech? Dangerous? Well, dangerous to the right people. So long as leftists are protected from political violence, have a party.

posted by Ace at 01:04 PM

| Access Comments