Bloggers report nut-jobs poll created on Facebook, then offer creepy anti-conservative diatribe

(A comment on a good move that instantaneously turns smelly-bad by authors of a rail-jumping 'Slobbering Blog')

An idiot Facebook user created a poll asking users if our president, Barack Obama, should be violently offed, wasted, done away. Pure madness, right? Happily, some loyal Obama supporters with a blog were aware and activist enough, when they noticed this thing, to not vote in it (I assume they didn't), but instead report it to the Secret Service.

What an adult, awesome thing to do, huh? I thought so too. Then I read their blog.

Say these saviors of all of us from a vile FB weeny, on their blog:

"The hate speech, the threats have gotten completely out of hand. And those who have incited viewers and listeners.. (here I omitted the non-liberal targets of their opinions)... are responsible for a good part of this horrific activity."

Oh, COMPLETELY out of hand! Yes! Horrible! This FB poll by some college dweeb, this is just one tiny little SIGN that the nation is much more dangerous with conservatives saying things of a broad, anti-leftist and/or anti-statist variety! They marched, for goodness sake! And in Washington, DC! Who marches in DC but scary people! (Like Christian fathers, or a million -- or so -- black men, or ... members of the military.)

These Thomas Paines of blogging go on, with great knowing: "No, it is not 'grassroots', not even close. It is a sick, terrifying, dangerous movement toward violence and the worst kind of civil unrest."

You know, that worst kind of civil unrest: the organized, overwhelmingly tame, and nonpolluting kind. Why, what else could that be but the WORST? Else the accusations and paranoia of these bloggers would be ... completely illogical, utter silliness! (Note: the impish exception is not the rule; the rule is the rule. Look into it.)

These modern Samuel Adamses go on: "The same "party leaders" who get their rocks off by pretending to be macho and exerting their windbaggy, wrongheaded power will one day come to realize that killing is real, not just a word on a Facebook poll."

Huh! So what these people are saying is, life ISN'T video game! I've learned something here! I wonder if those guys who created that Bush assassination film (YouTube clip only) realized this? No way. They would never have made that movie if they understood death is REAL. I think these bloggers must be the first in years to appreciate the difference between irate stooges' antics and reality, in fact. They seem so sure if it, at least.

And finally, these entirely rational American heroes state, of the obvious leaders of all these millions of dangerous anti-tax, anti-big government activists (all actually racists longing for the days of separate water coolers and when only white blues musicians got paid fairly, it's sooo obvious): "Time to tame them. And time to demand that they tame their deranged, diseased herd of blind followers."

Oh, most definitely. Taming them and their millions of deranged, diseased followers!!!!!!

I am sooo glad the Internet has rational people like these bloggers around to help us all keep our rational, aluminum-foil-laced cowboy hat-covered noggins.

Here's the full post by these brainiacs, which effectively gets interesting at "Okay, that's it, I've had it."

- jR AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Nuanced: the new not making any sense

This piece is from 2007, and it is still irrelevant today.

FAIR, thanks to this sidebar and the connected article, is now on my list of "slobbering blogs", but only as a junior member.

Sidebar: Liberals Can’t Cut Talk Radio? - FAIR

Extra! January/February 2007

Sidebar: Liberals Can’t Cut Talk Radio?

By Steve Rendall

[Note: This piece is a sidebar to Rough Road to Liberal Talk Success.]

One talk radio talking point for conservatives and establishment observers alike is that progressive politics don’t “work” on talk radio because they are too nuanced and therefore not reducible to the sort of clear-cut moral terms that get talk radio audiences fired up. Anyone who believes this has never heard the likes of Michael Moore, Barbara Ehrenreich, Molly Ivins or Michael Eric Dyson (himself a successful local talk radio host in Chicago).

While touring in support of FAIR’s book The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error in the mid-’90s, I was accosted by one talkshow host after another with another conservative talking point: Liberals can’t do talk radio because they’re too humorless to be entertaining.

My response was to ask them why they thought this was true of talk radio, since it was the only entertainment venue where liberals weren’t prominent. They usually accepted my point, but instead of explaining why talk radio was different from other entertainment settings, they would usually begin citing the short list of talk radio liberals who had failed over the years.

They were right in saying that liberal hosts like former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and former California Gov. Jerry Brown were not particularly adept at talk radio. But these and better liberal hosts who’ve been canceled over the years were generally given little time to succeed, assigned poor time slots, or had shows that were wedged in between conservative shows, where it is hard for a liberal to build an audience (and not particularly good for the conservative host who follows the liberal, either). Looking back on the brief and ungenerous tryouts offered to liberal hosts over the years, it’s important to remember that Rush Limbaugh failed at radio for more than a decade before developing his winning formula.—S.R.

Looks like a grand bit of whining, to me, which is of course the primary ingredient in too many liberal arguments about free speech, and other rights that let their opposition have some sway. It is also proclaiming, without proclaiming it outright, that liberals are simply better at everything than conservatives. I presume that this is the case only if they are given the chance to succeed by trouncing the vast right-wing conspiracy to keep them from succeeding on radio. If given that chance -- by the presumed right-wing-only owners of radio stations everywhere -- liberals would be far better at it than conservatives.

Funny, then, that liberal politicians, for instance, must spend twice as much money than conservatives in most elections, whether they win or lose, and even when they lose big. First bit of evidence for that is Obama's victory while spending more than twice as much as McCain (as I recall it) to win by roughly six percent of the vote. Seems to me, that's a recipe for confusion, not expertise.

So the point to the blabbering above is something like this: since Rush struggled for ten years before becoming a widely accepted radio (and even briefly, TV) talker, that liberals, too, can struggle and succeed in radio. But they don't, except a few shining examples. And why? Apparently because, like Steve Rendall, liberal writers are indeed "too nuanced" -- or some less euphemistic term for being scatter-brained. (Translation: liberals are too muddy in use of logic, when it comes down to it, and they would bore an audience without the gross preparation not allowed by two to four hours live on the radio.) Whether I was arguing for the conservative success on radio, or the liberal failure on radio, I would argue that this guy's argument is avoiding reality and pledging for your sypathy for those poor, poor liberals who were not given a chance on radio.

So the point is that there is no point to claiming a conspiracy for right-wing radio success, or to the Fairness Doctrine or something like it since it would change nothing (even by this guy's own words in the article). So what is the point to the argument? I guess it is just too nuanced for me, or it is too propagandist for me to accept.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

The People's Voice: a babbling manifesto for the rest of, umm, them

Part 2 of series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog

The People's Voice

Need proof of the systemic rot eroding the very cores of our souls? Look no further than the meteoric rise of the grossly under-qualified, hyper-ambitious, morally retarded narcissist who still has a realistic chance to be one heart-beat away from ostensibly ruling the most powerful nation in the world. Palinesque tendencies to “drill, drill, drill,” exploit obscene technological advantages to “cull predatory species,” employ our “justice” system to accelerate the extinction of yet another species (to advance the interests of Big Oil no less), and perpetuate the murderous “sport” of hunting with the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt justifications of “necessity” and “cultural tradition” serve to shred our ridiculously thin façade of humanity and reveal the truly barbarous nature of Western “civilization” and the “American Way of Life.”

I'm sorry, were you saying something? I was busy watching the paint dry on my secret tree house.

If you think that I am simply anti-liberal, try again.

This site includes among its troupe of sensible activists a pack of mixed nuts who say the Internet as we know it will cease to exist in 2012, maybe sooner. One of them, a gal who wears a near dominatrix (but friendlier) outfit, was earlier offering to have sex with guys who sign on to the activist effort to keep the Net free. Virgins only, though. Sorry, Noam Chomsky.

And these people are taken seriously by someone out there. Awesome.

These people are genuine kooks! These are the folks that gun laws are created to protect... to protect others from them should their nut-job ideas and worries turn into urban assaults on the dangerous "enemy others" with their legally-procured guns (if you aren't diagnosed, you're still considered sane, sadly).


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Daily Banter: possibly the butt of progressive thought jokes

A new series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog


THE DAILY BANTER.COM

Ben Cohen is a ... progressive. Check that, he's a Democrat. No, no that's not it. Perhaps he's a whiner with severe daddy issues. No, that might be too generous, assuming there's some deep cause for his mental myopia. Cohen dislikes anyone who has a record of doing something that is not highly radical -- to the extents of Noam Chomsky-like psychobabble. Or so it would appear. Judge for yourself:

Professor Noam Chomsky has influenced my thinking more than any single person on earth. His speeches, interviews, articles, and books have profoundly changed the way I see the world, and I feel forever indebted to him for his contributions to human knowledge.

The MIT linguistic professor is regarded as the world's leading intellectual for good reason.

So Cohen calls the Bush legacy -- now a legacy is everything one has done, in this case an entire administration -- tragic. Not the usual -- and slightly rational -- war-mongering, or stumbling, but TRAGIC. He's young, his Cohen guy: it's cute to see how the adults fool the young ones so thoroughly.

This guy, and perhaps his cohorts on Banter, either read(s) too little or react(s) too dramatically and emotionally. I think it is likely they read too much in one direction, but mostly the latter. This is a far left, socialist-leaning pack of knee-jerkers. In other words, mistaken liberals who are actually socialist utopian cry babies.

He's such a whiner that independent senator Joe Lieberman is on his list of ten Democrats who need to go not once, but twice. And the second time, he actually calls the senator a "d**k head." Thanks for the commentary, Mr. Cohen.

I think he could have included the pathological denier, Barney Frank, in that list, with Chris Dodd, too (the king of "their fault" politics in the midst of this economic crisis). I find it strange, actually, that seeing as Pelosi and Reid are on his list, that these two contributors to the do-nothingness of the recent Democratic leadership were not included.

Here's what anyone can do to decide for themselves about Daily Banter: Read this post, then the related post regarding Republican leaders. If you don't notice the holes, in content and members, of both listings, then... well, enjoy reading Daily Banter. I suppose this one must be for you.

-jR

Powered by ScribeFire.