Wow, harsh.
http://www.slate.com/id/2224779/
QuoteA Lousy Day's WorkWas Bill Clinton's visit to North Korea worth the time, energy, and prestige? No way.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Aug. 10, 2009, at 11:39 AM ET
I call your attention to a small detail about Laura Ling and Euna Lee, the two American journalists who were wrongfully arrested, illegally detained, and then capriciously released by the crime family that controls the northern section of the Korean peninsula and treats all its inhabitants as slave-prisoners and all the neighbors within its missile range as hostages.
The two young women were picked up in March and released in August. That means they spent almost half a year in the North Korean prison system. Yet to judge by the photographs of them arriving back on U.S. soil, they were in approximately the same physical condition as they had been when they were first unlawfully apprehended.
Now, I spent less time than that as an honored guest in North Korea and still managed to lose weight during my stay. The shattering statistic that everybody now knows about North Korea is that its citizens are on average 5 to 6 inches shorter than South Koreans. And by that I mean to say "on average"—it seems to be true even of North Korean soldiers. The stunting and shortening of the children of the last famine generation may be still more heartbreaking when we come to measure it. And the fate of those who are in the North Korean gulag can, by this measure, only be imagined. There is a starvation regime within the wider nightmare of the slave system. Yet Ling and Lee had obviously not been maltreated or emaciated in the usual way that even a North Korean civilian, let alone a North Korean prisoner, could expect to be.
The logical corollary of this is obvious. The Kim Jong-il gang was always planning to release them. They were arrested in order to be let go and were maintained in releasable shape until the deal could be done.
Does this not—or should this not—slightly qualify and dilute our joy in seeing them come home? Does the Dear Leader not say to himself, That was easy? Are the North Korean people not being assured, through their megaphone media, that the sun shines so consistently out of the rear end of their celestial boss that even powerful U.S. statesmen will appear at the airport to bring apologies, pay tribute, and receive custody of uninvited guests in the workers' paradise?
Whatever the Pyongyang press has said, it is unlikely to exceed in its flattery the encomium already offered by Lanny Davis, a former consigliere to both Clintons. I strongly urge you to read his entire boot-lick essay here, but I offer you this for flavor:
The release of the two journalists by the North Koreans ... was the result of a tour-de-force, trifecta combination of the three most talented and truly great political leaders of our times—Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; her husband, former President Bill Clinton; and President Barack Obama. Without the special talents and the synergistic magic of the three of them working together ...
Hold it right there. As I say, take a look at the whole piece and roll it round your tongue for as long as you can bear it.
Davis is a known fawner on the Clintons, but Henry Kissinger, writing in Sunday's Washington Post, was hardly better. Like the inexpert bore that he so often is, our former secretary of state loosed a positive barrage of rhetorical questions without troubling to answer any of them:
It is inherent in hostage situations that potentially heatbreaking human conditions are used to overwhelm policy judgments. Therein lies the bargaining strength of the hostage-taker. On the other hand, at any given moment, several million Americans reside or travel abroad. How are they best protected? Is the lesson of this episode that any ruthless group or government can demand a symbolic meeting with a senior American by seizing hostages or threatening inhuman treatment for prisoners in their hand? If it should be said that North Korea is a special case because of its nuclear capability, does that create new incentives for proliferation?
The remainder of his article is the sheerest waffle, probably because he and Kim Jong-il share some of the same friends and patrons and business partners in Beijing (this is also why he skates so rapidly over the human rights dimension of the crisis), but at least the questions he declines to answer were worth asking and the provisional answer to the last two of them would appear to be "yes." Since Bill Clinton began the "engagement" with North Korea more than a decade ago, nothing done by its regime has been thought of as punishable. Even since the resumption of the so-called "six-power" agreement in Beijing in February 2007, North Korea has violated it in the nonminor form of nuclear testing and the production of weapons-grade plutonium and has simply ignored all the relevant U.N. resolutions. These aggressive and arrogant policies have been advanced at exactly no cost. And meanwhile, the civilian population of North Korea is kept at the slavery and starvation level, with emergency food aid from overseas exacted by blackmail to make us complicit in the sickening business, while the civilian population of South Korea is threatened with obliteration in the most bloodthirsty terms if any resistance is offered to the nuclear blackmail that keeps the whole horror going in the first place.
As of last week, and as the result of a huge investment of time and energy and prestige and forced politeness, we can now claim to have reduced the North Korean prison population by exactly two, and they were going to be released anyway. In return, we have immensely gratified and flattered the man who kidnapped them and who makes a daily mockery of international law. There was even "remorse" expressed. But guess by whom? Not by the slave master who makes his territory impossible to enter and impossible to leave. A lousy day's work.
What a useless fucking dreck of a contrarian Hitchens is. Poisons every argument he enters.
Basically I take this meaning that the outside (real) world were taken by the N. Koreans, again. And that the real world doesn't put enough pressure nor call the NK govt on its ongoing transgressions, its continued breaking of agreements, etc. On top of that the harsh treatment of its own citizens, with gulags set up and all that.
I don't see anything that controversial in the article, and I agree with him that 'synergystic" is a vile term.
This is why the British shouldn't be allowed to become American citizens.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 02:25:49 PM
I don't see anything that controversial in the article
Moi non plus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 02:28:32 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 02:25:49 PM
I don't see anything that controversial in the article
Moi non plus.
These are your people, you go and deal with them.
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 02:00:11 PM
What a useless fucking dreck of a contrarian Hitchens is. Poisons every argument he enters.
Yeah, it is like he is engaging in ad hom attacks instead of addressing the content of a position!
Hitchens hates a black president. Film at 11.
It's SOP to negotiate with state terrorists. BFD.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on August 12, 2009, 02:00:11 PM
What a useless fucking dreck of a contrarian Hitchens is. Poisons every argument he enters.
Yeah, it is like he is engaging in ad hom attacks instead of addressing the content of a position!
:D
PS - Timmy, by your thread title, I can tell that you completely misread and/or misunderstood Hitchens' argument.
More than once, he said that the ladies would be released. It's not some Clinton miracle that released them from a regime that was intent upon incarcerating them for the full term. DPRK intended to milk this for internal consumption, and Clinton willingly obliged. That is not the same as "letting them rot."
Did any nations suddenly go: Wow, look how great N. Korea is? after this moment? :unsure:
Ank & Hitchens speak da troof.
Did Clinton know he was being played? Or did he care, as long as he got to get on the news?
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 02:49:03 PM
PS - Timmy, by your thread title, I can tell that you completely misread and/or misunderstood Hitchens' argument.
More than once, he said that the ladies would be released. It's not some Clinton miracle that released them from a regime that was intent upon incarcerating them for the full term. DPRK intended to milk this for internal consumption, and Clinton willingly obliged. That is not the same as "letting them rot."
Au contraire, I simply choose the most sensationalist headline I could think of.
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 02:52:02 PM
Did Clinton know he was being played? Or did he care, as long as he got to get on the news?
Perhaps we all just appreciate a good spectacle. :)
I keep telling you people that Clinton just wanted this story to have a happy ending... as well as get a happy ending himself :perv:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
Did any nations suddenly go: Wow, look how great N. Korea is? after this moment? :unsure:
It was for internal consumption, not external consumption. Nobody thinks the DPRK is a great place with enlightened leadership.
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 02:52:02 PM
Ank & Hitchens speak da troof.
Did Clinton know he was being played? Or did he care, as long as he got to get on the news?
Clearly, both the US and the DPRK sought to benefit from an arrangement. We got them back, and DPRK can pretend to be magnanimous. Both sides win. That was the gameplan, and the sole reason it happened.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
Did any nations suddenly go: Wow, look how great N. Korea is? after this moment? :unsure:
It was for internal consumption, not external consumption. Nobody thinks the DPRK is a great place with enlightened leadership.
The Boss man probably thinks of himself as a new style enlightened monarch.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 02:53:53 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 02:49:03 PM
PS - Timmy, by your thread title, I can tell that you completely misread and/or misunderstood Hitchens' argument.
More than once, he said that the ladies would be released. It's not some Clinton miracle that released them from a regime that was intent upon incarcerating them for the full term. DPRK intended to milk this for internal consumption, and Clinton willingly obliged. That is not the same as "letting them rot."
Au contraire, I simply choose the most sensationalist headline I could think of.
:lol: I forgot that option. My apologies, Tim.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 12, 2009, 03:03:42 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
Did any nations suddenly go: Wow, look how great N. Korea is? after this moment? :unsure:
It was for internal consumption, not external consumption. Nobody thinks the DPRK is a great place with enlightened leadership.
The Boss man probably thinks of himself as a new style enlightened monarch.
Possibly, but I doubt it. I don't think he's deluded, but he's certainly cynical and cunning.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
It was for internal consumption, not external consumption. Nobody thinks the DPRK is a great place with enlightened leadership.
Did they really need global help for an act for internal consumption? I'm sure there are plenty of "generous" gestures Dear Leader can make internally...and they'd look better as they wouldn't involve any submission (or like concept) to outside influences.
Quote from: Caliga on August 12, 2009, 02:58:39 PM
I keep telling you people that Clinton just wanted this story to have a happy ending... as well as get a happy ending himself :perv:
I'm glad that Hillary got all bitchy when asked about Bill's opinion, recently. :)
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:08:56 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
It was for internal consumption, not external consumption. Nobody thinks the DPRK is a great place with enlightened leadership.
Did they really need global help for an act for internal consumption? I'm sure there are plenty of "generous" gestures Dear Leader can make internally...and they'd look better as they wouldn't involve any submission (or like concept) to outside influences.
It way cooler to release evil Imperialist tools posing as journalists, especially when they admit to illegally crossing the border. There was NO act of submission, it was portrayed as an act of mercy.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 02:51:19 PM
Did any nations suddenly go: Wow, look how great N. Korea is? after this moment? :unsure:
Burma. After they get the bomb maybe Bill will come too.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:09:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 12, 2009, 02:58:39 PM
I keep telling you people that Clinton just wanted this story to have a happy ending... as well as get a happy ending himself :perv:
I'm glad that Hillary got all bitchy when asked about Bill's opinion, recently. :)
That was pretty amusing. The Independent (my fav UK paper) had three great shots of it.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:09:39 PMI'm glad that Hillary got all bitchy when asked about Bill's opinion, recently. :)
I don't understand why they keep the charade up at this point, quite frankly. It's not like Bill actually helped her win the Presidency.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
It way cooler to release evil Imperialist tools posing as journalists, especially when they admit to illegally crossing the border. There was NO act of submission, it was portrayed as an act of mercy.
But one could have acts of mercy without involving external actors. I think monarchies of Europe used to do it all the time.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:12:44 PM
That was pretty amusing. The Independent (my fav UK paper) had three great shots of it.
I loved it as I was like "My girl reminds me why I love her." :wub:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:14:13 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
It way cooler to release evil Imperialist tools posing as journalists, especially when they admit to illegally crossing the border. There was NO act of submission, it was portrayed as an act of mercy.
But one could have acts of mercy without involving external actors. I think monarchies of Europe used to do it all the time.
Nah. Even better to get the Yanks to come and beg in public. Way cooler than a unilateral action.
Quote from: Caliga on August 12, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
I don't understand why they keep the charade up at this point, quite frankly. It's not like Bill actually helped her win the Presidency.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the motivation of any Congolese individual.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Nah. Even better to get the Yanks to come and beg in public. Way cooler than a unilateral action.
I suppose it did make for a nice photo op, like it did for us.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:15:58 PMI'm afraid that I don't understand the motivation of any Congolese individual.
:huh:
I meant I don't understand why the Clintons keep the charade up that they are like a married couple.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:15:58 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 12, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
I don't understand why they keep the charade up at this point, quite frankly. It's not like Bill actually helped her win the Presidency.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the motivation of any Congolese individual.
:lol: :lol:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Nah. Even better to get the Yanks to come and beg in public. Way cooler than a unilateral action.
I suppose it did make for a nice photo op, like it did for us.
It did?
What was so cool for us to see an ex-President and SecState go hat in hand to a little fucking tool like Dear Leader?
I agree. The prison camp should have been FLATTENED WITH A BLU-82. :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 03:18:55 PM
It did?
What was so cool for us to see an ex-President and SecState go hat in hand to a little fucking tool like Dear Leader?
Sure. We had three prominent democrats (Obama & The Clintons) arranging for the release of two of our citizens. Look at that Dem Starpower. ^_^ And why it even deflected attention from the fact that snake-like Al Gore raised nary a finger to help his people.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:16:35 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:15:22 PM
Nah. Even better to get the Yanks to come and beg in public. Way cooler than a unilateral action.
I suppose it did make for a nice photo op, like it did for us.
It did?
What was so cool for us to see an ex-President and SecState go hat in hand to a little fucking tool like Dear Leader?
People are slobbering over Bill and his brilliant diplomacy, aren't they? :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on August 12, 2009, 03:17:18 PM
:huh:
I meant I don't understand why the Clintons keep the charade up that they are like a married couple.
Because their tag team duo is what first helped them launch political careers. Breaking the pact would look ugly and messy.
And yes, I knew what you had meant, I simply couldn't resist. :blush:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:22:02 PM
People are slobbering over Bill and his brilliant diplomacy, aren't they? :contract:
:yes:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:21:04 PM
Sure. We had three prominent democrats (Obama & The Clintons) arranging for the release of two of our citizens. Look at that Dem Starpower. ^_^ And why it even deflected attention from the fact that snake-like Al Gore raised nary a finger to help his people.
Well, I dunno about you, but when I saw Bill and Al bear hug one another, I got a massive stiffy.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:09:39 PM
I'm glad that Hillary got all bitchy when asked about Bill's opinion, recently. :)
That was funny as hell. Even funnier when it turned out to be a mistranslation of the question. My first thought when I saw that was "Boy I bet grabon wets his pants when he sees this" :D
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 03:23:32 PM
:puke:
I'm not (I don't even like Bill Clinton), but it is most certainly the case that people are. I think people's views of Bill are getting rosier as times passes. Back to a simpler, pre-financial meltdown, pre-Bush time when our big worries were about who the President was sleeping with and whether or not Y2K would bring us to our knees.
Oh come now, seeing Bill Clinton continue to build his resume as greatest American Ever(tm) is downright hilarious. That dude is such an attention whore.
When he was a candidate in 1992 it really grossed me out...but after 17 years it is just funny. He just loves people loving him so much and they love to love him so much it is the most hilarious love fest in politics.
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 03:23:27 PM
My first thought when I saw that was "Boy I bet grabon wets his pants when he sees this" :D
:blush: :blush: :blush:
A shocking poll!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/clinton-popular-hillary-poll-shows/
QuoteBill Clinton More Popular Than Hillary, Poll Shows
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Wednesday showed 58 percent of those surveyed view the former president favorably, while 53 percent feel the same about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Actually, I'm shocked that so many view Hillary favorably.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
Actually, I'm shocked that so many view Hillary favorably.
It was the Obama Team's responsibility to build her back up after they destroyed her :)
Seems like Secretary of State is a pretty easy job in which to get good approval numbers.
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 04:07:21 PM
It was the Obama Team's responsibility to build her back up after they destroyed her :)
Seems like Secretary of State is a pretty easy job in which to get good approval numbers.
Oh?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/53_have_favorable_opinion_of_clinton
QuoteThese findings are down slightly from February just before Clinton's first overseas trip as secretary of State but are similar to those a month earlier before she assumed the chief position at the State Department.
From that same article:
:o
QuotePolling released earlier today shows that 15% of voters believe Clinton is Very Likely to become the first woman president of the United States. Another 23% say she is Somewhat Likely to achieve that honor.
:yeah:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:12:44 PM
That was pretty amusing. The Independent (my fav UK paper) had three great shots of it.
I loved it as I was like "My girl reminds me why I love her." :wub:
Yup, God Bless Hillary. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 03:25:52 PM
Oh come now, seeing Bill Clinton continue to build his resume as greatest American Ever(tm) is downright hilarious. That dude is such an attention whore.
When he was a candidate in 1992 it really grossed me out...but after 17 years it is just funny. He just loves people loving him so much and they love to love him so much it is the most hilarious love fest in politics.
He's still better than Obama, although neither are half the man that Bob Dole is.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
A shocking poll!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/clinton-popular-hillary-poll-shows/
QuoteBill Clinton More Popular Than Hillary, Poll Shows
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Wednesday showed 58 percent of those surveyed view the former president favorably, while 53 percent feel the same about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Actually, I'm shocked that so many view Hillary favorably.
I'm liking Hillary more and more. I started liking her more during the Presidential campaigns.
Too late to return them now Hitchens. :jaron:
One of my regular blogs had this interesting post, a translation of a North Korean defector's commentary on the Ling and Lee situation: http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/08/ask-korean-news-double-dose-of-joo.html
Of particular interest are his comments on how the photo-op will be used by the NorKs, and how the pair's treatment was pretty good by North Korean standards.
While I personally believe that the two journalists were complete and total idiots, I don't think the US should let its citizens, even stupid ones, rot under house arrest in a dictatorship. While the DPRK will undoubtedly gain significant domestic propaganda value from this, the price could have been higher. Hopefully this will dissuade others from doing similar stupid things (because no one wants to spend time in North Korean custody, even if it's certain you'll be freed eventually).
I think he makes a good point. Admittedly the only way an action by a Clinton with Kissinger's blessing would attract more opprobrium from Hitchens is if Mother Theresa appeared in the clouds above blessing it. They are his betes noires in an unholy Pyongyang union.
Cīvis Rōmānus sum doesn't quite have the effect it used to.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:21:04 PM
Sure. We had three prominent democrats (Obama & The Clintons) arranging for the release of two of our citizens. Look at that Dem Starpower. ^_^ And why it even deflected attention from the fact that snake-like Al Gore raised nary a finger to help his people.
Al Gore did. He was originally the guy who was meant to go to North Korea but the North Koreans refused him because he's not prominent/exciting enough :mellow:
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 04:07:21 PM
It was the Obama Team's responsibility to build her back up after they destroyed her :)
Seems like Secretary of State is a pretty easy job in which to get good approval numbers.
Oh?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2009/53_have_favorable_opinion_of_clinton
QuoteThese findings are down slightly from February just before Clinton's first overseas trip as secretary of State but are similar to those a month earlier before she assumed the chief position at the State Department.
Well, it's Shrillary. I guess you have to throw the rule book out the window with her.
But how many secretaries of state in recent memory have had low approval numbers?
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 04:58:31 PM
From that same article:
:o
QuotePolling released earlier today shows that 15% of voters believe Clinton is Very Likely to become the first woman president of the United States. Another 23% say she is Somewhat Likely to achieve that honor.
:yeah:
Yeah, and the list of wimmenz with any shot of becoming president is sooooo huge.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2009, 03:28:34 PM
A shocking poll!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/12/clinton-popular-hillary-poll-shows/
QuoteBill Clinton More Popular Than Hillary, Poll Shows
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Wednesday showed 58 percent of those surveyed view the former president favorably, while 53 percent feel the same about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Actually, I'm shocked that so many view Hillary favorably.
I still can't figure out how in the world did she go from being a left-wing extremist to a conservative alternative to Obama in the eyes of the public.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I still can't figure out how in the world did she go from being a left-wing extremist to a conservative alternative to Obama in the eyes of the public.
Maybe 'cuz Obama is just that far out on the left?
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 10:23:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I still can't figure out how in the world did she go from being a left-wing extremist to a conservative alternative to Obama in the eyes of the public.
Maybe 'cuz Obama is just that far out on the left?
Only the caricature of him. Then again, maybe he was just next in line to be overblown as the mortal threat to apple pie.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I still can't figure out how in the world did she go from being a left-wing extremist to a conservative alternative to Obama in the eyes of the public.
Probably because that "left-wing extremist" tag was so obviously phony that few bought into it.
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2009, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I still can't figure out how in the world did she go from being a left-wing extremist to a conservative alternative to Obama in the eyes of the public.
Probably because that "left-wing extremist" tag was so obviously phony that few bought into it.
few = Berkut, derspiess, Tim
Let us not forget that we have the hikers in Iran as well, which seem to have been slightly more geographically challenged while faced with a slightly less brutal and manipulative regime with less prevalent body guards. Though since they are not Royal Navy personnel they might get released just because holding them is so ridiculous that even the Iranians know that gap year hikers are no CIA hacks.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on August 12, 2009, 03:03:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2009, 02:52:02 PM
Ank & Hitchens speak da troof.
Did Clinton know he was being played? Or did he care, as long as he got to get on the news?
Clearly, both the US and the DPRK sought to benefit from an arrangement. We got them back, and DPRK can pretend to be magnanimous. Both sides win. That was the gameplan, and the sole reason it happened.
Typical commie thinking from Obama and Clinton. Why the fuck are we doing bedhead favors?
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2009, 10:58:51 PMProbably because that "left-wing extremist" tag was so obviously phony that few bought into it.
Does anyone
really think that? I mean, I know folks like Rush Limbaugh *say* it, but he's an act. I don't think he believes half of the stuff that he actually says.
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 09:18:46 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2009, 10:58:51 PMProbably because that "left-wing extremist" tag was so obviously phony that few bought into it.
Does anyone really think that? I mean, I know folks like Rush Limbaugh *say* it, but he's an act. I don't think he believes half of the stuff that he actually says.
I think you're vastly underestimating the power of echo chambers to self-reinforce the stupidity and irrationality of its members.
Quote from: Jaron on August 12, 2009, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2009, 10:58:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I still can't figure out how in the world did she go from being a left-wing extremist to a conservative alternative to Obama in the eyes of the public.
Probably because that "left-wing extremist" tag was so obviously phony that few bought into it.
few = Berkut, derspiess, Tim
I bet you can find just loads of posts from me where I call Hillary a "left-wing extremist".
Although I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in years, I used to do so all the time because my dad is a devoted fan and always had Rush on in the car. :bleeding:
My impression always was that Rush is more of a showman than an actual political fanatic. Sometimes he seemed to almost be mocking the right in some of the things that he said. I mean, he was always mocking the left, too, but he was just so over-the-top....
I guess my impression is that he's more of a comedian than an actual commentator, and probably deliberately sought out the right fringe as his niche, maybe because there wasn't much competition there.
Quote from: DGuller on August 13, 2009, 09:32:29 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 09:18:46 AM
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2009, 10:58:51 PMProbably because that "left-wing extremist" tag was so obviously phony that few bought into it.
Does anyone really think that? I mean, I know folks like Rush Limbaugh *say* it, but he's an act. I don't think he believes half of the stuff that he actually says.
I think you're vastly underestimating the power of echo chambers to self-reinforce the stupidity and irrationality of its members.
Indeed. Which is why uncritical partisanship is so dangerous.
I used to listen to Rush during the late 80s and man he was hilarious. Eventually his schtick just got old so I stopped listening but people have a tolerance for the same stuff day after day year after year...
Languish posters for example. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 09:39:55 AM
Although I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in years, I used to do so all the time because my dad is a devoted fan and always had Rush on in the car. :bleeding:
My impression always was that Rush is more of a showman than an actual political fanatic. Sometimes he seemed to almost be mocking the right in some of the things that he said. I mean, he was always mocking the left, too, but he was just so over-the-top....
I guess my impression is that he's more of a comedian than an actual commentator, and probably deliberately sought out the right fringe as his niche, maybe because there wasn't much competition there.
I remember thinking that people self-identifying as "dittoheads" had to some kind of clever joke, a little self mocking or something.
But then I realized that most of them were completely serious, and took great pride in the fact that Rush does their thinking for them.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 09:42:02 AMBut then I realized that most of them were completely serious, and took great pride in the fact that Rush does their thinking for them.
IOW what you're saying is that Rush is a religious figure? :cool:
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 09:42:02 AM
I remember thinking that people self-identifying as "dittoheads" had to some kind of clever joke, a little self mocking or something.
But then I realized that most of them were completely serious, and took great pride in the fact that Rush does their thinking for them.
Do you know what "dittohead" means? A dittohead is someone who enjoys the show-- not necessarily someone who agrees with every word spoken by Limbaugh.
In the early days of his show, Rush started asking callers who said "I like the show, etc." to instead just say "ditto" since it was getting repetitive & wasting airtime for everyone to go on & on about how much the liked the show.
Limbaugh does explain the meaning of the term periodically on his show.
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2009, 12:22:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 09:42:02 AM
I remember thinking that people self-identifying as "dittoheads" had to some kind of clever joke, a little self mocking or something.
But then I realized that most of them were completely serious, and took great pride in the fact that Rush does their thinking for them.
Do you know what "dittohead" means? A dittohead is someone who enjoys the show-- not necessarily someone who agrees with every word spoken by Limbaugh.
In the early days of his show, Rush started asking callers who said "I like the show, etc." to instead just say "ditto" since it was getting repetitive & wasting airtime for everyone to go on & on about how much the liked the show.
Limbaugh does explain the meaning of the term periodically on his show.
Yes, and I also know how it is used regularly.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 12:36:44 PM
Yes, and I also know how it is used regularly.
It's used both ways, yes. But don't always assume it means what you want it to mean.
Why would I want it to mean anything?
Why are you assuming I want it to mean something when telling me not to make assumptions?
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 12:48:34 PM
Why would I want it to mean anything?
Because casting them all as marginalized far right loonies who can't think for themselves fits into your worldview.
QuoteWhy are you assuming I want it to mean something when telling me not to make assumptions?
I know how you think :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on August 13, 2009, 02:29:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 12:48:34 PM
Why would I want it to mean anything?
Because casting them all as marginalized far right loonies who can't think for themselves fits into your worldview.
That must be why I said "most" then. Because I want to cast them "all".
And yeah, most people who call in to Rush to breathlessly agree with him are in fact far right loonies who
choose not to think for themselves.