Posts Tagged ‘no labels’

Question: When is it OK in the age of civility to call for lynching, stringing up or sending a black man back to the fields?

Our friends on the left decided to protest the Koch Brothers conference. In the event sponsored by Common Cause, AFFCE, The Ruckus Society, 350, Greenpeace, Code Pink, the Progressive Democrats of America, the public attending had some choice words for Justice Clarence Thomas:

Big Government noted something missing:

At the morning panel event featuring UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, activist Jim Hightower, Center for American Progress journalist and “Koch Brothers expert” Lee Fang, California Nurses Association co-president DeAnn McEwan, and President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones, we were forewarned of the impending demise of both the environment and democracy at the hands of corporate lobbyists and their government shills.

There was eerily no mention of GE, AEP, Goldmann Sachs, Pfizer, Aetna, Alcoa, Xerox, Google, Motorola, IBM, or several other corporate giants who profit at taxpayer expense via their K Street connections to the Obama White House as well as the very economic and regulatory policies they lobby that these Common Cause panelists commonly endorse. But I’m sure that’s only because no one wanted to point out the obvious. Right?

I’m sure the No Labels crowd, the Major networks and the Cable networks will rapidly report on these racist declarations of white folks against a black man with power? Hot Air asks:

Will the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the “Rage on the Left” and label Common Cause a racist hate group?

R.B is more blunt:

Let’s just imagine if the video above was taken during a Tea Party rally and several participants stated that a sitting US Supreme Court Justice should be sent “back to the fields” or “strung up”. Picture the news coverage. Predict what Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann (if he still had a show) would be saying right now and over the next few days. It would be non-stop. Democrat Congressional members would be using the tape as “proof” of what is really behind the opposition to ObamaCare or any other piece of legislation they want to get passed.

Nonsense I’m sure they will give this story all the attention the big three gave the Planned Parenthood story this week.

When Joe Scarborough quoted this Victor Davis Hanson piece today a panelist (Jeffrey Sachs) pooh poohed him as an “extremist” and nobody on that panel challenged him. He maintained Victor Davis Hanson is an extremist who has gotten us into a bunch of wars.

Yes this writer and grape grower who pens books on military history is the cause of all evil.

When you don’t have the intellectual power to match a Hanson then all you can do is attack.

Update: Ron Radosh notes that the idea of “No Labels” and civility doesn’t seem to apply to conservative thinkers:

And what did Joe “Mr. No Labels” movement Scarborough, who talks every day about the need for civility, camaraderie and dialogue between folks of different opinions, have to say to Jeffrey Sachs after this most vile outburst?

The answer: absolutely nothing, but move on to the next point as if Sachs had never spoken these words. Sachs has accused the estimable historian of causing us to get into more wars than anybody else in America, and of being an extremist, and all Scarborough could come up with is a lame joke about Hanson not being on his Christmas card list.

All labels are bad, but some labels are more equal than others apparently.

No Labels no clue

Posted: December 19, 2010 by datechguy in internet/free speech, media
Tags: , , ,

I watched with some amusement the “No Labels” republicans on Meet the Press paired with the other side. Joe as usual made some good points, but his assertion that Rush Limbaugh is enraged with the group is nonsense. There is no nice way to say it so I’ll just say it: He’s laughing at you because he correctly thinks this no label thing is a farce.

George Will nails it:

adopting a political label should be an act of civic candor. When people label themselves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning important matters, such as Hudson’s ruling. The label “conservative” conveys much useful information about people who adopt it. So does the label “liberal,” which is why most liberals have abandoned it, preferring “progressive,” until they discredit it, too.

And Glenn Reynolds (guest Jan 15th btw) dots the I and Crosses the T (in the navel sense):

Why are they against labels? Because if they were labeled accurately, no one would listen to them . . . .

That ones gotta leave a mark, particularly from the blogfather but hey if no labels can prove me wrong more power to them!

…although I think that the opportunity to tweak Mika on this one might actually be too tempting to pass up:

According to Duke-National University of Singapore researchers writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine
, “A tax on sugar-sweetened drinks in the U.S. would generate billions of dollars in federal revenue and have little impact on weight loss.” The researchers concluded that the best plan for reducing consumption of sugary drinks is to end sugar subsidies, not increase taxes.

You mean that a soda tax wont actually make people healthier? How about that! As the daily caller points out there is an interesting omission in the bloomberg news story that reported it. They detail a whole lot of polls who were for these taxes but leave out a particular one.

And perhaps most significant: Not a word about public health pioneer Mayor Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg news.

Now Bloomberg is a No Labels guy (and the fellow with the bucks) but billionaires don’t like to be teased. Will the need to keep a possible No Labels candidate/fundraiser viable trump all else? We shall see.