Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So what is the highly-publicized hate speech of the Left?

Keith Olbermann. Nuff said.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Keith Olbermann. Nuff said.

James50

Example please.

Originally Posted by James50

Keith Olbermann. Nuff said.

James50

I thought that you were going to mention the New Black Panther party or something like that.

Olbermann never calls for hatred of anyone. Contempt, maybe, but then of someone who eminently deserves it.

He doesn't cut much slack for liberal wrong-doers, either.

Glen Ford: Breaking the Obama Spell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUf6n...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by Odin

Example please.

Perhaps when he referred to Michelle Malkin as a "mashed up bag of meat"

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Olbermann never calls for hatred of anyone. Contempt, maybe, but then of someone who eminently deserves it.

He doesn't cut much slack for liberal wrong-doers, either.

I'm hearing that he's beginning to question the validity of Obama's birth certificate.

Originally Posted by Odin

Example please.

The "worst person in the world" segment.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The "worst person in the world" segment.

James50

IMO most people that get that label from him truly deserve it. I don't get how that's hate speech. If that is hate speech then my giving conservative friends a bad time is hate speech.

Originally Posted by James50

The "worst person in the world" segment.

James50

At the most harmless, facetious because it is apolitical -- for instance, after the great Chicago Cubs third baseman Ron Santo died, the Baseball Hall of Fame for not enshrining him as a Hall of Famer.

(Technically the Hall of Fame may be right, as his career took a plunge, likely related to his health, which can't be accounted for lest the Hall of Fame be inundated with might-have-been stars like Denny McLain, Darryl Strawberry, and Dwight Gooden whose failure to maintain a high level of play for more than a few years might have been due to something more a personal culpability).

Then there are dumb crooks, fillers some days with little news, like a bank robber who sped away in a car with vanity plates.


When it is political it is for some egregious example of dishonesty, junk thought, meanness, or misbehavior. I can safely predict that if someone like Darrell Issa or Michelle Bachmann delivers as promised on the threat of using the House chambers as a three-ring circus of inquisitions into people whose loyalty to the real power of American politics (basically shadowy operatives like Karl Rogue or entrenched elites like the medical and oil cartels), then you can expect Keith Olbermann to go after them until he is forced out of American media. Don't pretend that the likes of Olbermann aren't necessary; when powerful media such as FoX Propaganda Channel lead the cheer for the political inquisition.

When elected liberals fail to live up to their mandates for change, Olbermann also faults them. Such is just as well. Over the last thirty years, American politicians other than those in impoverished districts full of non-white people have treated poverty as a political third rail. Poverty is real in America, and it is getting more pervasive and intense.

Democratic institutions are in danger in America, if not to intimidation and repression, then to groupthink that Corporate America fosters even to the extent of pseudo-populist movements such as the Tea Party -- and complacent apathy.

Originally Posted by James50

The "worst person in the world" segment.

James50

I don't mind Olberman myself that much, although I prefer Madoff (I rarely watch either one of them.) But I think James has a point. That segment could easily be renamed to be less offensive and more effective. And the grammarian in me rebels--there's only one worst person in the world, whoever he or she may be, and it doesn't make any sense to rename them week after week.

I must admit that "Worst Person in the World", if rationally applied to some vile beast in human form, would most likely be either the despot of the day or an old-news rehash of some serial or mass killer. Bernie Madoff isn't quite in the same league as Mahmoud Ahmedinedjad, Kim Jong-il, Dennis "BTK" Rader, or Charles Manson.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I don't mind Olberman myself that much, although I prefer Madoff (I rarely watch either one of them.) But I think James has a point. That segment could easily be renamed to be less offensive and more effective. And the grammarian in me rebels--there's only one worst person in the world, whoever he or she may be, and it doesn't make any sense to rename them week after week.

I think you meant "Maddow", yes? Madoff was pretty vile.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I think you meant "Maddow", yes? Madoff was pretty vile.

Yes. I'm not getting enough sleep lately.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So what is the highly-publicized hate speech of the Left? The Hard Right has its well-organized, well-funded machine. The lunatic fringe that FDR spoke of nearly eighty years is back, and it has cable TV (including one supposed news channel) behind it.

I don't spend my time wrting down all the talk on news media and other outlets. There has been hate speech out there. There was a lot of it during the Bush terms. I will pay more attention for future discussions. I consider myself an independent and have issues with both parties.

This cartoon expresses my nightmare.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This cartoon expresses my nightmare.

Errrrr yes.
There is the reality that up till now all primary challenges end up with this result.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This cartoon expresses my nightmare.

Depending on how you read the theory, this may be a necessary nightmare.

I've begun to wonder ... GWB seemed to me to be an ordinary dumb shit of a guy, in over his head, while the government in fact was being run by others. I don't think this is an original thought.

Given Obama's performance so far, perhaps he too is a cardboard cut-out, just one who can speak and read, and actually earned his good grades in school.

Perhaps Sarah could ascend the throne and nothing much would change, if the presidency has turned into a ceremonial position.

For that matter there are a lot of elective offices that seem to be going to similar empty suits.

Maybe I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist? Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook is my nominee for the Anti-Christ.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This cartoon expresses my nightmare.

And people wonder why the political parties keep pissing in the faces of their own supporters over and over.

It's because you ask for it.

Originally Posted by TnT

Perhaps Sarah could ascend the throne and nothing much would change, if the presidency has turned into a ceremonial position.

She would be no better or worse than George W.
And if she got elected with, say, 30-40 percent of the vote, thanks to a large third party turnout, she couldn't get much done anyway.
Hell, maybe I'll vote for her in the primary!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Depending on how you read the theory, this may be a necessary nightmare.

Perhaps. It may be necessary for a demogogue to come to power, and do a great many horrible, horrible things... for people on both sides of the aisle to get a clue.

The far-right fancies Obama to be a wannabe demogogue... even though he's acting far more like someone who is in over his head and looking for the exit. I expect him to decide by this time next year not to run for re-election, either on his own... or on the advice of others in the Democratic Party, who would rather not see him challenged for the nomination for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The far-right fancies Obama to be a wannabe demogogue... even though he's acting far more like someone who is in over his head and looking for the exit. I expect him to decide by this time next year not to run for re-election, either on his own... or on the advice of others in the Democratic Party, who would rather not see him challenged for the nomination for obvious reasons.

It may sound a little far fetched but this may be that we are seeing the beginning of a process that will end with Obama choosing not to run fro re-election and the Democratic elite substituting Hillary in his place.

Originally Posted by TnT

I've begun to wonder ... GWB seemed to me to be an ordinary dumb shit of a guy, in over his head, while the government in fact was being run by others. I don't think this is an original thought.

Given Obama's performance so far, perhaps he too is a cardboard cut-out, just one who can speak and read, and actually earned his good grades in school.

Perhaps Sarah could ascend the throne and nothing much would change, if the presidency has turned into a ceremonial position.

For that matter there are a lot of elective offices that seem to be going to similar empty suits.

Maybe I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist? Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook is my nominee for the Anti-Christ.

I agree with you. You are not just a conspiracy theorist. Rather you are recognizing a well known pattern, at least from Chinese history.

One thing about the end of Chinese dynasties, especially the Han dynasty is the political instability, the rapid succession of rulers which are increasingly puppets of a corrupt elite. In the case of the fall of the Han dynasty the emperors in the end were just children. While the Chongzhen emperor at the end of the Ming was an adult he was the puppet of corrupt enuchs who framed the righteous officials and generals.

You can also see this in Japan today with the rapid succession of prime ministers with the real power with power brokers in the shadows, like the "Shadow Shogun".

The idea of the traditional Chinese dynastic cycle political theory is:

- You have a uniquely talented man found a dynasty. However the decisions made early on for good or ill guide the course of the dynasty.
- You have maintainers - men of modest talent but by respecting precedent maintain the empire.
- Then you have rulers who start dynastic decay. They are not so much evil as indolent and lazy.
- Then you have the restorer. Although raised in an imperial family he understands the woes of the people. He is a hands on manager to officials. He honors the worthy and is quick to correct his errors.
- Then you have the destroyer. Unlike those who allow a slow decay, he actively destroys the empire. He is dull and incapable of change. He is unwilling to honor the example set by his ancestors. He employs sycophants and dismisses those who speak out.


If you want to frame America in terms of the traditional Chinese political views of the dynastic cycle, Washington would be the founder, FDR would be the restorers and well, we are now close to the end of dynasty.

Following Chinese dynastic political theory, we would be at the point where still possible to save the empire as there are talented officials who are loyal to the empire and its ideals if only a new restorer emerges who uses them and does not trust the corrupt. However past a certain point the situation has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer possible to recover.

FDR as the restorer was able to crush the corrupt elite and restore the dynasty. However, now we may have reached the end of dynasty. The constant swings in control of power between the GOP and Dems which are likely to continue into the future. And it not really mattering who is in power because whoever is in power is controlled by the corrupt elite reminds me of the political situation at the end of dynasties. However I think we would be at the point in which we still have talented honest officials like Volcker and Elizabeth Warren and if a ruler emerged who would use them instead of listening to say, Geithner the situation would still be able to rectify itself.

So while there is a generational cycle going on, we may have a larger dynastic cycle overlaid on top of it which means the end of the Republic founded by Washington.

On the bright side of things in the Chinese dynastic cycle, the period of oppression doesn't last forever because as Sima Guang put it, in such situation, even if an external enemy does not arise, then an internal enemy (bloody revolution) emerges. I mean it is a cycle after all. However in some cases, the end is so chaotic that there are centuries of chaos before a new stable dynasty is founded (see end of Han dynasty). So maybe not necessarily a positive thing...

One thing is if we are facing the end of dynasty, then really who gets elected in 2012, 2014 and 2016 doesn't really matter because they will just be puppets of the corrupt elite anyway (a bit like the parade of Japanese PMs or the child emperors at the end of Chinese dynasties). However I still believe at this point it is not too late to turn things around. The point of no return however will probably be when good officials start getting punished for speaking the truth and evil ones rewarded and the public sees this happening (not just hidden behind a facade) and feels intense despair, when the ordinary people, even those who are not political, seek to wriggle out of government control (evading taxes on a large scale), government services collapse, bandits (well gangs really) start roaming, and when the government attempts to exert control there are riots. Fortunately I don't think we are at that point yet, though it is approaching.

One interesting thing about the fall of the Han dynasty and also the fall of the Roman Republic was how seamless they were. The people who replaced them didn't say "Well now the Han is finished and I'm taking over". They ruled in the *name* of the Han/Roman Republic and it was only a generation or two later that the old empire/republic was officially finished. Another interesting thing is that the people who ended up ruling in the end and founding the new Chinese dynasty or I guess the Roman Empire were not the ones who started the trouble. In fact in the case of Cao Cao at least, he was initially a hero against the corrupt elite. I can't remember about Octavian but I believe he was quite popular against the corrupt elite too.

[QUOTE=The Wonkette;344191]This cartoon expresses my nightmare.

[/Q

Mine as well. There are some rational Conservatives out there.

Originally Posted by AnneZob

I agree with you. You are not just a conspiracy theorist. Rather you are recognizing a well known pattern, at least from Chinese history.

One thing about the end of Chinese dynasties, especially the Han dynasty is the political instability, the rapid succession of rulers which are increasingly puppets of a corrupt elite. In the case of the fall of the Han dynasty the emperors in the end were just children. While the Chongzhen emperor at the end of the Ming was an adult he was the puppet of corrupt enuchs who framed the righteous officials and generals.

You can also see this in Japan today with the rapid succession of prime ministers with the real power with power brokers in the shadows, like the "Shadow Shogun".

The idea of the traditional Chinese dynastic cycle political theory is:

- You have a uniquely talented man found a dynasty. However the decisions made early on for good or ill guide the course of the dynasty.
- You have maintainers - men of modest talent but by respecting precedent maintain the empire.
- Then you have rulers who start dynastic decay. They are not so much evil as indolent and lazy.
- Then you have the restorer. Although raised in an imperial family he understands the woes of the people. He is a hands on manager to officials. He honors the worthy and is quick to correct his errors.
- Then you have the destroyer. Unlike those who allow a slow decay, he actively destroys the empire. He is dull and incapable of change. He is unwilling to honor the example set by his ancestors. He employs sycophants and dismisses those who speak out.


If you want to frame America in terms of the traditional Chinese political views of the dynastic cycle, Washington would be the founder, FDR would be the restorers and well, we are now close to the end of dynasty.

Following Chinese dynastic political theory, we would be at the point where still possible to save the empire as there are talented officials who are loyal to the empire and its ideals if only a new restorer emerges who uses them and does not trust the corrupt. However past a certain point the situation has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer possible to recover.

FDR as the restorer was able to crush the corrupt elite and restore the dynasty. However, now we may have reached the end of dynasty. The constant swings in control of power between the GOP and Dems which are likely to continue into the future. And it not really mattering who is in power because whoever is in power is controlled by the corrupt elite reminds me of the political situation at the end of dynasties. However I think we would be at the point in which we still have talented honest officials like Volcker and Elizabeth Warren and if a ruler emerged who would use them instead of listening to say, Geithner the situation would still be able to rectify itself.

So while there is a generational cycle going on, we may have a larger dynastic cycle overlaid on top of it which means the end of the Republic founded by Washington.

On the bright side of things in the Chinese dynastic cycle, the period of oppression doesn't last forever because as Sima Guang put it, in such situation, even if an external enemy does not arise, then an internal enemy (bloody revolution) emerges. I mean it is a cycle after all. However in some cases, the end is so chaotic that there are centuries of chaos before a new stable dynasty is founded (see end of Han dynasty). So maybe not necessarily a positive thing...

One thing is if we are facing the end of dynasty, then really who gets elected in 2012, 2014 and 2016 doesn't really matter because they will just be puppets of the corrupt elite anyway (a bit like the parade of Japanese PMs or the child emperors at the end of Chinese dynasties). However I still believe at this point it is not too late to turn things around. The point of no return however will probably be when good officials start getting punished for speaking the truth and evil ones rewarded and the public sees this happening (not just hidden behind a facade) and feels intense despair, when the ordinary people, even those who are not political, seek to wriggle out of government control (evading taxes on a large scale), government services collapse, bandits (well gangs really) start roaming, and when the government attempts to exert control there are riots. Fortunately I don't think we are at that point yet, though it is approaching.

One interesting thing about the fall of the Han dynasty and also the fall of the Roman Republic was how seamless they were. The people who replaced them didn't say "Well now the Han is finished and I'm taking over". They ruled in the *name* of the Han/Roman Republic and it was only a generation or two later that the old empire/republic was officially finished. Another interesting thing is that the people who ended up ruling in the end and founding the new Chinese dynasty or I guess the Roman Empire were not the ones who started the trouble. In fact in the case of Cao Cao at least, he was initially a hero against the corrupt elite. I can't remember about Octavian but I believe he was quite popular against the corrupt elite too.

Octavius of course had to battle Mark Antony and Cleopatra's Egypt...

~Chas'88