Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity

____________________________________

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Chris Muir's Day by Day

Saturday, August 06, 2011

Moral Bankruptcy: Liberals and Hypocrisy

Lately the talking point mantra from the liberal left has been civility.  What's being said the left at least since the shooting of Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords, that political rhetoric has reached fevered pitch and should be toned. down.  What's really meant is that conservatives may be branded with any particular label by liberals and they should just sit down and shut up.  It doesn't matter if the label is apt, or if that label is overblown rhetoric or not.  In other words, free speech for me, but not for thee.

The other day, Froma Harrap, an editorial writer for the Providence Journal, and head of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, an organization that is pushing a project called Restoring Civility, who's stated goal is to return "civil discourse" our political conversation...Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee!
In her Thursday editorial, she accused the GOP and Tea Party movement of being terrorists: 
The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States -- threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate in which no one pays taxes, while the country is magically protected from foreign attack and the elderly get government-paid hip replacements. {Emphasis is mine, Ed.}
But when she was called out on it in her blog defense of equating political opposition of being "terrorists",
I see incivility as not letting other people speak their piece. It’s not about offering strong opinions. If someone’s opinion is fact-based, then it is permissible in civil discourse. Of course, there are matters of delicacy, and I dispensed with all sweet talk in this particular column. And I did stoop to some ad hominem remarks, I’ll admit....Yes, I was angry, but I’m engaging in the defense of my country. I know the tea partiers say the same, but their behavior is that of a national wrecking crew. Most may be nice people who don’t know what they’re doing, but many a country has foundered on the passions of nice people.
she shut down comments and deleted her post.  Yet, she, like all of her ilk, doesn't see the cognisant disonance of her own arguments!  From the comments
Delsyn Says:

Please explain to me why a Wall Street Journal editorial calling Tea Partiers “Hobbits” in any way qualifies as a defense of your editorial in which you called people with whom you have a political disagreement “al Qaida bombers,” “terrorists,” “extremists,” and “ignoramuses?” In the first case, the term “hobbits”, while meant to be insulting, hardly compares with equating people trying to get this country back on an even financial keel with people who deliberately murder women and children. In the second case, “hobbits” is a deliberately ignorant insult when you consider that the hobbits were the HEROES of the story, the little people who stood up against those with more power than them and won. I’d be happy to take that comparison.
You yourself give the game away when you say: “Yes, I was angry, but I’m engaging in the defense of my country. I know the tea partiers say the same, but their behavior is that of a national wrecking crew.”

Really? A national wrecking crew? On what criteria do you judge that? On your own liberal standards, which of course, are the only ones that a sane and decent person could possibly have? Anyone else is a “terrorist” and an “extremist.”
Why is it when liberals and Democrats stand on principle, they get applauded, but when the other side does, well, we’re terrorists? Did it ever occur to you that we felt such a confrontation might be necessary not because we wanted to wreck the country, but because we know that if we don’t start really grappling with the spending issue, this country is dead anyway? Even the so-called “deal” isn’t really spending cuts, we just slowed down the rate of growth and called it cuts.

America wasn’t about to lose its triple A credit rating because of the debt ceiling fight, we’re losing it because the rating agencies can see what anyone not blinded by Washington DC nonsense or liberal unicorn dust can see — we are broke and our current budget plans (oh wait, we don’t HAVE any budget plans — thanks, Mr. President) are in no way taking us back toward financial solvency.
“Most may be nice people who don’t know what they’re doing, but many a country has foundered on the passions of nice people.”
Funny. I say the same thing about liberals. There hearts are in the right place. I wish their heads would join them.

Not that I expect you to respond to this. The great thing about being a liberal is you’re often wrong but never unsure.
The link is to a cached version of the blog post.  the comments, without exception, point out the hypocrisy of her position.  Soo...she deleted, not understanding that on the interwebs, NOTHING IS EVER DELETED.  You can remove it from your blog, but it's always out there floating...

No comments: