Comments on: Left Wing Attacks on Right Wing Punditry http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2007/10/05/left-wing-attacks-on-right-wing-punditry/ Questions through the veil of ignorance Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:08:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Lance http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2007/10/05/left-wing-attacks-on-right-wing-punditry/comment-page-1/#comment-60538 Lance Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:23:58 +0000 http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1603#comment-60538 Sadly it doesn't matter. Oliver Wills has one good point he uses to justify this. The right did the same thing to Gore many a time (though on not nearly as vicious in subject matter.) That of course justifies in Olivers mind anything he does. For those who don't deal with Oliver, he has said exactly that many a time in places such as QandO. He never says that the specific lie or distortion he is spreading is in fact a lie or distortion, but he always says that for not to do it would be ceding the low ground to the right. Rush isn't exactly innocent in that regard, but if two wrongs don't make a right, doubling down certainly doesn't. Sadly it doesn’t matter. Oliver Wills has one good point he uses to justify this. The right did the same thing to Gore many a time (though on not nearly as vicious in subject matter.) That of course justifies in Olivers mind anything he does. For those who don’t deal with Oliver, he has said exactly that many a time in places such as QandO. He never says that the specific lie or distortion he is spreading is in fact a lie or distortion, but he always says that for not to do it would be ceding the low ground to the right. Rush isn’t exactly innocent in that regard, but if two wrongs don’t make a right, doubling down certainly doesn’t.

]]> By: Keith_Indy http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2007/10/05/left-wing-attacks-on-right-wing-punditry/comment-page-1/#comment-60537 Keith_Indy Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:49:58 +0000 http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1603#comment-60537 They are taking rhetorical words and allegorical statements, and trying to translate them literally, and acting like its a clever argument. For instance, is anyone seriously suggesting that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2924630&page=1" rel="nofollow">ABC news</a> is calling Ann Coulter a bomb thrower in this piece... <blockquote>Conservative bomb thrower Ann Coulter's lashing of 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina over the weekend has created a firestorm with Democrats and Republicans alike rejecting her remarks.</blockquote> They are taking rhetorical words and allegorical statements, and trying to translate them literally, and acting like its a clever argument.

For instance, is anyone seriously suggesting that ABC news is calling Ann Coulter a bomb thrower in this piece…

Conservative bomb thrower Ann Coulter’s lashing of 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina over the weekend has created a firestorm with Democrats and Republicans alike rejecting her remarks.

]]> By: MichaelW http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2007/10/05/left-wing-attacks-on-right-wing-punditry/comment-page-1/#comment-60536 MichaelW Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:38:17 +0000 http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1603#comment-60536 I'm not so sure about the "suicide bomber" thing. It seems pretty clear that's the comparison that Rush was making -- i.e that McGough is being misled into thinking that he has been insulted by Rush, and has been sent out to attack Rush and any defenders. It's not an entirely apt comparison, but I got what Rush was suggesting. He didn't outright call McGough a suicide bomber, but that was definitely the image I got. If you think about it, McGough is actually more like Cindy Sheehan in that he is cloaked with moral authority, and that any attacks on his message will be deflected with a "why do you hate the troops?" Rush seemed to be suggesting that he felt sorry for McGough being misled into being used like this (much like how many felt sorry for Sheehan), when he made the horribly loaded comparison to a suicide bomber. I’m not so sure about the “suicide bomber” thing. It seems pretty clear that’s the comparison that Rush was making — i.e that McGough is being misled into thinking that he has been insulted by Rush, and has been sent out to attack Rush and any defenders. It’s not an entirely apt comparison, but I got what Rush was suggesting. He didn’t outright call McGough a suicide bomber, but that was definitely the image I got.

If you think about it, McGough is actually more like Cindy Sheehan in that he is cloaked with moral authority, and that any attacks on his message will be deflected with a “why do you hate the troops?” Rush seemed to be suggesting that he felt sorry for McGough being misled into being used like this (much like how many felt sorry for Sheehan), when he made the horribly loaded comparison to a suicide bomber.

]]>