I've been neglecting this thread, mainly because I've kept trying to do it like the Missouri Compromise, and nominating a liberal and conservative at the same time. The problem has been that I'm finding more liberal nominations than conservative ones. But this one is just so over the top, and so under-reported that I'm just going to take the gloves off, nominate whatever I see, and not worry about keeping the numbers even. If anyone thinks I'm slanting too much to one side, they can just find the ones I'm missing to even things up again (a good, sneaky way of getting other people to do my work for me). Anyway...



Wisconsin State Rep. Litjens reacts to Democrat telling her she was ‘****ing dead’

It's not exactly firebrand rhetoric but I liked what Nick Clegg, the UK Deputy Prime Minister, said today about liberalism in a multi-cultural society.



The full text of Clegg's speech is here. It's significant that he gave the speech in Luton, which has recently seen a lot of angry demonstrations both by and against Muslims. If I remember rightly, several British people arrested for terrorism offences have lived in Luton.

Another hyper-partisan attack speech from the guy who called for more civil discourse in the first place:



You'd never know that this was the guy who proposed much more during the campaign than he's attacking now. Back then he said we had to get our house in order, and promised no new spending, zero, with a corresponding cut to match every increase, which was supposed to end with the deficit being cut in half, which would make it about a trillion dollars less than it is now.

I "hyper-partisan"??? Maybe in 1955--by today's standards he's positively moderate.

From the bits and pieces we get from the news there is no workable plan out there--and I don't see one on the horizon.

We've got people near the 50th-percentile in income brainwashed into believing that they should protect the income of millionaires from "unreasonable taxes." We've got folks on both sides of the aisle trying to make sure no one pays for a wide range of reasonable gov't expenses. And we have the gov't subsidizing all manner of things that distorts the economy and makes sure no one knows the true cost of anything.

A few days ago there was an editorial that claimed that for someone going into medicare today their cost/benefit ratio is 55/161. The program is paying out almost $3 in benefits for every $1 collected in taxes. This is clearly unsustainable. Either benefits need to be trimmed by about two-thirds or tax collections need to triple or a combination of the two.

It is unlikely that either plan makes that much of a dent. Both combined might, just might, make it.

In some ways, you're right. If we judge it alongside the statements of people who make no pretense of wanting the two parties to work together, it is somewhat moderate. But I was judging it by the guidelines Obama himself set down at the beginning of this thread; the idea that the two sides did need to work together, and that over-the-top rhetoric was hindering this. By that standard (and it's his own standard, after all) yes, it's hyper-partisan. Much more so than things that have been nominated in this thread with no opposition, like both sides using bullseyes in campaign ads.

If your argument is that it's justified because the other side really is that bad, it's okay to think that. But if you do, you can't also agree with the original premise, that the two parties need to cooperate more. What I'm getting from Obama is "The Republicans want to kill the poor, destroy the country, make sure kids can't go to college, BUT the've got some good ideas and we need to work with them more." That's not something I can take seriously. I'll give you one or the other, but not both.

I'll reply to the rest of your post in Politics2, since it concerns policy rather than rhetoric.

Following up on the thought from yesterday, here's Obama calling for civility:



And the other Obama, from his speech the other night:



Click the link above. The contradiction is so profound that even ABC News called him on it. Yeah, I would consider this to be perhaps the worst offense we've seen so far in this thread, and would be even if it were true. It's certainly the kind of thing that could incite violence in anyone who believed it.

Once again, I have to nominate the guy who inspired this thread in the first place. If anybody doesn't like seeing him on the hotseat so much, feel free to balance it out with other nominations:

Michelle Obama welcomes rapper to White House who called for burning of George Bush

It was hilarious reading about it on Rolling Stone last night. They were in full Spin Mode, saying that the only people that were upset about it was Fox News, and they were being hypocritical because one of their staff had once praised the guy (the guy in question was someone I've never heard of). This other article demonstrates that their position wasn't strictly true:

Police in NJ Upset Over Common’s White House Invite

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.

--Isaac Asimov

--i wanted to stick that somewhere but didn't want to derail an active politic thread

You're nominating Asimov?? I'd vote that quote to be harmless. In fact, I'd expound on it by pointing out that online polls are an extension of what he's talking about. Like, when they tell you a story about a crime, and ask you to vote if the jury made the right decision. This democracy, your off-the-cuff rant is every bit as good as the judgment of people who spent weeks hearing evidence.

Of course, plenty of non-American sites have those.

Did I just nominate Asimov? Guess I should have looked at the purpose of this thread before posting. Sorry. Just consider my post OT.