By now most everyone has heard about the 9 year-old boy who was bullied for bring his My Little Pony backpack and accessories to school. The school told the boy he could no longer continue to bring the backpack to school because it was prompting bullying and causing a disruption. Supporters of the boy are dismayed at this response saying it punishes the victim and not the perpetrators. This however, is the correct course of action and consistent with most school policies.
Notice the same people who are defending the boy are not so quick to defend students all across America who are told they must remove clothing and other items which bear NRA logos, second amendment references, Duck Dynasty characters, or American flags. No, instead of standing up for all forms of free speech in schools, this is the one they get behind. Why is that I wonder.
I’d bet all the money I could borrow is that it has the air of being an LGBT issue. We have a boy whose favorite cartoon and toys are essentially girl’s toys, and his apologists see ‘gay’. He must be put on a pedestal and don’t anyone dare make him sad. At any cost the LGBT community cannot ever be put in a position to be upset over being gay. I’m not saying the boy is gay. After all, he’s only 9 years-old. But there is the implication that he may be and that’s all activists need.
Don’t mistake me for defending bullying. No one should be bullied. But when you’re a boy who likes My Little Pony so much that you want to make it public knowledge, name-calling is inevitable. Stand proud, if that’s what you want. But expect your peers — at 9 years-old — to have fun at your expense. A responsible parent would have known this. A loving parent would have warned and advised their child to be a little more discreet. Placing your child in a situation knowing they will be bullied is not loving at all — it’s using your child for attention.
Sifting Reality 
I’d hate to think that this indicates another cause for the Agenda That Doesn’t Exist, but one must be prepared for such, as nothing is beneath them.
I saw a great video that I shared on my FB page that referred to earlier generations, and how being bullied, while not supported, was more a matter of the bullied learning how to deal with it.
Schools are so put upon by the various agendas and cultural (anti-cultural?) pressures and politically correct crapola that it must be hell to administer public education these days, even if one buys into the nonsense. Schools do, and should, have the duty and right to regulate dress and expression on their campuses. At this point, the kid is known to be a fan of the cartoon and banning his backpack will likely do little to reduce whatever bullying he’ll suffer.
John…
Why is that I wonder.
I would respectfully note that you answered why. You noted that, “Supporters of the boy are dismayed at this response saying it punishes the victim and not the perpetrators.” and that is exactly why this is wrong – it’s punishing the victim and sending the wrong message to bullies. “Be a bully and YOU WIN! You can get ANYTHING YOU WANT if you just bully the little kids!”
What kind of message is that to send to our children?
As to your other suggestion that people don’t come to the defense of those who’ve been asked to not wear NRA, etc, clothes, I don’t know that this is an apples-apples comparison. For my part, I don’t think schools should ban clothes because they disagree with the message on them, as long as the message isn’t vulgar. Since you mention it, I’m sure it must have happened, but has someone really banned shirts that say “Duck Dynasty…”? If so, what was the reason given?
Liberals, by and large, are supporters of free speech – that is foundational to liberal tenets, so I can’t imagine there being too many people out there who’d support such bans, if there are bans based purely on, “I don’t agree with what that person says…”
Now, if it’s the case that the schools don’t allow ANY T-shirts with messages, that’d be different (I still would disagree – but I’m not a fan of overly rigid school dress codes). But if they’re saying, “You can wear a Tupac t-shirt, but not a Duck Dynasty t-shirt,” that would be problematic for me.
But beyond that, if someone were being bullied for wearing a Duck Dynasty t-shirt, and the school’s response was to ban Duck Dynasty t-shirts, I would be just as opposed to that as the My Little Pony ban.
So, maybe there are those out there who’d be inconsistent on this front, but not me or anyone I know of.
And I stand by the notion that banning the Pony gear sends the wrong message to children. We can’t tell them that, “IF you are bullied for who you are or what you wear, we’re going to side with the bullies.” That would be horribly wrong, in my opinion.
Dan
Liberals are not proponents of free speech. They are proponents of liberal speech.
Well, I and my church and circle of friends – whom you consider to be “liberal” are all supporters of free speech, even when that speech disagrees with our opinions. Baptists and anabaptists have a long history of support of free speech – some would even point to many Baptists as driving forces in the cause of free speech.
If you know some liberals that aren’t, well, okay, but I’m just saying that support of free speech is part of the basic tenets of Liberalism. I have no doubt that there are some liberals who do not ascribe fully to all liberal tenets. Shame on them for not supporting free speech.
~Dan
Dan,
Are you defending these students, Dan? If you’re consistent, you have to.
? Of course I would. Students can legally write about anything within the parameters of a school assignment. If a teacher asks about a child’s hero and that hero is Jesus, that is of course fine. If a the task is to write about a modern hero, I think the teacher/school would be justified in limiting Jesus out of that assignment (even though we think of Jesus as being alive still), but a pastor or missionary would certainly be fair.
Did you really think I or any liberal who holds to liberal values would disagree with that? Perhaps you all have a misunderstanding of liberal values because, perhaps, you’ve seen/heard of liberals who aren’t consistent. Free speech IS a liberal value, it’s part of what defines modern liberal values – even if some liberals aren’t consistent in that.
I do think schools can and should limit talk about a faith system – schools aren’t the place for proselytizing and I don’t think students should give presentations on why you’re going to hell if you don’t accept Vishnu, Muhammad or Jesus, but otherwise, of course I support these sorts of rights. I support free speech.
Now, that’s taking those headlines on that link at face value. If the actual story isn’t rightly represented there, then I might answer differently. But “Christmas candy” can’t reasonably be restricted if other candy is not (although what that has to do with Christianity, I couldn’t tell you, as Christianity has not a single tenet on “Christmas candy,” that I know of), schools can’t discourage Christian teachers from applying and so on.
I hope that helps. Thanks for asking.
~Dan
If anyone is interested in Baptist and Anabaptist history as it relates to modern ideas of Freedom of Speech, here’s a bit of history on the topic…
“Indeed, the supreme contribution of the new world to the old is the contribution of religious liberty. This is the chiefest contribution that America has thus far made to civilization. And historic justice compels us to say that it was pre-eminently a Baptist [and anabaptist -dt] contribution…
http://rtboard.blogspot.com/2013/07/baptists-and-american-religious-liberty.html
Of course, that answers for me and my circles of so-called “liberals,” but it’s also a central tenet of Liberal Beliefs, even if there are some liberals who aren’t consistent on the point.
~Dan
Dan,
You can cite anything you like. We will instead look to your comments and how they fail to truly reflect what you cite. It is routine for you to delete comments you don’t like on the charge that it is off topic. You have chosen to delete comments you don’t like on the charge that, by YOUR standards, the commenter is delusional and incapable of distinguishing between fact and opinion. You with regularity emote outrage and dismay over the opinions expressed by others, feigning a case of the vapors with expressions of shock, such as “Do you know how that sounds?” You even refer to comments and those who make them with various terms of denigration, such as “hateful” and “bigoted” simply for being in disagreement.
And once again, it serves you no purpose to drag others into conversations as if you are truly a reflection of those other groups. Your history is such that they deserve to left out of comparisons to you, so cut them a little slack and don’t speak for those in your “circle of friends”. (Of course you could always invite them to visit these blogs and comment themselves, identifying themselves as friends of yours. Then they could agree or disagree with you themselves.)
Dan
If liberals love free speech why did you delete comments I made on your blog. They were pointing out a hypocritical position you were making between the post and your attitudes and views expressed here. Your explanation was “my blog my rules”.
Thats just an example of you, a huge liberal who asserts liberals are champions of free speech *snicker*.
John, I have rarely deleted comments from my blog. When I have, it’s been a case, usually, of someone making off topic comments (which I usually give a great deal of latitude on) or making ad hom attacks in lieu of on topic comments. That I try to maintain an orderly blog (some times, any way) and insist on on topic comments is not a knock against free speech. Beyond that, you have deleted or not posted far more of my comments than I of yours, and that with my comments being on topic and respectful. Does that mean that conservatives don’t value free speech? Or just that, for whatever reason, my comments were not meeting your expectations so you refused to post them?
Marshall…
It is routine for you to delete comments you don’t like on the charge that it is off topic
Same for you, if I insist on on-topic comments is not a sign that I don’t value free speech, just that I’m trying to keep things on topic. And if a commenter is making assertions as fact and/or “God’s Word” and I choose to delete them when clearly they are opinion, that is not an indication that I don’t value free speech. And in truth, generally, I let even the non-fact based claims of “facts” remain, I usually let the off topic ad hom attacks remain, so you can’t really cite that as “evidence” that I don’t believe in free speech.
It is not at all “routine,” it is the extreme exception of years and years of comments. Certainly less than 1% of comments at my blog have been deleted, so you can’t really call that “routine,” it does not seem to me.
Beyond that, I’ve also deleted some comments (repeated same comments) that were attacks on a recently deceased person on a post memorializing the deceased person. That I don’t believe that meets a standard of decorum does not say I don’t believe in free speech.
This all seems reasonable to me. I’m sorry if you disagree, but, the point remains: My circle of “liberals” believe in free speech, even unpopular speech. And it also remains true that Free Speech is one of the basic tenets of liberalism, even if imperfectly practiced.
Respectfully,
Dan
Years ago, when conservatives criticized Obama’s anti-American, race-essentialist, conspiracy-mongering pastor, Dan Trabue accused us of (and I a quote) a “digital lynching.”
More recently, when a conservative points out the indisputable fact that the victims of abortion are disproportionately black, Dan immediately insinuated that his doing so was racist — and Dan has recently made a habit of trying to discredit every conservative position as appearing irrational.
These aren’t efforts to deal with an opposing view on the merits: they are efforts to push opposing views out of the bounds of polite society.
Indeed. And Dan now refers to me attacking a deceased person, which I was not. I was criticizing Dan’s characterization of the deceased (Nelson Mandella) as “a great man”.
And as regards opinion and off-topic comments, as with the Mandella stuff, no one can tell whether or not the comments are as Dan characterizes them if he deletes them. If others feel the same way, they would say so. And if no one saw things my way, deleting is still an attack on free speech when simply ignoring such comments at least allows for others to decide. It is as I charged, that Dan’s blog policies are no more than Dan claiming authority to subjectively, in a very self-serving manner, determine what is or isn’t fact, opinion or worthy of publication. He’s a typical leftist censor.
Maybe some people here feel the Left is more prone to censorship because they are Right Wing commenters on Liberal blogs. Perhaps if they were Liberals they would feel that Conservatives are more likely to censor.
This is a matter of perspective more than ideology.
George,
I can only go by those blogs I’ve visited. I’ve been banned and censored by liberal blogs mainly for the crime of having a point the lefty did not feel comfortable in addressing. I’ve seen conservative bloggers ban, and/or censor people like Dan Trabue for his continually acting as if his arguments haven’t been routinely and exhaustively proven false. Then he’ll play this game of being victimized by “brothers in Christ” acting without grace and love. His is among those lefty blogs that have censored and/or deleted comments of mine with regularity for a variety of false, yet self-serving reasons.
What happens at lib and conservative blogs I have yet to visit I could not say.
What I’m suggesting Marshall is that you wouldn’t be as aware or as sensitive to how Conservatives moderate and censor their blogs because you don’t have the experience of saying things that goad them into censoring you. Just as Dan has very little experience with censorship on Liberal blogs because he is usually agreeing with the person who wrote the post.
I’m saying you are both right, and both wrong. Conservatives view Liberals as censors because they experience censorship at the hands of Liberals; and Liberals view Conservatives as censors because they experience censorship at the hands of Conservatives. I’m saying it is more about perspective, not ideology.
You might frequent some Conservative blogs that are highly censored, but you would have less direct knowledge of censorship because it isn’t your opinion they would want to censor.
What you fail to consider, George, is that while I am unlikely of saying the types of things that would result in a conservative blog host censoring or banning me, I am quite aware of the comments made by libs that result in action taken against theM. And, being well aware of the types of comments that resulted in my banishment or censoring at lib blogs, I can see quite clearly a difference in the character of the comments that led to each.
For example, my difficulties are always the result of my arguments themselves. They are uncomfortable for the lib and force them to account for their positions in ways they did not expect. I expose what I think are major flaws, and rather than honestly and calmly facing the scrutiny, they will shut me down. In Dan’s case, he uses a variety of lame excuses, such as off-topic, an alleged inability on my part to distinguish between fact and opinion, and several other typical dodges that put an undue and unnecessary leash on the personal style of discourse of the person posting comments. Eventually, the conservative might get a bit testy, and Dan will then use that against the guy.
On the side of the issue, Dan gets heat not for his positions (except in how silly they are), but in how he attempts to defend them. Note in John’s recent post on teacher unions, Dan offers 3 links to “studies” that do not provide the proofs he presented them to provide. An even earlier post “Are we losing the ability to resist our government?”, Dan provides one link to support his case, is given several legitimate reasons why it doesn’t, he demands counter documented evidence for the other side, has it provided to him in spades, and then pretends none has been given or not enough has. It is THIS type of nonsense that has led to his problems with conservative bloggers. And in most cases, he is likely still able to post comments if he does so without the nonsense. Note again, both this and the previous paragraph each speak to a single example or description, but provide a good sense of the reality.
If you wanted to, you could visit my blog (www.marshallart.blogspot.com) and simply look at my most recent post. A lefty there has the habit of posting accusatory comments without backing them up. While I have no problem, and often find amusement, in trading barbs, I prefer actual discussion, but get none from this guy. He is still there. I do not ban him or tell him not to visit. He claims to be well educated and I presume at some point he’ll actually stump me with his imagined smarts. I welcome that challenge. It never comes. You could also visit Dan’s blog and peruse a month or two of his posts and see how he constantly sets parameters for discourse he never follows in blogs such as this one. I’m not the only one who holds this complaint against him. It is quite common.
It’s not that either side bans or censors. It’s why that counts.
I have considered this fact Marshall. I’m not oblivious to the fact that some blogs have a habit of censoring discourse they find uncomfortable. Speaking as a Liberal commenter in the blogosphere, I have been moderated and censored on several Christian and Conservative sites. I don’t consider my style aggressive, rude, pedantic, passive aggressive, oblivious, or unreasonable in a way that would result in “stylistic” moderation as you suggest is common among Conservative blogs. I am routinely disappointed when this happens, but I don’t consider all Conservatives to be unreasonable by nature. In fact, to John’s credit- one of the reasons I am a regular here is because I feel he is very open to dialogue and promotes real conversation. In fact, I consider John an actual friend more than just a moderator of a blog. I could easily write your last comment and just change Con to Lib and Lib to Con and it would be an accurate representation of my experience online. I think you are very right that some Liberal blogs are prone to unreasonable moderation, not because it has happened to me personally, but because it has happened to Conservative commenters whose experiences I trust.
I just wonder if we can’t agree that it is possible that your opinion that Libs are more prone to censor than Cons is peppered by the fact that you experience that censorship firsthand and most of your experience on the other hand is anecdotal.
Just to clarify: Marshall, you have commented 100s, if not thousands of comments on my blog. I have almost certainly deleted fewer than 1-2% of those comments. In each circumstance, I had specifically requested you not comment on that post (in the case of your attacking Mandela days after his death at a memorial post on my blog) or that I had specifically requested you answer a direct question before moving on to other comments or requests of that sort.
And you are one of the few conservative types whose comments I have deleted at all. Most conservatives who have commented on my page have had zero comments deleted. Prior to recently, I had deleted far more liberal commenters’ remarks than conservative ones, and that was in the case of ad hom attacks made on conservative guests at my blog.
So, to repeat: thousands of comments on my blog, mostly from conservative commenters, far fewer than 1% deleted, and most of those were you, and most of those were when you repeated the same comment over that I deemed inappropriate for one reason or another.
I think reasonable people can agree that a 1% delete rate is not a “habit” of deleting, but is a rather remarkable record of free speech, with some not unreasonable limitations.
On the other hand, I have been deleted or outright banned at a dozen or two conservative blogs, in spite of being on topic and mostly polite. Of the blogs I’ve commented upon, I would estimate a 0% rate of deletion at the liberal ones (for reasons that George has already noted – I said nothing too disagreeable for them) and a 50+% delete or ban rate at conservative blogs. Just to clarify.
~Dan
George,
“I just wonder if we can’t agree that it is possible that your opinion that Libs are more prone to censor than Cons is peppered by the fact that you experience that censorship firsthand and most of your experience on the other hand is anecdotal.”
I’m pretty sure that the comment to which this is in response clearly related personal experience. To be more specific, I have yet to see a blog that doesn’t reflect the experiences I related. I don’t say the lib doesn’t exist who will allow most anything. I was saying I haven’t seen it yet.
If anyone listened to Air America, the decidedly liberal talk radio station, they filtered opposition out. And when someone got through by saying they were liberal tjey got hung up on. Look at the shows on MSNBC, Maddow, Shultz, ODonnel, et al, they dont have conservative panelists on. If by chance they do, they are shouted down.
Compare with Fox shows and conservative talk who put disagreers at the top of the list. They actually move them to the front.
This is true in politics too. Liberals often use name calling and loaded distorted descriptions. So if conservatives want to cut spending, they say republicans want kids and women to starve and be homeless. When republicans want to regulate abortion, politicians in congress say Republicans want women to die on the floor.
When blacks dare be conservative theyre called uncle toms and house niggers and race traders.
There is no diversity of thought allowed in liberal circles and they dont debate issues, they sling names trying to get people to stop discussing.
Just look back to the post about black mothers aborting. Dan didnt begin by saying, hmm, I wonder why. Instead he painted the post as basically racist for even asking why.
Dan,
Your math notwithstanding, I have no way of knowing who you’ve subjected to censorship and who you haven’t. That’s the problem with deleting comments. One cannot know just how open you are. But your censorship goes beyond merely deleting, it is the manner of how you demand a strict control of what can be said, as well as how and when. Of the “thousands” of comments I’ve posted, an entirely unnecessary amount have been devoted to explaining why my comments do not run afoul of your outlandish and self-serving rules.
And once again, I never attacked Mandella in your “memorial” (snicker). I attacked your characterization of him as a great man. You gave very little evidence to support the notion, while I tried to give evidence why that praise was inappropriate (but you deleted it over and over again). So please stuff a sock in it since your lack of honesty is showing again.
As to answering direct questions, I’m sure I could find one or two who could back me on this: You demands for answering direct questions more often than not ignore questions asked of you without you answering. The rest of the time, they are an assortment of ridiculous and inane suggestions of our position causing more wasted keystrokes to wade through crap in hopes that you will finally deal with the issues at hand. One example is “So if God ordered you to rape babies, you’d do it?”
Don’t pretend you’re something you’re not as to being fair with conservative guests at your blog. You’re not.
Look, this whole censorship bullshit is exactly that: bull shit. I didn’t censor liberals on my blog, and since I’ve been given moderator privileges on this blog, I’ve censored only outright insults. I could have censored comments that proved me utterly wrong, but I didn’t. Why? ‘Cause I’m not cut like that. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, period. And John runs a great blog, and I wouldn’t get in the way of that. John isn’t interested in making proclamations; John wants debate, and in fact welcomes it. But as great as I think John is, I don’t believe he’s a minority. It’s simply a conservative principle, in my view, to welcome dissent.
So, this idea that conservatives are somehow more likely to censor is bullshit. Liberals are more likely to censor, and studies prove that liberals are more likely to unfriend on FB than any other group.
So, George, I’d suggest that you’re a bit different than many of your comrades and you ought recognize that fact and simply move on.
And I’ll tell ya, George, if you ever find yourself banned from a conservative blog, then let John and myself know. We’ll vouch for you. John’s track record is impeccable. And I’ll absolutely vouch for you and tell whoever banned you how much of a disgrace they are to American principles.
You call me on that, George. Feel free. You know my FB. You let me know. I know what kind of a person you are on the blogs, what kind of a liberal, and you’re not objectionable, period. You’re a good person it seems with good arguments. So, I’ll vouch for ya. Because I don’t abide censorship, George. I’m an American and I don’t think this country became great by censoring people. To hell with that. So, you let me know if you find yourself unjustly banned. I’ll vouch for ya.
Terrance, you can find banners and deleters by going to Marshall’s blog (who doesn’t, to his credit) and looking at his list of friends. Almost to a one, I am banned from those blogs.
And, again, a 99% track record of not deleting (and no banning) is not bad. I have deleted a relative hand-full of comments (liberal and conservative) but not because they disagreed with me (look at the thousands of comments there and you can see that most people who’ve commented have disagreed with me) and not for personal ad hom attacks against me (again, look at the thousands of insults), but for rudely off-topic comments (ie, they posted something that was truly irrelevant, I left it and reminded them to comment on topic, and they kept going down the off topic trail, so – in 10? 20? cases, I have deleted them) or because of personal attacks against my guests (you can attack me at my blog, but I try to discourage attacks on visitors, unless it’s a mutual thing, in which case I just try to discourage it – I don’t want to run a daycare for fussy toddlers and I don’t apologize for that). And again, it’s mainly been Marshall. For what I consider decent reasons, not for reasons of censorship because I disagreed with his opinion.
I see nothing wrong with some reasonable level of respect when visiting a blog.
Respectfully,
Dan
I have been banned by liberals for merely asking how they respond to agw skeptics. He said he had no time for morons.
And I have been banned for merely disagreeing (as a Christian) with conservative opinion about gay rights. It happens across the board. I’m just saying amongst the conservative blogs I’ve frequented, bans are well over 50%, and deleting comments is closer to 90%. Admittedly, that is only 20-30 blogs, but of those, probably 20 have banned me. Others have deleted me. Marshall’s is the ONE exception that has never deleted me. But why should he? I give him no reason, other than politely disagreeing and that disagreement being frustrating.
~Dan
Dan
The times ive shut you down were not because of your opinion. I suspect it wasnt in the other cases either. You discuss issues dishonestly by distorting and misrepresenting people words amd views. Then you passive aggressivly imply conservatives are racist bigot gay haters. You word your accusations in such a way as to leave yourself some techical “thats not what i was saying, you interpreted me wrong”. You imply the worst about people and when called on it you give this “who, lil old me? Im just trying to understand”. People tire of your bs quickly. Believe me, its not your views.
Even still. There was a study that showed liberals were much more likely to ban, block, or unfriend on social media or blogs for mere political disagreement. I wrote a post on it whe it was released. Search well knock me over with a feather.
Indeed, John, regarding your 10:26 AM post. I have no doubt I would find similar reasons other conservative bloggers block Dan’s comments, and easily so.
What Dan tries to insist is that he is an innocent victim of conservative censorship, when the reality, in every case I’ve seen, is that he had been given an extremely long leash in terms of how he engages in discourse, until finally the host is no longer interested in dealing with him. To say he had overstayed his welcome doesn’t go far enough to describe the situation and escalation of tensions brought on by his manner and “style of discourse”. I don’t know anyone who has banned him or deleted his comments merely for holding an different point of view.
Conversely, however, while Dan does not out right ban as a first step, his constant subjective altering of the terms of engagement is well known. Craig, for example, will often indicate how Dan, on the blogs of others, fails to abide his own standards so rigidly imposed upon conservative visitors to his blog.
I don’t frequent other people’s blogs that much anymore, so I don’t know who bans and who doesn’t. But I know that I rarely banned or deleted comments on my blog, and it’s a rare occurrence on this blog. But when I did frequent other blogs, I was banned repeatedly, especially from anti-life blogs. And not because I was rude. I’d start the conversation off with disagreement, of course, but I wasn’t being “disagreeable” – yet I was banned.
And I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve been unfriended by liberals on Facebook. Just ask John. I message him complaining every time it happens. LOL.
Fact is, when liberals can’t defend their B.S. they silence the opposition – just like John said. Or, they resort to attacks. Just check out clips from Piers Morgan’s now-defunct show. Anytime he had a conservative on and couldn’t counter their opinion, he’d call them names. “You’re an unbelievably stupid man,” he said to one Second Amendment supporter.
And the rest of ’em rarely talk to conservatives.
So much to address, I’ll try to hit some high points.
1. There is a reason why liberal talk radio has been such an abject failure, it’s because ridicule, toilet humor, and gross exaggerations/generalizations/lies about conservatives can only go so far before they get old. Seriously,spend 15 minutes listening to Stephanie Miller or Ring of Fire radio and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
2. Some of the most vile attacks I’ve ever had directed at me on blogs have come from liberals. I’ve also noticed a trend by liberals to either close down blogs, have blogs in name only, or eliminate comments all together in order to either stop comments they don’t like or to protect themselves from blog posts that might come back to haunt them.
3. Here in the peoples republic we’re seeing how liberals act when they have complete control of the state house.
a. The state government spent the last legislative session passing a number of laws which they campaigned on during the campaign. They are now spending this legislative session trying to repeal these laws to minimize the harm they are causing.
b. The state government raised taxes by 1.2 billion last session, and are now trying to pass a $500 million dollar “tax cut” bill so they can claim they “cut taxes” during an election year. When the minority party (not liberal) insisted that the liberal majority follow state law in regarding allowing a time for public comment and amendment before voting on said “tax cut” bill. The governor promptly blamed the republicans for impeding the passage if the bill.
c. The liberal majority can’t agree on a minimum wage hike bill and are surprisingly blaming republicans for their failure.
4. In both liberal media (talk radio, MSNBC, etc) and government I find that not only are liberals willing to lie to advance their agenda, they’re willing to be incredibly brazen about it.
Craig,
While I believe your point #1 is correct, it is incomplete. Libs, by and large, are not really interested in politics to the extent that they’ll listen to lib talk shows. It just doesn’t interest them. I only know thee lefties that listen to left leaning radio at all, and none of them spent much of any time at, say, AirAmerica radio. I probably spent more time listening, and that’s despite the pain involved. Otherwise, your point is spot on.
I have to agree with Marshal. Most of the liberals I know are utterly clueless. They’re liberal for no other reason than it being fashionable at this point in time.
MA & T,
I’m not suggesting there aren’t other reasons, just that liberal talk radio/TV is just a bunch of bitter, immature people who aren’t very enjoyable to listen to.
When the level of “humor” is referring to John Boehner as “boner”, I’m not sure how much substance you’re going to find there.