The Claremont Institute came up here recently. Here is a piece from them that makes a lot of sense.
Words lose their meaning and truth disappears in pursuit of the progressive agenda.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
The Claremont Institute came up here recently. Here is a piece from them that makes a lot of sense.
Words lose their meaning and truth disappears in pursuit of the progressive agenda.
After reading the article is am not sure if I can say anything that won’t upset the underdog status the right has assumed for the last decade or so.
Again, it “us trampled patriots v. the Harvard elites”. Which is funny considering some of the most fiery firebrands on the right all went to top Ivy League schools. The money, the political power and the religious power are mostly in the hands of conservative, White, Christians.
Yet, make proposals to soften the more egregious inequities nurtured by those same power brokers then suddenly the “oppression” becomes unbearable.
In other words, from my viewpoint, conservative elitism is unhappy with competition so they resort to the classic football tactic of the major teams…take the under dog status all the time. Like Alabama does before most games.
The article is the highbrow side of the “Jews (nor anyone else for that matter) will not replace us” in an effort to legitimize victim hood and foster hatred of anything or anyone different than their view of 1950’s America.
The legacy of the right for this era is murky so long as they preach that everyone else is the “enemy of the people”.
IMHANEO
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is very telling how hard the party of LYING LIARS, The Big Lie and Insurrection has to work to show how victimized they are. This essay is palpable nonsense. Yours is the party of “Alternative Facts” and they are what is destructive of the social, political and economic order – not these cutesy whines.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yada yada yada
The articles examples are spot on.
LikeLike
Examples spot on.
There are no actual examples in the article. There is NOTHING in that “essay” of any substance of any kind. Just a compilation of fine whines.
Too bad your mind is so constipated with hatred that you cannot see or smell horseshit when it is right in front of your nose. Sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As it was me who brought up the decline of the Claremont Institute as a REAL conservative think tank that has fallen into the scummy world of Trumpism, anything they have to say it this point is taken with a grain of salt (and a shot of Patron).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regardless, the article stand on it own regardless of where it appears.
If you disagree, tell me where it is wrong.
LikeLike
It is a continuation of the grievance politics that Trump perfected. It is, IMO and in the immortal words of Col. Sherman T. Potter “HORSE HOCKEY!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, where is it in error?
LikeLike
LOL!
Where is right about anything? Spinning cherry-picked hypothetical comments by no one in particular to fit laughable – but cute – “laws” is, well, laughable.
I do not need to be cutesy to give you serious and consequential gaslighting by the right. Here are two easy examples . . .
LikeLiked by 2 people
After four plus years of gaslighting by the Trump administration and all of his little minions in Congress and the media, it is completely disingenuous to be concerned about it now. For all of those years you gave Trump a pass with idiotic rationalizations and excuses.
LikeLike
but where is the article in error?
LikeLike
Paul and I have already addressed this question. Sorry if the a answer doesn’t meet with your standards. But the fact that you are using a disgraced organizations rantings, which are counter to everything they said previously, the credibility is gone.
LikeLike
No, you have engaged in ad hominems and deflections, but you have not shown where the article is on error.
The reason is that it very accurately describes the rhetoric and deceptions of the left.
LikeLike
Yet you protect the rhetoric and MAJOR deceptions of the right.
OK, here it is. You are a hypocrite thta does not see his own hypocrisy.
AS far as the accuracy of the article, I will post one of your brothers here. “Who cares?’ The whining right has no credibility any more and that a man who is as learned as you continues to defend their snowflake status is just amazing.
LikeLike
The article is incoherent babble. There is no meat in it to refute.
You people talking about deceptions is a hoot. Your whole movement – such as it is – is fueled by LIES big and small. Look how your own attempted characterization of the January 6th terrorists as mere “trespassers” was demolished by video and testimony yesterday. Look how your Big Lie about the election withered in court. Look at the joke your Arizona “audit” is proving to be. Just the other day look how the poor little gun lovers were ‘dissed by the media who supposedly never cover Olympic skeet. Except that they do. Day after day it is the same story with you people. Now you are trying to point fingers at Nancy Pelosi over security failures on January 6th when NONE of that is her area of responsibility or authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For us unwashed, could you clarify how accurate the opinion is. It should be easy to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is “spot on”only because it feeds his own personal worldview and is not based on anything but the grievance politics of the right.
LikeLike
The paradox, of course, is that those who believe propaganda can’t see it for what it is.
Excellent essay.
LikeLike
Have you checked your own mirror lately?
LikeLike
That would be an example of “Celebration Parallax” as described in the essay.
LikeLike
You believe and spread propaganda regularly here on this forum. BUT YOU are the one who cannot see it for what it is.
The essay is crapola; the Claremont Institute has devolved into crapola and I really could care less about any kind of parallax you and the author believe in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The essay is crapola…”
You say so, but offer no reason to believe you.
LikeLike
Who cares?
LikeLike
What’s funny is the left wingers on this board are committing the article’s examples in this thread proving them absolutely correct. They can’t help themselves, lying liars and all…
LikeLike
…”lying liars and all…”
You amaze me with your ability to confuse what the right does with what you THINK the left does.
LikeLike
And those examples would be…?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“And those examples would be…?”
That is not fair!
Nobody could make any sense out of any of the cutesy categories in that silly essay. Least of all Bob.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just because everyone else isn’t an idiot like you claim doesnt mean you have to prove the essay correct by you claiming everyone is an idiot. That just makes you an idiot. I know you can’t help yourself…
LikeLike
The first 3 for starters….
LikeLike
“The first three for starters”
LOL! You just proved Len’s point. You do not understand ANY of this nonsense well enough to concretely relate it to anything. I am not criticizing you. It is very silly rubbish that nobody could figure out.
I post a lot. If I am wrong, take any one of my posts and explain how it is an example of any one of these cutesy categories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Larry, Moe and Curly?
LikeLiked by 1 person