Showing posts with label Rhetoric. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rhetoric. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

When You Say It Enough...

Your prejudices don't seem so distasteful. This past Sunday morning [October 18, 2009] I stopped clicking on ABC's weekend news show This Week. I normally don't watch them, but when I do, it is usually the Fox offering with Chris Wallace. This particular Sunday I recognized why I do not patronize most non-Fox shows.

George "Clinton Administration" Stephanopoulos host the show and moderates the group opinion-discussion portion. This Week, not unlike all the others, try to have a bi-partisan panel. Yet on this particular broadcast, George's political persuasion was revealed - and he may not have even noticed it. [Although I didn't need "proof" of his belief, this incident lends credence.]

Video: Roundtable: 2010 Midterms

Discussing a few local races and problems they each have, E.J. Dionne Jr. appears unaware of the Tea Party's actual name :

Dionne Jr.: The conservative party in New York state put up a right-wing candidate supported by the "teabaggers"... {video -5:16}


Mr Dionne finished his point by presuming the Republicans have a long struggle ahead of them. Then George springboards off E.J.'s point to facilitate the discussion, addressing Peggy Noonan, he says:

Stephanopoulos: This hardcore part of the [Republican] base is in a world unto its own. Uh, right now. The "Teabag Movement" and they are sort of driven by the idea that President Obama and Democrats have a secret plan to impose Socialism. {video -4:50}

While George was speaking, the camera was trained on Peggy Noonan. She was ready to respond to the question George was asking when he uttered "teabag movement." Peggy does a little speculating why the Republicans in upstate New York in turmoil before subtly admonishing E.J. for using the slur "teabagger." {video -4:16}

What if sportscasters were to start referring to Green Bay's football team as the "Fudge Packers?" Would that not cause a big problem? Well, degrading a large group of Americans peacefully protesting to show their disagreement with the government's spending and law making is of poor taste for a media outlet. I would expect this from cable channels or left-wing black helicopter blogs.

{video -4:16} = point in ABC's clip where quote was made

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Shared via AddThis

Apparently the push to label all Obama "disagree'ers" (every group needs a label: truther, birther, teabagger) as racist malcontents wasn't working. There might have been too much hurt feelings from this political friendly-fire.

Yes, not all the attendees at Healthcare Town Halls or the recent 9/12 protest were vicious, right-wingers out to destroy the country! No one can publish a reliable count of how many people attended. So, putting a number on the percentage of Democrats and the ever-needed swing voting Independents is impossible.

Nancy Pelosi attempts an award winning performance, but her method acting falls short. 

Please elaborate!  What language has been used?  Can you describe this "frightening rhetoric?"  I was born in the 70s, and not in San Francisco.  What happened?  I know about the Civil Rights work in the 50s and 60s; the Haight-Ashbury Revolution in the late 60s, but what could bring you to crocodile tears at the podium today?

She is now making such broad statements, that it is difficult to know whom she is talking about or what she is hearing that is inciting violence.  Like beating up a wheelchair-bound black man?  Or nearly biting off the pinky of an elderly man?  Of course not, those were Obama "disagree'ers." 

Yes, let us have more personal responsibilities about what we say!  Mrs. CIA-Lied-To-Me.  Please give an example or show us a photo of the swastikas you saw a one town hall meeting!  Please make a clear analogy between 1970s San Francisco and peaceful outrage towards Obama's plans, for those of us who have no clue what you are talking about.

Who are the "unbalanced" that you speak of?  Regular American's who hear how more and more sectors of our economy are becoming Government run?  The men and women, who thought they were getting "Hope and Change," only to find out they hope things don't change? 

It is typically those on the left who "want to teach business a lesson" when the WTO comes to town or Republicans have their convention.  I understand there were zero arrests during the 9/12 march on Washington D.C..  How many police cars were torched?  Was there a garbage can tossed through a store's window anywhere in the city related to American's converging on our Capital? 

In one sentence you speak of "incitement" and being held accountable for inciting 70s-style violence.  I don't know on anyone who would disagree - aside from maybe the ACLU.  I am confused, wouldn't someone making inciteful statements or requests not be balanced?  Obviously, those who would act out at the request are clearly unbalanced.  But, you begin to blur the line between rhetoric and stating one's belief with inciting violence. 

What is now considered incitement?  Merely stating your dissatisfaction with ObamaCare or fear that Obama's call to "fundamentally change America", is this incitement should  it fall on some ears of an imbalanced person who would become violent?  Please, Mrs. Lawmaker, be more clear.
From this video, I see the Speaker has learned her lesson about returning to the podium to answer lingering questions from the press.