A Conversation with a Passive-Aggressive Liberal Extremist
Some time ago I posted an email exchange I had with a columnist for a major American (news)paper. Based on the positive feedback I had from that post, I share with you the exchange I had last week with the same columnist.
First, the columnist is not Ms. Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe. Though I address the email to her because I was commenting on her column, I blind copy quite a few folks on such emails. One of the people I copied replied.
Second, I decided against adding editorial commentary. If someone wants to make their own editorial comment on the entire exchange or a specific line or two, I’ll gladly comment on that. I think the only inside joke in the conversation is when I invite the columnist to be “Portside Horowitz”; that is a liberal extremist with the courage to call-out the blatant hypocrisy or hate of other liberal extremists; it’s from a prior email exchange we shared; the columnist knows the Democratic machinery that dominates most cities and demonstrates time and again it cannot educate urban children; the columnist has written positively about education reform.
The entire exchange was completed over 4 hours or so.
Finally, I did not edit a single word in the entire exchange except to remove the columnist’s name where it would have appeared and to replace my name with “ZACKlyRight” where it appears.
In chronological order starting with my email to a Boston Globe columnist (I'm the odd-numbered entries, the columnist is the even-numbered entries):
1. Ms. Vennochi,
Ms. Stockman reports today that Vietnam war hero, 25 years in the Senate, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry, is "on the fence" about sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Like I wrote you earlier, maybe with just a bit more seasoning he'll be ready to shine.
What more evidence does anyone need to write the most scathing of columns on this total failure?
And, while President Obama dithers, TODAY there are American troops in Afghanistan fighting and dying that Gates (December, 2006) says he's under-resourced for three years and Mullen (August, 2007) says he's under-resourced for two years. We owe these troops help TODAY if that is their assessment. I dare say, that Gates and Mullen should be fired for gross negligence.
No doubt Kerry will be at the White House today when President Obama presents the Medal of Honor to the family of Sgt. First Class Jared Monti of Raynam, MA.
No doubt Kerry is not on the fence about attending either.
2. I think probably people are looking at the history of combat in Afghanistan as well as the state of the current govt. there and wondering about the possibility for anything more than years of low grade conflict ...
3. 100 years?
4. 100 years what?
5. Obama and his demagogues pounded McCain for suggesting non-combat US troops could be in Iraq for 100 years.
I'm asking if Obama, Kerry, or you would tolerate a low grade conflict in Afghanistan for 100 years? Can I start demagoguing in-kind today?
If you have a comment on Obama reasserting Bush on the USA PATRIOT Act or Obama cowering in the Oval while a race conversation is taking place, you can comment on those here, no need to have three threads going.
Obama presents a Medal of Honor today, I wonder if he'll successfully avoid discussing the war in Afghanistan again and I wonder how many times he'll say "health care".
The job of Portside Horowitz is still open; only partial credit for charter school support.
6. 100 years? Are you kidding? Of course not.
7. The job of Portside is still open.
Call-out Obama for not personally calling out Carter. A "nation of cowards", indeed (Obama, not you).
Good God, Gates and Mullen (and Obama through Gibbs) have trashed McKiernan and Bush (but not themselves?) for three weeks now by referring to the war in Afghanistan as "under-resourced" and Stockman is reporting Obama"vows"!!! no immediate action? The comments and inaction cannot be reconciled. I'm sure the troops currently in Afghanistan appreciate the Commander-in-Chief's concern for them. Or, maybe Obama will enjoy himself today at the Monti event. He'll get a chance to be photographed looking presidential.
I'll rank Afghanistan, race-relations and health care in that order. I think we're seeing how Obama ranks them.
8. Why should he call Carter out? Can't a former president express his opinion? And isn't there some truth to what he's saying? Think, old boy, think.
9. Obama should have called out Carter and should not have sent Gibbs to do it.
Yes, a former President can express his opinion. When he incites hate, there should be consequences, though. Or, do you not agree?
The truth in what he is saying lies in the history he re-counted which no one is contesting. I don't know his relationship with former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert C. Byrd (D, WV) so I don't know what truths Carter knows about the inner workings of the Klan.
Afghanistan (small gap) race-relations (huge gap plus at least 8 other issues) health care.
Under-resourced and inaction cannot be reconciled.
10. To call that inciting hatred is to misuse (or misunderstand) words, ZACKlyRight. At least try to think.
11. I'm well-versed in the code words and language the Democrats use to justify victimization in those they keep on the plantation(*). The hate he fostered is in those who vote for Democrats.
Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile.
(*) - plantation means just what Hillary meant in Jan. 2006 and as supported by Rev. Sharpton when asked about the quote. Maybe if I use the same language your friends use you'll understand me better.
12. Hate is simply a dumb word to use there, ZACKlyRight. It makes you guilty of the very kind of politics you accuse others of.
13. I'm not in front of a microphone inciting. I'm not giving an interview that will be plastered for millions to read. I'm engaged with someone who can affect the thoughts of 300,000 subscribers to a newspaper and the millions more who read on-line.
I agree with President Obama that Wilson's words were not racially based.
I agree with President Obama that Kanye West is a jackass and I'm quite positive Kanye's words were racially motivated. But, let's not have an honest national conversation about that.
I still haven't seen the race of the line judge Serena threatened. Based on her name only I gather she might be a white Hispanic. Knowing what we know about how Boston's black cops ticket white Hispanics with the greatest frequency per stop of any cop/driver combination (Dedman's special report, 2003), it might be worth considering if Serena's threat was racially motivated.
All racism is wrong. All racism should be called out. And using race to score political as the Democrats do with so much regularity is vile.
Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile,
14. Knowingly or otherwise, you've allowed yourself to become a right-wing dupe. V. sad. You could be the starboard-size Horowitz.
15. Your calling a Republican a name. I understand that offends no etiquette in today's political environment. I'm sorry our conversation included your comment.
Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile,
16. You mean, you're?
17. Yes.
18. I thought as much.
At my entry 5. above, I did not wait for 6. to return before I sent a second email, a. below. The exchange below then became a concurrent conversation. The above conversation ended around d. below, with e. – h. being the last four comments exchanged.
a. Also, about two days ago the (guilty) all-white Editorial Board of the Boston Globe threw a blanket over Wilson, West and Williams in an effort to paint their behavior as simply "boorish". Great pre-emptive move; now those who have to defend West and Williams from the charge of racism know the reply - they were just uncivil. But from the three, the extremists have attacked one – for political gain - not to improve race relations.
Why did Coakley vote for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention after Hillary released all her delegates? Could she not pull the lever for the black man? That Democrats don't think prominent white Democratscan be racists is one of the greatest lies. Or, could she not pull the lever for a man? Racist or sexist, the ugly motive for the vote should be disqualifying.
100%! According to CNN.com exit polling, 100% of black females in North Carolina voted for Obama. Fine, some thought he was the better candidate. Some are racists. We're to excuse their ugly motives? When does excusing ugly racism stop?
Are there white Republican racists? Absolutely. If the race conversation in this country is only going to continue to the extent Democrats can make political hay from this fact, to the exclusion of discussing the white, liberal racists or the black racists, then that's no conversation at all. That's Jimmy Carter.
b. Because she was pandering to women as she planned a future Senate run. That's not hard to figure out, old boy.
Racism, properly understood, has to have a malign element to it. You're trying to stretch it to cover anything that remotely involves race in a way that's dishonest.
If, for example, someone observes that Asian women are smart and attractive, that may be a racial stereotype, but it shouldn't be thought of a racist (sic) (Blogger's Note: I know I said no commentary but it is important to note that the columnist's 16. above came AFTER my c. below which completely ignored the horrific usage mistake by the columnist here.) per se because it's not used as the basis of a negative judgment.
It's a "mistake'' conservatives often make. I wonder why?
c. There is no such thing as good racism. Rewarding an African-American on her Michigan Law School application simply because she is black hurts the Asian you referred to above who also applied.
d. That's a different argument and one that's nonresponsive.
e. No, it is responsive.
I don't think African-American women or my wife would be happy if I thought Asian woman were attractive. They'd want to pursue my thoughts. The follow-up question would be, "More attractive than African-American women and white women?" As soon as someone puts people in any order based on race, they've practiced racism. Not seeing this is a mistake many liberals make.
f. Well, ZACKlyRight, I can lead you to water, but I can't make you think.
g. Outstanding! You found my email to you from months ago. But, you messed up my line. It's, "I can lead you to KNOWLEDGE, but I can't make you think." I'm flattered nonetheless
h. Actually, I was thinking of Bill Weld's classic line about the Legislature: You can call them to order, but can't make them think.
Some time ago I posted an email exchange I had with a columnist for a major American (news)paper. Based on the positive feedback I had from that post, I share with you the exchange I had last week with the same columnist.
First, the columnist is not Ms. Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe. Though I address the email to her because I was commenting on her column, I blind copy quite a few folks on such emails. One of the people I copied replied.
Second, I decided against adding editorial commentary. If someone wants to make their own editorial comment on the entire exchange or a specific line or two, I’ll gladly comment on that. I think the only inside joke in the conversation is when I invite the columnist to be “Portside Horowitz”; that is a liberal extremist with the courage to call-out the blatant hypocrisy or hate of other liberal extremists; it’s from a prior email exchange we shared; the columnist knows the Democratic machinery that dominates most cities and demonstrates time and again it cannot educate urban children; the columnist has written positively about education reform.
The entire exchange was completed over 4 hours or so.
Finally, I did not edit a single word in the entire exchange except to remove the columnist’s name where it would have appeared and to replace my name with “ZACKlyRight” where it appears.
In chronological order starting with my email to a Boston Globe columnist (I'm the odd-numbered entries, the columnist is the even-numbered entries):
1. Ms. Vennochi,
Ms. Stockman reports today that Vietnam war hero, 25 years in the Senate, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry, is "on the fence" about sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Like I wrote you earlier, maybe with just a bit more seasoning he'll be ready to shine.
What more evidence does anyone need to write the most scathing of columns on this total failure?
And, while President Obama dithers, TODAY there are American troops in Afghanistan fighting and dying that Gates (December, 2006) says he's under-resourced for three years and Mullen (August, 2007) says he's under-resourced for two years. We owe these troops help TODAY if that is their assessment. I dare say, that Gates and Mullen should be fired for gross negligence.
No doubt Kerry will be at the White House today when President Obama presents the Medal of Honor to the family of Sgt. First Class Jared Monti of Raynam, MA.
No doubt Kerry is not on the fence about attending either.
2. I think probably people are looking at the history of combat in Afghanistan as well as the state of the current govt. there and wondering about the possibility for anything more than years of low grade conflict ...
3. 100 years?
4. 100 years what?
5. Obama and his demagogues pounded McCain for suggesting non-combat US troops could be in Iraq for 100 years.
I'm asking if Obama, Kerry, or you would tolerate a low grade conflict in Afghanistan for 100 years? Can I start demagoguing in-kind today?
If you have a comment on Obama reasserting Bush on the USA PATRIOT Act or Obama cowering in the Oval while a race conversation is taking place, you can comment on those here, no need to have three threads going.
Obama presents a Medal of Honor today, I wonder if he'll successfully avoid discussing the war in Afghanistan again and I wonder how many times he'll say "health care".
The job of Portside Horowitz is still open; only partial credit for charter school support.
6. 100 years? Are you kidding? Of course not.
7. The job of Portside is still open.
Call-out Obama for not personally calling out Carter. A "nation of cowards", indeed (Obama, not you).
Good God, Gates and Mullen (and Obama through Gibbs) have trashed McKiernan and Bush (but not themselves?) for three weeks now by referring to the war in Afghanistan as "under-resourced" and Stockman is reporting Obama"vows"!!! no immediate action? The comments and inaction cannot be reconciled. I'm sure the troops currently in Afghanistan appreciate the Commander-in-Chief's concern for them. Or, maybe Obama will enjoy himself today at the Monti event. He'll get a chance to be photographed looking presidential.
I'll rank Afghanistan, race-relations and health care in that order. I think we're seeing how Obama ranks them.
8. Why should he call Carter out? Can't a former president express his opinion? And isn't there some truth to what he's saying? Think, old boy, think.
9. Obama should have called out Carter and should not have sent Gibbs to do it.
Yes, a former President can express his opinion. When he incites hate, there should be consequences, though. Or, do you not agree?
The truth in what he is saying lies in the history he re-counted which no one is contesting. I don't know his relationship with former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert C. Byrd (D, WV) so I don't know what truths Carter knows about the inner workings of the Klan.
Afghanistan (small gap) race-relations (huge gap plus at least 8 other issues) health care.
Under-resourced and inaction cannot be reconciled.
10. To call that inciting hatred is to misuse (or misunderstand) words, ZACKlyRight. At least try to think.
11. I'm well-versed in the code words and language the Democrats use to justify victimization in those they keep on the plantation(*). The hate he fostered is in those who vote for Democrats.
Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile.
(*) - plantation means just what Hillary meant in Jan. 2006 and as supported by Rev. Sharpton when asked about the quote. Maybe if I use the same language your friends use you'll understand me better.
12. Hate is simply a dumb word to use there, ZACKlyRight. It makes you guilty of the very kind of politics you accuse others of.
13. I'm not in front of a microphone inciting. I'm not giving an interview that will be plastered for millions to read. I'm engaged with someone who can affect the thoughts of 300,000 subscribers to a newspaper and the millions more who read on-line.
I agree with President Obama that Wilson's words were not racially based.
I agree with President Obama that Kanye West is a jackass and I'm quite positive Kanye's words were racially motivated. But, let's not have an honest national conversation about that.
I still haven't seen the race of the line judge Serena threatened. Based on her name only I gather she might be a white Hispanic. Knowing what we know about how Boston's black cops ticket white Hispanics with the greatest frequency per stop of any cop/driver combination (Dedman's special report, 2003), it might be worth considering if Serena's threat was racially motivated.
All racism is wrong. All racism should be called out. And using race to score political as the Democrats do with so much regularity is vile.
Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile,
14. Knowingly or otherwise, you've allowed yourself to become a right-wing dupe. V. sad. You could be the starboard-size Horowitz.
15. Your calling a Republican a name. I understand that offends no etiquette in today's political environment. I'm sorry our conversation included your comment.
Under-resourced and inaction do not reconcile,
16. You mean, you're?
17. Yes.
18. I thought as much.
At my entry 5. above, I did not wait for 6. to return before I sent a second email, a. below. The exchange below then became a concurrent conversation. The above conversation ended around d. below, with e. – h. being the last four comments exchanged.
a. Also, about two days ago the (guilty) all-white Editorial Board of the Boston Globe threw a blanket over Wilson, West and Williams in an effort to paint their behavior as simply "boorish". Great pre-emptive move; now those who have to defend West and Williams from the charge of racism know the reply - they were just uncivil. But from the three, the extremists have attacked one – for political gain - not to improve race relations.
Why did Coakley vote for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention after Hillary released all her delegates? Could she not pull the lever for the black man? That Democrats don't think prominent white Democratscan be racists is one of the greatest lies. Or, could she not pull the lever for a man? Racist or sexist, the ugly motive for the vote should be disqualifying.
100%! According to CNN.com exit polling, 100% of black females in North Carolina voted for Obama. Fine, some thought he was the better candidate. Some are racists. We're to excuse their ugly motives? When does excusing ugly racism stop?
Are there white Republican racists? Absolutely. If the race conversation in this country is only going to continue to the extent Democrats can make political hay from this fact, to the exclusion of discussing the white, liberal racists or the black racists, then that's no conversation at all. That's Jimmy Carter.
b. Because she was pandering to women as she planned a future Senate run. That's not hard to figure out, old boy.
Racism, properly understood, has to have a malign element to it. You're trying to stretch it to cover anything that remotely involves race in a way that's dishonest.
If, for example, someone observes that Asian women are smart and attractive, that may be a racial stereotype, but it shouldn't be thought of a racist (sic) (Blogger's Note: I know I said no commentary but it is important to note that the columnist's 16. above came AFTER my c. below which completely ignored the horrific usage mistake by the columnist here.) per se because it's not used as the basis of a negative judgment.
It's a "mistake'' conservatives often make. I wonder why?
c. There is no such thing as good racism. Rewarding an African-American on her Michigan Law School application simply because she is black hurts the Asian you referred to above who also applied.
d. That's a different argument and one that's nonresponsive.
e. No, it is responsive.
I don't think African-American women or my wife would be happy if I thought Asian woman were attractive. They'd want to pursue my thoughts. The follow-up question would be, "More attractive than African-American women and white women?" As soon as someone puts people in any order based on race, they've practiced racism. Not seeing this is a mistake many liberals make.
f. Well, ZACKlyRight, I can lead you to water, but I can't make you think.
g. Outstanding! You found my email to you from months ago. But, you messed up my line. It's, "I can lead you to KNOWLEDGE, but I can't make you think." I'm flattered nonetheless
h. Actually, I was thinking of Bill Weld's classic line about the Legislature: You can call them to order, but can't make them think.
posted by Zack at 8:38 AM
2 Comments:
You make such clear and convincing arguments. Liberals can't argue facts, as soon as you get close to boxing them in they change the focus of the conversation. You have documented this technique over and over in this post. Nice job.
Enjoyed reading this exchange. You won this back and forth. Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment
<< Home