Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

Saturday, September 09, 2006

I'm Reading a New Book...

I've jsut finished Ann Coulter's latest, and I can't find anythign wrong with her logic. I find a lot wrong with the callousness of her rhetoric at times, but her conclusions are more than on target. Well, I'm picking up a new book today, David Limbaugh's Bankrupt. I found online the following list detailing some of the points I'll discover between its covers...


David Limbaugh reveals:

* How, in their desperation to regain the power they held for decades, Democrats have seized on a few isolated scandals and manufactured others – while real systemic corruption is in the highest positions of Democratic leadership

* The Democratic party’s decline: it took firm root in the late 1960s and 1970s, but has accelerated dramatically over the last decade

* How the Democrats sacrificed all moral principle to defend Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and have now adopted the Clinton mode of conducting politics as an art of personal assassination — all the while accusing the Republicans of doing it

* The presidential election of 2000: how the Democrats tried to steal it, and then began an all-out campaign to convince Americans that Republicans did steal it

* Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton: how they routinely violate the long-standing tradition against criticizing their successors — and even do so on foreign soil

* “Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it and we’re going to take it back”: how the far-left fringe has gained control over the Democratic party

* The Democrats’ false claims that Bush is trampling on the Constitution -- while doing all they can to subordinate the Constitution to their own political ends

* Proof: while they have had the effrontery to lambaste President Bush over his Weapons of Mass Destruction assertions, scores of Democrats are on public record making similarly strong statements about Iraqi WMD

* How the Democrats exploited Hurricane Katrina to fan the flames of suspicion and distrust among minorities and the poor

* How Democrats repeatedly smear Christians who hold to traditional values by equating them with murderous Islamic jihad terrorists

* Bush = Hitler: how deeply this outrageous smear has penetrated into the core Democratic leadership

* Why the Democrats aren’t even honest about their own core convictions

* The judicial branch: how the Democrats continue to employ it shamelessly to “legislate” policy they cannot convince the American people to adopt through democratic means

* How the Democrats deny their liberalism in favor of a euphemistic “progressivism” -- but while “progressive” implies “forward-looking,” Democrats are mired in the past, reactionary on issues from Social Security (don’t change a bankrupt system) to Iraq (don’t defeat a hostile dictatorship and try to make it a democracy)

* The fraudulent premise the Democrats used to oppose Bush’s proposed tax cuts, predicting (erroneously) enormous deficits and deliberately disproportionate benefits to the wealthy

* Howard Dean and the top Democratic leadership’s incredible claim that the American people will just have to trust that they can do things better than the Republicans, although they’ve articulated no specific policies

* How the Democrats can’t decide whether their electoral difficulties stem from their failure to articulate their message or from the wholesale stupidity of an electorate that is in their view too Christian, too much in favor of traditional family values, and too patriotic

* Why, as long as the Democratic Party continues to allow itself to be dominated by its fringe elements and treats mainstream conservatism as inherently offensive, it will have a built-in disadvantage in national elections


Can't wait to get started.

Also so on my reading list is David Jeremiah's The Prayer Matrix

14 Comments:

Blogger Al-Ozarka said...

"I find a lot wrong with the callousness of her rhetoric at times..."

You know, EL, sometimes directness is the best course. Think of some of the"callousness" offered by great men and women of God in scripture!

(By no means implying that Ann Coulter is a great person of God)

September 09, 2006 5:19 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

Well, she claims to be Christian, but claiming and being are not necessarily the same thing.

September 09, 2006 5:44 PM  
Blogger Snerd Gronk said...

POLL: Why does T(R)ucke(R) "Cut 'n (R)un' from Snerd?
(A) 'Cause he can't get 'er done
(B) 'Cause Snerd backs 'em down

Snerd's Banned Post: Your question reflects an 'in place' analysis and conclusion. You’re "a - b" 'thinking' as presented, represents the problem (analysis) as Arabic/Muslim/Islamic/etc. terrorism and the consequent option (the conclusion 'trucked in'), is Israel's response.

This pre-existing mindset, from which your 'pall'* question … err … poll question emanates, is the point Kevron is making, I think.

Metaphorically, asking the question whether we/Israel 'stand up' or 'stand down' in the face of terrorism is akin to addressing cancer by 'attacking' its symptoms when they become visible and obvious. Obviously in this metaphor, such an approach misses a deeper analysis of its root causes and less obvious development and therefore a more effective response.

A more 'honest' analysis would include an 'understanding' of the causes of the problem of terrorism.

For example, as a response, are terrorists 'simply' mad dogs who hate 'US' with no rational basis to that position, 'cause they are simply crazy … i.e. your option (a) or (b), the 'exte(R)minato(R) response' to an infestation of your home by termites

OR (c):
Terrorism has its origins in a rationally understandable context, where if the context is understood, that context can be altered and the consequent product controlled, or from a more 'Evolved' perspective 'selected out' … i.e. the elimination of rotting wood where termites breed

OR (d):
Some combination of the two, where there is a context which allows terrorism to take hold, a context of hopelessness say, which is then exploited by mad dogs.

And this is what your option misses, and why when there exists the possibility for more 'honest' options, it appears as a 'false dilemma'.

The way I "Grok" it … (c) or failing that (d)

'Strangely' Yours,
Snerd

September 10, 2006 2:46 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

Strangely indeed... Thanks, er, for that... comment?

September 10, 2006 6:24 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

From where I stand, Limbaugh's world seems like a bizarro world, where all things - facts, opinions, realities - are upside down and backwards. Good is bad, bad, good, etc, etc, etc.

As you well know.

It saddens me that we can't seem to cross this great divide.

September 11, 2006 12:42 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

Do you even listen to Rush Limbaugh? My guess is you don't-- not with any regularity. And on the rare occasions you DO, I bet you switch stations as soon as you hear something you disagree with. That describes quite a few people I know on the Left... Dishonest critique based on an uninformed position.

September 11, 2006 12:48 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Settle down, friend. I was talking about David Limbaugh, the fella you're talking about in your post. Based upon what you quoted him as saying, I find his positions to be just about upside down and backwards wrong on nearly every point.

Rush? I used to regularly listen to him back when I was a Reagan supporter. I thought he was funny then, but even then, his support for immoral causes (according to young conservative Dan) and shallow reasoning kept me from taking him seriously. He was funny, though.

When I listen to him now, he doesn't even seem funny. Just sad and bitter.

"Dishonest critique based on an uninformed position."? I'll accept that apology now.

September 11, 2006 8:12 AM  
Blogger Eric said...

David Limbaugh's Persecution is anything but bizarro, upside down, or backwards. But then we live in two different worlds, don't we? And it's only this miracle of a mirror through which we can even know of the others existence. How very Carroll-esque...

You and I are about as polar opposite as can be; As polar opposite as BenT and I are. Still, he's okay for anything but politics and religion. I imagine the same can be said for you. I imagine you may well feel the same about me. I reckon we'll both have to be okay with that.

September 11, 2006 9:39 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I keep coming back though and you keep responding - I suspect - because we're NOT okay with that. Our nation is divided unlike anytime except possibly the Civil War. We must at least try to breach this Great Wall between us.

September 11, 2006 12:16 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

For that we would need at least three square feet of common ground.

September 11, 2006 12:21 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

You want common ground?

1. We both believe in Jesus as the son of God. I'd say that's some pretty big common ground.

2. We're both americans and both want the best for the US.

3. I believe we both want to stop oppression/terrorism whenever and wherever it occurs (I know I do).

4. We both believe in personal responsibility, taking care of our families and friends, our homes, our environment.

5. I believe we both believe in integrity.

Am I wrong anywhere thus far. Is this not some impressive space for common ground to be discovered and built upon?

September 11, 2006 1:48 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I'd like to add that I believe we both have enough integrity to apologize and admit it when we've erred or misrepresented the others' view...

September 11, 2006 2:15 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I spent my lunch doing a brief experiment. I searched the following Leftish blogs (the top five of my political blogs), looking only at their most recent post:

According to my sources, Catastrophile, Erudite Redneck, On the Homefront and Wasp Jerky

Add to them any comments from Leftish folk at any of the posts researched and here are my results:

advocates violence: 0
calls names: 1 ("radio hatemongers")
demonizes the opposition: 0

I searched the following Rightish blogs (taken from Daddios top five), looking only at their most recent post:
Pocket Full of Mumbles, On the Campus Right, Forgotten Prophets, Hick Politics and Trucker Philosophy

Add to them any comments from Rightish folk at any of the posts researched and here are my results:

advocates violence: 1 (wants terrorists and "their family dead too.")
calls names: 2 ("families of terrorists are crap" and "moonbats")
demonizes the opposition: 0

That was a quick, random search. You think I'd find anything different if I continued?

[note: "demonizes the opposition" is more subjective, I'd say, than "calls names" or "advocates violence", for what that's worth]

September 12, 2006 3:31 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

How very UN-scientific of you, Dan

September 12, 2006 4:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home