On Recent Comments 1: "Name-Calling"
Today is Wednesday, 12 January 2010.
“Name-calling”, stripped of particular contexts, is a vacant emotive term.
Is it “name-calling” to apply “anti-Semite” to Ron Paul? Back in pre-Internet days, when political newsletters were all the rage on the Far Right, Paul published anti-Semitic screeds under his byline, which he has never repudiated. Thus, to say, “Ron Paul is an anti-Semite”, isn’t “name-calling”, but truth-telling.
When John Boehner elevates an anti-Semite such as Paul to a Congressional leadership role, it isn’t “name-calling” to say Boehner is dwelling in a moral sewer, along with Nazis and all other anti-Semites, but accuracy. (Given that Paul’s anti-Semitism has been repeatedly exposed, including in The New York Times during the ’08 presidential campaign, I don’t see how Boehner could plead ignorance.)
End-of-life counseling is a worthy endeavour which, ahead of need, informs persons of treatment options in terminal situations, enabling them to reflect and make responsible decisions about their lives. I find it impossible to believe that Sarah Palin was ignorant of these facts when she invented and popularized the “death panels” lie. (Whatever else Palin is, she isn’t stupid and she didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday.)
Palin put her tawdry ambitions above the right of persons to choose how they meet death on their own terms and with dignity. To say Palin is therefore a bully and a thug isn’t “name-calling”, but truth-telling.
When the Supreme Court justices produced the decision (absurd and false on its face) which stole the ’00 presidential election for Bush/Cheney, they knew that both had long records of supporting state terror, such as Nixon’s in Indochina and Reagan’s in Central America, and that installation of the usurpers would produce more of the same. Therefore, to judge the justices to be “terrorist-justices” isn’t “name-calling”, but truth-telling.
“Faggot”, “nigger”, and “bitch” are examples of “name-calling”. To label Bin Laden or George W. Bush as “terrorists” is no more name-calling than to label the Passer domesticus a “sparrow”.
“Name-calling”, stripped of particular contexts, is a vacant emotive term.
Is it “name-calling” to apply “anti-Semite” to Ron Paul? Back in pre-Internet days, when political newsletters were all the rage on the Far Right, Paul published anti-Semitic screeds under his byline, which he has never repudiated. Thus, to say, “Ron Paul is an anti-Semite”, isn’t “name-calling”, but truth-telling.
When John Boehner elevates an anti-Semite such as Paul to a Congressional leadership role, it isn’t “name-calling” to say Boehner is dwelling in a moral sewer, along with Nazis and all other anti-Semites, but accuracy. (Given that Paul’s anti-Semitism has been repeatedly exposed, including in The New York Times during the ’08 presidential campaign, I don’t see how Boehner could plead ignorance.)
End-of-life counseling is a worthy endeavour which, ahead of need, informs persons of treatment options in terminal situations, enabling them to reflect and make responsible decisions about their lives. I find it impossible to believe that Sarah Palin was ignorant of these facts when she invented and popularized the “death panels” lie. (Whatever else Palin is, she isn’t stupid and she didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday.)
Palin put her tawdry ambitions above the right of persons to choose how they meet death on their own terms and with dignity. To say Palin is therefore a bully and a thug isn’t “name-calling”, but truth-telling.
When the Supreme Court justices produced the decision (absurd and false on its face) which stole the ’00 presidential election for Bush/Cheney, they knew that both had long records of supporting state terror, such as Nixon’s in Indochina and Reagan’s in Central America, and that installation of the usurpers would produce more of the same. Therefore, to judge the justices to be “terrorist-justices” isn’t “name-calling”, but truth-telling.
“Faggot”, “nigger”, and “bitch” are examples of “name-calling”. To label Bin Laden or George W. Bush as “terrorists” is no more name-calling than to label the Passer domesticus a “sparrow”.
posted by HH at 10:41 AM
4 Comments:
Yes Ron Paul did repudiate them, and never wrote them, and with 22 years of public appearances and a huge youtube library anyone who looks can tell they weren't written nor agreed with by him. So yes, it is definitely name calling to call him anti-Semetic, which he isn't.
Spoken like a good robot. Paul's attempts to evade responsibility for his bigoted newsletters would be pathetic were his opinions not so vicious.
If he is such a vial creature, why is he not "exposed" by the liberal side of the media?
While Ron Paul's bigotry is vile, I do not contend that he originated in a test tube.
Post a Comment
<< Home