June 16, 2006
-- by Dave Johnson
After listing just some of the disgusting things Ann Coulter has contributed to the national discourse, Atrios writes,
There's nothing these people can say which will stop the mainstream media from putting them on.I would like to add to this that "our side" CAN'T say ANYTHING that is able to reach the public.
I was on a conference call with Democratic Minority Leader Pelosi yesterday, during which she outlined some of the things she has been doing and saying. The thing is, there is almost not way you would know what "the Democrats" have been saying if you don't hear it from her directly, or read lots and lots of blogs. You don't hear about it on TV. It is occasionally in the newspapers -- but no one reads newspapers anymore.
America's "marketplace of ideas" is not a marketplace at all, it is a rigged system. It is rigged entirely in favor of the corporate viewpoint. When was the last time you head or saw someone discussing the benefits of joining a union, or perhaps an open discussion of what it would mean to nationalize the oil companies? What ARE the merits for, and arguments against, such an idea anyway?
Did you just snort coffee out of your nose when I wrote "nationalize the oil companies?" Is the very IDEA of someone saying such a thing so far beyond imagination? More to MY point - is that somehow more far-out of an idea than Ann Coulter being invited on national TV over and over again to say the things she says? But we're USED TO that sort of thing on TV - we expect it - but we no longer expect rational discussion of how we as a democratic society should manage our commonly-owned resources.
Anyway, what I am trying to get at is that there are signals that are sent out to a society about what is and is not acceptable public discourse. Putting Ann Coulter on TV is a signal from which the public infers what can and can not be considered. Dick Cheney appearing on stage with Ann Coulter is a signal. President Bush refusing to meet with the Black Caucus or NAACP is a signal. NOT ALLOWING rational discussion of unions and allocation of public resources is a signal. More on this later.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
No Dave, the idea of someone saying such a thing is not beyond imagination. As a matter of fact, quite a few governments have actually done it. A short list would include the Soviet Union, Iran, Nazi Germany and many other socialist and communist governments. Company I'm sure you're very comfortable in.
Of course if you could muster the political power to nationalize the oil companies, just think what else a government with that much power could accomplish. I'll bet they could do practically whatever they wanted, regardless of what the ignorant populace thought. Why is it you folks can never seem to connect your actions with the consequences? My guess is that your inflated impression of your place in society has led you to believe that you would be part of the elite government bureaucrats making all those important decisions for us poo folk. Sorry, to break this to you Dave, but dreamy eyed intellectuals are the first to be lined up and shot under the repressive government you advocate.
I guess we have no choice but to start going on television and constantly refer to the GOP as the American Nazi Party.
They want shock value, fuck em.
Closed-door secret meeting with unknown participants to determine energy policy.
$3.50/gallon; being shown up by Hugo Chavez sending cheap oil to poor people in the northeast; higher natural gas bills for lower-quality natural gas; Enron; rolling blackouts; record profits for oil companies again and again and again
Trusting an AWOL Commander-in-Chief and a group of chickenhawk incompetents to lead a "war on terror," which by their own words is one of a kind that has never been fought before
CONSEQUENCE: A completely conventional war of choice with no end in sight and no goals met
You get the idea, this could go on for every single issue facing us today.
I love it when right-wing blowhards equate liberal philosophy and ideals with Communists. It gives me a chance to remind them that on a monetray basis, GW Bush is the single biggest Communist sympathizer ever to inhabit this country. How comfortable are you with that, you dumbass lemming?
For someone who claims to revile fascist governments, you certainly seem very comfortable with your own.
Are you gonna speak up when dreamy-eyed intellectuals start lining up to be shot? I doubt it. You'll be cheerleading from the sideline with your fellow fascist apologist whores like Coulter, Matthews, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Blitzer, Kristol, Wolfowitz....
[EDITED OUT a personal attack involving sticking something somewhere - DJ] [Original comment continues] (This is the type of discourse the right-wing has earned.)
I get it. Of the two subjects Dave brought up in this thread, (1) nationalizing oil, and (2) why rational discussion is not being allowed; you're making a joke by providing an example showing that liberals don't know how to have a rational discussion.
Well, it is not very often we see a liberal actually admit they are Socialists.
Nationalize the oil companies?
You have no clue what you are talking about.
The oil companies are MULTI-National.
If you take over and control the U.S. divisions of these companies you will see oil go to $10.00 a gallon in the USA ONLY. The rest of the world will laugh at us and the market will adjust prices accordingly.
YOU might want $10.00 a gallon gas for your liberal loon ends, but no one else does.
You are a scary person who has not thought this out.
The oil markets are a free market and you can't stand that.
The very fact you are even thinking of nationalizing ANY business is scary and stupid.
You need to read ATLAS SHRUGGED and a few history books on what the USSR did to its people and environment by Nationalizing EVERYTHING.
You are a misguided fool.
You need to read ATLAS SHRUGGED...
Looks like the kiddie brigade is out in force. Must be that the filters pick up certain words and the most threatening ones ("nationalize") get the troops dispatched. Amazing how we get no right wing trolls here for weeks, then you say a magic word and they appear in force.
ATLAS SHRUGGED. At least they're good for a laugh.
To be clear, I was giving an example showing that the so-called "marketplace" of ideas is actually a monopoly.
Notice how even BRINGING UP a subject - not advocating it, but giving an example of a subject that is not allowed for discussion - brings out the (paid?) outraged trolls, calling names, bullying, etc.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at June 16, 2006 8:15 PM
No, Happy, just playing by the rules the fascist media sets. Change the subject, invite hate-mongers on to "discuss," and go to commercial. Rinse, lather, repeat.
We don't nationalize oil, look what we get. We don't nationalize health care, look what we get. American capitalism has dangerous weaknesses that are being exposed before the world's eyes.
Not every industry needs regulation. But there is a place for it when an industry destroys the chances for the populace to engage in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As for the problem of multi-national oil companies:
Fifteen years ago, Brazil decided they wanted to be done with oil imports. They set a goal, and today they import jack. Nationalized oil/energy independence by default. Better yet, they've started the transition away from fossil fuels, something the fossils from both parties have gladly ignored for decades in leiu of campaign contributions.
It doesn't have to be about regulating. It's just common sense. We're junkies, we need rehab. America will never be the best country in the world until it is the best at something other than polluting it.
My reply to your post about nationalizing oil IS discussing the issue. The problem with your party is that you define anyone or anything that disagrees with you as name calling, racist, bully, etc. You don't want to talk about the issues, you just want to call names.
My reply DID NOT bully or call names as you state. It was intelligently written, insightful and witty, as usual. I have no need to call names because my position is correct. As always, it is my pleasure to elevate the level of discourse here.
Thank you so much for the troll hat. I humbly accept the designation on behalf of all my downtrodden conservative brethern.
Interesting impression of "intelligently written, thoughtful, insightful and witty." First, you suggest that the writer would be comfortable in the Soviet Union, Iran, or Nazi Germany. Then you equate his line of thought with those who would be the first to be murdered.
What is it with the right's obsession with violence as a means to making a point? And why is that not vulgar or bullying?
Part of the point of the post was the acceptance of that very kind of thought when it comes from Coulter. If it is not bullying to wish for a terrorist act against a newspaper, a Supreme Court Justice, or a Veteran Congressman, all of which she has done, then what is?
If one wishes to discuss natinalizing oil, I believe one would be comfortable in the company of those who have actually done so. For you to catagorize this opinion as "bullying" simply makes the point that when one disagrees with you, you resort to name calling.
Furthermore, I am not obsessed with violence, but the three countries I cited as examples of those who have nationalized oil, were very obsessed with violence. The point was that when a government acquires enough power to nationalize oil, it probably has enough power to do anything it wants. Historically, this has ended up in massive violence against the people.
And finally, I did not imply that Dave's "line of thought" would get him murdered. I stated unequivocally that who Dave is would get him murdered. Saying that Dave is an intellectual is actually a compliment. Saying he is starry-eyed probably isn't, but it certainly isn't an insult, or bullying. And my intention was simply to redirect Dave's energies in a more conservative direction, hoping to sidetrack the establishment of such a powerful government, and ultimately saving Dave's life.
And yet, when I offer up the Brazilian energy independence model for rational discussion, you ignore it.
Does the love of rampant corporate greed without regulation trump progressive technology and reducing environmental destruction?
Does it register anything with you that General Motors is the company supplying Brazil with cleaner, flex fuel automobiles? Better yet, does it register with anyone in the so-called liberal media who would rather air bullying and name-calling that you seem to have a problem with when it comes from the left?
I posted a reply to your Brazil item over the weekend. It was incorrectly flagged as being a first time post, and was held for review. I hope you will see it here soon.
My flagged reply was well researched and powerful. I suspect Dave has censored it to protect the flock.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)