Perfect description of today's Right-Wing wackos

[OKTexas]

Yeah, when you accuse others of doing exactly what the OP did form the beginning, as if they're doing something wrong.


.

You misunderstand.

I'm not trying to say that making it partisan is "wrong", I'm just trying my damnedest to actually discuss the article in the OP.

The article isn't partisan.

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Nope, just the use of the term "many" and "dirty little secret". The intent is clear, because righteous people don't have "dirty little secrets.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You misunderstand.

I'm not trying to say that making it partisan is "wrong", I'm just trying my damnedest to actually discuss the article in the OP.

The article isn't partisan.

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Nope, just the use of the term "many" and "dirty little secret". The intent is clear, because righteous people don't have "dirty little secrets.


.

The author of the OP is a conservative radio host.

The only way to see the "intent" you find so clear is to really want to see it.

 

[OKTexas]

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

Yeah, and the dude didn't seem to understand the difference between a would view and a national view.



.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

Yeah, and the dude didn't seem to understand the difference between a would view and a national view.



.

Which "dude"?

 

[OKTexas]

That's where you're wrong.


.

No, I'm not.

Change rarely ever goes backwards, no matter how hard you guys try.

Yet the hysterics on the left say different.


.

Like who?

You keep mentioning "the left" as some homogenous entity, but you seem to always neglect to show any examples.

LMAO, what rock have you been living under the last two years. Lefties were calling for Trumps impeachment even before his inauguration.


.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't make change go backwards.

You're right, keeping him will. In fact in many areas it already has.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Nope, just the use of the term "many" and "dirty little secret". The intent is clear, because righteous people don't have "dirty little secrets.


.

The author of the OP is a conservative radio host.

The only way to see the "intent" you find so clear is to really want to see it.

He's an establishment RINO #neverTrumper douche bag.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Why are you trying so hard to make this a partisan issue?

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

If you read through the whole thread, you'll see the whole story.

What does that have to do with seeing an ignored post? I've never used ignore, is my assumption incorrect?


.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.

Why are you trying so hard to make this a partisan issue?

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

He can see them if someone else responds to one of my posts.

He quoted your posts directly more that once. How do you do that if you can't see them?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Should I quote partisan aspects of the article linked in the OP, I assume there's no need to do it since you said you read it. The author uses a broad brush to paint most on the right with some commonality with Jones, which is far from the truth. But truth is rarely reflected in OP/EDs any more.


.

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Nope, just the use of the term "many" and "dirty little secret". The intent is clear, because righteous people don't have "dirty little secrets.


.

The author of the OP is a conservative radio host.

The only way to see the "intent" you find so clear is to really want to see it.

Must not be a very prominent host, I've never heard of him.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

If you read through the whole thread, you'll see the whole story.

What does that have to do with seeing an ignored post? I've never used ignore, is my assumption incorrect?


.

Earlier in this thread there was a miscommunication due to bripat being on ignore - and after that, Synth posted that he would take him off ignore for this thread.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are you and shithole pretending it isn't?

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

He can see them if someone else responds to one of my posts.

He quoted your posts directly more that once. How do you do that if you can't see them?


.

He said he was taking me off ignore temporarily for this thread. I don't know why he bothered. He immediately engaged in personal attacks.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Please show me where in the article the author painted "most on the right" as having commonality with Jones.

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Nope, just the use of the term "many" and "dirty little secret". The intent is clear, because righteous people don't have "dirty little secrets.


.

The author of the OP is a conservative radio host.

The only way to see the "intent" you find so clear is to really want to see it.

Must not be a very prominent host, I've never heard of him.


.

Charlie Sykes - Wikipedia

 

[OKTexas]

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

Yeah, and the dude didn't seem to understand the difference between a would view and a national view.



.

Which "dude"?

The one that wrote the OP/ED 50 years ago. My world view has nothing to do with what I think about the direction my country is going.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Because we actually read the fucking article!

Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

And THAT'S why I have him on ignore!

Funny, you responded to his post, I didn't think you could see ignored posters comments.


.

If you read through the whole thread, you'll see the whole story.

What does that have to do with seeing an ignored post? I've never used ignore, is my assumption incorrect?


.

Earlier in this thread there was a miscommunication due to bripat being on ignore - and after that, Synth posted that he would take him off ignore for this thread.

Thanks, I missed that.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

Yeah, and the dude didn't seem to understand the difference between a would view and a national view.



.

Which "dude"?

The one that wrote the OP/ED 50 years ago. My world view has nothing to do with what I think about the direction my country is going.


.

Of course it does.

"Ideology" and "world view" are basically synonyms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Looks like you did, too.

Seemed fitting..............left wing wacko did this...................as the OP straw mans us.............so what.

Did you read the article in the OP?

Or did you just read the headline, and think that was enough?

I read what was posted primarily the bold.......................either way it's an ideological attack thread now isn't it.

If you decide to take this thread as an "ideological attack", that's on you.

I see it as an interesting (and accurate) assessment of the rhetoric used by people like Alex Jones - that making every issue of apocalyptic importance, and every disagreement a battle between good and evil is destructive to rational discourse.

Right now our side is winning............even with everything but the kitchen sink is thrown at Trump..........Regulations are being slashed, New Supreme Court Judge, ICE is enforcing the immigration laws again, Keystone pipeline, Federal Agencies are being cut back,

It's going good...............

‘Your side’ is wrong – wrong on most, if not all, the issues.

Indeed, a majority of Americans oppose failed, wrongheaded conservative dogma, and disapprove of the reckless rightwing agenda.

As for the thread premise, it’s spot-on, illustrating the bane of conservativism perfectly: that conservatives are, for the most part, frightened of change, diversity, and dissent; and as a consequence of that fear of change and dissent conservatives have engaged in demagoguery and fearmongering in an attempt to intimidate those who dare oppose the reprehensible right.

At some point the malignancy that is conservatism will be gone, the only question is what damage will that malignancy have caused, and how much of the damage is irreparable.

 

[OKTexas]

From the article:

His impact is not so much his bizarre individual conspiracy theories but that his style of righteous rage infects and, in some cases, dominates the political rhetoric on the right.

<<snip>>

The dirty secret of many conservatives is that they never admit to actually reading Mr. Jones’s ranting, but they also never publicly denounce him.

The fact is most conservatives have no clue what Jones says day to day. The only place I see his stuff is occasionally on this forum. I don't click on it any more than I would the huffington post. If a link source is not identified I usually inspect the elements of the post to see where the link leads.


.

I don't see any broad-brushing of right-wingers in your highlighted sections - or for that matter, any use of the term "most".

Nope, just the use of the term "many" and "dirty little secret". The intent is clear, because righteous people don't have "dirty little secrets.


.

The author of the OP is a conservative radio host.

The only way to see the "intent" you find so clear is to really want to see it.

Must not be a very prominent host, I've never heard of him.


.

Charlie Sykes - Wikipedia

Must not be very good if he was never syndicated.


.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This is from a Charlie Sykes Op-Ed about Alex Jones:


Mr. Jones, Matt Drudge and President Trump himself have played a role in reviving what Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Reread in light of today’s politics, Hofstadter’s 1964 essay seems eerily prescient.

The paranoid spokesman, he wrote, saw the world “in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point.”

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”

Since the situation is so dire and the stakes so high, the paranoid spokesman is not interested in half-measures. “He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician,” Hofstadter wrote.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/the-danger-of-ignoring-alex-jones.html

You're accusing Republicans of being paranoid? Really?

Asking the question then ending with "really?" Is the perfect response that says nothing.

You asked that question? Really?

See?

 

[OKTexas]

Allow me to refresh your memory:

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”​

If you had read the article, you'd know that quote is from a different Op-Ed, written 50 years ago.

Yeah, and the dude didn't seem to understand the difference between a would view and a national view.



.

Which "dude"?

The one that wrote the OP/ED 50 years ago. My world view has nothing to do with what I think about the direction my country is going.


.

Of course it does.

"Ideology" and "world view" are basically synonyms.

My ideology for the US is based in the Constitution as written, not as annotated and bastardized. The world is not governed by it. Well, unless the supremes uphold referring constitutional rights to foreign nationals that have never set foot on US soil, then all bets are off. That would require world domination by the US to enforce it elsewhere.


.

 

[tyroneweaver]

This is from a Charlie Sykes Op-Ed about Alex Jones:


Mr. Jones, Matt Drudge and President Trump himself have played a role in reviving what Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Reread in light of today’s politics, Hofstadter’s 1964 essay seems eerily prescient.

The paranoid spokesman, he wrote, saw the world “in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point.”

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”

Since the situation is so dire and the stakes so high, the paranoid spokesman is not interested in half-measures. “He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician,” Hofstadter wrote.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/the-danger-of-ignoring-alex-jones.html

This is from a Charlie Sykes Op-Ed about Alex Jones:


Mr. Jones, Matt Drudge and President Trump himself have played a role in reviving what Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Reread in light of today’s politics, Hofstadter’s 1964 essay seems eerily prescient.

The paranoid spokesman, he wrote, saw the world “in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point.”

At the center of the paranoid worldview, Hofstadter wrote, was a sense on the right that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.”

Since the situation is so dire and the stakes so high, the paranoid spokesman is not interested in half-measures. “He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician,” Hofstadter wrote.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/the-danger-of-ignoring-alex-jones.html

You're accusing Republicans of being paranoid? Really?

I think you missed the point. Maybe you should try reading it again.

The nytimes is not exactly a bastion of integrity
So it's would be obvious beforehand what they would write