Turning Down the Rhetoric – Leftist Style

by Jack Lee


In a “Let’s-Turn-Down-the-Rhetoric” rally in Oakland last night the speeches got rather heated. Before the event ended the audience was treated to accusations that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were not only responsible for Tucson killings, but for the untold lynching’s of blacks and the killing of Indians. The audience was whipped into a frenzy of hate as the speakers ironically tried to justify their vitriol by retreating to, we must turn down the rhetoric.

And across the land in Washington, D.C. a number of democrat Congressmen are also making a link to Republicans and rightwing talk show hosts for what happened in Tucson. And this “Let’s Turn Down the Rhetoric” campaign has resulted in a renewed call for the Fairness Doctrine to crush Beck, Limbaugh and others and it’s brought forth new gun grabbing laws; all amid scorn and hateful accusations by democrats.

Even former President Bill Clinton joined the chorus saying words cause actions and it’s so imperative to be careful what we say, “It’s a huge echo chamber out here and our words fall on the hinged and unhinged alike.” This is code speak for we’re (democrats) are on the champions of the high moral ground – we never engage in hateful rhetoric.

Ah, aren’t you glad this isolated tragedy in Arizona has not been turned into a perverse opportunity for the left? Be grateful now that Democrats are trying to help us turn down the rhetoric for the sake of the children, for the sake of America and remember, vote for Obama in 2012, because he’s the great healer unlike Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, etc.who are bad people in need of a good lynching.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Turning Down the Rhetoric – Leftist Style

  1. Quentin Colgan says:

    Well. There is no doubt that people hate the haters!
    What’s that old expression?
    What goes around . . .

  2. Quentin Colgan says:

    I note the excellent juxtaposition with the Satanic “Gate” blog!
    Oh yeah!
    This was a good crisis!
    Can’t wait for the leftists to top that!

  3. Post Scripts says:

    “What goes around…” And whqt exactly was it that conservatives had going around??? They have rarely initiated anything negative, but they do respond to negative slurs from the left quite frequently because they are made quite frequently.

    Quentin, if you are saying there is a moral equivalency between the snarly, raggedy left and stand-up conservatives then I would have to say that is akin to comparing a glacier to snowflake.

    Just when I thought you were seeing the light and you put yourself back into the darkness…its disappointing.

  4. Libby says:

    I am so very sorry, but it is not arguable.

    The left urges the schizophrenic down to the publicly funded mental health … and the right (Sarah most particularly) urges the schizophrenic to pull his gun (and two 32 round ammo clips) out of the closet.

    Snivel all you like. Facts ARE, most demonstrably, facts.

  5. Post Scripts says:

    Libby, what are your referring too, you lost me? Surely you’re not trying to connect the politics of the crazy man to Sarah Palin, et al, like some oi these far leftwing wackos have been doing? That would be very irresponsible if you were and I hope that wasn’t your intention.

  6. Steve says:

    The FACT is that the shooter was a pot-smoking atheist who did not listen to talk radio. The FACT is that liberals have used to this tragedy to wrongly accuse conservatives of being accessories to murder. Just one more nasty, uncalled for low blow from the valueless left who would be dancing in the streets right now had this happened to Sarah Palin.
    Conservatives have held their head up high throughout, we have endured with grace.

  7. Tina says:

    Libby if you are referencing what you have referenced on this issue before, I demonstrated then that your so-called facts were incomplete. In typical liberal progressive fashion you leave out most of the facts and place all the blame on the most convenient conservative/Republican.

    For instance, you leave out the fact that the left was pushing for release of many mentally disturbed patients on the basis of…dah da da dah…civil rights!


    By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in OConnor v. Donaldson (see below) In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the “civil rights” of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they’d be better off with community counseling.

    So no, Reagan, didn’t close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who “know better” did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), OConnor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: “There is…no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one.” With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases.

    Yes CIVIL RIGHTS! It was all about outpatient care and Johnson was on board that feel good train:


    MENTAL ILLNESS is not something which strikes some other person in some other family. It strikes one American in ten.
    –It fills nearly half our Nation’s hospital beds.

    –It costs States and communities more than $3 billion each year–often for inadequate care.

    –It costs the Nation $20 billion each year in lost wages and taxes.

    And the cost in anguish and sorrow is far beyond counting.

    Three and a half years ago our country decided to face, boldly and frankly, this major health problem–to face it with a major health program: Community Mental Health Centers.

    All of us can remember when the problem of mental illness was veiled in ignorance and shame and superstition. Not long ago, a sick or deeply troubled person was hidden away–treated more as a prisoner than as a patient; locked in a faraway place whose very name struck fear, the insane asylum.

    Now we are changing all that: taking down the bars of fear; letting in the air of knowledge; emphasizing, for the first time, modern local services; outpatient care; prevention as well as cure.

    In 1963 we invested in a totally new idea: the conviction that community centers could bring treatment of the mentally ill out of the darkness; out of isolation–into places where the people live.

    In 1965 Congress provided funds to train workers for the centers; to hire mental health specialists.

    By signing this bill we extend those great programs. In addition, we give America’s mental health centers new power to overcome some old problems: to work with disturbed children, to cure alcoholics and drug addicts, to counsel troubled families and others deeply in need of help.

    We have brought down the number of patients confined to mental hospitals–from 570,000 in 1955 to 425,000 in 1966. That is real progress.

    Bringing them “out of isolation–into places where the people live” was the plan starteded by so-called caring progressives long befor Reagan became governor of California.

    As with most progressive ideas the unintended consequences were never considered. This progressive idea has proven to be a disaster. But good luck getting the genie back in the bottle since the ACLU’s civil rights cases are on the books.

    The right does urge institutionalization, especially for those who refuse to take their meds and have no family; private institutions would be preferable. However, those who are cooperative are best cared for by their families when possible. Of course there is a little problem with that idea in that the left no longer respects strong family structures preferring “daddy government” to meet every need. They wouldn’t want to be punished with the responsibility of caring for a sick family member…that would interfere with their personal pursuits, satisfactions, interests and funds.

    The left is rife with phony caring and sympathy…hypocrits! Liars too.

  8. Libby says:

    Snivel, snivel, snivel all you like. Sarah did pull the “cross-hairs” and the “target list” off her website. An admission of guilt, if ever there was one.

    Now, let us see if you can argue the merits, or not, of Medicare reporting critiera without any reference to “death panels”, “disabled baby killing”, or other such inflammatory obfuscation.

  9. Libby says:

    “Surely you’re not trying to connect the politics of the crazy man to Sarah Palin, et al, ….”

    Were not my references to Sarah entirely parenthetical? … illustrative, if you like, of the general principle?

    You encourage, feed off, exploit, in fact, crazy … or poverty … or ignorance … or crazy ignorant poverty.

    We encourage treatment (mental health and otherwise), education and the equitable distribution of wealth.

    It has never been so very, very apparent as it is now, and I will be calling your attention to it for some time to come.

  10. Tina says:

    Big deal! Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos pulled his target on Gabrielle Giffords too.

    I can’t blame Sarah she’s been a target for leftist hate and threats of violence, not to mention filthy, inconsiderate, smears, since she dared take to the stage at the Republican Convention. The left has no shame; hypocricy oooooozes like a filthy sludge.

    “We encourage treatment (mental health and otherwise), education and the equitable distribution of wealth.”

    Horsefeathers. You have managed to encourage continuing poverty and dependence on government; failing educational institutions; unsustainable social programs, including medicare and social security; almost half of the population so undereducated and underemployed that they do not pay federal taxes, single parent families, promescuity, and the release of mental patients to “group homes” (which became city streets) on civil rights grounds.

    Your lectures and harumphs have become ever more tiresome. I do believe you’re angry because you’ve been found out and the country is rejecting your phony utopian dreams…not out of hate either by the way, but out of common sense and clarity that the socialist model is simply unworkable. I’m certain that you would not continue to buy a pig in a poke forever. Give it up!

  11. Post Scripts says:

    Ahmen Tina! Well said. And you said exactly what is likely on the minds of millions of us.

  12. Post Scripts says:

    Evil can exist in the minds of the deranged, it all depends on their thoughts. If they killed someone because they thought them to be the devil that is simply a psychosis, however if they killed them because they believed they were the devil that’s evil. It’s a wrongful act done for immoral reasons, unlike the first example when it was a wrongful act done for a misguided moral reason. You can dismiss them as both being sick, and a product of a pathology, but the law and modern criminal psychology does define the difference.

    Libby, please don’t think we are so naive that we don’t understand your point that a “climate” of hate exists between the two opposing political forces and that this could be a trigger for violence. We get it. We do acknowledge that and that both sides are guilty, but we reject the notion of equal guilt. Clearly, from our perspective conservatives are less given to emotional and irresponsible demonstrations, however we’ve seen countless examples of that at coming from the left. There should be no denial of this truth, the evidence is overwhelming, if one chooses to see it.

    I prefer to discuss views, facts, and apply logic, but when someone goes low I am not going to let them get away with it and roll over. Ideally there is some middle ground where we can agree and move forward and serve a real productive prurpose. Words do mean something and we do have the opportunity to influence outcome -choosing the right words for the right causes is important.

  13. Libby says:

    “If they killed someone because they thought them to be the devil that is simply a psychosis, however if they killed them because they believed they were the devil that’s evil.”

    You wanna try that again?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.