Tuesday, February 1, 2011

He's Gonna Need A Bigger Boot

When the alleged president asked us to use "words that heal instead of wound" following the shootings in Tucson, we naively believed that he meant our
sentiments and meaning should actually be healing, rather than just going to our thesauri to find ear-pleasing euphemisms for inflicting murder and death.

But apparently that's not the message that the Left heard. Which is why actor Richard Dreyfuss, who most recently graced theaters in Shakespeare's famous boobfest
"Piranha 3D," has declared that it's absolutely civil discourse when MSNBC's Ed Schultz wishes death upon Dick Cheney.

Specifically, Dreyfuss (who is unbelievably spearheading the "Dreyfuss Initiative" to encourage polite diversity in political opinions) was asked if Ed Schultz had crossed the line of civility when the frothing MSNBC host declared the former Vice President to be
"an enemy of the country" and wished the Lord would immediately "take him to the Promised Land."

According to Dreyfuss, "that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that
could be uncivil."

So if the
words are nice, then their meaning doesn't matter in the least.

Which is why we feel sure that Mr. Dreyfuss will only experience pleasure and a warm glow of multi-culturalism if someone suddenly leaps to his feet and shouts the beautiful blessing
"Allah Akbar!" while riding in the same jet as the actor.

And why we can say, in a
civil and beautiful way, that if such an incident happens, we hope Mr. Dreyfuss will be thrilled to pieces.



drjim said...

More libtard double-speak, generated by another Hollywood "celebrity".

Anonymous said...

Oh my! Both Schultz and Dreyfuss together again for the first time? The end times must certainly be near. I'd better shut off my gas oven lest there be an explosion and have the foundations of my house checked for cracks.

How can things get any worse, mercy!

graylady said...

Exactly the sort of idiocy one would expect from someone who makes his living pretending to be other people.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Not that we needed more, but yet another example we can point to when libs accuse us of criminal incivility and felonious rudeness. Personally, I like to just thumb my nose at them and retort: I know you are but what am I?

John the Econ said...

Once again a demonstration of how useless actors are when without a well-written script.

Suzy said...

John that reminds me of something...what is it...what is it...what is it...I think it has something to do with a teleprompter....

robert said...

Hey everybody, lets' give 'ol dick a break. His life must be really tough. I mean, wasn't it John Wayne who said, "Life is tough, it's tougher when you're stupid." And, after all, everybody he knows agrees with him. So he must be right. Right? (Sarcasm is off now)

Anonymous said...

John, Suzy - HEH! (tm)

Pete(Detroit) said...

Crud, how did that go out anon?

Necron99 said...

To paraphrase Yosemite Sam, "Libtards is soooooo stupid."

Colby_Muenster said...

Who the hell is Richard Dreyfuss?! Oh, wait! Now I remember! He played the nut case on "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." I thought the aliens took him away..... He must have escaped.

Anonymous said...

A couple of points:
1. The real danger from this shooting and the left's response is a possible push from the left to pass legislation that would infringe upon our first amendment rights.
2. If the social mores concerning profanity are applied here then the argument can be made that Dreyfuss is actually correct. Consider: clinical words for certain anatomy are considered civil speech while vulgar words with the same precise meaning are considered profane (uncivil). One has to wonder is it hypocritical to accept that discussion of anatomy can be made civil or uncivil simply by word choice while discussion of wishing someone dead is unacceptable regardless of word choice. Or should all discussion of anatomy be considered uncivil regardless of word choice.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Anonymous(directly above)- Yes, Dreyfuss would be technically correct if "civility" boils down to using euphemisms. But if you strip away the meaning of words and the intent of the speaker, then what's really left? Would it be civil if someone suggested that a politician could best serve the public "at room temperature?"

Making words meaningless (or parsing them out of meaning) is a game of the Left and, like Mr. Hooper being invited into the shark, the Right would be foolish to play.

And no, saying "fornicate you" instead of the more "vulgar" version doesn't suddenly make the message "civil."

SC said...

Ed Schultz automatically cross the line of civility when he said that he wished Dick Cheney was dead.

Unbelievable...can you just imagine if Rush or Beck said the same exact same thing about Joe Biden?
Do you think Schultz would give them a pass? The outrage from the left would be heard around the world.

This double standard of what the left can say & get away with is just getting to be too much. I’ve never been a fan of G.W. Bush, but, the hateful, violent things that were said about the man for 8 years (and still are) is terrible.

I have to just put this out there. I know most will disagree with me, but, when I heard the sound bite from Obama’s memorial (I call it a campaign) speech in Tucson:

“it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

My very first reaction to it is that his remarks were directed at & meant specifically for the right. And, I believe that the left took it exactly the same way. Oh, he can’t mean us, this remark is meant for the uncaring & mean-spirited right wing conservatives.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

SC- You're correct that Obama's whole "words that heal, not wound" shtick was another way (and a clever way) of promulgating the myth that Loughner was motivated by political speech, or the "climate of hate" allegedly created by people defending the constitution.

Necron99 said...

Dr. Jarlsberg, SC... Dead solid perfect interpretation of Obongo's remark and what it's true implications were. On a personal note, I have had conversations about that remark with people I know to be Conservative, Middle of the Road, and libtard... In a random sampling of people from the university town I live in these were the general responses....

The Conservatives said, "Yeah right. Like that's going to stop libtards from frothing at the mouth with their hate speak and violence... Obongo's directing that remark at anyone who disagrees with his agenda."

The Middle of the Road people said, "I really don't know what he thinks he'll accomplish by making that statement other than to try and shame Conservatives into silence, because Lord knows, the libtards aren't going to tone down their ugly rhetoric and hate speech.... In fact they'll probably take it as a 'Go ahead' to get even worse."

And the libtards all said, "Obongo wasn't talking about us... Maybe now Conservatives will all shut up and quit hating and if they don't we can have them arrested."

regeya said...

@greylady: I seem to remember that Saint Reagan made a living pretending to be other people...

regeya said...

I'm not really sure what kind of fallacious illogic I just read. I mean...attacking Obama and marginalizing the Tuscon tragedy, by attacking Richard Dreyfuss.

Anyone who's ever sat through a Dreyfuss interview knows the guy's a jerk. And it amuses me to see people on this thread attacking Dreyfuss's character by attacking the fact that he's an actor...when one of the biggest heroes of the conservative movement was an actor. Overgeneralization will eventually cause problems for the person who overgeneralizes. :->

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

regeya- Yes, Ronald Reagan had an honest history as an actor before getting involved in politics. And at least I, personally, am not criticizing Dreyfuss for being an actor - I'm criticizing him for being an idiot.

But the "fallacious illogic" you refer to isn't that complicated and, for you, I can try to explain it more s-l-o-w-l-y:

Barack Obama marginalized the Tuczon tragedy by trying to tie it to political rhetoric, which was a self-serving lie. And for that he deserves to be called out. With me so far?

Okay, Dreyfuss then says that the spirit of Obama's "heal don't wound" speech about civil discourse is upheld when you wish for someone's death, but do so using nice words. And of course, if the victim is conservative. And for that, Dreyfuss deserves a rebuke.

Quick review: using the blood of innocents for your own personal political gain is bad as is lying through inference. Expressing ugly and violent sentiments in deceptively refined language isn't civil - it's still a threat of violence.