Home CT Elections: Local, State & Federal CT Maps Links Help About CT Research CT History

!!! Connecticut Local Politics has moved! Please go to http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net for new content!

Thursday, September 14, 2006

What if everyone sounded like political bloggers?

I was checking the only reliable part of the newspaper today, the funnies of course, and noticed Dagwood.

There he sits watching a TV food show of some sort when one of the unseen television voices says;

"Listen, I'm fed up with pro-pimiento activists wanting to shove their seasonings right down my throat!!"

To which the other unseen voice responds ending with;

"...You tomato-hugging anti-garlic whacko extremist!"

I found it pretty funny; my wife rolled her eyes.

However cliche, it's true that many a truth is told in jest.

Maybe we should work on a little civility, a little more often...unless of course it concerns that Scott MacLean.........................just kidding.


Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

Great ACR--

Hey, I appreciate a little civility. Will it start with you apologizing for calling me an anti-Semite? (That's right everybody, I used the word Neo-con, which caused ACR to label me a racist.)

Thanks in advance.

9/14/2006 07:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You know.... that SOB drank the last beer in the fridge in 1985!!!!"

9/14/2006 07:50:00 PM  
Blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

You want to keep using neo-con and expect people to think you're not an anti-semite?

Gosh, and I thought Dagwood was funny today!

9/14/2006 08:22:00 PM  
Blogger Bobby McGee said...

I use Neo-con and I am a semite.

9/14/2006 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Gabe said...

Me too...

9/14/2006 08:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ACR, can you explain to me why people would assume that anyone who uses the word 'neo-con' is anti-semitic?

Is David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party in the United Kingdom anti-semitic when he says, "I am a liberal Conservative, not a neo-conservative"?

(ref: Cameron: I'm no neo-con in the Guardian.)

Or perhaps Anne Applebaum of the Telegraph is an anti-semite, for writing stuff like

And all of this was before Afghanistan, before Tony Blair was tainted by his friendship with George Bush, and before anyone knew the word "neo-con", let alone felt the need to claim not to be one. in her column, Stop blaming America for terrorism.

Perhaps what is happening is a redefinition of the phrase 'anti-semite' to refer to anyone who does not subscribe to a virulently militaristic Zionism.

9/14/2006 08:55:00 PM  
Blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>I use Neo-con and I am a semite.

You must have just loved Matt Hale, huh?

Deny it all you like, it's nothing less than hate speech of the most vile kind, as far I'm concerned.

I'm not prone towards political correctness, however anything that smacks of some direct or subtle racial or ethnic slur really drives me bats.

9/14/2006 09:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ACR said... "Maybe we should work on a little civility, a little more often...unless of course it concerns that Scott MacLean.........................just kidding."

You're not kidding, you hate MacLean. People often use humor to hide their real feelings. So i guess we should all be civil, except you, who has said that violence is acceptable when it's used against people you disapprove of.

9/14/2006 09:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really say this with sincere confusion...

Are you saying that we are self-hating? Or just stupid? Because I can't seem to find another conclusion.

9/14/2006 09:23:00 PM  
Blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>Perhaps what is happening is a redefinition of the phrase 'anti-semite' to refer to anyone who does not subscribe to a virulently militaristic Zionism.

I would agree that anyone who does not subscribe to a militaristic Zionism would be an anti-semite.

However your use of the word virulently in that context gives me pause and reason for concern as well.
Frankly it reads like something from davidduke.com

From a 2004 Wall Street Journal Editorial:

Others have gotten in trouble for pointing this out, but let's give up the charade. When a member of the enlightened classes, or Pat Buchanan, makes reference to a "neocon," what he's saying is "yid." That's right, "neoconservative," particularly in its shortened form, when employed by a nonconservative (or by Buchananites) and therefore meant derogatorily, is the modern, albeit more specific, word for "kike" that the left can say--and it has been doing so liberally (no pun intended) ever since American conservatism became yet something else that Jews have managed to benefit from--the conquered, final frontier of that famous Jewish manipulation

9/14/2006 09:29:00 PM  
Blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>who has said that violence is acceptable when it's used against people you disapprove of.

Slave owners?

You have a problem with John Brown killing slave owners and freeing human beings?


9/14/2006 09:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Ghengis-see what you created when you gave him front page status? Is this what CLP has become?

9/14/2006 09:35:00 PM  
Blogger Genghis Conn said...

I think that while a small number use "neo-con" in the way you suggest, ACR, the vast majority of people don't. I've seen and know the people who use this word, and believe me, thay don't have anti-semitism even remotely close to their thoughts when they say it.

9/14/2006 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ACR said..."You have a problem with John Brown killing slave owners and freeing human beings?"

Geesh yourself...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!That's domestic terrorism. Even back then they knew that. John Brown was hung for his crimes. We are a nation of laws. The vigilate mindset you advocate is just what we are trying to convince the Iraqui's to stop doing. And you want to do it here...

9/14/2006 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a strange discussion! It seems like the real line needs to be, why can’t everyone be more civil to me? We don’t need to become more civil. We need everyone else to become more civil.

This becomes even more clear when we start talking about neo-cons and liberals. Years ago, everyone started abandoning the word ‘liberal’ because of previous failed liberal policies. It became a term of condescension. Now, with certain neo-con policies likewise failing, it too is becoming a term of condescension.

It is not surprising that ACR feels it is uncivil to refer to him as a neo-con and it is justifiable to refer to TBCT as an anti-Semite for doing so.

Yet in doing this, ACR only furthers making neo-con a pejorative term. Don’t call me a neo-con sounds too much like a child saying don’t call me a retard on the school ground. ACR’s choice in equating people who use neo-con as a pejorative term with anti-Semites only further reinforces the negativity, since many people see the biggest failings of the neo-conservative policies being in the Middle East.

So, just as liberals have rebranded themselves with the old moniker of progressive, I cannot help but wonder when the neo-cons will follow suit. Perhaps they will start calling themselves Tories or Monarchists.

9/14/2006 09:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ACR writes, ”I would agree that anyone who does not subscribe to a militaristic Zionism would be an anti-semite.”

For a different perspective, I would encourage people seriously interested in the topic to read JEWISH CRITICISM OF ZIONISM by Edward C. Corrigan. It was written back in 1990 and traces historical opposition to Zionism by many Jews.

He quotes Nahum Goldmann as saying, "When Zionism first appeared on the world scene most Jews opposed it and scoffed at it. Herzl was only supported by a small minority." (From Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, translated by Steven Cox (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978), pp. 77)

There are many Jewish rationales to oppose Zionism, and especially a militaristic Zionism. Some of the more orthodox oppose Zionism based on the view that Israel should only be founded by the coming of the Messiah. At the other end of the spectrum, there are Jews that feel that Israel must show greater Justice and move away from too strong a militaristic stance.

I must admit, I am not well versed in the arguments for and against Zionism, but it does seem naïve to suggest that those who do not subscribe to militaristic Zionism are anti-Semitic.

9/14/2006 10:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a shame this topic is lost in an arguement with everyone else against ACR. I have found his past posts confrontational and was surprised to see he is now posting as "staff." ACR, I hope you rise above this type of give and take and give us real information. Some of us like interesting, enlightening posts, and now I'll leave.

9/14/2006 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger Stretchy McStretch said...

I concur with Genghis.

"Neoconservatism" is actually used with a fair amount of regularity in mainstream academia by reputable academics to describe a specific policy persuasion.

Even a place like right-of-center AEI doesn't consider "neocon" pejorative. They put out a book called
The Neocon Reader

9/14/2006 10:53:00 PM  
Blogger MikeCT said...

ACR, bereft of the Masullo campaign to fuel his paranoid theological-political fantasies, turns to rewriting the English language for his next crusade. I'm soooo relieved that the fate of the GOP is in his capable hands.

9/15/2006 12:15:00 AM  
Blogger TrueBlueCT said...

So glad to see a growing consensus that I can still criticize the PNAC/Neo-con foreign policy of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Lieberman cabal, without having to suffer the label of anti-semite.

And, ACR, the Wall Street Journal "editorial" you quote is actually an op-ed, by a fellow 'winger. The author, Ms. Gorin, is: a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com, and performs with RightStuffComedy.com.

More telling is the fact that the intolerant Ms. Gorin's biggest claim to fame is that she wrote a book entitled, "The Buddy Chronicles", in which she tries to take political advantage of the accidental death of Bill Clinton's dog.

That's right. Bill Clinton's dog Buddy sneaks out, and gets hit by a car, (while the Clinton are on a vacation in Mexico). And Ms. Gorin responds by seeking political advantage with an essay titled, "Buddy's Dead. Is Anyone Surprised?" Which is not to mention that it was a for-profit book deal!

Gorin is the type of source that ACR gladly gives full credit to. (that and LewRockwell.com) I mean ACR is of the type that villifies Michael Moore and President Carter, as somehow un-American and beneath him....

To ACR, all I can say is wear your whackos proudly. If you cite them, you own them.

P.S. You still owe this Zionist an apology.

9/15/2006 01:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Neo-con" as hate speech?? LOL, you really must be an "Authentic Republican", since you obviously are not concerned about basing your comments in reality.

9/15/2006 02:49:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home