You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Patronizing Politics of Progressive Hate”.
« Previous Post Rose McGowen presents Rule 5 Saturday!
A Break from Politics Next Post »
What say you?
[...] would have - Allowed Americans to keep their current private health insurance - Prevented Members The Patronizing Politics of Progressive Hate - the-classic-liberal.com 07/19/2009 CNN reporter Susan Roesgen’s abusive attack on Tea Party [...]
[...] racist and a tea-bagger, I got angry. Months later, I finally calmed down but then I had to read a post on The Classic Liberal's Web site and I got upset all over [...]
Rule 2 Catchup: I was on vacation while a lot of cool stuff happened...
Yes it's way past time for me to publicly thank the many kind folks who have linked to me over the...
Question of context: Does Boxer commit the logical fallacy of relevance: appeal to authority by bringing racially affiliated endorsement, or did Alford open that door earlier? In the video, Barbara Boxer displays characteristic grace under extreme pressure. Harry Alford is graceless, unduly belligerent, blustering hypersensitive and abusive. Worst, however, is that they seem to be debating entirely at cross purposes. What, actually, was the question? It seems that Boxer defends the political viability of her plan, while Alford questions the science. -Science, however, that Boxer contends is oil company backed.
Aaron,
She's patronizing right from the start of the video. Alford's I'm sure, is quite sick and tired of being talked down to like a child dealing with an ornery nun. Then add the "your community" and "my community" stuff, and it's simply horrendous!