Joni Balter, in today's bilious rant on the Seattle Times editorial page, tells us she has no use for people who demand fiscal responsibility and accountability from our government, dismissing them as:
right-wing wackos or negativists who sit around listening to angry talk radio, despising public schools, hating public transit, lamenting local sports teams and their home fields.Sheesh. And I thought dissent was supposed to be patriotic. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 19, 2006 10:03 AM | Email This
McKenna is moderate? Call in Timothy, Matt and the rest of his cronies. Just joking, Timothy.
Isn't there an opposing columnist to counter this whack job that wrote this article?
And she seemed to be wanting to pick party chairs, too.
Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2006 10:12 AMI don't think Marsha Richards despises local schools. I leave that to Jamie Daniels' FreedomWorks bunch of radicals.
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 19, 2006 10:34 AMI don't think Marsha Richards and EFF and 99% of the Republican Party despises local schools. Same w/ Dino Rossi.
I leave that to Jamie Daniels' FreedomWorks bunch of radicals :-).
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 19, 2006 10:35 AMBalter flat out ignores the fact that Sound Transit is losing millions. She flat out ignores that almost all of Seattle agreed that the Monorail was not possible under that financing scheme. She flat out ignores that US student scores are declining despite a higher average dollar per student ratio than the rest of the world.
Hey Joni, don't shoot the messenger, the reality is that Americans are consumers of our government. We should expect more return for our tax dollar. It's perfectly acceptable to want accountability and value in our public projects and schools.
It's easy to dismiss us as right-wing wackos, but that's not going to change the fact that the average Joe who doesn't even read blogs or listen to talk radio expects a good value for their tax dollar.
And who said anything about lamenting local sports teams? Go Hawks!
if you look at the entire quote it is clear that Balter is dispelling common mispreceptions of the state GOP:
"These men may be conservative, but they are moderate in manner and tone. They are not right-wing wackos or negativists who sit around listening to angry talk radio, despising public schools, hating public transit, lamenting local sports teams and their home fields." -She's referring to Rossi & McGavick.
Secondly, she does not say or imply anywhere at anytime that dissent is unpatriotic. You have aboslutely no basis whatsoever for that strawman.
apparently in Stefan's world anything short of fellating the GOP in print qualifies as a "bilious rant".
Can you hear us now they say?
Posted by: GS on January 19, 2006 12:11 PMFiscal responsibility--the starving, depriving of medical care, denying education, and repression of the underclass.
Posted by: JCM on January 19, 2006 12:27 PMBetter than a number of her previous editorials, but I believe that Kohl-Welles is a left wing loon.
Posted by: KS on January 19, 2006 12:42 PMthe alleged "underclass" are not entitled to pick my pocket. Their need is not a valid claim on my life or anyone else's. VOLUNTARY compassion and charity is another story, but as a good liberal I'm fairly sure you're not acquainted with those alternatives to your jack booted thuggery dressed up as "caring."
Posted by: libertarianobserver on January 19, 2006 01:03 PMNewspeak dictionary -- sarcasm.
Relax we're on the same page.
Posted by: JCM on January 19, 2006 02:22 PMHey.... I resemble that remark!
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on January 19, 2006 02:22 PMVance and the Republicans: “…hissy-fit press conference a day”
“…the too-far-right Senate candidate…”
“…noisy and forceful…”
“…right-wing wackos or negativists who sit around listening to angry talk radio, despising public schools, hating public transit, lamenting local sports teams and their home fields.”
“…thank George W. Bush for angering and dismaying a lot of previously apathetic voters…”
“…raising money and tamping down the far-right wing.”
Berendt and the Democrats: “Berendt, the low-key liberal…”
“Outbursts are part of his shtick”
“…off-beat issues like Cuba.”
“Irascible Pelz…will have to moderate his own temperament and personal views to be successful”
“.Pelz is strident and flies off the handle as a matter of routine.”
IMHO:
Berendt is about as low-key as Howard Dean!
“Irascible Pelz”- such a rascal- he plays vaudeville with a shtick and just flies of the handle routinely- but it’s all in fun! Right, Joni?
“,,,will have to moderate his own temperament…”-
He is as far left as Castro himself, for Chrissake!
Posted by: John425 on January 19, 2006 02:45 PM
please forgive me.... I didn't get it. (and I'm embarassed now.) Glad we're on the same team!
Posted by: libertarianobserver on January 19, 2006 03:00 PMI left off the /sarc tag... so I'll accept some blame.
Posted by: JCM on January 19, 2006 03:11 PMWise up.
Stefan took nothing out of context in Balter's column, and both of you ignored the relevant context of Stefan's comments. Balter referred to “right-wing wackos or negativists who sit around listening to angry talk radio, despising public schools, hating public transit, lamenting local sports teams and their home fields.” That’s Balter’s opinion . . . fine.
This thread aptly compares Balter's dissenting opinions in her newspaper column, to the same type of rhetoric deplored by State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who is calling for, among other things, government censorship of web sites that contain similar dissenting opinions from an opposing outlook.
Both of your comments are stupid irrelevancies at best. Learn to read and reason before you blast someone for supposedly improper comments or as you say resorting to ”disingenuous and dishonest” comments and ”bashing Joni Balter.”
Otherwise comment like you did here so we can all have a good laugh.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 19, 2006 04:01 PMI guess I don't know the code. I didn't realize that links to columns by Ellen Goodman and Arthur Schlesinger were really about Jeanne Kohl-Welles.
Posted by: Steven Donegal on January 19, 2006 04:09 PMI realize that common sense might somehow be code for some of you; that's why I said wise up.
It's understandable that instead you prefer to change the subject.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 19, 2006 05:18 PMWhat a pathetic stupid attempt at an rebuttal. Stefan selectively quoted Balter, obscuring the fact that she was saying nice things about the GOP leadership. He then brought in the straw-man "but I thought dissent was patriotic" even linking to three articles on that topic, none of them by Balter. Nowhere does Balter call anyone un-patriotic or even question their patriotism. So, in short, Stefan is indeed attempting to make the dishonest and disingenuous connection I whacked him for.
As for "aptly" comparing Balter's column to Kohl-Welles bill, the only attempt I see at that is a throw-away, snarky headline. Doesn't take much to impress you, does it?
Posted by: John on January 19, 2006 05:21 PMGolly whiz you sure told me a thing or two.
Your efforts at ignoring the obvious by pandering to Balter and making half-baked extraneous excuses are pathetic. Obviously you are one of those “left-wing wackos or negativists who sits around listening to angry partisan columnists, despising decent education, hating automobiles, lamenting local economic accountability and common sense. You and Donegal are two of a kind—too dumb for real life.
I takes a lot to impress me . . . but I am impressed that you are so dim-witted that you react in such a nasty way in defense of such a petty, nebulous, meaningless, and irrelevant rant.
Good job of . . . completely missing the real point . . .
Typical for a liberal.
And they wonder why they keep losing subscriptions...
Posted by: MES on January 19, 2006 09:07 PMYou use a lot of 50-cent words, but I'm not convinced you know what they mean. There is no pandering to Blater in my post, just the simple, straightforward restatment of what she actually said. I'd love for you to point out just what part of my argument you consider a "half-baked extraneous excuse". Please, enlighten me.
As for your ASSumptions about me and my habits, you couldn't be more wrong. But then,you feeble attempts at a personal attack aside, this isn't about me.
I particularly enjoyed your clutched pearls horror at my allegedly "nasty" reaction. All I did was respond to your snideness in kind. I can see that must have really bothered you though, since you had to respond with ad-hominen attacks. I guess that is the only avenue left open, when one's pathetic arguments have been so thoroughly shredded.
While I am not aware of any reference of “pandering to Blater,” it is humorous. If you hum a bar or two of it aloud—maybe you’ll get it.
While your,”simple, straightforward restatment [sic]," was also humorous in it’s anfractuous fatuity (more 50-cent words for ya), it hardly matched,
”you [sic] feeble attempts at [foiling] a personal . . . ad-hominen [sic] attack. Next time try shredding the hominy dipshit.
Good job dim-wit . . . you completely missed the whole point once again, but this time
you proved beyond any doubt that you are a complete idiot. One more time?
Thank you for making it patently obvious that you have no interest in intelligent converation or debate. I will be wasting no more of my time on childish games with an idiot asshole such as yourself.
Posted by: John on January 20, 2006 12:42 PMNo more "converation" eh?
Shame, I'm used to your brand of liberal inanity, but I was just gettin' the hang of your weird lingo.
Bet you'll be back for another thrashing.
Please . . . . don't shred me with your hominy.