Monday, June 19, 2006

Shades of Coulter

So, let me get this straight: a bunch of ruffians beat up a kid, the school makes a stupid decision not to punish them, and suddenly "liberals" like to beat up children? I wasn't aware a ten year old was capable of having such well-defined political beliefs.

Political discourse has reached a new low when you actually accuse "liberals" of beating up children. But that's exactly what this hack is claiming. "Liberals in Lexington Massachusetts have taken to beating up the seven year old children of their political opponents," pontificates this buffoon. Charming. Liberals like to beat up children, cutting edge, really.

Of course, this is hardly surprising considering the kinds of things that get said all the time about "liberals" by conservative blowhards; it's just a logical progression. First, liberals are "hysterical." (Though the irony is, the guy who wrote that blather is acting with quite the case of hysteria.) Then they're "traitors" and "godless" (thanks Ms. Coulter!) In Canada they're "corrupt." And now they, yes, "beat up children."

How low are these guys going to go? Apparently, as low as they can. As "Mr. Nasty" (read the article and you'll get it) himself concludes: "But then again liberals don't believe in absolutes, morality, or the law - so why should we be surprised?" Wow. Clever. Never heard that one before. At least his "liberals beat up children" line was actually somewhat original.

As to his implication that the school didn't punish those kids for political reasons, I can tell you from personal experience that is baseless - I got beat up in elementary school enough times to know that school administrators are quite often horribly in remiss of their duties when it comes to disciplining children for things like that.

Anyway, I wonder if Mr. Nasty gets as indignant as he is here when gay kids are beaten up for being gay? (Or straight kids are beat up for being gay for that matter?) Somehow I tend to doubt it - at least, I doubt he's written columns about it in which he asks for donations to a legal fund.

2 Comments:

At 6/19/2006 11:36 PM, Blogger Saskboy said...

I saw that, through SmallDeadAnimals.com . When someone posts that kind of garbage analysis without question, it really makes me wonder if they are more interested in pandering to an audience that likes to get angry, or if they believe all the tripe they read if it's "anti-liberal". It was bullying, plain and simple.

 
At 6/20/2006 10:26 AM, Blogger Red Tory said...

McCullough is a classic example of a paleoconservative. I'm too tired and lazy to fisk his editorial but it's a truly astounding piece of nonsense.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home