As good a definition as I’ve ever seen of liberal versus conservative protests

Ed Morrissey discusses Roseanne Barr’s demand for the guillotine, and ends with just about the best statement I’ve ever seen about the difference between conservative and so-called liberal protests:

Just remember that when conservatives organize into grassroots movements, it’s almost always about protecting their own property and individual liberty.  When leftists decide to start grassroots movements, like OccupyWallStreet or Barr’s example of leftist populism, it almost always involves seizure of property, threats of violence, and eventually re-education camps and the guillotine.

These words should be widely broadcast.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. JKB says

    Adam Kokesh has the clip of the day.   A girl holding a sign to honk if you have student loan debt  “We are the over-educated and underemployed”   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bFVR9Nv43J4#t=588s

    Now, funny, these protestors firstly mistake education with credentialization  but also don’t call for any cutback in university salaries, hospitality perks or other causes of exploding higher education costs

    Nor do they protest, but arguably because they are to idiotic to realize, the terrible reality that a university education increasing creates idiots who are ignorant of basic facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUybMMYmpxo&feature=player_embedded

    Here is another thing they aren’t protesting.  While they lament the lack of jobs, the power of corporations, etc., they are not protesting for a streamlining and abolition of regulations and fees that make the cost of starting your own business out of reach of all but the well off and often require the services of financiers on Wall Street to aggregate enough capital for the start up.   

  2. Mike Devx says

    excathedra says: Roseanne Barr, Whoopie Goldberg, Margaret Cho…symptoms. Women who once were funny and whose proudest moments are now full of bitterness and bile.

    You know, that’s true, and I wonder, what is the dynamic that keeps driving this?  (The same would be true of Janeane Garafolo, if she ever was funny.)  There are really only two possibilities.  Both revolve around the fact that when their comedy careers started, and they became stars, they kept their politics out of it.

    Roseanne Barr’s shtick was the “Domestic Goddess” routine. Acerbic as hell and to me, yes, very funny.  Cho’s shtick was Asian-American relations, and she was reasonably funny, too.

    But then they got rich.  And they could then begin to say whatever they *wanted* to say.  They both switched their routines and public comments to become overtly political.  They turned off a bunch of people who used to be fans.  Then they doubled down and became full of “bitter and bile”, as excathedra puts it correctly.

    Was the bitterness and bile always there?

     Perhaps at the beginning they just wanted to entertain, and were grateful for the success that came their way.  THEN they became political, and THEN became filled with the bitterness and bile that we see.  Because that is the natural progression of leftist entertainer->star->political activist?

    Or, it was always there, and they deliberately hid it because they knew they had to, in order to become stars.  Once they made their money, they dropped the mask, because they no longer cared, and they could then express their true selves, that they were all along.

    I’m not sure which of those two is the true dynamic.
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply