« More Tsunami Videos (Part IV) | Main | The UN Is On The Case »

Idiots Will Be Published

I started to deleted this then I figured, I'd deny so many people a laugh. From "Jeff" in our comments section:

Hey Julie, you are a terrorist. Our devil leader has stolen that term and remade its newspeak definition to now be anyone who might stand in the way of his grand plan to eliminate all life on Earth. The greatest terrorist of all time. His current body count is on par with the tsunami's, but he's got all the short future of humanity to beat that. You are just another of his brainwashed storm trooper cheerleaders. I hope you enjoy the fruits you will reap. Thanks for helping to sow the end of us all. I'll see you in hell.

This is why they keep losing elections. Forget the fact they don't really give a shit about their common man... A large hunk of the left is just insane.

George Bush has a master plan to eliminate all life on earth? Then how will Halliburton make any money?


Comments (78)

Ah Paul, that's just the ex... (Below threshold)

Ah Paul, that's just the extreme nut-job. The moderate Liberals are like Bill K, more conservative than they realize.

Actually, Jeff, I'm a regis... (Below threshold)
julie:

Actually, Jeff, I'm a registered democrat.
signed -- julie, the Devil's Handmaiden

Where do we pick up our bra... (Below threshold)
mom-o-rama:

Where do we pick up our brainwashed-storm trooper-cheerleader uniforms?

Damnit, I want to be a Hand... (Below threshold)

Damnit, I want to be a Handmaiden too!

George Bush has a master... (Below threshold)
cb:

George Bush has a master plan to eliminate all life on earth? Then how will Halliburton make any money?

Answer: According to these guys, the fewer people there are on Earth, the more money there will be for the rest of us!

(Via Best of Web Today)

more humor: you w... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

more humor:

you wrote that "a large hunk of the left is just insane."

meanwhile, the left considers a "large hunk" of the right to be insane.

i know people on the left and right who feel that way, but personally i dont think any of them are insane. i think they just cant stand each other, and refuse to listen to each other.

its funny in a way, but depressing as well.

americans are wondering why its so hard solving foreign policy issues abroad...yet we cant even have civil debate amongst ourselves.

I don't know what to think ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I don't know what to think of BillK.

You know that old Churchill quote about being liberal when you are young and conservative when you are old?

I continually get the feeling Bill is about 28 on Churchill's timeline.

He wants to a liberal (and more importantly claim he is liberal) but his brain is winning.

In the end though, I think his brain will win.... The rest of them, I'm not so sure.

mom: I declare the uniforms... (Below threshold)
julie:

mom: I declare the uniforms will be pink.

Gennie: Sure. Come on over to the dark side. :-)

cb: Excellent recruiting tool. Thanks!

Paul: I was saving it as a surprise, but, yes, George and I have devised a master plan to eliminate all life on earth.

meanwhile, the left con... (Below threshold)
Paul:

meanwhile, the left considers a "large hunk" of the right to be insane.

SEE! That proves they are insane.... LOL

You know... being partisans and all is just fine and dandy... I don't mind people not listening to me... But read what this guy wrote. (read it twice, slowly)

If he really believes that, it scares the hell out of me that he can vote, drive and procreate.

(forget silly name calling for a second...) If the this guy really believes the President of the United States has a master plan to destroy all life on earth, it is a mental heath issue.

Put it in another venue-

Let's say this guy made that speech in the lunch room at work.

If a co-worker called the secret service, they'd come knock on his door. It's on the internet so it will never get that level of consideration but if you stop and think about it, it's a scary thing. Especially when you consider the quantity of people who "think" like him.

Paul,Sometimes stu... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Paul,

Sometimes stupidity is stupidity regardless of any partisan lines. Jeff falls into that bucket with his statement.

As for my personal party lines, unless the nation, as a whole, drastically shifts left over the next 80 years (it will shift left somewhat...it always does), I am going to die on the left side of the political spectrum. Even without the social issues that get played like cards by both sides of the aisle, I am forever going to be a liberal leaning gentleman in regards to economics. John Rawls will forever remind me of that.

On a bit of a side note, I do enjoy the civil discourse we have in these comments. Though the following back and forth from the West Wing probably is the most accurate way to describe my relationship with, well, all of your other contributors, I think the ability to have the discussion is what makes this country so great; as trite as it is to say it.

The Prez: We agree on nothing, Max.

Lobell: Yes, sir.

The Prez: Education, guns, drugs, school prayer, gays, defense spending, taxes. You name it, we disagree.

Lobell: You know why?

The Prez: 'Cause I'm a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead, communist.

Lobell: Yes, sir. And I'm a gun-toting, redneck, son of a bitch.

The Prez: Yes, you are.

Jeff wrote: I'll see you... (Below threshold)

Jeff wrote: I'll see you in hell.

I hope he plans to get a table and have some drinks while he's waiting-- Julie might stand him up.

paul:i dont think ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

paul:

i dont think he's the best representative sample of the "left."

i read what he wrote, and its full of exaggeration and inaccuracy.

do you really think that a large part of the country thinks that way? i know alot of people severely disagree with bush, but i doubt they really believe that he is trying to eliminate all life on earth.

the truth is that the guy has put forth an argument that isnt credible. bad argument. probably looking to get reactions as opposed to discuss anything.


Bill K. Of all the moonbats... (Below threshold)

Bill K. Of all the moonbats and trolls here, you ARE a fresh voice in the midst. I must give you props for being one of the more well-spoken and less-ranty liberals here. I enjoy reading your discourses with Paul as much as I enjoy disagreeing with most of what you type.

I do enjoy a good debate, as long as neither party gets angry and starts name-calling.

That's the greatest part of our lifestyle/country. Each person can agree to disagree....as long as they can agree to it. What I don't like is when nut-jobs decide that if you disagree with them, then you must be insane and should be removed from the gene pool (or something similar).

i read what he wrote, an... (Below threshold)
Devil's Handmaiden:

i read what he wrote, and its full of exaggeration and inaccuracy.

Sez who?

_Sez who?_i didnt ... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

_Sez who?_

i didnt say anything.

lol

I am forever going to b... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I am forever going to be a liberal leaning gentleman in regards to economics

HA! It is on economics that your brain will have the shortest trip to the right side! We're half way there!

It's funny that you mention Rawls, I love his music, Tobacco Road, South Side Blues... OH not Lou Rawls you said John Rawls...

Rawls epitomized the no-nothing academic. -- AND I actually don't exactly mean that as a pejorative. I mean it is fine to sit in your leather chair at Yale (or was he a Harvard man?) and pontificate about how the world should work for all of mankind.

What is lost in that, is this little thing called real world experience.

Would you fly with a pilot who read a book on flying but had never been in a plane? Or go to a surgeon who read a bunch of medial texts but had never even cut open a cadaver?

Rawls and many of his ilk, have never run a business... Tell ya what... Mortgage your home, open a business, hire 3-4 employees who you are responsible for feeding the families' of and talk to me about economic "justice."

It is FINE to discuss things in a hypothetical, but.... wait... I'm going to make this a post... Stand by for maybe 24 hours. (sorry, but I got a flash of inspiration)

r.a. asked: do yo... (Below threshold)
Paul:

r.a. asked: do you really think that a large part of the country thinks that way?

Paul answers: YES

On behalf of all Jeffs ever... (Below threshold)

On behalf of all Jeffs everywhere … this guy is officially out of the club.

How does one get from citin... (Below threshold)

How does one get from citing a laughably stupid comment to (serious?) conclusions such as:

"This is why they keep losing elections."
--Who are "they"? 50 million Democrats?

"Forget the fact they don't really give a shit about their common man..."
-- Once again, "they"?! I presume you mean the untold legions who take orders from Commandante Jeffy?

"A large hunk of the left is just insane."
--Jeff represents a "large hunk" of the left? Wow. That is an interesting belief you have there.

In light of your commentary, Paul, how about reviewing the sane, compassionate and undeleted comments following this recent post at your site. (I'm referring to the wizards asking "Can't they swim?"...etc)

link!

What general conclusions should one make from those stupidities? The plain answer is: None, if you have a modicum of analytical rigor...

harldy an even survey of th... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

harldy an even survey of the population of this country paul. anyone can go around on the internet and find psychotic weblogs and post them as evidence of how crazy the "other" side is.

in that line of thinking all conservatives could be judged based on the likes of ann coulter perhaps, and i dont think that would be valid at all.

i think there are alot of misinformed people on both sides who fly off the handle way too often.

Ahem r.a. I have 2... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Ahem

r.a. I have 2 words for you HOWARD DEAN

nuff said

paul:i suppose you... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

paul:

i suppose you feel that you just made a very decisive statement.

so what does that mean to you when you write howard dean with no explanation? because it doesnt mean anything to me at all.

that would be like me writing the words DICK CHENEY and saying nothing after that, and acting like that proves some major point.

im saying that most people dont think the way that "jeff" does, and for some reason you keep sticking to some vague idea that half of the country is insane...conveniently, not your half of course.

look, i have friends who are liberals and they start in with all of that shit about conservos being stupid and i have to correct them. i have conservo friends who say the same things you are saying about liberals, in the same manner, but its all a bunch of generalizations.

a large chunk of the country may not like geoge bush, but that doesnt mean that they subscribe to ideas like "jeff". that would be like considering all conservatives to be christian fundamentalists, which happens, and is false as well.

In light of your comment... (Below threshold)
Paul:

In light of your commentary, Paul, how about reviewing the sane, compassionate and undeleted comments following this recent post at your site. (I'm referring to the wizards asking "Can't they swim?"...etc)

YIKES! Well, first, I was VERY VERY busy that day and I must confess I did not read the comments. Kev and I do our best to read every comment and delete the goofballs.

Had I seen most of those idiots... (and BTW most of the folks I skim read just now didn't even seem to have a political party they were just idiots) had I noticed the posts, I would have, deleted, and blacklisted IP's.

I *should* do it tonight but I'm beat, rest assured I'll dig thru that nonsense in the morning... I might just close the whole thread and make it simple.

In the future, if you see idiocy like that in the comments, email Kevin or myself and we'll jump all over it.

BUT (there's always a but) the first guy I probably would have left anyway.

Either it was a joke (admittedly a poor one) or a genuine question... From *some* of the video it does not *look* as serious as it was. The guy might have been asking a genuine question... SOME of those waves I could have swum thru. - We try to give people a lot of room in comments.

I'll dig thru it in the AM

But on the rest of your points.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked: Who are "they"? [who lose elections] 50 million Democrats?

Well, Yes.

Howard Dean was a mad man. If you read conservative blogs, most predicted he would implode months before he did. (search wizbang: howard dean implode, I did.)

Yet a LARGE hunk of the Democratic party backed him and a large (insane) number of Dems are STILL pushing for him to head the DNC. EVEN AFTER he melted down on live television.

Millions of Dems believe Bush lied about WMD but they ALSO believe that when Clinton said the exact same thing he was telling the truth. (that's insane)

Millions of Dems believe Gore won Florida... Hell millions of Dems believe Kerry won Ohio!

This single post from Jeff does not, in and of itself, prove my point... It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.

...A large hunk of the Dem party believes things that are demonstrably not true. That is a major reason you are losing voters.

You don't have to believe me-- heck I hope you don't... I want you guys clueless.

But you guys keep losing for some reason.

r. a. read my next post... ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

r. a. read my next post... (1:02AM) I typed the long version...

and for some reason you ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

and for some reason you keep sticking to some vague idea that half of the country is insane...conveniently, not your half of course.


NO NO NO NO NO... There are MANY sane democrats... but there are MANY insane ones too... and those are the ones bringing the party down.

P

Look, I'm sure there are whack jobs on the right... But MAN the "Kook -to- Not Kook" ratio on the left is mighty freaking high.

Hmmm, Dow back to almost 11... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

Hmmm, Dow back to almost 11,000. 2M new jobs in 2004. No terrorist attacks in US since 9-11. Record home ownership.

I hope you will enjoy the fruits you will reap.

Oh, the misery. Please end it all now. Jeff is so right. The pain of prosperity. I am almost completely weened off the tit of the government. I better go get on welfare and medicaid quick or life as we know it will end.

Paul, I don't know really w... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

Paul, I don't know really what you were getting at with Rawls, but the Veil of Ignorance is a pretty good concept to live by in regards to the economy.

Though, I wouldn't fly with him...

WEll, for what it's worth, ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

WEll, for what it's worth, here is one American voter who left the Democratic Party because I was appalled by the high occurence of very, very nutty people. I really couldn't stand them as peers, could not identify, could not believe about ninety-nine percent of what I heard and read from them, and, last but most importantaly, because of the massive amount of negativity from one hundred percent of Demcorats about me as a Catholic, about Christianity, and about anything that didn't support and endorse and "sympathize" with "gay marriage."

The DNC today is cowtowing to a minority in it's midst who make the most noise and corral the highest media presence. Sadly, they drive away other Americans who are moderate, live moderately, value faith and their religious beliefs and more. And seeing Gore explode after the election he lost was just proof that he'd been holding it all in for far too long and God forbid had we ever elected the man to the Presidency -- same goes for Dean.

Now Nancy Pelosi is appearing on the horizon as the latest foolhardy Democrat insulting doing her best to wage war against America.

Democrats lose voters and good faith beliefs by voters because of how Democrats behave and what it is that they want and how they go about trying to manipulate humanity to form around their desires.

So, in the end, Democrats r... (Below threshold)
-S-:

So, in the end, Democrats resort to name calling (actually, in my experience, they resort to name calling in about two comment boxes downward), sending hate email, trolling sites and site authors they "don't like" and just conclusively representing to others that they are all suffering some emotional and/or psychological aberrance, or, reason quite faultily that to harass and intimidate is the way to get what you want. Either way, not the way to live your life, to encourage others to do similar.

The increase in the volume of the hate-fest by liberals worldwide and Democrats in the U.S. is a really good indication that they are, indeed, irrational.

But, be that as it may, conservativism offers far more to everyone. The latest "anti corporatism" thing that the left is now focusing on (oh, yeah, and the "f'ing Yanks" stuff) is crazy, paranoid, and explains the "Jeff" (now excluded from the Jeff's of the World Club, ha) mentality. Poor guy, poor nutty, isolated, lonely and fomenting Jeff.

S, I think you are naive if... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

S, I think you are naive if you don't believe that there are Republicans that do the same thing. And, by generalizing like you are right now, you aren't helping the cause at all.

Hmmm "his grand plan to eli... (Below threshold)

Hmmm "his grand plan to eliminate all life on Earth" ... it must have been that photo of Bush in a "What Would Cthulhu Do?" t-shirt.

But why all the grand planning? Can't he just get his Rumsfeld and Rice minions to co-sign nuking Russia, China & France, thereby guaranteeing a massive nuclear exchange?

And Halliburton can get contracts for building bunkers for the white people to hide in! And and and ....

Ah, BillK, I should be used... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ah, BillK, I should be used to you misquoting and misrepresenting me and what I write by now, but, alas, I am not.

Where on this thread have I written (or on any thread, anywhere, for that matter) that there "are (not) Republicans who do the same thing"?

But, in my experience of meeting and greeting and interacting with Republicans, I've yet to read/or hear anything that even remotely approaches the volume of emtional attack language -- if you can call it that -- that I've ever heard and read coming from liberals and Democrats.

Instead, all my conversations with Republicans, locally and from afar, are about issues, ideas, almost always about concrete realities, and realities all.

If you'd prefer, instead, a long list of links to threads, reiterated stories and quotes and such, that I regard as so offensive as to be alienating, coming from liberals, I am just not going to provide that to you, but I can write about my experiences and why I could not find the exit door quickly enough to leave the Democratic Party and based upon what. It's personal experience, first hand testimony, something you accept because it's my story.

I'm sure in the vast numbers that are American citizens, there are Republicans who behave similarly, but I haven't encountered them in my travels. That's what I'm saying. I far prefer Republicans as peers than I could ever tolerate from among Democrats, based upon life experience.

Also, the Republican Party and Republicans, all that I've known so far, have been tolerant of religious ideas and personal preferences, something that I find nearly if not completely absent among Demcorats.

But, it's the gutter level nastiness from Democrats, again, based upon my life experience, that I find the most offputting. There's nothing socially redeemable about it.

...that and the misrepresen... (Below threshold)
-S-:

...that and the misrepresentations and emotional retorts that are not based in reality that almost always, to a 't', originate from liberals/Democrats about issues that they will reliably push into emotionally negating territory about others when dogma is questioned.

Today's liberals, worldwide and America's Democrats have placed their concept of politics into religious ferver territory, have made 'the state' and/or 'the nation' and/or their 'liberalism' as a supplant to some other higher ideal, and it has become the idealism itself of liberalism. No surprise that there is such forceful and subjective a negative response to anyone else who holds other beliefs, thinks/reasons differently...

But, it is the birth in our world of real fanaticism and it's among liberals. The biggest problem that is offputting to so many others is that there is no message or plan or intent behind that liberalism except that liberalism is to be accepted and participated in, endorsed, that people "belong" to liberalism, or else. The 'or else' part is the volume of negating that follows when the dogma is questioned or, worse, rejected as do most conservatives and Republicans.

Because, I hear/read no other message from liberals other than liberalism as the end-all. There are window dressings and cosmetics along the way but they appear to be mostly empty ruminations, more or less like sales pitches with no product offered.

You are still generalizing,... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

You are still generalizing, and it does nothing to further any intelligent debate.

WEll, that's your opinion, ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

WEll, that's your opinion, BillK.

I do have a high I.Q., however, so it's established long ago that I'm intelligent and capable of "intelligent debate." You must have missed it.

BillK:Can YOU writ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

BillK:

Can YOU write something that does not rely on negating me or any other conservative here, on a personal level? I am curious. If you find me as an individual offensive or limited -- as you express that you have and do -- why go on about that? Seems like the less "intelligent" tactic, a waste of effort, an indication of a futility that bespeaks not a big brain capacity, but, rather, the opposite.

Other than that, you're a stranger to me and I'd prefer to keep it that way, and hope that you grow out of whatever sense of entitlement to abuse you appear to presume to embody.

So... Dubya is really Evil ... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

So... Dubya is really Evil the Cat?

"Get quart of milk, check. Punish henchrats-" *WHAP* "Ow! Thank you!" "-check. Return video rentals, check. Destroy Entire Universe.... hmmm."

S, I am not saying I a more... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

S, I am not saying I a more intelligent than you. I just don't see the virtue of labeling at least 57 million Americans as crazy in one grand statement.

I am glad you have a high IQ though.

I would like you to know though, that by responding to my three sentence comments with sixteen paragraph/4 posts rants you don't really help your, "it is the birth in our world of real fanaticism and it's among liberals" cause. It doesn't appear that my zeal is the one that needs taming.


See?! BillK, that's it, ri... (Below threshold)
-S-:

See?! BillK, that's it, right there! The liberal/Democrats' ream of anyone who makes a point outside and/or other than the liberal dogma, with one of the very same denigrations that you try to apply to me, and just have: (1.) suggesting someone's intelligence is impaired; (2.) criticizing someone's writing style [too long, too short, too wordy, not spelled well, caps lock on, caps lock off, too many elipses, not enough elipses, etc.], both of which you have proven here and now.

AND, the ever growing count of Democrats is interesting. First, it's fifty million. Now it's "57 million" and next it'll be the entire state of Washington and even the Netherlands!

About that, of course, I jest, but what you've written here proves quite well the earlier point I made, as to what is quite so offputting and offensive to me as an individual about liberals and liberal behavior.

I don't know what percentage of human population in the United States that "57 million" equates with as to Democrats versus everyone else, but, numbers and voters change. It's obvious by the recent voting trends that more and more voters leave the DNC grip and move over to voting as Republicans, at least for Republican candidates. As I did.

I also know many Democrats who remain registered as such but vote for Republicans, simply out of traditions of one sort or another, so that "57 million" may not be such a reliable reference within the context that you use it (^^) as you attempt to suggest.

Another thing: what I wrote isn't at all within the realm of "zeal" but within the realm of "intellectual discussion," but, again, you missed that. And here I thought that was the source of your upset with me, no "intellectual discussion."

What the point I made earlier was and is again, based upon your ongoing derisions of me, and quite personal ones at that, is that liberals and Democrats attack on a personal, emotional level -- which you just did in this very thread -- while carrying on until the very scent on a thread or blog is so odorous as to drive anyone else away, proving the earlier Wizbang comments about public discourse.

You don't know me, I don't know you, so what the heck difference does it make to you as to how I write and what I write? Or what my intelligence quotient is? It doesn't. None of that, to be blunt, is anyone else's business or is the topic of the blog here nor of the thread here on that blog.

Why does a word count even matter? The answer to that is, it does not. It only matters when you have nothing else to contribute but just have to contribute to more bad atmosphere.

In fact, I just heard someo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

In fact, I just heard someone with a highly touted literary legacy and a Ph.D. from Yale on a network broadcast the other day, discussing liberalism within the very context I just offered. That you label as being (offensively, to you as you perceive that) "zeal."

Please, explain what we might write here that both meets your standard of "intellectual discussion," lacks "zeal" and is written in, say, twenty words or less, does not contain personal references to anyone on the thread or even this blog, avoids negative and/or pejorative labelling of and about Republicans, corporations, the United States, conservatives...

I'm curious what you have to offer.

(1) I never questioned your... (Below threshold)
Bill K:

(1) I never questioned your intelligence. Not once. I didn't even come close to implying anything about your intelligence. So, keep your own insecurities to yourself - - don't put them on me.

(2) The 57 million number was the number of people that voted for John Kerry two months ago. I think that is a pretty safe uncrazy number.

The zeal comment was in response to you stating that liberals are leading the march towards fanaticism.

Read my comments, S, and tell me where I pick on one person individually. Hell, tell me where I pick on Republicans in general (in this string of comments).

The only thing I have rejected is your grandiose generalization that all Democrats are insane malicious fanatics.

You are the one hurling statements. You are the one taking offense to things that aren't said (directly against me not saying anything about your intelligence). If you want to have a discussion, that is fine. But, how about we do it without broad prejudice and flamboyant accusations?

Bill, for the record I neve... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Bill, for the record I never said 57 million americas were crazy. (I know you were talking to S but I'll just state it for the record.)

Let me reiterate that the "kook to not kook" ratio in the left is VERY VERY high at this point in history....

And I don't think you (in your heart of hearts) can deny that.

paul:i think you a... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

paul:

i think you are hooked on this very general idea, and i understand that it may be fun to keep saying it, but what does it really do?

you are speaking from your own perspective and labeling the "other" as a "kook." i understand that you may think or believe that all liberals are weird because they have different ideas. but whats the use of calling them all stupid, or saying that a vast majority of them are stupid?

it does nothing, just further perpetuates the game. there are people all over the world who do things that seem strange to us here in the US. we could, based on that, label them as stupid, weird, insane, etc. or you could try to understand their ways of life, respect those ways, and go about your life.

you say that the "kook to non kook ratio" in the democratic party is "very very high at this point in history." personally, i have a hard time taking that statement seriously. did you go out and take a poll? did you do an exhaustive survey of the entire country? where do you get this from?

i suspect that this is merely your opinion, which is fine, but just remember that opinions and reality arent always in agreement.

Oh, come on, now, BillK, I ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Oh, come on, now, BillK, I can hear your keys squeak, squeak, squeeeeaking from here.

You wrote that I was not contributing or aiding and abetting "intelligent debate." That I was "generalizing" to some degree unexplained beyond that tag of yours, and that I was, therefore, not a part of or (just go read what you wrote, I really don't care to reprint it) "intelligent debate."

Ergo, you accuse me or intimate that I am excluded from "intelligent debate" (this thread, wherever, you didn't specify), vis-a-vie I am excluded from some "intelligent" strata that YOU are aware of, therefore you can distinguish ("see"/perceive) who is "there" and who is not, who is involved in that "intelligent discussion" and who is not.

You just wandered over into pejoratives and personally snotty condescension and to and about me...because...why...you didn't explain that. Just the randy tidbit that I'm handicapping "intelligent discussion." By "generalities."

So, yes, you made comment about my intelligence by yet another liberal tactic of discouse which is to suggest characteristics and then deny "saying" what you are later countered for having 'said'.

The rest of your numbered points, you know, I'm not even reading at this point. I really do not see any point in reading them.

But, thanks for proving my earlier point in the discussion -- I believe you continue to miss that point -- and that is that the discourse by liberals is focused on liberalism and denigrating and personally attacking anyone who counters the dogma. You proliferate liberalism without cause, without substance, and can never, as in never, substantiate what it is you prefer and why without denigrating others and the liberties, freedoms of others.

I realize that you consider those references "zeal" but then again, what ideals does not liberalism consider as "zealous" -- it allows liberals to dodge reconciling with the ideals, and values, of others, by simply flipping off the issues by calling them "zeal" and such, more negative labelling there, and those who hold those ideals as being "zealots," while, in fact, THAT IN ITSELF DESCRIBES ACTUAL INTOLERANCE.

Liberalism is intolerance. You are intolerant and disdainful of the values and idealism of others. And, rather than self examine, you attack by denigrating, one at a time, anyone who you perceive as being counter, or other, than you.

It's non productive behavior, it's even destructive at it's worst. There's no point, nothing at all constructive, to and about your lobs here to and about me. It's the language -- yours -- of resentment and dissolution: non productive, going nowhere, disenfranchising to others, insulting, even.

I never, ever wrote here, a... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I never, ever wrote here, as you accuse me of having authored, that "all Democrats are insane liberal fanatics."

I never wrote, here nor anywhere, that "Democrats are insane."

Nor any permutation of that.

You've focused extraordinarily critically and it appears, hysterically, on what I'm writing and have written. Point is, why?

HOWEVER, I am not at all startled by your distortions here, given that you continue to exemplify what I originally wrote as being the psychological and emotional social environment that characterises most Democrats/liberals I ever comingled with at any and all times in my past, while working quite intently on trying to be a Democrat, to maintain as one and to find some common footing among Democrats upon which to associate.

What I experienced, and wrote earlier here about, is that I did not find that, experience that, but to the polar opposite, and what I experienced is very similar to how you continue to misquote, outrageously distort and emotionally denigrate me on a personal level about things I've never even thought, much less written or ever said. But, again, that is very typical for most I experienced among liberals.

I mentioned that "57 million" number earlier because even earlier than you mentioned it, it was declared that Democrats were "fifty million" in the U.S. I remarked how the numbers grew over the ensuing comments. And, I still question what part of the American voters that number represents (I don't know, haven't looked into it), but at this point about balloting, most of us on the conservative side are right to question the accuracy of who votes Democratic and why, based upon irregular balloting and particularly, voter registration.

Increasing numbers among new immigrants voting Republican...among Hispanics voting Republican...among Blacks voting Republican...I think it's safe to say that the pool of "generalities" that the DNC relies upon for votes is shrinking and quickly.

Reason why? A lot of it has to do with the very things I expressed in my first comments here, this thread. You can reread it if you're so motivated.

Paul, The oth... (Below threshold)
Sam Snead:

Paul,

The other day I pointed out that you are a lousy writer. I called special attention to your habit of using multiple question marks, presumably for emphasis. You took umbrage at this, and even tried to criticize my writing ability because I began a sentence with the word "and."

I notice that you seem to have stopped using multiple question marks in your recent posts and comments. I can only attribute this to my tutelage. Good boy! You're welcome.

And by the way, good writers--I'm one--can and do, from time to time, begin a sentence with the word "and."

57 million is simply the nu... (Below threshold)
Bill k:

57 million is simply the number of people that voted for Kerry. I would assume most that voted for him were Democrats. I would also assume that there were some Democrats that didn't vote. 57 million is a very very very safe and low number.

I never, ever wrote here, as you accuse me of having authored, that "all Democrats are insane liberal fanatics."

I never wrote, here nor anywhere, that "Democrats are insane."

I did probably exaggerate your claim a bit, but this is pretty much saying all Democrats are insane liberal fanatics:

"Today's liberals, worldwide and America's Democrats have placed their concept of politics into religious ferver territory, have made 'the state' and/or 'the nation' and/or their 'liberalism' as a supplant to some other higher ideal, and it has become the idealism itself of liberalism. No surprise that there is such forceful and subjective a negative response to anyone else who holds other beliefs, thinks/reasons differently...

But, it is the birth in our world of real fanaticism and it's among liberals."

As for the whole intelligence thing, I really wasn't attacking your intelligence. You WERE generalizing and that ISN'T part of forward moving civil discourse. I don't think that speaks to your intelligence at all, just to your comments specific to this post.

S wrote:Liberal... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

S wrote:

Liberalism is intolerance.

Please explain. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that all liberals are intolerant? Or am I taking that out of context?

sam are you still here?????... (Below threshold)
Paul:

sam are you still here??????

ra said:you say... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra said:

you say that the "kook to non kook ratio" in the democratic party is "very very high at this point in history." personally, i have a hard time taking that statement seriously. did you go out and take a poll? did you do an exhaustive survey of the entire country? where do you get this from?

Where did I get it from??? lemme requote myself....

---------
Howard Dean was a mad man. If you read conservative blogs, most predicted he would implode months before he did. (search wizbang: howard dean implode, I did.)

Yet a LARGE hunk of the Democratic party backed him and a large (insane) number of Dems are STILL pushing for him to head the DNC. EVEN AFTER he melted down on live television.

Millions of Dems believe Bush lied about WMD but they ALSO believe that when Clinton said the exact same thing he was telling the truth. (that's insane)

Millions of Dems believe Gore won Florida... Hell millions of Dems believe Kerry won Ohio! (these folks are, at best, delusional)

This single post from Jeff does not, in and of itself, prove my point... It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.

...A large hunk of the Dem party believes things that are demonstrably not true. That is a major reason you are losing voters.

You don't have to believe me-- heck I hope you don't... I want you guys clueless.

But you guys keep losing for some reason.
---------

When you are faced with concrete examples to back-up my assertion you reply simply "you're generalizing."

OK fine! Go on with your life believing the above people to be sane and rational... We'll just win more elections.

But I have to ask: Do you deny these people are nutz or do you deny they are Democrats?

Here's another example: Mic... (Below threshold)
julie:

Here's another example: Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC.

paul:When you a... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

paul:

When you are faced with concrete examples to back-up my assertion you reply simply "you're generalizing."

Actually, this is one of the first posts where you are providing any specifics. Thanks for providing examples.

Howard Dean was a mad man.

so what is it about dean that you disagree with most, or that makes you characterize him as a madman? seriously i'd like to know...and dont worry im not baiting you...im not some big howard dean fan or anything...

Millions of Dems believe Bush lied about WMD but they ALSO believe that when Clinton said the exact same thing he was telling the truth. (that's insane)

Well, the WMD arent there. Did Bush lie about them? Well, that depends on whether he knew the truth at the time or not. Was there some amount of misinformation? Yes, but that doesnt make George Bush the mastermind behind it all. Somebody was lying, or at least was spreading false information. And about Clinton: wasnt he in charge when that pharmacutical plant was bombed? Bad decisions happen across the board.

This single post from Jeff does not, in and of itself, prove my point... It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.

I doubt that Jeff is such a perfect icon. Again, that would be like saying that Ann Coulter or Michael Savage is a perfect icon for the conservative side. Jeff's argument is hardly typical or representative of 48 percent of American voters. You know that. Most people fall in the middle somewhere. Have you looked at a county by county map of the election results? That gives a much better picture than the simplistic red/blue state map. There's alot in between, alot of purple.

Millions of Dems believe Gore won Florida... Hell millions of Dems believe Kerry won Ohio! (these folks are, at best, delusional)

Contesting election results doesnt mean that people are insane Paul. Why would you say that? Hey, if they think that something went wrong, then its their right to look into it. You label people as insane for that, or delusional at best? Why? What if you felt the same about an election, what if you felt it was tampered with? Would you be insane if you contested the results? Free and fair elections, thats what we're all about here right?

By the way, I'm not a democrat. Just so you know.

actually, this is one of... (Below threshold)
Paul:

actually, this is one of the first posts where you are providing any specifics. Thanks for providing examples.

Heavy Sigh. I just re-quoted myself from this very thread!
====
so what is it about dean that you disagree with most, or that makes you characterize him as a madman?

Well let's see... There's the time he passionately stood in front of a crowd and proudly declared himself to be a metrosexual -- only to admit after the speech to a reporter that he had no idea what the term meant... Did I mention he was running for President at the time?

Or the time he pissed off the entire south by telling them to quit voting based on " "guns, gays and God." -- on the basis that the first and second amendments were not legitimate campaign issues.
Did I mention he was running for President at the time?

Or the time he went on Canadian T.V. and bashed the people of Iowa (who hold the first caucus BTW) praised George Bush and insulted Al Gore.... Did I mention he was running for President as a democrat at the time?

Now mind you, this is just the things I remember from BEFORE the Dean Scream. Would any of this behavior make YOU trust him with the Red Button????? (those were for Sam)

The guy was a known loony tune long before the public melt down. (I bet I could google up a few more too.)
====
Nice dodge on the WMD issue. But you failed. Do you think "Bush Lied" but Clinton told the truth? -- If you do, then you're part of the problem.
====
Jeff's argument is hardly typical or representative of 48 percent of American voters

I've never said that and in fact, I've contradicted that about 10 times.... Either you are having a problem yourself with reality or you are lying.
====
Contesting election results doesnt mean that people are insane Paul

I never said it did. Believing that Al Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida or believing the Kerry got more votes in OHIO is to believe something that is demonstrably untrue.

All the liberals kept saying "What will happen when the media does the recount and it turns out we put the wrong man in office?"... WELL GUESS WHAT RA-- They did the damn recount and Bush got MORE votes in the recount than the original count.

The Supreme Court ruled that what counted as a vote in one county of a state had to counted as a vote in another part of the state. ie: You could not count dimples as votes in one county and the infamous hanging chads as a vote in another county in the same state. Further, the Supremes ruled that you could not change the rules of the election AFTER the election was over. (what a whacky idea that was huh?)

NOW-- IF you believe that the Supreme Court "Stole" the election or that Bush was "selected" by the court then you sir are a stalk raving mad man.

=========

OK ra- I've given you example after example. You have replied that I've generalized about half the population. You have refused to get your facts straight about what I have said and you have refused to accept that a large number of people on the left are delusional.

I also asked you if the people who believe all this stuff are nutz and you did a breathtaking job not answering that question...

Your sly defense lends me to believe that the reason you are disagreeing, is that my comments strike too close to home.

So let me spell it out for you.

IF YOU WANT YOUR PARTY TO WIN you will have accept that a large hunk of the left is loony tunes and try to figure out how to minimize their exposure.

Once again, I genuinely hope you don't believe me... The more often you guys hold up Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Whoopi Goldberg as being "The Heart and Soul of America" the more people vote Republican.

Whether you like to believe me or not.

What's that I hear? Is it ... (Below threshold)

What's that I hear? Is it r.a., pwned, in D-minor? Why yes, yes I think it is.

Weren't there stories about... (Below threshold)
julie:

Weren't there stories about Dean on the floor of his office curled up in a fetal position? What was that about?

Paul,First of all,... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul,

First of all, you did repost that...I went back and looked and I missed that. Shit.

Like I said before, I am no big Howard Dean fan. Basically you were saying that a large portion of Dems are insane because they supported Dean, and now you have provided your evidence of why you believe Dean is insane, and also then, his supporters.

So now I know where your opinion comes from. Thats all.

To me, this would be like taking a selection of Bush quotes, or mistakes, and then saying that Bush is insane based on those examples, and all of his supporters along with him. But how accurate is that?

I guess I'm tired of the divide man, but I dont know if that matters. People on both sides just want to be pissed off and hate each other. Great.

I was asking for specifics because conservatives and liberals alike fling around a bunch of generalities that mean very little to me.

Nice dodge on the WMD issue. But you failed. Do you think "Bush Lied" but Clinton told the truth? -- If you do, then you're part of the problem.

Hmmm...wasnt meaning to dodge it. I'll say it straight out: I dont side with Clinton over Bush. Clinton was bombing Iraq as well, and putting forth all the same shit, which has turned out to be just as wrong. I see that I could have made that more clear. I cant really say that I think Bush lied one way or another. Do you know for sure? It seems to me that he may have been acting according to the intelligence that he had. After reading the 9/11 report it was clear that Bush wasnt all that gung ho about going into Iraq from the start, he needed some convincing. Paul, I dont know WHO lied, or who put forth false information, but it was sure promulgated like they knew what they were talking about. It turns out that wasnt the case. I dont blame it all on Bush by any means.

Short answer: I am not employing a double standard.

I've never said that and in fact, I've contradicted that about 10 times.... Either you are having a problem yourself with reality or you are lying.

previous post:

It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.

Ok. You're saying that Jeff is whats wrong with the party, and the reason why "main stream" America doesnt vote for Dems. Bush won by what, 5 percentage points? Not really a landslide, but certainly a victory. My point is that a lot of people DID vote Democrat, almost half of the voters, putting them right in "mainstream" America.

A good portion of voters did vote Democratic, so I dont know what you're saying. If the party was really filled with people who thought like that (Jeff) I doubt they would have received as many votes as they did.

Its not like the Dem ticket is some little fringe party like the Greens, etc. It was nearly a split again.

Elections: To me, it seems that some people are hanging on to something that didnt happen, which I dont think is necessarily productive. But still, I wouldnt call them insane for it.

NOW-- IF you believe that the Supreme Court "Stole" the election or that Bush was "selected" by the court then you sir are a stalk raving mad man.

Hahaha. I dont remember saying that I believed that anywhere. You just wanted to type "stark raving mad man" didnt you? I could be mad, but its not because of that!

OK ra- I've given you example after example. You have replied that I've generalized about half the population. You have refused to get your facts straight about what I have said and you have refused to accept that a large number of people on the left are delusional.

Ok ok. Thanks for the examples. You have generalized about the population, but thats okay. Saying that "a large number of people on the left is delusional" IS a generalization in itself.

Look, I hear people on both sides who say the same thing...the names and details are different, but you would be shocked as to how similar each side sounds. Both sides basically say the other is composed of psychopaths. Sometimes I think that maybe Americans could actually cool off on each other a bit, but maybe I'M DELUSIONAL FOR THINKING THAT!

I also asked you if the people who believe all this stuff are nutz and you did a breathtaking job not answering that question...

Breathtaking? Wow. I should go back and read that. I think that all this crap is sensationalized beyond belief, and that Americans arent all a bunch of loonies. I know really really liberal types and REALLY conservative types, and I wouldnt call either of them insane. They have ideas that I dont always agree with, but I think their mental faculties are basically working as well as the next person...

Once again, I genuinely hope you don't believe me... The more often you guys hold up Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Whoopi Goldberg as being "The Heart and Soul of America" the more people vote Republican.

You may be right there, but I cant speak for Whoopi, as I dont know her politics too well. I dont pay attention to very many hollywood types overall.

Hey, I have a question for you...I have mentioned Coulter a few times. Do conservatives generally accept her views as viable political analysis?

Moore, Franken, and all that crew are basically entertainment IMO. they are there to stir up arguments more than to inform or really get anything done. its depressing that alot of people consider moore/coulter/franken/savage to be useful in forming political opinions...

Okay. there we are. I like to debate Paul, but I hope that you dont think that I was personally attacking you. The hardest thing is talking about all of this without getting all pissed off. Anyway, I'm not trying to piss you off, I'm just trying to see what you think, and why.

Oh, one more time, I'm not a democrat.

-RA the raving mad mad, no wait, the stark raving mad man.


What's that I hear? Is i... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

What's that I hear? Is it r.a., pwned, in D-minor? Why yes, yes I think it is.

"pwned" ???

RA -- chill out man, there ... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

RA -- chill out man, there are plenty of people here who understand what you are saying. Both sides DO point at the other and declare them to be lunatics. I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that the really kooky Bush-haters seem to be enjoying more mainstream acceptance in their party than the kooky Clinton haters did in theirs in the 90's -- and even then you're mostly talking about the Buchannan and Falwell types who either left the party or were booted out. Any way you cut it, believing that Bush wants to kill us all is irrational. That man needs help.

Back on the original topic, the crazy assed comment Paul put up in this post.... another moonbat who doesn't know what "terrorism" is.

I mean, hell, lets grant, for the moment and for the sake of argument, that W *is* capital 'E' evil, and wants to kill everyone in the world.

That still doesn't make him a terrorist. Terrorism is attacking non-military targets because you are unable to defeat a foe in conventional warfare.

Seems to me, that just like "facist", the word "terrorist" is devoid of any meaning for the left besides "someone I don't like". You can't even have intelligent discussion with someone when they refuse to use the same referents.

Hey, I have a question f... (Below threshold)
julie:

Hey, I have a question for you...I have mentioned Coulter a few times. Do conservatives generally accept her views as viable political analysis?

I don't consider myself a conservative or to speak for them, but I'll answer anyway: Sure, why not? She is undoutedly intelligent and articulate. She pokes fun at the left just to see you guys sputter, jump around, and yell "how dare she!" That is for pure entertainment, my friend.

Ok ok. Thanks for the e... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Ok ok. Thanks for the examples. You have generalized about the population, but thats okay. Saying that "a large number of people on the left is delusional" IS a generalization in itself.

Well golly ra then the only way you will ever admit that a hunk of the left is mad is for me to get everyone of them psychologically evaluated and give you a numerical breakdown. Nonsense.

I can say that (for example) a large hunk of the population in this country is christian and even without numbers to back me, that statement is obviously accurate.

I have provided you with enough examples to make the statement that a large hunk of the left is delusional.
=========
Hey, I have a question for you...I have mentioned Coulter a few times. Do conservatives generally accept her views as viable political analysis?

Since I actually answer people's questions, I'll tell you.

I guess, to be Clintonesque, it depends on what your definition of "generally accept her views" is.

"Generally speaking" she is conservative and "generally speaking" so are most conservatives. (I really should admit that I don't read or listen to her enough to actually answer.) But I would guess most conservatives would accept the bulk of her ideals if not her delivery. (I must admit I've only read about 3 of her columns.)

But let me spin it a different way-- I bet if you took voters who were apolitical and gave them Coulter's views and Whoopi Goldbergs views, Coulter would win by several miles.
=======
AND btw when one of the kids uses a new slang terms I don't know, I google "term glossary" and get my answer.

...Suffice it to say, that wasn't a compliment of your debating skills.


I think the point that P... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that the really kooky Bush-haters seem to be enjoying [much, much, much -ed] more mainstream acceptance in their party than the kooky Clinton haters did in theirs in the 90's -- and even then you're mostly talking about the Buchannan and Falwell types who either left the party or were booted out.

Not a bad way to say it. (I only had to add a few adjectives)

He doesn't want to kill the... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

He doesn't want to kill them all....the women he wants to keep so that he can RAPE THEM! Cameron Diaz told me so.

Paul, every one of your pos... (Below threshold)
CCRyder:

Paul, every one of your posts convinces me more and more that you are a closed minded idiot.

r.a., I don't know why you were civil to Paul (or any of the other KOOKS!), even I I read your post I knew that they would just trash you for your civility. To them, being polite is a sign of weakness to exploit and make fun of.

julie, what is it about the way you think of Coulter makes it any more legitimate than, say, the way a progressive might think about Al Franken?

Paul:Well golly... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul:

Well golly ra then the only way you will ever admit that a hunk of the left is mad is for me to get everyone of them psychologically evaluated and give you a numerical breakdown. Nonsense.

and this too:

I'm just not very interested in stereotyping large groups of people based on personal opinion. I dont see what purpose is served.

I could go around repeating what many liberals say about conservatives, but I dont. I dont think its a useful approach to political discourse to keep slinging stereotypes around.

Since I actually answer people's questions, I'll tell you.

I apologize for not answering your question. I personally didnt see the point, however.

I believe that I answered your other questions, right?

Feel free to ask more...

Paul, I'm just trying to get you to look at some of this differently. Thats all.

Thanks for your views about Coulter. I personally think that someone like George Will might have a better sense of conservative views, and that Coulter provides a fairly angry, hate ridden viewpoint.

r.a.

TIM:RA -- chill... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

TIM:

RA -- chill out man, there are plenty of people here who understand what you are saying. Both sides DO point at the other and declare them to be lunatics.

Thanks for taking the time to say that. Thats my main point.

I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that the really kooky Bush-haters seem to be enjoying more mainstream acceptance in their party than the kooky Clinton haters did in theirs in the 90's -- and even then you're mostly talking about the Buchannan and Falwell types who either left the party or were booted out.

I understood his point from the beginning. I dont see the use of it, however. To me, it seems counterproductive to focus on that.

Any way you cut it, believing that Bush wants to kill us all is irrational. That man needs help.

Couldnt agree more...

Hey Tim thanks for answering me like I'm not the enemy.

Julie:[regarding A... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Julie:

[regarding Ann Coulter]

I don't consider myself a conservative or to speak for them, but I'll answer anyway: Sure, why not? She is undoutedly intelligent and articulate. She pokes fun at the left just to see you guys sputter, jump around, and yell "how dare she!" That is for pure entertainment, my friend.

Understood. Sometimes she can be a bit inhumane in her writings, and I was wondering what people thought about that. I dont put much stock in her viewpoint, as she is more concerned about making waves than making good arguments, from what I have read.

Paul: there is a stray "an... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul: there is a stray "and this too" in the post that shoudnt be there. typo.

CCRyder: I don't read Frank... (Below threshold)
julie:

CCRyder: I don't read Franken, I don't watch Franken, and I don't know or care what the left thinks about him. They are entitled to their own opinions.

r.a.: Coulter Provides a Fairly Angry, Hate Ridden Viewpoint. . . .Sometimes She Can Be a Bit Inhumane in Her Writings,

What's So Hateful about Her Viewpoint? What's so inhumane about her writings?

I Dont Put Much Stock in Her Viewpoint,

You're entitled.

As She Is More Concerned about Making Waves than Making Good Arguments, from What I Have Read.

Oh, from what little I have heard and read, I think she makes very good arguments. She is also very good at tweaking people's noses. For example, I saw her on some program where she was asked a question, but as soon as she started answering, the host and another guest deliberately talked over her so she could not be heard. [Very old tactic.]

So, when the other guest was asked a question, she talked right over him and the host, saying you did it to me and now I am doing it to you, if you want me to stop then you give me a chance to answer a question without you talking over me. They wouln't stop and neither would she. And as they got angrier and angrier, she just laughed and laughed at them. I love stuff like that!

Coulter at her best is hila... (Below threshold)
Sergio:

Coulter at her best is hilarious. At her worst tedious. Like Franken, she rides that edge. Franken can be funny sometimes too.

I think all this screaming is going on because most people realize the situation is exactly *opposite* of what the comment writer (who may have been a plant, because that's just *too* funny) describes.
Far from the end of the world being 'nigh, it's pretty obvious that the world is rapidly (and I think this is a great thing) becoming Americaland, and that freaks some people out. Americaland is peaceful, capitalistic, democratic, contentedly middle-class, sometimes clever but usually boring. Even China is slowly but surely lumbering thisaway. The Iranian students want what we have and the mullahs are old and smell their own death in the air. The Jan. 30 elections in Iraq will happen (there will be murder and it will be very hard) and everything will eventually work out there. American values are winning all over the world (heard of Ukraine?). And for some people - people who escaped from the suburbs, mostly - that is a nightmare from the deepest pit of hell. So they scream, kind of incoherently, exhausted, out-of-ideas, absurd even to themselves: it's the end of the world. I just tell them "you wish!!! (bwa-ha-ha-ha)!"

RA, I answered you like you... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

RA, I answered you like you aren't the enemy because ... you aren't. It's increasingly rare to find people who might not agree with me, but who still will engage in polite debate.

That's something that is really missing the last couple of years. Intelligent people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions. When people start looking at different information entirely, (like, say, when the media is incompetent, misleading, or just plain dishonest -- there are examples on both sides) then the disagreements will inevitably get ugly as they are now. This is not good. You cannot reason with someone who honestly thinks you want to shoot their dog, rape their wife, and mow down all the rainforests to make "God hates fags" flyers. You can't argue with people off the deep end. I don't think Paul will deny that there are also crazies on the right, too, but the point to all this is that I don't recall seeing any of them seated with Bush 41 and the Governator at the GOP convention. (and no, I'm not a Republican)

Most people who don't agree with me politically are decent people. Some who might happen to agree with me on some things are rotten people. Every group has its assholes.

I read something that was quoted on Tim Blair's site not too long ago. After some French aid workers in Iraq were killed, a few people (of the right leaning variety) approved. A lefty blogger or commenter had an epiphany and said afterwards, "these people aren't just pro-war, they are on the other side!" It's a reversal of something I've said about the despicable parts of the far left many times myself. It made me think.

That commenter was so close to articulating something important -- that there is a line between disagreeing with someone politically (no matter how strongly) and genuinely wishing death upon them. Or, for that matter, actually helping it along. No matter how many other things that person and I may disagree on (including whether our current war is even justified), at the end of the day we are on the same side. We agree on one thing, the most important thing of all: that what was done to those French aid workers was wrong.

There are many people, inlcuding Americans, who honestly want us to lose this war, and who cheer when US soldiers, marines, and airmen -- my fomer brothers in arms -- are killed. I have nothing to say to them, they are my enemy. I will do whatever I lawfully and ethically can to piss in their cheerios. They are my enemy because they think it's OK to shoot school children, decapitate aid workers, and blow up buses full of old ladies as long as you blow up the "right" people, profess the right ideology, or hate Bush.

And unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that RA dislikes those people as much as I do. Everything else is just details.

ra said:"I unde... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ra said:

"I understood his point from the beginning. I dont see the use of it, however. To me, it seems counterproductive to focus on that"

OF COURSE you see it counterproductive to focus on the fact that a large hunk of the left is insane. That makes your side look bad!

Instead you will stand there (sit there) and make wonderfully powerful counter arguments like "You're generalizing."

If I said it was warm during the summer you'd say "You're generalizing." as if that negated my point.

SIGH

OK RA live in a fantasy land where every Dems is sane and rational...As I've said many times, I hope you do...

I'll be happy to meet you at the ballot box... But if you do answer me again, I wish you would give me one straight answer. (which you won't)

If this is not a major reason the left is losing power, why are they?

Assuming you answer, which you won't, it should be most interesting.

I like Ann Coulter. I defe... (Below threshold)
kgowen:

I like Ann Coulter. I defend Ann Coulter. I think she is the conservative counterpart to Michael Moore, only she's better looking, more intelligent, and is not a factually challenged hypocritical lying swine.

Seriously, there are a number of anti-Moore sites that have deconstructed pretty much his entire life's work into a catalogue of lies, distortions, manipulative camera tricks, and sleazily dishonest editing. There are a number of anti-Coulter sites, too, but other than the usual bleating about what an awful person she is, their attempts at deconstruction are mighty thin gruel by comparison. Best I could find was some guy named "scoobie" who claimed to have debunked one whole chapter of one of her books, I think it was 'Treason.' I suppose there may be other sites, but I haven't found them yet.

Need foot to waist gear in... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Need foot to waist gear in here; so much bullshit.

Many of you are new; read the arhives and post like ONCE not several times.

Why are all the idiots coming out of the woodwork right now?

Cindy

For the record I havent bee... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

For the record I havent been defending, or even praising Michael Moore. I personally dont care for his approach any more than I care for Ann Coulter's approach.

I agree with people that Coulter's views may be funny, just like her counterparts on the left may be funny and entertaining.

However, I think that those types of writers are capitalizing on the division in this country, and making a good chunk of money at our expense. In the process, I dont think they are helping to solve any issues by any means.

My friend Paul said this:

If this is not a major reason the left is losing power, why are they?

Because they do not provide a strong alternative the the GOP. Their messages are often just watered down versions of what Republicans are saying, i.e. John Kerry.

They buy into the bullshit and help make certain issues a bigger deal than they are.

They're just as partisan as anyone else. They are helping to further the divisive message.

The basic answer is that the Democratic Party has been a fairly shitty alternative to the Republican Party. They had no great answers by any means. They pretty much say the same things, with minor variations here and there on some issue or another. Basically its the same message, its just weaker and pretty confused. If you want more detail I can get into it.

I dont think calling them all insane really sheds much light on why the left has lost support. It's fun to say, sure, but thats about it.

How's that for an answer Paul?

Tim: nice post. And you're right, I do dislike those same people that you are talking about, and for the same reasons. Many people get caught up in their ideologies and eventually become the enemy that they profess to be against.

Seriously what you have written is nice to hear. After this last election the red state vs. blue state idea really went crazy, with each side thinking that the other is SO DIFFERENT, and SO INSANE. I don't buy it. We may disagree, but we are all Americans, and have a mutual goal which is making things in this country as good as we can. Sounds a little sappy, but thats the best way I can say it right now.

Societies always have two aspects, the more conservative and the more dynamic. One isnt any better than the other, and both are REALLY important for proper balance. Its the whole yin and yang bit. Of course thats all just my opinion...


(I'm not going to quote you... (Below threshold)
Paul:

(I'm not going to quote you for time's sake)

Perhaps you are correct. No, lemme say this... I'm sure that is part of it... but it goes deeper than that.

If the only people the Dems were losing were people in the middle, your theory could more readily be accepted as being the exclusive answer. But we routinely see life-long Dems giving up on the Dem party and turning Rep. In my state, (LA) we had about 70% Dem voter registration just a decade ago. Now it is about 52-48. (I think)

Something is making people actively change party... You just don't change your political affiliation on alternative Thursdays. (I know I'm generalizing but...) For this many people to take the trouble to change parties SOMETHING is pissing them off.

Of it were only a case of the Dem party lacking alternatives right now, people would stay Dems and vote Rep. (common in the South) No, the Dems are pissing people off.

My take.

P

I think the Dems are losing... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

I think the Dems are losing votes for both of those reasons -- watered down positions copied from the GOP and a very vocal fringe on the left that disgusts a lot of long time Dem voters. These two things are not mutally exclusive when you have a candidate who gives 2 or 3 different positions to as many audiences in a single day. Exhibit A: All the lame-assed "I'm reporting for duty" symbolism at the DNC, while 'Minuteman' Moore is sitting in a seat of honor.

How stupid do they think we are?

My grandmother voted Democrat all her life until this election. Why? Because Kerry didn't do enough to distance himself from the "America is evil and our soldiers deserve to die" fringe on the left. That won't fly with the generation that fought in WWII and Korea. Her husband is a retired career servicemember, and the Kerry campaign just didn't cut it. I had discussions with her, pre-2001, about her support for the Democrats. She was convinced our nation would pull together in a time of war. This past year showed her what I was unable to convince her of for so long.

Also, most of my younger peers at my college became disillsioned with the Kerry campaign. Why? I'll give you a perfect example of why: the Democratic base was told by all manner of organizations that the GOP was wrong to oppose gay marriage. They painted them as bigots. Campuses were full of discussions of why Bush had to get the boot, and accusations of homophobia were right up there on the list. And then Kerry said his position on gay marriage was exactly the same as Bush's. (his words, not mine). It doesn't matter what you think about the issue, it's pretty obvious that this is lame.

About half my peers were, if not Kerry supporters, at least Bush haters. And most of that half stayed home on November 2nd.

So, did the Democrats come up with a lame platform that was poorly differentiated from the GOP? Yes, they did, and this demoralized the Dems. But it also appeared to the opposition to be a sham platform because the Dems didn't disavow the loonies. This energized the opposition. Game over, drive home safely.

Paul wrote:"Someth... (Below threshold)
r.a.:

Paul wrote:

"Something is making people actively change party... You just don't change your political affiliation on alternative Thursdays. (I know I'm generalizing but...) For this many people to take the trouble to change parties SOMETHING is pissing them off."

Thats true Paul, very true. There is definitely something pushing people away. Good point. I think that the Michael Moore types have alot to do with that. Personally I dont know what the guy is trying to do, outside of capitalizing on his notoriety while he can, and making lots of loot for himself.

Tim wrote:

"Campuses were full of discussions of why Bush had to get the boot, and accusations of homophobia were right up there on the list. And then Kerry said his position on gay marriage was exactly the same as Bush's."

Right. And that same "homophobic" label was never cast upon Kerry the way that it was with Bush. I know.

"But it also appeared to the opposition to be a sham platform because the Dems didn't disavow the loonies."

Right. The Dems didnt actively separate themselves...and they hoped that the association would somehow bring attention, and it did, but not the kind they were hoping for.

I have to admit I skipped t... (Below threshold)
Dave:

I have to admit I skipped the last 1/3 of this thread, but I think I'm safe in pointing this out...

Haven't any of you considered that this Demonrat vs. Republicon 'competition' is simply a smokescreen to keep the sheeple ignorant of our Oligarchy's real objectives?

If you want a clue as to what they're up to, just examine the issues facing the world today that NEITHER side will touch - and ask yourself why those issues are either paid lip service, or simply ignored.

Here's three for starters:

1. Illegal immigration.
2. Government waste, fraud and abuse.
3. Education.

In the meantime, the government just gets bigger... And bigger... And bigger...

-Dave




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy