Thursday, September 18, 2008

Obama Finally Talks Tough -- Calls for Violence Against Americans

Finally, Barack Obama is talking tough.

Oh, he's not calling for strong measures against terrorists. Obama believes that the terrorists need to be shown more "humility."

Nor did he use his speech in Elko, Nevada to call for tough measures against the Iranian mullahs and their hate-mongering figurehead, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nope with Mu-mu, Barry plans to allow him to continue to build his nuclear weapons as we sit down and negotiate with him WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS. In other words, he can continue to build his bomb while Barry asks him what we've done to make him so sad and what we can give him to make him more glad. You see, Barry thinks the terrorists cling to their beliefs because they're bitter, too. Take away the bitterness by providing them with more guns, money, land, "dignity" etc and then they won't be so sad.

Nor did he use his angry speech filled with half-truths and outright lies to call for a tough stance against the Syrian dictator or the despot who rules North Korea with an iron hand. After all, as a "citizen of the world" Obama is a citizen of North Korea and Syria, too.

Nope, The Anointed One used his talk to 17,000 of the folks who faint at his sight and who get tingles rushing up their legs at the resonance of his voice to call for violence against the same Americans Obama has previously characterized as stupid, bigoted and bitter.

Obama's latest call for physical violence follows a campaign of intimidation ordered by his campaign against radio stations where people knowledgable about his work with terrorists were being interviewed.

Why is Barry resorting to thuggery? Because his "I Am God" routine didn't work, his rhetoric is failing, his multiple attempts to play the race card has seen nothing but people laughing in his face over the usual "I'm a victim" routine of the leftists. Frankly, Obama is calling for physical violence against fellow Americans because that's the way thugs do their business.

The good news is that the effete who support Obama -- the morally and intellectually vapid who swoon at his concerts because he's just so pretty and those who get sexual thrills: those tingles running up their legs just by looking at him -- can't "get in people's faces" because they are cowards. They can key people's cars and break their windows but get face-to-face with real Americans? Think John Edwards going toe-to-toe with Chuck Norris. Think Britney Spears duking it out with Ted Nugent. Think Brad Pitt or Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin versus Sarah Palin. Is there anyone who wouldn't put their money on the Governor to defeat the effete?

253 comments:

1 – 200 of 253   Newer›   Newest»
Dora said...

hahahahahahaha

Dan Coyle said...

Actually, Sean Penn is a Nader supporter.

marx this said...

Don't let them tell you this economic meltdown is a complicated mess. It's not. Our national financial crisis is readily understood by anyone who has seen greed and hypocrisy. Conservative Republicans always want the government to stay out of business and avoid regulation as long as they are making lots of money. When their greed, however, gets them into a fix, they are the first to cry out for rules and laws and taxpayer money to bail out their businesses. Obviously, Republicans are socialists. The Bush administration has decided to socialize the debt of the big Wall Street Firms. Taxpayers didn't get to enjoy any of the big money profits on the phony financial instruments like derivatives or bundled sub-prime paper, but we get the privilege of paying for their debt and failures.

belle lettres said...

Dora!!

You got that precisely right!

midnite said...

Allow me to add a hahahahhaha of my own...this moron gets shriller and less convincing with every strident, ridiculous day in his descent into total lunacy.

The whole secret of this puffy,shrill, little twat is that he's one of those Jews who puts the supposed interests of Israel above those of his own country. He wants America to be the enforcer for Israel at its most criminal...right wing, Zionist, expansionist Israel...Grater Eezryeel. He wants us to go to war with any country in the mid-east who even takes the slightest issue with them...no matter how disastrous that is for American and the world.

He is a sniveling, little traitor who, as they all do, struts his phony patriotism like some ridiculous, little cockalorum to hide his real interests.

What a foul,foul thing he is.

noose said...

Who was the moron who told us McCain...who EVEN NOW still believes the economy is strong...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha...would be the man to lead us out of this mess?

What mess?

It's running perfectly. Why would anyone need to lead us out of anything?

Ridiculous fucks.

run away from responsibility said...

"Don't let them tell you this economic meltdown is a complicated mess."

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action before, or to delay, their planned adjournments -- Sept. 26 for the House of Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they haven't ruled out returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for help.

One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, is that ``no one knows what to do'' at the moment.

``When you rush to judgment, you usually make mistakes,'' said Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican congressman from New York. ``This is something you can't go on forever without addressing, but Congress in a short span of time is best served by going home.''


I guess the Democrats in Congress are just pathetically stupid, eh karl?

not ready to lead, lacks judgement said...

Gee, maybe we should put FRANKLIN RAINES, Barack Obama's chief economic advisor on the case. After all, things were just wonderful at FANNIE MAE under his stewardship as CEO.

Anonymous said...

Remember, the more you see Dora and her cronies here, the more effective you are. Why else would they waste thier precious time here when they could be getting high, having abortions and marching on Washington for beastiality rights.

Dora said...

Who says i'm not high and getting an abortion right now?! And raping my cat.

WalrusRex said...

Isn't this what the left warned us about regarding Bush? He'd be reading our email, squelching free speech, his brown shirts would be stifling dissent. And now to summarize Obama's latest tactics: Persuasion isn't working so grab a rock.

noose said...

Dasrite...I write all my shit whilst high...and that's spelled bestiality.

You should know...it's a form of bestiality whenever two lowlife trogs hump each other.

come and see said...

Barack picked up the rock to see what was squirming underneath...there was John and Sarah:

"Despite an intense effort to distance himself from the way his party has done business in Washington, Senator John McCain is seen by voters as far less likely to bring change to Washington than Senator Barack Obama. He is widely viewed as a “typical Republican” who would continue or expand President Bush’s policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."


Joe Klein, of All People on McCain's "Lying Game": "John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign."

Anonymous said...

Raines O's chief economics advisor...more wacko lies...it's all they've got left.

Anonymous said...

And, now a former editor of The National Review has come out for Obama! Wick Alliston

salope said...

and that's spelled bestiality.

You should know...it's a form of bestiality whenever two lowlife trogs hump each other.


This guy always puts a beast in bestiality just as he does in everything he writes. It's just the nature of...the beast....and, he means to tell us that he's stone, cold sober when he writes his shit? c'est l'hallu totale.....dayum, i need a drink (gnole), a toke, and a good fucking from my brother.

obama - not ready to lead said...

First Raines was Bill Clinton's Budget Director...

...then the Fannie Mae cockroach ran into Obama's tent and started pigging out!

How much did Obama take in contributions from Fannie Mae over the years? More than any other Senator other than Chris Dodd.

salope said...

btw, did anyone notice that evan took down his "leftists, god, reason" posting? it, evidently, was too stupid for even him........

salope said...

it's certainly understandable that evan wants to talk about obama....just listen to mccain speaking about spain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WItI9It_Swc

barack obama OWNED by ex-Fannie mae ceo's said...

Jim Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae who was one of three advisors tapped by Democrat Barack Obama to vet vice presidential candidates, resigned today after questions were raised about favoritism he may have received from Countrywide Financial Corp.

Insisting he had done nothing wrong, Johnson issued a statement saying that he did not want the flap over his mortgage to distract attention from Obama’s run for the presidency.

“I would not dream of being a party to distracting attention from that historic effort,” Johnson said. “I believe Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States is the most

another crook advising obama said...

Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard, “was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a “stable pattern of earnings” at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books.

The Government Investigation determined that, “Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,”

On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant’s income statement to achieve management pay bonuses.

Investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.

dnc circle of corruption said...

Where is ex-Fannie Mae CFO, Tim Howard, today? He's the chief economic advisor to Barack Obama.

Look who's cooking the books and in the tank in Congress and has been FOR YEARS.

brother can you spare a million? said...

Sooo-eeeey!!!

Barack Obama, the "conscience" of Fannie Mae... LOL!

bcbg said...

Look, dumbass, Dean Baker is Obama's chief economic advisor and Austan Goolsbee is his senior economic advisor....so, dream on and spin away, ape.

bcbg said...

Republican Chuck Hagel excoriates Palin selection:

Hagel hints at who has his ’08 vote
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 09/18/08 08:04 PM [ET]
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said Thursday that people could interpret his remarks about Sarah Palin “any way they like,” one day after he excoriated his party’s vice presidential nominee and challenged her ability to lead the nation.


Hagel, the only senator who has not endorsed either of the presidential candidates, has puzzled his colleagues in the Senate all summer with actions that suggest he favors one candidate and it is not Republican John McCain.
The latest example came Wednesday when Hagel questioned the selection of the Alaska governor as Sen. McCain’s (Ariz.) running mate during an interview with his hometown newspaper.
In the interview, Hagel strongly criticized Palin’s lack of foreign policy credentials and called her suggestion that the view of Russia from her home qualifies as international experience “insulting to the American people.”His comments to the Omaha World-Herald follow a summer when Hagel skipped the Republican National Convention and took a very public tour of war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan with Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate. Hagel has also been a vocal critic of the Bush administration and an opponent of the war in Iraq.
On Thursday, Hagel acknowledged his comments about Palin, but denied speculation that he plans to endorse Obama.
“I’ve made all the comments I prefer to make right now on those issues,” Hagel said. “I don’t intend to get involved in the campaign on either side … People can interpret my comments any way they like.”
The prospect of Hagel endorsing Obama is a fascinating side-story in the Senate, where Democrats are already coping with Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) support for McCain.
Hagel’s criticism of Palin intrigued Democratic leaders Thursday. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who co-chairs Obama’s campaign, noted that Hagel’s wife, Lilibet, has already donated to Obama’s campaign and that he may reach out to the Nebraskan.


“I haven’t yet, because I assumed he wouldn’t [endorse Obama],” Durbin said. “But it may be worth a conversation. I’ll be happy to reach out to him.”


Among several pointed criticisms of Palin in the interview, Hagel ridiculed the fact that the Alaska governor only received a passport last year and said “it was a stretch” to say she was qualified enough for the presidency.


“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials,” Hagel said. “You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything … I think it’s a stretch to, in any way, to say that she’s got the experience to be president of the United States.”


The interview broke an oft-stated rule of Hagel’s that he would not get involved in the presidential race. As recently as Sept. 9, his office said Hagel “has no intention in getting involved in any of the campaigns.”


“Sen. Hagel is focused on his job serving the people of Nebraska as a United States senator,” his spokesman, Jordan Stark, said at the time.


Several Republicans said they were disappointed in Hagel’s comments, but shied away from criticizing him. Instead, they defended Palin.


Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) met Palin at a National Governors Association meeting in Philadelphia and said she impressed him.


“It was a great choice and it’s energized our base,” Voinovich said of her selection as vice presidential nominee. “She’s an ordinary woman. Many people believe our party has the right ideas, but they won’t vote for us because they say only rich people are involved in our party. Now we could have someone who’s got the same problems [as ordinary Americans] in the White House.”


Democrats, however, praised Hagel.


“He’s a very outspoken, independent guy and people admire him for his outspokenness,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

Anonymous said...

Rotsa ruck with that Fanny Mae horseshit, moron...nobody believes you GOPigs anymore even when you do accidentally tell the truth...and this time, of course, you're back to bald faced lying and exaggeration.

skid marks up my back goolsbee said...

Austan Goolsbee got thrown under the bus a LONG time ago when Obama tripped over his dong in a debate with Hillary and it was discovered that Goolsbee had been meeting with the Canadians over NAFTA.

Besides, Goolsbee was a "Yale" Bonesman from the Hillary wing of the DLC. A "spy" in Obama's radical midst.

bcbp said...

Read, dumbass, a story from the great state of Montana:

Obama economic adviser finishes Montana swing

Associated Press - September 18, 2008 6:54 PM ET

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - Barack Obama's senior economic adviser says financial pressures put on the middle class and faulty regulation led to the problems currently being seen on Wall Street.
Austan Goolsbee spent Wednesday and Thursday in Montana, speaking to small crowds about Obama's economic policies.
At a stop in Helena, Goolsbee said declining incomes for the middle class, poor regulation of financial markets, and other issues caused economic problems.
He touted Obama policies he says would improve the situation, such as tighter reins on risky financial market dealings, and such initiatives as making college more affordable.
Goolsbee said turmoil on Wall Street prompted emergency meetings of Obama's team, but so far no substantive changes to the candidate's economic policies.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

John said...

Evan:

Of course Obama is inciting violence.

What's left after persuasion (via propaganda) and negotiations (with their fingers crossed behind their backs) fail to provide the objective?

That's how wars (and/or revolutions) often start between foreign, corporate entities.

However, for the Left, the only "foreign corporate entity" is the Republicans/conservatives (and corporations and the military when and/or as associated), because they're Kumbaya with the rest of the world.

And that's why Bill Clinton's '92 campaign called the office where they dredged and cooked up schemes and tactics against the floundering Republicans (but aimed at the conservative base of voters) the "War Room."

That's why,, during the culture clash caused by Clinton's perjury rap and his Impeachment, Carville declared "It's WUH!" with far more anger than he could or would ever muster against Somali warlords, Milosevic, or (S) Hussein, even during states of actual war with them.

That's why, while attacking the Right for being "war-mongers" and "militarists" and Manichaean, they draw a clear line between Absolute Evil (i.e. Bush/Cheney/Republicans/Conservatives) and Good (i.e. themselves, "The People," and their kids, "The Children"), and draw up battle-plans, assemble marching armies for campaigns, assassinate characters, and launch propaganda wars against an unsuspecting, easily-mamipulated, fear-mongered, and tremulous populace, promising liberation from the dictatorship of the Right.

For good measure, they vomit that very character and m.o. upon the Right in audacious, table-turning projection.

That's why, when our country is at war (when launched by a Republican, anyway), the enemy terrorists (in this situation) are called "Freedom Fighters."

That's why, when we called for and then executed regime change of a lying, war-mongering dictator in Iraq who was destabilizing the world, the Left, meanwhile, was screaming at the top of its collective lungs that regime change here was called for and should be executed, because Bush was a lying, war-mongering dictator who destabilized the world.

And that's why, despite "patriotic" attacks on Palin because she supposedly supported Alaskan seccesionists, in the wake of Kerry's loss, they declared that Red Staters (particularly the Religious Right which they blamed for Kerry's loss) are "too stupid" to vote and should be disenfranchized, and discussed the prospect of Red State/Blue State seccesssion in all seriousness. (But fell silent when asked who they thought would win a fight, a Red-State redneck with his gun, or a Blue-State metrosexual with a manicure?)

Dora here herself seemed to be fine with that prospect, and provided all sorts of information indicating that the Blue States produced more G & S and paid more in taxes than the Red States, and that, furthermore, most of their taxes went to the Red States, so succession would be to the far greater detriment of the Red Staters--and the hated conservatives therein.

The point there is not the argument (which is absurd, e.g. how many of the welfare recipients in the Red States are liberal and/or vote Democrat? The vast majority of them).

The point is that "antiwar" Dora herself wasn't nearly as outraged with the prospect of another civil war here as she was with the prospect of one in, say, Iraq (a country we actually went to war against).

The enemy for the left are their fellow Americans on the right. They are self-evidently violent in temperament, but would express themselves physically if they think they could get away with it, or when they snap.

And when McCain wins fair and square, I hope the riot police and National Guard are ready.

The economy:

"Who was the moron who told us McCain...who EVEN NOW still believes the economy is strong...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha...would be the man to lead us out of this mess?"

Uh, Tim Howard, of Fannie May (the institution that got us into this mess, and gave lots of $$$ to B. Hussein's campaigb)?

No, that would be B. Hussein's team.

btw, I'm curious to know the party registration of the headlining CEOs.

John said...

"At a stop in Helena, Goolsbee said declining incomes for the middle class, poor regulation of financial markets, and other issues caused economic problems."

Right. "Other issues." Like TOO MUCH much regulation in crucial areas, individual greed (in the private sector, party affiliation and/or the candidates they endorse/support unknown, but suspect), a Democratic congress (you know, the guys and gals who hold the purse strings of the nation), and consumer confidence made skittish after years of having the economy aggressively talked down by those who know consumer confidence is a major driver of a sound economy).

Dora said...

Wow, john, you are one hell of a nutbag.

Of course Obama is inciting violence.

You're kidding, right?!

Dora here herself seemed to be fine with that prospect, and provided all sorts of information indicating that the Blue States produced more G & S and paid more in taxes than the Red States, and that, furthermore, most of their taxes went to the Red States, so succession would be to the far greater detriment of the Red Staters--and the hated conservatives therein.

The point there is not the argument (which is absurd, e.g. how many of the welfare recipients in the Red States are liberal and/or vote Democrat? The vast majority of them).

The point is that "antiwar" Dora herself wasn't nearly as outraged with the prospect of another civil war here as she was with the prospect of one in, say, Iraq (a country we actually went to war against).


Well, for one thing, secession does not necessarily mean war. But more importnatly, this has nothing to do with what I think. It has to do with the hypocrisy on the right. You guys seem to have trouble with this concept, cuz you're always doing it.

This time, you kept calling Barack OBama un-American, etc. for all kinds of tenuous criticisms of America of people linked to him.

However, when Sarah Palin has links with people who ACTUALLY WANT TO SECEDE FOR THE US, you don't apply the same standard and call her un-American.

Why?

devon said...

Evan, it doesn't suprise me that a known muslim terrist would threaten violence agains Americans but you don't make it clear how he did that. would youy please clarify that.

midnite said...

Oh, all this manly talk coming from the gleep GOP ...what a joke. I live in one of those "flyover states"...one of the least populous. We had a class of fools out here for a long time who liked to put bumper stickers on their oversize trucks saying "Have you bitch slapped a liberal today?" Every time I saw one and had the chance, I'd walk up to that dumb motherfucker and tell him I was a liberal in case he still hadn't had his opportunity for that day. Even the biggest fat asses would just quiver and jump into their trucks with their fat wives and retarded children and lurch off down the road.

That's why they're the chicken hawk party.


On another satisfying note, the local hate radio, low-rent, Limbaugh wannabe just lost a several hundred thousand dollar judgment against some of the people he had vilified on his sick show.

Anyway, the state is rapidly turning blue and liberals are in a fighting mood. We've taken back the governorship and one house...and you just don't see any of those bumper stickers around anymore...I know...I watch for them assiduously.

elizabeth drew said...

How John McCain lost me
By: Elizabeth Drew
September 18, 2008 11:05 AM EST

I have been a longtime admirer of John McCain. During the 2000 Republican presidential primaries I publicly defended McCain against the pro-Bush Republicans’ whisper campaign that he was too unstable to be president (aware though I was that he had a temper). Two years later I published a positive book about him, “Citizen McCain.”

I admired John McCain as a man of principle and honor. He had become emblematic of someone who spoke his mind, voted his conscience, and demonstrated courage in bucking his own party and fighting for what he believed in. He gained a well-deserved reputation as a maverick. He was seen as taking principled positions on such issues as tax equity (opposing the newly elected Bush’s tax cut), fighting political corruption, and, later, taking on the Bush administration on torture. He came off as a man of decency. He took political risks.

Having emerged, ironically, from his bitter 2000 primary fight against Bush as an immensely popular figure, he set out to be a new force in American politics. He decided to form and lead a centrist movement, believing that that was where the country was and needed leadership. He went against the grain of his party on the environment, patients’ bill of rights, and, of course, campaign finance reform.

See Also
Financial fight: GOP hits Bush on econ troubles
Campaigns struggle to craft bailout response
Trump endorses McCain on Larry King
While McCain’s movement to the center was widely popular (if not on the right) – and he even flirted with becoming a Democrat – there’s now strong reason to question whether it was anything but a temporary, expedient tactic. (In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” he wrote, revealingly, “I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”)

When he decided to run for president in 2008, he felt he couldn’t win without the support of the right, so he adapted.

In retrospect, other once-hailed McCain efforts – his cultivation of the press (“my base”) and even his fight for campaign finance reform (launched in the wake of his embarrassment over the Keating Five scandal) now seem to have been simply maneuvers. The “Straight Talk Express” – a brilliant p.r. stroke in 2000 – has now been shut down.

John said...

"Wow, john, you are one hell of a nutbag."

Yeah. Like, "wow."

Go take another bong hit, Dora.

I said:

"Of course Obama is inciting violence."

"You're kidding, right?!"

Well, according to Evan. I personally don't know what he said that triggered this post, but if Evan said it, it's good enough for me.

"Well, for one thing, secession does not necessarily mean war."

Right. Assuming that Joe Red State Six-pack is going to give up his pick-up for a hybrid and start drinking VOSS without a fuss.

Anyway, admission that you wouldn't mind the blue states seceding from the Red States noted.

Case closed.

"But more importnatly (sic), this has nothing to do with what I think. It has to do with the hypocrisy on the right."

Denial. It has everything to do with what you think (in this case seccession), because you're the one being hypocritical when you harp about First Dude Palin's (alleged) seccesionist sentiments when you yourself would be willing to draw a line across the country from east to west, Duh-ra.

"You guys seem to have trouble with this concept, cuz you're always doing it."

Denial again, Duh-ra. You seem to have a problem with the concept of projection, because you're always doing it.

"This time, you kept calling Barack OBama un-American, etc...."

"Kept calling," as in repeatedly?

Not ONCE did I call Senator Obama "un-American."

Do you have any quotes?

No?

Then stfu.

"...for all kinds of tenuous criticisms of America of people linked to him."

"Tenuous?" 20 year attendance in a church the priest of which "God Damns" America in his sermons, and compares the United States of America to ancient, imperial Rome, and Jesus Christ to Malcolm X by both intent and race?

The priest whose "link" to Obama includes presiding over his wedding, and baptising his children?

The 'tenuous criticisms" of one of the "links" that involve bombing the Pentagon?

*Trellathikes?*

"However, when Sarah Palin has links with people who ACTUALLY WANT TO SECEDE FOR THE US, you don't apply the same standard and call her un-American."

Give it up. The seccesionist factions in Alaska are as American as the ones in Texas.

And they want to secede from the liberals below the 49th parallel in the same way you want to secede from the conservatives below the Mason-Dixon line.

The question is: Which sentiment is more subversive, divisive, and destructive to the United States at large?

The Alaskan First Dude's, or yours?

Well, since you're the one marginalizing Alaska as a "tiny state" with nothing to contribute but evil oil, and equating the governor of which as more worthless than a governor from Texas, the answer is:

Yours.

"Anyway, the state is rapidly turning blue and liberals are in a fighting mood."

Duh. That's the point of the post, toughguy.

Just drop the "antiwar" and "Peace & Love" posturing.

If you had the guns and the numbers, that might be something to worry about.

Fortunately, conservatives do (and you can sleep well at night because of that).

Yeah, what did Obama say, anyway?

John said...

devon, Obama's "a known muslim terrist" (sic)?

I didn't know that.

Can you elaborate?

noose said...

Conservatism is not a political position...it's a chronic fetal position:

Startle Response Linked to Politics

Washington Post

People who startle easily in response to threatening images or loud sounds seem to have a biological predisposition to adopt conservative political positions on many hot-button issues, according to unusual new research published yesterday.

The finding suggests that people who are particularly sensitive to signals of visual or auditory threats also tend to adopt a more defensive stance on political issues, such as immigration, gun control, defense spending and patriotism. People who are less sensitive to potential threats, by contrast, seem predisposed to hold more liberal positions on those issues.



lol...basically, they're frightened, little pussies.

Dora said...

Hey, look scientists have proven conservatives are idiots. A study shows that when given refutations of lies, only conservatives believes the lies even more.

http://gawker.com/5052329/scientists-explain-why-people-vote-for-republicans

All my screaming abot how you people have an odd relationship with facts and reality and logic is actually right!

m. nite said...

Crackpot says: "That's the point of the post, toughguy."

Yeah, right...we haven't been hearing endless, laughable macho drivel from the puffy little would be comic. You weenies don't know what your point is...one time it's how threatening O is, and the next it's all about effete liberals and O's long pink gloves. And how no lib could face down a real KKKonservative, American hero. It's just whatever silly assed shit comes into your weak little minds at the moment.

Can you read? Because you certainly can't write...or fight...chickenhawk.

Dora said...

Go take another bong hit, Dora.

Why, you're right, I think i will. But even while totally high, I'll still have a clearer mind that you, hon.

Well, according to Evan. I personally don't know what he said that triggered this post, but if Evan said it, it's good enough for me.

And Evan is to believed more than some guy off the street... because?

"Well, for one thing, secession does not necessarily mean war."

Right. Assuming that Joe Red State Six-pack is going to give up his pick-up for a hybrid and start drinking VOSS without a fuss.


What? That makes no sense? If the red states choose to secede, no one is going to force them to drink VOSS. Anyway, I don't have a car or a Tv, you know?

Anyway, admission that you wouldn't mind the blue states seceding from the Red States noted.

Case closed.


To be honest, no, I wouldn't mind that much. What exactly do the red states bring to the table, other than a constant stream of nutbaggery and people to staff Walmarts?

As for pretty much the rest of your post, I've already explained what hypocrisy is, and what a double standard is. Here, I'll also post the definition of "contradition":

3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction


Main Entry:
double standard
Function:
noun
Date:
1894

2: a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another ;

If you are too stupid to understand these basic concepts, I can't help you.

You criticize Obama for having alleged anti-American friends, but you make excuses for Palin when she has similar, if not worse, ties. That's a classic instance of double standard and contradiction.

I like this, though:

The question is: Which sentiment is more subversive, divisive, and destructive to the United States at large?

The Alaskan First Dude's, or yours?

Well, since you're the one marginalizing Alaska as a "tiny state" with nothing to contribute but evil oil, and equating the governor of which as more worthless than a governor from Texas, the answer is:

Yours.


Really? How did you get from A to B? Do you even know what logic is? lol

m. nite said...

The good news is that the effete who support Obama ... can't "get in people's faces" because they are cowards. They can key people's cars and break their windows but get face-to-face with real Americans? Think John Edwards going toe-to-toe with Chuck Norris. Think Britney Spears duking it out with Ted Nugent. Think Brad Pitt or Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin versus Sarah Palin. Is there anyone who wouldn't put their money on the Governor to defeat the effete?

Now, that was the "point of the post." twat.

Have you seen O play roundball? Can you imagine a pussy like Sayet going head to head with him...or a chickenhawk pussy like "John" going head to head with anyone?

Dora said...

The good news is that the effete who support Obama ... can't "get in people's faces" because they are cowards.

But scientists have proven that it's the conservatives who are the cowards:

"46 mostly white Midwesterners who self-identified as having strong political beliefs" were shown "threatening images" ("a large spider on someone's face, a bloodied person and maggot-filled wound"). The conservatives were more scared, of all of the images. Or, as Newsweek puts it, "illegal immigrants may = spiders = gay marriages = maggot-filled wounds = abortion rights = bloodied faces. " Liberals were not sensitive to the scary images. Which means they're biologically inferior, because they'd die if a gay spider tried to abort their faces to death.

http://gawker.com/5052329/scientists-explain-why-people-vote-for-republicans

John said...

You're disgusting, m. nite. Stay away from me.

John said...

Your ass is grass, Dora. I'll be back.

Steve said...

in one respect we are also wasting our time:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

But, they are so much fun to torment.

steverino said...

here's the wapo article on't:
The Power of Political Misinformation

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, September 15, 2008; A06

Have you seen the photo of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin brandishing a rifle while wearing a U.S. flag bikini? Have you read the e-mail saying Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was sworn into the U.S. Senate with his hand placed on the Koran? Both are fabricated -- and are among the hottest pieces of misinformation in circulation.

As the presidential campaign heats up, intense efforts are underway to debunk rumors and misinformation. Nearly all these efforts rest on the assumption that good information is the antidote to misinformation.

But a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds after it has been debunked -- even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.

In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.

Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.

Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.

Bullock found a similar effect when it came to misinformation about abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Volunteers were shown a Newsweek report that suggested a Koran had been flushed down a toilet, followed by a retraction by the magazine. Where 56 percent of Democrats had disapproved of detainee treatment before they were misinformed about the Koran incident, 78 percent disapproved afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval dropped back only to 68 percent -- showing that misinformation continued to affect the attitudes of Democrats even after they knew the information was false.

Bullock and others have also shown that some refutations can strengthen misinformation, especially among conservatives.

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

Bullock, Nyhan and Reifler are all Democrats.

Reifler questioned attempts to debunk rumors and misinformation on the campaign trail, especially among conservatives: "Sarah Palin says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere," he said, referring to the pork-barrel project Palin once supported before she reversed herself. "Sending those corrections to committed Republicans is not going to be effective, and they in fact may come to believe even more strongly that she was always against the Bridge to Nowhere."

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Dora said...

But see, since this study is another fact, it itself will have a backfire effect and make conservatives think that they're even smarter and righter.

Plus, it comes from "liberal academia" so it can't be trusted.

Such an automatic rejection of all facts and authority is really an extreme form of anti-intellectualism, and Republican leaders exploit this phenomenon among the lumpen proletariat to the extreme.

Just watch, they will say, "oh look, it's those tfancypants educated liberal professors looking down their nose at you and your gut instincts and beliefs. you should reject their findings and despise the researchers."

It's really easy, actually. Much easier than trying to win votes with sound policies and original ideas for good governance.

j. g. said...

Dora says:
If you are too stupid to understand these basic concepts, I can't help you.


He is too stupid, and I assure you, no one can help him.

bcbg said...

They are also happier....because they hate everyone:

Conservatives Happier Than Liberals

By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer

posted: 07 May 2008 08:20 am ET
Buzz up!
Add to delicious del.icio.us
Digg It! Digg It!
Save to Newsvine Newsvine
Add to reddit reddit
117 Comments | 29 Recommend

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

The same rationalizing phenomena could apply to personal situations as well.

"There is no reason to think that the effects we have identified here are unique to economic forms of inequality," the researchers write. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."

The current study was funded by the National Science Foundation.

jay gould said...

Noose, this is too funny...I had to repost it...says it all about these dorks...fear is what they live, breathe and spread everywhere they go:

noose said...
Conservatism is not a political position...it's a chronic fetal position:

Startle Response Linked to Politics

Washington Post

People who startle easily in response to threatening images or loud sounds seem to have a biological predisposition to adopt conservative political positions on many hot-button issues, according to unusual new research published yesterday.

The finding suggests that people who are particularly sensitive to signals of visual or auditory threats also tend to adopt a more defensive stance on political issues, such as immigration, gun control, defense spending and patriotism. People who are less sensitive to potential threats, by contrast, seem predisposed to hold more liberal positions on those issues.

Dora said...

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

Because they're brownshirts happily marching to the tune of Big Brother.

come on, if you have a brain, and actually think about things, that inevitably leads to complex emotions and a realization that the world isn't perfect.

midnite said...

John whined...or bleated...it was hard to tell:
You're disgusting, m. nite. Stay away from me.



hahahahaha...boo!...are you all curled up in a little ball, chickenhawk? haha...don't worry; I won't hit your pudgy, litte ass.

m. nite said...

Dora says: Plus, it comes from "liberal academia" so it can't be trusted.


That's the problem...everything scientific or sophisticated or stringently reasoned comes from liberal academia.
Conservative academia is known as bible school.

Dora said...

That's the problem...everything scientific or sophisticated or stringently reasoned comes from liberal academia.
Conservative academia is known as bible school.


Well, yeah, if this study is to be believed (I do believe it because I had this same sinking feeling about conservatives and facts from debating here), then academia is liberal because conservatives just can't hack it in the sciences because of the scientific method, which requires you to reject hypotheses of which you found no proof or of which you found proof to the contrary.

Since conservatives seem to have a problem with this very basic mechanism of ... real life, science, logic and proof, they tend not to do will in academia and rise in it. instead, they have things like the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/).

So it's a vicious cycle. They think academia is so liberal because of a vast leftwing conspiracy to keep rightwingers out of academia, which seems more like a paranoid and convoluted explanation than a reasonable, evidence-based one. Nevermind that there is no shred of evidence of this vast conspiracy.

So, how do you get through to someone that 2+2=4 if they don't even believe in arithmetic? It seems completely impossible.

Dora said...

A blogger at Mother Jones writes:

If I had to guess, though, I'd say it's because right-wing talkers have spent so many years deriding "so-called experts" that they now have negative credibility with many conservatives. The very fact that an expert says a conservative claim is wrong is taken as a good reason to believe the claim. This could probably be tested by doing a study of factual information outside the realm of politics and seeing if conservatives react the same way.

I think that's a great point. They've spent so many years insulting and tearing down experts, expertise, the whole idea that "book learning" is worthwhile and that sophisticated research can lead to valid results that now they're in an almost instinctual reaction to any complicated or well-researched fact. It's kind of a trap, it seems.

Why would they have spent all this time tearing down intelligence, knowledge, research, etc? Basically, because facts have a well-known liberal bias, in the words of Stephen Colbert. They needed to discredit all the experts who ridiculed their ideas and policies.

But now they've painted themselves into a corner, a very funhouse mirror corner, where having any authority on any topic actually diminishes your authority, and you can't prove anything with facts or logic. "The gut" and "instinct" reign.

It's kind of a retrograde step, from rational thought to animalistic instinct.

suze said...

Dora says: They've spent so many years insulting and tearing down experts, expertise,

Not only is this very true, but they have also corrupted the very idea of who an expert really is. On any given FOX program and in the msm in general, people who were fired for their incompetence or even had been convicted of a crime were elevated to positions, such as "analyst" or "expert." They create their own "experts," like Carly Fiorina, who was fired from HP for her incompetence, but gets to determine for television viewers who is competent to run a business. Indeed she is, or maybe was after her recent goof up, McCain's economic advisor. Then, you have people like Tom DeLay, who was reprimanded by the ethics commmittee and under investigation for a variety of offenses; Oliver North who got his conviction reversed basically becausee of a technicality involving the purported, but unsupported, use of his immunized testimony....it's a long, long list

victims of the Obama bus besides granny said...

Evidently, Dean Baker's under the bus w/Goolsbee. Jason Furman is Obama's "new" capo de tutti capi for Economics.

Goolsbee got demoted/kicked under the bus after the Canadian NAFTA debacle. Gee, you guys don't even know who's on 1st in your own campaign! Wow!

Can someone please look under the bus and see who else from Obama's economic team is under there besides Dean Baker, Frank Raines, Jim Johnson, Tim Howard and Austen Goolsbee?

Anonymous said...

I don't think you ever do get through to more than a few of them. This is why liberals have to realize that the so called conservatives who are anything but conservative are permanent, unrelenting enemies...that they are now a mortal, literal, physical danger to all of us through their war mongering and environmental destruction ...and devise ways to deal with what is the single worst threat we've ever faced.

I don't know exactly how you do this, but the first step is to know who and what the danger is and to know that the old politics does not work.

We need to devise whole new methods of self defense and political strategy...and we have to fully understand that it now involves the literal survival of the planet and is not just some relatively benign difference in the approach to government.

Dora said...

Not only that, Suze, they've denounced the whole idea of "experts" as elitist. They feel offended that someone with an actual education in law, for example, would know more on some topic and be more authoritative than the regular guy on the street.

They've elevated and made sacrosanct the opinion of the reulgar joe, no matter how un- or misinformed, to be equivalent, if not better, than the opinion of a real expert. That's the whole appeal of dubya and palin -- they DON'T know how washington works, they DON'T have much experience, and somehow that makes them MORE qualified than actual experienced experts.

It's really an offense against human progress and civilization to rail against learning, expertise, sophistication of thought, etc. And why did they do this? because their ideas were stupid and brutish and were discredited by the experts.

it's kind of like if you're not very good at math, you denounce math as a bad system.

lawyers must know EVERYTHING, huh? said...

Plato, "Gorgias"

SOCRATES: Then rhetoric, as would appear, is the artificer of a persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives no instruction about them?

GORGIAS: True.

SOCRATES: And the rhetorician does not instruct the courts of law or other assemblies about things just and unjust, but he creates belief about them; for no one can be supposed to instruct such a vast multitude about such high matters in a short time?

GORGIAS: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: Come, then, and let us see what we really mean about rhetoric; for I do not know what my own meaning is as yet. When the assembly meets to elect a physician or a shipwright or any other craftsman, will the rhetorician be taken into counsel? Surely not. For at every election he ought to be chosen who is most skilled; and, again, when walls have to be built or harbours or docks to be constructed, not the rhetorician but the master workman will advise; or when generals have to be chosen and an order of battle arranged, or a position taken, then the military will advise and not the rhetoricians: what do you say, Gorgias? Since you profess to be a rhetorician and a maker of rhetoricians, I cannot do better than learn the nature of your art from you. And here let me assure you that I have your interest in view as well as my own. For likely enough some one or other of the young men present might desire to become your pupil, and in fact I see some, and a good many too, who have this wish, but they would be too modest to question you. And therefore when you are interrogated by me, I would have you imagine that you are interrogated by them. 'What is the use of coming to you, Gorgias?' they will say--'about what will you teach us to advise the state?--about the just and unjust only, or about those other things also which Socrates has just mentioned?' How will you answer them?

GORGIAS: I like your way of leading us on, Socrates, and I will endeavour to reveal to you the whole nature of rhetoric. You must have heard, I think, that the docks and the walls of the Athenians and the plan of the harbour were devised in accordance with the counsels, partly of Themistocles, and partly of Pericles, and not at the suggestion of the builders.

SOCRATES: Such is the tradition, Gorgias, about Themistocles; and I myself heard the speech of Pericles when he advised us about the middle wall.

GORGIAS: And you will observe, Socrates, that when a decision has to be given in such matters the rhetoricians are the advisers; they are the men who win their point.

SOCRATES: I had that in my admiring mind, Gorgias, when I asked what is the nature of rhetoric, which always appears to me, when I look at the matter in this way, to be a marvel of greatness.

GORGIAS: A marvel, indeed, Socrates, if you only knew how rhetoric comprehends and holds under her sway all the inferior arts. Let me offer you a striking example of this. On several occasions I have been with my brother Herodicus or some other physician to see one of his patients, who would not allow the physician to give him medicine, or apply the knife or hot iron to him; and I have persuaded him to do for me what he would not do for the physician just by the use of rhetoric. And I say that if a rhetorician and a physician were to go to any city, and had there to argue in the Ecclesia or any other assembly as to which of them should be elected state-physician, the physician would have no chance; but he who could speak would be chosen if he wished; and in a contest with a man of any other profession the rhetorician more than any one would have the power of getting himself chosen, for he can speak more persuasively to the multitude than any of them, and on any subject. Such is the nature and power of the art of rhetoric! And yet, Socrates, rhetoric should be used like any other competitive art, not against everybody,--the rhetorician ought not to abuse his strength any more than a pugilist or pancratiast or other master of fence;--because he has powers which are more than a match either for friend or enemy, he ought not therefore to strike, stab, or slay his friends. Suppose a man to have been trained in the palestra and to be a skilful boxer,--he in the fulness of his strength goes and strikes his father or mother or one of his familiars or friends; but that is no reason why the trainers or fencing-masters should be held in detestation or banished from the city;--surely not. For they taught their art for a good purpose, to be used against enemies and evil-doers, in self-defence not in aggression, and others have perverted their instructions, and turned to a bad use their own strength and skill. But not on this account are the teachers bad, neither is the art in fault, or bad in itself; I should rather say that those who make a bad use of the art are to blame. And the same argument holds good of rhetoric; for the rhetorician can speak against all men and upon any subject,--in short, he can persuade the multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases, but he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other artist of his reputation merely because he has the power; he ought to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers. And if after having become a rhetorician he makes a bad use of his strength and skill, his instructor surely ought not on that account to be held in detestation or banished. For he was intended by his teacher to make a good use of his instructions, but he abuses them. And therefore he is the person who ought to be held in detestation, banished, and put to death, and not his instructor.

SOCRATES: You, Gorgias, like myself, have had great experience of disputations, and you must have observed, I think, that they do not always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either party of the subjects which they are discussing; but disagreements are apt to arise --somebody says that another has not spoken truly or clearly; and then they get into a passion and begin to quarrel, both parties conceiving that their opponents are arguing from personal feeling only and jealousy of themselves, not from any interest in the question at issue. And sometimes they will go on abusing one another until the company at last are quite vexed at themselves for ever listening to such fellows. Why do I say this? Why, because I cannot help feeling that you are now saying what is not quite consistent or accordant with what you were saying at first about rhetoric. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking; and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter;--let us make an end of
it.

Dora said...

Oh farmer john, why don't you post under your own name?!

FJ said...

You're the expert, you tell me?

FJ said...

What are "lawyers" expert at, dora?

Foreign policy? Economic policy? Liberty and Freedom? Virtue? All the above?

FJ said...

When you "cite" a newspaper article, just how "authoritative" are journalists, anyway?

Would you go to the doctor when sick, or just read a newspaper article and attempt to cure yourself?

Jes' wondrin'.

Dora said...

Law, the constitution, rights, legislative process, workings of government, international law, etc.

You're an expert in engineering, right? So, don't pretend to be an expert in law or philosophy or neuroscience or whatever else you think reading 2 books and having 2 thoughts make you an expert in.

Dora said...

When you "cite" a newspaper article, just how "authoritative" are journalists, anyway?

Depends on the institution. Some instutions have reputations for having good fact checkers and relatively centrist bias, others don't. You have to keep your brain on and you eye out for these things. It's hard to do that when you don't understand how facts work.

FJ said...

Give a guy a little vocational training, a title (like Dr./MD), and the next thing you know he starts spouting off about his expertise and how everyone should listen to the "experts".

If I ever have any questions on what law school is like, dora, I promise, I'll ask you. But please, expert? Since when is an apprentice in rhetoric an expert at ANYTHING?

FJ said...

As for your expertise in the Constitution, if I ever need someone to spell check one, you'll be the first one I call. But you know NOTHING about liberty, justice or what it means to pursue happiness.

Dora said...

If I ever have any questions on what law school is like, dora, I promise, I'll ask you. But please, expert? Since when is an apprentice in rhetoric an expert at ANYTHING?

You clearly don't know what they teach in law school.

As for your expertise in the Constitution, if I ever need someone to spell check one, you'll be the first one I call. But you know NOTHING about liberty, justice or what it means to pursue happiness.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL could you tell me where "the pursuit of happiness" is in the constitution?

Here's the link to the text of the constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Let me know!

Oh, and look up "liberty" while you're at it, see if it's anywhere but the preamble.

hahahaha you're SUCH a moron, i love it.

Anonymous said...

Wow...I read that whole irrelevant Plato thing....NOT.

If it were up to them, we'd still be consulting the local witch on our health problems...then we'd put her in the dunking stool when it didn't work out for us...well, our survivors would.

FJ said...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL could you tell me where "the pursuit of happiness" is in the constitution?

EXACTLY!

midnite said...

We do know how they pursue happiness though. As the article points out, it's through rationalizing and denial. There is no global warming, there are no consequences for killing a million people in Iraq, there is no death...as long as you believe the silly horseshit we believe, the economy is sound and if it aint, Bubba did it, if we fucked up, it's the Arab's fault, it's the OTHER's fault...blah blah blah...children and silly morons...

Anonymous said...

How can liberals call conservatives, of all things, pussies? The modern liberal movement has redefined the word pussy. Conservatives believe in peace through strength. Liberals believe is peace through nuance.
Can you imagine a "progressive" America being invaded by some crazed dictator? It would be like France during WW2. The French who gathered up their Jews for the Nazis. "Come on in, fellas! Here, take our Jews - PLEASE - Whatever you do, just don't shoot us!" Or maybe they would line up with signs and ask then nicely to leave.

suze said...

m. nite says: Conservative academia is known as bible school

liberal academia is to conservative academia as wikipedia is to conservapedia...evah heah of nebody using conservapedia as a source? Hmmmmm, when i google conservapedia, homosexuality comes up as one of the main pages. why am i not surprised?

suze said...

oh yeah, get this, m. nite, the homosexuality page lists the bible verses from leviticus prohibiting homosexuality. hahahahaha! you were dead on with the bible school deal....

bcbg said...

Can you imagine a "progressive" America being invaded by some crazed dictator?

how about the "regressive" america who elected the crazed dictator? no imagination required.

suze said...

FJ said...
As for your expertise in the Constitution, if I ever need someone to spell check one, you'll be the first one I call. But you know NOTHING about liberty, justice or what it means to pursue happiness.


maybe you're thinking of the declaration of independence, farmer. you guys are really something else....

salope said...

I had to read the entire thing. It's hilarious... ca me tue!

Here's the link:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

salope said...

I had to read the entire thing. It's hilarious... ca me tue!

Here's the link:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

Anonymous said...

Yes, conservatives in academia are represented in the physics, science and engineering departments and bring in billions in research grants, whilst liberals are relegated to the English, law and Afro-American studies Departments and suck on the hind-tit of tenured professorships.

Let's all go read Gravity's Rainbow! Ooooh, now we can all pwetend to be New Age nucwear exputz! Whoopee!

John said...

So suze was the Super Po-Mo Ghetto poet all along. Imagine that.

Get ready for your spanking, Dora. Savor every word and butt-slap.

It'll be for your own good.

John said...

"Mother Jones." lol

Suze said...

John's so rad. I'm crazy about him.

Dora said...

Me too!

John said...

Easy, girls. One at a time.

On second thought...

Dora said...

Ladies and gentlemen, please observe Farmer john trying to save face, pretending he meant that "the pursuit of happiness" in not in the constitution, when he wrote: "As for your expertise in the Constitution, if I ever need someone to spell check one, you'll be the first one I call. But you know NOTHING about liberty, justice or what it means to pursue happiness."

I LOVE it. This is too funny.

And John, what is all this sex talk? do you need to go get spanked/laid?

Dora said...

oooh is john now pretending to be me? wowza

John said...

That's right, Dora. Play dumb.

Your ass is still mine.

Pirate Farmer John Peachfuzz said...

YAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!

'Tis obvious these scurvy bilge rats haven't the class to set a proper jib or hoist their own banner from atop their mizzen mast.

Their vessel's sure to founder on the shoals of the first uncharted reef that thrusts herself up from the depths of the seven internets.

'Tis sad really. Each smarmy gigglin' fool thinks himself a proper pilot, yet ten of 'em put together couldn't chart a course to a proper destination if'n his life depended on it.

Their stars all be of the wanderin' kind.

Ahoy there, John! I see at least one Cap'n with his jib set proper!

Best wishes, Cap'n Sayet! With all the broadsides these bilge crawlers deliver, it's good ta' see there's narry dent in yer clapboards nor a scratch on the transom.

Fair winds and followin' seas, me hardy's!

YAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!

Dora said...

john, watch out, I think farmer john is picking up on you. he's a closeted gay man. he has lots of repressed gay thoughts, and a gay brother and a gay son, and he was a sailor. See how he talks like a pirate? It's because he wants some of that "in the navy" action (yes, i'm aware it's talk like a pirate day, but he's just taking that opportunity to be even gayer).

So, John, I think that's where your fortunes lie. Have a good trip!

John said...

Come with me!

Dora said...

God no, I don't fuck old gay dudes who fantasize about skinning terrorists' penises. Ew! But you have fun!

John said...

"I see at least one Cap'n with his jib set proper!"

lol

It's because of mermaids like suze and Dora.

John said...

Come on, Dora. Where's your sense of adventure?

Anonymous said...

The nearest thing to an adventure you ever have is when your rubber diaper springs a leak.

Anonymous said...

Well, at least the conversation has come down to a level where Dora feels comfortable. You know what they say - When you argue with an idiot, you end up looking like an idiot yourself.

suze said...

omg, what does rad mean? ridiculous-assed douche? I'm saving this shit. and gramps-- this means you, john: nething else about sex and me in the same post, i'm putting you on notice i'm not legal....that's all i'm gonna say about that...

FJ said...

So the pursuit of happiness isn't covered by the Constitution? Are you sure? Is it because there are no words written in it containing the phrase "pursuit of happiness"?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'd say it was covered, but then what would I know about it? I'm no unlicensed recent law school graduate prone to forget the tenth amendment nor am I a defender of constitutionally invented rights that simply don't exist.

Were you even vaguely aware of the fact that the Constitution derives all of its' LIMITED authority from us, the people, and NOT the other way around?

You're like some secular PoMo fundamentalist when it comes to your "old testament," the US Constitution, aren't you, dora? You read the words, and can only interpret what the document says literally. You have little to no understanding of what the words actually "mean". You enjoy decontextualizing the words and reattaching them to new situations when the situation suits you and creating new meanings from them (which completely ignoring the Spirit with which the original words intended) but ONLY when it suits your own private or personal interest to do so.

And so if someone said, "I have a right to murder the unborn," you'd say "no, but you do have a right to privacy, ergo, go forth and kill them!"

And because the law covers every aspect of modern life, you count yourself an "expert" in every aspect of life that law covers.

But all you really are is a silly person who likes to play word games with issues that address subjects and objects which you are wholly and completely incompetent to address.

Like issues of liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness.

To you, justice is and always will be "due process", and NOT any particular result. Liberty will always be whatever the law says it is and which can be abrogated provided one is given due process, and the pursuit of happiness is something no one need concern themselves with, since it's not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution.

My, what a narrow minded silly fool you've worked so hard all these years to become.

FJ said...

...but then, you knew that the pursuit of happiness was indeed covered by the 10th. You knew that I know that the pursuit of happiness comes from a line in the Declaration of Independence. And you knew that I wasn't necessarily referring directly to the Constitution when I made my statement. But like any trained sophist, you just needed to score rhetorical points. So you pretended to misinterpret my meaning and limit my statement to the "wording" contained within the Constitution itself.

The only thing is, just who did you think you were fooling? Certainly not me. Certainly not John or Evan. I can only conclude that you must have a very low opinion of your fellow troll's intelligence...

John said...

"nething (sic) else about sex and me in the same post."

What do you mean, "else"?

I never mentioned "sex" and you in any post.

Sorry, suze, you're not my type.

I like brainy chicks.

Evan Sayet said...

Thank you, Midnite, for once again reminding me why the Democrats MUST be defeated. Vulgar, hateful and dripping with hatred for Jews. You ARE the Democrat Party of today.

Anonymous said...

The Republicans need to hire Sandy Berger and send him to the University of Chicago. If anyone can get those documents -- it's Sandy Berger. The Dems will never give them up on their own, so we'll just have to smuggle them out in someone's pants...

John said...

Evan:

Back to the topic of your post, I elaborated:

"The enemy for the left are their fellow Americans on the right. They are self-evidently violent in temperament, but would express themselves physically if they think they could get away with it, or when they snap."

Listen to this one to rest the case:

"This is why liberals have to realize that the so called conservatives who are anything but conservative..."

(note: That's a copycatting projection. For many years the realization that "liberals are anything but liberal" has been circulated and elaborated upon and proven in editorials, books, and in the blogosphere, FIRST.)

"...are permanent, unrelenting enemies...that they are now a mortal, literal, physical danger to all of us..."

(note: It's the same "us" vs. "them"/Good vs. Evil unnuanced Manichaeanism that they vehemently denounced Bush for engaging in when he drew the lines at the outset of the War on Terror. They've been projecting their own Manichaean bellicosity all along).

"...through their war mongering and environmental destruction ... and devise ways to deal with what is the single worst threat we've ever faced."

Terrorism? Dependence on foreign oil? Illegal immigration? An economic slowdown andv government takeovers?

No. He/she means their fellow Americans who are conservative.

"I don't know exactly how you do this..."

Because, thankfully, you don't have the power to pursue your natural inclination to violence, your rhetorical tactics have been exposed, and everyone outside of your cult knows that the frenetically posted propaganda is just Kool Aid.

So what's left in your bag of tricks?

Nothing.

Ergo:

"I don't know exactly how you do this."

Anyway, please, continue:

"...but the first step is to know who and what the danger is..."

So conservatives are "dangerous" (like every population targeted for genocide is called).

"...and to know that the old politics does not work."

That's true. That's why a proven political maverick is much more preferrable to a paleoliberal rabble rouser/"community organizer" straight out of old school Alinskyism.

"We need to devise whole new methods of self defense and political strategy..."

Hey! I got a good idea! How about mocking up another JFK doppelanger, but this time make him black?

Nice gimmick!

"...and we have to fully understand that it now involves the literal survival of the planet and is not just some relatively benign difference in the approach to government."

Right. It's not a choice between liberalism or conservatism, but conservatives or "The Planet."

Why don't you just say: "Save The Planet, End Conservatism?"

Indeed, your entire screed can be summed up thusly:

"Conservatives Must Die If Earth Is To Live."

Yeah, it's tough talk, alright, and tries to incite violence against Americans.

To paraphrase Evan:

"Why (are lefties) resorting to thuggery? Because (Obama's) "I Am God" routine didn't work, his rhetoric is failing, his multiple attempts to play the race card has seen nothing but people laughing in his face over the usual 'I'm a victim' routine of the leftists.

Frankly, (the leftist, like the war-declaring troll here) is (suggesting) physical violence against fellow Americans because that's the way thugs do their business."

(after Alinskyism fails)

John said...

"The nearest thing to an adventure you ever have is when your rubber diaper springs a leak."

That's what you think. I'll rock your reality.

midnite in America said...

Thank you, Psycho, for proving you can't read. What I hate are traitors...whether they're Jewish traitors or neocon traitors...you're both you silly assed fool.

You are weirdly funny when you try to get macho, though. You should try adding that to your "act." Believe me; that will get a lot of laughs.

m. nite said...

She'll rock our reality...hahahaha...this little twit can barely rock it's little horsey with the curved runners on the bottom without mommy giving it a push. Will the big, bad Alpha liberal have to slap her down again?

midnite in america said...

How about that WSJ editorial saying Insane McCain is NOT PRESIDENTIAL!!

These chimps are so far gone that even their own brainwashers and handlers can't bring them back from the alternate reality they've created for them.

I think there's a very interesting phenomenon going on in America right now, as the uber wealthy monsters who've created this underclass of robotic undtermenschen begin to awaken to the horror of what they've created.

In order to get a majority in this country, they've had to create a class of ignorant, deluded, misinformed fools...and, now, they're starting to realize that their foul creation is a monstrously destructive army of malignant morons...the evil undead released upon the land.

noose ...boo! said...

Hey, speaking of comedy, we still haven't heard how Obama incited violence against Americans.

How about it, psychopath...how, specifically did he do that?...or are you just one of those perpetually frightened, conservative pussies who saw the big, black dude up there and reflexively pissed your pants like a panicky, knee jerk racist who's afraid whitey might be losing control?

Was that what set you off, unfunny boy?

noose said...

Hey, Suze, I think you just said the wrong thing. Finding out you're underage is just going to get this infantile perv more excited.
He needs a little girl he thinks he can impress...obviously you're not that girl, but this deluded dufus won't know that.

left behind democrat said...

In order to get a majority in this country, they've had to create a class of ignorant, deluded, misinformed fools...and, now, they're starting to realize that their foul creation is a monstrously destructive army of malignant morons...the evil undead released upon the land.

You're right. Not everyone's smart enough to be a Republican!

Dora said...

Blah blah blah FJ, you can keep trying to explain away your beautiful royal fuckup.

I'd say it was covered, but then what would I know about it? I'm no unlicensed recent law school graduate prone to forget the tenth amendment nor am I a defender of constitutionally invented rights that simply don't exist.

And you keep digging! I couldn't write a more perfect parody of you if i tried.

See, now you're accusing me of forgetting the 10th amendment, and saying "invented rights that simply don't exist."

But you yourself, by writing this, forget the 9th amendment, which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Whoa! The founding fathers said there are some unspecified rights retained by the people (not the states) that are equally constitutionally protected.

Now, what was that about "invented rights that simply don't exist"? Seems like they do exist, very much so.

You're like some secular PoMo fundamentalist when it comes to your "old testament," the US Constitution, aren't you, dora? You read the words, and can only interpret what the document says literally.

No, that would be the "strict constructionists" that you conservatives love so much.

Wrong again. god, this is too easy.

John said...

I said:

"Go take another bong hit, Dora."

Dora replied:

"Why, you're right, I think i (sic)will. But even while totally high, I'll still have a clearer mind that (sic) you, hon."

Yeah. And I'm the King of Prussia.

"And Evan is to believed more than some guy off the street... because?"

That's a non sequitur to what I said.

First of all, the logical conclusion to what I said is that I've personally concluded that Evan has integrity and credibility, as gleaned from what I've heard him say and from what he's written, and so trust his words (rightly or wrongly, but that's neither here nor there).

Secondly, I made no comparison between his credibilty and "some guy's off the street," who, based on what I did NOT say, I may or may not find more, equally, or less credible than Evan.

Nevertheless, to presumptively argue that Evan--an accomplished conservative thinker who I've heard and read--could just as well have the same or less credibilty--to me personally, at least--than "some guy off the street" is to assume that any randomly chosen bystander has spent an equal or superior amount of time as Evan has studying the subject of liberalism vs. conservatism and is able to express his/her conclusions with equal or superior wits and insightfulness that triggers recognition on my part of what I knew to be true and thus validated by a second witness, and perhaps didn't quite know how to formulate the discernment into concrete concepts like Evan provides.

That assumption tells me two things about you:

One, you're typically liberal in suggesting that anyone "off the street" is "just as knowledgeable" (if not smart) as Evan is, betraying a mindless egalitarianism that thinks the American motto "All Men Are Created Equal" does not only refer to an inalienable equality before the Law and the Eyes of God (even though I know you don't subscribe to the latter sort of thing) but also to an equality of abilities and therefore an entitlement to things (like money) that other people have and they don't, for if everyone is "just as good as everyone else," why should there be haves and have-nots, unless there is something unjust about the System which creates inequality of possessions?

Why does he, for example, live in a mansion and he in the ghetto?

The ghetto dweller is just as good and smart as he is--maybe even better/more worthy, because the former's a victim of an oppressive, racist culture and needs to fight everyday to survive while the latter is a CEO who's destroying the planet.

Why is classical, structural poetry supposedly "better" than the solecistic, free-verse gibberish spouted by the resident Po-Mo poet here?

Why is America supposedly better than the rest of the world?

Why is Bush any better than Saddam Hussein, or Hitler, or even bin Laden himself, for that matter?

Why don't I consider the opinion of "some guy off the street" just as credible as Evan's?

Why wouldn't you take candy from a stranger, DUH-ra?

(And I forbid you from quipping: "Because he might be a conservative!")

Anyway, that egalitarian outlook seeps into your economic philosophy, but seeing as how it's too expensive to give all the have-nots everything the haves have, it's much more practical to take things from the haves (like money) and give it to the have-nots
--because they're entitled to it, by the imperious premise of "equality".

But here's the insidiousness of it all:

You don't really believe in that crap. An elitist like you considers herself and her crowd as the elite, a more enlightened, superior, and all-in-all better group of people than "some guy off the street" who you think need you to tell them what's good for them.

In closing, what you did by asking me "And Evan is to believed more than some guy off the street... because?" was let slip the propaganda used on the field when lefty instigators ask the have-nots off the street stuff like:

"Why is Evan Sayet's opinion more credible than yours? Is he smarter than you? Better?"

And thereby is incited class warfare, quite intentionally.

In Orwell's classic and nigh-biblical *Animal Farm," you have the gullibe and easily frightened farm animals lectured to by the pigs and asked stuff life:

"Is the tyrannical Farmer more credible than you? Why sould he be more credible than me, for that matter? Is he smarter than us? Better? NO!"

And the simple-minded chickens and cows are incited to overthrow the farmer and...

...let the pigs run the farm.

And you're the lipstick, Dora, asking me:

"Why is Evan more credible than some guy off the street?" (i.e. one of "The People").

Unfortunately, you're not supposed to ask me that, but a streetperson (as long as he's registered to vote, of course).

Dora sniffed:

"Well, for one thing, secession does not necessarily mean war."

And I muttered:

Right. Assuming that Joe Red State Six-pack is going to give up his pick-up for a hybrid and start drinking VOSS without a fuss."

And Dora blink-blinked:

"What? That makes no sense?"

The subliminal decision to place a question mark at the end of an astonished assertion (especially since the question mark and the appropriate exclamation point are on opposite corners of the keyboard) betrays your true uncertainty on whether it makes sense or not.

Or it's just another dyslexic hiccup.

"If the red states choose to secede, no one is going to force them to drink VOSS."

Your blind provincialism is astonishing?

No, YOUR BLIND PROVINCIALISM IS ASTONISHING!

As is the wickedness of your worldview.

It's Islamic in character, seeing the world in terms of "believers" (i.e. liberals) and infidels (i.e. conservatives), who you think you can herd up and segregate in their entirety into concentration camps below the Mason Dixon line, where they'd never have to worry about drinking environmentally-friendly bottled water, while the blue staters would never have to worry about gun-permits and God.

You seem to think that the 50-50 parity in the electorate can be equated to a blue-red continental divide across the middle, which indicates a very simple-minded understanding of regional demographics.

What are you going to do about the millions of native gun-clinging, Bible-toting rednecks in the small towns and farmlands of Pennsylvania, New York, Wisconsin, Wyoming, etc., who ain't fixin' to vote Democrat anytime soon?

What are the Red Staters supposed to do with the non-native red state transplants who work or are retired in sunny states like Florida, except count on their senility or outright stupidity to not cast an intended blue-statish vote detrimental to Red State sovereignty?

What are you going to do about losing the majority of military personnel to the rival Red States (who will then use the advantage to save the Union, and it won't be pretty).

I could go on, but I think it's quite clear how BLOCKHEADED (and treasoness to the Union) the sentiment is, which not only proves how much time your crowd WASTES vomiting your bilious yet mindless notions for the sheer sake of venting malice (but sung to the tune of Lennon's "Imagine") but also the sheer and shameless hypocrisy when sneering about Palin's patriotism to the Union because of First Dude's associations with an Alaskan secessionist party.

"Anyway, I don't have a car or a Tv, you know?"

How could I know that? And how is that relevant to anything? That's your problem.

"To be honest, no, I wouldn't mind (red-state/blue-state secession) that much."

Again, blockheaded and shamelessly hypocritical.

"What exactly do the red states bring to the table, other than a constant stream of nutbaggery and people to staff Walmarts?"

First and last, they're American citizens living their lives, raising their kids (many of whom join the nation's military), and worshipping the Creator as they see fit.

But to you they're "nutbags" and mall staffers who apparently don't
deserve the same respect you extend generously to Gypsies, Middle-Eastern jihadists, and other Third World riff-raff (and what THEY bring--or do NOT bring-- to the table of their host countries is irrelevant, apparently).

The point of the post: The enemy of the American Left is Right-Wing America.

...which you shamelessly just endorsed the segregation of:

"To be honest, no, I wouldn't mind (red-state/blue-state secession) that much."

The wisdom of Solomon shines a light into your spiteful soul, madame, he who recognized the illegitimate mother of the disputed infant by her willingness to have the baby cloven in half rather than have it returned whole to the real mother, who the former despised.

You're loveless. You're a hateful, divisive, and un-American, as proven by your own words.

And yes, I judged you and discriminate you from conservatuives who truly love their country, and would die to keep it whole, and unified, warts and all.

"As for pretty much the rest of your post, I've already explained what hypocrisy is, and what a double standard is."

You not only explained it, you demontrated it, as irrefutably proven.

"Here, I'll also post the definition of 'contradition':

3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction

Main Entry:
double standard
Function:
noun
Date:
1894

2: a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another."

Right. Try to follow:

Palin's husband's associations with an Alaskan secessionist faction unpatriotic/bad.

Dora's desire to cleave the continental United States in half to segregate the "Red Staters" into concentration camps (that she surely envisions as swampy/backwoods theocratic enclaves of hillbillies and their broods living in tin shacks, or tralier parks, at best) patriotic/Good.

"If you are too stupid to understand these basic concepts, I can't help you."

That's projection.

"You criticize Obama for having alleged anti-American friends, but you make excuses for Palin when she has similar, if not worse, ties."

Denial. Obama's pals aren't "allegedly anti-American." They're demonstrably so. They're not "similar" at all to the Palin's friends, and in no way "worse."

"That's a classic instance of double standard and contradiction."

For you.

"I like this, though:

'The question is: Which sentiment is more subversive, divisive, and destructive to the United States at large?

The Alaskan First Dude's, or yours?

Well, since you're the one marginalizing Alaska as a "tiny state" with nothing to contribute but evil oil, and equating the governor of which as more worthless than a governor from Texas, the answer is:

Yours.'

Really? How did you get from A to B? Do you even know what logic is? lol"

A) You and your crowd has marginalized Alaska as a "tiny state" with nothing to contribute but evil oil, while equating the governor of which as more worthless than a governor from Texas.

B) You've expressed a desire to cleave the continental United States in half for the purpose of segregating the "Red Staters" away from the "Blue Staters," into concentration camps of sorts that you undoubtedly envision as swampy/backwoods theocratic enclaves of hillbillies and their broods living in tin shacks, or tralier parks, at best.

C) "The question is: Which sentiment is more subversive, divisive, and destructive to the United States at large?"

Uh, duh, the secession of the already detached and Johnny-Come-Lately arctic state of Alaska that you and your crowd has marginalized as a "tiny state" with nothing to contribute but evil oil, while equating the governor of which as more worthless than a governor from Texas, or the secession of the blue states from the red states along an East-to-West axis of the continental United States?

Answer the question.

FJ said...

But you yourself, by writing this, forget the 9th amendment, which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You mean there IS a right to pursue happiness written in the Constitution? What was all that laughter before, then?

Thanks for the confession, dora. You made my day! ;-)

croc said...

lol...since midnite humiliated him, it appears "john" can't bring himself to talk to anyone but the women who actually talk to him like he's human...well, semi-human.

Nobody else would read the silly dink past the second paragraph.

FJ said...

pssst, croc... Are you and midnite as dumb as dora thinks you are?

My guess is... yes.

midnite on the 3rd planet said...

Dora's very elegant and highly intelegant but she's one of those hopeless liberals who'll still be politely "discoursing" with some slobbering trog when we're buried in debt, buried by endless, criminal wars and looking for something to eat after a terminal environmental collapse.

Liberals like her walk hand in hand with the enemy to the final solution. She, of all people, should know better.

John said...

Maybe because liberal males are effete, morally and intellectually vapid, cowards who harbor hateful, murderous thoughts, and/or assholes and she likes real men with heart and integrity (like conservatives).

Did that ever occur to you, "midnight"?

John said...

In other words, yeah, she knows better.

Anonymous said...

lol...has this stupid, deluded, little pussy ever read a post he understood?

suze said...

i'm smart enough to be cruising toward an ib diploma, but i'm not here to convince you of anything or to reason with you, gramps. i'm here to make fun of and ridicule your idiocy--sometimes my b/f is over and laughing at you old guys, too.

liar liar pants on fire said...

So when are you going to be old enough to vote?

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

So then, suzey, your greatest academic accomplishment to date is a high school diploma.

Big surprise.

John said...

And btw, I was intercoursing with Dora.

Mind your own business.

John said...

P.S. If Dora is not so simple-minded as to assume a red-blue state secession would consist of a clear-cut line across the middle but understands that there'd be blue pockets of sovereignty within larger red swathes of sovereign territory, then that's even more destructive to the United of America.

But for someone who, I'd wager, is an "open borders" kinda gal, it's no surprise that she "would't mind that much" a Balkanization of the country that obliterates the integrity of the despised Red, White and Blue Union.

suze said...

anonymous and gramps: i have no intention of revealing anything else about myself, you fools. and fine, you were talking to someone else, gramps. i'm happy to let it go at that. i'm not all that excited about making an issue of it--you've no idea how little that appeals me!--as long as you continue to to "talk to dora." if she wants to have degrading, disgusting conversations with you, that is good with me--it's her problem. i only came to laugh at your stupidity.

cooze said...

cruising towards an ib diploma...

In other words, a hs freshman.

John said...

Wow. I off-handedly thought "ib" was shorthand for "Inernational Business" undergraduate degree, granting her the status of a high school graduate.

She's not even that.

I'm arguing with The Children.

beam said...

John said...
And btw, I was intercoursing with Dora.

Mind your own business.



Yuuuck...you can almost feel this grubby, little puke's dirty paws all over her.

suze said...

perv gramps says:I'm arguing with The Children.

i may be underage, but i've never been a child. and, i'm smarter than you are, you old creep.


p.s. you have no idea what an ib d is.

suze said...

perv gramps says:I'm arguing with The Children.

i may be underage, but i've never been a child. and, i'm smarter than you are, you old creep.


p.s. you have no idea what an ib d is.

cooze still flipped inside out said...

...you mean all over a thirty-two year old hormonally impaired pre-op transsexual?

Dora said...

John, you need to learn to say things with fewer words.

Evan--an accomplished conservative thinker who I've heard and read

Really? What has Evan accomplished?

One, you're typically liberal in suggesting that anyone "off the street" is "just as knowledgeable" (if not smart) as Evan is, betraying a mindless egalitarianism that thinks the American motto "All Men Are Created Equal" does not only refer to an inalienable equality before the Law and the Eyes of God (even though I know you don't subscribe to the latter sort of thing) but also to an equality of abilities and therefore an entitlement to things (like money) that other people have and they don't, for if everyone is "just as good as everyone else," why should there be haves and have-nots, unless there is something unjust about the System which creates inequality of possessions?

You don't really believe in that crap. An elitist like you considers herself and her crowd as the elite, a more enlightened, superior, and all-in-all better group of people than "some guy off the street" who you think need you to tell them what's good for them.


You've confused yourself a little bit here. See, i believe in the value of learning, accomplishment, experience, analysis, etc., in other words, I believe that experts and professors and CEOs actually have a better, more nuanced and intelligent insight into their particular metiers than a regular guy off the street. If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

The rightwing, for the most part, hates "the elite." They hate expertise, knowledge, learning, anyone more intelligent or learned "lecturing" "the people." It is the rightwing that preaches the gospel that any joe shmoe's instincts on the economy are as good as Ben Bernanke's, doggamit.

Well, i think that's the road to the collapse of this country. Being educated, experience, intelligent, etc. is not a bad thing. In fact, that's who we WANT to be in charge, not a guy off the street.

So, you, John, a rightwinger... it's easy to see why you think evan is "a thinker" and "accomplished," when he is nothing of the sort. You have no idea what accomplishment or thinking actually really are other than the 3-second sounbites and talking points you hear and read on Fox News.

It's Islamic in character, seeing the world in terms of "believers" (i.e. liberals) and infidels (i.e. conservatives),

Can I just point out that before you put "sic" correcting other people's spelling, perhaps you should learn to use the apostrophe yourself? After all, I'm an immigrant, whereas you're a native speaker. I shouldn't be correcting your English.

who you think you can herd up and segregate in their entirety into concentration camps below the Mason Dixon line, where they'd never have to worry about drinking environmentally-friendly bottled water, while the blue staters would never have to worry about gun-permits and God.

Concentration camps? Who said anything about that?!

First and last, they're American citizens living their lives, raising their kids (many of whom join the nation's military), and worshipping the Creator as they see fit.

But to you they're "nutbags" and mall staffers who apparently don't
deserve the same respect you extend generously to Gypsies, Middle-Eastern jihadists, and other Third World riff-raff (and what THEY bring--or do NOT bring-- to the table of their host countries is irrelevant, apparently).


Wow, you criticize me for stereotyping people, and then you just stereotype the fuck out of "third world riff-raff"? Are you kidding?! So you're just a racist.

Maybe because liberal males are effete, morally and intellectually vapid, cowards who harbor hateful, murderous thoughts, and/or assholes and she likes real men with heart and integrity (like conservatives).

Oh absolutely. I keep my boyfriend chained in the basement and only let him out to clean the house and cook for me.

Anonymous said...

Dora says: John, you need to learn to say things with fewer words.

actually, if he's said anything intelligible at all with all of those words, i'd be surprised. But definitely, with john, less is better.

beam said...

I think it's probably best to just totally ignore the Dora and John show...they're such a _ _ _ _ y couple.

How much time do you think they put in on those tomes to each other?

brain fart... pffffffft... said...

beam fancies himself the portrait of an artist... pure stream of consciousness... if you can call beam's senseless stuttering's a form of "consciousness"...

Anonymous said...

No. Beam is correct. John and Dora are both long-winded, belaboring minor points.

John said...

Dora chided:

"John, you need to learn to say things with fewer words."

It's called being "rigorous" and "precise," Dora.

You should try being them sometime.

You quoted:

"One, you're typically liberal in suggesting that anyone "off the street"...blah-blah-blah...need you to tell them what's good for them."

You "explained":

"You've confused yourself a little bit here."

It isn't me.

"See, i believe in the value of learning, accomplishment, experience, analysis, etc...."

So? Who doesn't?

"...in other words, I believe that experts and professors and CEOs
actually have a better, more nuanced and intelligent insight into their particular metiers than a regular guy off the street."

Duh. Just like Evan's particular metiers are the cultural/political issues of the day, particularly vis-a-vis the Culture War, and he has a more nuanced, intelligent insight than a "regular guy off the street" does (unless maybe it's Diogenes).

This ain't Europe where every cafe is full of "regular guys" debating politics.

Most "regular guys" here don't give a damn (but are susceptible to propaganda and slick marketing techniques targeting people who have the attention spans of gnats but are nevertheless accustomed to absorbing soundbites and flashes of photogenic imagery, just the way the Hollywood Left--a powerful propaganda arm of the Democratic party, as timely movies like *Hancock* and the upcoming October 10 movie *Express* incriminates-- likes it).

"If that makes me an elitist, so be it."

What makes you an elitist is, one, thinking that titular professions like "Professor" and "CEO" automatically are on an equal footing as any "expert" (which you tellingly had separated from "Professors" and "CEOs" as if unconsciously knowing that they weren't necessarily so) simply by virtue of their titles.

Two, you think that class, with their "better, more nuanced and intelligent insight into their particular metiers than a regular guy off the street" are "experts" in anything else far outside their particular metiers, much moreso than a "regular guy off the street" could be, even when it's the subject of the money that "the regular guy" earned for himself, the deity he worships, and his ideas of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ("YAAARRRGHHHH!").

What further makes you an elitist is your proving of my point that, despite your egalitarianism (if not communist) posturing, you really do have low opinions for the common (caucasian/rustic/suburban) person, who is best represented by Sarah Palin, who for her very blue-collar/middle-American "some-gal-off-street" authenticity, is ridiculed and despised by lefty elitists (who you shamelessly admitted belonging to the exclusive country club)--while Obama, Biden, and even Mac to a lesser degree scramble and try damn hard to be just like her in that respect, because without their votes, you can't win (which is why Hillary had to slam shots in a Pennsylvania bar and Barack had to put on a flag pin).

"The rightwing, for the most part, hates 'the elite.'"

No. The elitists hate the right wing--especially the learned, accomplished, experienced, analytical, etc. Republican/conservative elite, because they're succesful, for one (and that success is more power to the conservative culture you despise), and, two, for the ones who make socio-political issues their business, they have the elitist's number, and sabotage their swinish efforts at trying to win over the other farmyard animals (i.e. "the regular guys off the street") that they really have contempt for.

"They hate expertise, knowledge, learning, anyone more intelligent or learned 'lecturing' "the people."

You're projecting. That's why you hate Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Hannity, and the rest "lecturing" The People.

They're the antidote to your propaganda, and sabotage your agenda.

"It is the rightwing that preaches the gospel that any joe shmoe's instincts on the economy are as good as Ben Bernanke's, doggamit."

The gospel preached by the right wing is "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God."

The Caesar Left wants more than its fair share, and wants what's God's, also, in effect wanting to take God's place, especially in the role that compels people to open their wallets and give (with the kind of obedience that the removal of God from the human heart and mind enables, i.e. an obedience to Caesar, in lieu of anything else).

"Well, i think that's the road to the collapse of this country."

Allowing people to keep more of the money they earned, and not letting lefty politicians tell them what to do with it, for starters?

"Being educated, experience, intelligent, etc. is not a bad thing. In fact, that's who we WANT to be in charge, not a guy off the street."

So, simply, your point was that Evan is about as "educated, experienced, intelligent, etc."
as "some guy off the street," and so just as credible?

You know that's not true, so how do you expect me to buy it?

"So, you, John, a rightwinger... it's easy to see why you think evan is 'a thinker' and 'accomplished,' when he is nothing of the sort."

Bingo. There it is, and that's all it is, and goes back to the point of Evan's post:

You hate conservatism (and conservatives), and disqualify anything coming out of it or them for their being as worthless as "regular guys of the streets" are-- with the exception of, of course, their votes.

You don't think Sarah Palin is a "thinker" or "accomplished" either, for the same reasons: You hate conservatism.

You apologize and justify on behalf of terrorists and Third World radicals who wish--and have even commited-- harm upon the United States, but demonstrate contempt for Americans who love her, and the common man in general, who you insist must be controlled by government elites (which itself is a common elitist belief).

"You have no idea what accomplishment or thinking actually really are other than the 3-second sounbites and talking points you hear and read on Fox News."

So now you think you have telepathic abilities and can authoritatively determine that I have "no idea in my head" of what "thinking" is besides what I can swallow and regurgitate what I hear or read from Foxnews?

That's nothjing but an absurd, childish insult, which you, nevertheless, utter in dead seriousness.

But anyway, wow. You lefties REALLY hate Foxnews (because of its conservative headliners like O'Reilly and Hannity, and see above about conservatism).

It's derangement (caused by jealousy and shell-shock).

You quoted:

"It's Islamic in character, seeing the world in terms of 'believers' (i.e. liberals) and infidels (i.e. conservatives)..."

And then critiqued:

"Can I just point out that before you put 'sic' correcting other people's spelling, perhaps you should learn to use the apostrophe yourself?"

What do you mean? Where is the apostrophe misused or erroneously unused?

"After all, I'm an immigrant, whereas you're a native speaker."

Not exactly. I was versed in Greek and English by the time I was 3. I'm not sure which I learned "first."

"English is my second-language I shouldn't be correcting your English."

You missed the period between "language" and "I."

Again, what apostrophe error are you correcting?

You quoted:

"...who you think you can herd up and segregate in their entirety into concentration camps below the Mason Dixon line, where they'd never have to worry about drinking environmentally-friendly bottled water, while the blue staters would never have to worry about gun-permits and God."

You gasped:

"Concentration camps? Who said anything about that?!"

Nothing wrong with a little melodrama, Dora-- which was but a logical extension of the genocidal contempt you have for the "Red Staters" (genocidal because what do you call displacing entire populations from their homes in " Blue States" on the basis of their culture? That's what would have to happen for your boondoggled secession to work).

You quoted:

"First and last, they're American citizens living their lives, raising their kids (many of whom join the nation's military), and worshipping the Creator as they see fit.

But to you they're 'nutbags' and mall staffers who apparently don't
deserve the same respect you extend generously to Gypsies, Middle-Eastern jihadists, and other Third World riff-raff (and what THEY bring--or do NOT bring-- to the table of their host countries is irrelevant, apparently)."

You confirm:

"Wow, you criticize me for stereotyping people, and then you just stereotype the fuck out of 'third world riff-raff'? Are you kidding?! So you're just a racist."

I'm a "racist" because I "stereotyped" Third-World riff-raff with terrorists and Gypsies?

Or because I called the PC Roma "Gypsies?"

Oo. My bad. Let me rephrase that:

"But to you they're 'nutbags' and mall staffers who apparently don't
deserve the same respect you extend generously to the ROMA, Middle-Eastern jihadists, and other Third World riff-raff (and what THEY bring--or do NOT bring-- to the table of their host countries is irrelevant, apparently)."

And I'll add that it certainly ain't "education" and "accomplishment" (unless you consider indoctrination by a madrassa an "education," and blowing buildings and people up "accomplishments").

How's that?

And you're the racist. You have contempt for the WHITE Red Staters but not the black ones, who are--for argument's sake-- just as unacceptably theistic, "uneducated," and "unaccomplished," but tend to vote Democrat (because who do you think receives the Blue State welfare payments to the Red States that you've provided statistics for, condemned, and used as some kind of proof that the red states were parasitical ingrates and deserved to be seceded from? Red State Democrats, that's who).

You quoted:

"Maybe because liberal males are effete, morally and intellectually vapid, cowards who harbor hateful, murderous thoughts, and/or assholes and she likes real men with heart and integrity (like conservatives)."

You confirmed:

"Oh absolutely. I keep my boyfriend chained in the basement and only let him out to clean the house and cook for me."

Wow. Talk about a high maintenance chick.

burp chunkies... said...

No... brain fart is correct. Beam does stutter about everything and anything rather senselessly!

Dora said...

John, once again, you take too long, and seem to be in love with your own pontificating.

Duh. Just like Evan's particular metiers are the cultural/political issues of the day, particularly vis-a-vis the Culture War, and he has a more nuanced, intelligent insight than a "regular guy off the street" does (unless maybe it's Diogenes).

Please tell me which of Evan's experiences and accomplishments make "cultural/political issues of the day" his metier. Also, could you come up with a broader category?! LOL

What makes you an elitist is, one, thinking that titular professions like "Professor" and "CEO" automatically are on an equal footing as any "expert" (which you tellingly had separated from "Professors" and "CEOs" as if unconsciously knowing that they weren't necessarily so) simply by virtue of their titles.

Yes, John, to get to be a professor, you need to become an expert in something. And CEOs are quite expert at running companies and business, for the most part. Yes, they are experts. What's wrong with that?!

Two, you think that class, with their "better, more nuanced and intelligent insight into their particular metiers than a regular guy off the street" are "experts" in anything else far outside their particular metiers,

Really? Where did I say that?

much moreso than a "regular guy off the street" could be, even when it's the subject of the money that "the regular guy" earned for himself, the deity he worships, and his ideas of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ("YAAARRRGHHHH!").

You're trying to conflate a couple of things here. Yes, a trained economist like Bernanke is more of an expert of micro and macro economics and monetary policy than Joe Shmoe. Once again, what's the problem with this statement? Just because Joe Shmoe ears money, that doesn't make him an expert economist.

you really do have low opinions for the common (caucasian/rustic/suburban) person, who is best represented by Sarah Palin, who for her very blue-collar/middle-American "some-gal-off-street" authenticity, is ridiculed and despised by lefty elitists (who you shamelessly admitted belonging to the exclusive country club)--while Obama, Biden, and even Mac to a lesser degree scramble and try damn hard to be just like her in that respect, because without their votes, you can't win (which is why Hillary had to slam shots in a Pennsylvania bar and Barack had to put on a flag pin).

Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin is a marketing mirage, like Dubya. Neither she nor Dubya are regular guys off the street. For one, Palin is a college graduate, which puts her into the 26% of Americans who have college degrees. Two, she's a lot wealthier than the average American -- she owns multiple homes, and her family income is at least $200,000. Did you know that? Three, whatever we can say about her expertise in foreign affairs and economics, the woman is INCREDIBLY AMBITIOUS, very much unlike the tv-watching slugs that are 80% of Americans.

Neither she nor Evan nor Dubya (who went to Yale, Harvard, etc. and came from a wealthy dynasty) are much like the regular guy in that sense, yet they try to sell you that line all the time.

No. The elitists hate the right wing--especially the learned, accomplished, experienced, analytical, etc. Republican/conservative elite, because they're succesful, for one (and that success is more power to the conservative culture you despise), and, two, for the ones who make socio-political issues their business, they have the elitist's number, and sabotage their swinish efforts at trying to win over the other farmyard animals (i.e. "the regular guys off the street") that they really have contempt for.

See, now I'm confused. If all the successful people are Republicans, then who makes up the ranks of the leftie elitists who allegedly hate the right?

So, simply, your point was that Evan is about as "educated, experienced, intelligent, etc."
as "some guy off the street," and so just as credible?

You don't think Sarah Palin is a "thinker" or "accomplished" either,


Both Palin and Evan are more educated than the regular guy off the street, like I said. However, that doesn't make them "thinkers" or "experts" on anything in particular.

for the same reasons: You hate conservatism.

Now you're trying to read my mind? lol

the genocidal contempt you have for the "Red Staters" (genocidal because what do you call displacing entire populations from their homes in " Blue States" on the basis of their culture? That's what would have to happen for your boondoggled secession to work).

And again, you're trying to attribute to me something that I didn't say or imply. I don't want to "culturally cleanse" the blue states. Conservatives can stay. They'll be now vastly outnumbered by liberals, that's what matters. if tehy don't like economic prosperity, freedom, rights, etc., they are free to move to Redstatia. But they would be perfectly free to stay.

the same respect you extend generously to the ROMA, Middle-Eastern jihadists, and other Third World riff-raff (and what THEY bring--or do NOT bring-- to the table of their host countries is irrelevant, apparently)."

And I'll add that it certainly ain't "education" and "accomplishment" (unless you consider indoctrination by a madrassa an "education," and blowing buildings and people up "accomplishments").


Roma go to madrassas and blow things up? What?

i don't know what's up with you and Roma -- I don't think there are that many Roma immigrants to the US. As for "3rd world riffraff," which is so racist and disrespectful, and education, you'd be so wrong:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=234

In 2000, 5.9 million or 24 percent of all foreign born had a bachelor's or graduate degree. Immigrants from India (70 percent) were the most likely of the five largest foreign-born groups to have a bachelor's degree or higher. This included 32 percent with a bachelor's degree and 38 percent with a master's, professional, or doctorate degree. Among the foreign born from the Philippines, 45 percent had a bachelor's or graduate degree, while 42 percent of all immigrants from China had a bachelor's or graduate degree.

Which is higher than the native-born population, which has an attainment of 26%. I am foreign-born, and I have a bachelor's, master's and professional degree.

And you're the racist. You have contempt for the WHITE Red Staters but not the black ones, who are--for argument's sake-- just as unacceptably theistic, "uneducated," and "unaccomplished," but tend to vote Democrat (because who do you think receives the Blue State welfare payments to the Red States that you've provided statistics for, condemned, and used as some kind of proof that the red states were parasitical ingrates and deserved to be seceded from? Red State Democrats, that's who).

Do you have ANY SOURCE AT ALL to prove that?

I do admit that I really don't like racist, xenophobic, nationalistic white people.

repost said...

"John McCain showed his personality this week," said the writer and pundit, "and made some of us fearful."


Oober liberal, mega Marxist GEORGE WILL!!!

John said...

I'll be back.

Anonymous said...

"No. Beam is correct. John and Dora are both long-winded, belaboring minor points."

hahahahahaha...for hilarious proof just look back at the last few posts.

One moron goes on about some shit...who knows or cares what, for a forty yard column, and his little tool, Dora, lets herself be distracted from the real issues of the day by actually READING and RESPONDING to the simple gas bag!!!

This pair was made for each other.
It's an even more inane Hannity and Colmes.

fun seeker said...

haha...it'll "be back."

I did read that one.

It was just the right length.

And provided a useful warning.

Butt, we already knew jock itch usually returns when it's got a cope-ass-thetic milieu.

Which the Doraterium is eager to provide.

I'm starting to get into this couple's mutually parasitic relationship...complementry pathologies, as it were.

In spides, mitey.

Whah, I thinx it could provide even more fun stuff here on the psycho site.

Dora said...

this couple's mutually parasitic relationship

ha. but you're a parasite on a parasite... how meta.

the soul of wit's style imitator said...

Better to belabor a minor point than post pointless insults.

ki-oty said...

I agree, which is why the insults I've see are so finely pointed.

Then there's something even better instead of nattering like a moon eyed moron about nada.

Attack the malignant freaks for their SUBSTANTIVE disasters.

k said...

Now, she's defending their relationship

I find that very touching.

grim said...

defensive and cowardly in her arguments....

noose said...

You guys lay offen Dora. She knows these pinheads are not amenable to reason. She's just sharpening her lawyerly skills. Better toughen up, though.

John said...

John, once again, you take too long, and seem to be in love with your own pontificating."

Okay, guilty as charged.

One of the benefits I was hoping to receive from studying classical, structured poetry was discipline and economy, but I confess that I'm still as profligate--if not promiscuous--with my verbiage as before (if not moreso, thanks to friggin' Milton).

In all frankness, it might please you to know that the son of a professor (the one and only Arnost Lustig) of mine from the university-- who was also a professor (and whose acquaintance I made by virtue of being his father's student)--told me that the best way to learn economy was by going to law school.

Wait; or was it journalism school?

I forgot. Nevermind.

Anyway, you quoted:

"Duh. Just like Evan's particular metiers are the cultural/political issues of the day, particularly vis-a-vis the Culture War, and he has a more nuanced, intelligent insight than a "regular guy off the street" does (unless maybe it's Diogenes)."

You replied:

"Please tell me which of Evan's experiences and accomplishments make 'cultural/political issues of the day' his metier."

I can tell you that he was a writer for a nationally syndicated politically-oriented television show that put Bill Maher on the media map and dealt with cultural isses.

He was flown over from the West Coast to speak at a prestigious, conservative think-tank in Washington, DC.

He has the integrity and courage to make his living as a conservative comedian in a town that is overwhelmingly hostile to conservatism.

That's to name but three of his more prominent public accomplishments that most certainly make "'cultural/political issues of the day' his metier."

"Also, could you come up with a broader category?! LOL"

My point exactly. Evan doesn't pretend to be an "expert" on specialized subjects outside his metier, unlike specialized Leftists, who not only inject their ideology into their specialty (whether it be economics, Middle Eastern studies, or climatology) but in a Neo-Hegellian fashion also inject it into everything else outside their field of specialized expertise.

For example, they begin with the premise that a conservative worldview is delusional and/or dangerous and/or downright destructive (just because they're Marxist gurus told them so) and that premise underlies every argument made by Leftists on theology, international relations, the economy, the earth sciences, or even the beginning and/or meaning of Life--even and especially if their "field of expertise" is limited to political science, social studies, or the study of rhetoric (i.e. legal training, as good fj pointed out, YAAARGH!).

The ideology is the chief qualifier for--or impediment to--"expertise," not actual expertise.

You laud the "expertise" of laureled and degreed academics who subscibe to your world-view and point to their certificates for proof of peer-reviewed expertise, yet you do not abide by the same qualifiers when it comes to the PhD of a VDH when he discusses the nature of war and Middle Eastern history, the law degree of an Anne Coulter when she discusses the anti-Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, or the Harvard MBA of a supply-sider who recommends lightnening the tax burdens of producers (a.k.a. "tax cuts for the rich"), simply because they don't pass the litmus tests of your ultimate arbiter of "expertise" on anything:

Your ideology.

Indeed, the high school teeny-boppers here who tow the party line supposedly have--by default--more "expertise" on the issues posted here than the fully-matured author of them--Evan Sayet--does, despite his real accomplishments and self-evident--and recognized--experience and expertise, simply because of the differing ideology which makes a mockery of their own if only because it is supported by knowledge of reality gained by keeping both eyes and mind open while working in the real world away from the ivory towers which certainly could provide legitimate and good knowledge on this or that topic, but dismisses the experience and wisdom gained by empirical experience outside the realm of academic abstractions and technical specialization (though a marriage of both is best to consummate the human being with his or her best potential).

Your ideological rigidity, blind-spots, and rote reactions to concepts and/or assertions heretical to your orthodoxy proves that you haven't wandered and explored far enough from the ideological convent that you're cloistered in to amass enough experience and/or knowledge of the existential "other" to be an "expert in anything," your pending law degree notwithstanding, and your credibility is compromised by blind bias.

Evan, by contrast, has been immersed in both world-views at one time or another (as have I to one degree or another), so he knows both sides intimately, earning both expertise on the matter at hand--liberalism vs. conservatism--and credibility.

And it has little to do with some dean or college president handing you a piece of paper that certifies a particular institution's satisfaction that you've completed the requirements of their curriculum enough to gtfo and work for living.

That the institution itself (or this and that department therein) may have it's learning method compromised by ideological rigidity is another thing to think about (although those very kinds of institutions don't encourage that kind of thinking).

You quoted:

"What makes you an elitist is, one, thinking that titular professions like 'Professor' and 'CEO' automatically are on an equal footing as any 'expert' (which you tellingly had separated from 'Professors' and 'CEOs' as if unconsciously knowing that they weren't necessarily so) simply by virtue of their titles."

You responded:

"Yes, John, to get to be a professor, you need to become an expert in something."

Right. Like VDH at Stanford. Or Ken Starr at Pepperdine.

"And CEOs are quite expert at running companies and business, for the most part."

Could've fooled me, under the circumstances.

"Yes, they are experts. What's wrong with that?!"

Absolutely nothing wrong with experts. The problem I have is with your strangling standard of what constitutes one (i.e. ideology, first and foremost).

I can trust a skilled obstetrician to perform a quick and clean abortion, but neither his medical training nor someone awarded a degree in Women's Studies nor a lawyer for NOW specializing in Roe v. Wade issues has the "expertise" or credibility to tell anyone when Life begins--as Obama himself confessed (not to mention high-school drop-outs exercising their "choice').

And yet, they're enough of "experts" on that to dictate when a human life is not human and so eligible for extermination, not really because of any medical, social, or legal degree they have, but because they're all parishioners of the same, liberal Church (for that same certified qualification is denied to those who are not tithe-paying members of that Church).

You quoted:

"Two, you think that class, with their 'better, more nuanced and intelligent insight into their particular metiers than a regular guy off the street' are 'experts' in anything else far outside their particular metiers..."

"Really? Where did I say that?"

I don't know if you, personally, made any such explicit assertion--and I beg your pardon if I put words in your mouth (because it's done to me all the time, and it's not pleasant)--but others from your side of the aisle both suggest it implicitly and assert it explicitly all the time, qualifying their two-cents worth authority on, say, Global Warming with their introductory: "*Ahem.* Let me just begin by saying I have a Phd..."

On climatolgy?

No. On how the mating habits of aboriginals who were disrupted by British colonialism.

The only thing he's an expert on is the liberal world-view, but that's enough to give him/her authority on any issue he/she feels like commenting on, "validated" by pieces of paper that may or may not reflect intellectual maturity and agility in the field of specialization, even after completing the course requirements (and especially in fields outside his/her expertise).

Likewise, yourself: You go on and on about how smart you are and how your grades in law school prove that.

But no one said that you're not intelligent, or that you don't have a good future in the legal field.

...Although your tendency to engage in the logical fallacy of appealing to subjective and so fallible authorities (e.g. Mother Jones) is going to bite you in the ass someday.

Anyway, all of that is also part of what makes you an "elitist" (i.e. the belief that an advanced diploma or degree automatically makes one superior in knowledge and wisdom on all matters to someone who was a college drop-out but went straight to work and learned things on the field of his/her endeavor that your law professor is oblivious to.

Again, I can't recall you explicitly asserting otherwise, but the suggestion is implicit when you attack the credibility of anyone on anything you disagree with simply because of formal educational considerations (i.e, yours is bigger than theirs, even if it's just on the study of rhetorical legalese), which I've seen you do often at blogs like Curtains.

You don't know what it means to bear and raise a child, for example, and yet you argue with someone who has as if you, not she, is the more credible expert on what motherhood means, simply because you're in law school, and she never was.

That's elitism. You know better.

...because?

Because you're in law school!

You said:

"You're trying to conflate a couple of things here. Yes, a trained economist like Bernanke is more of an expert of micro and macro economics and monetary policy than Joe Shmoe. Once again, what's the problem with this statement?"

Nothing. It's perfectly true.

"Just because Joe Shmoe ears money, that doesn't make him an expert economist."

Agreed.

And I never said otherwise.

You quoted:

"you really do have low opinions for the common (caucasian/rustic/suburban) person, who is best represented by Sarah Palin, who for her very blue-collar/middle-American 'some-gal-off-street' authenticity, is ridiculed and despised by lefty elitists (who you shamelessly admitted belonging to the exclusive country club)--while Obama, Biden, and even Mac to a lesser degree scramble and try damn hard to be just like her in that respect, because without their votes, you can't win (which is why Hillary had to slam shots in a Pennsylvania bar and Barack had to put on a flag pin)."

"Sarah Palin? Sarah Palin is a marketing mirage, like Dubya."

What about Obama, Dora?

"Neither she nor Dubya are regular guys off the street."

They ain't elitist liberals, that's for damn sure, and so can appeal to the "regular guy off the street" (or perhaps the farmland) far more effectively (Hillary's shot-slamming and Barack's flag-pin wearing notwithstanding).

"For one, Palin is a college graduate, which puts her into the 26% of Americans who have college degrees. Two, she's a lot wealthier than the average American -- she owns multiple homes, and her family income is at least $200,000. Did you know that? Three, whatever we can say about her expertise in foreign affairs and economics, the woman is INCREDIBLY AMBITIOUS, very much unlike the tv-watching slugs that are 80% of Americans."

That's where you're blind. It's not about finding common ground socio-economically between one conservative to another, but sharing a common world-view.

Obviously, the same dynamic is operating within the left, if the way limosine liberals can get impoverished ghetto dwellers to eat out of their hands is any indication (while hating conservatives who worked and studied their way out of the ghetto as enabled by their conservative character).

"Neither she nor Evan nor Dubya (who went to Yale, Harvard, etc. and came from a wealthy dynasty) are much like the regular guy in that sense..."

Then why did you open this by saying I could just as well get equal--if not more--credibility from "some guy off the street" than from Evan Sayet on the issues discussed here?

I'd really appreciate some consistency, because I'm running around in circles trying to find the ends of your circular arguments.

"...though they try to sell you that line all the time."

Puh-lease. Bill "I-Feel-Your-Pain" Clinton? John "I'm-The-Son- of-a-Mill-Worker" Edwards? Joe "I-Ride-Amtrack" Biden?

Barack "My-Grandmother's-From-Kansas-And-My-Grandfather-Fought-In-WWII" Obama?

They're all just a bunch of Ivy League-trained lawyers-- which, again, certainly gives "expertise" with the law and rhetorical methods, but often insulates them from the life of the Everyman they then claim to empathize with (between wind-surfing off Nantucket or boogie-boarding in Hawaii).

You quoted:

"No. The elitists hate the right wing--especially the learned, accomplished, experienced, analytical, etc. Republican/conservative elite, because they're succesful, for one (and that success is more power to the conservative culture you despise), and, two, for the ones who make socio-political issues their business, they have the elitist's number, and sabotage their swinish efforts at trying to win over the other farmyard animals (i.e. "the regular guys off the street") that they really have contempt for."

You said:

"See, now I'm confused."

*Tora to katalaves, despoinis*?

"If all the successful people are Republicans..."

I didn't say "all the succesful people are Republicans."

I said:

"No. The elitists hate the right wing--especially the...Republican/conservative elite, because they're succesful, for one..."

I said all the Republican elite are succesful.

You read it backwards, Dora.

"...then who makes up the ranks of the leftie elitists who allegedly hate the right?"

A lot of people. Michael Moore, for one. Many "mainstream" journalists for two. Many secondary school, jr. high School, and high school teachers and college and university professors
for three, most Democratic senators for four, Hollywood stars for five...

You quoted:

"So, simply, your point was that Evan is about as 'educated, experienced, intelligent, etc."
as "some guy off the street,' and so just as credible?

You don't think Sarah Palin is a 'thinker' or 'accomplished' either."

"Both Palin and Evan are more educated than the regular guy off the street, like I said."

You did not say that before about Evan. Again, this whole thing started because you mockingly asked:

"And Evan is to believed more than some guy off the street... because?"

You elaborated:

"However, that doesn't make them 'thinkers' or 'experts' on anything in particular."

Tell that to the prestigious, Washington DC think-tank that invited Evan to speak, and to the Alaskans who thought she was thoughtful and expert enough to govern their vast state.

You quoted:

"for the same reasons: You hate conservatism."

"Now you're trying to read my mind? lol"

That's the logical conclusion to statements like this:

"To be honest, no, I wouldn't mind (red-state/blue-state secession) that much."

You quoted again:

"...the genocidal contempt you have for the "Red Staters" (genocidal because what do you call displacing entire populations from their homes in 'Blue States' on the basis of their culture? That's what would have to happen for your boondoggled secession to work)."

You objected:

"And again, you're trying to attribute to me something that I didn't say or imply."

Denial. You explicitly said that you wouldn't mind the United States BEING CUT IN TWO ALONG IDEOLOGICAL LINES, and implied the very problems that would arise, even if thoughtlessly.

"I don't want to 'culturally cleanse' the blue states. Conservatives can stay. They'll be now vastly outnumbered by liberals, that's what matters."

That's false. The blue states that are the most homegenuous are states like CA, NY, and MA, and even those elected Republican governors--i.e. Schwarznegger, Romney and Pataki ('95-'06).

Well, Vermont's pretty blue through and through.

Anyway, with a very few exceptions, there's no state that has a "vast majority of liberals" within. You don't know what you're talking about.

The only way you can achieve a "vast majority" is throughh deportation.

"if tehy don't like economic prosperity, freedom, rights, etc., they are free to move to Redstatia. But they would be perfectly free to stay."

You put a lot of thought into it, didn'tcha?

You quoted:

"...the same respect you extend generously to the ROMA, Middle-Eastern jihadists, and other Third World riff-raff (and what THEY bring--or do NOT bring-- to the table of their host countries is irrelevant, apparently).

And I'll add that it certainly ain't 'education' and "accomplishment" (unless you consider indoctrination by a madrassa an 'education,' and blowing buildings and people up "accomplishments")."

"Roma go to madrassas and blow things up? What?"

I wasn't necessarily referring to the Roma, and the grammar backs me up on that.

You scolded:

"i don't know what's up with you and Roma --"

I just used them to compare your feelings between the uneducated, poor, caucasian red staters and Europe's own religious hillbillies, to point out the double-standard and the point of Evan's post.

"I don't think there are that many Roma immigrants to the US."

I didn't say there were. By "host-countries" I meant the countries they're residing in (but don't have allegiance to).

"As for '3rd world riffraff,' which is so racist and disrespectful..."

Why, Dora? And that's putting it mildly when it comes to terrorists.

"...and education, you'd be so wrong:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=234"

Very good. I don't consider those fine people "riff-raff" (even if coming from Third World countries).

"In 2000, 5.9 million or 24 percent of all foreign born had a bachelor's or graduate degree. Immigrants from India (70 percent) were the most likely of the five largest foreign-born groups to have a bachelor's degree or higher."

Excuse me, but I don't consider India a "Third-World country" per se (although I know there's still a lot of poverty and entire castes living in squalor) but more an emerging nation.

And I don't consider people--whatever their background--who pursue education "riff-raff" (unless they're college-educated terrorists).

"This included 32 percent with a bachelor's degree and 38 percent with a master's, professional, or doctorate degree. Among the foreign born from the Philippines, 45 percent had a bachelor's or graduate degree, while 42 percent of all immigrants from China had a bachelor's or graduate degree."

God Bless America, baby.

"Which is higher than the native-born population, which has an attainment of 26%."

Good. I always say, immigrants make great Americans (even better than ones who've been here for generations).

"I am foreign-born..."

So? I'm first-generation.

"...and I have a bachelor's, master's and professional degree."

So? Good for you. Was that relevant to the argument you mish-mashed (going from A. my statement that there was riff-raff from the Third World, to B. Your misreading that I meant anyone from the Third World was riff-raff, to C. Your illogical leap that I called every foreigner uneducated riff-raff), or were you just taking the opportunity to put me on notice that you have superior knowledge and wisdom on all matters compared to someone who doesn't have that trifecta, as your defense mechanisms compel you to?

You're sensing that you're losing the argument and are now resorting to the defense mechanism of "btw, I have THREE DEGREES!"

So? They're not doing jack for you here, that's for damn sure.

What's next, Dora?

Ad hominem attacks?

"I do admit that I really don't like racist, xenophobic, nationalistic white people."

And there you have it.

Dora said...

That's false. The blue states that are the most homegenuous are states like CA, NY, and MA, and even those elected Republican governors--i.e. Schwarznegger, Romney and Pataki ('95-'06).

Well, Vermont's pretty blue through and through.

Anyway, with a very few exceptions, there's no state that has a "vast majority of liberals" within. You don't know what you're talking about.

The only way you can achieve a "vast majority" is throughh deportation.


you know what? you're right, thanks for pointing this out.

i have no problem with people like Schwartzneger, Olympia Snowe, Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel, Pataki, Greenspan, Sandra Day O'Connor etc.

I think these people, even though they call themselves conservatives, are reasonable-minded intelligent folks with whom I can agree to disagree and still respect. Romney was this way until he ran for prez (he was pro-choice, pro-gay, normal).

I voted for a Republican once, in Massachusetts.

The people I really don't like?

"I do admit that I really don't like racist, xenophobic, nationalistic white people."

And those are the people that mostly live in the red states.

Although now that I think about it, I feel like letting the red states secede would leave a lot of black people back in Jim Crow-ville, and that's just mean. I'd open the bluestatia to anyone who wants to come form the red states, of all races and political affiliations. I would not force anyone to stay or to come -- i'd open it to people who want to move to Redstatia.

Something tells me that most blacks in the south would not want to be left alone in a room with a typical southerner.

Anyway, all of that is also part of what makes you an "elitist" (i.e. the belief that an advanced diploma or degree automatically makes one superior in knowledge and wisdom on all matters to someone who was a college drop-out but went straight to work and learned things on the field of his/her endeavor that your law professor is oblivious to.

Again, I can't recall you explicitly asserting otherwise, but the suggestion is implicit when you attack the credibility of anyone on anything you disagree with simply because of formal educational considerations (i.e, yours is bigger than theirs, even if it's just on the study of rhetorical legalese), which I've seen you do often at blogs like Curtains.


john, you've been college, right? what's the value of college? what does one learn in college, generally?

"Neither she nor Dubya are regular guys off the street."

They ain't elitist liberals, that's for damn sure, and so can appeal to the "regular guy off the street" (or perhaps the farmland) far more effectively (Hillary's shot-slamming and Barack's flag-pin wearing notwithstanding).


Dubya may not be a liberal, but he's as elitist as possible, my dear.

Puh-lease. Bill "I-Feel-Your-Pain" Clinton? John "I'm-The-Son- of-a-Mill-Worker" Edwards? Joe "I-Ride-Amtrack" Biden?

Barack "My-Grandmother's-From-Kansas-And-My-Grandfather-Fought-In-WWII" Obama?

They're all just a bunch of Ivy League-trained lawyers-- which, again, certainly gives "expertise" with the law and rhetorical methods, but often insulates them from the life of the Everyman they then claim to empathize with (between wind-surfing off Nantucket or boogie-boarding in Hawaii).


Well, if you take a look at all the people you listed, they all came from very humble beginnings and were all self-made (btw, Edwards and Biden are not Ivy-educated).

It's not a lie for any of them to say they grew up in middle class or lower class circumstances. They really do have that cred.

Compare that with McCain or Bush. Bush attended Phillips Andover Prep, then Yale, and then Harvard. He grew up in a dynasty, with poppy Bush being CIA director, VP and then Prez.

McCain is a 3rd-generation Navy legacy who was legacied into the Naval Academy, and then married a super-rich heiress.

Now tell me, who is more relatable?

Tell that to the prestigious, Washington DC think-tank that invited Evan to speak, and to the Alaskans who thought she was thoughtful and expert enough to govern their vast state.

As a comedian. Hello?!?!

Dora said...

"Please tell me which of Evan's experiences and accomplishments make 'cultural/political issues of the day' his metier."

I can tell you that he was a writer for a nationally syndicated politically-oriented television show that put Bill Maher on the media map and dealt with cultural isses.

He was flown over from the West Coast to speak at a prestigious, conservative think-tank in Washington, DC.

He has the integrity and courage to make his living as a conservative comedian in a town that is overwhelmingly hostile to conservatism.

That's to name but three of his more prominent public accomplishments that most certainly make "'cultural/political issues of the day' his metier."


I'm sorry, but i think in different circumstances, you would agree that that ain't much. It's accomplishments, but they don't make Evan some sort of superstar.

John said...

No, they make cultural/political issues of the day his metier.

(pay attentioon_

Anonymous said...

Why don't you dumb fucks get a room?

Haven't you heard of indecent exposure?

Dora said...

Anonymous, I'm just wondering how we're bothering you? :)

John, so basically, even a failure at being a cultural commentator is still an expert in "cultural issues of the day"? I thought it kind of goes without saying that to be an expert in something, you should be successful in that subject.

John said...

Dammit, woman, you're insatiable.

I'll be back.

suze said...

dora, i dont understand why you are allowing this john guy to frame every argument. you appear to be way smarter than he is, and yet--idiot that he is--he is in control. the only game in town is offense--never defense--against these nut cases.

John said...

Oh no. Cockblock.

Go to your room, suze. Us grownups have things to talk about that you wouldn't understand.

can't even write a coherent sentence said...

I agree, which is why the insults I've see are so finely pointed.

"...the insults I've see are so finely pointed."

You must be glimpsing your reflection in the monitor. The finely pointed image you see is your own head.

suze said...

that's "we grownups," you uneducated, loser lech.........

John said...

Hey, I got a good idea! Why don't you go listen to the Jonas Brothers on your pink iPod Mini, suze?

That's a good girl.

Buh-bye now.

Dora said...

Suze makes a great point, but here's what i find fun: beating them at their own game.

So, go on, John, tell me what we learn in college and why people bother going, and then let's discuss again why having a college education might very well give a general qualification above the non-college-educated average joe on most topics, except screwing bolts onto chairs, or whatever his particular working class occupation is.

dum donkey democrat said...

...beating them at their own game.

Pin the tale on the donkey? Hee-Haw!

Anonymous said...

You're not beating them at anything. Even though you obviously make a fool of this particular monkey in any given exchange, you're still getting your ass kicked. I believe someone above pointed that out in a very graphic way.

The peabrains have learned that to avoid discussion of their myriad disasters, you talk about Schiavo...or the equivalent.

But worse, is that in dealing with them as equals, you elevate the stupid bastards to your level. And, you fail to learn how they must really be fought...as malignant, unreasoning pests.

That is why you were described as being in partnership with them...which you most definitely are...and which is why you are one part of the dual enemy, serious liberals are facing today.

Apparently you have no clue as to the seriousness of the danger these freaks pose.

Until you do, you're a HUGE part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

and which is why you are one part of the dual enemy, serious liberals are facing today.

Oops...delete that comma.

John said...

I think you should stfu, asshole. She has a mind of her own and can figure things out for herself (which is the last thing you want her to do).

John said...

Cooze said:

"...you mean all over a thirty-two year old hormonally impaired pre-op transsexual?"

Wuh? Who, Dora?

hee haw hee haw said...

Soozy coozy

speedo meater said...

dont pay him no never mind dora

hes a stickler a g-ddamn stickler

have fun wid that chimp

but stay away from that nasty little protruberance its got for you

thats how them things spread ya know

retard in charge said...

btw - Bring it on, anon, bring it on!

beat-your-meater said...

Sounds like someone's jealous!

Anonymous said...

She's just sharpening her lawyerly skills.

This is a joke,isn't it?

Anonymous said...

John said...
I think you should stfu, asshole. She has a mind of her own and can figure things out for herself (which is the last thing you want her to do).


She obviously hasn't got you figured out. You found yourself a smart, but very naive and pliable, liberal to boost your ego; and you don't want to let go of your delusion that you must be equally smart.

counselor said...

He's deathly afraid he'll lose the only person who has ever actually listened to him like he wasn't a moron...well, ok, she makes it clear she knows he's a moron, but at least she debates him while everyone else just laughs.

John said...

"She obviously hasn't got you figured out. You found yourself a smart, but very naive and pliable, liberal to boost your ego; and you don't want to let go of your delusion that you must be equally smart."

Slow down, Freud. I've just found myself the second liberal who has (a modicum of) intelligence and the class to debate an opponent honestly, in good faith and fairness, with an open mind, no hard feelings, and even a healthy sense of humor, qualities that none of you brainless, low-class, devious, unjust, closed-minded, grudging, and hyper-sensitive yet heartless little bastards possess.

Plus, she's sexy, another quality you aesthetically-challenged buffoons have an alarming dearth of, all making for a liberal nemesis very worthy of my erected attention.

That's what I've found, fool.

There was one--ONE-- other liberal who has those qualities (sans sexiness): The irrepressible Chris Hitchens, a sacrilegious son of a bitch who is nevertheless one hell of a guy, because he has a mind of his own (and could have been a great fiction writer/artist if he was a theist).

And when he strayed from the herd (vis-a-vis Iraq) you gangsters viciously attacked the best among you, gettimg him fired from *The Nation* and subjecting him to all sorts of character assassinating charges, like calling him a "Neocon Traitor" and having a "gin-soaked brain."

The Church of Liberalism is like an LA Crips or Blood gang: Members leave the hive at their own risk.

They retaliated on the Hitch for his independent thinking.

They retaliated on Evan Sayet.

And, by the same mindset, you are now threatening to retaliate against Dora (for fraternizing with the enemy):

"That is why you were described as being in partnership with them...which you most definitely are...and which is why you are one part of the dual enemy, serious liberals are facing today.

Apparently you have no clue as to the seriousness of the danger these freaks pose.

Until you do, you're a HUGE part of the problem."

Did you hear that, Dora?

What more proof do you need that you're running with a pack of snarling wolves?

They'll turn on you, too, in a second.

(but don't worry, here comes the lupicidal Sarah Palin)

And do you, anon, really think I need an "ego boost," you faceless little tool?

Let me tell you something, and listen carefully:

It's you who should let go of your delusions that you can match wits with me, because I'll crush you like a bug, you sniveling little punk.

You're dismissed.

speedo meater said:

"but stay away from that nasty little protruberance its got for you."

It's called a "brain," dolt.

No, wait, you're right, that's not my brain (I often confuse the two).

Anyway, I still have unfinished business.

I'll be back.

(And you'll rue the day.)

bcbg said...

CNN POLL: By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests. Fifty-one percent of registered voters now say they will back Obama, five points ahead of McCain, at 46 percent.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/

Dora said...

Oh good lord, boys, don't fight over me. Anony, i think the only alternative to arguing with them as if they were equals, equally capable of intelligent, logical debate, is to leave them alone. And if you leave them alone, then they do all kinds of stupid things, like Fox News. And we don't need more of that.

John, my dear, i don't need you to stand up for me.

Moreover, john, you write:

They retaliated on the Hitch for his independent thinking.

They retaliated on Evan Sayet.

And, by the same mindset, you are now threatening to retaliate against Dora (for fraternizing with the enemy):

"That is why you were described as being in partnership with them...which you most definitely are...and which is why you are one part of the dual enemy, serious liberals are facing today.

Apparently you have no clue as to the seriousness of the danger these freaks pose.

Until you do, you're a HUGE part of the problem."

Did you hear that, Dora?

What more proof do you need that you're running with a pack of snarling wolves?

They'll turn on you, too, in a second.


All I can do is laugh -- you can't be serious! Are you actually scared by the left saying "get in their face"? Come ON.

Your reaction just reinforces the latest study finding that people who are more easily scared tend to be conservatives. [http://gawker.com/5052329/scientists-explain-why-people-vote-for-republicans]

Anony writes: "You found yourself a smart, but very naive and pliable, liberal to boost your ego; and you don't want to let go of your delusion that you must be equally smart."

I think there may be some truth to that, in some way.

A study for 1999 shows that "People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else's."

The study also found this:

On average, participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile, revealing that most of us tend to overestimate our skills somewhat. But those in the bottom 25 percent consistently overestimated their ability to the greatest extent. For example, in the logical reasoning section, individuals who scored in the 12th percentile believed that their general reasoning abilities fell at the 68th percentile, and that their overall scores would be in the 62nd percentile. The authors point out that the problem was not primarily underestimating how others had done; those in the bottom quartile overestimated the number of their correct answers by nearly 50 percent. Similarly, after seeing the answers of the best performers -- those in the top quartile -- those in the bottom quartile continued to believe that they had performed well.

Despite the fact that students in the top quartile fairly accurately estimated how well they did, they also tended to overestimate the performance of others. In short, smart people tend to believe that everyone else "gets it." Incompetent people display both an increasing tendency to overestimate their cognitive abilities and a belief that they are smarter than the majority of those demonstrably sharper.


The Cornell study is discussed and linked here: http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/index.html

Anyway.

John, you still haven't answered my question about the value of college -- am i to assume taht you have not been to college? If so, why not?

Anonymous said...

Anony, i think the only alternative to arguing with them as if they were equals, equally capable of intelligent, logical debate, is to leave them alone. And if you leave them alone

Actually, that is faulty logic. There is at least one other alternative, and that is: KICK. THEIR. ASSES. I certainly hope Obama doesn't debate McCain like this...we gonna lose fo sho. Also, you are probably right about one thing: they can't "debate" (hahahhah) and watch FOX at the same time.

p.s. I'm not the sort of person who fights over women.
That seems like kind of a red neck idea.

Dora said...

There is at least one other alternative, and that is: KICK. THEIR. ASSES. I certainly hope Obama doesn't debate McCain like this...we gonna lose fo sho.

Yeah, you're probably right about Obama. My question is, how does one "kick their asses" in this kind of forum? Just yell ad hominem at them? That never helps anything.

p.s. I'm not the sort of person who fights over women.
That seems like kind of a red neck idea.


Good. I appreciate that. :)

Anonymous said...

Re-read that article, Dora. I think that you are underestimating yourself. And, Mid Nite is doing a great job, as well as Marx This, Noose, Salope, Come and See, BCBG--all are doing well at kicking ass. Yes, there are some ad hominem attacks mixed in. That's life.

Anonymous said...

Even Suze was scoring some ass-kicking points, earlier.

Dora said...

I don't think calling them idiots does any good.

Anonymous said...

Well, I really don't want to get into a fight with another liberal--does seem to be the trend this cycle, though (seen the latest on B. Clinton?). But, those others were making points (e.g.: about the economy, exposing Evan's hypocrisy, producing studies about Republicans), not just calling them idiots.

m. nite said...

Let her be...she's a hopeless tool.

As someone said earlier...she'll be politely and mindlessly discoursing with these oblivious monsters when they bury her...or words to that very insightful and accurate effect.

In fact, we're all up to our chins in their murderous disasters now, and she still doesn't have a clue.

And, Duhra, no one is fighting over you. You're irrelevant except as a type...a very dangerous type who has been dragging us back for years.

We're trying to teach the lemming libs in our midst that they're in collusion with the enemy...and they need to learn how to fight instead of continuing to act like vapid, smiling and utterly ineffectual foils.

There's a lot more than "calling them idiots" going on here. If you think what you're doing is having any effect except to make them feel like their views are worthwhile, then you're as whacked out as they are.

The central and most insidious part of this whole thirty year rebellion of the lowlifes has been built around a group of very intelligent manipulators in highly funded think tanks working diligently to make these morons feel as though their backward, luddite, bigotted and narrow attitudes are just as respectable as the so called elitists...otherwise known as decent, informed and intelligent humans.

Re-read that, because it's really the key to the whole freak attack which has been launched against this country.

The lower orders amongst us have been encouraged to believe that their vile and base attitudes are perfectly respectable and worthy and, in fact, superior to that of the "effete elitists." That is what has set these destructive monkeys on the aggressive path which has led us to the sorry state we are in RIGHT NOW.

Which is why people like you are a literal part of that whole phenomenon by continuing to blithely encourage the sick, little monsters into believing they are actually respectable members of the society they are destroying.

I realize that poeple like you are just as unconscious and oblivious in your own way as they are in theirs, but the disgust those of us who get it have for those supposedly on our own side who continue down this road of accommodation is getting stronger every day as the malignant consequences of that approach begin to slam down on us.

j. g. said...

I agree wholeheartedly, midnite, but I think Dora gets it.

She just enjoys a little diversion now and then, getting the little monkey all excited and watching him bounce around her in circles with his tiny hard on.

Anonymous said...

otherwise known as decent, informed and intelligent humans

Yes, and this is another point that needs to be emphasized: just because someone does not have a degree, that, in and of itself, does not make them a backward, racist luddite. There are plenty of decent, inelligent, knowledgeable people who garner experience and have more curiosity (from which all true knowledge emanates) and sound sense than some others with degrees. Those people, however, are not Republicans. Just look at what an airhead Palin is--although, what she has is the equivalent of some kind of piddly-assed degree, certainly, she cannot be considered well-educated or a member of the elite in any intellectual sense of the word. And, this is where I think that the arguments laid out above, even for those of us who legitimately belong among the elite, come off as a bit snooty.

all my degrees are in celsius said...

Wow? Can anybody join this useful idiots circle jerk, or do you have to actually be a certified lobotomized liberal to join?

legitimate elitist said...

I'm so smart my hat doesn't fit!

Dora said...


The central and most insidious part of this whole thirty year rebellion of the lowlifes has been built around a group of very intelligent manipulators in highly funded think tanks working diligently to make these morons feel as though their backward, luddite, bigotted and narrow attitudes are just as respectable as the so called elitists...otherwise known as decent, informed and intelligent humans.


Exactly, I completely agree.

However, it seems to me that no method works against them -- neither yours nor mine. It's a little nihilistic, but it's true. I don't hope to change anyone's mind here - they have a closed-circuited ethics that does not allow for changing your mind according to facts. I'm just having a little fun.

an example of their closed-circuited minds: they spread this idea that one of the central tenets of islam is "taqquiya" which is basically, according to them, the idea that muslims can lie to non-muslims. So, even if Obama says he's not a Muslim, and all his friends and family say it, to them, it's just more taqqiya. So, tehre's NO WAY Obama can prove he's not a Muslim.

They have many more of these circular logic traps that they buy into. There's no way around it, except for the right to stop inflaming class warfare by elevating their idiotic, uninformed views and fanning hatred of "the elite."

Anonymous said...

Of course the most insidious logic trap they fall into is thinking they know how we think. They build strawman after strawman and then take the greatest pleasure in knocking the stuffing out of it!

Dora said...

There are plenty of decent, inelligent, knowledgeable people who garner experience and have more curiosity (from which all true knowledge emanates) and sound sense than some others with degrees. Those people, however, are not Republicans.

Yes, indeed. Because those people are curious, and not hostile to learning and knowledge.

The lower class Republicans are, for the most part, losers. In other words, people who are resentful of those more intelligent, accomplished, educated, etc. than they are -- that's why they tear down knowledge, expertise, success, education, etc.

it's the kids who were made to feel stupid, explicitly or implicity, in school because they weren't too bright. they felt so down on themselves, they began to hate the rest of the world. and along come the republicans, who say, "oh joe shmoe, why are you down on yourself? you're not so bad, you're a smart guy. why those mean intelligent people who made you feel like an idiot? they only have "book learnin" and fancy pancy tastes, and they are all wimpy and effete. they actually hate america, unlike you. you're great, your uninformed opinons are BETTER than theirs because they come "the salt of the earth" and REAL America, not their wine bars and art galleries."

enflaming the lumpen's class hatred against the upper classes is as long as time. it's a low and dishonorable trick, it has nothing to do competently running the country, but it works.

donky trash talker said...

We really need to make a law that prevents these slackjawed yokels from breeding. Oh yeah, we already did. We called it Roe vs Wade. It's even better than a law, it's their right, nay duty to kill their own! Guffaw!

Anonymous said...

legitimate elitist said...
I'm so smart my hat doesn't fit!


You must not be terribly smart since you cannot even select a hat that fits. Or, perhaps, you're just a fat head.

right said fred said...

Not only are we the smartest mother-freaking intellectuals to ever grace this planet with our presence, but we're damn sexy, too.

2 sexy for my dog said...

Smart and sexy, that's us liberal elites!

Dora said...

And for those of you who think that inflaming class resentment is just some sort of conspiracy theory, please go read about nixon's southern strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[Nixon's] Administration adopted an undercover strategy for building a Republican majority, working to create the impression that there were two Americas: the quiet, ordinary, patriotic, religious, law-abiding Many, and the noisy, élitist, amoral, disorderly, condescending Few.

[...]

During that time, Nixon figured out that he could succeed politically “by using the angers, anxieties, and resentments produced by the cultural chaos of the 1960s,” which were also his own. In Perlstein’s terms, America in the sixties was divided, like the Sneetches on Dr. Seuss’s beaches, into two social clubs: the Franklins, who were the in-crowd at Nixon’s alma mater, Whittier College; and the Orthogonians, a rival group founded by Nixon after the Franklins rejected him, made up of “the strivers, those not to the manor born, the commuter students like him. He persuaded his fellows that reveling in one’s unpolish was a nobility of its own.” Orthogonians deeply resented Franklins, which, as Perlstein sees it, explains just about everything that happened between 1964 and 1972: Nixon resented the Kennedys and clawed his way back to power; construction workers resented John Lindsay and voted conservative;

Nixon was coldly mixing and pouring volatile passions. Although he was careful to renounce the extreme fringe of Birchites and racists, his means to power eventually became the end. Pat Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum—“A little raw for today,” he warned—that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading “Dividing the Democrats.” Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in “the Old Roosevelt Coalition,” it recommended that the White House “exacerbate the ideological division” between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon’s policies; highlight “the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party”; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.” Such gambits, he added, could “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”


You've been played, people. but as your nature, facts merely reinforce the non-fact-based beliefs you have.

ipso facto biteme fatso said...

Non-fact based belief system? Isn't a life based upon reason one of them? And what's a fact? How can you tell a true one from a false one?

Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.
---

Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.

colour me as perplexed as maimonides said...

Please, describe for us what a "fact based belief system" is... how it works. Does it use logic? Reason? Then it's not very "fact-based" is it.

John said...

"John, my dear, i don't need you to stand up for me."

Well, I don't REALLY mean those things. I'm just trying to get down your pants (no offense).

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 253   Newer› Newest»