Because I can talk about Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors, godless and not real men all day long if you'd like. Al Franken called Rush Limbaugh an idiot. Ann Coulter calls him a godless traitor.
I'm talking about your run-of-the-message-board liberals. You and me. We're not politicians, but we are representatives of our individual political philosophies.
No, no we're not!
I'd never follow a philosophy for which I was representative. I'm crazy! I follow philosophies that are less crazy than I am in the hope of sanity!
And I certainly don't think you want to establish that posters on Free Republic or Little Green Footballs or are representative of conservative ideology. The DailyKos may be full of the shrill and hyperbolic, but it has markedly less of the hate you see soaking those sites to the bone.
The abrupt about-face they did with Petraeus kind of blew my mind, honestly. Back when it was generally assumed that he would be giving a startlingly negative view of Iraq, the left was all "YOU MUST ABIDE BY THE PETRAEUS REPORT."
What the fucking fuck? You just made that up. I remember months before Magic September thinking, "Come on guys, wait for the damn thing before you call Petraeus a lapdog of the administration."
Oh boy, they were right! The report was hogwash, just like they'd been saying for months before. I can't recall any time the left was expecting Magic September to go their way.
And the meeting with administration officials fed into their existing fears. That Cheney can jedi mind trick people and their testimony. I was pretty pissed at Obama on the FRC with his 'questions' to Petreaus. Both philosophically and politically since he could have used it as a springboard to be the 'candidate who solves problems without partisanship' while Hillary went on some polemic about suspending disbelief and whatever.
moniker on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The abrupt about-face they did with Petraeus kind of blew my mind, honestly. Back when it was generally assumed that he would be giving a startlingly negative view of Iraq, the left was all "YOU MUST ABIDE BY THE PETRAEUS REPORT." Then he said something they didn't like, so they were all "HE'S A FUCKING TRAITOR WHO LIKES EATING THE ORPHANED CHILDREN OF SOLDIERS HE PERSONALLY SHOT IN THE FACE. IGNORE HIM."
That level of cognitive dissonance seriously scares the fuck out of me.
And I think the senators in DC felt similarly, or they wouldn't have signed the resolution saying so. But I'm tired of the Left's devolvement into the petulant whining machine they've become in the last eight years. Do you think democrats like Roosevelt would have been such whiny douches? Do you think John Kennedy would sign or propose a non-binding resolution censuring what some guy said on the radio?
I guess this is why I like James Carville so much. Whenever the Democrats have a problem, the first people he blames are the Democrats. I like an ideology that accepts defeat as a personal failure, not some unfathomable position passively foisted upon oneself by an insidious conspiracy of opposing forces. If politics has to be played like a game, the object should be to win, not to get the other team to lose.
The abrupt about-face they did with Petraeus kind of blew my mind, honestly. Back when it was generally assumed that he would be giving a startlingly negative view of Iraq, the left was all "YOU MUST ABIDE BY THE PETRAEUS REPORT." Then he said something they didn't like, so they were all "HE'S A FUCKING TRAITOR WHO LIKES EATING THE ORPHANED CHILDREN OF SOLDIERS HE PERSONALLY SHOT IN THE FACE. IGNORE HIM."
That level of cognitive dissonance seriously scares the fuck out of me.
And I think the senators in DC felt similarly, or they wouldn't have signed the resolution saying so. But I'm tired of the Left's devolvement into the petulant whining machine they've become in the last eight years. Do you think democrats like Roosevelt would have been such whiny douches? Do you think John Kennedy would sign propose non-binding resolution censuring what some guy said on the radio?
I guess this is why I like James Carville so much. Whenever the Democrats have a problem, the first people he blames are the Democrats. I like an ideology that accepts defeat as a personal failure, not some unfathomable position passively foisted upon oneself by an insidious conspiracy of opposing forces. If politics has to be played like a game, the object should be to win, not to get the other team to lose.
Wait, is this the left that exists in publications, broadcast, and enterprise institutes, or the random duders you meet online who self identify as liberals again? Because I'm getting a bit confused.
The abrupt about-face they did with Petraeus kind of blew my mind, honestly. Back when it was generally assumed that he would be giving a startlingly negative view of Iraq, the left was all "YOU MUST ABIDE BY THE PETRAEUS REPORT." Then he said something they didn't like, so they were all "HE'S A FUCKING TRAITOR WHO LIKES EATING THE ORPHANED CHILDREN OF SOLDIERS HE PERSONALLY SHOT IN THE FACE. IGNORE HIM."
That level of cognitive dissonance seriously scares the fuck out of me.
And I think the senators in DC felt similarly, or they wouldn't have signed the resolution saying so. But I'm tired of the Left's devolvement into the petulant whining machine they've become in the last eight years. Do you think democrats like Roosevelt would have been such whiny douches? Do you think John Kennedy would sign or propose a non-binding resolution censuring what some guy said on the radio?
I guess this is why I like James Carville so much. Whenever the Democrats have a problem, the first people he blames are the Democrats. I like an ideology that accepts defeat as a personal failure, not some unfathomable position passively foisted upon oneself by an insidious conspiracy of opposing forces. If politics has to be played like a game, the object should be to win, not to get the other team to lose.
That, at least, I can agree with. If there's one thing the Left hates more than the Right, it's how weak and ineffective the Democrats are.
Which is why I give the Kos folks credit. They might bitch and moan on the blog all the time about how hard it is to be in Bush's America, but they're also becoming an increasingly dominant political force capable of tilting elections.
Wait, you're meaning the Hoover that wore a dress, not the one who was late with the monetary policy and whose political destruction would have scared off most lepers.
...whoops.
moniker on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That, at least, I can agree with. If there's one thing the Left hates more than the Right, it's how weak and ineffective the Democrats are.
I blame this mostly on the far more fractitious nature of the greater Democratic Party than their GOP counterparts.
The GOP focuses their pandering primarily on fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals. To overgeneralize, that's it.
The Dems, on the other hand, have to take in socialists, ecology lobbyists, health regulation lobbyists, gay rights crusaders, abortion rights crusaders, Dixiecrats, and blacks. And none of these groups ever seem to want to get along, and often have conflicting ideologies. Barack Obama wants full allowance of gays into the military, but the nation's most staunchly anti-gay voting bloc is blacks. How's that going to work out? Also, voters on the left seem more apt to join even less-effectual third parties and splinter consensus all the more.
The libertarians and evengelicals don't hardly get along, but at least they fall in line on election day. They may not either have the candidate they want, but they want it more than the alternative. Dem voters turn out with far less regularity, and vote with far less conviction. It's an uphill battle all the way. Pundits on the left want to talk about "whistlin' past Dixie," i.e., ignoring the South to increase strongholds in the Northeast and West, but why not simply abandon the voters who don't fit your ideology? Is that too niave of me to ask?
That, at least, I can agree with. If there's one thing the Left hates more than the Right, it's how weak and ineffective the Democrats are.
I blame this mostly on the far more fractitious nature of the greater Democratic Party than their GOP counterparts.
The GOP focuses their pandering primarily on fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals. To overgeneralize, that's it.
The Dems, on the other hand, have to take in socialists, ecology lobbyists, health regulation lobbyists, gay rights crusaders, abortion rights crusaders, Dixiecrats, and blacks. And none of these groups ever seem to want to get along, and often have conflicting ideologies. Barack Obama wants full allowance of gays into the military, but the nation's most staunchly anti-gay voting bloc is blacks. How's that going to work out? Also, voters on the left seem more apt to join even less-effectual third parties and splinter consensus all the more.
The libertarians and evengelicals don't hardly get along, but at least they fall in line on election day. They may not either have the candidate they want, but they want it more than the alternative. Dem voters turn out with far less regularity, and vote with far less conviction. It's an uphill battle all the way. Pundits on the left want to talk about "whistlin' past Dixie," i.e., ignoring the South to increase strongholds in the Northeast and West, but why not simply abandon the voters who don't fit your ideology? Is that too niave of me to ask?
While I agree with your analysis, the Democrats don't abandon voters who don't fit their ideology because then they wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning much of anything. I think the Democrats would be better served by splitting into a bunch of third-parties, Europe-style, but it'd just ensure that the Republicans controlled Congress unto the end of eternity.
Wait, you're meaning the Hoover that wore a dress, not the one who was late with the monetary policy and whose political destruction would have scared off most lepers.
...whoops.
Well, in your defense nobody can prove that the other Hoover didn't wear a dress, too.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
That, at least, I can agree with. If there's one thing the Left hates more than the Right, it's how weak and ineffective the Democrats are.
I blame this mostly on the far more fractitious nature of the greater Democratic Party than their GOP counterparts.
The GOP focuses their pandering primarily on fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals. To overgeneralize, that's it.
The Dems, on the other hand, have to take in socialists, ecology lobbyists, health regulation lobbyists, gay rights crusaders, abortion rights crusaders, Dixiecrats, and blacks. And none of these groups ever seem to want to get along, and often have conflicting ideologies. Barack Obama wants full allowance of gays into the military, but the nation's most staunchly anti-gay voting bloc is blacks. How's that going to work out? Also, voters on the left seem more apt to join even less-effectual third parties and splinter consensus all the more.
The libertarians and evengelicals don't hardly get along, but at least they fall in line on election day. They may not either have the candidate they want, but they want it more than the alternative. Dem voters turn out with far less regularity, and vote with far less conviction. It's an uphill battle all the way. Pundits on the left want to talk about "whistlin' past Dixie," i.e., ignoring the South to increase strongholds in the Northeast and West, but why not simply abandon the voters who don't fit your ideology? Is that too niave of me to ask?
While I agree with your analysis, the Democrats don't abandon voters who don't fit their ideology because then they wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning much of anything. I think the Democrats would be better served by splitting into a bunch of third-parties, Europe-style, but it'd just ensure that the Republicans controlled Congress unto the end of eternity.
I'd like to see the Dems and the Pubs splinter off into their constituent parts and maybe reassemble into two parties that made a little more sense. I guess it matters less right now since the Pubs stopped being the party of fiscal discipline, small government and social conservatism and just started being the party of power-mad, loose-pocketed asshats.
But back when there were two sane parties instead of the evil party and the stupid party, it'd be nice if gays didn't have to choose between voting for their lifestyle or voting for their pocketbook. If you didn't have to decide whether you cared more about family values or competent fiscal policy.
I have no idea how this would even begin to be possible, though.
Also, I'm seriously sleep deprived and probably make no sense.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Actually Jeffe, your post does make a fair bit of sense. I had hoped the Dems would have reorganized after taking the beating they have over the last decade, but since the Republicans just beat themselves, there was no need to really figure out what the party had to do to get back in power. I'm hoping the Pubs will sit down and figure out a message and what the hell the party is supposed to be about. I hope the Democrats are strong enough to make that happen.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Posts
No, no we're not!
I'd never follow a philosophy for which I was representative. I'm crazy! I follow philosophies that are less crazy than I am in the hope of sanity!
And I certainly don't think you want to establish that posters on Free Republic or Little Green Footballs or are representative of conservative ideology. The DailyKos may be full of the shrill and hyperbolic, but it has markedly less of the hate you see soaking those sites to the bone.
What the fucking fuck? You just made that up. I remember months before Magic September thinking, "Come on guys, wait for the damn thing before you call Petraeus a lapdog of the administration."
Oh boy, they were right! The report was hogwash, just like they'd been saying for months before. I can't recall any time the left was expecting Magic September to go their way.
And I think the senators in DC felt similarly, or they wouldn't have signed the resolution saying so. But I'm tired of the Left's devolvement into the petulant whining machine they've become in the last eight years. Do you think democrats like Roosevelt would have been such whiny douches? Do you think John Kennedy would sign or propose a non-binding resolution censuring what some guy said on the radio?
I guess this is why I like James Carville so much. Whenever the Democrats have a problem, the first people he blames are the Democrats. I like an ideology that accepts defeat as a personal failure, not some unfathomable position passively foisted upon oneself by an insidious conspiracy of opposing forces. If politics has to be played like a game, the object should be to win, not to get the other team to lose.
Wait, is this the left that exists in publications, broadcast, and enterprise institutes, or the random duders you meet online who self identify as liberals again? Because I'm getting a bit confused.
That, at least, I can agree with. If there's one thing the Left hates more than the Right, it's how weak and ineffective the Democrats are.
Which is why I give the Kos folks credit. They might bitch and moan on the blog all the time about how hard it is to be in Bush's America, but they're also becoming an increasingly dominant political force capable of tilting elections.
The man already got a dam, shanty towns, and a shitload of historical caveats on texts dealing with the Depression. What more does he want?
To be able to walk, I guess...
(Too soon?)
Hoover didn't have any trouble doing the Charleston, Roosevelt is the one who got polio.
...whoops.
I blame this mostly on the far more fractitious nature of the greater Democratic Party than their GOP counterparts.
The GOP focuses their pandering primarily on fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals. To overgeneralize, that's it.
The Dems, on the other hand, have to take in socialists, ecology lobbyists, health regulation lobbyists, gay rights crusaders, abortion rights crusaders, Dixiecrats, and blacks. And none of these groups ever seem to want to get along, and often have conflicting ideologies. Barack Obama wants full allowance of gays into the military, but the nation's most staunchly anti-gay voting bloc is blacks. How's that going to work out? Also, voters on the left seem more apt to join even less-effectual third parties and splinter consensus all the more.
The libertarians and evengelicals don't hardly get along, but at least they fall in line on election day. They may not either have the candidate they want, but they want it more than the alternative. Dem voters turn out with far less regularity, and vote with far less conviction. It's an uphill battle all the way. Pundits on the left want to talk about "whistlin' past Dixie," i.e., ignoring the South to increase strongholds in the Northeast and West, but why not simply abandon the voters who don't fit your ideology? Is that too niave of me to ask?
Lipstick and pumps.
While I agree with your analysis, the Democrats don't abandon voters who don't fit their ideology because then they wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning much of anything. I think the Democrats would be better served by splitting into a bunch of third-parties, Europe-style, but it'd just ensure that the Republicans controlled Congress unto the end of eternity.
Well, in your defense nobody can prove that the other Hoover didn't wear a dress, too.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd like to see the Dems and the Pubs splinter off into their constituent parts and maybe reassemble into two parties that made a little more sense. I guess it matters less right now since the Pubs stopped being the party of fiscal discipline, small government and social conservatism and just started being the party of power-mad, loose-pocketed asshats.
But back when there were two sane parties instead of the evil party and the stupid party, it'd be nice if gays didn't have to choose between voting for their lifestyle or voting for their pocketbook. If you didn't have to decide whether you cared more about family values or competent fiscal policy.
I have no idea how this would even begin to be possible, though.
Also, I'm seriously sleep deprived and probably make no sense.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.