The public is dissatisfied with Washington
The public’s mad at Obama, Democrats, and Republicans–really, at just about everybody in Washington. They hate Republicans the most, but they’re not happy with anybody:
The AP-GfK poll finds few people approve of the way the president is handling most major issues and most people say he’s not decisive, strong, honest, reasonable or inspiring.
In the midst of the government shutdown and Washington gridlock, the president is faring much better than his party, with large majorities of those surveyed finding little positive to say about Democrats. The negatives are even higher for the Republicans across the board, with 4 out of 5 people describing the GOP as unlikeable and dishonest and not compassionate, refreshing, inspiring or innovative.
Negativity historically hurts the party in power ”” particularly when it occurs in the second term of a presidency ”” but this round seems to be hitting everyone. More people now say they see bigger differences between the two parties than before Obama was elected, yet few like what either side is offering.
Well, I’ve generally not liked politicians and I’ve not been keen on many presidents either, so for me this is nothing new. And of course many of those people mad at Republicans for being “unlikeable and dishonest,” as well as not “refreshing, inspiring or innovative” are in fact conservative and/or Republicans.
But if one of the reasons a lot of people are down on both Democrats and Republicans in Congress is that the parties are further apart than ever, I think many of those people might do well to look in the mirror. Because I think it only reflects the fact that Americans themselves are more politically polarized than ever. Sometimes I wonder which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
My best guess is that it’s an escalating feedback loop, where greater polarization of politicians helps feed greater polarization of the public, and vice versa. And of course let’s not discount the MSM’s contribution, as well as talk-radio, the 24-hour cable news networks and news cycle, the growth of opinion journalism masquerading as news journalism, and the decline of politeness and respect in public life (helped by President Obama himself, whose rhetoric has been increasingly inflammatory).
If we really have become a population that’s more and more divided into polarized factions, you might say “so be it.” But one of the strengths of the US used to be that the parties were composed of a greater proportion of moderates, and were much more able to pull together for the common good, especially in wartime or other crises. I fear we’ve lost that ability.
“President Obama is prepared to take power and begin to rule from day one.”
-Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to the President of the United States
Rule, not govern…
whats the difference, right?
stalin was a ruler
napoleon was a ruler
mao was a ruler
king george was a ruler
the saudies are rulers
a ruler owns the state…
the state owns the people…
power, is its first priority, for from it all things come
so once again we return to the fundementals of “X Article”
yet, since we never actually grasp them or use them, i am sure we will be back here again, and again on this wacky carosel with no music.
In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand.
In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it. It is fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability.
[updated slightly]
Without it they would stand before history, at best, as only the last of that long succession of cruel and wasteful rulers who have relentlessly forced country on to ever new heights…..
This is why purposes most always be solemnly clothed in trappings of Liberalism, and why no one should underrate importance of dogma in affairs.
is it apropos?
hows this slight rewrite:
i replaced
Stalin with Obama
russians with progressives
foreign governments with people
couldnt the above fit into an article today and no one would bat an eye at it nor remember whence it came
Since the Democrats are monolithic in policy, I believe the polling on them. As you state, with deep divisions within the Republican party it is difficult to tell who is hating whom and for what reason.
But people tend to remember the negative more than positive, so a divided party’s polls should be lower.
There’s too much we will never know, so it’s just simpler to stick to your guns and keep chuggin’ on. I’m sure 2014 will bring a little more clarity.
“I think many of those people might do well to look in the mirror.”
Indeed, even with Congress’ job rating in the dumper, many of these senators and reps will be re-elected next year. It seems that while voters disapprove of congress, “it’s always the other guy’s representative that’s at fault, not mine.”
“. . . [We] were much more able to pull together for the common good, especially in wartime or other crises. I fear we’ve lost that ability.” Perhaps, and perhaps it’s a temporary or even a cyclical affliction. As Winston Chruchill noted, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – – – after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities.”
I think you are right and I think it’s because the country is in the middle of an existential debate about what road we take next: the one to a communitarian socialism or the other to a maintenance of a constitutional republic. It started, IMO with the impeachment of Clinton and the subsequent Florida recount debacle. The true face of the 60’s radical dominated Democrat party became visible in all of its venomous glory. The denoument for the Republican party seems to have been the Romney loss and the exposure of the Rockefeller wing of the party as a weak mirror image of the Democrats. It’s the fight of the idealogues now and the devil take the hindmost. For my part, I’ll stay with Cruz et al.
says former US Treasury Under secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
The second possibility would be that President Obama, because of laws that are already on the books, would have the power to declare a ‘national catastrophe’ and simply assume the leadership of the government. This gets Congress and the courts out of the picture. At that point there are no limits on the power of the President if he calls for a ‘national catastrophe.’
This would mean that the President, on his own authority, could raise the debt ceiling. So, either of those two events would happen if it looked like no deal was forthcoming from the Congress. It could be that President Obama, or others in the Executive Branch, are planning to use this crisis to invoke that Executive Order.
…
Of course. It means that essentially the President would become a ‘Caesar.’ That would also mean that the Congress had become like the Roman Senate, which lost its power and simply became a collection of notable figureheads. Generally when democratically regimes fail you end up with a Caesar, and a shutdown is of course the epitome of a democratic failure.
So this would give President Obama all of the justification for exercising the Executive Order so that the President can rule independently of Congress and the courts.
when are we going to discuss the new laws, the new EO’s the other things that tend to point to places where people dont want to go… and so, are secure from their view, and their opposition. which is precisely why that stuff ends up there, its the safe place to keep it away.
of course, one would think that russia or china would like to invade… you know, to take advantage of this stuff… but why invade? you already have key people stationed here in the US.
[edited for length n-n]
I think some people responding to polls are terrified of sounding racist (or getting audited) and it’s easier for them to say “a pox on all their houses” than it is to criticize Obama.
communitarian socialism
interesting term
if PROGRESSIVE is code for
PROmote reGRESSIVE policies to return to rex lex
then
COMMUNITARIAN SOCIALISM
is just
COMMUNIst totaliTARIAN SOCIALISM
international communism, scientific socialism, fabianism, marxism, sociaism, feminism, Stalinism, leninism, maoism, trotskyism, bolshiviks, menshiviks, Prachanda Path, Hoxhaism, Titoism, Eurocommunism, (rosa) Luxemburgism, Council communism (council is a soviet in russian), Juche, Anarchist communism, Christian communism and on and on it goes..
the spam skit was about communism and socialism and how once its in society, you cant have anythig wihtout a little bit of spam… (collective state smashed together into one functional block).
like alinsky devil worship going all the way back to moses harmons devil worship, how much like that is all this? (and that would explain why certain religious people see it as luciferian.. and others not of that religion may see it in a different context. while athiests see it as what?)
how many names does the same evil have?
note i am not claiming its a lucifer practice.
any more than tank commanders in the USA who have rommel hanging up, claim nazism…
ie. they like what they are like… cause it resonates
“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not
with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” Valerie Jarrett
I refer not to the religious communitarianism but to the political one: “Communitarian philosophy is derived from the assumption that individuality is a product of community relationships rather than individual traits” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism
Barackades are still up at the World War II Memorial.
The Spite House lies continue.
I think the deepening divide is a Good Thing, actually. We’ve spent far too long in the mushy middle, slouching toward socialism and worse because people prioritized compromise over morality. It’s way past time that the stakes be clearly defined. Compromising with your own destruction isn’t much of a compromise.
I got news for you. Washington hates us, too.
Tesh,
And there’s always this recognition that democracy is, by its very nature, an adversarial and therefore contentious system. The danger, of course, is that too much contention can rip the system apart. If we have not yet pulled together, it may not be because we can’t do that anymore (we did for 9/11) but perhaps because we’re not yet in the existential crisis that some think we are. My personal faith in Americans is distilled in the Churchill quote above.
As to the polls, I find the data encouraging. That the GOP has slipped deeper is hardly surprising given the MSM anti-GOP bias and the mass of LIVs, the head-bobbers, they reach. But the Dem slippage is most encouraging, which means that the MSM Ministry of Propaganda is failing with those same LIVs.
May it continue. One cannot score a home run without touching first base.
I think we’re missing a larger theme here and that is that the cost of capture of government is incredibly high now. Every issue is a national issue which certainly did not used to be the case until FDR. The stakes are always high and the political class simply isn’t up to it. We can either get a new political class or delegate most issues back to the states/localities/people themselves. I am rarely in conflict with myself over the decisions I make to govern myself. Well, sometimes, but that’s my problem. 🙂
“Communitarian philosophy is derived from the assumption that individuality is a product of community relationships rather than individual traits”
another variation that there are no individuals, but you are a product of your environment
ie classical marxist thinking with a veneer of something else to get the cargo cultists who dont study the substance to think its not the same thing
yes, its that simple, but if you dont get these things in a way that you get them regardless of what language is used, this game will work on you.
distinctions without an actual difference
The obscure term was introduced to the world in the 1990s, but it was actually created at the same time Marx and Engels drafted the anti-thesis to capitalism, called communism. In 1848, the Communist Manifesto established the rules for the “constant conflict” between British-European merchant “slavery” versus downtrodden workers, peasants, and serfs. In 1776, 90 per cent of the American colonials were small private landowners, not downtrodden serfs, and the African slave trade was dominated by elites.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Communitarianism is human society’s most developed Darwinian geopolitical ideology in the theoretical, “natural” Marxist evolution of social systems. Which means, in plain American, that communitarians made up a science and made up a language to define it, but don’t worry, you can trust them because they’re really smart scientists who help helpless uneducated normal people be safe from bad things.
They differ in their beliefs as to the type of force that should be used against immoral neighbors (some advance shame while others advance “boot camps”), but they all share the same belief that Earth’s scientists have an obligation to guide humanity into achieving a less violent, livable quality of life.
thye old menshiviks (social democrats) vs bolshiviks (revolutionaries)
In 2003, the Marxist solution to the thousands of global conflicts between the left and the right (solidly represented in every country of the world) is the communitarian balance between the “conflicts of opposites,” a middle ground, often called a Third Way.
ie. they decided to merge and create a global fascism that was part communist in control, part capitalist in economics. a hybrid, that the elites would run and we would be akin to the robots that will replace us, then turn this into a glob much like what was pictured in logans run… (notice obamacare can implement logans run now)
In the 21st century, every member of every known political party on the planet plays a role in furthering Marx’s dialectic games. The Marxist game is so brilliantly designed that the more fervent your dedication to your personal beliefs, the more powerful a tool you become in the hands of the global communitarians. The communitarian solutionists design or infiltrate both sides to every conflict, and they have already positioned themselves into a libertarian-communitarian divide; they’ve already defined the final American “debate.” And, be aware America, they already know their own libertarian party platform is logically indefensible against the un-reasonable basis for more morally based global human rights’ charters and “equal social justice.”
you can find all kinds of stuffo n this
but if you go to the communitarians, the communists, the socialists or feminists, dont be surprised that they claim they arent the way you hear a sociopath claim wonce found out, thenclaim their your friend.
Don Carlos,
Rush Limbaugh points out that Obama’s approval rating is currently at 37% which is where G W Bush’s was in 2006. His point is that Bush reached 37% after being villified by the media for years while Obama reached it even though the media has run coverage for him for years.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/
[scroll down to October 10, 4:16 PM)
I like to think that like gravity, reality always wins in the end. We shall see.
People like their Congressman. It’s the other 434 Representatives and 98 Senators that are the problem. That’s why even in the 2010 “shellacking”, over 80% of incumbents won re-election. So people may say in polls that they are angry and want to “throw all the bums out’, they almost never do.
About polarization. My theory is that both parties were content with the leftward drift since about the 1930s. Both parties were complicit in expanding the government. The fights were not about the ideology of big vs small government, but minor disputes about how to tweak the policy and how to pay for it. And that continued because the voters kept rewarding them for growing government. We had a few voices in the wilderness advocating for smaller limited government, but they could not win a national election (until Reagan), so the bureaucracy just grew and grew. Now it is on autopilot. Every agency’s new fiscal year budget is larger than the prior year’s budget UNLESS legislation is passed to stop the growth. It is a monster. So now we have 2.5 million unelected bureaucrats who have written almost 200,000 regulations dictating how we live. And just in case there’s any doubt that those federal employees are superfluous, they churn out about 3000 new regulations each year to protect us from ourselves to prove how much they are needed. Oh yeah. Every time Congress passes a law described as “comprehensive”, they are creating several new bureaucracies to employ more bureaucrats to write more regulations to tell you how to live.
Republicans claim, at least rhetorically to help them win elections, that they’ve had enough of the big government leftward drift. Democrats are still fighting to expand the bureaucracies. And that’s why we appear to be so polarized. For about 50 years or so, from the 1930s to about 1980, the political fights were not ideological because both parties wanted bigger government. That made it easier to find common ground and compromise. Now, however, many Republicans in the House and a few in the Senate have proven they can win elections based on claiming an ideological aversion to more government.
When one party is committed to expanding government and the other wants to stop it’s growth – if not reduce it – then it’s hard to see where the two sides can find common ground on which to compromise. Thus, polarization.
What’s also interesting is that Obama’s numbers are LOWER than Bush’s were in his second term:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/bush-had-higher-approval-rating-than-obama-at-this-point-in-his-presidency/
Not that it makes any difference.
on political promises from the fascici communitarians…
I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me. I had an audience with him, as a representative of the Protestant Church, shortly before he became Chancellor, in 1932. Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews, assuring me as follows: “There will be restrictions against the Jews, but there will be no ghettos, no pogroms, in Germany.”
I really believed, given the widespread anti-Semitism in Germany, at that time–that Jews should avoid aspiring to Government positions or seats in the Reichstag. There were many Jews, especially among the Zionists, who took a similar stand. Hitler’s assurance satisfied me at the time. On the other hand, I hated the growing atheistic movement, which was fostered and promoted by the Social Democrats and the Communists. Their hostility toward the Church made me pin my hopes on Hitler for a while.
I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.
Martin Niemoller
Most of the functions of the government is power that has pooled at the top amongst a few select cliques.
That power needs to be redistributed, by force if needed, to the people at the bottom, the ones most at risk, the ones most motivated, and the ones that are most competent to do the job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWC8nNpIco
Is an example of bottom up hierarchies.
Knights, warrior-protectors, monk philosophers, and errant knights roaming the countryside looking for wisdom and people to help, are old ancient ideals and occurrences.
As anarchy, violence, tyranny, and civilization corrupts itself, there will be a Re Evolution back to points of origins and fundamental building blocks.
Anyone think that kind of person is running things at the top for Obama, Republican pols, or DC staffers?
Are our benevolent aristocratic lords so altruistic?
Sometimes I wonder which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
the egg…
the egg is a potential something
the chicken is a realized someting
so an animal which is not a chicken (a realized sometning) could have an egg (a potential) that can grow up to be a chicken.
ie. over time each potential is more chicken like than its parent which is less chickenlike and cant change as its already realized.
its used in culture to detect IGNORANCE
like (i explained before) one hand clapping is
note. a family tribe doesnt need a politico
ie you dont get politicians till you get critical population
so, the eggs come first, then when you have enough adults one reinvents himself as a public servant.. (the diminished lineage of the king, court, and lower class beuracrat)
if you have read ARISTOTLE, you may actually know the whole of the point of the snippet.
too bad even the edumacated is not very edumacated
makes for a very lonely sit at the discussion table of contemporaries in knowlege.
read theta zeta and eta..
which later was updated given our new knowlge about reality – but the ideas still holds.
when people ask that question, if they are edumacated they are testing to see if you read aristotle and are similarly edumacated.
otherwise, its the rubes and low class idjits that banter it around in ignroance and make up arguments and never reference back to the “actuality”.
which is a point i make constantly
if you guys are not going to put the facts right, then your just rubes making up realit and not actually having a real substantial debate over anything real.
in the REAL world, aristotle exists and he made contributions… if he is not known, then the rubes will just pretend they know, never reveal their idiocy, and the more knowlebable can sit there and feel superior
something i never liked… so i always handed the keys to the game to the rubes. the ones that took the key were not rubes – the ones that pretended to, then ignored it and never included it, were and are idiots that are cargo cult debaters.
since they are nevr really discussing something real in its actuality, they are never goin gto get anywhere in their debates on reality and whats going on.
but… you guys can continue.
its quite entertaining… once you give up the frustration of handing keys out to people who use them to pick their ears or something.
🙂
Is an example of bottom up hierarchies.
bottom of the top maybe
Knights, warrior-protectors, monk philosophers, and errant knights roaming the countryside looking for wisdom and people to help, are old ancient ideals and occurrences.
knights are appointed by the king..
and swear allegiance to him and or her ways
there were no warrior protectors except in hollyweird programs that are socialist morality plays of the common struggle and the realization of the end of that and the opening of a new dawn
none of those things actually exsisted..
there was no lancelot… nor was there a king arthur in the way your thinking… there was no errant knights roaming the land
A knight-errant[1] is a figure of medieval chivalric romance literature. The adjective errant (meaning “wandering, roving”) indicates how the knight-errant would wander the land in search of adventures to prove his chivalric virtues, either in knightly duels (pas d’armes) or in some other pursuit of courtly love.
your living midevil romance literature
the harlequin of its time…
Don Quixote is an early 17th-century parody of the genre, in reaction to the extreme popularity which late medieval romances such as Amadis de Gaula came to enjoy in the Iberian Peninsula in the 16th century.
i guess he made my point as to chicken and egg
nah, we havent lost it
feminism has supressed/destroyed it as it was designed to do.
ie. if you want to stand up and defend those things, at best lysistrata will work, at worst, your a white male jew loving racist (slavophile) oppressor – we dont
the women gutted this!!!
but i bet your goingt to argue to preserve the helplessness of women so as to preserve their source of power..
however, the women won.. why not celebrate, they get to have the communist totalitarian state they crave that will fix the world around them so they can ignore it and go back to clucking and all that kind of stuff they like (and feel safe).
in each era, its the WOMEN that command the men to make the society they ultimately want…
they WANT sexualization
they WANT totalitarianism (they think they will rule with)
they WANT supression of all males
they WANT suppression of fighting without any regard for other populations around them
they want to consider enemies friends and mates enemies
the list goes on…
first you divide the fundemental molecule of society
FAMILY
and feminists main goal was the destruction of family
stated for over 150 years
without family, you lose tradition
without tradition from men, and maintained
you lose the idea that we are all togeher
ie. a society without families is a society of hamsters in cages withotu a past, and no future
and like black or other groups, the only group with any say orpower to stop it is the people of that group.
any other group tries, they become what they are accused of.
so unless men are willing to be oppressive bastards and stop the women, the women win, and who controls them wins. and given the communist quotes and the communists that orchestrated it, funded it, and even supplied them with explosives. guess what they will make are making and ahve made?
the men that woudl stop them and make that western caucasian type peaceful white picket fence are outvoted by their own women siding against them!!!!!!!!!!
one only has to read
Kevin Jackson: Blacksphere : America Needs a White Republican President
http://theblacksphere.net/2013/10/america-needs-white-republican-president/
to get an idea of what is missing
ie. no other society but caucasian western societies are stable, peaceful, low crime, and individuals…
so the rest of the world is crushing that
and they first did the devil in eden thing and bribed the women to turn against their husbands and helpmeats and make a CIVIL WAR
ie. before you argue that its not the feminists
who has been having a war of the sexes since before 1968 and perpetually forwards?
hard to have a society that is cohesive if half of them are waging a unilateral war against the other h alf that loves them
dont worry thoguh
the muslim replacements wiull fix this
the nubmer of converts due to obama care will be enough!!!
then the war of the serxes will be over, and i guess the women will find out that they liked their old opressors better than their new converted ones.
after all
just as they bribed women
they are now bribing men with a return to status if they convert..
its going to be real intersting.
but i will bet most wont have a handle on it because most do not accept the reality and inclued all of it in their thinking and ideas (including the past that they are too incurious to learn)
they are writing songs
funny, but the original author was a communist too.
THIS LAND’S NOT YOUR LAND
Tune: “This Land Is Your Land”
As sung by King Obama
This land’s not your land, this land is my land
Shut down or open, it comes from my hand
From Barack Obama to the bitter clingers:
This land’s not made for you to see
If you go driving an interstate highway
And see an orange cone, you’ll do it my way
You will obey me and not go forward
This land’s not made for you to see
This land’s not your land, this land is my land
Shut down or open, it comes from my hand
From Barack Obama to the bitter clingers:
This land’s not made for you to see
You’ll want to travel and go to Mount Rushmore
But at Rapid City, you won’t go much more
Guards will surround you, their voices sounding:
This land’s not made for you to see
This land’s not your land, this land is my land
Shut down or open, it comes from my hand
From Barack Obama to the bitter clingers:
This land’s not made for you to see
If you oppose me, I’ll make you suffer
Come near memorials, I’ll put up a buffer
I am Obama, I am your land lord
This land’s not made for you to see
This land’s not your land, this land is my land
Shut down or open, it comes from my hand
From Barack Obama to the bitter clingers:
This land’s not made for you to see
If you go looking, you’ll see a sign there
And on the sign it says: “There’s No Trespassing”
And on the other side: “No Looking or Nothing!”
Both sides were made for you to see
This land’s not your land, this land is my land
Shut down or open, it comes from my hand
From Barack Obama to the bitter clingers:
This land’s not made for you to see
At the Redwood Forest, in the land of the Canyons
By the Gulfstream Waters, you’ll see my minions
As they stand there guarding, you’ll stand there wond’ring:
Is this land safe for me to see?
This land’s not your land, this land is my land
Shut down or open, it comes from my hand
From Barack Obama to the bitter clingers:
This land’s not made for you to see
No one can stop me, my mind is made up
As I go putting my Barrycades up
Nobody living can make me give your land back
This land’s not made for you to see
New voices:
But King Obama, this land is our land
So shut your piehole, you can go pound sand
From the bitter clingers to Barack Obama:
This land was founded to be free
This land ain’t your land, this land is our land
So shut your piehole, you can go pound sand
From the bitter clingers to Barack Obama:
This land was founded to be free
T, 1:46 pm — “Rush Limbaugh points out that Obama’s approval rating is currently at 37% which is where G W Bush’s was in 2006. His point is that Bush reached 37% after being villified by the media for years while Obama reached it even though the media has run coverage for him for years.”
Good point; I’d like to contribute this, in addition:
Let’s pick apart the 37 percent. If blacks are, what? — 12 percent of the population, I’m going to suppose that 10 percentage points of the 37 are black. Similarly, I’m going to suppose another 7 percentage points are hispanic; aside from Cubans, who’ve actually lived under communism/socialism, hispanics tend to support the regime that embraces the hispanic immigrant. 7 percentage points is at least that many. Bear with me here.
There is a tribal/racial affinity factor in play. I posit that these 17 percentage points are due in very large part to racial/tribal affinity — people thinking with their genes or their glands, and not with their intelligence (if any).
Take out the 17 or so racial/tribal percentage points, and what’s left from the initial 37 is 20 percentage points. Those remaining 20 percentage points are *all* *that* *are* *left* supporting the incumbent regime. Put another, more crass, way: the white support for the incumbent regime is evidently down to, and comprised *solely* of, radical-left Elizabeth Warren – type, Barbara Boxer – type, Keith Olbermann – type, Michael Moore – type diehards.
Virtually everyone else does *not* support the incumbent regime.
But there’s precious little to be done about it.
——
Charles, 2:13 pm — “What’s also interesting is that Obama’s numbers are LOWER than Bush’s were in his second term.”
I think Richard Nixon bottomed out at around 25 percent. But he went away. If only the incumbent would go away.
(Long live President Biden.)
What’s really sad is that we can credibly think of Joe Biden as a possible improvement!
@T
nah… what one really needs is a bit of perspective into how much we allowed a small set of people with money to play with our heads so we are quite normally dysfunctional, and dont even know it.
in the early history of the US there was a man named farragut, who one day would become the united states first admiral of the navy. Farragut had an early start though. His first MILITARY commission was 12
David Farragut’s naval career began as a Midshipman when he was nine years old…
A prize master by the age of 12, Farragut fought in the War of 1812
Farragut was 12 years old when, during the War of 1812, he was given the assignment to bring a ship captured by the USS Essex safely to port
he was not as unique as we would like to think.
After all, he would not have achieved those things if he was the only one doing it.
here is a modern example where there isn’t a state of progressive limitation going on, but technically freedom to do, and freedom to get hurt, and freedom to achieve…
http://static.video.qq.com/TPout.swf?auto=1&vid=r010673xh67
you should see what that kid can do with a quarter
not only that, but he is non union… 🙂
You’re damn right we are polarized; more than a third of the voting public is a-ok with a communist government running the country into the ground just like Cuba or Venezuela.
The people are disgusted with all of them because this shutdown has shown their true colors. Oh, and the Republicans hate their base. Nice.
The blame is entirely on the Left. The so-called extreme Right is about where Middle of the Road was 50 years ago. The moderate Right is where Liberal was 50 years ago.
The Left is basically Communist. Relativist and quite frankly bizarrely extreme. They are the Party of Infanticide, Property Confiscation, Spying, Censorship, 1984 Orwellianism, and things like gay Marriage which has never existed in the history of the Universe until the Left decided it was normal approximately last week.
The Left it not only wicked to the core of its core; it is insane.
Arrright.
Ya sees evererybody gots their thing, right?
And no one wants to give nuthin!
So, big deal. What’s changed. See. Stilll no cheese for the mice. The bosses aren’t happy. And the middleman, he’s getting screwed. Same as always.
So its when no ones happy. And sumthins gotta give.
And what gives? Ya ask yourself, whose got the power. Most times its the bosses. Arright. The schmucks get turned. They ask and they get turned around.
But not always, arright. Sometimes schmucks get a break. Not often, but sometimes. Sometimes schmucks get lucky.
Art,
Time to switch to decaf.
Want to clean up government?
First, somehow, make the people who write the laws and regulations, administer the same, or enforce the same, to move away from DC when they retire. At least 150 miles away.
Second, no child or spouse of a currently serving or retired person who had been elected may lobby any government official.
Third, require the members of the press to disclose all current and previous sources of income for themselves, their spouse, or their immediate family members.
Too many in DC are corrupted by their decision to keep their options open for future employment.
artfldgr is hyped and in need of meds (as usual), but he is correct in his analysis. We are closing in on the event horizon. It going to be ashes, ashes we all fall down…. 4 months, 6 years, its just a matter of time before we observe in slow motion the kicked can sailing into the abyss. Until then its QE into infinity.
Nucs. Who wants em?
And all our genes?
Can we give em
away. Fellow beings,
I ask, is not
Obama the way?
Renounce your rights
and beatific nights.
State your duty;
now you’ll study
and once again
become catholic.
Nice to see you, Parker.
sharpie,
You are (with love) one wacky dude-ette.
PS – I would feel muy mas safer. if the first 500 people in the Houston phone directory possessed ICBM with nuke warheads than allow DC to determine which way the wind blows
sharpie,
I subminted a very off color post several weeks ago and have been too shy until now to once more post at neo land. I apologize for my previous poor (drunken) post.
parker Says:
October 11th, 2013 at 11:16 pm
I believe that Art said we crossed the event horizon in November 2008.
knights are appointed by the king..
and swear allegiance to him and or her ways
there were no warrior protectors except in hollyweird programs that are socialist morality plays of the common struggle and the realization of the end of that and the opening of a new dawn
For one thing, knights were originally lesser nobility, who had actual jobs for towns and small villages. Kings didn’t get to appoint them until divine right came along and the nobility gave up most of their armies and political power for centralized control.
Most of the security against barbarian invasions, once the Roman Empire left, were up to certain martial families in Britain and France. Eventually those families became nobles, as recognized by everyone else for their martial prowess and security resources. There was “no king” back then to give them power they had never earned.
Your knowledge of history, Art, is strangely unbalanced. The knight errants of Ancient China, going back 4000+ years existed way before you were ever born, Art. Or did the books you rely on for your wisdom only focus on Russian history for the last 300 years? You want to talk about Hollywood, do you not understand that there was no Hollywood 2000, 4000, 5000 years ago in China? Hollywood isn’t the standard for history, when will people “get it”.
Someone who focuses unnaturally on only one part of history, might want to read up on different areas of the globe once in awhile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_knight-errant
It took me 10 seconds to google that Art. Why can’t you do the same thing?
Do you not know how to read? Do you not know the difference between literate, semi-literate, and illiterate?
When the sole authority of what is true comes from stuff you read, you get stuck in a world that is extremely narrow, Art. Very very narrow.
So did reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War enlighten you as to the truth, or was it untrue what you said before that the knowledge of the ancients flowed 100% from their books to you upon you reading it and understanding it while the rest of us can’t understand or accept the Truth, that you see?
Sun Tzu obviously knew about the warrior culture back then and China’s history. Why didn’t you?
You got no respect for culture or Western tradition. How do you think you’re in any position to expect us to believe you’re a master of history, eh?
parker Says:
October 12th, 2013 at 12:11 am
No worries, parker. I’ve been known to do that too. Good to have you back.
M J R Says:
October 11th, 2013 at 5:03 pm
I read something a few days ago–I don’t have a link–which said that blacks in Zimbabwe still support Robert Mugabe. Despite the fact that he has utterly destroyed that nation.
I guess the “reasoning” goes something like, “My life is shit, but he really stuck it to Whitey, so he’s still my guy.”
Blacks in America will never abandon Obama. Period. No matter what.
Whites do not think or behave this way. If we did, then 95% of us would have voted for McCain and Romney, and they would have won by landslides.
My contempt for blacks and other racial minorities continues to increase. How can I think of them as anything other than enemies who want to kill me and take my stuff? They seem to have no concept of political philosophy, other than a zero-sum game. The American Founding Fathers, the greatest political philosophers in the history of the world, bar none, are sneeringly dismissed as “racists”.
Government education and government welfare is the problem. Once you accept it, you are bound by it.
Anecdotal cases notwithstanding, it matters little your race regarding literacy rate and prosperity. What matters is your acceptance of gov’t programming.
The Asian race does not accept gov’t education and welfare. They despise it because it does not result in skill and freedom. The Asians follow the Torah command of education. It is the duty of the parents.
Our government now offers education/slavery to all. But it is good to know that the problem is environmental and universal.
The problem is competence. Want it. Pay for it with hard work. Yes, the school makes alot of difference. Good teachers, good books, and a good structure makes a lot of difference.
But hard work makes even more of a difference. Hence the difference between Barack Obama
and Clarence Thomas. Read an opinion of Clarence Thomas and compare that clarity and ability to think and write against Obama. I offer an example of each. Problem is, with Obama, there’s really no text. What you get is what other people have written. I could have offered the “apes” poem but after that the actual text of Obama gets very thin.
Wow!
Clarence Thomas:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html
Obama’s supporter, the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18memoirs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
There are two battles: politics and education. The two work as a feedback loop, which is fortunate for us.
Don’t get mad. Get freedom.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/10/11/Cruz-America-Only-Has-A-Couple-Years-To-Turn-Around-Before-We-Go-Off-The-Cliff-To-Oblivion
Rah, Tea Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USgoEGsXRNA
The Great One.
Given this “throw the bums out” mindset that is developing, there is a provocative article this morning at American Thinker by Fisher Adams.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/john_boehner_conservative_hero.html
I am reminded of Henry Kissinger’s comment about foreign affairs: he said that there are always two chess games being played, the one on the table that everyone watches and a second game under the table that no one sees. Could that be the case here? Is John Boehner taking advantage of being underestimated? This, of course, would create the paradox of making him much more sophisticated than he actually lets on.
Not another like her. I do love her so much. That sideways smile and combat spirit. She’s the bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WMahJK4y70
T, did you ever have the experience of letting a girl go, and she let loose on you with a torrent of feeling and passion.
Even that aint Boner.
Boner’s the prom queen in slasher movies.
But he’s our prom queen, damn it, and he’s who we are.
Hopefully, the slasher gets burned in a fire or knocked down in a hail of bullets.
Get it. Get it.
Can’t say it cause the FBI or IRS or NSA will be at my door, but we’ll hide it in metaphor.
(Did very much appreciate your comment, Parker. Loved it. I try not to be weird, which is all of our duty, but we all of us are weird in our own way.)
There will be in
the poor fire
Mrs. Jarret’s horror
Tea party mire
I have to apologize. I’m so stuck with four syllables.
To streamline what I said before and make it fit the historical narrative better:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/361045/battle-tours-raymond-ibrahim/page/0/2?splash=
Warriors and soldiers were present in Gaul at the time of the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire. A lot of them used the heavy pike formation refined by the Switz, with a combination of heavy Roman legion armor to supplement the nobility and upper class. This was a nobility based on old tribal and village social spheres, not what would later become known as Medieval European nobility.
A knight was granted a title of authority/land/money from the nobility, usually a feudal lord though not necessarily a king, in return for services rendered. Many of them, though, were already conducting themselves as warriors, carving up a name for themselves, and beating back the barbarians: in this case, Islamic slave raiders.
So for those families that were not socially high or a noble or a relative of the ruling class, they could move upwards socially by demonstrating martial valor and accomplishments. What was important about knights and knight errants weren’t who granted them the title of land and nobility, whether a king or some dark age feudal lord first amongst equals, but that they were generating security against the Islamic hordes and the barbarians.
Those that wanted a stable job and land, sought out land and upper social movement. Those anti authoritarian knights would often go on warrior journeys and pilgrimages, finding a cause or leader worthy of their sword. Whether it is ancient China or Japan’s Miyamoto Musashi / ronins, the pattern repeats itself through human history.
Why this is relevant to modern society in the US should be obvious. Given corrupt police, corrupt government, and so forth, who exactly is going to defend the heartland, the village that holds your children, or the school block from predators both in and outside America, both in and outside the government, both Islamic and non Islamic?
It’s not going to be the military. It’s not going to be the police. it’s not going to be your Democrat Obamacan neighbors. It’s not going to be your park service or IRS or SWAT teams or ATF or FBI drug busters.
So who is it going to be? There is a limit to what one person can accomplish by themselves in defending their land or family.
Pundit blogs like this one are part of the new media landscape that’s responsible for the divided country.
This week the Democrats simultaneously gave the appearance of trying to negotiate while their lackeys in ABCNNBCBS unanimously predicted total doom for the Republicans based on a trumped-up NBC poll – a poll that consisted of 800 people, 43%(D) / 32%(R), and 20% govt workers (the workforce is 8% govt workers).
I think public opinion on who’s to blame for the shutdown is turning against the Democrats–and their internal polling shows it–so they’re trying to pressure Republicans to fold before it gets so bad the T-P media can no longer contain in.
Doug–More like, pundit blogs like these facilitate a wider range and broader spread of information and opinion and, thus, a more informed and enlightened public; dissent where necessary, rather than an increasingly ill-informed, highly propagandized public, being deliberately driven toward monolithic views and opinions.
“Pundit blogs like this one are part of the new media landscape that’s responsible for the divided country.”
How dare us for forming our own opinions. Fuck unanimity, fuck consensus and fuck the “elites.”
You tell them WD, and if you ever need a cabin in the Cascades, after you do whatever, let me know.
The stars replace the Internet.
There’s code in these words!
Those Democrats that attempt to subvert diversity will be visited by an officially sanctioned agent of Federal Government.
Wolla, readers have to seek out diversity online, and we know from the last election and the right wing echo chamber that they don’t. Don’t kid yourself. This blog is a mother’s den for people who need to suckle at the teet of familiar values.
@ Doug,
Zero content on your assertions, and nothing but ad hominem.
Lots of liberal buzzwords – which reveal your ignorance more than anything. “Diversity”? By that you mean? Of course, prior to that you were criticizing division. That shows you don’t know what you are saying you just don’t like political views other than the ones you are fed and trained to parrot.
“Right Wing” – I doubt you could define it and if you tried I am sure you would embarrass yourself. Another meaningless buzzword you have been fed.
Say something. It might be interesting if you thought of it all on your own.
Doug,
Do you understand that by appearing on this blog, the IRS and Eric Holder’s ATF already have your name listed for investigation as an enemy of Obama?
You must have a lot of nerve attempting to talk to people you aren’t authorized to talk to. Who let you out of the cave anyways?
You think you’ll just be allowed to go anywhere you want, dog of Obama?
Doug:
And trolls such as yourself are the soul of bipartisan reasonableness.
You’d be funny if you weren’t so sad. Coming here for the very first time as a commenter and writing, almost certainly without reading very much of what I’ve written, “Pundit blogs like this one are part of the new media landscape that’s responsible for the divided country,” as your maiden comment here.
That is actually true of quite a few blogs on left and right, especially the ones where the blogger deals in over-the-top rhetoric and plays fast and loose with the facts. I have never done either thing. That’s compared to the vast majority of political bloggers on both sides, many of whose modus operandi is to stir up as much hatred and divisiveness as possible.
Your second comment is “readers have to seek out diversity online, and we know from the last election and the right wing echo chamber that they don’t. Don’t kid yourself. This blog is a mother’s den for people who need to suckle at the teet of familiar values.” And of course readers on the left are not an echo chamber, and don’t use blogs to “suckle at the teet of familiar values?” But somehow you, champion of political diversity and open-mindedness, fail to mention them. Don’t make me laugh.
By the way, well-meaning, polite, non-troll commenters from the left have often found a home here.
What you see depends on where you stand.
Taking the idea that “the country is divided as never before” as being true, there are very good reasons for this to be so.
Generally speaking–as on all other issues–there is a spectrum of opinion on the role of government, from opinions on the Left/Liberal/Progressive/Communist end of the political spectrum that see government as the “caring,” benign solution to virtually all of our problems and which favors more and more government control, intervention, constraint of the individual, and “equality of result, ” to opinions on the Right/Conservative side which see government as an impediment and often a threat to individual liberty and freedom, to “equality of opportunity,” and to individual advancement, and favors the least amount of government necessary, with variations of these polar opposites shading toward the middle and connecting the two polar opposites.
Although a lot of commenters here don’t see it that way, and greatly simplifying things for the sake of argument, I see these views of the Left and Right about the role and functions of government as based on their views of the fundamental nature of human beings.
The theoreticians of the Left generally see man as basically “good” and largely without any real “agency,” and as the “victim” of impersonal economic and social forces that often lead to bad behavior, and rather than focusing on the individual like to focus on the “collective,” on “the masses,” seeing government as the agency that will “level the playing field,” and provide all those things that are “rightfully theirs” but that the masses cannot attain through their own efforts in a society that is stacked against them, and in order to get to this Utopia, those on the Left want us to give power to an enlightened leadership cadre uniquely qualified and able to lead us there.
Those on the Right, basically adopt a Christian moral perspective, see man as a “fallen creature”–one often likely to get into trouble if left to his own devices–and to look to and focus on the unique “individual,” who they see as having the power to alter his or her supposed “fate,” and as being responsible for their own actions, position, consequences, and advancement in life. They want to craft a government that allows for the maxim amount of freedom for the individual, while being able to curb man’s innate tendency to stray from the path, to do bad, in order to create as free, stable, and relatively crime free society as possible. They are not so big on giving power to some largely infallible “leadership cadre.”
From everything I have read, and based on their usually deep, informed, and educated view of history–particularly the ancient political and governmental histories of Greece and Rome–their familiarity with and deep knowledge of political philosophy, their practical, experience-based view of human nature, their awareness of the frequency of tyranny and despotism down throughout history, and their contemporary experience with the English monarchy and its heavy hand, our Founding Fathers did not trust government, wanted it hobbled and fenced about with all sorts of precautions to keep it contained, because they believed that all governments, and especially democratic governments, had an inevitable tendency to devolve into tyranny. Thus, our Constitution with its three co-equal branches of government and its system of checks and balances. The majority of our Founding Fathers were on the Right/Conservative side of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, in the centuries since our Founding–and particularly since the Great Depression–we have increasingly lost contact with the knowledge base that informed and enlightened our Founding Fathers, their viewpoint, philosophy of government, and their view of human nature, so much so that we are now far down the road to the Left’s idea of an all-powerful government, to some collectivist variant of Socialism/Communism as the answer to all of our problems, as the bringer of Utopia.
And since these polar opposites are eternally irreconcilable, that is why we may well be “divided as never before.”
Doug,
And you can’t spell either. It’s “teat” not “teet.” Better to be thought a fool than to mis-spell your rant and remove all doubt.
Actually folks, this is, for good or ill, my go-to-site to eavesdrop on conservative community conversation, for what must be almost ten years now, at least once a week. I’ve posted under many names.
Here’s the approach to politics I expected to see Neoneocon take, eventually, when I first encountered her blog:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/deroche_shared_values_are_how_to_structurally_change_washington-223350-1.html?pg=2
So I’m disappointed in her. The cultural dialogue in the States needs its leaders to grow up, and Neoneocon’s one of them. We’ve had this conversation.
Just watch Democracy Now once a week, please. Find some common ground before you retire.
Sorry, Doug, that you’re disappointed. I am disappointed in you, and in the myriads like you. I am not going to compromise, to reach out, to the communitarian, the self-worshipping “Democrat”, and those others who favor group force over individual responsibility, those who choose, define and refine “rights” for and over others.
A thought for you: all who hold they as a group have rights to the money/ property of others live a lie; in their personal lives, they are all ardent capitalists.
I won’t be crossing over a bridge to meet you halfway, because you’ll stay on the other bank, imploring me to cross just a little bit more and more and more and….I don’t give a fig for your ‘common ground’, which is akin to having just a bit of dogturd on my otherwise clean shoe. For ‘common ground’ you need to start by wiping some of that off your own shoe.
Actually, Doug, if you’ve been here for years and commented “at least once a week” under “many names,” then you’ve commented under many email addresses and many IP numbers as well.
Because this thread is the first time anyone with your email address OR your IP number has ever commented here.
How’s it going in your country, by the way?
Obviously Doug’s already on the run from Eric Holder’s wolves.
How’s the fugitive life, D.
They ever give you an authorization to leave your cave, instead of all these AWOls you are pulling…
It’s Thanksgiving weekend in Canada and I’m visiting family in Ottawa.
I last posted as Altemeyer.
Doug,
And we should care why, exactly?
I comment once in a blue moon, Neo, I visit once a week. Except for the phases where I drift out of American politics altogether.
The bridge metaphor applies to compromise, not collaborating on projects of mutual interests. Finding shared values is the way towards civil society.
Doug,
False premise. First of all, “shared values” does not mean agreement on tactics to reach them. This feminized, beta male “everybody cooperates, we all get along” premise is not what democracy is about.
Our country was born of an us vs them (revolutionaries vs the crown) adversarial relationship. Compromise was required not because of agreement upon values or tactics, but because side A was willing to give something up and side B was willing to give something up. Perhaps the most obvious result of this was the 3/5ths rule in the constitution. It wasn’t that both sides agreed that black slaves were worth 3/5th of a white person. The Northern states wanted to diminish slavery, thus they didn’t want black slaves to count as population at all. The Southern states wanted to enhance the effects of slavery and wanted black slaves to count as full persons. They each agreed to relinquish something toward some middle ground. I repeat they did NOT agree that black slaves were worth less than whites.
Like it or not, the reality is that democracy is adversarial and contentious, and reality always wins. But then, again, as a Canadian still somewhat linked to the very crown that Americans fought against, you come from a differing perception.
Doug:
Well, if true (and I believe you are telling the truth), that would explain the strange IP number, although it doesn’t explain the never-before-seen email address. Why change your email address? When you post under a different name, email address, and IP number, it certainly appears that you are a never-before-seen commenter here.
You do seem to be Canadian in both manifestations, though :-).
Happy Thanksgiving. I guess the harvest comes earlier in Canada. Brrrr!
Doug: “The bridge metaphor applies to compromise.” What I said. I said nothing about the “collaboration” straw man with which you countered.
You might stop using your family’s computer and visit with the folks whom you are visiting.
And while you are busy being Canadian, tell those cheapies to develop some of their own pharmaceuticals instead of sucking on the US drug teat.
Because you’ve canned my home IP address.
After many persona here I’d settled on Altemeyer and figured he was civil and not likely to get the boot, but the last couple of posts from home were filtered.
Doug,
Exactly as I suspected.
So, you’re a banned troll, and you came back under another identity (I even can take a guess as to which troll you actually are).
I suppose under “Altemeyer” you managed to keep your true nature hidden, but you outed yourself as “Doug.”
Sweet.
Yes, that’s my unvarnished opinion after 10 years of reading your work. You’ve chosen to be a pundit, of all roles open to you as a blogger.
It’s not that you misrepresent the facts, you simply omit the current effective argument from the left from your narrative. Step 1 is perceiving it. My pattern of disappointment is that I come here for a response to an effective argument on the left and I don’t find it. My only conclusions are that you’re not attending to left-wing media or you’re choosing not to engage. There is never an analysis of common ground. The seed couldn’t take in the soil here.
Doug:
I have no idea where you got the idea that my role as a blogger should be to present arguments from the left and refute them one by one. I certainly still do that on occasion, particularly when I am analyzing a piece by someone on the left. But unfortunately, most of the arguments the left offers now are invective and ad hominem attacks, and many of the rest are things I’ve discussed over and over already and have no wish to revisit. MANY.
I see my task as a blogger as attempting as best I can to be fair, truthful, and engage in discussion of things that currently interest me. Sometimes I take up a topic I’m not quite as interested in just because it’s very current and I want to give readers a forum for discussing it on the blog. And sometimes, of course, my posts have nothing to do with politics, but concern things in the arts or sciences or life that happen to grab my interest and about which find I have something I want to say.
One more thing: if you were banned here in the past, obviously your pose of politeness at the moment is just that, a pose and a deception. Why would I think you’ve had a more basic change of heart?
Hahaha.
So Doug, Obama never gave you authorization to operate here did they.
Get back in the house before he sends a drone missile your way.
Doug has to vent his anger here or else he’ll start knocking around the kids and women over at his sphere of happiness in X-unspecific location.
The Left likes to redistribute things like happiness and tranquility. If you have it and they don’t, they take it from you and give it to themselves.
For some odd years, this “creature” has been preying on humans, yet the “human world” continues to tolerate their existence.
And now you begin to see what tends to happen to humanity when this is “tolerated” by the powers that be, grown by that powers that will be, and sheltered by the evil sociopaths of the Left.
Just most, eh?
I’m talking about finding shared values. It’s how the two solitudes in Canada learned to get along.
I was careful to keep a civil tongue while playing Altemeyer.
Doug:
So, you were careful to keep a civil tongue while “playing” Altemeyer.
I bet it was quite the effort, if you are who I think you are. I wouldn’t want you to have to struggle so to contain yourself here.
I repeat that if you were banned as a troll in the past: “obviously your pose of politeness at the moment is just that, a pose and a deception. Why would I think you’ve had a more basic change of heart?”
As “Altemeyer” you had a grand total of 24 comments. Here was my response to one of them:
So, I identified you as a troll even as “Altemeyer,” just a more subtle kind of troll. And you were clearly a troll as “Doug” as well.
Leftists are wolves in the form of humans, sent out amongst us as rogue agents and terrorists to wreck havoc and prepare us for the coming of the Leftist Utopia.
Know this and know this well, for they are not normal humans.
If memory serves, that was during a frustrating conversation about your social responsibility as a blogger. You shrugged off any responsibility while simultaneously writing off the entire field of social science, populated by individuals who reach a much smaller audience but take the social responsibility seriously.
Look, Altemeyer’s as good as it gets from me. In that persona I pushed you to be a better blogger.
As for Doug, that only strikes you as trollish because it’s aimed at you. It pales in comparison to the abuse dished out to the left-wing readers who pipe up in here, before Richard Aubrey or another heavyweight finally chases them out with what’s best described as sneering contempt.
As I’m heading home to a banned IP, I’ll leave it with this. You write well, but you’re not doing your readers any favours by ignoring the common ground and by aping the media circus in your country. You could be writing better stuff.
Doug:
Aha, now I see what sort of troll you are in your Altemeyer and Doug manifestations: a concern troll.
You just want to be oh-so-helpful. And there’s that bridge in Brooklyn….
No, I just want a better read.
Doug:
Well, then, the web’s a big place. Go wherever you’d like for better reads.
Recently I have been banging the drum that the fundamental premise of any leftist argument on any subject is to prove their “moral and cultural superiority” over anyone who disagrees with their plantation view.
In evidence, I offer—Doug:
(sarc) Gee whiz, Neo, can’t you see? Just capitulate and you’d be such a better blogress with such a more germane site. Who knows, you might even get linked by HuffPo, Salon or The Daily Beast which would be so much better than being linked by Instapundit or Legal Insurrection. If I were you, I’d shoot for the 8:00 PM slot on MSNBC. Just think of what capitulation would do for your credibility. (/sarc)
Think Titanic/iceberg!
Now pardon me while I go back to my mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging exercises.
T:
That’s why I referred to “Doug” as a concern troll.
“I’m only doing it for your own good.” That from a troll who was banned here already for being abusive and has come back again and again. Ah yes, he just wants to be helpful. That’s probably all he’s ever wanted: our self-improvement.