I started to deleted this then I figured, I’d deny so many people a laugh. From “Jeff” in our comments section:
Hey Julie, you are a terrorist. Our devil leader has stolen that term and remade its newspeak definition to now be anyone who might stand in the way of his grand plan to eliminate all life on Earth. The greatest terrorist of all time. His current body count is on par with the tsunami’s, but he’s got all the short future of humanity to beat that. You are just another of his brainwashed storm trooper cheerleaders. I hope you enjoy the fruits you will reap. Thanks for helping to sow the end of us all. I’ll see you in hell.
This is why they keep losing elections. Forget the fact they don’t really give a shit about their common man… A large hunk of the left is just insane.
George Bush has a master plan to eliminate all life on earth? Then how will Halliburton make any money?
Ah Paul, that’s just the extreme nut-job. The moderate Liberals are like Bill K, more conservative than they realize.
Actually, Jeff, I’m a registered democrat.
signed — julie, the Devil’s Handmaiden
Where do we pick up our brainwashed-storm trooper-cheerleader uniforms?
Damnit, I want to be a Handmaiden too!
George Bush has a master plan to eliminate all life on earth? Then how will Halliburton make any money?
Answer: According to these guys, the fewer people there are on Earth, the more money there will be for the rest of us!
(Via Best of Web Today)
more humor:
you wrote that “a large hunk of the left is just insane.”
meanwhile, the left considers a “large hunk” of the right to be insane.
i know people on the left and right who feel that way, but personally i dont think any of them are insane. i think they just cant stand each other, and refuse to listen to each other.
its funny in a way, but depressing as well.
americans are wondering why its so hard solving foreign policy issues abroad…yet we cant even have civil debate amongst ourselves.
I don’t know what to think of BillK.
You know that old Churchill quote about being liberal when you are young and conservative when you are old?
I continually get the feeling Bill is about 28 on Churchill’s timeline.
He wants to a liberal (and more importantly claim he is liberal) but his brain is winning.
In the end though, I think his brain will win…. The rest of them, I’m not so sure.
mom: I declare the uniforms will be pink.
Gennie: Sure. Come on over to the dark side. 🙂
cb: Excellent recruiting tool. Thanks!
Paul: I was saving it as a surprise, but, yes, George and I have devised a master plan to eliminate all life on earth.
meanwhile, the left considers a “large hunk” of the right to be insane.
SEE! That proves they are insane…. LOL
You know… being partisans and all is just fine and dandy… I don’t mind people not listening to me… But read what this guy wrote. (read it twice, slowly)
If he really believes that, it scares the hell out of me that he can vote, drive and procreate.
(forget silly name calling for a second…) If the this guy really believes the President of the United States has a master plan to destroy all life on earth, it is a mental heath issue.
Put it in another venue-
Let’s say this guy made that speech in the lunch room at work.
If a co-worker called the secret service, they’d come knock on his door. It’s on the internet so it will never get that level of consideration but if you stop and think about it, it’s a scary thing. Especially when you consider the quantity of people who “think” like him.
Paul,
Sometimes stupidity is stupidity regardless of any partisan lines. Jeff falls into that bucket with his statement.
As for my personal party lines, unless the nation, as a whole, drastically shifts left over the next 80 years (it will shift left somewhat…it always does), I am going to die on the left side of the political spectrum. Even without the social issues that get played like cards by both sides of the aisle, I am forever going to be a liberal leaning gentleman in regards to economics. John Rawls will forever remind me of that.
On a bit of a side note, I do enjoy the civil discourse we have in these comments. Though the following back and forth from the West Wing probably is the most accurate way to describe my relationship with, well, all of your other contributors, I think the ability to have the discussion is what makes this country so great; as trite as it is to say it.
The Prez: We agree on nothing, Max.
Lobell: Yes, sir.
The Prez: Education, guns, drugs, school prayer, gays, defense spending, taxes. You name it, we disagree.
Lobell: You know why?
The Prez: ‘Cause I’m a lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead, communist.
Lobell: Yes, sir. And I’m a gun-toting, redneck, son of a bitch.
The Prez: Yes, you are.
Jeff wrote: I’ll see you in hell.
I hope he plans to get a table and have some drinks while he’s waiting– Julie might stand him up.
paul:
i dont think he’s the best representative sample of the “left.”
i read what he wrote, and its full of exaggeration and inaccuracy.
do you really think that a large part of the country thinks that way? i know alot of people severely disagree with bush, but i doubt they really believe that he is trying to eliminate all life on earth.
the truth is that the guy has put forth an argument that isnt credible. bad argument. probably looking to get reactions as opposed to discuss anything.
Bill K. Of all the moonbats and trolls here, you ARE a fresh voice in the midst. I must give you props for being one of the more well-spoken and less-ranty liberals here. I enjoy reading your discourses with Paul as much as I enjoy disagreeing with most of what you type.
I do enjoy a good debate, as long as neither party gets angry and starts name-calling.
That’s the greatest part of our lifestyle/country. Each person can agree to disagree….as long as they can agree to it. What I don’t like is when nut-jobs decide that if you disagree with them, then you must be insane and should be removed from the gene pool (or something similar).
i read what he wrote, and its full of exaggeration and inaccuracy.
Sez who?
_Sez who?_
i didnt say anything.
lol
I am forever going to be a liberal leaning gentleman in regards to economics
HA! It is on economics that your brain will have the shortest trip to the right side! We’re half way there!
It’s funny that you mention Rawls, I love his music, Tobacco Road, South Side Blues… OH not Lou Rawls you said John Rawls…
Rawls epitomized the no-nothing academic. — AND I actually don’t exactly mean that as a pejorative. I mean it is fine to sit in your leather chair at Yale (or was he a Harvard man?) and pontificate about how the world should work for all of mankind.
What is lost in that, is this little thing called real world experience.
Would you fly with a pilot who read a book on flying but had never been in a plane? Or go to a surgeon who read a bunch of medial texts but had never even cut open a cadaver?
Rawls and many of his ilk, have never run a business… Tell ya what… Mortgage your home, open a business, hire 3-4 employees who you are responsible for feeding the families’ of and talk to me about economic “justice.”
It is FINE to discuss things in a hypothetical, but…. wait… I’m going to make this a post… Stand by for maybe 24 hours. (sorry, but I got a flash of inspiration)
r.a. asked: do you really think that a large part of the country thinks that way?
Paul answers: YES
On behalf of all Jeffs everywhere … this guy is officially out of the club.
How does one get from citing a laughably stupid comment to (serious?) conclusions such as:
“This is why they keep losing elections.”
–Who are “they”? 50 million Democrats?
“Forget the fact they don’t really give a shit about their common man…”
— Once again, “they”?! I presume you mean the untold legions who take orders from Commandante Jeffy?
“A large hunk of the left is just insane.”
–Jeff represents a “large hunk” of the left? Wow. That is an interesting belief you have there.
In light of your commentary, Paul, how about reviewing the sane, compassionate and undeleted comments following this recent post at your site. (I’m referring to the wizards asking “Can’t they swim?”…etc)
link!
What general conclusions should one make from those stupidities? The plain answer is: None, if you have a modicum of analytical rigor…
harldy an even survey of the population of this country paul. anyone can go around on the internet and find psychotic weblogs and post them as evidence of how crazy the “other” side is.
in that line of thinking all conservatives could be judged based on the likes of ann coulter perhaps, and i dont think that would be valid at all.
i think there are alot of misinformed people on both sides who fly off the handle way too often.
Ahem
r.a. I have 2 words for you HOWARD DEAN
nuff said
paul:
i suppose you feel that you just made a very decisive statement.
so what does that mean to you when you write howard dean with no explanation? because it doesnt mean anything to me at all.
that would be like me writing the words DICK CHENEY and saying nothing after that, and acting like that proves some major point.
im saying that most people dont think the way that “jeff” does, and for some reason you keep sticking to some vague idea that half of the country is insane…conveniently, not your half of course.
look, i have friends who are liberals and they start in with all of that shit about conservos being stupid and i have to correct them. i have conservo friends who say the same things you are saying about liberals, in the same manner, but its all a bunch of generalizations.
a large chunk of the country may not like geoge bush, but that doesnt mean that they subscribe to ideas like “jeff”. that would be like considering all conservatives to be christian fundamentalists, which happens, and is false as well.
In light of your commentary, Paul, how about reviewing the sane, compassionate and undeleted comments following this recent post at your site. (I’m referring to the wizards asking “Can’t they swim?”…etc)
YIKES! Well, first, I was VERY VERY busy that day and I must confess I did not read the comments. Kev and I do our best to read every comment and delete the goofballs.
Had I seen most of those idiots… (and BTW most of the folks I skim read just now didn’t even seem to have a political party they were just idiots) had I noticed the posts, I would have, deleted, and blacklisted IP’s.
I *should* do it tonight but I’m beat, rest assured I’ll dig thru that nonsense in the morning… I might just close the whole thread and make it simple.
In the future, if you see idiocy like that in the comments, email Kevin or myself and we’ll jump all over it.
BUT (there’s always a but) the first guy I probably would have left anyway.
Either it was a joke (admittedly a poor one) or a genuine question… From *some* of the video it does not *look* as serious as it was. The guy might have been asking a genuine question… SOME of those waves I could have swum thru. – We try to give people a lot of room in comments.
I’ll dig thru it in the AM
But on the rest of your points.
————————————————–
You asked: Who are “they”? [who lose elections] 50 million Democrats?
Well, Yes.
Howard Dean was a mad man. If you read conservative blogs, most predicted he would implode months before he did. (search wizbang: howard dean implode, I did.)
Yet a LARGE hunk of the Democratic party backed him and a large (insane) number of Dems are STILL pushing for him to head the DNC. EVEN AFTER he melted down on live television.
Millions of Dems believe Bush lied about WMD but they ALSO believe that when Clinton said the exact same thing he was telling the truth. (that’s insane)
Millions of Dems believe Gore won Florida… Hell millions of Dems believe Kerry won Ohio!
This single post from Jeff does not, in and of itself, prove my point… It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.
…A large hunk of the Dem party believes things that are demonstrably not true. That is a major reason you are losing voters.
You don’t have to believe me– heck I hope you don’t… I want you guys clueless.
But you guys keep losing for some reason.
r. a. read my next post… (1:02AM) I typed the long version…
and for some reason you keep sticking to some vague idea that half of the country is insane…conveniently, not your half of course.
NO NO NO NO NO… There are MANY sane democrats… but there are MANY insane ones too… and those are the ones bringing the party down.
P
Look, I’m sure there are whack jobs on the right… But MAN the “Kook -to- Not Kook” ratio on the left is mighty freaking high.
Hmmm, Dow back to almost 11,000. 2M new jobs in 2004. No terrorist attacks in US since 9-11. Record home ownership.
I hope you will enjoy the fruits you will reap.
Oh, the misery. Please end it all now. Jeff is so right. The pain of prosperity. I am almost completely weened off the tit of the government. I better go get on welfare and medicaid quick or life as we know it will end.
Paul, I don’t know really what you were getting at with Rawls, but the Veil of Ignorance is a pretty good concept to live by in regards to the economy.
Though, I wouldn’t fly with him…
WEll, for what it’s worth, here is one American voter who left the Democratic Party because I was appalled by the high occurence of very, very nutty people. I really couldn’t stand them as peers, could not identify, could not believe about ninety-nine percent of what I heard and read from them, and, last but most importantaly, because of the massive amount of negativity from one hundred percent of Demcorats about me as a Catholic, about Christianity, and about anything that didn’t support and endorse and “sympathize” with “gay marriage.”
The DNC today is cowtowing to a minority in it’s midst who make the most noise and corral the highest media presence. Sadly, they drive away other Americans who are moderate, live moderately, value faith and their religious beliefs and more. And seeing Gore explode after the election he lost was just proof that he’d been holding it all in for far too long and God forbid had we ever elected the man to the Presidency — same goes for Dean.
Now Nancy Pelosi is appearing on the horizon as the latest foolhardy Democrat insulting doing her best to wage war against America.
Democrats lose voters and good faith beliefs by voters because of how Democrats behave and what it is that they want and how they go about trying to manipulate humanity to form around their desires.
So, in the end, Democrats resort to name calling (actually, in my experience, they resort to name calling in about two comment boxes downward), sending hate email, trolling sites and site authors they “don’t like” and just conclusively representing to others that they are all suffering some emotional and/or psychological aberrance, or, reason quite faultily that to harass and intimidate is the way to get what you want. Either way, not the way to live your life, to encourage others to do similar.
The increase in the volume of the hate-fest by liberals worldwide and Democrats in the U.S. is a really good indication that they are, indeed, irrational.
But, be that as it may, conservativism offers far more to everyone. The latest “anti corporatism” thing that the left is now focusing on (oh, yeah, and the “f’ing Yanks” stuff) is crazy, paranoid, and explains the “Jeff” (now excluded from the Jeff’s of the World Club, ha) mentality. Poor guy, poor nutty, isolated, lonely and fomenting Jeff.
S, I think you are naive if you don’t believe that there are Republicans that do the same thing. And, by generalizing like you are right now, you aren’t helping the cause at all.
Hmmm “his grand plan to eliminate all life on Earth” … it must have been that photo of Bush in a “What Would Cthulhu Do?” t-shirt.
But why all the grand planning? Can’t he just get his Rumsfeld and Rice minions to co-sign nuking Russia, China & France, thereby guaranteeing a massive nuclear exchange?
And Halliburton can get contracts for building bunkers for the white people to hide in! And and and ….
Ah, BillK, I should be used to you misquoting and misrepresenting me and what I write by now, but, alas, I am not.
Where on this thread have I written (or on any thread, anywhere, for that matter) that there “are (not) Republicans who do the same thing”?
But, in my experience of meeting and greeting and interacting with Republicans, I’ve yet to read/or hear anything that even remotely approaches the volume of emtional attack language — if you can call it that — that I’ve ever heard and read coming from liberals and Democrats.
Instead, all my conversations with Republicans, locally and from afar, are about issues, ideas, almost always about concrete realities, and realities all.
If you’d prefer, instead, a long list of links to threads, reiterated stories and quotes and such, that I regard as so offensive as to be alienating, coming from liberals, I am just not going to provide that to you, but I can write about my experiences and why I could not find the exit door quickly enough to leave the Democratic Party and based upon what. It’s personal experience, first hand testimony, something you accept because it’s my story.
I’m sure in the vast numbers that are American citizens, there are Republicans who behave similarly, but I haven’t encountered them in my travels. That’s what I’m saying. I far prefer Republicans as peers than I could ever tolerate from among Democrats, based upon life experience.
Also, the Republican Party and Republicans, all that I’ve known so far, have been tolerant of religious ideas and personal preferences, something that I find nearly if not completely absent among Demcorats.
But, it’s the gutter level nastiness from Democrats, again, based upon my life experience, that I find the most offputting. There’s nothing socially redeemable about it.
…that and the misrepresentations and emotional retorts that are not based in reality that almost always, to a ‘t’, originate from liberals/Democrats about issues that they will reliably push into emotionally negating territory about others when dogma is questioned.
Today’s liberals, worldwide and America’s Democrats have placed their concept of politics into religious ferver territory, have made ‘the state’ and/or ‘the nation’ and/or their ‘liberalism’ as a supplant to some other higher ideal, and it has become the idealism itself of liberalism. No surprise that there is such forceful and subjective a negative response to anyone else who holds other beliefs, thinks/reasons differently…
But, it is the birth in our world of real fanaticism and it’s among liberals. The biggest problem that is offputting to so many others is that there is no message or plan or intent behind that liberalism except that liberalism is to be accepted and participated in, endorsed, that people “belong” to liberalism, or else. The ‘or else’ part is the volume of negating that follows when the dogma is questioned or, worse, rejected as do most conservatives and Republicans.
Because, I hear/read no other message from liberals other than liberalism as the end-all. There are window dressings and cosmetics along the way but they appear to be mostly empty ruminations, more or less like sales pitches with no product offered.
You are still generalizing, and it does nothing to further any intelligent debate.
WEll, that’s your opinion, BillK.
I do have a high I.Q., however, so it’s established long ago that I’m intelligent and capable of “intelligent debate.” You must have missed it.
BillK:
Can YOU write something that does not rely on negating me or any other conservative here, on a personal level? I am curious. If you find me as an individual offensive or limited — as you express that you have and do — why go on about that? Seems like the less “intelligent” tactic, a waste of effort, an indication of a futility that bespeaks not a big brain capacity, but, rather, the opposite.
Other than that, you’re a stranger to me and I’d prefer to keep it that way, and hope that you grow out of whatever sense of entitlement to abuse you appear to presume to embody.
So… Dubya is really Evil the Cat?
“Get quart of milk, check. Punish henchrats-” *WHAP* “Ow! Thank you!” “-check. Return video rentals, check. Destroy Entire Universe…. hmmm.”
S, I am not saying I a more intelligent than you. I just don’t see the virtue of labeling at least 57 million Americans as crazy in one grand statement.
I am glad you have a high IQ though.
I would like you to know though, that by responding to my three sentence comments with sixteen paragraph/4 posts rants you don’t really help your, “it is the birth in our world of real fanaticism and it’s among liberals” cause. It doesn’t appear that my zeal is the one that needs taming.
See?! BillK, that’s it, right there! The liberal/Democrats’ ream of anyone who makes a point outside and/or other than the liberal dogma, with one of the very same denigrations that you try to apply to me, and just have: (1.) suggesting someone’s intelligence is impaired; (2.) criticizing someone’s writing style [too long, too short, too wordy, not spelled well, caps lock on, caps lock off, too many elipses, not enough elipses, etc.], both of which you have proven here and now.
AND, the ever growing count of Democrats is interesting. First, it’s fifty million. Now it’s “57 million” and next it’ll be the entire state of Washington and even the Netherlands!
About that, of course, I jest, but what you’ve written here proves quite well the earlier point I made, as to what is quite so offputting and offensive to me as an individual about liberals and liberal behavior.
I don’t know what percentage of human population in the United States that “57 million” equates with as to Democrats versus everyone else, but, numbers and voters change. It’s obvious by the recent voting trends that more and more voters leave the DNC grip and move over to voting as Republicans, at least for Republican candidates. As I did.
I also know many Democrats who remain registered as such but vote for Republicans, simply out of traditions of one sort or another, so that “57 million” may not be such a reliable reference within the context that you use it (^^) as you attempt to suggest.
Another thing: what I wrote isn’t at all within the realm of “zeal” but within the realm of “intellectual discussion,” but, again, you missed that. And here I thought that was the source of your upset with me, no “intellectual discussion.”
What the point I made earlier was and is again, based upon your ongoing derisions of me, and quite personal ones at that, is that liberals and Democrats attack on a personal, emotional level — which you just did in this very thread — while carrying on until the very scent on a thread or blog is so odorous as to drive anyone else away, proving the earlier Wizbang comments about public discourse.
You don’t know me, I don’t know you, so what the heck difference does it make to you as to how I write and what I write? Or what my intelligence quotient is? It doesn’t. None of that, to be blunt, is anyone else’s business or is the topic of the blog here nor of the thread here on that blog.
Why does a word count even matter? The answer to that is, it does not. It only matters when you have nothing else to contribute but just have to contribute to more bad atmosphere.
In fact, I just heard someone with a highly touted literary legacy and a Ph.D. from Yale on a network broadcast the other day, discussing liberalism within the very context I just offered. That you label as being (offensively, to you as you perceive that) “zeal.”
Please, explain what we might write here that both meets your standard of “intellectual discussion,” lacks “zeal” and is written in, say, twenty words or less, does not contain personal references to anyone on the thread or even this blog, avoids negative and/or pejorative labelling of and about Republicans, corporations, the United States, conservatives…
I’m curious what you have to offer.
(1) I never questioned your intelligence. Not once. I didn’t even come close to implying anything about your intelligence. So, keep your own insecurities to yourself – – don’t put them on me.
(2) The 57 million number was the number of people that voted for John Kerry two months ago. I think that is a pretty safe uncrazy number.
The zeal comment was in response to you stating that liberals are leading the march towards fanaticism.
Read my comments, S, and tell me where I pick on one person individually. Hell, tell me where I pick on Republicans in general (in this string of comments).
The only thing I have rejected is your grandiose generalization that all Democrats are insane malicious fanatics.
You are the one hurling statements. You are the one taking offense to things that aren’t said (directly against me not saying anything about your intelligence). If you want to have a discussion, that is fine. But, how about we do it without broad prejudice and flamboyant accusations?
Bill, for the record I never said 57 million americas were crazy. (I know you were talking to S but I’ll just state it for the record.)
Let me reiterate that the “kook to not kook” ratio in the left is VERY VERY high at this point in history….
And I don’t think you (in your heart of hearts) can deny that.
paul:
i think you are hooked on this very general idea, and i understand that it may be fun to keep saying it, but what does it really do?
you are speaking from your own perspective and labeling the “other” as a “kook.” i understand that you may think or believe that all liberals are weird because they have different ideas. but whats the use of calling them all stupid, or saying that a vast majority of them are stupid?
it does nothing, just further perpetuates the game. there are people all over the world who do things that seem strange to us here in the US. we could, based on that, label them as stupid, weird, insane, etc. or you could try to understand their ways of life, respect those ways, and go about your life.
you say that the “kook to non kook ratio” in the democratic party is “very very high at this point in history.” personally, i have a hard time taking that statement seriously. did you go out and take a poll? did you do an exhaustive survey of the entire country? where do you get this from?
i suspect that this is merely your opinion, which is fine, but just remember that opinions and reality arent always in agreement.
Oh, come on, now, BillK, I can hear your keys squeak, squeak, squeeeeaking from here.
You wrote that I was not contributing or aiding and abetting “intelligent debate.” That I was “generalizing” to some degree unexplained beyond that tag of yours, and that I was, therefore, not a part of or (just go read what you wrote, I really don’t care to reprint it) “intelligent debate.”
Ergo, you accuse me or intimate that I am excluded from “intelligent debate” (this thread, wherever, you didn’t specify), vis-a-vie I am excluded from some “intelligent” strata that YOU are aware of, therefore you can distinguish (“see”/perceive) who is “there” and who is not, who is involved in that “intelligent discussion” and who is not.
You just wandered over into pejoratives and personally snotty condescension and to and about me…because…why…you didn’t explain that. Just the randy tidbit that I’m handicapping “intelligent discussion.” By “generalities.”
So, yes, you made comment about my intelligence by yet another liberal tactic of discouse which is to suggest characteristics and then deny “saying” what you are later countered for having ‘said’.
The rest of your numbered points, you know, I’m not even reading at this point. I really do not see any point in reading them.
But, thanks for proving my earlier point in the discussion — I believe you continue to miss that point — and that is that the discourse by liberals is focused on liberalism and denigrating and personally attacking anyone who counters the dogma. You proliferate liberalism without cause, without substance, and can never, as in never, substantiate what it is you prefer and why without denigrating others and the liberties, freedoms of others.
I realize that you consider those references “zeal” but then again, what ideals does not liberalism consider as “zealous” — it allows liberals to dodge reconciling with the ideals, and values, of others, by simply flipping off the issues by calling them “zeal” and such, more negative labelling there, and those who hold those ideals as being “zealots,” while, in fact, THAT IN ITSELF DESCRIBES ACTUAL INTOLERANCE.
Liberalism is intolerance. You are intolerant and disdainful of the values and idealism of others. And, rather than self examine, you attack by denigrating, one at a time, anyone who you perceive as being counter, or other, than you.
It’s non productive behavior, it’s even destructive at it’s worst. There’s no point, nothing at all constructive, to and about your lobs here to and about me. It’s the language — yours — of resentment and dissolution: non productive, going nowhere, disenfranchising to others, insulting, even.
I never, ever wrote here, as you accuse me of having authored, that “all Democrats are insane liberal fanatics.”
I never wrote, here nor anywhere, that “Democrats are insane.”
Nor any permutation of that.
You’ve focused extraordinarily critically and it appears, hysterically, on what I’m writing and have written. Point is, why?
HOWEVER, I am not at all startled by your distortions here, given that you continue to exemplify what I originally wrote as being the psychological and emotional social environment that characterises most Democrats/liberals I ever comingled with at any and all times in my past, while working quite intently on trying to be a Democrat, to maintain as one and to find some common footing among Democrats upon which to associate.
What I experienced, and wrote earlier here about, is that I did not find that, experience that, but to the polar opposite, and what I experienced is very similar to how you continue to misquote, outrageously distort and emotionally denigrate me on a personal level about things I’ve never even thought, much less written or ever said. But, again, that is very typical for most I experienced among liberals.
I mentioned that “57 million” number earlier because even earlier than you mentioned it, it was declared that Democrats were “fifty million” in the U.S. I remarked how the numbers grew over the ensuing comments. And, I still question what part of the American voters that number represents (I don’t know, haven’t looked into it), but at this point about balloting, most of us on the conservative side are right to question the accuracy of who votes Democratic and why, based upon irregular balloting and particularly, voter registration.
Increasing numbers among new immigrants voting Republican…among Hispanics voting Republican…among Blacks voting Republican…I think it’s safe to say that the pool of “generalities” that the DNC relies upon for votes is shrinking and quickly.
Reason why? A lot of it has to do with the very things I expressed in my first comments here, this thread. You can reread it if you’re so motivated.
Paul,
The other day I pointed out that you are a lousy writer. I called special attention to your habit of using multiple question marks, presumably for emphasis. You took umbrage at this, and even tried to criticize my writing ability because I began a sentence with the word “and.”
I notice that you seem to have stopped using multiple question marks in your recent posts and comments. I can only attribute this to my tutelage. Good boy! You’re welcome.
And by the way, good writers–I’m one–can and do, from time to time, begin a sentence with the word “and.”
57 million is simply the number of people that voted for Kerry. I would assume most that voted for him were Democrats. I would also assume that there were some Democrats that didn’t vote. 57 million is a very very very safe and low number.
I never, ever wrote here, as you accuse me of having authored, that “all Democrats are insane liberal fanatics.”
I never wrote, here nor anywhere, that “Democrats are insane.”
I did probably exaggerate your claim a bit, but this is pretty much saying all Democrats are insane liberal fanatics:
“Today’s liberals, worldwide and America’s Democrats have placed their concept of politics into religious ferver territory, have made ‘the state’ and/or ‘the nation’ and/or their ‘liberalism’ as a supplant to some other higher ideal, and it has become the idealism itself of liberalism. No surprise that there is such forceful and subjective a negative response to anyone else who holds other beliefs, thinks/reasons differently…
But, it is the birth in our world of real fanaticism and it’s among liberals.”
As for the whole intelligence thing, I really wasn’t attacking your intelligence. You WERE generalizing and that ISN’T part of forward moving civil discourse. I don’t think that speaks to your intelligence at all, just to your comments specific to this post.
S wrote:
Liberalism is intolerance.
Please explain. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that all liberals are intolerant? Or am I taking that out of context?
sam are you still here??????
ra said:
you say that the “kook to non kook ratio” in the democratic party is “very very high at this point in history.” personally, i have a hard time taking that statement seriously. did you go out and take a poll? did you do an exhaustive survey of the entire country? where do you get this from?
Where did I get it from??? lemme requote myself….
———
Howard Dean was a mad man. If you read conservative blogs, most predicted he would implode months before he did. (search wizbang: howard dean implode, I did.)
Yet a LARGE hunk of the Democratic party backed him and a large (insane) number of Dems are STILL pushing for him to head the DNC. EVEN AFTER he melted down on live television.
Millions of Dems believe Bush lied about WMD but they ALSO believe that when Clinton said the exact same thing he was telling the truth. (that’s insane)
Millions of Dems believe Gore won Florida… Hell millions of Dems believe Kerry won Ohio! (these folks are, at best, delusional)
This single post from Jeff does not, in and of itself, prove my point… It is merely a perfect icon of what is wrong with the party and why the mainstream of America no longer votes for them.
…A large hunk of the Dem party believes things that are demonstrably not true. That is a major reason you are losing voters.
You don’t have to believe me– heck I hope you don’t… I want you guys clueless.
But you guys keep losing for some reason.
———
When you are faced with concrete examples to back-up my assertion you reply simply “you’re generalizing.”
OK fine! Go on with your life believing the above people to be sane and rational… We’ll just win more elections.
But I have to ask: Do you deny these people are nutz or do you deny they are Democrats?