On the Left, It’s Fake Sophisticates, Real Snobs
Conservatives regularly observing members of the political left will sometimes feel like zoologists. Our opponents are a craven and animated lot. All their antics, bizarre posturing, moronic moralizing, rage, and mindless dedication to avoiding rational argument call to mind the behaviors of a baboon troop in a Guinea forest.
Conversely, leftists pay no heed to conservatives. This is true both for our beliefs and the words we actually say. They prefer to deal with bogey men of their own construction.
Straw men are easier to set on fire than reality-based propositions. Our foes mischaracterize, accusing us of being mean, greedy, or slave to whatever -ism pops into their head on a Sunday morning. Logical fallacies are their preferred response and they continuously project their deficiencies upon us. Red herrings, straw men, and appeals to conformity abound. A variation of the latter — the “everybody knows” gambit — was recently analyzed here by Herbert London. Another sacred line of anti-reasoning is the “appeal to sophistication.”
The Democratic Party’s faux aura of refinement is an integral tool behind their attempts at indoctrination. This was evident with Sarah Palin, who quickly became their bête noire.
Palin’s positive traits — kindness, happiness, beauty, domestic tranquility, and gratefulness to God — infuriated them with the way she made their own emotionally chaotic, depressed, statist feminists rank in comparison. They depicted her as “ignorant, uneducated, a hick,” and a fool. Standard! The same slanders are applied to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck on a daily basis.
These tactics may or may not work with adults old enough to know better, but polling data suggests that they have succeeded wonderfully with the young (college students in particular).
Allen Ginsberg’s prediction — “We’ll get you through your children!” — was highly prescient. Your average sophomore and freshman at a university know very little about history, current events, political science, human nature, and economics — perfect clay for the Democratic Party to mold into drones.
Statist professors present the ignorati with Manichean interpretations of complex issues. They begin by denying that a political spectrum exists. Were they to do otherwise then conservatives rejecting a neo-socialist like Barack Obama would be non-remarkable. Yet as opposed to nuance (purportedly their thing), the kids only hear “it is people like us who are enlightened and who care” while those on the other side…do not.
Democrats make politics easy for neophytes. This is ideal for both parties. Quick and obvious solutions appeal to young adults who do have not the life experiences to fathom the billions of things they do not know.
Moronic slogans remove argumentative ground altogether. Members of the political left are described as the embodiment of Plato’s Guardians. Democrats are our society’s intelligent and thoughtful elite.
Their good is contrasted with the right’s evil. We are nothing but a ramshackle horde of obese tea baggers, haters, racists, and Neanderthals. A kid soon internalizes that only rubes listen to Republicans. After all, no conservative could pass a polygraph test if he maintained that youthful cadres are “the ones we’ve been waiting for!” No thanks.
Educated folks do not vote Republican, and it will surprise no one that your run-of-the-mill ethnic studies major regards himself as a very educated person indeed. Besides, nearly all of the fashionable people tilt left.
In just a couple of semesters, college students get equipped with all the knowledge they need to psychoanalyze the political right. Even less time is needed to glean that those who oppose the gay lobby are stricken with “homophobia.”
Conservative objections to the demands of gay activists are illogical and a product of finding them “icky.” Sadly, our criticism of policy changes amounts to “anti-gay hysteria.” Linguistic terms also predetermine later affiliation. Leftists are “progressive” which means that those who oppose them must hate progress.
Republicans are more likely to believe in God so leftist atheists are “brights” by default. Global warming? Two words: “it’s science.” Those of us who question it are stupid “flat-earthers.”
For yokels alarmed by the heavy-handed and spasmodic growth of the federocracy there is another term: “tenthers.” Think the Constitution is the highest law of the land? You are a sick individual displaying a pathological fetish.
This whole run-down was hilariously spot-on. I wish I could mentally/psychically deliver this website link to every Lefty @sshat I encounter but they’d probably go postal (being union and all).
The comments so far have been laudatory, but I found the article to be populist and lacking in analytical specificity. It is not enough to insult the opposition as they insult the Right. I tried to present an alternative here: http://clarespark.com/2009/12/16/perceptions-of-the-enemy-the-left-looks-at-the-right-and-vice-versa/. The liberals are simply conservative reformers trying to avert a revolution from below. They are not Platonic Guardians. Bernard Chapin should know better.
If the liberals are simply trying to avert “a revolution from below,” they would do well to abandon the never-ending class warfare rhetoric, which only serves to agitate the poor, set-upon lower classes. The activities of Community Organizer Obama organized the lower classes and urged & trained them to harass and extort from their oppressors.
Frances Fox Piven, of Cloward-Piven Strategy fame, recently hoped that America would experience uprisings like those in Greece. Sounds like a pro-revolution stance to me. If the goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands, as the Cloward-Piven Strategy recommends, the left seems to be leading that charge.
Perhaps the left really doesn’t want “a revolution from below.” Perhaps they will be happy if the American system merely collapses of its own weight so that they may bring their utopian vision to America–with themselves as leaders, of course. I wonder if the lower classes will indeed be better off, once The Rich have been destroyed in the manner prescribed by Saul Alinsky and described by Bernard Chapin. I wonder if Ms. Piven and Community Organizer Obama actually believe they will be. Or care.
Interesting points, Polly. “Class-Warfare” is definitely a Lefty tactic to move the unwashed, non-working, non-tax-paying masses of angry ‘citizenry’ to “action”. Chaos? Mayhem? The Left lives for that violence and thug crap as long as it’s only their side doing it (unions/new black panthers/anti-war protesters/etc.).
…but I found the article to be populist and lacking in analytical specificity. It is not enough to insult the opposition as they insult the Right.
Res ipsa loquitur. The article brilliantly lasered in the pychosis of the Left. Chapin didn’t merely insult them. He repeatedly used their own words and actions to indict them. The Left relies on group-think to a remarkable degree and the popular meme takes the place of facts and intellectual honesty.
(Yeah, but, she got her link advertised towards the top of the page, that’s what counts).
There is no such animal as “the Left”. You should know your opponents and differentiate among them, that is, if you want a better society and want to do that through elections. I gave out a glossary of “the Left” and showed its divisions into such as revolutionary socialists, left-wing social democrats, and right-wing social democrats. They have entirely different strategies and aims. Get to know my website. I am sympathetic to your frustrations, but not to your unwillingness to make crucial distinctions. You might also be interested in http://clarespark.com/2011/01/26/obama-and-the-rhetoric-of-the-political-family/.
Clare Spark,
Next you’re going to tell me that there’s no such thing as a “Democrat” but, instead there are different “versions” of Democrats:
Version 1.0 Democrat Lite
Version 2.0 Democrat Middle-O’-da road
Version 3.0 Democrat Heavy-duty-die-hard
Version 4.0 Democrat Alinksy-Progressive-Whackness
Version 5.0 Democrat Bat-sh*t full-on crazy
Version 6.0 Democrat Dead or Mickey Mouse
Of course not all Democrats are group-think morons…as with any other political party there are going to be some strays and outliers and folks who don’t always believe in everything a political party stands for in total.
wow – you are living in your own head in a Taxonomaniacal fantasy world. While you make a point by divvying the left into 21 flavors you eliminate the possibility of useful discussion (and in this case snarky generalization and psychoanalysis) . The forces that pull in one direction are the left and despite their varied goals and checked boxes of issues.
BTW, your kinda hot in a licentious librarian way. Is that a recent picture?
With all due respect, Madame, you haven’t suffered my Lefty relatives to understand how deep and hopeless my frustration runs when it comes to any kind of political debate. It’s always the same response when they have no reasonable argument, “lalalalala…I can’t heeeeeeeear youuuuu!” with their fingers in their ears.
Pfft. I give up.
I agree – it is frustrating to attempt to have a sane conversation with those who patently are not sane. Or who are just plain evil. As witness my attempts to get trolls like Dwight to answer the most basic of first-principles questions: “To whom does your life belong?” He pretends that he never heard it.
Or when he is caught in a blatant misreprsentation, such as conflating murder with self defense by invoking the 6th Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill.” This of course depends upon a translational error, as the original text explicitly enjoins againt murder and makes no provision against self-defense. Furthermore, American jurisprudence makes that distinction as well. There’s also a nasty logical trap waiting for those who choose to stand by the mistranslation, and that is with respect to abortion. At that point, the intellectually dishonest choose the death penalty as a matter of hypocrisy, once again dishonestly conflating the lives of innocents with those of mass murderers.
To persist in such a misrepresentation out ignorance is, well, ignorance, or as the late, great historian Barbara Tuchman so aptly put it – woodenheadedness. To persist in full knowledge of the deception is flat out evil.
But the answer to the first question – to whom does your life belong? – is the most important of all, for all else follows from that answer. This is kryptonite to statist Ubermensch wanna-bes, as they have no valid and no moral argument.
The unintended consequences of lefty circular-logic is truly mind-numbing, Ward.
I’ll never submit to the Left’s ‘version 2.0′ of having a legitimate ‘debate’ (why the Repubs fall for this trap-door time and time again is another frustration of mine). It’s just outright tomfoolery to play by their [Alinksy] ‘rules for rads’ and expect a civil, fair-minded, well-rounded, well-researched outcome with people who are professional “show-downers”.
On mother Jones, the Left are still playing the race-card about anything regarding 0bama’s birth-cert ‘situation’ for instance:
The Birther Plan To Block Obama’s Reelection
Nevermind that ‘abortion’ was a racist ‘progressive’ love-child ala Margaret Sanger to rid the USA of poor blacks and other poor minorities (put a “planned parenthood” on as many corners in low-income neighborhoods as possible). But, yeah, those “Progressives” ain’t raaaaaaaaaaaaacist!
Eugenics for thee but not for meeee! Lalalalalalala!
And, that “welfare state” thing. How’s that working out for minorities with high abortion/high std/high fatherless home rates etc.?
But, but, the progressives and the left just luuuuuuuuurve minorities (for their vote and that’s about it). But, the people who ‘vote for freebies’ shall remain eternal victims under the “leftist cause”, and, they will indeed remain that way until they stop listening to the idiocy and lies and poverty perpetuating promises of more “50 acres and a mule, food-stamps, free medical, free money etc.” and grow up and realize eventually you do run out of other people’s money and eventually you are going to be SOL.
With all due respect I think we only agreed to give them 40 acres and one mule but since we never actually followed through, I guess it doesn’t matter any more.
Well, why didn’t you say that was the question?
My life belongs to me, but the me is mediated by many other obligations as a father, grandfather, husband, English-speaking (and teaching) U. S. citizen, landowner, tax-payer, licensed driver, gun-owner etc.
Now where does that get us?
The trickle-down theory of self ownership?
Your recognition and commitment to your obligations to others is commendable, but why should these nullify self ownership?
I see no conflict between owning oneself and owning up to ones duties and concerns. In fact, I would say that one follows from the other, but you seem to be proposing a mechanism whereby such obligations stand outside the self, are alien to it, and act as a progressive series of filters from which a few precious drops of pure ‘me time’ eventually emerge (which can be devoted to trolling teh internetz, yes?).
In fact, those regimes that have made the greatest claims of ownership on the person are precisely the ones that have created the worst moral idiots, the most appalling acts of selfishness, rape, pillage and mass murder. Self ownership is no guarantee of moral goodness, but it is surely a prerequisite.
No Mam, i used many examples here and the analysis was excellent. Read the article more closely and improve yourself. Further, plugging your blog on this page is pathetic. Oh, you found the article too populist? Is that because you’re too sophisticated? lol.
Exactly, Mr. Chapin:
SPAM!
You criticize this as ‘populist’ as if popular opinion of anything is invalid. Its a criticism of the populace themselves that they their opinion is unworthy but what is it unworthy to? Your own? If that is the answer then that is egotistical. Is it unworthy to some standard created by an intellectual elity? That is probably what you meant.
Lacking in analytical specificity? When was the last time you read an article so heavily annotated, with the annotation directed *precisely* to that which it referred (while maintaining such a light-hearted tone as it lanced leftist boils of elitism)?
Are you saying it was populist because it was against snobbery? I can only assume that as the basis for such an unfounded comment. Pointing out imperial nudity does not a publican make, Miss. Please refer to the definition of populism, and you will find that it fits the subjects of this article much more than its author.
Isaiah Kalinowski
Alexandria, Virginia
probably should be ‘vin extraordinaire’ in the last paragraph.
for the rest: spot on, chapeau!
Probably not. What kind of sense would that make? Anyway, very well stated, Mr. chapin. I will be passing this on to more thoughtful a$$hats.
Remember, a liberal is a person so broad-minded that he or she cannot take their own side in a fight.
In all seriousness it’s not fair to compare Leftists to a baboon troop in Africa. Baboons are intelligent, cohesive, and compassionate with considerable parenting skills. They are capable of learning complex tasks and display adaptable behaviour. Their social hierarchies and organisation is complex and nuanced. They are incredible animals and resourceful to boot (read South African ethologist and journalist Eugene Marais’ ‘The soul of the ape’). I have personally observed these amazing animals in the wild in South Africa.
Leftists display none of the above mentioned admirable traits. Baboon behaviour is as nature and dare I say it God intended. Leftists not so much.
NEVER compare Leftists or jihadists for that matter to animals. Animals are intelligent and fill their ecological niches as nature intends. Animals also by definition have souls. As far as many Leftists go, I’m starting to wonder..
Good points
(for the record, as a function of lifelong experience, I would never trust any “leftist” to have my back when push comes to shove, i.e., to follow through and put into action their alleged “values”. They are, for the most part, destructive and negative personalities, attempting to compensate, through verbiage and self-righteous, fashionable “stands”, for God knows what character deficits.)
I have two stickers on my rear bumper for the off-chance that they will stimulate thought.
“White trash didn’t invent communism, socialism, consumerism or slavery. It took our betters to do that.”
“Liberals emote. (pale pink letters) Conservatives reason. (dark green letters)
“White trash didn’t invent communism, socialism, consumerism or slavery. It took our betters to do that” is brilliant. It so perfectly encapsulates Orwell’s notion of “common decency” that runs particularly strong in 1984. Bravo!
Well, the far left and liberals have tried to destroy the Tea Parties with their hatred and their insults. Did it work? Not at all. In fact, just the opposite happened. The Tea Parties helped engineer the biggest Democratic loss since around 1930, so I would say that all of the insults against people who disagreed with Obama’s socialist agenda have not worked that well. People are starting to wake up out there. Perhaps not in the liberal cities like New York and Los Angeles, but where it matters, like in the rest of the country. As long as we have people able to shine a spotlight on the far-left’s intolerance and hatred, we will win. So keep it up you far left loons. I’d like to win AGAIN in 2012.
Ann Coulter got it right. Liberalism is a brain defect.
To date there is no cure, but for some, its’ effects actually improve with age.
Of course there’s a cure. The problem is that it doesn’t work for everyone. The cure is “wisdom and perspective acquired with age”. But because not everyone actually acquires that wisdom and perspective as they age, we’re left with aging leftists who remain uncured.
Reasonable people in this world today find themselves in a battle for survival against the enemies of peace – not any longer against Marxist and Communist ideology and their protagonists, but nowadays against Islamic ideology and its non-Muslim mental dhimmis – the enlightened, educated, intellectual, intelligent, liberal and broad-minded (rather than open-minded) folk who are perpetually wise in their own eyes, even to the destruction of their own nations.
Africa has more than enough of them too.
From Africa.
Only problem with this is that “sophisticate,” by definition, is fake, thus the title “fake sophisticates” is redundant, like “real sterling,”
or “genuine gold.” Look it up, and then look up “sophist.” My premise would be that the progressives are sophisticated. Were they not, they’d be open to changing their thinking, given logical debate. Instead they practice the old addage, “My mind’s made up; don’t confuse me with the facts!”
Can anyone, other than God, come to anyone’s “emotional rescue?” Isn’t choosing to learn to think, as well as choosing to do so, rather than than reacting emotionally, a do-it-yourself process? Isn’t all learning do-it-yourself? Can any of us claim “to know” what someone else claims to know, without a thorough, logical, critical analysis of what is presented as “knowledge?” Isn’t that the problem, as Ayn Rand said decades ago: the left, in lieu of thought, prinicples, fundamentals, reasoning, examination of premises, chooses emotionally appealing to them “bromides?” Haven’t they lost the ability to discern the difference between “theory” and “axiom?” Don’t they appear to accept someone else’s conclusions (somehow) with a “There, I know that now; I need not examine that question ever again” smug satisfaction?
“Vanity, vanity, all is vanity,” Solomon said a very long time ago. Experience bears that out. The only solution is humility, with the ability to say “I don’t know,” and then search for truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth – with the humble acceptance of the fact that there is “nothing new under the sun,” nothing universally, timelessly, morally, worth knowing, that is. “Modern” is a point in each generation’s brief time on the planet, meaningless otherwise outside technology, which comes and goes, as “the sun also rises.” And time, what is time? Like money, it is but something we use, or fail to use, as we’re passing through the journey we call “life.” Too many of us are technicians, regardless of our fields; too few of us are thinkers.
Someone we know, a perpetual student lifelong, now 73 years of age, explained to an Engineer what a Mobius Strip is. The Engineer said, “How come I’m an Engineer, and I never heard of this; whereas you are not an Engineer but know about it?” Our friend replied, “It’s because you have ‘an education,’ whereas I have ‘knowledge’.”
An friend of mine was once a chauffeur in Washington state. He happened to have to take a notable professor of Physics to an event. The two of them hit it off very well, and gabbed about various scientific topics en route. Once almost to the destination, the professor asks my friend where he earned his Doctorate, that he was so well-informed about these matters.
“Oh, I don’t have any degree,” he replies.
“How is this possible,” says the professor, “that you know these things yet have no accreditation?”
“Because I’m certainly capable of reading the same books you do,” my friend responds.
Knowledge hard-earned versus a piece of paper.
Now, that never happened …. did it?
Excellent piece, Mr. Chapin. Of late I get particularly infuriated when this crowd immediately assumes that you’re a fellow traveller if you have interests and/or abilities in scholarship, art, music, etc. They speak with forked tongue (to use a little Indian lingo), spouting individualism out one side of their mouth and statism out the other. From their politics it’s quite clear that they favor some sort of smiley faced totalitarian system in which they are the upper crust. It’s so bad now that I basically terminate all relations with this crowd, seeing them as both an enemy and a totally lost cause. Is there something wrong with me for doing this?
“…they favor some sort of smiley faced totalitarian system in which they are the upper crust.”
You have captured, with these words, the delusion of the left. They ALL think that THEY will be part of the elite in the utopian state they wish to create. Just how many top slots are there in a totalitarian government? Or could it be that some of them may actually find themselves, unbelievably, to be part of the miserable, poor masses that make up the majority of society in a centrally run government? It would seem that this never occurs to them.
Yes, Khan. I find it incredibly rude how they assume that.
In fact Ginsberg’s prediction was largely wrong. The uneducated yutes are excellent cannon fodder in the left’s intellectual warfare…until they graduate and have to get jobs, Daddy having kicked them out of the basement. Then they realize that a third of their meager paychecks are being stolen to support the academic and bureaucratic elites in style, leaving them unable to pay off their student loans whilst eating anything but instant ramen. Shortly thereafter, they start voting Republican.
Thus the major, multi-front effort to prolong childhood as long as possible (five-year degrees, Obamacare declaring 25-year-olds eligible to be kept on their parents’ insurance, etc.) Only children are reliable idiots, useful or not.
Emotions are interesting. On one hand emotions are greedy, childish, illogical and extremely selfish. On the other hand, animals are not dominated by them like we humans are. We humans are by nature, more emotional than animals can be.
Oh sure, animals can be emotional, not just in reaction to humans. I remember seeing a raccoon couple — one killed by a car, the other, quite alive, lying next to it on the grassy berm of of a horse country lane. Death and life. Life at a higher level — BECAUSE of emotion.
Emotions are our human and most direct connect to our spiritual drives. Yet they defy reason and are also what makes for evil unleashed. Unless we marshal them with logic and intellect. That cold commander’s logic applied is not to suppress emotion, but to enhance its value to each of us and to society.
It is possible to reason based upon emotion, and even to have established — long established — language, religious and intellectual traditions based upon it. Yet, those establishments come to defy reality in significant parts, those parts of traditions and ways of reasoning are DEFIANT. And allow for evils to grow, are the cause of many troubles.
Emotions mask and distort the reality of the world. Like a video stream with text-over, audio-over, graphics images and special effects can mask the camera image, or — if understood and used not overwhelmingly — can enhance the experience of what the camera records. As humans we have these enhanced information feeds at levels far beyond animals. What do we make of them?
Modern liberalism, Islam, and Marxism, are all intellectual traditions that are emotion-based, defiant of reality and cold intellectual logic, preferring highly decorated and deformed presentations of reality and reasoning that appeal to emotions. Christianity too, in many regards, although less so in the times post King James and other potent translations of the Hebrew.
Yet reality is no accident, every bit of it is Providential. Every bit has a reason for being. All is good.
One of the misrepresentations of our universities is to use the students in the social sciences as the norm. Please remember that there are just as many if not more studying real subjects such as pure and applied science. As for the intellectual hubris of the liberal elite one of their basic shortcomings is that they don’t speak standard English but what I call Sloblish. Michelle Obama’s remark that she is ‘cenered’ on her family is a good example. So too are Bill Clinton’s many ‘innernational’ references where you can’t figure out whether he is referencing the heartland or the vast world out there beyond US borders.
A glottal stop or flap are considered perfectly good allophones of /t/ in both positions you mention in Standard American English. While I oppose and disagree with both these political figures, I think you may be going out on a limb (pronounced without the /b/) with regard to dialectal differences. And don’t forget, that’s how the “fake sophisticates/real snobs” make fun of our leaders like Sarah Palin.
I think that Michelle Antoinette and Clintigula both exhibit hyper-correct grammatical errors like saying “him and I” which I do think are fair game, given their level of indoctrination. But again, I leave such prescriptive linguistics to the “elites”. I’m quite happy to stick with the country class, speech foibles and all.
Yet the people who support those politicians threw a hissy fit over Bush saying “Nucular”.
I know. In linguistics, that’s called a liquid metathesis and is very common in all languages, e.g., Modern English ‘bird’ was ‘brid’ in Old English. I understand the urge to correct these commie snobs… Hell, maybe Millie’s right… maybe we should go for it!
Bookmarked! Instead of trying to reason with perpetual adolescents, I will pull this out and remind myself in the futility of the effort.
Self-righteous liberals have seen their day and even they know it is almost over. Now it is just a race to see if those of us who have matured beyond adolescence can regain control before our emotionally stunted siblings gleefully burn down the house.
Palin’s positive traits — kindness, happiness, beauty, domestic tranquility, and gratefulness to God — infuriated them with the way she made their own emotionally chaotic, depressed, statist feminists rank in comparison.
Unattractive, angry & bitter statist feminists, to boot
(Well done summation in this piece. Sad for the future of intelligent life on the planet, but, nevertheless, well done.)
Man, the link is so funny. I needed a good laugh. Thanks.
Those pictures are great.
this article needs to be “stickied”; the baseless heeds from the left to “provide” evidence of their shenanigans as well as a perfect synopsis of the current left versus right debate is all here
Mr. Chapin, your article and the other posters touched on every point and then some I wanted to share.
However, I just wanted to say something regarding the pic you have for the article.
Why hasn’t Obama’s PR team spoken to him about his Mussolini-pose when speaking? It was on full display at the ‘vague’ SoTU (honestly, has Obama gone into detail, off-the-cuff.. EVER?), the ‘AZ Memorial/campaign kickoff’ recently with his weak chin at its usual 30-45 degree angle at most times. What a putz..
Turn this article into a documentary and then award it several Oscars. Bravo!
And for the several witty and intelligent comments posted here I nominate all of you to assist with the script and casting.
In many ways this article brings to the surface our frustration with the left for their predictable behavior, predictable speech, predictable attacks, predictable debates, etc.
For me, it can be tied to hope. The left has little or none thus they choose to live in their deceived world. I am commanded to have compassion for them and I find it challenging even though I have Jesus as an example.
All their antics, bizarre posturing, moronic moralizing, rage, and mindless dedication to avoiding rational argument call to mind the behaviors of a baboon troop in a Guinea forest.
Conversely, leftists pay no heed to conservatives. This is true both for our beliefs and the words we actually say. They prefer to deal with bogey men of their own construction.
An apt description of the majority of leftist trolls in these forums. Let’s also add a classic lefty trope – Hegelian triangulation. That is, Hegel’s methodology thesis – antithesis – synthesis, corrupted by leftists and other advocateds of slavery in order to appear oh-so-reasonable while moving the goalposts, nay – the entire playing field – to the left. This is Dwighty’s specialty, although he’s not very good at it.
There’s another interesting phenomenon on display amongst our lefty under-the-bridge dwellers. Many boomer generation leftists (and their parent, in csome cases) never quite got over the demise of the old Soviet Union – the utopian communist paradise that never was. As Robert Conquest says in The Dragons of Expectation, there is among the likes of Code Pink, International ANSWER, Dwighty, Matthew and their ilk “….a certain reluctance to admit that Communism was not only physically lethal and mentally repressive but also a total failure.”
Chantal Delsol, in her landmark Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century described this reluctance to accept the reality of the failure of communism / socialism as vital resistance:
In other words, no one wants to admit that the premises upon which one has constructed their entire raison d’être is an empty, shrieking fraud. This goes a long way towards explaining the tortured mental gymnastics and pretzel logic employed by Dwighty, Matty and the other statists who post here.
The trolls are awfully quiet recently.
Without a Tucson to turn them on, they don’t have much to say.
The trolls are trying to rescue the abortion clinics from that expose regarding child prostitution.
That left a mark, didn’t it? Wasn’t it Hananh Arendt who coined the term, “the banality of evil?” The blase and earnestly business like demeanor of the woman who proffered the ‘work-around’ advice was chilling and a perfect example of what Arendt was talking about. Monsters, all of them.
Oh, for god’s sake. What “expose”. A activist group has been trying to produce a “gotcha” video of PP for years. PP has known that, and reported the group’s activities to the authorities when they show up (which then wastes police and FBI resources because they have to investigate scams). But the “undercover reporters” just forge ahead anyway, knowing that whatever they produce will get an uncritical audience … you. There is no expose.
You just didn’t learn anything from the ACORN “expose”, did you? The whole thing was concocted. Numerous investigations have cleared the organisation of the claims made by fox and o’keefe, and the individuals smeared by o’keefe’s editing didn’t do anything wrong. Everything about the story was a beat-up or outright fabrication.
oooh.
The abortion clinic case pumps Matthew up aw well. It’s sick enough to get his juices going.
“The trolls are awfully quiet recently.”
I’ve started to wonder why I bother. Take a look through the responses to my post in this thread and ask how many actually construct an argument. It’s all just a bunch of straw-men and ad-hominem. MM demanded a detailed response on another thread so I wrote one – he never bothered to properly respond. The effort is a one-way street. Your post epitomises that – no matter what I say you’ll just generate one of your brilliant one-liners.
The endless stream of egypt threads is also very tedious. Don’t get me wrong – what’s HAPPENING in egypt is incredibly important. But what people are SAYING about it isn’t important at all. It’s possible to write a column using what’s happening in egypt to support any ridiculous position you like – and that’s precisely what people are doing.
It’s also quite irritating to keep reading articles that are founded on the assumption that the US (or anyone else) should “do something”. The US (along with most of the west) is irrelevant at this point. The egyptians appear to have the right idea, and apparently they have for a while – now they just need to finish the job for themselves.
So it’s been pretty slim pickings for threads worth responding to.
Don’t leave Dwight.
We need the occasional reminder of how sick you guys are.
“ANSWER, Dwighty, Matthew and their ilk “….a certain reluctance to admit that Communism was not only physically lethal and mentally repressive but also a total failure.””
Rubbish. Communism was obviously a massive failure. It’s a fundamentally broken economic system, a totalitarian social and political system and appalling for the people who live under it.
Of course … you probably need to explain what’s happening in china, but life’s never completely simple.
But now that we’ve agreed that communism was crap, that doesn’t mean that you can just apply the label to things you don’t like and declare them to also be crap. The problem with all ideological systems is that they ignore evidence and reason. Communism is stupid, but there’s still a role for government in efficiently, peacefully and justly managing the affairs of a country. Requiring every kid to get an education, and making sure the resources are allocated for them to do so, isn’t communism. Making sure that there are hospitals and fire departments and police isn’t communism.
In short: Declaring one simplistic and broken model to be bad doesn’t automatically support another simplistic, broken model. To take the current cause of the moment, I’ve seen a rational, efficient public health system work. The US could save money (on an individual and national level) if you just copied what australia does. Your manufacturing industry would be more competitive, your people will be wealthier and healthier, and nobody need fall through the cracks. But it’s up to you. If you want to declare anything like that to be “communism” and keep a broken system that costs twice as much as it should, then that’s fine by me. I’m happy in my “communist” hell hole
(that said, I’m not in queensland … things aren’t so good there today)
Great point. The problem here much of the time is that so many (not all) of the responders seem to have been driven mad by Obama and/or just living in 2011. It reminds me of people around my neck of the woods who are now continually cursing the weather, because we have had a snowstorm every few days for a month, now. They can’t change anything; they just mutter and sputter.
We have the believers in the “simple truths” essentially that if we got back to the Constitution, all our problems would be solved. We also have the attack dogs; question the party line and they will call you names, insult you in creative ways blah, blah. Hey, it is par for the course is a political internet forum, but it makes serious discussion of policy issues a rare occurrence. Everything is caricature and cartoon.
It is good that there are a few serious folks here who will discuss issues and keep the name-calling to a minimum. Maybe there is some connection between the two, eh?
hand job
No thanks.
At least change the writing styles and user name style when you are satisfying yourself. It’s embarrassingly obvious.
Gee, did all of this happen by random chance? The themes are so consistent, it’s almost like somebody or some group has orchestrated the whole thing. Maybe it’s just truths of life, but then again, they don’t even believe that truth exists, and yet we have all of these truths lining up like little soldiers all facing in the same direction (pardon the violent analogy).
What a mystery.
One of the most pernicious byproducts of the ’60s was that 18-year-olds got the right to vote. (Don’t start in about old enough to serve, old enough to vote: Make the age 21 except for those who DO serve!) Shifting the voting age lower moved our whole politics to the left and gave us a bad case of BO (actually, BHO). Given that the Echo Boom is peaking right now, we can expect more sense in the next presidential election — bad news for the Obamites.
I think “progressivism” serves a similar purpose as segregation did prior to the Civil Rights movement. There are a lot of over-schooled progressives out there who might (if they gave it some thought) wonder why their standard of living isn’t higher. The progressive movement gives them something to hang on to…they can listen to NPR, eat at Whole Foods, and imagine themselves superior to the bourgois masses…much as poor southern whites could imagine themselves superior to the “nigras” in the Jim Crow south. If they do start to wonder why their standard of living isn’t higher, it can all be blamed on mythical “Fat Cat Republicans” (who take the place which was once occupied by the Jewish Bankers conspiracy). All the while, they can be distracted from the fact that Al Gore, Hilliary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the “favored class” are living like oriental pashas on the government’s dime.
“mindless dedication to avoiding rational argument” – Really? Because I have never seen any Republican actually answer a relevant question before. They always just start spewing more BS. Idiots.
And that is what stands as a rational argument from the brave, anonymous leftard. Two can play that game. Moron!
Really? Because I have never seen any Republican actually answer a relevant question before. They always just start spewing more BS.
I’m sorry…was there a relevant question or a rational argument in your post? Or did you simply prove Chapin’s point? Yeah, we know the answer… The only one spewing BS is you, troll boy.
I know you are but what am I?
What is the “relevant question” you’d like to share that has been festering so painfully long without an answer that “satisfies” your “feelings” from a Republican?
You know, Anon, you can ask all the ‘pertinent to you and team left’ questions you can muster, but, just remember that some answers won’t fit your narrow definition of what is the “right” answer to fit the bill for your personal satisfaction.
Here’s one question I have for you:
Why do you post drivel on a conservative website or read opposing views you seem to abhor when it obviously upsets you so much that you feel compelled to spew nonsense? That’s what I don’t get about you lefties. Many of you come off as so filled with self-righteous bile that you purposely [and, perhaps even gleefully] ‘torture’ yourselves by reading right-leaning blogs and then go on to petulantly post vitriolic nincompoopery as some sort of childish “gotchya”.
Really? Nothing better to do with your time but to troll websites you inherently disagree with? Really. No wonder you’re so bitter.
Delia! That’s as good a put down of the little twerps as I’ve ever seen. Cut and paste that baby for future reference!
Forgot to say thank you for reading everyone and Delia you are one smart cookie!
Bernard Chapin writes:
Forgot to say thank you for reading everyone and Delia you are one smart cookie!
You are one smart cookie yourself, Mr. Chapin and an enjoyable, thought-provoking read. Much kudos.
Say, there, Mr. Anonymous – let’s try a little experiment. A simple question, but it’s based on first principles – and that’s your only hint, BTW:
“To whom does your life belong?”
Take your time. We’re prepared to stand in awe of your mighty mental powers and perspicacity. Oh – just few rules, if you don’t mind:
1. No Hegelian triangulation. You know: none of that thesis/antithesis/synthesis crap.
2. No answering a question with another question.
3. No strawman arguments.
4. No reductio ad absurdum. That won’t fly at all.
OK – now have at it!
I can’t speak for anyone else, but MY life belongs to … Me.
Good start. Now, let’s apply that proposition to others. It’s easy to do unless you’re a psychopath.
Comment? Corollary? Implications?
Which means that it’s impossible for him.
And that’s the point. Game, set and match.
Wow. Psychopath. They really don’t apply any of the moderating rules on this site, do they? You do understand that ad-hominem pronouncements aren’t big or clever, right?
“Good start. Now, let’s apply that proposition to others. It’s easy to do unless you’re a psychopath.”
I have no problem applying it to others at all. So what? Is that your best shot?
i visit pajamas media pretty much every day, and i consider myself to be a staunch republican. i also happen to be 19 year old university student, and i can say with utmost certainty that there are a great number of young people here who lean right of center. in many schools i would say that right wing students constitue a silent majority. it is simply that they do not openly voice their opinions on campus for fear of ostracization at the hands of the old communists and progressivists who run the institution. as you know, these profs have no problem with discriminating against and failing students on the basis of politics. i actually have found that, on campus at least, there is a MUCH higher ratio of dems to repubs in the 25-65 range than in the 18-25 range. and always remember that it is YOUR generation that is doing the brainwashing.
i agree with alot of points made in this article. but in future, please try to make them without insulting young republicans like myself. us young people are not all snarky, simplistic, and ignorant as you have implied. and after all, you cannot afford to lose us
My 23 year old daughter is a conservative and she laughed her hiney off over this article and took no insult from it regarding her age and generation. Where in this post did this author actually bash “Young Repubs”?????
“and always remember that it is YOUR generation that is doing the brainwashing.”
Wait a second here, bub. You just moaned about Mr. Chapin bashing young Repubs because of [their generation?] and then you just bashed another generation of older peeps.
See? Or did you actually mean to do that? It’s easy to misconstrue words if you take them too personally.
BTW, those old fogies who are part of the “brainwashing/whack/Regressive/etc.” are the idjits who never grew up. I think they call it the “Peter Pan syndrome”.
I suggest you either you get over yourself or admit that you’re a fraud trying to pull the wool over us old peeps.
You’re right, Phil. There are many young conservatives. Three of them, ages 23, 20 and 17, came from our house.
Hi Phil. Good on ya for the insight you displayed in your comment, critical thinking in your 19 years and in college presently.
Sadly, people 2,3, 5 times older than you haven’t the intelligence, guts to call out the failings in equal political leanings, discussions in academia and beyond.
Have you read David Horowitz’s, ‘Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights’ book?
An interesting, poignant look at the indoctrination of Leftist dogma saturating the nation’s campuses.
You can see the nonsensical rants of poster, ‘Matthew’ for a good chuckle. Matthew’s m o seems to always be to misconstrue, use hearsay and attempt to pass off ‘gender/racial equality’ and ‘social justice’ as a noble, improving act upon society. When the above, no matter how its spun, is failure after failure..
Misconstrue? Explain how.
Hearsay? Ppptttht. Give me some examples. Things that I have seen for myself aren’t hearsay.
As for the rest … you DO understand that when you use ‘quotes’ you’re actually supposed to be quoting something, right? I don’t think I’ve ever written a post here about ‘gender/racial equality’ or ‘social justice’, let alone used those expressions. I think you’re just making stuff up.
“Straw men are easier to set on fire than reality-based propositions”
Agreed. Your piece proves it beyond doubt.
“Your average sophomore and freshman at a university know very little about history, current events, political science, human nature, and economics — perfect clay for the Democratic Party to mold into drones.”
Well, I’ve spent a bit of time now reading articles and feedback on this site, and I’m not convinced that those on “the right” have much of a grasp on history or economics.
And I’m not sure why what a “freshman” knows about the above is a smoking gun – presumably the people who never go to college at all don’t know anything more (on average). Why pick on college freshmen or sophomores? How much about economics and history to NON-college-educated people know? What about graduates?
I think the hate-mongering about the tertiary-educated is silly anyway. My experience of university here in australia (albeit a while ago) suggests that the mere fact of having gone to university doesn’t necessarily predict a person’s politics. You can get a bit closer by looking at what they study – somebody who stays in the humanities is probably a fair bit more likely to be a rusted-on lefty, and the maths faculty was fairly liberal. But engineering, economics and business/commerce leant distinctly toward the conservative side of politics. The sciences were, IMHO, fairly evently split. It might also matter which university you look at. But for every spittle-flecked ranting socialist student, you’ll find other students who want no part of it, don’t like to see their student fees wasted on juvenile polical games and who just want to get their degree and get on with their life.
I agree with phil, above – you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water by hating on college grads just because that had the temerity to get an education.
Apart from that, this article’s just a gish gallop of incorrect stereotypes.
‘“Straw men are easier to set on fire than reality-based propositions”
Agreed. Your piece proves it beyond doubt.’
And later,in the same comment, we have this.
‘I agree with phil, above – you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water by hating on college grads just because that had the temerity to get an education.’
The first comment from Matthew I’ve scanned in a week or so, and this jumped right out. The gift that keeps on giving.
Good to see you’re still putting in your usual effort.
My usual substance? Let’s run this down.
Without repeating the article text – anyone can read it – the author of the article mentions strawman logical fallacies several times.
Your response, very substantial, starts with quoting from the article:
“Straw men are easier to set on fire than reality-based propositions”
Followed immediately by:
‘Agreed. Your piece proves it beyond doubt.’
From this, the observant reader infers that you will support this with examples of strawman fallacies in the article. Instead, we get a lengthy comment rife with strawman fallacies, calculated mis-characterizations of what the author wrote – that shows little understanding of the article.
Later in the same comment, the follow leaps out. Revelent text emphasized.
‘…hating on college grads just because that had the temerity to get an education.’
This is a strawman. The author does no such thing. The article makes no such inference.
Now, from this one is forced to conclude that you are taking one or a combination of a limited number of approaches in an effort to trivialize an article that you disagree with, or perhaps strikes uncomfortably close to home, rather than engage it on it’s merits.
One is that you do not understand what a strawman is, or you wouldn’t gratuitously use them in a poorly executed attempt to accuse the author of being hypocritical. I find this unlikely. I believe that you know what a strawman logical fallacy is.
Another might be that you simply do not have enough reading comprehension to understand the article, and/or enough command of writing to respond to it in a way the the casual observer doesn’t immediately see as farcical. I find this also unlikely. You repeatedly demonstrate that you have very little flexibility in your thought processes when it comes to your ludicrously unfounded preconceptions that conservatives are much stupider than wicked smart progressives like yourself, but you can read and write well enough. So I think you are able to comprehend the article, though you may be incapable of integrating it’s content given your closemindedness.
The most likely reason for your beclowning yourself once again is what you have repeatedly shown to be the tactic you favor in your attempts to condemn conservatism. You are blatantly, dishonestly and disingenuously misrepresenting information in order to support a position that you can’t support in any other way.
Succinctly, you are once again showing that your preferred approach to engaging conservatives is the calculated lie. And I’ve told you several times, starting a couple of months back, that I do not engage transparently calculating liars other than to mock them.
24. Matthew,
Please tell me how “politics” have not implanted ideology in colleges with leftist professors when there are blatant “affirmative action” programs in place that give “minorities” a step-up over whites because, apparently, the Left considers blacks “mentally insufficient in need of the “special short-bus treatment” or they just want to push the white guilt idiocy even though white slavery happened in the USA?
You and “Phil” need to get a room. DADT was repealed, so, that shouldn’t be a problem for you and Philly Poo.
Matthew has taken up the role of John Cleese in Monty Python’s argument sketch: whatever anyone says, he contradicts it, no matter how stupid or thuggish it makes him seem. Like Monty Python, if you like that sort of ridiculous humor, laugh at him; otherwise, ignore him.
“whatever anyone says, he contradicts it, no matter how stupid or thuggish it makes him seem.”
Thuggish? Me? And this is coming from a person who called me a psychopath?
Sheesh. Mote/beam. And you probably need to watch the whole skit – he demonstrates a few other fallacious argument tactics. You can add them to your repertoire.
Call me what you like, but I really don’t think “thuggish” fits anything I do, ever.
Matthew, in true Leftist fashion, is attempting to distort the issue. It’s not about bashing the college-educated. It’s about the transparent attempt by the Leftist establishment within the educational system to indoctrinate students with their political ideology. I’m about to turn 24 and so the college experience for me is still very close. The climate of intolerance on college campuses for students who are Conservative is really, really bad. That’s the issue. Why can’t Lefties stick to the subject at hand without trying to distort it?
“Matthew, in true Leftist fashion, is attempting to distort the issue.
“It’s not about bashing the college-educated”
Really? Have you READ the article? I’ll help:
Now … is it actually possible to claim that colleges are indoctrinating drones without assuming that the college-educated are, in fact, indoctrinated drones? Because if they’re not indoctrinated drones, then you don’t have a case.
. It’s about the transparent attempt by the Leftist establishment within the educational system to indoctrinate students with their political ideology. I’m about to turn 24 and so the college experience for me is still very close. The climate of intolerance on college campuses for students who are Conservative is really, really bad. That’s the issue. Why can’t Lefties stick to the subject at hand without trying to distort it?
Some rubbish editing there. Sorry.
Trust me, it’s not just the editing that was rubbish.
Now … is it actually possible to claim that colleges are indoctrinating drones without assuming that the college-educated are, in fact, indoctrinated drones?
The obvious answer is yes and here’s why:
You’re attempting to accuse me of equating a college education with indoctrination, which would mean a comdemnation of the very idea of a college education. I am not against the idea of a higher education. I myself am college-educated, as are almost all of my friends. So I’m not arguing in favor of “dumbing down” society. In fact, that’s exactly what I am against. It’s the intolerant Left on campus that insists on dumbing down students by putting political ideology ahead of useful information and the anti-intellectual tyranny of political correctness ahead of civil discourse and honest debate. My wish is for the Establishment on campus (totally dominated by the Left) is to educate students not indoctrinate them.
Now, as to your point… Luckily, for all the strenuous efforts put forth by the Left to indoctrinate as many useful idiots as possible, there are a great many students who recognize it for what it is and reject it. You can include yours truly among that group. Whether or not you choose to admit it, you know that what I’m complaining about is the ATTEMPT to indoctrinate and intimidate on the part of the Establishment. They are frequently successful, sadly. But they are never completely successful and never will be. That’s part of why they are constantly angry… It’s also true that it’s only a few departments that they can get away with it at all. There are plenty of departments on campus where the subject matter doesn’t lend itself to political indoctrination. But even in science departments you see it happen from time to time. And there are also plenty of professors who do not belong to the Left and some who are actually Conservative.
Bottom line: It is possible to get a college education without being indoctrinated by the Left. It just shouldn’t be such a struggle. Students shouldn’t have to suffer the relentless assaults on their beliefs by aging hippies who can’t be fired, no matter what they say or how they say it. I want professors to educate, not indoctrinate.
It’s typical of so-called “liberals” to accuse Conservatives of being “stupid” or “ignorant” or, at the very least, “anti-intellectual.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact it is those on the Left who are doctrinaire, dogmatic, cynical and intolerant.
You’ve really walked back the position of the thread’s author a wee bit. From the description you just gave, it’s really just a few people in certain academic disciplines with an opinion. That’s essentially my own experience as well.
“…etc.” Well, ok D-White, “etc.”
Modern Contortionist, Pick It Fence But and Ping Pong Tongue
“Now where does that get us?”
Well, Fascinated By Alaska. In the Middle somewhere. Nowhere. Everywhere. Fred Meyer is calling.
Lather was thirty years old today…
You are sweet to try to help Ward out a little; he can use it.
And it is so appropriate that we hear from the sly stalker before we hear from Ward, who got to finally pop his big question.
Well, I must say that it’s been amusing to watch you two loons dodge and dance around the ideas, propositions and questions that have been posed to you. Even when the questions have been re-phrased for your level of intellect. I have to conclude that your continued refusal to respond with anything except logical fallacies and dissimulation isn’t so much a matter of smarts or the lack of them – it’s more a matter of what the late, great historian Barbara Tuchman called “woodenheadedness.” Pick up a copy of her The March of Folly and read about yourselves.
So how did that line go? “And answer there came none.”
That’s OK, Matty and Dwighty. We’ll keep pitching and you statist loons will keep on swinging and missing. When you’re not exemplary of leftist cant and drivel, at least you’re entertaining.
Ward, My answer is back there for you up at the end of #1. It’s been there for more than a day. I have been waiting for where you want to go with my answer. Mr Lucky responded in his inimitable way, but you have been missing in action. Now you are back talking about the questions I am dodging. It will be a cold day in hell when I back down from or avoid your questions.
You pretend that you have asked a question, or ask a question and run. Then you sneak back to throw in a little more name-calling and other middle school level chortlings. It’s becoming more clear each day who is bluffing here.
And this would be it from Feb 2:
Well, why didn’t you say that was the question?
My life belongs to me, but the me is mediated by many other obligations as a father, grandfather, husband, English-speaking (and teaching) U. S. citizen, landowner, tax-payer, licensed driver, gun-owner etc.
Now where does that get us?
—————-
Crickets
Ok Moderate Contortionist, Pick It Fence But and Ping Pong Tongue. Does this help?
“Now where does that get us?” Repeat that please – “Now where does that get us?” “Now where does that get us?” “There’s No Place Like Home”. Click, click, click!
“…etc.” Well, ok D-White, “etc.”
Modern Contortionist, Pick It Fence But and Ping Pong Tongue
“Now where does that get us?”
Well, Fascinated By Alaska. In the Middle somewhere. Nowhere. Everywhere. Fred Meyer is calling.
And how about asking “Why Is It So Cold Out Here?” Fire!
Lather was thirty years old today…
You just keep doing your odd little dance…while Ward hides.
Desperate Pick It But.
Everybody’s doin’ a brand new dance now
Come on D-White do the Pick It Fence But
Lather was thirty years…
“Attack dogs” and “Fake Sophisticates”.
Matthew
“I’ve started to wonder why I bother. Take a look through the responses to my post in this thread and ask how many actually construct an argument.”
Poor thing. No need to “wonder”. Get a clue. It’s called satire. You’re It. Modern Liberals are fine when in groups and the jokes on somebody else. That group affirmation so important. The matchups are so much more difficult away from support.
“Fake Sophisticate” –
“It’s also quite irritating to keep reading articles that are founded on the assumption that the US (or anyone else) should ‘do something’.”
“So it’s been pretty slim pickings for threads worth responding to.”
Sure, Dr. Strangelove. Irritated yet? Notice the generalized faux sense of … I am Me so I am right because I am Me. Dripping from a dead dog’s eye.
“I’ve started to wonder why I bother.” Yeah right Brat U.
Then D-White, the alleged “Centrist” “blathers” in with a little english applied by the Ping Pong Tongue.
Dwight
“Great point. The problem here much of the time is that so many (not all) of the responders seem to have been driven mad by Obama and/or just living in 2011. It reminds me of people around my neck of the woods who are now continually cursing the weather, because we have had a snowstorm every few days for a month, now.”
D-White, The Modern Contortionist compares an act of nature (a snowstorm) with Mr. President dislike, and some vague notion of “living in 2011″. And people are “driven mad”, and they are “continually cursing”. Really now, someone might seriously question these propositions, but why “bother”. The mangled Pick It Fence logic is calling for a “simple” pass on these propositions. Like An Axiom. Touched for the very first time. No matter D-White because –
“Everything is caricature and cartoon.” Oh sure. Everyone knows this. Everyone who is a D-White or a Brat U. Everyone. Everyone “is caricature and cartoon” except those who are not. Those who are defined by rules known only to, well somebody.
And –
“…makes serious discussion of policy issues a rare occurrence.”
Alert! “Fake Sophisticate”.
“It is good that there are a few serious folks here who will discuss issues and keep the name-calling to a minimum. Maybe there is some connection between the two, eh?”
Maybe you are just trying to control the situation D-White. At least in your own mind. This is the Modern Liberal Arizona Syndrome. The need to point to the other and blame is so overwhelming that it bends logic to subjective desires, making those very desires impossible to obtain. You know D-White, like changing the weather.
“They can’t change anything; they just mutter and sputter.”
Practice in front a mirror. Success will come.
And sometimes he’s so nameless,
That he hardly knows which game to play…
I think that you may be chasing your tail here. There is some dialogue going on in your mind, evidently, but all those unfinished statements, starts and stops, and assertions of…I’m not sure what, may take some clarification from you or someone who understands you.
I think you’ve just illustrated my point perfectly. You’ve got nothing to say of substance, so you just resort to homer-esque sarcasm. Why bother?
Now, Real Snobs, isn’t freedom of expression one of the bedrock ideals of The Modern Liberal? And could you please put out a more betterer attempt at being more condescending? The script calls for it. Surely you can do better(er)?
Maybe what we need here is a Real Snob Piss Brat U and a Sophisticate D-White Soiled Pick It Fence But on display at some state sponsored “Friends of Friends Who Have Grants Display Their Bare Souls event. But gosh, someone might get “irritated” and “bothered” by it because it’s not in the Modern Liberal Serious Discourse DSM. Because it’s about… Theeemmmm!
No worry dear Ahabs, the lampoon is near, and dare it be said, “targeted” on “bothered”, “irritated” Oatmeal Mush Mouth Ping Pong adherents.
Hey D-White, smoking tweed is a fine pastime in the faculty lounge (Lounge? Why… lounge?) but keep it close. And Brat U. The first Aussie that reminds one of an elitist Divine.
Get that mirror out. Can you sing harmony? You could be Gaga!
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him,
About his old friends who’d stopped being boys.
She looks so simple in her way
Does the same thing everyday
But she’s dedicated
To having her own way
She’s very complicated…
*shrug*
Once again, you’ve said nothing about the thread. You’re just coming up with ways to dis people you disagree with. You’ve added nothing. If that’s condescending, well, I’m sorry.
You certainly are sorry.
Gee whiz Divine Brat U, is self evaluation really that difficult?
Does Mr. Chapin know you?
We talk together and discuss
What is really best for us
He’s sophisticated…
proreason
hand job
February 4, 2011 – 9:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply
*
Matthew
No thanks.
February 4, 2011 – 10:43 pm Link to this Comment
*
proreason
At least change the writing styles and user name style when you are satisfying yourself. It’s embarrassingly obvious.
————–
OK, PJM, let’s take a good close look at proreason here. The soft porn merely puts him in a category with Mr Lucky, but without the obscurity of allusion, whereas the apparent assertion that Matthew and I are the same person gives you some idea of the quality of his insight.
Mr Lucky and proreason are regulars here, right? The lads of the twisted path; it is a path that I would just as soon not go down, but then, I don’t want to be considered a snob.
That was me.
There is one U.S. Senator who speaks the truth.
Check out one of his many amazing speeches:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5U9KX3U36M&feature=related
Liberals are nothing more than CENTER-left, not the the real left. The real left is SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM AND ANARCHISM! The liberals are only trying to monopolize the masses to their own political interests, and are nothing more than an elitist group trying to satisfy the lower classes as well, or in other words the “human resources” which are merely anything else than tools of production in the view of most of the capitalists, but they are doing it only by giving the the proletariat (sorry for using a term which mostly disappeared from the English language since the last century, but I think that it is the best to define whose votes the liberals try to get – industrial workers and poor citizens) minimal rights so that they would gain enough support for elections. You do realize that without the existence of the liberal joke (since the true liberals don’t actually understand either capitalism or socialism, and the others are just centrists trying to profit from the support of the masses – most likely Obama’s case) the majority of people would orientate again towards socialism and communism? You realize it, right? Some of you might say that communism is dead, but this is far away from the truth. There are worldwide Leninist and Trotskyist organization, there are millions of Maoist rebels in the south-eastern region of India called the Red corridor, there is a Maoist party which won elections in Nepal, there are millions of socialist rebels in Europe starting massive strikes in Portugal or Greece, almost half of eastern Europe says that things were better during Stalinism and wants the USSR and the former countries of the Warsaw Pact back, and there is even a new left organization in China, trying to pull back the capitalist reforms and affiliate to Marxism! Anyone who says communism is dead is simply blind, and the liberals are actually doing a good job for the conservatives by keeping the workers on their side, cause YOU DON’T want the real left to rise again. After the Bolshevik revolution from 1917, 60000 Americans were members of the newly formed Communist Party of the USA and other 40000 Americans were members of the Socialist Party of the USA. Today, only 2500 people are members of the CPUSA, and this thing happened only because of liberal promises to the workers and conservative propaganda which showed the horrors of Stalinism and other totalitarian socialist regimes, but if the people understand that the liberals are just another branch of centrist elitism, then they will look back to “class warfare”, “nationalization of the economy” and other radical reforms which would actually increase the wealth of the poor drastically… There are also lots of socialists with democratic ideas like free speech, free elections, free demonstration and multi-party systems, so demonizing the oppression in the USSR might just not work anymore. The liberals ensure the domination of the free market over the world for now, but if the economy will suffer other big recessions and they will no longer hold the “blue banner of labor”, then the old left will rise again on the world stage, and will paint the banner in red again, if you understand what I mean. The liberals are simply needed for maintaining a free market…
Sacramento, Calif. Best Marketing Agency, top-ad-agencies.com
finance signal, fisig.com, trading
yahoo advertising, china-marketing.co, marketing with google.com