Are liberals seceding from sanity?

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
A Moderate Republican Senator from a large upper-midwestern state expresses his dismay that the Southern "extremist" wing has apparently seized control of his party;
A Conservative White Southern columnist agrees, and uses the opportunity to chastise those of her fellow southern Republicans she feels have abandoned reason in their opposition to a Democratic President;
A Liberal columnist at a no-longer-prominent Liberal publication uses his blog to make several comments of an entirely unknown and ambiguous nature about white Southerners;
PJABBERS finds a column online at Salon that spins this into a broad-based Liberal assault on White Southerners, and runs with the opportunity to make another of his "non-partisan" attacks on Democrats and "the Left".
Have I accurately summarized the OP?

Nice ad hominum attack!! You get right to the point of attacking a prominent Democrat pack member! Might get you an A+ in a HS social studies class culture club but it fails as a critique of substance. Don't blame yourself, though, it is just a reflection of a quality gap in the education system, itself in need of serious "reforms."
It seems that it actually takes an overwhelming effort to read a commentary that explores a difficult and morally challenging topic. Oh the vapors! Thank God we solved bigotry with the election of The One!
Had you actually read the article, and I know at least a couple of people have by their commentary, you would have found much more to discuss than a discussion of another poster's discussion of his reading the title and misconstruing that as well.
Keep up the good work!

I read the article, but was not particularly impressed.
It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.


edit: White Southerner, posting from the Secession State.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: PJABBER
Thank God we solved bigotry with the election of The One!

You guys have a shred of respect for yourselves? Seriously, the post election butthurtness is getting boring. It is embarrassing to watch you guys.

When you lose you learn from your mistakes and adjust accordingly, not go full on farther into what makes you fail. (for example talk radio far right wingnuttery like the statement above)

This stubbornness to learn from mistakes is the definition of insanity.

But then look at the kind of folks who have been the ideological cornerstone of the right since the 80s, not surprising. *facepalm*

The problem with your commentary is that you make so many assumptions. I have been working mostly out of both the U.S. and Europe for quite a while and was out of Asia before that. I don't think I have listened to talk radio for more than five minutes in the recent years of its ascendancy as THE voice of the people. Maybe I am picking up the patter here?

As a Classical Liberal, I do have some idea of the ideological underpinnings of the American right/GOP in the 80's. I think they borrowed a lot from us. It worked for a while, didn't it?

Unfortunately, that eventually led to a looong slooow slide toward both Ds and Rs becoming Just Another Big Government Party.

I experienced both Reaganism and Thatcherism and a few other isms that i would have gladly passed on. IMHO we are well overdue for another "Contract With America!"

I'm an optimist, maybe 2010 will be a chance to redo recent mistakes by a wholesale turnover in the Congress. I can't wait!

 

[Underclocked]

Whut?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: PJABBER


The problem with your commentary is that you make so many assumptions. I have been working mostly out of both the U.S. and Europe for quite a while and was out of Asia before that. I don't think I have listened to talk radio for more than five minutes in the recent years of its ascendancy as THE voice of the people. Maybe I am picking up the patter here?

As a Classical Liberal, I do have some idea of the ideological underpinnings of the American right/GOP in the 80's. I think they borrowed a lot from us. It worked for a while, didn't it?

Unfortunately, that eventually led to a looong slooow slide toward both Ds and Rs becoming Just Another Big Government Party.

I experienced both Reaganism and Thatcherism and a few other isms that i would have gladly passed on. IMHO we are well overdue for another "Contract With America!"

I'm an optimist, maybe 2010 will be a chance to redo recent mistakes by a wholesale turnover in the Congress. I can't wait!

100% Weapons-Grade Bullonium.


Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: PJABBER


The problem with your commentary is that you make so many assumptions. I have been working mostly out of both the U.S. and Europe for quite a while and was out of Asia before that. I don't think I have listened to talk radio for more than five minutes in the recent years of its ascendancy as THE voice of the people. Maybe I am picking up the patter here?

As a Classical Liberal, I do have some idea of the ideological underpinnings of the American right/GOP in the 80's. I think they borrowed a lot from us. It worked for a while, didn't it?

Unfortunately, that eventually led to a looong slooow slide toward both Ds and Rs becoming Just Another Big Government Party.

I experienced both Reaganism and Thatcherism and a few other isms that i would have gladly passed on. IMHO we are well overdue for another "Contract With America!"

I'm an optimist, maybe 2010 will be a chance to redo recent mistakes by a wholesale turnover in the Congress. I can't wait!

100% Weapons-Grade Bullonium.


Who do you think you are fooling?

Absolutely no one.

 

[PJABBER]

It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.

Thanks for the recommendation. I did read the article and found it interesting as another example of the GOP trying to find its soul.

While the Democrats are notorious for being a party of factionalism, again rearing that aspect with the fruits of victory, the GOP tends to stick together through their differences. Sequential losses are forcing a serious re-think, and that is a work in progress. Kathleen Parker identifies some of the issues that will have to be overcome in order for the GOP to become a viable alternative again.

Now, I do believe that the Democrats are well on the way to self destruction no matter what the Republicans say or do. The two articles in this thread are partly an answer to the question of why. The thread responses here show how difficult change is on the heels of victory.

As an American concerned with the good of the country, rather than any Party, I want them to hold together as an effective voice for balanced interest representation, not as a party for so called progressives, who are anything but progressive.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.

Thanks for the recommendation. I did read the article and found it interesting as another example of the GOP trying to find its soul.

While the Democrats are notorious for being a party of factionalism, again rearing that aspect with the fruits of victory, the GOP tends to stick together through their differences. Sequential losses are forcing a serious re-think, and that is a work in progress. Kathleen Parker identifies some of the issues that will have to be overcome in order for the GOP to become a viable alternative again.

Now, I do believe that the Democrats are well on the way to self destruction no matter what the Republicans say or do. The two articles in this thread are partly an answer to the question of why. The thread responses here show how difficult change is on the heels of victory.

As an American concerned with the good of the country, rather than any Party, I want them to hold together as an effective voice for balanced interest representation, not as a party for so called progressives, who are anything but progressive.

PJABBER, I give you a lot of credit for at least sounding reasonably intelligent and like a rational person. That being stated, a majority of your posts are simply well veiled attempts at trolling. You are just as much a reason for the lack of bi-partisanship cooperation as anyone else on this board.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU

Originally posted by: PJABBER

It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.

Thanks for the recommendation. I did read the article and found it interesting as another example of the GOP trying to find its soul.

While the Democrats are notorious for being a party of factionalism, again rearing that aspect with the fruits of victory, the GOP tends to stick together through their differences. Sequential losses are forcing a serious re-think, and that is a work in progress. Kathleen Parker identifies some of the issues that will have to be overcome in order for the GOP to become a viable alternative again.

Now, I do believe that the Democrats are well on the way to self destruction no matter what the Republicans say or do. The two articles in this thread are partly an answer to the question of why. The thread responses here show how difficult change is on the heels of victory.

As an American concerned with the good of the country, rather than any Party, I want them to hold together as an effective voice for balanced interest representation, not as a party for so called progressives, who are anything but progressive.

PJABBER, I give you a lot of credit for at least sounding reasonably intelligent and like a rational person. That being stated, a majority of your posts are simply well veiled attempts at trolling. You are just as much a reason for the lack of bi-partisanship cooperation as anyone else on this board.

Thanks for your concern. You are much more of an optimist in your goals than I am as I do not see any example of an effort toward bi-partisanship on P&N. I would be pleasantly surprised to see examples of this trait.

In any case, I believe the best reason for participating in a forum like this is to get a feel for people who have different viewpoints. We do not learn anything from those who agree with us 100% and we do not get anything from shouters, but there is a broad range beyond.

Imagine a forum where the leftish and the shouters were left to themselves. You might as well Move On to the DailyKos to have all of your marginal ideas confirmed while your ego is gently stroked and you purr in blissful ignorance.

The great majority of my posts reference articles that I find interesting and that I find express information, ideas, analyses and concepts with some level of insight. Some are better written than others but in each of them I found something that piqued my curiosity. I also found them sufficiently controversial that I wanted to get some other people's opinions.

I don't have an agenda other than intellectual curiosity. I do find it boring when the same viewpoint is shouted over and over again so it may be that I sometimes indulge my sense of humor with my choice of words.

I have taken to referring to my position as that of a Classical Liberal. I expand on that in other posts, you can reference it by doing a Wiki search. One aspect of this political philosophy is a rejection of large and intrusive government. Many of my comments are extensions of this primary position. I find much to comment on as the current one party government is dedicated to the expansion of government and the absorption of the private sector.

I think a lot of people posting in opposition to my participation take my indifference to their repetitive rhetoric personally, hence the constant ad hominem attacks. I am not the only poster getting this level of attack, just the most recent (has it really been three weeks?)

I look forward to continuing with a discussion on a topic of substance.

 

[sammyunltd]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
STOP THE INSANITY!

:headasplode;

And by insanity I mean your posts.

Can't quite wrap your head around the article, huh? I think that is the point the author is trying to make.

Please, spit your crap elsewhere.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani
You are expecting serious replies to a grade-A troll topic titled "are liberals seceding from sanity?"

It was the title of the article, moron. Perhaps you should log your complaint with salon.com

That was obvious dipshit, I was commenting on the fact that he decided to link to it here and keep it as the topic title. Unsurprisingly that was lost on you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani
You are expecting serious replies to a grade-A troll topic titled "are liberals seceding from sanity?"

It was the title of the article, moron. Perhaps you should log your complaint with salon.com

That was obvious dipshit, I was commenting on the fact that he decided to link to it here and keep it as the topic title. Unsurprisingly that was lost on you.

I thought it was the article title. I guess that author was also trolling.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
The south is a racist cesspool of ignorance and arrogance. I wouldn't have a problem with them seceding if I wasn't 100% sure that would immediately lead to modern jim crow laws.

Broad-brushing irony of the day?

Funny thing is that the goober doesn't even know that Dems spearheaded those laws.

Please don't equate "liberal" with "democrat" in such cases or act like the didn't all jump ship to the republican party in the 60's and 70's when racism was mostly purged from the democratic party.

Honestly I think Dems use Black people. Not neccessarily racist but I think they do not really help them long term. Continously targeting them with government subsistance is hardly a hand up. Republicans are to stupid not to be demonized by the Dems so the Black voting block is what 90-95 % voting Dem every election. Dems like to divide/label/compartmentalize/contain then pander to individual segments because it is easier to keep groups of compeating motives satisfied. Especially in a post Bush world.

GOP is barely treading water. True Conservatives are leaving in droves and picking up Tea party signs and keeping Republicans even more accountable because their inaction and President Bush handed over the nation to a bigger group of liars.

synopsis = polliticians suck! Polls suck! Spin suck! Media is complicit in the destruction of traditional American values and are proud of it. Americans are decieved into thinking Socialism and financial Fairness is a American ideal. Americans get screwed!

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU

Originally posted by: PJABBER

It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.

Thanks for the recommendation. I did read the article and found it interesting as another example of the GOP trying to find its soul.

While the Democrats are notorious for being a party of factionalism, again rearing that aspect with the fruits of victory, the GOP tends to stick together through their differences. Sequential losses are forcing a serious re-think, and that is a work in progress. Kathleen Parker identifies some of the issues that will have to be overcome in order for the GOP to become a viable alternative again.

Now, I do believe that the Democrats are well on the way to self destruction no matter what the Republicans say or do. The two articles in this thread are partly an answer to the question of why. The thread responses here show how difficult change is on the heels of victory.

As an American concerned with the good of the country, rather than any Party, I want them to hold together as an effective voice for balanced interest representation, not as a party for so called progressives, who are anything but progressive.

PJABBER, I give you a lot of credit for at least sounding reasonably intelligent and like a rational person. That being stated, a majority of your posts are simply well veiled attempts at trolling. You are just as much a reason for the lack of bi-partisanship cooperation as anyone else on this board.

Thanks for your concern. You are much more of an optimist in your goals than I am as I do not see any example of an effort toward bi-partisanship on P&N. I would be pleasantly surprised to see examples of this trait.

In any case, I believe the best reason for participating in a forum like this is to get a feel for people who have different viewpoints. We do not learn anything from those who agree with us 100% and we do not get anything from shouters, but there is a broad range beyond.

Imagine a forum where the leftish and the shouters were left to themselves. You might as well Move On to the DailyKos to have all of your marginal ideas confirmed while your ego is gently stroked and you purr in blissful ignorance.

The great majority of my posts reference articles that I find interesting and that I find express information, ideas, analyses and concepts with some level of insight. Some are better written than others but in each of them I found something that piqued my curiosity. I also found them sufficiently controversial that I wanted to get some other people's opinions.

I don't have an agenda other than intellectual curiosity. I do find it boring when the same viewpoint is shouted over and over again so it may be that I sometimes indulge my sense of humor with my choice of words.

I have taken to referring to my position as that of a Classical Liberal. I expand on that in other posts, you can reference it by doing a Wiki search. One aspect of this political philosophy is a rejection of large and intrusive government. Many of my comments are extensions of this primary position. I find much to comment on as the current one party government is dedicated to the expansion of government and the absorption of the private sector.

I think a lot of people posting in opposition to my participation take my indifference to their repetitive rhetoric personally, hence the constant ad hominem attacks. I am not the only poster getting this level of attack, just the most recent (has it really been three weeks?)

I look forward to continuing with a discussion on a topic of substance.

Frankly, I find your posts extremely well thought out. I sense that you get attacked more than others precisely for that reason: you're a threat to many partisan agendas here.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Frankly, I find your posts extremely well thought out. I sense that you get attacked more than others precisely for that reason: you're a threat to many partisan agendas here.

But not yours. I sense that that's why you find his posts extremely well thought out... precisely for that reason.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU

Originally posted by: PJABBER

It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.

Thanks for the recommendation. I did read the article and found it interesting as another example of the GOP trying to find its soul.

While the Democrats are notorious for being a party of factionalism, again rearing that aspect with the fruits of victory, the GOP tends to stick together through their differences. Sequential losses are forcing a serious re-think, and that is a work in progress. Kathleen Parker identifies some of the issues that will have to be overcome in order for the GOP to become a viable alternative again.

Now, I do believe that the Democrats are well on the way to self destruction no matter what the Republicans say or do. The two articles in this thread are partly an answer to the question of why. The thread responses here show how difficult change is on the heels of victory.

As an American concerned with the good of the country, rather than any Party, I want them to hold together as an effective voice for balanced interest representation, not as a party for so called progressives, who are anything but progressive.

PJABBER, I give you a lot of credit for at least sounding reasonably intelligent and like a rational person. That being stated, a majority of your posts are simply well veiled attempts at trolling. You are just as much a reason for the lack of bi-partisanship cooperation as anyone else on this board.

Thanks for your concern. You are much more of an optimist in your goals than I am as I do not see any example of an effort toward bi-partisanship on P&N. I would be pleasantly surprised to see examples of this trait.

In any case, I believe the best reason for participating in a forum like this is to get a feel for people who have different viewpoints. We do not learn anything from those who agree with us 100% and we do not get anything from shouters, but there is a broad range beyond.

Imagine a forum where the leftish and the shouters were left to themselves. You might as well Move On to the DailyKos to have all of your marginal ideas confirmed while your ego is gently stroked and you purr in blissful ignorance.

The great majority of my posts reference articles that I find interesting and that I find express information, ideas, analyses and concepts with some level of insight. Some are better written than others but in each of them I found something that piqued my curiosity. I also found them sufficiently controversial that I wanted to get some other people's opinions.

I don't have an agenda other than intellectual curiosity. I do find it boring when the same viewpoint is shouted over and over again so it may be that I sometimes indulge my sense of humor with my choice of words.

I have taken to referring to my position as that of a Classical Liberal. I expand on that in other posts, you can reference it by doing a Wiki search. One aspect of this political philosophy is a rejection of large and intrusive government. Many of my comments are extensions of this primary position. I find much to comment on as the current one party government is dedicated to the expansion of government and the absorption of the private sector.

I think a lot of people posting in opposition to my participation take my indifference to their repetitive rhetoric personally, hence the constant ad hominem attacks. I am not the only poster getting this level of attack, just the most recent (has it really been three weeks?)

I look forward to continuing with a discussion on a topic of substance.

Frankly, I find your posts extremely well thought out. I sense that you get attacked more than others precisely for that reason: you're a threat to many partisan agendas here.

Naw! We attempt to educate PJ for the same reason one would wash the dog after it rolled in carrion and we let it in the house.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: PJABBER

... talk radio ... THE voice of the people.

As a Classical Liberal, I do have some idea !

100% Weapons-Grade Bullonium.


Who do you think you are fooling?

Gets my vote for Reality-Check-of-the-Week

:thumbsup:

 

[microbial]

I have yet to identify any poster here on AT as a _True_ liberal.

"Liberal" is a state of mind and a state of grace that is a difficult ideal to achieve. Only the most thoughtful and intelligent can break through the pettiness in human interactions to lay claim to the title of true liberal.

I am, of course, quite aware how many use the term liberal with negative connotation as a put-down. Those arguments are classics of the intellectually bankrupt.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU

Originally posted by: PJABBER

It did, indeed, contain a number of ad hominem attacks on Mr. Drum, and entirely misconstrued Ms. Parker's article, which you should definitely take the time to read.

Thanks for the recommendation. I did read the article and found it interesting as another example of the GOP trying to find its soul.

While the Democrats are notorious for being a party of factionalism, again rearing that aspect with the fruits of victory, the GOP tends to stick together through their differences. Sequential losses are forcing a serious re-think, and that is a work in progress. Kathleen Parker identifies some of the issues that will have to be overcome in order for the GOP to become a viable alternative again.

Now, I do believe that the Democrats are well on the way to self destruction no matter what the Republicans say or do. The two articles in this thread are partly an answer to the question of why. The thread responses here show how difficult change is on the heels of victory.

As an American concerned with the good of the country, rather than any Party, I want them to hold together as an effective voice for balanced interest representation, not as a party for so called progressives, who are anything but progressive.

PJABBER, I give you a lot of credit for at least sounding reasonably intelligent and like a rational person. That being stated, a majority of your posts are simply well veiled attempts at trolling. You are just as much a reason for the lack of bi-partisanship cooperation as anyone else on this board.

Thanks for your concern. You are much more of an optimist in your goals than I am as I do not see any example of an effort toward bi-partisanship on P&N. I would be pleasantly surprised to see examples of this trait.

In any case, I believe the best reason for participating in a forum like this is to get a feel for people who have different viewpoints. We do not learn anything from those who agree with us 100% and we do not get anything from shouters, but there is a broad range beyond.

Imagine a forum where the leftish and the shouters were left to themselves. You might as well Move On to the DailyKos to have all of your marginal ideas confirmed while your ego is gently stroked and you purr in blissful ignorance.

The great majority of my posts reference articles that I find interesting and that I find express information, ideas, analyses and concepts with some level of insight. Some are better written than others but in each of them I found something that piqued my curiosity. I also found them sufficiently controversial that I wanted to get some other people's opinions.

I don't have an agenda other than intellectual curiosity. I do find it boring when the same viewpoint is shouted over and over again so it may be that I sometimes indulge my sense of humor with my choice of words.

I have taken to referring to my position as that of a Classical Liberal. I expand on that in other posts, you can reference it by doing a Wiki search. One aspect of this political philosophy is a rejection of large and intrusive government. Many of my comments are extensions of this primary position. I find much to comment on as the current one party government is dedicated to the expansion of government and the absorption of the private sector.

I think a lot of people posting in opposition to my participation take my indifference to their repetitive rhetoric personally, hence the constant ad hominem attacks. I am not the only poster getting this level of attack, just the most recent (has it really been three weeks?)

I look forward to continuing with a discussion on a topic of substance.

Frankly, I find your posts extremely well thought out. I sense that you get attacked more than others precisely for that reason: you're a threat to many partisan agendas here.

I don't have a partisan agenda. I believe a healthy debate on all sides of an issue.
However I have no use for people on either side that spew bullshit.
Even eloquently worded bullshit as PJABBER seems to be fond of doing.

He calls himself a "Classical Liberal" yet spouts and and listens to extreme conservative nonsense and on top of that treats this forum as a personal blog.
He is just as bad as Phokus or Patranus but with a nice little helping of elitism on top.

We don't need people like them here to stir up partisan muck and the forum would be a much better place without them.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
I don't have a partisan agenda. I believe a healthy debate on all sides of an issue.
However I have no use for people on either side that spew bullshit.
Even eloquently worded bullshit as PJABBER seems to be fond of doing.

He calls himself a "Classical Liberal" yet spouts and and listens to extreme conservative nonsense and on top of that treats this forum as a personal blog.
He is just as bad as Phokus or Patranus but with a nice little helping of elitism on top.

We don't need people like them here to stir up partisan muck and the forum would be a much better place without them.

Small point, but he's using the "other" definition of Liberalism:

"In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Frankly, I find your posts extremely well thought out. I sense that you get attacked more than others precisely for that reason: you're a threat to many partisan agendas here.

But not yours. I sense that that's why you find his posts extremely well thought out... precisely for that reason.

I find his posts well thought out because they don't lack a structured analytical foundation. Consequently, he need not overcompensate by slinging shit from wall to wall. But if you're more comfortable twisting it into something else, I suppose that's ok.

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
I don't have a partisan agenda. I believe a healthy debate on all sides of an issue.
However I have no use for people on either side that spew bullshit.
Even eloquently worded bullshit as PJABBER seems to be fond of doing.

He calls himself a "Classical Liberal" yet spouts and and listens to extreme conservative nonsense and on top of that treats this forum as a personal blog.
He is just as bad as Phokus or Patranus but with a nice little helping of elitism on top.

We don't need people like them here to stir up partisan muck and the forum would be a much better place without them.

Honestly, I have no idea who you are, so if you say you don't, then I'll take you at your word. Since most of PJABBER'S posts are related to fiscal issues, and because his stances on them are similar to mine, yes, it is easy for me to identify with him. Personally, I think he wastes too much time trying to put together a coherent argument on a forum that's as left-slanted and rabid as this one, but regardless, I respect his efforts. The common ground between us is that we're irked by the narrow minded mentality coming from the party of tolerance and peace (see sig). If you're not on board with the liberals' hot topic of the day, you're a Bushwacko Wingnut Teabagging Repug-lican Religious Zealout. There's no middle ground with many of these simpletons. Sure, Republicans have their frothing-at-the-mouth idiots, too, but they don't permeate this board like the frothing-at-the-mouth libtards do, so they (Republicans) get far less attention from party-neutral members.

I do, however, think you mistake PJABBER's "elitism" for his ability to articulate his position extremely well. His posts generally lack the condescending tone and personal attacks usually found in here.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Frankly, I find your posts extremely well thought out. I sense that you get attacked more than others precisely for that reason: you're a threat to many partisan agendas here.

But not yours. I sense that that's why you find his posts extremely well thought out... precisely for that reason.

Birds of a feather stick together and the hard core right wingers only strategy seems to form up in circle jerks and talk about teh evul liberals and socialized medicne. LOL, I guess they don't realize we have a "socialized" military that seems to work very, very, well??

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
I don't have a partisan agenda. I believe a healthy debate on all sides of an issue.
However I have no use for people on either side that spew bullshit.
Even eloquently worded bullshit as PJABBER seems to be fond of doing.

He calls himself a "Classical Liberal" yet spouts and and listens to extreme conservative nonsense and on top of that treats this forum as a personal blog.
He is just as bad as Phokus or Patranus but with a nice little helping of elitism on top.

We don't need people like them here to stir up partisan muck and the forum would be a much better place without them.

Small point, but he's using the "other" definition of Liberalism:

"In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

More accurately, this -

Classical Liberalism

More recently, this -

Classical-Liberal Think Tanks

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani
You are expecting serious replies to a grade-A troll topic titled "are liberals seceding from sanity?"

It was the title of the article, moron. Perhaps you should log your complaint with salon.com

That was obvious dipshit, I was commenting on the fact that he decided to link to it here and keep it as the topic title. Unsurprisingly that was lost on you.

Please, kill yourself.

Any YOU, please lighten up.

T.I.A.

Fern
P&N Moderator

 

[PJABBER]

You have to actually read the OP to understand the reference here, but I offer it as a counterpoint of interest.

Hey, Sen. Voinovich, see the ?real? South

Hey, Sen. Voinovich, see the ?real? South

By Sally Jenkins

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Sally Jenkins is a sports columnist for The Washington Post and the co-author with John Stauffer of ?The State of Jones,? an account of Unionism in Mississippi during the Civil War.

8:17 p.m. Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Where exactly does ?The South? begin, anyway? At Harpers Ferry? Just left of Philadelphia? What is the crossroads that divides ?Southerners? from the rest of us, those of us in the East, Midwest, Southwest and West who don?t talk with corn in our mouths?

Somebody please buy Ohio Sen. George Voinovich a ticket to the real South, preferably on a slow-moving train, so he can observe the country he helps govern.

Last month, Voinovich charged that Southerners are what?s wrong with the Republican Party.

?We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns,? he told the Columbus Dispatch, talking about his colleagues from South Carolina and Oklahoma. ?It?s the Southerners. They get on TV and go ?errrr, errrrr.? People hear them and say, ?These people, they?re Southerners. The party?s being taken over by Southerners. What [the] hell they got to do with Ohio?? ?

Let?s set aside the fact that Oklahoma?s panhandle is closer to Santa Fe than the South and dwell on what Voinovich meant: The GOP is overpopulated by unrepresentative white fire-breathers isolated from the rest of America.

When Voinovich refers to ?Southerners? with such Gone With the Windiness, he conjures images of backward, angry rednecks who scream at black schoolchildren, drive pickup trucks emblazoned with Confederate flags and believe the Civil War was about declaring independence from Northern aggressors.

These stereotypes all mislead in the same way: They define a unified, homogenous South, with virtually no trace of diversity or dissent.

You?d never know from these references that the Southeast has become the fastest-growing destination for foreign-born immigrants and Americans on the move.

Or that most white Southerners opposed secession and that thousands of them fought for the Union, including a band of guerrillas in Jones County, Miss., who effectively seceded from the Confederacy.

Or that the whites who taught in the first desegregated classrooms had crosses burned on their lawns, too.

Or that 5 percent of Biloxi?s population is Vietnamese American, just one more cultural influence in a town built by Poles, Slavonians, French Acadians and Italians. Same with New Orleans.

In 1861, the great British journalist William Howard Russell visited Mobile, then the South?s second-largest seaport, and found it a stunning, multihued international city, a crescent of packed quays and warehouses set against the shimmering azure of the Gulf of Mexico, roaring with commerce and full of roustabouts and outlanders dickering in pidgin languages, ?mestizos of all sorts, Spanish, Italians, and French, speaking their own tongues, or a quaint lingua franca, and dressed in very striking and pretty costumes.?

So when Voinovich talks about unrepresentative ?Southerners,? whom does he mean? The people of Clarkston, who have absorbed one of the nation?s largest refugee resettlements, where Congolese, French Africans, Eritreans, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Burmese, Bhutanese, Burundians, Iraqis, Somalis, Turks and Afghans have revitalized the region?s business and spiritual life?

Is he talking about the people of the Mississippi Coast who work in casinos and oil refineries, or serve in the military, like Johnny and Jo Rusin, who both retired as full colonels in the Army ? he served in Vietnam, and she was the senior female commander in the Persian Gulf War ? only to lose their home to Hurricane Katrina three months after they bought it?

Is he talking about Clinton Portis of Jones County, Miss., or Jason Campbell of Smith County, Miss.? Is he talking about James Hardy, who in 1964 did pioneering work in heart transplant surgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, or Pat Summitt, the head women?s basketball coach at the University of Tennessee, who has done more for equal rights than any law or amendment?

The senator might be reminded that Mississippi had black suffrage (for a time) during Reconstruction when Ohio was still voting no on black suffrage.

And that it was President Ulysses S. Grant?s fear of losing Republican votes in Ohio that allowed ex-Confederates to reverse the social gains of the Civil War in 1875-76 and write the Jim Crow laws.

In fact, ?Southerners? are uniquely positioned to remake the Republican Party, because they are their country. The South was formed by extraordinary forces of mobility, migration and immigration.

According to demographer-economist Harry Dent in his book, ?The Great Depression Ahead,? the states with the greatest net loss of population from 2003 to 2007 were North Dakota, Michigan, New Jersey, Indiana and New York.

The state with the greatest net influx? North Carolina. South Carolina is fourth. Alabama is sixth.

People are streaming toward Southern cities, from Raleigh to Nashville to Birmingham, seeking milder climate, lower rent, better lives.

As Brookings Institution demographer William Frey notes, this ?demographic dynamism? has implications for a large swath of policy issues, from immigrant reform to education gaps.

Voinovich?s view of Southerners is the one that is unrepresentative and regionally isolated. He ignores the fluidity of American society, that great river of movement that brought the blues from the Delta to Detroit and Cleveland, and back again.

If his party has a problem, maybe he should blame Republicans? lack of a broad spectrum of answers.

Perhaps the problem lies less in Dixie than in the fact that an Ohioan who is the ranking Republican on a Senate transportation and infrastructure subcommittee doesn?t seem aware of these basic interchanges and currents in American life.

**************

Ann Coulter offers a response to Kathleen Parker, but as I know so many here read her Thursday columns religiously I leave it up to you to take a gander in that direction on your own.

KATHLEEN PARKER: THE BARRY LYNN OF THE SOUTH

Again, if you haven't bothered to read the OP none of this will make any sense to you.

:laugh:

 

[shadow9d9]

I just moved away from SE Florida.. the supposedly progressive part... the kids wore confederate flags on their belts to school in middle school... it was embarrassing to live in the area... mostly a bunch of inbred hicks.

Btw, a blog is not an article.