Are liberals seceding from sanity?

[Lemon law]

The majority party always seeks a bigger consensus, the minority party becomes somewhat clueless of why they became a minority party, the pope is catholic and bears still shit in the woods. Meanwhile bloggers blog, take a half baked idea and try to build it into a compelling argument theory of everything.

IMHO, the answer is not that liberals hate southerners, but due to the fact that the South tend to be the last national strong hold of the GOP, and as often noted, those are the trend lines, that the GOP is simply becoming a regional party. In the Northeast and Northwest, in terms of Senate seats, its almost a GOP lost cause, Republican Governor Pete Wilson tipped California democratic by alienating the Latino vote almost two decades ago, in a handful of non coastal Western States, the GOP still is strong even though its losing ground, and the South, right now, is and remains the sole GOP bright spot.

And because its a coalition of GOP southern Senators that stall the democratic agenda along with some bluedog democrats, its going to mean the south is where the democrats will try the hardest to covert as many of the GOP as possible. And work on both the GOP electorate and those they have elected in the past.

The GOP clear danger and the clear trend line of the past two national elections is that the country has lost faith in the GOP. And if the GOP loses more ground in the election of 11/2010, they could end up a minority party in the South and a non factor nationally. And the other trend lines is that even as Obama loses some of his honeymoon period support and slips some in the polls, almost none of that lost democratic support is transferring to the GOP.

Its more like the political climate of the 1930's, times were bad, everyone was disgusted, but during the 1930's almost everyone remembered that it was Hoover and the GOP who broke it. Now its GWB and the GOP who broke it, and the GOP will get nowhere trying to bring back the policies of GWB&co. Another type blog rant from me that PJABBER might want to consider as PJABBER preaches to an ever diminishing GOP choir. And unless the GOP comes to grip with new realities, they may be in a for a very rude awakening come 11/2010.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: jonks
Obama is a Kenyan sleeper agent who wants to institute youth re-education camps and insurance death squads for the elderly and disabled.

Who's lost their grip on sanity? sheesh.

/thread

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Perknose
PJ, neither you nor Patranus are as bad as the legendarily bad political spam bot Riprorin. He single-handedly caused the institution of the rule that you have to leave your own comment along with any link you post in your OP.

But, when I see that you two have authored a full 25 of the first one hundred topics here, his late and unlamented troll memory is the very first thing that comes to mind.

Disproportionately linking to extreme blog-like opinion pieces may tickle your partisan fancy, but it is neither a helpful nor a useful thing for furthering any meaningful discussion here on P&N.

After your extended honeymoon period here of unbridled enthusiasm, hopefully both of you will settle down.

Are you posting this as a moderator or as a participant in the debate?

My enthusiasm is most definitely muted by the resistance to new ideas from unexpected and unfamiliar sources I am finding here. And I am subject to a boredom threshold as much as anyone here. I have already stated that my involvement is likely going to be a limited one. Certainly this is but a mild amusement for me.

extreme blog-like opinion pieces may tickle your partisan fancy

If I have to defend my perspective it is this - I am not partisan, at least in the way you mean that term. I have consistently maintained a distance from expressing support for any particular cause, other than maybe rational environmentalism and an advocacy for the technical and societal global solutions proffered by guys like Bjørn Lomborg. And even there I dispute the premise he bases his solutions on. I just happen to agree with what he proposes.

In fact, you only have to consider the liberal source and the content of the above article to see that I most often argue for and applaud rationality and insight, rather than a fixed mind set that rejects the perspectives of an opposing view.

The titles of the posts are derived directly from those of the article authors and their editors or they are exact cut-and-pastes. I may condense them for brevity but I do not attempt to change the meaning they intend.

Free and open discussion makes for challenging debate. Debate here, however, is a privilege and not a right. That privilege is defined by the consensus of mods and possibly by the ownership of the host organization. I am subject to those decisions, though I am not at all clear as to the defining lines.

Do you decide by political slant, by the volume of thread posts as you indicate above, by the volume of responses, by the vociferousness of engendered responses, by the number of ad hominem attacks that are made in response to posts?

Myself, I purposefully refrain from more than the most minor of personal retorts, preferring to stay on topic. I do lapse into a retort on occasion, for comic relief and a respite from the drudgery of reading poorly crafted and irrelevant replies. Is this not something to be lauded, in that it is somewhat unique here?

This is a commercial enterprise I believe, and certainly not a free speech forum. If the commentary I post and the debate that is engendered takes away from the viability of the enterprise, then that suffices as cause for a ban. I accept the premise.

If the P&N forum is meant to take a political slant, that should be identified clearly. Myself, I have not recognized an official slant other than a majority of posters do reflect a predilection for the causes and the rhetoric of the progressive left. But that can just be my own perspective derived from the volume of posts in support of that end of the spectrum. Perspectives can be cloudy in these trying times.

If you aim to ban me, do so. If you don't understand what I am saying, say so. If you are worried by the quantity or the quality of my posts, identify that worry clearly and your reasons for such a worry. Set a limit if you like. Would one original topic thread per hour, per day, per week, per month work better? A rule clearly defined is one that is most likely to be followed.

Best yet, invoke a confabulation of whatever mods care or are actually charged with regulating P&N and render the decision public, so that all may learn from any errors that I may have made or what boundaries I may have inadvertently crossed.

Don't worry, my feelings will not be hurt in the slightest.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Perknose
PJ, neither you nor Patranus are as bad as the legendarily bad political spam bot Riprorin. He single-handedly caused the institution of the rule that you have to leave your own comment along with any link you post in your OP.

But, when I see that you two have authored a full 25 of the first one hundred topics here, his late and unlamented troll memory is the very first thing that comes to mind.

Disproportionately linking to extreme blog-like opinion pieces may tickle your partisan fancy, but it is neither a helpful nor a useful thing for furthering any meaningful discussion here on P&N.

After your extended honeymoon period here of unbridled enthusiasm, hopefully both of you will settle down.

/crosspost

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting, all the lefties are up in arms about Patranus's/Pjabbers thread count, calling for bans, new rules, etc.. Don't recall hearing much complaining when Techs and JPeyton went on their thread-a-thons

Freedom of speech as long as you agree with me, anything else is Un-american :laugh:

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[n yusef]

The premise of this op-ed is, "The Negroes are stupid too, and they vote Democrat." Without doing line-by-line of the whole piece, I'll just note that Lind quoted inaccurate polling data,

Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for the Associated Press.

Election night polls were at 70%, but further data showed the percentage of black affirmative votes on Prop 8 to be 59%. After seeing the 70% bullshit, I stopped reading; find an informed source and you can have an honest debate.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

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.

LOL... Exhibit A.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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.

LOL... Exhibit A.

Don't worry about him. I'm sure he is merely regurgitating what his leftist professor told him in this week's "Left Wingnut 101" course session.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
The south is a racist cesspool of ignorance and arrogance.

Wow. Go look up the word, "hypocrisy."

 

[IndyColtsFan]

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.

Could they please take you with them if they do? What a hypocrite.

 

[Jaskalas]

The traditional liberal solution to such alienation is economic reform, education and political empowerment. But reform is difficult and expensive. And it is much less fun than caricaturing entire ethnic or regional groups, particularly those whose members tend to have less money, less education and less power than those who lampoon them.

Amazing, a Democrat I can respect. A rare catch in these times and not common enough to stop further escalation of our divide. We're heading towards blood, and the ideology brought forth in this quote is what would heal our wounds.

We who inherent the earth sow the seeds of our future. What are you planting?

 

[bamacre]

Maybe we should check our sarcasm detectors, his profile says he lives in MO.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Is there any small irony in Kathleen Parker being implicitly accused of prejudice against white southerners?

 

[TruePaige]

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.

...I have a kettle for you to meet.

Please don't say anything about his color.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I find it disgusting that so many here are afraid of intellectual discourse, on interesting topics, based strictly on their own ridiculously biased definitions of what qualifies as a reasonable source.

If somebody came here and posted something like "I'd like to discuss racism in America...," how would that be any different than referencing a blog? Why should we ignore a potentially wonderful topic of discussion based simply on the posters' names, or the random inspiration for their topic of interest?

:roll:

It's not just "somebody"...It's Professor Jabber, the new Troll King of P&N.


Context matters.

 

[idiotekniQues]

how about just seceding from the south.

now that sounds sane.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Perknose
PJ, neither you nor Patranus are as bad as the legendarily bad political spam bot Riprorin. He single-handedly caused the institution of the rule that you have to leave your own comment along with any link you post in your OP.

But, when I see that you two have authored a full 25 of the first one hundred topics here, his late and unlamented troll memory is the very first thing that comes to mind.

Disproportionately linking to extreme blog-like opinion pieces may tickle your partisan fancy, but it is neither a helpful nor a useful thing for furthering any meaningful discussion here on P&N.

After your extended honeymoon period here of unbridled enthusiasm, hopefully both of you will settle down.

/crosspost

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting, all the lefties are up in arms about Patranus's/Pjabbers thread count, calling for bans, new rules, etc.. Don't recall hearing much complaining when Techs and JPeyton went on their thread-a-thons

Freedom of speech as long as you agree with me, anything else is Un-american :laugh:

Will you stop with all the lefties are up in arms crap. I find PJ as rhetorically gifted as Obama and great fun to read. He has a nasty habit I recognize, the indifference to what other people think. I am absolutely convinced that his dedication to truth and logic will have him in no time at all swinging from my tree.

 

[Moonbeam]

In a fox hole, I'll take a Southerner.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Wull, eyes jest a hillbilly redneck from duh Apple-lat-chin heels of Noth Care-oh-lie-nuhh butt youin's r uh hoot.

Dat ol Kath-lean Parkuh sho nuff is a sweet thang and eye thank sheese duh only suthern amung yuhs.

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
What? Is this really a forum post about an internet article about a blog post about an editorial? Jesus Fuckin Christ.

Thee-us.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: jonks
Obama is a Kenyan sleeper agent who wants to institute youth re-education camps and insurance death squads for the elderly and disabled.

Who's lost their grip on sanity? sheesh.

/thread

lmao ohh man QFT :thumbsup:

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I find it disgusting that so many here are afraid of intellectual discourse, on interesting topics, based strictly on their own ridiculously biased definitions of what qualifies as a reasonable source.

If somebody came here and posted something like "I'd like to discuss racism in America...," how would that be any different than referencing a blog? Why should we ignore a potentially wonderful topic of discussion based simply on the posters' names, or the random inspiration for their topic of interest?

:roll:

It's not just "somebody"...It's Professor Jabber, the new Troll King of P&N.

Context matters.

Maybe to you. I try to focus on the content and debate whatever topics are brought up.

PJ even tends to write more articulately than most... if he's a "troll," he's certainly of the well-spoken sort.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Perknose
PJ, neither you nor Patranus are as bad as the legendarily bad political spam bot Riprorin. He single-handedly caused the institution of the rule that you have to leave your own comment along with any link you post in your OP.

But, when I see that you two have authored a full 25 of the first one hundred topics here, his late and unlamented troll memory is the very first thing that comes to mind.

Disproportionately linking to extreme blog-like opinion pieces may tickle your partisan fancy, but it is neither a helpful nor a useful thing for furthering any meaningful discussion here on P&N.

After your extended honeymoon period here of unbridled enthusiasm, hopefully both of you will settle down.

Are you posting this as a moderator or as a participant in the debate?

My enthusiasm is most definitely muted by the resistance to new ideas from unexpected and unfamiliar sources I am finding here. And I am subject to a boredom threshold as much as anyone here. I have already stated that my involvement is likely going to be a limited one. Certainly this is but a mild amusement for me.

extreme blog-like opinion pieces may tickle your partisan fancy

If I have to defend my perspective it is this - I am not partisan, at least in the way you mean that term. I have consistently maintained a distance from expressing support for any particular cause, other than maybe rational environmentalism and an advocacy for the technical and societal global solutions proffered by guys like Bjørn Lomborg. And even there I dispute the premise he bases his solutions on. I just happen to agree with what he proposes.

In fact, you only have to consider the liberal source and the content of the above article to see that I most often argue for and applaud rationality and insight, rather than a fixed mind set that rejects the perspectives of an opposing view.

The titles of the posts are derived directly from those of the article authors and their editors or they are exact cut-and-pastes. I may condense them for brevity but I do not attempt to change the meaning they intend.

Free and open discussion makes for challenging debate. Debate here, however, is a privilege and not a right. That privilege is defined by the consensus of mods and possibly by the ownership of the host organization. I am subject to those decisions, though I am not at all clear as to the defining lines.

Do you decide by political slant, by the volume of thread posts as you indicate above, by the volume of responses, by the vociferousness of engendered responses, by the number of ad hominem attacks that are made in response to posts?

Myself, I purposefully refrain from more than the most minor of personal retorts, preferring to stay on topic. I do lapse into a retort on occasion, for comic relief and a respite from the drudgery of reading poorly crafted and irrelevant replies. Is this not something to be lauded, in that it is somewhat unique here?

This is a commercial enterprise I believe, and certainly not a free speech forum. If the commentary I post and the debate that is engendered takes away from the viability of the enterprise, then that suffices as cause for a ban. I accept the premise.

If the P&N forum is meant to take a political slant, that should be identified clearly. Myself, I have not recognized an official slant other than a majority of posters do reflect a predilection for the causes and the rhetoric of the progressive left. But that can just be my own perspective derived from the volume of posts in support of that end of the spectrum. Perspectives can be cloudy in these trying times.

If you aim to ban me, do so. If you don't understand what I am saying, say so. If you are worried by the quantity or the quality of my posts, identify that worry clearly and your reasons for such a worry. Set a limit if you like. Would one original topic thread per hour, per day, per week, per month work better? A rule clearly defined is one that is most likely to be followed.

Best yet, invoke a confabulation of whatever mods care or are actually charged with regulating P&N and render the decision public, so that all may learn from any errors that I may have made or what boundaries I may have inadvertently crossed.

Don't worry, my feelings will not be hurt in the slightest.

When I post on my regular account, I am posting as a member. IF you somehow didn't know that before, YOU DO NOW, so cut the cute mod-baiting crap, sport. When I post on my private account, YOU MAY NOT bring my mod status into any answer, that's trolling.

Got it? Good.

Now, you want to pretend that TWO posters having a full 25% of ALL current threads is of zero significance.

Yeah, right. :roll:

To reinforce a point, don't even think about bringing moderator status into this. Consider this your only warning, and no Perknose didn't ask for intercession. I'm doing this all on my own because it's not allowed, plain and simple. If you two disagree that isn't grounds for a vacation, but I guarantee you as sure as the Sun rises in the East, that you'll be gone for a time if you try the "mod" thing again. I guarantee it.

Hayabusa Rider AnandTech Sr. Moderator

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We have become a nation of sides. Our side is right and the other evil. One cannot allow evil to stand, and therefore we must continually oppose it.

Rather that test the soundness of that contention we collectively cling to that mantra.

Consequently we (liberals and conservatives, or what they have become) are seceding from sanity, we are constructing an ad hoc reality that comforts us by vilifying whose who disagree with our way of thinking. Consequently we as a nation are receding from the real world in favor of hyperbole and protectionism of our political patrons.

 

[Stuxnet]

If you don't recognize that both parties are a joke, you're part of the punchline.