MSNBC-Melissa Harris-Perry says "kids belong to whole communities"

[Charles Kozierok]

I wouldn't have brought it up if you weren't being such an arrogant, condescending jackass...

Yes, everyone already knows that about me. But bringing up that post claiming I was "running away", only to admit that you did the exact same thing here, well, it just made you look rather foolish, dinit?

I was the raging liberal on Hannity.Com and Lucyann.Com - at least until they "lost" my accounts.

I actually wanted to sign up to post on RedState last year. I would have behaved myself too, so as to be able to post some alternative opinions without getting booted, but their "user guidelines" boldly declare that unless you're willing to 100% support the Republican Party, you aren't welcome. I wasn't going to lie in order to register, so I didn't. Those people aren't too big on hearing alternate viewpoints, but at least they're honest!

 

[Incorruptible]

So when we finally figure out Andrew Sullivan's political affiliation, then what?

He will probably be attacked by the opposite side more likely by the left.

Apparently Andrew Sullivan supports a flat tax, opposes welfare, interventionism and big government which makes a very easy case for him being Conservative but he also supported bush, kerry and obama who directly oppose those views. He also endorsed Ron Paul.

I would guess that he is a Conservative/Libertarian and he opposes the GOP because they are not actually Conservative especially on social issues.

 

[michal1980]

Why not going in there knowing what the mod thinks? What difference does it make? Would you rather people lied about what they believe?

If it were me, knowing the moderator had different views than me would make me want to post there all the more. I spent three full years on a forum that was 95% Christian conservatives, getting flamed nearly every time I posted, and with the staff openly biased and hostile.

What a bunch of whiners people are here.

so you practiced your trollism

 

[werepossum]

Yes, everyone already knows that about me. But bringing up that post claiming I was "running away", only to admit that you did the exact same thing here, well, it just made you look rather foolish, dinit?



I actually wanted to sign up to post on RedState last year. I would have behaved myself too, so as to be able to post some alternative opinions without getting booted, but their "user guidelines" boldly declare that unless you're willing to 100% support the Republican Party, you aren't welcome. I wasn't going to lie in order to register, so I didn't. Those people aren't too big on hearing alternate viewpoints, but at least they're honest!

RedState is completely useless, but yeah, they are honest. No political party, ideology, or person is correct all the time. Even G-d had to "revise and extend his remarks" by sending Jesus. What is that but shorthand for: "You people all suck. I can see I'm going to have to do this for you, unless I want the Kingdom of Heaven to be just me and 2/3 of my angels."

Although it does occur to me that people on Hannity and Lucyann probably saw me the same way I see Sullivan. You SAY you're on our side, but you always seem to disagree with us . . .

 

[ivwshane]

RedState is completely useless, but yeah, they are honest. No political party, ideology, or person is correct all the time. Even G-d had to "revise and extend his remarks" by sending Jesus. What is that but shorthand for: "You people all suck. I can see I'm going to have to do this for you, unless I want the Kingdom of Heaven to be just me and 2/3 of my angels."

Although it does occur to me that people on Hannity and Lucyann probably saw me the same way I see Sullivan. You SAY you're on our side, but you always seem to disagree with us . . .

That's why people shouldn't pick sides and those that do end up looking foolish. Follow the side of logic and common sense and you are bound to piss off all sides equally

 

[werepossum]

That's why people shouldn't pick sides and those that do end up looking foolish. Follow the side of logic and common sense and you are bound to piss off all sides equally

+1

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, everyone already knows that about me. But bringing up that post claiming I was "running away", only to admit that you did the exact same thing here, well, it just made you look rather foolish, dinit?

Chuckles...thanks for the laughs...but I'm done playing your little games. Here's a little extracurricular reading if you're so inclined.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/narcissisticpd.htm

People with narcissistic personality disorder are typically described as arrogant, conceited, self-centered and haughty. Because they imagine themselves as superior to others, they often insist on possessing items that reflect a successful lifestyle. Despite this exaggerated self-image, they are reliant on constant praise and attention to reinforce their self-esteem. As a result, those with narcissistic personality disorder are usually very sensitive to criticism, which is often viewed as a personal attack.

 

[jackstar7]

Chuckles...thanks for the laughs...but I'm done playing your little games. Here's a little extracurricular reading if you're so inclined.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/narcissisticpd.htm

You really take condescending to dizzying heights... but at least you explained why. That was considerate.

 

[fskimospy]

Let us examine Andrew Sullivan. He has endorse ONE Republican Presidential candidate in the last four election cycles - Bush in 2000. He endorsed Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, and Obama in 2012. He also supported the Democrat Party in 2010. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he's ever issued endorsements of the Republican Party. Which makes more sense, a conservative who 75% percent of the time finds the right's candidates too bad to support, or a liberal who 25% percent of the time finds the left's candidates too bad to support?

He was editor of the left wing New Republic. One could perhaps argue that Forbes could be wrong about Sullivan without being fitted for a padded helmet, but it escapes me how anyone could argue that the New Republic could be fooled into hiring a conservative to edit their magazine. (Stop me if we're now pretending that the New Republic is a conservative magazine.) Incidentally, I read Sullivan during this phase of his career in the New Republic; he and Paglia were my favorites there.

He gives out six insult awards. Four of these, the Hugh Hewitt, John Derbyshire, Michelle Malkin, and Dick Morris awards, are given either exclusively or overwhelmingly to conservatives. Only two, the Paul Begala and Michael Moore awards, are similarly aimed at the left.

He supported the Iraq war when it was a disaster and opposed it when it had been turned around. Granted, perhaps this is an honest position, but at the very least it's odd.

He supposedly opposes laws like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act providing gays with extra legal protection, but his criticisms were largely directed at those who refused to vote for it because it didn't go far enough.

I used to read Sullivan regularly, both in print (New Yorker - although honestly I bought mostly issues with Paglia articles) on digitally via the Drudge Report front page. I agree with him on many issues, but those are almost all issues where I agree with the left. I came to the conclusion that his posturing as a conservative is a basic dishonesty designed to give his liberal arguments more weight; due to that I stopped reading his work.

Were he to identify himself as a libertarian, I'd have no problem with him, even though I disagree on many issues. (As Neil Boortz says, if two people agree on everything then one of them is unnecessary.) But pretending to be a conservative while attacking virtually every conservative politician and position is just fundamentally dishonest.

He has endorsed many Republicans as I said in an earlier post. He also was a big Thatcherite back in the UK. Regardless, your argument seems to be almost entirely that he can't be a conservative because he doesn't like Republicans and he doesn't like right wing media personalities. That is a sign of ideological coherence, not a sign of liberalism.

Conservatism or liberalism is not based on support for the Republican Party. If you want to argue that he is liberal, list the political positions that he holds which you believe to be liberal. Being mean to Republicans doesn't count. I mean what sensible person isn't filled with contempt for the Republican Party at this point?

 

[fskimospy]

You really take condescending to dizzying heights... but at least you explained why. That was considerate.

I like how the guy who tool a tangent about Andrew Sullivan and tried to make it into a discussion about how mean I was to him finishes off with accusing others of excessive self involvement.

Lol.

 

[nextJin]

Chuckles...thanks for the laughs...but I'm done playing your little games. Here's a little extracurricular reading if you're so inclined.

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydisorders/a/narcissisticpd.htm

Whatever dude, it is fairly apparent you're alone here. How this thread got hijacked by Andrew Sullivan not being a conservative is pretty crazy though.

 

[werepossum]

He has endorsed many Republicans as I said in an earlier post. He also was a big Thatcherite back in the UK. Regardless, your argument seems to be almost entirely that he can't be a conservative because he doesn't like Republicans and he doesn't like right wing media personalities. That is a sign of ideological coherence, not a sign of liberalism.

Conservatism or liberalism is not based on support for the Republican Party. If you want to argue that he is liberal, list the political positions that he holds which you believe to be liberal. Being mean to Republicans doesn't count. I mean what sensible person isn't filled with contempt for the Republican Party at this point?

What's the point, really? You always make it abundantly clear that you believe that the left is correct on every single issue, the Republican Party is especially wrong on every issue, and that being "sensible" requires one to have contempt for the Republican Party. It's extremely easy to believe that you find Sullivan to be a conservative - hell, you'd find Marx to be a conservative. So since the argument is really only good for comic relief, I'll drop it. You may have the last word.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Either way, you better make sure we keep our 2nd Amendment rights, just in case they do want our kids to be slaves.

 

[UberNeuman]

Just so I'm clear on this: this whole thread is based on comments from an MSNBC commentator.....

\the outrage machine these days must run dry......

 

[UberNeuman]

What's the point, really? You always make it abundantly clear that you believe that the left is correct on every single issue, the Republican Party is especially wrong on every issue, and that being "sensible" requires one to have contempt for the Republican Party. It's extremely easy to believe that you find Sullivan to be a conservative - hell, you'd find Marx to be a conservative. So since the argument is really only good for comic relief, I'll drop it. You may have the last word.

Last word: Barack Hussein Obama...

\that you chose that wording in your sig...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

\the outrage machine these days must run dry......

Outrage doesn't require rational thought, and right-wingers aren't very good at rational thought.

 

[fskimospy]

What's the point, really? You always make it abundantly clear that you believe that the left is correct on every single issue, the Republican Party is especially wrong on every issue, and that being "sensible" requires one to have contempt for the Republican Party. It's extremely easy to believe that you find Sullivan to be a conservative - hell, you'd find Marx to be a conservative. So since the argument is really only good for comic relief, I'll drop it. You may have the last word.

You have been asked multiple times to back up what you said with actual policy positions and every time you have ducked it, instead choosing to rant about how people are mean to Republicans.

It is very telling that both you and DSF have referred to the argument that Sullivan is a conservative as some sort of joke, yet neither one of you has offered a single policy position to back it up.

If you just wanted to say you didn't like him because he is mean to your political sports team you could have just said that. Dint expect other people to buy into your bullshit though.

 

[michal1980]

Outrage doesn't require rational thought, and right-wingers aren't very good at rational thought.

This exactly why there is no point in talking to the left wing. Before you even talk to them they consider you stupid / or sick.

If you think most/all right wingers aren't good at rational thought, maybe the problem isn't with the right wing. Its with you.


But that's what the left has managed to convince themselves of today, they have labeled everyone on the opposite side of them as either an extremist, or stupid. They repeated that lie so many times now that they actually believe it.

Based on that they now dismiss anything and everything anyone on the right says.

 

[Incorruptible]

We fought a civil war and over 600,000 Americans died to make sure that people were not treated as property and now this disgusting piece of shit essentially wants to take us back where the state owns kids.

 

[Bowfinger]

This exactly why there is no point in talking to the left wing. Before you even talk to them they consider you stupid / or sick.

If you think most/all right wingers aren't good at rational thought, maybe the problem isn't with the right wing. Its with you.


But that's what the left has managed to convince themselves of today, they have labeled everyone on the opposite side of them as either an extremist, or stupid. They repeated that lie so many times now that they actually believe it.

Based on that they now dismiss anything and everything anyone on the right says.

Boo hoo. As I said in another thread:

It's no coincidence that those who cry the most about being called dumb are the ones who make the willful choice to remain disinformed by swilling tripe from sources like [CNS News]. It's like a guy who smears himself with feces, then complains when others point out he stinks. They refuse to consider that it's their own dumb behavior that is the root of the problem.

And you are exactly right that there is a cynical, shameless slice of opportunists who exploit these unthinking tools, feeding their craving for hateful, partisan BS, no matter how deceitful it may be. Their contempt for other conservatives is their road to prosperity. At least we just laugh and point. We don't pick their pockets too.

Finally, I want to be clear this isn't a problem of ideology. Not all conservatives are so dumb. It's not even all conservatives on P&N; there are intelligent, thinking conservatives here, and I know many in the real world. But buffoons like Michal and Incorruptible have become the face of conservatives here, and make it all too easy to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush. Their incessant, ignorant noise drowns out the intelligent conservatives.
​

In other words, you reap what you sow. It's not your ideology, it's your ignorance and lack of reason. Stop posting stupid comments and people will stop calling you dumb. Who knew?


Edit: This whole train wreck of a thread is a perfect example of that. This woman made a simple, obvious comment that shouldn't have been the least bit controversial. Whole communities have a vested interest in children's education, not just the individual parents. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the "state" owning our kids, but the usual nutter puppeteers seized yet another opportunity to fire up the outrage machine. Sure enough, the usual tools fell in line to yelp in faux rage, just as they've been trained to. Pavlov's Clowns in action, and a perfect example of why most P&N conservatives are widely considered to be dumb.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This exactly why there is no point in talking to the left wing. Before you even talk to them they consider you stupid / or sick.

No, I think you're stupid because you behave in a manner suggesting that you are stupid.

For example, the other day you posted a thread about John Kerry supposedly "regretting" his opposition to SDI because we now have missile defence technologies. A bunch of people responded pointing out that our current technologies are nothing like SDI, which was never implemented, and that the objections to SDI at the time turned out to be basically accurate. Furthermore, the article you linked never even tried to show a relationship between SDI and current technologies.

You ignored every one of these posts, and then declared that "noone on the left was discussing it".

So, you're stupid. What other explanation is there for not seeing a dozen responses and then claiming they don't exist? Either that or a bald-faced liar. You decide.

You do this in every thread you post in. You make stupid comments. You use irrational arguments. You don't support claims with facts.

In general, you act like you're an idiot. So, people conclude that you are one.

If you think most/all right wingers aren't good at rational thought, maybe the problem isn't with the right wing. Its with you.

I think they aren't good at rational thought because they demonstrate it here on a daily basis. There are one or two right-wingers in P&N who are capable of making reasonable, well-supported arguments, but most of them are brainless droolers capable of nothing more than finding the outrage-du-jour on Drudge or Fox News or talk radio and then coming here and ranting about it.

They don't research things, they don't analyze stories, they don't respond rationally to arguments. It's all bluster and outrage and whining and evasion.

Based on that they now dismiss anything and everything anyone on the right says.

If you don't want to be dismissed, then act in a way that is worthy of respect. Right now, you do not.

I could probably write a program that would have a better chance of passing the Turing Test than "Incorruptible".

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's so much more entertaining for most of the people in P&N to froth at the mouth over something rather than try to actually understand it.

"No-think" free market dogmatist types are going to interpret it the way they want to interpret it, and they will take an alarmist position that she must be an evil evil socialist and collectivist.

 

[Incorruptible]

"No-think" free market dogmatist types are going to interpret it the way they want to interpret it, and they will take an alarmist position that she must be an evil evil socialist and collectivist.

Your an idiot. The US was built on free market principles.

 

[Matt1970]

Your an idiot.

Sigh.....

 

[werepossum]

Last word: Barack Hussein Obama...

\that you chose that wording in your sig...

Um, you do realize that IS his name, right? Have we really progressed beyond accurately reporting the left's words being defined as bias to where even using the left's names is being defined as bias?

Plus using his middle name makes proggies a bit crazy. Um, crazier.