There’s No Crying

As a progressive, few things have embarrassed me lately as the undiginified caterwauling from a lot of the left in reaction to Scott Walker’s victory in Wisconsin. The rending of garments, acting as if Walker’s win meant the end of Everything As We Know It, was just ridiculous.

I asked that night on Twitter: “Are you new?”

As if there have never been any setbacks in America’s political fights. As if the left — or the right for that matter — has a permanent lock on wins or losses. Do people on the left think that Martin Luther King simply held one protest and those in power immediately rushed to pass the Civil Rights Act? Do people on the left think that suffragettes held one rally and the next day women received the right to vote?

Come on now.

In America, there is never permanent defeat. Certainly not in the political climate we currently live in. We live in a country that has done the following in the last 15 or so years:

- Re-elect Bill Clinton
- Have a majority vote for Al Gore but live with Bush as president
- Support the war in Iraq
- Re-elect Bush
- Oppose the war in Iraq
- Elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Harry Reid as Majority Leader
- Elect Barack Obama president
- Elect John Boehner as Speaker

That is not a country in which either side has a permanent majority or any of the crap we heard from Karl Rove in 2004 or James Carville in 2008.

You fight. You win. You lose. You live to fight on another day.

What the left needs to learn is the battle is constant. There is no time out in odd-numbered years. 2009 begat 2010. 2013 will have an effect on 2014.

Unlike the Clinton years, the left has built up its institutional muscle. There are groups like Center for American Progress, and yes, Media Matters, who do what they do no matter if the year is odd or even.

We need to develop that mindset on the left, because the right is already there. They are in battle mode every day. We should be too, so quit whining about a temporary setback. There’s work to be done.

  • Pingback: YOURURL.com

  • The Dark Avenger

    except the bitter-clingerers like Zython, Christopher and The Dark Copypastard are still here moaning and licking their wounds.

    Great mind-reading act, do you do balloon animals as well?

    • Wilbur

      Someone up above insinuated that Plunket was really Dennis. Nah, Dennis was much smarter, but like Dennis he’s all this.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Plunket isn’t very good at logic, is he, CFoxx?

    • Christopher Foxx

      Not actual logic, no. But he clearly has wingnut logic down pat:

      “You said something stupid, liberal.”
      “OK. Why do you think I’m wrong?”
      “Because what you said is stupid. QED.”

      • Wilbur

        Hmmm. Looks like Plunket hasn’t posted anything in over 24 hours. I guess that by his own logic, then, he’s a loser and you guys have won the argument.

        OMG, I think I just “used his own logic against him”! Unpossible!

        3 things that are inevitable: death, taxes, and conservative self-beclownment.

        • Plunket

          Good strategy, Wilburn, play possum and make people think the thread is completely dead. Come back a day and a half later and declare victory when no one except the bitter-clingerers like Zython, Christopher and The Dark Copypastard are still here moaning and licking their wounds.

          Somehow I don’t think Oliver Willis had that strategy in mind when he told you to focus and not to give up the fight after the crushing Democratic defeat that was the Wisconsin Recall.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Plunket: Christopher, once again, he doesn’t source his argument. He doesn’t argue at all. He merely posts an article from a liberal blog and then copies the text.

    That’s what sourcing is, Plunket. You’re actually saying he doesn’t source his argument because provides a source.

    If he said something like “Everyone knows that…” or even “I read an article that said …” then he wouldn’t be sourcing his argument. But when he does provide a link to the thing he is sourcing.

    You want to argue that the article he’s quoting is wrong, and show how? Excellent. You want to say the source he uses is unreliable and explain why you say that? Perfect.

    But you’re not doing those things. You’re instead deliberately avoiding doing those things. You’re saying we should disregard what he says and the sources he’s quoted just because you’re saying we should.

    Dark Avenger isn’t the one who’s not sourcing his argument, Plunket.

  • Christopher Foxx

    CFoxx: “If you feel they don’t support his arguments than say that directly and point out where they fall short. Instead, you’ve resorted to “copypasta! copypasta! nyah! nyah! copypasta!” and wonder why folks don’t take you seriously.
    Plunket: “That’s a pretty stupid suggestion since he only posted articles from far-left blogs.

    Not a stupid suggestion at all. It’s a call for you to actually act like an intelligent adult and thereby gain some respect.

    But so far, despite several prime opportunities to do so, you’ve never challenged the content of anything he posted. You steadfastly choose instead to just whine about the fact that he found something to support his view.

  • Zython

    Stupid moderation. 3rd time’s the charm.

    You come in late to an argument and then have no clue what’s going on.

    No, you simply failed at quoting properly. If you want to respond to someone, you should respond to what they said (like I’m doing right now), rather than what they were responding to. Your failures are not my problem.

    Why do you choose to be so stupid?

    I’ve never understood why liberals are so insecure about their intellect while being arrogant about it at the same time. Very, very strange.

    Depends, why do conservatives consider themselves smart when they call actual intelligent people “snobs”?

  • oi ly

    “Flunket” is approriate right about now.

    • The Dark Avenger

      Stupid, resentful, and conservative is no way to go through life, Plunket.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Have a good life, Dennis.

  • Plunket

    I was amazed to discover just today how profligate at it he was, WIlbur, yes. Pretty sleazy if you ask me, but I’ve come across bigger sleazebags on liberal sites before. Just not ones who were so needy about coming across as some sort of an intellectual.

    I’ve never understood why liberals are so insecure about their intellect while being arrogant about it at the same time. Very, very strange.

  • Plunket

    It’s kinda scary that you were either unable or unwilling to recognize your change in tense in the same sentence in your denial. Either you’re a complete buffoon, or you’re patently dishonest. Or quite possibly both.

    In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny.
    –J.S. MIll

    • Wilbur

      Just can’t give up on that copypasta, can you, Plunket. It’s what you do.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Should have read ….”when I ‘copypasta’d’ to demonstrate otherwise”.

    Thanks for giving us the right tense, Plunket, perhaps you’ll submit it to urbandictionary.com?

  • Plunket

    Like you did with the anarchists somehow being part of the Occupy movement, and you had a boo-boo to your ego when I ‘copypasta’ to demonstrate otherwise.

    Past tense to present tense.

    Should have read ….”when I ‘copypasta’d’ to demonstrate otherwise”.

    Dark Avenger, the illiterate copypastard, thinks he’s a time traveler.

  • The Dark Avenger

    The example you think that demonstrates me changing tenses in the same sentence doesn’t do so as anyone can see by going up to my original comment, Mr P.

    I must tell you how much I admire your mad HTML skillz now.

  • Plunket

    How was that quote even close to him being a grammar nazi? This is especially hilarious when followed by:</i?

    He thought he had a winner by criticizing my putting a space between 'your' and 'self'. You come in late to an argument and then have no clue what's going on. Bit go ahead, chalk that up to 'having a life', such as work and studies, but not including hounding abortion doctors. Idiot.

    He changed tense in his sentence structure in several times. I don't give a shit if he can or can't spell, or if he pretends he can travel through time from the past to the present or to the future as he writes a sentence, but if he wants to pick at grammar or spelling he should have his own house in order first. Called on his hypocrisy, or as you like to say, his own logic used against him, he can only retort that he got me to dance. No doubt he googled an instruction manual on how liberals should argue and then just followed the instructions.

  • Zython

    Do you really need to resort to being the grammar Nazi so soon in this argument, Darkness?

    How was that quote even close to him being a grammar nazi? This is especially hilarious when followed by:

    You tend forget what tense you’re writing in, even in the same sentence.

    And…

    especially when you possess only a basic understanding of the English language at best.

    Since you like terms and phrases commonly found on message boards, here’s one you’re probably familiar with.

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  • The Dark Avenger

    Yes, copypasta is just as original as the practice it labels isn’t so.

    Stupidity is much the same all the world over. A stupid person’s notions and feelings may confidently be inferred from those which prevail in the circle by which the person is surrounded. Not so with those whose opinions and feelings are an emanation from their own nature and faculties

  • oi ly

    “How many selves should I get over, Darkness?”

    Far too many …

  • Plunket

    Originality is the one thing which unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of.

    John Stuart Mill

    Truer words, Darkness.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Your tune is copying and pasting the same things over and over and over again.

    And you keep responding to it, Plunket.

    Can’t get quit of me, can you?

    Either you’re seriously lacking in self-confidence or you’re just plain lazy. Or both.

    Either you have no facts to cite, or you’re just above being too lazy to breath on your own.
    Or both.

  • Plunket

    Your tune is copying and pasting the same things over and over and over again.

    I just googled your “This is your brain on Fox News” along with your nym. Unbelievable how many hits it generated. You really have nothing to say other than re-posting trite and hackneyed quotes you’ve seen on the internet from other people who you obviously feel are much smarter and well-spoken than you are.

    Either you’re seriously lacking in self-confidence or you’re just plain lazy. Or both.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Thanks for dancing to my tune, Plunket.

  • Plunket

    Do your self a favor and Google the John Stuart Mill quote along with your nym. You’ll be shocked at the results.

    Do you really need to resort to being the grammar Nazi so soon in this argument, Darkness? Admitting defeat already? Throwing in the towel just when someone challenges you to argue your point in your own words?

    If so, here’s a couple sentences of yours, the rare ones that you actually write on your own, that you might want to see if you can go back and correct… both of which show far less of a grasp of the English language than my spelling error:

    Yes, you are so allergic to actual facts supporting Zython’s assertion, Plunket, and all you provided is a link to the discussion so far.

    …and you had a boo-boo to your ego when I ‘copypasta’ to demonstrate otherwise.

    You tend forget what tense you’re writing in, even in the same sentence.

    Zython was right, and you’re an idiot who needs to get over themselves.

    How many selves should I get over, Darkness?

    My first contention about you was the correct one. You’re so passionate about your cause that you don’t want to fuck it up by trying to argue it on your own words, especially when you possess only a basic understanding of the English language at best.

    Maybe your preferred tactic of repeatedly copying and pasting that J.S. Mill quote all over the internets is the better strategy for you.

    Carry on, moran.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Plunket: “Do you really need to resort to being the grammar Nazi so soon in this argument, Darkness?

      Yes, the troll who complains about folks sourcing their arguments is shocked, shocked! when someone corrects his grammar.

      • Plunket

        Christopher, once again, he doesn’t source his argument. He doesn’t argue at all. He merely posts an article from a liberal blog and then copies the text. That’s hardly an argument.

        After having been called out for it and shown that he’s a repeat copy and pasta offender on this and various other liberal blogs, he resorts to the only defense he knows, which is picking at a misspelled word. He wants to convey the impression that he’s a well-read, worldly intellectual who’s put a great deal of thought into his post, when in actuality an easy google search proves that he’s merely repeating things he’s seen posted at other liberal blogs that he wants to see circulated to as many places as he possibly can.

        Quite pathetic of him. Just as pathetic of you to defend him.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Plunket: Christopher, once again, he doesn’t source his argument. He doesn’t argue at all. He merely posts an article from a liberal blog and then copies the text. That’s hardly an argument.

          Your major complaint hasn’t been that the extracts he posts don’t support the argument he’s making, but that he posts extracts at all.

          If you feel they don’t support his arguments than say that directly and point out where they fall short. Instead, you’ve resorted to “copypasta! copypasta! nyah! nyah! copypasta!” and wonder why folks don’t take you seriously.

          • Plunket

            That’s a pretty stupid suggestion since he only posted articles from far-left blogs. He’s not trying to argue with me, not in good faith anyway, he’s trying to impress you and other liberals who will read it and accept it as gospel. That’s the basic intent of your average copypasta troll.

            Evidently he succeeded.

          • Christopher Foxx

            I still don’t see you arguing against the content of anything he posted. Just whining about the fact that he found something to support his view.

  • The Dark Avenger

    You’re a serial copypasta troll, Dark, so you can skip the sincerity act.

    I enjoy your butthurt about it, Plunket. How’s that for sincerity?

    Do your self a favor and Google the John Stuart Mill quote along with your nym. You’ll be shocked at the results.

    Yourself is one word, Plunket. The only thing that would shock me is if you had a degree from something higher than Joe’s Academy of Auto Repair.

    Is posting that quote as often you can on as many blogs as you can your way of generating support for the liberal side or something?

    Just like you keep calling me a copypasta troll generates support for the conservative POV, Plunket.

    This is your brain on Fox News.

    Any questions?

  • The Dark Avenger

    Argue by copypasta proxy once again, Dark. You can’t help yourself.

    Yes, you are so allergic to actual facts supporting Zython’s assertion, Plunket, and all you provided is a link to the discussion so far.

    Like a meth addict.

    Sure, keep name calling, that makes you sound soo smart and intelligent.

    Your(My) methodology, in a nutshell.

    Phase 1: Make ridiculous contention.

    Like you did with the anarchists somehow being part of the Occupy movement, and you had a boo-boo to your ego when I ‘copypasta’ to demonstrate otherwise.

    Phase 1: Make ridiculous contention.

    “Bill O’Reilly once hounded an abortion doctor, therefore, all conservatives hound abortion doctors as a hobby.”

    Nope, and if you think that he was the only conservative to hound an abortion doctor, I have a bridge over the Tule River I’d like to show you.

    Phase 2: Copy and paste link to an article along with the text that does not support your argument.

    Yep, you can define my argument

    not.

    Phase 3: ???

    That’s true enough, how are you generating support for the conservative side of things by displaying the language of a whore-master and the disposition of a rattlesnake?

    No copypasta here, just answer honestly, even if it’s for the first time in your life.

    Phase 4: Profit!

    Yep, you certainly make a profit trolling here, Plunket.

    Have a good evening, and spend some time with your family, if you can.

    • Plunket

      That’s true enough, how are you generating support for the conservative side of things by displaying the language of a whore-master and the disposition of a rattlesnake?

      No copypasta here, just answer honestly, even if it’s for the first time in your life.

      You’re a serial copypasta troll, Dark, so you can skip the sincerity act.

      Do your self a favor and Google the John Stuart Mill quote along with your nym. You’ll be shocked at the results. Not just at this website, either. You’re more prolific with that quote than the idiots who show the John 3:16 signs at sporting events.

      Is posting that quote as often you can on as many blogs as you can your way of generating support for the liberal side or something?

      • Wilbur

        Classic wingnut: can’t muster an argument against the substance of what you say, so whines about the way that you say it. “You copy and paste too much!” Has to be the most asinine iteration of that pattern I’ve ever seen. Gawd, better wingnuts, Oliver, please!

        • Christopher Foxx

          Seriously.

          Plunket is complaining that Dark is providing support for his claims.

          I mean, think about that for a moment. As Zython already pointed out, Plunket is essentially complaining that Dark isn’t just making stuff up.

          • The Dark Avenger

            He’s not used to thinking of libruls as people who fight back, thus his ‘copypasta’ cri de coeur.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Just like it’s not typical of conservatives to hound abortion doctors, as your buddy Zython implied.

    Then you don’t count O’Reilly as a conservative?

    He did hound an abortion doctor:

    But there’s no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller’s name first appeared on “The Factor” on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O’Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as “Tiller the Baby Killer.”

    Zython was right, and you’re an idiot who needs to get over themselves.

    • Plunket

      Argue by copypasta proxy once again, Dark. You can’t help yourself. Like a meth addict.

      Your methodology, in a nutshell.

      Phase 1: Make ridiculous contention.

      “Bill O’Reilly once hounded an abortion doctor, therefore, all conservatives hound abortion doctors as a hobby.”

      Phase 2: Copy and paste link to an article along with the text that does not support your argument.

      Phase 3: ???

      Phase 4: Profit!

      • Zython

        Yes, how dare he…link and summarize his sources. He should be a true stalwart conservative and just make shit up.

        I swear, you guys get so worked up over the most meaningless BS. Lightbulbs, nutrition, cars, halal foods, television, etc.

  • Plunket

    @Thedark,

    There was no ‘typical’ of the Occupy movement, when it was in existence, that is, other than it was mostly comprised of white DFH’s. Just like it’s not typical of conservatives to hound abortion doctors, as your buddy Zython implied. To repeat his bungled phraseology, “I was using his own logic against him”.

    • Wilbur

      There was no ‘typical’ of the Occupy movement, when it was in existence, that is, other than it was mostly comprised of white DFH’s.

      Well put, Plunket, pat yourself on the back again! So if I said “there’s no ‘typical’ of movement conservatives, that is, other than they are mostly composed of white racist assholes” you wouldn’t object?

    • Zython

      To repeat his bungled phraseology, “I was using his own logic against him”.

      Well, not exactly. You would be correct if my statement occurred in a vacuum. However, this was in response to JAR making up BS about liberals. I was just returning the favor*.

      *Do you need me to explain this phrase to you guys, too?

  • The Dark Avenger

    Since you didn’t seem interested in defending your assertion that the anarchists who were arrested were typical of the Occupy movement, Plunkett, what other course was left to me?

  • Christopher Foxx

    Plunket: Nice copypasta, Dark.

    When you care so much about an issue that you don’t want to ruin things by saying it in your own words.

    Yeah, Dark. How dare you actually provide support for your arguments. “Conservatives” know that adding facts to a conversation will only “ruin things”.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Plunket: “Good to know you don’t consider that one your more constructive hobbies, Zython. How about blowing up bridges?

    A difference being that liberals don’t tend to make heroes of lawbreakers.

    • Plunket

      Copypasta, Dark. For you, it’s what’s for dinner.

    • Plunket

      A difference being that liberals don’t tend to make heroes of lawbreakers.

      Not true.

      Bill Clinton. Ted Kennedy. Bill Ayers. Mumia Abu Jamal.

  • The Dark Avenger

    That you are able to regurgitate Fox Talking Points in your own words is no mean achievement, Plunkett.

    Would you please assure me that you haven’t strained or broken one of your arms by patting yourself on the back so often in this thread?

    • Plunket

      Would you please assure me that you haven’t strained or broken one of your arms by patting yourself on the back so often in this thread?

      That’s a clown question, bro.

      • Christopher Foxx

        And it was addressed to you. Consider why.

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: “and conservative ideological purists get painted with the “wingnut” brush, making their perspective not only unworthy of discussion, but actually deserving of therapeutic institutionalization.

    What else would you call a pathological denial of reality?

    Many conservative ideas have been shown to just not work.
    - Give tax breaks to the uber wealthy doesn’t spur economic growth.
    - Deregulation doesn’t cause corporations to police themselves or be responsible
    - Denying climate change doesn’t make it go away.
    - etc.
    Why would any rational adult consider childish insistence on denying reality to be anything other than unworthy of discussion?

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: “{ Aside to Plunket: After you have been here a while, you will come to know when you have won an argument: The Lefties will be silent.* }

    * To the best of my knowledge, no liberal has ever been known to admit that a conservative belief might actually be valid.

    { Aside to Plunket: After you have been here a while, you will come to know when conservatives have lost an argument: They’ll stop responding to the points made and start claiming they didn’t say what they said.* }

    * To the best of my knowledge, no “conservative” has ever been known to admit that a conservative belief might actually be wrong. They’re so introspective that way…

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: “I am dreadfully sorry that I gave some of you the shivering fits by suggesting that liberals lack introspection and self-correction.
    What I meant to say was that liberals view their goals as inevitable, and progress toward those goals as inexorable.

    Conservative introspection for you, ladies and gentlemen. When no longer able to support your original statement, don’t recognize that you got it wrong. Instead insist you actually meant something completely separate from what you actually said.

    (And “shivering fits”, j.a.r? You really do view anyone who disagrees with you with a Victorian patrician attitude.)

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: “did not deserve his medals” means that he did not deserve the commendations he received. Whether that is true or it not does not mean that he did not receive an Honorable Discharge (“serve honorably”)

    You’re now arguing that someone who accepts medals he didn’t deserve still served “honorably”? You have a warped idea of what honor is.

    For failing to admit that I was wrong when I was not, you called me “haughty and dismissive”. But I was acting like a “Victorian husband.”

    For someone who complains that others “Pretend I said something I didn’t say” you seem to have no problem doing it yourself. You quote me as calling you “haughty and dismissive”. Show me where I wrote that.

    I did say you were acting like a cliched Victorian husband. It’s an accurate description of someone who reacts to solid criticism with the suggestion that their critic “calm down” and “get a cold compress”.

    Of course, I’m not a conservative, so I’m not used to believing ignoring reality is reasoned discourse.

  • The Dark Avenger

    Nice smear, Plunket.

    Of course, anarchists are the foundation of the Occupy Movement.

    The confidential source attended an Oct. 21 protest and “identified four suspicious males with walkie-talkie radios around their necks,” three of four of whom had masks covering their faces. While the exact protest isn’t specified, Occupy Cleveland held a protest that same weekend.

    “The men were wearing black or dark colored shirts, had black backpacks, carried anarchist flags and acted differently than the other people in attendance,” according to the FBI affidavit. They were soon joined by three other men and “appeared to be together and was constantly moving throughout the crowd expressing displeasure at the crowd’s unwillingness to act violently.”

    When an organizer of the protest said they wanted to act peacefully, one of the men said “fuck that” and the whole group walked away, according to the FBI.

    Thanks for demonstrating what J. S. Mill noted a long time ago:

    I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

    Thanks for playing!

    • Plunket

      Nice copypasta, Dark.

      When you care so much about an issue that you don’t want to ruin things by saying it in your own words.

      Both your posts on this thread. Very noble.

  • Plunket

    *I mean constructive hobbies. Hunting abortion doctors doesn’t count.

    Good to know you don’t consider that one your more constructive hobbies, Zython. How about blowing up bridges?

    Do you and your Occupy buddies still consider that a constructive hobby?

  • Zython

    No, Zython, you didn’t “turn my logic against me” (BTW, WTF does that mean, exactly? I know you didn’t do it, but what exactly do you think you did?)

    Well, maybe if you decided not to be stupid, you would understand what’s going on around you. It means that I followed your line of reasoning, and in doing so, showed how it contradicted with your earlier statements. Do you need any of these words defined? “Reasoning”? “Contradicted”? “It”?

    For the record, “You’re either a supreme idiot or a bald faced liar. I’m guessing it’s both.” is hardly what I would call “Disagree[ing] with him or, worse, calmly point[ing] out how what he’s saying is flat out wrong.”

    It’s more like calling a spade a spade.

    I am dreadfully sorry that I gave some of you the shivering fits by suggesting that liberals lack introspection and self-correction.

    Says the guy who gets butthurt when his ego isn’t stroked.

    What I meant to say was that liberals view their goals as inevitable, and progress toward those goals as inexorable.

    Well, the thing is we tried all the conservative ideas. We stopped doing them for a reason.

    -We tried giving no rights to workers. It sucked.
    -We tried giving the rich a free ride. It sucked.
    -We tried outlawing abortion. It sucked.
    -We tried reckless wars. It sucked.
    -Other have tried austerity. It sucked.
    -We tried deregulation. It sucked.

    and conservative ideological purists get painted with the “wingnut” brush, making their perspective not only unworthy of discussion, but actually deserving of therapeutic institutionalization.

    That has more to do with the fact that any arguments for these beliefs tend to rely on a gross lack of awareness of themselves and the world around them, as well as a failure to take things to their logical conclusion (both of which you yourself have demonstrated in this very thread).

    { Aside to Plunket: After you have been here a while, you will come to know when you have won an argument: The Lefties will be silent.* }

    Well, I guess it can be hard to understand. You see, we liberals have things called “lives”, which include “jobs”, “studies”, and “hobbies”*. We have better things to do than, say, blame liberals on our terrible army career, or our wife leaving us, or being fired from our last 17 jobs, or taking 40 years to graduate from community college.

    Speaking of which, your silence on why you’re voting for serial liar Mitt the Ripper is deafening.

    *I mean constructive hobbies. Hunting abortion doctors doesn’t count.

  • Plunket

    No whining, Wilbur. It’s just a temporary setback. Work to be done, dude. Don’t give up, never, ever, give up. Be the ball.

  • Wilbur

    Yep, you guys have discovered how to shut us liberals up – by being so tedious that you could make cream of wheat fall asleep.

  • Plunket

    After you have been here a while, you will come to know when you have won an argument: The Lefties will be silent.

    Starting to see that, justanotherrighty. But it seems weird that they give up so easily on a blog post about not giving up the fight.

    Very little bantering here at the Daily Banter.

  • Justanotherrighty

    I am dreadfully sorry that I gave some of you the shivering fits by suggesting that liberals lack introspection and self-correction.
    What I meant to say was that liberals view their goals as inevitable, and progress toward those goals as inexorable. This also somehow causes them to believe that their ideology is mainstream, so that moderate conservatives are right wingers, and conservative ideological purists get painted with the “wingnut” brush, making their perspective not only unworthy of discussion, but actually deserving of therapeutic institutionalization.
    This they call “being open to dialogue.”

    { Aside to Plunket: After you have been here a while, you will come to know when you have won an argument: The Lefties will be silent.* }

    * To the best of my knowledge, no liberal has ever been known to admit that a conservative belief might actually be valid.

  • Plunket

    Occupy Wall Street movement has hit a wall

    Liberal bloggers talk about keeping up the good fight and not letting up and living to fight another day and all those de-motivating platitudes, but when push came to shove, they became embarrassed of the Occupiers and eventually just stopped even talking about them.

    In a nutshell, Christopher Foxx, that’s your Democratic introspection right there.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Now it requires double teaming to use the “straw man” fallacy? You know what that is, right? Pretend I said something I didn’t say, then “prove” it wrong, and that makes me wrong.
    a) No, Zython, you didn’t “turn my logic against me” (BTW, WTF does that mean, exactly? I know you didn’t do it, but what exactly do you think you did?)

    b) Foxx – here’s a case where you did it, too:

    You found a group that said he didn’t deserve his medals.
    Yes, righty, that’s correct. You said “No one ever said that Kerry did not serve honorably in the Navy.” and I showed how that was just not true. And instead of manning up and recognizing that you were wrong you try to get patrician and dismissive.

    “did not deserve his medals” means that he did not deserve the commendations he received. Whether that is true or it not does not mean that he did not receive an Honorable Discharge (“serve honorably”). Perhaps you didn’t know what I meant by serve honorably, but I did , and I explained it further, so you would understand. But, instead, you decided that not only was I wrong one time, I was wrong three times, once for not admitting that I was wrong two times. For failing to admit that I was wrong when I was not, you called me “haughty and dismissive”. But I was acting like a “Victorian husband.”

    For the record, “You’re either a supreme idiot or a bald faced liar. I’m guessing it’s both.” is hardly what I would call “Disagree[ing] with him or, worse, calmly point[ing] out how what he’s saying is flat out wrong.”
    Of course, I’m not a liberal, so I’m not used to calling insults, “Calm disagreement.”

    Finally, Universal Health Care was a Democratic / Liberal / Progressive concept long before RomneyCare existed …

    Oh, and Wilbur, since you think I’m a liberal, now, you can stop weaving prolix justifications for pretending I’m wrong.

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: You have managed to be clever without being intelligent.

    While you’ve managed neither.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Zython: Also, [justanotherrighty] doesn’t this go against your thesis of liberals having no introspection?

    Exactly. He claims Dems have no introspection, and then points out an example of where, after consideration, they changed their view.

    I would really, really like to find someone on the right who actually had legitimate points to make supporting the conservative view. Someone who can have an adult conversation and make a valid argument for their view. There are legitimate positive things about conservatives, and legitimate complains about liberals. But, man, nobody here who claims to be on the right ever seems to be able to do anything other than whine and contradict themselves.

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: Calm down, Foxx! … get a cold compress on your forehead

    Gods, it’s like dealing with a Victorian husband. Disagree with him or, worse, calmly point out how what he’s saying is flat out wrong and he starts patting you on the hand and tells you to not start getting hysterical.

    You found a group that said he didn’t deserve his medals.

    Yes, righty, that’s correct. You said “No one ever said that Kerry did not serve honorably in the Navy.” and I showed how that was just not true. And instead of manning up and recognizing that you were wrong you try to get patrician and dismissive.

    CF: “How many Democrats “gave in” and supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the extension of his tax cuts, etc.?
    jar: “About as many as reversed themselves later on

    Point remaining: They supported him. Since your claim is Democrats never give an inch, that they supported Bush in the first place shows how wrong you are. Sure, that they subsequently reversed their opinions can be used, along with their original support of him, to show how spineless Dems can be. But that’s not what you claimed (it’s actually what I said). What you’ve claimed and have been trying to repeatedly defend is that the Dems/left never give an inch. Which, with your acknowledgment that they did originally support Bush, you yourself prove that you’re wrong. Thanks!

    CF: “Who were the original proponents of the health care reforms that Obama has adopted?
    jar: “Democrats… Look again at a) The political capital wasted on cramming it down the throats of the Republicans, and b) How many Republicans voted for that “pig with the smeared lipstick.”

    What a nicely completely irrelevant response.

    That Dems spent political capital has nothing to do with who originally promoted the reforms that Obama adopted into a national plan. That Repubs didn’t vote for it actually has nothing do do with who originally promoted the reforms that Obama adopted.

    And who did oroginally promote those reforms? The Repubs. Particularly notably leading Republican Romney.

    So your pointing out that the Repubs didn’t vote for Obama’s plan, that they actually vehemently opposed it, including the parts directly based on Republican proposals, only goes to supprot my statement that Repubs are the ones that “never change course (except when it’s to completely reverse themselves to complain about a President who supports policies they proposed)”.

    So thanks, again! All I have to do to show that you’re wrong is wait for you to argue my side. Considerate of you.

    It’ll be some time before liberals bring themselves to say, “I miss George W. Bush.” But already the New York Times is proclaiming that Bush represented “mainstream conservatism,” unlike today’s Republicans, of course.

    Sure. Liberals will say “I miss GWB” in the same manner in which someone who’s getting tortured daily would say “I miss when torture only happened on Tuesdays”.

    That quote you pulled just emphasizes how terrible “today’s Republicans” are.

    You’re getting almost Farris-like in providing links to things that actually dis-prove what you’re saying.

  • Plunket

    Not crying over spilt milk….

    President Obama plays 100th round of golf, draws fire from critics

    Introspection. It’s what’s for breakfast.

    Give stuff away then go to the club. It’s all good.

    • Zython

      That’s adorable, Plunket. Now go to your room, the grown-ups are discussing things that actually matter.

  • Zython

    Zython, You managed to turn around everything I said

    Yes I did, it’s called “using your own logic against you”.

    and then argue against things I never said, or even implied.

    What did I claim you said that you didn’t? Everything I referred to was said by you in this very thread. I simply pointed out that your whining about Democrats not capitulating to every conservative demand belies your first claim of liberals having no introspection.

    In addition, you claim (via your Jonah Goldberg quote) that it was liberals’ fault that GWB was unpopular at the end of his 2nd term, rather than his policies and actions. This, again, belies your implicit assumption that conservatives have introspection, and mold their ideology around the attitudes of society at large.

    In the end, all I did was point out that your internal logic is faulty at best. The fact that you refuse to recognize this is, considering the issue of discussion, just making it worse for you.

  • The Dark Avenger

    This is Republican Introspection at work, justanothertightly:

    Kurtz’s main contention with Frum’s arguments was that Frum was painting the network with too broad a brush, and one could hardly argue that recently contentious interviews with Mitt Romney and others on Fox News would qualify as toeing the conservative line. Frum shot back by calling Bret Baier and other straight news personalities at the network “good people doing good work in bad situations.” What Frum was more focused on was the overall effect of Fox News on viewers, and insisted there was a correlation between the stories the network puts out there and the average intelligence of their viewers.

    “TV enhances its own credibility by destroying the credibility of all other institutions. And you can see this in polls When other institutions’ credibility decline, TV’s credibility goes up. The old advertising motto for local news stations, ‘we’re on your side,’ against all those other people who are not.”

    Frum admitted that after he wrote a column telling the Republican party to stop letting itself be influenced by Rush Limbaugh, he has had several on-screen invitations to Fox News pulled at the last minute. Kurtz asked Frum to explain his comment about Limbaugh, and Frum shot back by suggesting if the weight of the conservative movement was not so strong and activist, more moderate candidates could have entered the presidential race without fear of being blackballed and framed as RINOs.

  • Justanotherrighty
    • Wilbur

      Do you know how you sound, Justy? Like a man who’s trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t believe in his heart. You come on here weaving jaw-droppingly slanted histories of some fairy tale world where Watergate and the Swift Boat shits were just some minor kerfuffle, quoting breitbart and Goldberg, though you know that none of us here will attribute any authority to those names. And it’s not as if the things you quote actually argue a case, with evidence and logic that might have a chance of persuading someone who didn’t already agree. No, all that your quotes provide is comforting, ex cathedra affirmation of what you wish were true. You seem to feel some need to witness this ‘truth’ among us heathens, almost as if you were trying to prove to someone – or to yourself – that you still have faith that is slipping away from you.

      Give it up, man. You know you really are a liberal at heart. Come join us – all is forgiven.

  • Zython

    Calm down, Foxx! You found a group that said he didn’t deserve his medals. I thought of serving “honorably” as getting an honorable discharge. You upped it a notch .. And note that it was fact checked in 2004 – right after it was released. So get a cold compress on your forehead, or we can just end this conversation right here, tough guy, OK ?

    Yes, proving you wrong is just plain hysterics. I mean, who could ever imagine such a thing. My word.

    About as many as reversed themselves later on – all of them …

    After they realized they grossly underestimated conservative incompetence. Also, doesn’t this go against your thesis of liberals having no introspection? (Since you’re kinda slow on this things, this is a rhetorical question)

    As always, the problem with conservatism today is today’s conservatives.

    “Conservativism can never fail, it can only be failed.” In addition, this shows that conservatives don’t have introspection, despite your claim earlier. So it seems that your lack of self awareness has proven that conservatives lack self awareness. That’s meta.

    The political capital wasted on cramming it down the throats of the Republicans

    They weren’t upset about anything Obama did as president. They were angry that he had the audacity to win while not a Republican.

    • Justanotherrighty

      Zython, You managed to turn around everything I said, and then argue against things I never said, or even implied. While that is extremely imaginative, and, I imagine, hard work, it is totally irrelevant, and serves no purpose. You have managed to be clever without being intelligent. Bravo.

      Some liberals are ignorant ; some liberals are dissemblers. An exalted few manage the two-fer.

    • Plunket

      They weren’t upset about anything Obama did as president. They were angry that he had the audacity to win while not a Republican.

      Say, how’s that Occupy Movement of yours working out for ya, Zython?

      Democratic Introspection and all?

      Republicans lose and the Tea Parties are formed because they recognized Republicans lost their way with the spending and knew it was only going to get worse with Obama and the Dem majorities in the House and Senate.

      Democrats lose in 2010 as a result of over-spending and failure to re-start the economy, so they hastily form a group trying to be like the tea parties and do what? Yeah, blame Bush and Republicans. Real novel idea there. “God bless them” says Nancy Pelosi. “You are the reason I ran for office” says Barack Obama.

      Now just nine months later, with a presidential election coming up, the movement is almost completely dead. That’s some real Democratic introspection right there.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Calm down, Foxx! You found a group that said he didn’t deserve his medals. I thought of serving “honorably” as getting an honorable discharge. You upped it a notch .. And note that it was fact checked in 2004 – right after it was released. So get a cold compress on your forehead, or we can just end this conversation right here, tough guy, OK ?

    How many Democrats “gave in” and supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the extension of his tax cuts, etc.?
    About as many as reversed themselves later on – all of them …
    Who were the original proponents of the health care reforms that Obama has adopted?
    Democrats… Look again at a) The political capital wasted on cramming it down the throats of the Republicans, and b) How many Republicans voted for that “pig with the smeared lipstick.”

    Here’s a slightly different view of my point from Jonah Goldberg (yeah, yeah, I know , you hate him) :

    Look where G. W. Bush’s moderation got him: denounced as a crazed radical by much of the liberal establishment, despite having run as a “compassionate conservative” and, once in office, expanded entitlements and worked closely with Teddy Kennedy on education reform.
    Right on schedule, Dubya is now entering the rehabilitation phase.
    It’ll be some time before liberals bring themselves to say, “I miss George W. Bush.” But already the New York Times is proclaiming that Bush represented “mainstream conservatism,” unlike today’s Republicans, of course.
    As always, the problem with conservatism today is today’s conservatives. [emphasis added]

    You really were just born yesterday, weren’t you Justy?
    Yes, Wilbur, just before you …

    • Wilbur

      Some wingnuts are clueless, other wingnuts are boring. An exalted few manage the two-fer.

  • Justanotherrighty

    My point was not that Democrats didn’t accomplish anything, or even that they weren’t nice people. My point was that in their campaigns, their careers, and their Presidencies, they never , ever, gave one inch to the Right. I did say above that Clinton nodded towards welfare reform to get re-elected.
    I’m not going to march you through the details, with one exception: No one ever said that Kerry did not serve honorably in the Navy. What they did say, which was true, was that he was a vigorous and vehement anti-war protester when he returned. He also testified in Congress that soldiers were committing war crimes, when he had no evidence of such things. He served less time in Vietnam than I did , and his “wounds” were less serious than my injury; and he did take the “three Purple Hearts and I’m out” loophole to get out of Vietnam. His behavior after the war smears whatever he might have done during the war, in my humble opinion.

    I must say two things about JFK : 1) His “accomplishments” regarding Civil Rights was to sign a bill passed over Democratic objection; and 2) He gave up missile sites in Spain and Turkey, which were legitimately placed there to get the Russians to remove missiles from Cienfuegos, which were not supposed to be there, because they violated the Monroe Doctrine…

    • Wilbur

      No one ever said that Kerry did not serve honorably in the Navy.

      You really were just born yesterday, weren’t you Justy?

    • Christopher Foxx

      My point was that in their campaigns, their careers, and their Presidencies, they never , ever, gave one inch to the Right.

      My point was that, although the left may have difficulty with “introspection and / or self – correction” it it’s a trait also demonstrated by the right. To single out one side and claim it isn’t a fault of the other doesn’t match reality.

      Now that you’ve shifted the goalposts to complain the left never give one inch to the right, you’ve really made it easy to point out how far from reality you are.

      Remind me:
      How many Democrats “gave in” and supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the extension of his tax cuts, etc.?
      Who were the original proponents of the health care reforms that Obama has adopted?
      How many times have the Dems folded and given in because Repubs whispered “filibuster”?
      And how many times have the Republicans compromised and worked to get a Democrat-proposed law passed?

      And which side it it you’re claiming “never, ever give one inch?”

    • Christopher Foxx

      No one ever said that Kerry did not serve honorably in the Navy.

      Bullshit.

      You’re either a supreme idiot or a bald faced liar. I’m guessing it’s both.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Foxx: Let’s review some Presidential Elections
    1. An Experienced Pragmatist is beaten by a Charming Charismatic in 1960.
    2. The Charming Charismatic is assassinated, and his successor is so fearful he might lose, that he paints the Republican candidate as the most frightening man in Contemporary History. The Scary Man is trounced.
    3. By 1968, the Insecure Successor is so fearful he can’t win an election, he hands the baton to the Happy Warrior, the first in a long line of left of center Democratic candidates. He is beaten by the Experienced Pragmatist, who proceeds to introduce Wage and Price Controls, approves the Environmental Protection Agency, opens up relations with Communist China, and begins seriously negotiating the end of the Vietnam War, in an eight year term, where in his second term, he receives more votes than any man in history.
    4. Were it not for Watergate, anyone could have beaten Carter, another liberal disguised as a born again Christian.
    5. In 1980, he is trounced by a Charming Charismatic from the Right, who trounces the next contender 4 years later.
    6. In 1988, his successor attempts to compromise with his Democratic Congress. He is betrayed by them, and loses to a liberal disguised as a centrist. (History would repeat itself in 2008).
    7. After 4 years of riding the dot com boom, the Arkansas Philanderer has to make what appears to be a quick course correction to the center, to get re-elected. With the exception of welfare reform, he is no different from the last three Democratic Presidents.
    8. The Chosen Successor in 2000 can’t win, because he is unable to make any course adjustments. Any suggestion that he won’t be liberal will doom his candidacy.
    9. The “War Hero” who runs in 2004, turns out be practically a charter member of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War, and a dyed – in – the – wool liberal.
    So, I ask you, who has been doing introspection and course correcting here, and who has not?
    The Democrats have been running dogmatic liberals since 1968, with shall we say, spotted results.

    When a political party that represents a particular ideology (as ours now both do) fails to look inward when they suffer a setback, there is going to be a lot of “crying and dying” in their future.

    So when can we expect conservatives to support same-sex marriage?
    I would say around the same time that at least one state votes down an amendment to declare marriage is only between and a woman. So far, the vote is 32 – 0 against gay marriage…

    • Christopher Foxx

      Gee, righy. That almost makes sense.

      Except of course you have to dismiss Kennedy as just a “charming charasmatic” person and overlook his accomplishments on civil rights and ignore his success in the Cuban Missle crisis. (Yes, let’s judge people on their looks. If they’re pretty we can ignore anything else they do.)

      And you have to ignoring Johnson’s masterful skill in the senate, his record on civil rights, his funding of education, his creating Medicare, etc. etc. to dismiss him as an “insecure” scardycat.

      And you have to call Nixon a “pragmatist” instead of a “paranoid” and ignoring utterly what that “pragmatism” led him to do. Such as subverting the Constitution, actively participating in crimes, secretly bombing Cambodia.

      And you have to handwave Watergate away.

      And you have to claim only Democrats move to the center in election years.

      And you have to claim the lies said about Kerry were true (because otherwise you’d have to acknowledge that the right constructed a deliberate smear campaign against a soldier who’d served honorably and with distinction and we can’t admit that, can we?).

      So, I ask you, who has been doing introspection and course correcting here, and who has not?

      Well, as long as flag bearers for the right such as yourself continue to demonstrate an extremely lopsided view of history, patently false view of reality, and a dogged determination to never change course (except when it’s to completely reverse themselves to complain about a President who supports policies they proposed) I guess the answer to that is pretty obvious: Not conservatives.

  • Zython

    Wilbur, Bill Clinton told voters two years ago that the prior two years wasn’t enough time to get things turned around from the mess the Democrats had inherited. He said that if they’d vote to keep Dem control of the House and in two more years things were still bad they could vote them all out then. Seemed reasonable right?

    Except:

    A. They didn’t keep them in.
    B. The people they DID vote in decided to hold the economy hostage.

    • SaveFarris

      …. by hog-tying Harry Reid and preventing him from passing a budget?

      • Christopher Foxx

        You can always count on Farris for the idiot’s view.

      • Zython

        I mean, I know conservatives can’t remember anything that happened more than 6 weeks ago, much less 6 months, but you could at least try to keep up.

        Oh, this reminds me, when can I expect an apology for your past idiotic statements?

  • Christopher Foxx

    justanotherrighty: I know the Left is incapable of introspection and / or self – correction.

    They do tend to wimp out a lot, and it’s not a far step from there to become whiners.

    But the right is hardly any better at introspection. I used to thing that they were very aware of their hypocrisies, and just playing the game. But I now see that they really believe the things they say, no matter how self-contradictory, patently provably false, or just simply ridiculous.

    For example, suggesting as you do that only the left is blind to their own shortcomings and unable to deal with reality.

  • Plunket

    So when can we expect conservatives to support same-sex marriage?

    Maybe when the actual voting matches the polling.

    • Wilbur

      I can see why you’d support etch-a-sketch Mitt, Plunket. Strange as it may seem to you, there are people who support what’s right simply because it’s right, regardless of polls and ballots. They are usually called ‘liberals’, ‘democrats’, vel sim.

      • Plunket

        Wilbur, Bill Clinton told voters two years ago that the prior two years wasn’t enough time to get things turned around from the mess the Democrats had inherited. He said that if they’d vote to keep Dem control of the House and in two more years things were still bad they could vote them all out then. Seemed reasonable right?

        So, wouldn’t it now be the right thing to do for voters to exercise that call option?

        Do the right thing. I will be.

        • Wilbur

          In which alternate universe did the Dems retain control of the house, Mr. P.?

          • Plunket

            “Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years….A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
            –Barack Obama, Feb. 2009

            Do the right thing, WIlbur. I know that’s what I’ll be doing.

          • Wilbur

            What I’ll be doing is voting against the party that got us in these multiple messes in the first place. I have no idea why any rational human being would make a different choice.

          • Plunket

            What I’ll be doing is voting against the party that got us in these multiple messes in the first place.

            Of course you will, that’s a given. No matter what Obama promises you and fails to deliver, no matter how many Recovery Summers he tells you are on the way, you’ll always just say “Hey, the Republican party got us into this mess, it’s not Obama’s fault”. You’re completely incapable of assigning accountability to this president.

            Even when he tells you that if he hasn’t fixed it in a full three years it will be a one-term proposition and the buck stops with him, you know he never really meant it.

            I have no idea how you can call that rational thinking, Wilbur.

          • Wilbur

            Of course you don’t, Plunket. You can’t comprehend how someone could think that Obama shares some of the blame for the anemic recovery yet still think he’s the better alternative. But it’s really not hard to understand.

            Let me break it down into wingnut bits for you:

            a) Obama has not been completely unsuccessful. The economy has steadily improved since he took office, though not as quickly as anyone would like.
            b) To the extent Obama has not succeeded, he has not succeeded because he has failed to enact the policies in promised.
            c) In 2001-9 the Republicans failed miserably.
            d) The Republicans failed because they succeeded in enacting the policies they promised.
            e) So which is the more rational choice:
            1) Vote for the guy who’s had some success, and who is it least trying to point things in the right direction, or
            2) Put the 2001-9 people back in power so that they can give us an even bigger serving of the same old fail?

  • thad

    Respectfully, a majority did not vote for Al Gore; a plurality did.

  • Zython

    I don’t know this, but I kind of doubt that you termed Obama’s victory as surviving by a few percentage points.

    That would be because Obama wasn’t the incumbent, so that wouldn’t make any sense.

    When a political party that represents a particular ideology (as ours now both do) fails to look inward when they suffer a setback, there is going to be a lot of “crying and dying” in their future.

    So when can we expect conservatives to support same-sex marriage?

    If you think I am trying to be helpful, I am not – I know the Left is incapable of introspection and / or self – correction. I just thought I’d lay the option out there.

    Yeah, considering that this bit of conceitedness is coming from someone who backs a compulsive liar for President, I’m not buying it.

  • Wilbur

    The republicans dump a huge bucket of money into the state and their boy survives a recall vote – not a normal election mind you but a recall vote – by a few percentage points, and as exit polls show many of those who voted against the recall will be voting for Obama in the fall.

    All the republican crowing about this is sort of like if the Steelers were to treat a 13-9 victory over the Browns as if it were their seventh super bowl ring. Hubris, its what’s for breakfast.

    Justy, introspection and self-correction is a good thing, but your post would rise above the common run of concern trolling if you could point to any examples of where the right engaged in it. Usually y’all’s response to disappointment at the ballot box is to double down on the stupid.

    • Plunket

      Walker won the recall by the same 7 point margin as his last election, and the same 7 point margin that Obama won over McCain. I don’t know this, but I kind of doubt that you termed Obama’s victory as surviving by a few percentage points.

      John Kerry defeated George Bush in the 2004 exit polls, too.

      Today, a full week after last week’s recall fiasco for the Dems, polling shows Romney ahead of Obama in Wisconsin by 47-44. In politics, a week is a lifetime, and Obama just had a really, really bad one. If you’re looking for a silver lining, even one as stale as an exit poll from a week ago, I suppose that one’s as good as any. Seems a bit of a reach, though.

      • Wilbur

        Take it up with Justy, Plunket. It was he and a zillion other wingnuts who were predicting the presidential results on the basis of what happened in Wisconsin, not me. There are lots of weeks between now and November.

        • db

          But Wil,

          Don’t underestimate the impact essentially unlimited spending will have on the election. RomneyPAC has just started the anti-President Obama ads & Gingrich’s Billionaire just dropped another $10m on RomneyPAC .

          You are absolutely right that there are a lot of weeks between now & November. Each and every one of them will have President Obama pounded buy paid for ads, Fox News, and the RW Radio “empire”.

          I will (once) again quote Han Solo, ” Don’t get cocky, kid.”

  • Plunket

    When all Obama did was tweet in his support to Wisconsin Dems, how can anyone blame liberals for wailing and crying?

    Especially when he says he was too busy to come there and help Barrett campaign.

  • Justanotherrighty

    When I was an undergraduate for the first time – log ago – we learned that “ideology = norms + ideas” . Ideology was, therefore, the sum of the ideas that grew out of norms (standards and values).
    Any ideology, whether it be communism, libertarianism, conservatism, or liberalism, must constantly re-assess its “ideas” fit with current “norms”, or you are in danger of being left behind like the communism of the Soviet Union was.
    When a political party that represents a particular ideology (as ours now both do) fails to look inward when they suffer a setback, there is going to be a lot of “crying and dying” in their future. Keep blaming the right for all your (and everyone else’s) problems, and pretty soon, you’ll be doing all the blaming , and the conservatives will be running the country.
    (If you think I am trying to be helpful, I am not – I know the Left is incapable of introspection and / or self – correction. I just thought I’d lay the option out there.)

    • Christopher Foxx

      I know the Left is incapable of introspection and / or self – correction.

      They do tend to wimp out a lot, and it’s not a far step from there to become whiners.

      But the right is hardly any better at introspection. I used to thing that they were very aware of their hypocrisies, and just playing the game. But I now see that they really believe the things they say, no matter how self-contradictory, patently provably false, or just simply ridiculous.

      For example, suggesting as you do that only the left is blind to their own shortcomings and unable to deal with reality.

  • Christopher Foxx

    (in whiny voice) But Oliver, work is hard.

    And the right is mean to us.