Election 2004

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Their founding principle is they are better and more enlightened than the "poor slobs" who make up the backbone of America.

Are you saying the backbone of America is made of poor slobs?!?!

Better?

 

[NeoV]

CW, could you use the term "arrogant elitist" a few more times? You are like Bush in the first debate, simply repeating the same things over and over.

How can you sit there and rail against the M.Moores of the world and completely ignore the equivalents on the far right?

Did you already forget the fact that Bill Clinton won two elections in a row fairly recently?

Perk, for what it's worth, I thought your initial reply in this thread was dead-on accurate. Feel free to keep on correcting people's grammar and spelling too!

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: ntdz
well said.

:thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Perknose

Then please show me a time and a place aforehand where things were collectively better.

Non-sequitur alert. I don't think I ever said anything was "better" or "worse". "Better" happens to be a personal opinion.

Civilization is moving to a less structured form; entropy is at work.

Provide a cherished example, and I'll gladly expose it.

I think everybody here, on either side will agree with me when I ask you to please not "expose it."

edit:Like your sig, BTW:

Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.
Albert Einstein

Last statement first: Since the, ummmm, argument I will be exposing is yours, is it that small and useless that you'd rather it not be exposed?

You claim civilization is headed towards "entropy", "diorder" and finally, "a less structured form". The short term is the short term. Over the broad sweep of history, we have inexorably progressed from the the clan to the tribe to the fiefdom to the city-state to the nation to pan-national alliances. This broad sweep is over several thousand years, and is undeniable, even by you.

Whether you "rugged individualists" like it or not, our planet gets smaller by the day, and our future, as much as you emotionally resist, lies in greater intergration and interdependence AND GREATER RULE OF LAW (ORDER), not less. Think European Union, China annexing Tibet and Taiwan, and yes, the Tsarist/Ex-Stalinist empire of Mother Russia eventually reasserting it's hegemony in it's sphere of influence. Hell, think of our own federal government. Now think of the conservatives now running it. See how much smaller they've made it? National ID's, the Patriot Act in all it's many manifestations. :Q

Then, longest of long terms, think of the Unted States of Earth waging manly war on the heathen diclkless communards of the Pleiades. Blows your myopic little brain, doesn't it? Kind of like a New Hampshire farmer circa 1774 trying to fathom the present day United States of America having the bulk of it's citizen army today . . . in Mesopotamia.

History. The broad sweep. Learn it or weep.

You, FuzzyBee are as wrong in your analysis as a powder blue velvet liesure suit, and about as laughable.

 

[cwjerome]

"CW, could you use the term "arrogant elitist" a few more times? You are like Bush in the first debate, simply repeating the same things over and over"

Well that's what I dubbed those people I'm talking about, and that's what this topic is about... how their influence is damaging.

"How can you sit there and rail against the M.Moores of the world and completely ignore the equivalents on the far right?"

For sake of focus. This topic was created to express a perspective on what's hurting the Dems.

"Did you already forget the fact that Bill Clinton won two elections in a row fairly recently?"

No, I mentioned him myself actually.


I think this is done... I have noticed there's a bunch of other similar threads now, which pretty much ruins the whole thing. Too many people mistakenly took this as a "victory dance" anyway. It's hard to relate a sincere observation without people thinking it's a political maneuver.

 

[Perknose]

I think I may have touched a nerve here. :Q

Originally posted by: cwjerome
What a bunch of reactionary pap. Take perknose: he represents the arrogant elites more than anyone. His view of conservatism is based on his hippie days, getting stoked and railing against "the man." Now that he's sold out and joined reality, he still lashes out in his little imaginary bubble just to feed his psychological need to hate and feel superior.

Bigoted assumptions, you know NOTHING of my personal history. But, HEY, way to label and hate! Now, go wipe yourself down.

Everything -EVERYTHING- he said is typical one-sided scrappings from any old 10 cent liberal comic book.

Specifics, please.

Ohhh look, those nasty conservatives, the root of all evil. God... at least rational leftists can rise above the partisan stereotypes and say something halfway original. This is the same sh*t some red-faced Freshmen was screaming at my campus almost 15 years ago.

^^^^^^^^ Ding! Ding! Ding! The root of your problem. The genesis of your unrestrained anger. 15 years ago, you went to college and your liberal roommate not only had the temerity to disagree with you, but he had more eruditon and a slightly larger vocabulary. Oh! The Shame! Get over your own preceived deficiencies. Nobody cares but you. If you make a mistake, learn. If someone references something you don't yet know, don't be too proud to learn. We never stop learning until the day we die.

Say what you want about "inclusion", make your retard observations about how blacks are no longer slaves (really, thanks for that), and yammer on in your beautiful words you're so proud of, because you're making a non-existent point about nothing

.Again. Specifics, please. If you can't address me substantively, please STFU! And, really, "beautiful words I'm so proud of"? How many syllables are too many in your universe, sparky? What's the approved list?

Nothing you say applies to me because you don't know d!ck about me.

Pot. Kettle.

Rob9874, this bozo thinks I'm some religious puritan who would gasp at porn and wants women to stay home barefoot and pregnant! LOL, you've done a real nice job of pigeonholing me, like any good arrogant elitist would... and as usual, you have no idea about me, my ideas, conservatism, or America.

I will wager I have lived in, or traveled through more and more diverse parts of America than you have, and that I have extensively talked to far more Americans of every region, race, class, gender and circumstance (because I like people, and have no fear) than you could ever imagine.

Perknose is another perfect example of my OP, and he doesn't even have the wherewithall to notice or care. Their founding principle is they are better and more enlightened than the poor slobs who make up the backbone of America. Notice the way he loves to correct people's spelling and grammar in other topics. See how he uses obscure references and big words

Hey, they're only big words or obscure topics if YOU donl't know them. Are you saying I must limit myself to your endorese vocabulary and only those few topics with which you are coversant? If not, just what are you saying?

to sharpen his sarcasm. He sees me like he sees anyone who challenges his presumption of superiority and unblinking self-worship: a primitive creature who yearns to establish a 1000-year conservative Reich. Uhhhh.... The clown doesn't even read my words as I try and promote a better atmosphere

Better atmosphere! ROTFWLMAO! Your thread title is one big condescending troll extracvaganza: "Liberals, P&N, and the Decline of the Left" I can just feel the love now. Get a grip, and get a mirror, you angry little hater!

by trying to strengthen the marketplace of ideas and bring people together. Instead of the arrogant elites making huge, ignorant generalizations and ripping into half the population of the United States

exactly what you are doing, with a huge dose of condescension and self-denial thrown in.

Dude, I'm not the one who started a condescending thread about what my political opponents SHOULD be thinking and doing, you are. It's condescending AND annoying, and you are a spittle flecked little fvck that I'd love to face down in real life. You'd piss your pants, punk.

You came to this forum innocently claiming you were non-partisan. What a pathetic and fundamentally dishonest LIAR you are!

Please take your neuroses and your inferiority complex and your bigoted personal assumptions and your offensively partisan troll posts masquerading as "advice" and stick them up your judgemental rectal orifice. Please strive mightily to position yourself under a falling piece of MIR.

Oh, I'm sorry, is that one of those obscure references you hate so much? Please draw me up a list. NOT.

 

[Mill]

Perk, why do you always physically threaten people when they make you mad? Bad language is fine by me, but why that immature crap?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Mill
Perk, why do you always physically threaten people when they make you mad? Bad language is fine by me, but why that immature crap?

"Face down" is not a physical threat. I have never started a fight in my entire adult life, and I didn't make my bones being a PI in the hood, usually unarmed, by being recklessly belligerent, you know?

I find that standing calmly but firmly in front of most punks is more than enough. So, Mill how is carrying that loaded piece around with you everywhere working out for you? My buddies that would know all agree that packing can make you needlessly interventionist, wanting to stick your firearm backed ego where it truly doesn't belong. But, hey, that's just us, the few, the proud . . .

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Last statement first: Since the, ummmm, argument I will be exposing is yours, is it that small and useless that you'd rather it not be exposed? [/quote]

For those of you who've seen "Blazing Saddles":

Pardon me while I whip this out.

You claim civilization is headed towards "entropy", "diorder" and finally, "a less structured form". The short term is the short term. Over the broad sweep of history, we have inexorably progressed from the the clan to the tribe to the fiefdom to the city-state to the nation to pan-national alliances. This broad sweep is over several thousand years, and is undeniable, even by you.

Whether you "rugged individualists" like it or not, our planet gets smaller by the day, and our future, as much as you emotionally resist, lies in greater intergration and interdependence AND GREATER RULE OF LAW (ORDER), not less. Think European Union, China annexing Tibet and Taiwan, and yes, the Tsarist/Ex-Stalinist empire of Mother Russia eventually reasserting it's hegemony in it's sphere of influence. Hell, think of our own federal government. Now think of the conservatives now running it. See how much smaller they've made it? National ID's, the Patriot Act in all it's many manifestations.

The rule of law is man's attempt to keep entropy from happening. Unfortunately, leftists that are more concerned about themselves than society, as a whole, fight against that by default. How can civilization be for the entre civilization when individuals are asserting their rights above the masses?

Do you really thnk that China annexing Tibet and Taiwan is a path towards order? Yet you talk about our "unlawful occupation" of Iraq as if it's a bad thing. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but that's what the left has wanted for as long as I can remember

Then, longest of long terms, think of the Unted States of Earth waging manly war on the heathen diclkless communards of the Pleiades. Blows your myopic little brain, doesn't it? Kind of like a New Hampshire farmer circa 1774 trying to fathom the present day United States of America having the bulk of it's citizen army today . . . in Mesopotamia.

Looks like you're the one that needs glasses. What is it in history that points you to the fact that evryone in the world will work together for a common cause? World War I? no... The League of Nations? no... World War II? no... The United Nations? seriously, get a grip.

History. The broad sweep. Learn it or weep.

You, FuzzyBee are as wrong in your analysis as a powder blue velvet liesure suit, and about as laughable.

The only laughing you're hearing is the voice inside your head:

They're coming to take me away! To the funny farm!

Perhaps medication could cure your delusionary thoughts. IANAD, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Perknose

The rule of law is man's attempt to keep entropy from happening. Unfortunately, leftists that are more concerned about themselves than society,

Acitually, it is more those you wish to label "leftists" who are willing to see society as a "whole" that sinks or swims together, and are even willing to pay higher taxes to make it so, Joe. Nothing says "I'm serious about this" like putting your money where your mouth is.

as a whole, fight against that by default. How can civilization be for the entre civilization when individuals are asserting their rights above [alongside the rest of] the masses?

Do you really thnk that China annexing Tibet and Taiwan is a path towards order?

You may not like it, I certainly don't, but yes. The fact on the ground of 1 billion plus Chineese and the celestial empire is one you ignore at your peril.

Yet you talk about our "unlawful occupation" of Iraq as if it's a bad thing. You can't have your cake and eat it too, but that's what the left has wanted for as long as I can remember

Please don't put words I never uttered in my mouth, and please cut the picayune partisan crap and step back and see the millenial sweep, which is what we are discussing.

Then, longest of long terms, think of the Unted States of Earth waging manly war on the heathen diclkless communards of the Pleiades. Blows your myopic little brain, doesn't it? Kind of like a New Hampshire farmer circa 1774 trying to fathom the present day United States of America having the bulk of it's citizen army today . . . in Mesopotamia.

Looks like you're the one that needs glasses. What is it in history that points you to the fact that evryone in the world will work together for a common cause? World War I? no... The League of Nations? no... World War II? no... The United Nations? seriously, get a grip.

Bingo. All three are manifestations of the future, whether you like it or not. Take the long view, long after we're both dead. There will be a United States of Europe. They're will eventually be a World Court to which ALL sovereign nations subscribe, even, long after we're dead, the USA. Our unwillinglness to do so now is based on our military predominance, which gives us our political dominance, but which is predicated on our economic predominance, which, will, give a long enough span of histroy, fade. There will come a time when we can no longer dictate to the world, which it why would be wise of us not to piss too long or too often on the rest of the world now. To think we will FOREVER be predominant is to be as blind as a 19th century Brit or a Roman or Greek or a Persian under Xerxes. 'Tis the underlying way of ALL things, or to briefly re-quote one of my obscure references: "All things fall and are built again" or "Frist there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is."

History. The broad sweep. Learn it or weep.

You, FuzzyBee are as wrong in your analysis as a powder blue velvet liesure suit, and about as laughable.

The only laughing you're hearing is the voice inside your head:

They're coming to take me away! To the funny farm!

Now, here, sport, I don't appreciate a "quote" I never said mixed in with nothing but quotes from me. I presume you didn't mean to intientionally obsfucate, just please tighten up you act a tad.


Perhaps medication could cure your delusionary thoughts. IANAD, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Please look again at the long recorded sweep of recorded human history, and notice the overall trend. Please.

 

[Mill]

Edited due to misunderstanding.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Rob9874, this bozo thinks I'm some religious puritan who would gasp at porn and wants women to stay home barefoot and pregnant! LOL, you've done a real nice job of pigeonholing me, like any good arrogant elitist would... and as usual, you have no idea about me, my ideas, conservatism, or America.

That's the problem with most neolibs. They think they have everything figured out. No one would be conservative, unless they were a religious whacko. Believe me, I've known CW for 9 years, and he's anything but religious. I could tell you stories....well, I'd better not.

They don't realize that people can be conservative based on logic and reasoning. There is a coincidence that the evangelical base is also conservative, but that's based on more social conservatism. I think CW is conservative from the economic, small-government standpoint. But if they can pigeon-hole all conservatives into this Religious Right bucket, they can sleep better at night. They can write off all conservatives as religious whackos, and not have to wonder if it's a legitimate viewpoint.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: alchemize
I guess I don't quite see it. Unless you are equating Carter and Moore and Soros to Hitler and the Taliban?

Ding! Ding! Ding! First to mention Hitler by name. You lose.

you mentioned hitler about 10 posts up...

Really, Mrs Gunderson? Provide the quote then, and make sure you get it reich.

11/04/2004 09:20 PM

Yeats knew it, the cyclical rise and fall, in 1939 facing the specter of an all powerful Hitler. "All things fall and are built again / And those that build them again are gay" [old meaning]

Ahem - Perk?

Busted! Of course, it was taken COMPLETLy out of context in your statement here:

I guess I don't quite see it. Unless you are equating Carter and Moore and Soros to Hitler and the Taliban?

I admit when I'm wrong, would you be man enough to do the same now, al?

******crickets******

Sorry perk, I went to bed. I can only take so much in one day I admit I'm wrong all the time, I guess I just don't see where I was wrong...I was being sarcastic with Tabb about how in your post, you bring up lots of nasty names and words, then Tabb does sort of the same, and I say "so your guys mentioned are the same as perks"?

Help me out here. I don't mind being wrong or admitting I'm wrong, how else can you learn?