Blogcritics Comments on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Comment by Eric Olsen on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:39:22 EST

HI Dave, jumping in late (which I will be writing repeatedly for the next few days I am sure) - I am very sorry to hear about your mother and your tribute is quite moving (which really caught me off guard after the title of the post!), but I don't think it's very meaningful to connect political liberalism, conservatism, or any other political ism with values, family or otherwise. I do not believe "liberal" sons love their mothers any less than "conservative" ones, and vice versa

Comment by JR on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:48:39 EST

People switch from liberal to a conservative ideology far more often than the reverse... they have matured, or gotten wise to the deceit of crackpot liberal social and financial schemes that were designed to appeal to their rebellious anti-establishment zeal they felt as a innocent youth. So they switch to record budget deficits and "Pray the Gay Away"? Not exactly what I'd call wising up. Maybe it's just brain cell attrition from their rebellious drug and alcohol abuse.

Comment by Shark on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:18:27 EST

Dan's Law: "...People switch from liberal to a conservative ideology far more often than the reverse... they have matured, or gotten wise to the deceit of crackpot liberal social and financial schemes that were designed to appeal to their rebellious anti-establishment zeal they felt as a innocent youth." I dunno. I can point to the opposite just as easily: I see quite an army of young (circa 18-35), cut-throat, greedy, ignorant, materialistic consumer kiddie-like monsters out there -- and conversely, quite a horde of older folks who would tell you they've matured and 'wised-up' to the fact that health, life, family, friends, and personal integrity are more important than "getting ahead", invading oil-rich countries, fucking with the poor and helpless, pushing some crackpot, fantasy 'ownership'-society/vegas-crap-shoot, and aquiring and owning a bunch of useless shit. Oh, and btw: they're usually LIBERALS with Real Values. (PS: after some of those young whippersnappers have attended their umpteenth 'sales' meeting -- or been to their 10,000th corporate 'retreat' to hear Anthony Robbins tell them to buck up and feel the profits coursing through their blood, they'll be left with two options: 1) Come to work with a Glock 9mm handgun -- and make America's most ubiquitous form of "social criticism" by exercising their Second Amendment; -or- 2) They'll quit their jobs, sell most of their crap, volunteer to help in their local community, and BECOME LIBERALS. It's a 'rule.'

Comment by JR on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:49:54 EST

And everyone in government needs to be fired now and then to remind them who they really work for. So when were you planning on reminding Bush who he really works for?

Comment by David Flanagan on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:13:31 EST

No ideology will ever be absolutely fair, and people with bad motivations will hide out in both conservative and liberal ideologies. Exactly right. And everyone in government needs to be fired now and then to remind them who they really work for. Thanks for making a very important point. David

Comment by Dan on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:46:16 EST

"The smarter you are, the less you breed." That was a central theme of Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve". If not for hysterical liberal shrieking over a very small portion of the work that dealt with race and intelligence and social outcomes that run counter to a strict egalitarian model, the book could have helped influence social policy more honestly and effectively. Still, if "God's Ironic Universal Laws" are not absolute, but more like 90% applicable, I would tend to agree. Other, maybe not so ironic, 90% applicable universal laws might be: * People switch from liberal to a conservative ideology far more often than the reverse. They would tell you they have matured, or gotten wise to the deceit of crackpot liberal social and financial schemes that were designed to appeal to their rebellious anti-establishment zeal they felt as a innocent youth. * People who climb out of poverty or near-poverty on their own merit, without excessive government intervention, are more likely to become conservative. Earning a stake in America makes one a big fan of self-reliance and belief in the goodness and accessability of the American Dream. This probably has more to do with Hispanics turning to conservatism than their identification with family values. * No ideology will ever be absolutely fair, and people with bad motivations will hide out in both conservative and liberal ideologies.

Comment by Shark on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:24:14 EST

Dave Nalle: "...My guess... is that number of children relates to income level and education, not political affiliation." Shark's quote -- much earlier -- and with much more entertainment value: God's Ironic Universal Law #245: "The smarter you are, the less you breed." Keep up, people. Jeezus.

Comment by Shark on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:20:43 EST

Steve: >I>"...Shark isn't a liberal, he's a conservative enraged about what you all have done to his party." Actually, to be clear, I'm a *Liberal Reactionary, which means I believe in killing everyone who doesn't agree with my Peace, Love, and Compassion policy. *it's my own party -- see manifesto for more

Comment by Shark on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:13:06 EST

"...Shark committed, in an over the top way, the very thuggery that he's denouncing in David--Shark's comments were gross. The guilt by association with Nazism is very low road." (Wow. What a coincidence: Davey also loves that word "thuggery" -- he got if from Bush -- or maybe the Newt Gingrich Anti-Liberal Euphemism Handbook? Yall read the same material?) Shark's justification for expressing the cultural memory (Germany/1930a) stimulated by Flanagan's points, methods, and constant 'redefining' of 'liberals' as something less than human: Davey: "...unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value." Hey, great minds, etc. Works for me. Shark's self-perception: JR: "...people who pride themselves in generating anger are just being assholes." The difference between me and others is that I'm not an asshole: I only play one on TV.

Comment by Dr. Blake on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:33:01 EST

Is that all? Pretty good but not good enough. Bill Clinton:"V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking." Ooo, is there anything there your grandmother didn't have except for v-chips? Bottom line is that your Grandma still smoked Marlboro Reds, wrote profanity on her uniforms, gave head, and had her little ass up in the air every chance she got! And Bill Clinton is still a reprobate, rapist, and sex addict!

Comment by Plainavy on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:17:10 EST

Shark committed, in an over the top way, the very thuggery that he's denouncing in David--Shark's comments were gross. The guilt by association with Nazism is very low road. Dave's muddled notion that the blue states out-reproduce the red states is contradicted by census data (no need to pay for your own pollsters). See his point refuted at freerepublic.com: "As Steve Sailer pointed out in the Dec. 20, 2004 American Conservative, pro-life Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates [emphasis added] and 25 of the top 26. Abortion-on-demand Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest white fertility rates. The party that gets the lion's share of the votes of 70 percent of the population is well on its way to victory. Unlike the factors made fashionable by the media – the gender gap or out-sourcing, for example – the 'baby gap' is a far better predictor of how a state will vote. 'Indeed, voters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies,' wrote Sailer. 'The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get.' Higher marriage rates and more time spent married correlates even more strongly with Republicanism, Sailer later found. 'When years married is teamed with fertility in a two-factor multiple regression model, the correlation becomes stratospheric,' he wrote on Vdare.com." By the way, Sailor's article also undercuts the popular liberal meme about higher red state divorce rates: blue staters hold off getting married (if they do get married) and enough of them move to the red states (where the jobs and desired living environs are) to increase the electoral votes in the red states and to lend them a portion of their divorce stats. The blue states get credit for the marriages but not for the divorces as these families mature. As for family values, the blue states value a different vision of family than the red states. Blue state parents have smaller families, and go against Clinton's own "sharp turn back to the center" after the 1994 mid-term elections: "Announcing that 'the age of big government is over,' he signed conservative legislation on welfare reform and the 'defense of marriage, and spoke out for stronger anti-crime measures,' V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking. In short, he made himself the champion of what were then called 'family values,' more or less the same issues that in the 2004 exit polls acquired the label 'moral values.'" (See Joshua Muravchik's article here. Please note the values that Muravchik identifies with Clinton's rightward tilt: "welfare reform and the 'defense of marriage'...stronger anti-crime measures,' V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking." Those comprise some of the values that families in the red states want to safeguard: practical measures to protect their kids. The Americans who voted for Bush probably didn't think Kerry would do much to tend those values. Plainavy

Comment by Moll Carruthers on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:37:53 EST

"Shark, I just finished sucking "Jim Flanders" this week, and it is a wonderous tonic to the cod rectum pandered by curs and scoundrels such as the whore monger who know no more than his own thread-bare parrish". Is this original Bugs Bunny or what? Ms. Slut of the month Moll would be proud. Dude, do you always write in character? How long before you transform into a Pirate? Eeh, whata ya say Mr. Flanders?

Comment by mfb on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:19:58 EST

MM is partisan to himself, but let the left keep thinking Moore really likes them. Self destruction. Ha!

Comment by David Flanagan on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:09:37 EST

Well, lets all face that facts about Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and even President Bush himself. People who take stands, especially controversial ones, generate anger from some part of the population. Hell, when I take my nightly stand that 8pm means bedtime for my girls, much anger is generated. And that is at least what I can say for both Rush and Michael Moore. They've taken a stand and they've benefited from it. Personally, I think both Rush and MM are more capitalist than partisan. But at least Rush has never called Americans "the dumbest people on the planet," and travelled overseas to insult the nation en masse on foreign soil. David

Comment by mfb on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:59:30 EST

If your talking about putting MM on the Right side sorry but the right is not that stupid.

Comment by Steve S on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:35:45 EST

such an action would, by definition, put him on the other side, yes.

Comment by mr.blake on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:07:30 EST

You'll never get either of those. It takes guts and a back bone, something the left will never have. Besides I could easily see Michael Moore becoming a turn-coat. That fat bastard would sell you down the road in a heartbeat.

Comment by Steve S on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:21:51 EST

unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value. Not always. One could write a bunch of lies and generate anger that way. That doesn't necessarily give lies any noteworthy value. Rush Limbaugh milks an angry contingent too, if you want to look at what they do as milking. I actually hope MM does end up achieving the status of a Left Rush, more power to him. We shouldn't expect our mouthpiece to be any more convincing to you, than Rush is to us, and we need a more balanced playing field in debate, plus MM now has a built-in, world-wide audience. Now we just need a Left version of O'Reilly.

Comment by David Flanagan on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:00:12 EST

JR, I'm not angry at Michael Moore, nor have I paid much attention to the guy. The fact is, Michael Moore is an exceptional capitalist, one who has managed to milk the angry left for at least a couple hundred million dollars worth of personal income. I find that to be quite impressive. I have not doubt that he'll get at least another couple hundred million out of folks like yourself before people get tired of listening to him; maybe more. Thanks for your comments. David

Comment by JR on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 13:42:46 EST

David Flanagan: Actually, I've come to expect that, unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value. So thank you for affirming the value of this post. Is that how it works? Interesting logic; so I guess since Michael Moore generates even more anger than you, his work is correspondingly more valuable. Not being such a subtle thinker, I had always assumed that people who pride themselves in generating anger are just being assholes. Must be one of those "values" things I wouldn't know anything about.

Comment by Dr. Blake on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:08:27 EST

Don't need Dr. Phil. He's a straight shooter though. I like a straight shooter. When in doubt refer back to #62

Comment by David Flanagan on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 11:08:55 EST

So that is where you get your personal therapeutic approach from Dr. Blake? A combination of Dr. Laura and Ted Nugent? I think I prefer Dr. Phil. ;-) David

Comment by Dr. Blake on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:55:58 EST

The problem with most liberal's is that they suffer from paraphilic infantilism induced from a combination of their own feminine upbringing and just flat out being sissy. THERE IS HOPE! This just in: Ted Nugent has reportedly moved to Crawford, TX not too far from President Bush's ranch. I highly advise to liberal's as a long-term cure to begin learning Ted Nugents way's of life and to listen to Dr. Laura Schlesinger as much as possible. That's ok, thank me later. Sissy asses and panywaist. My pleaseure, you owe me nothing, but thanks anyway.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 02:17:21 EST

>>Great points and I'm betting that your hypotheses are going to supported by the data. My reaction in this post was based largely on the clueless article written by Morrissette. But do Democrats in general and liberals in particular really have less children? << I'm not sure where I'm going to find comprehensive data on it. It's not going to be in the census. I have a grim feeling I'll have to shell out some bucks to hire a polling company to get my own data. >>Some of the data seems to suggest that they do, but it is VERY difficult to control all the mitigating factors that could influence your data. I think this is an area which needs further study before we can draw any firm conclusions.<< Exactly. No one has asked a specific set of questions correlating political positions and family size. People are just making inferrences from very, very gross data. >>Again, let me say, my Mom was a lifelong Democrat as is my Dad to this day. As a matter of fact, he worked a government job in DC for over 30 years, he is the staunchest of Democrats. But that doesn't mean he likes everything his party is doing today. The fact is, he is a social conservative and the DNC leadership has chosen not to support social conservatives in their party.<< Sounds a bit like my family, except that my parents are liberal all the way. Dave http://www.diablog.us

Comment by David Flanagan on Liberals Need to F--- More?

Sat, 1 Jan 2005 00:39:43 EST

Dave, Great points and I'm betting that your hypotheses are going to supported by the data. My reaction in this post was based largely on the clueless article written by Morrissette. But do Democrats in general and liberals in particular really have less children? Some of the data seems to suggest that they do, but it is VERY difficult to control all the mitigating factors that could influence your data. I think this is an area which needs further study before we can draw any firm conclusions. Again, let me say, my Mom was a lifelong Democrat as is my Dad to this day. As a matter of fact, he worked a government job in DC for over 30 years, he is the staunchest of Democrats. But that doesn't mean he likes everything his party is doing today. The fact is, he is a social conservative and the DNC leadership has chosen not to support social conservatives in their party. And that makes all the difference come election time. Not that my Dad would ever vote Republican. He wouldn't, but I love him anyway. :-) Thanks, David