Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » To My Fellow Liberals, Including President Obama, Quit Yer Whinin’!

To My Fellow Liberals, Including President Obama, Quit Yer Whinin’!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

We Democrats, progressives, and other liberals got “shellacked” in the words of President Obama, and maybe we did if we go by the standards of today’s 24/7 news cycle. But you know what? If we hold the 2010 midterm election up to the light of history, it becomes less of a shellacking by the Republicans and more of a Democratic victory!  That’s just sour grapes and desperate political spin after a devastating loss, you say? Again, in the harsh light of American political history, not so!

In the 1982 midterm election during what was then the worst recession since the Great Depression, the Republicans under Reagan lost 27 seats in the House and the Senate stayed essentially unchanged. Congress stayed Democratic.  In the 1994 midterm election with an economy that was still recovering from a recession that began under Bush Sr., the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House and two in the Senate. Congress became Republican-controlled.

So, how is this proof that this past Tuesday’s election wasn’t so bad for the Democrats, especially since we lost 60 seats in the House and six or seven in the Senate depending on how you count them?  Easy!

First, a first term president’s party normally loses seats in the midterm election.

Second, when we lost 54 seats in the House in 1994, that was following a relatively mild recession as compared to the great recession.

Third, we’ve got a black president, and this does make a difference, since race does play a part in voting and white conservatives are much more likely to vote in midterm elections; witness the plethora of race-baiting which was almost exclusively committed by those on the right.

Fourth, we’ve got a president with a funny name, including a Muslim middle name shared with a tyrant against whom we’d just fought and won a frankly illegal war.

Fifth, the Citizens United decision opened up the floodgates of corporate money which could even be from foreign governments.  As a result, more money was spent on this election than even the 2008 presidential election! And when the 527 non-profits are figured in, much more money was spent in support of Republican candidates than for the Democrats.

Sixth, this black president with the funny name is trying to lead America out of the great recession, by far the worst recession since the depression, and the Republicans were wildly successful in convincing much of the voting public to forget what they had done to drag America into the great recession, and that Obama should have been able to snap his fingers, wave a magic wand, and voila!, everything’s all good again!

Seventh, President Obama made a few serious mistakes in that he (1) didn’t trumpet every day how his efforts were indeed helping America out of the great recession, (2) didn’t make the stimulus big enough, (3) didn’t attack the Republicans day in and day out for what they’d done to the American economy during the Bush administration, and, in my opinion (4), didn’t haul many of the previous administration before the Hague for war crimes trials which were richly warranted by international and American law, which would, in my opinion, have damaged the Republican brand even further.

So my question, then, is this: why wasn’t the Republican victory in the 2010 midterms much bigger than it was? Given the above advantages they had, in my opinion they should have been able not only to take more House seats, but they should have been able to capture the Senate as well.  But they didn’t, did they?  What’s more, as of today, Obama’s approval rating (43%) is equal to the average of Reagan’s approval rating throughout 1982, despite all the advantages the Republicans have had this year over the black president with the funny name!

That’s why I love holding current events up to the harsh light of history.  For by doing so, I see that the Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections, this great mandate of the American people the Republicans are claiming in their quest to unravel the Obama agenda is nothing more than a sizable speed bump in the liberalization of America,  for America as a whole is more liberal now than ten years ago, and far more liberal than a generation ago. Anyone with even a modest understanding of American history can see that from our very founding, our nation has undeniably grown progressively more liberal. Sure, we’ve faced other speed bumps of conservative obstructionism along the way, but in each and every case, said obstructionism has proven only temporary.

So for the Republicans, Tea partiers, and other conservatives: enjoy your time in the sun, for it won’t last; in all of American history, it never has. For all your pretentious bombast, you’re on the wrong side of history. That, sirs, is why you didn’t win the Senate.

For my fellow Democrats, liberals, and progressives: quit yer whinin’! The glass ain’t just half full, it’s more like three-quarters full and slowly, glacially filling up! For it’s quite obvious that the Republicans’ almost completely lily-white party which resulted from their Southern Strategy, begun in the late sixties, has precisely zero chance of lasting success as the decades slowly slip by, and our liberal embrace of diversity in everything is perfectly suited to the changing demographics of the American public. It will take longer than we’d like, and some of us won’t live to see it, but that is where the nation we call America is irrevocably headed.

In the long run, barring any worldwide catastrophe, right-wing military coup or similar event in America, the victory will inevitably be ours. The only caveat is that we’ve got to work for it, to earn the victory before the conservatives tear our economy down beyond hope of recovery. So stiffen your spines, square your shoulders, get your chins up, and get back to work!

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    much like the impending extinction of the Repubs in ’08 was overblown so is the demise of the Dems in ’10 regardless of what short-sighted folks with little sense of history will tell you.

    [edited]

  • Dan

    More and more white people are turning away from the party of racial hatred and voting Republican. I think that’s a good thing. For the first time in two years I’m not ashamed of my country.

    Even though the demographic trend is in your favor, you are right that many of you won’t live to see it. Even though white liberals are too stupid to realize it, you wouldn’t want to live to see it. Just like you wouldn’t dare to live in places where whites are a minority now.

  • zingzing

    dan, i live in a predominately non-white neighborhood. and your comment is really, really ignorant. and somewhat confused, i think.

  • Dan

    zingzing, I live in a white neighborhood, your comment, in reply to my comment is really, really, really, ignorant. (more “reallys”)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    More and more white people are turning away from the party of racial hatred and voting Republican.

    For every case of race-baiting you can find by a Democratic politician or pundit, I’ll provide you TWENTY cases of race-baiting by Republican politicians or pundits. If we Dems are the party of ‘racial hatred’ as you claim, then this should be pretty easy for you, right?

    But you won’t take me up on this challenge – you know better.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Another racially charged comment from Dan. Yawn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for Arch and Dan –

    Anyone with even a modest understanding of American history can see that from our very founding, our nation has undeniably grown progressively more liberal. Sure, we’ve faced other speed bumps of conservative obstructionism along the way, but in each and every case, said obstructionism has proven only temporary.

    You two can disagree with my article all you want…but can you disprove what I said? Feel free to try.

  • zingzing

    dan: “zingzing, I live in a white neighborhood…”

    go figure. are you trying to say that dems are racist against whites? and are you trying to say that an america without a white majority is automatically a bad thing? and are you trying to say that a white liberal wouldn’t want to live in a non-white neighborhood? (i like my non-white neighborhood, not because it’s non-white, but because it’s a great neighborhood.)

    obviously, as a white lib in a non-white neighborhood, i am an example of a white lib that’s perfectly fine living in a non-white neighborhood. and i dare to live here. and i want to live here. and i like living here. what do you make of that?

  • zingzing

    it is funny how cities mostly favor democrats while rural areas favor republicans. when people of different races live together, they gravitate towards the dems as a whole. wonder why?

  • zingzing

    dan: “For the first time in two years I’m not ashamed of my country.”

    funny again… obama’s wife says something very similar and the right jumps all over her.

  • Ruvy

    Do you really think, any of you, that it matters who holds the flusher of the toilet flushing you away? Conservatives and Republicans can do nothing to sponge up the $trillions of unbacked dollars that are going to kill your economy.

    Foreigners will back your fake dollar only until the Chinese can convince its HOME market to consume its products. Once they do, they can afford to dump your dollars, buy gold and silver and demand that YOU pay in gold and silver if you want “cheap” Chinese goods. Once the Chinese demand gold from you, so will everyone else – including Israel. Your dollar will be worth less than toilet paper.

    You have no manufacturing base at all, and you haven’t the capability of rebuilding one either.

    Oh, you sad lot of fools!!

  • Clavos

    when people of different races live together, they gravitate towards the dems as a whole. wonder why?

    Dunno, but that question could revolve around the chicken/egg which came first conundrum. Do they live together first and then “gravitate toward the dems” — or vice versa?

    I live in a mixed race neighborhood, too. I don’t dislike it, but do dislike the foreigners in my neighborhood who litter, line-jump in traffic and in stores/theaters, play their music loudly, and otherwise are inconsiderate. In my neighborhood, these foreigners are paying rent in excess of $1500/month and most drive upscale cars (i.e. Mercedes, Lexus, BMW, etc.), so they ain’t poor, but they ARE assholes.

    For the record, I dislike the anyone of any race/nationality who does those things.

  • zingzing

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

    and you really have little understanding of the reality in china. in order to “convince the HOME market to consume its products,” china would first have to address the massive income gap. problem is, the current trajectory of the economic boom is only widening that gap. what’s fueling that boom is the foreign markets, especially the us. so it’s not the home market that needs convincing… they’ll never to be able to afford the stuff the way things are… you need to convince those making money hand over fist to make less money less quickly. fat chance in hell, ruvy.

    the world economy is all linked. if china (and “everyone else-including israel”) were to deliberately sink the largest economy in the world, they’d just be sinking their own economies as well. and most sane people know that.

    a run on the dollar would destroy china’s fortune as much as it would ours, and it would only serve to hurt its best consumer. it knows that. we know that. they’re getting rich right now despite it. we’re hooked on the cheap goods and loving it. no one wants to change. maybe someone should, but you can be DAMN sure it’s not going to be the chinese.

  • Baronius

    Another racially charged article from Glenn. Yawn. Glad Dan called him on it.

  • Jimbo

    The vote was historic! The dribble in this article ignores the fundamental lesson of the election: the public wants a smaller and less intrusive government.

  • Baronius

    “when people of different races live together, they gravitate towards the dems as a whole.”

    Heh. Together. There’s more racial mix in a neighborhood in Anchorage or the Louisiana bayou than in Harlem or the Upper East Side.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Baronius, you can’t possibly find Dan’s invariably nasty tone appealing. He has no interest in having a reasonable discussion, just throwing attitude around.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch, Clavos, Baronius, Jimbo –

    Yeah, I’m a real idiot for pointing out how the nearly completely-white Republican party is screwing itself in the long run, while the Democrats are poised perfectly for the future with our acceptance of diversity in everything, right?

    WELL, CHECK THIS OUT!

    Apparently I’m not the only one who says that the Republicans’ war on brown people isn’t a real good idea…because the socially-conservative Hispanic community voted Democratic by a whopping 3-1 margin!

    And the same article shows clearly by the numbers that the Hispanic vote is PRECISELY what kept the Republicans from taking control of the Senate!

    Gee, now where did I hear such an idea before? Oh, yeah – from ME…right before I was told I was an effing idiot for spouting such a ludicrous idea!

    But I guess all y’all have moved on to a different subject, specifically how Obama’s spending $200M per DAY on his trip to India while keeping a 34-ship fleet just offshore at his beck and call, right? I mean, Fox News, their pundits, and Republican politicians are all about factual reporting, right? And it’s all over the Right’s blogosphere…

    …but how many of those on the Right will own up to buying into the completely, utterly bogus figure from an anonymous figure in India that the Right immediately latched upon as FACT?

    Precious few. But then, ensuring integrity in reporting is not real high on the Right’s list of priorities.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Baronius must have responded to the following:

    “Third, we’ve got a black president, and this does make a difference, since race does play a part in voting and white conservatives are much more likely to vote in midterm elections; witness the plethora of race-baiting which was almost exclusively committed by those on the right.”

    Frankly, I, too, find it objectionable in that Glenn keeps on harping on the race issue to no end, as though he really needed to in order to account for the election results. And to keep on using the same point over and over is like saying the electorate had no other (in their eyes, no doubt) valid reasons for voting like it did. It’s that kind of blindness to the possible faults of this administration as regards its performance or agenda that I also find repugnant. It does appear that Glenn has a race-fixation when each and every time race figures as a major part of his explanation. It’s no different in essence from the kind of objectionable statements from the extreme religious right who lay the blame for natural disasters at the feet of the “evil” people.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Here’s an antidote to Glenn’s always simplistic, Obama Can Do No Wrong thesis.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog –

    You think racial attitudes didn’t have anything to do with the election results? Read my comment #18.

    That, and remember – only a minority of white voters voted for Obama in the 2008 election. Whether you like it or not, race DOES play a significant role. In this past election, the economy was the dominating factor…but as I pointed out in comment #19, race also played a major role – because the shift in the Hispanic vote cost the Republicans control of the Senate!

    So…yeah – I do post a lot of articles on race. I know that. But do you really, truly think the fact insignificant that one party has very few people of color and tolerates race-baiting on a weekly basis, and the other party embraces diversity and does not tolerate race-baiting at all?

    To people of color, Rog, this is a VERY big deal – and as the Hispanic vote proved, to them it was a bigger deal even than the economy in this past election.

    Think on that, friend.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    Here’s an antidote to Glenn’s always simplistic, Obama Can Do No Wrong thesis.

    Did you even bother to read my article where I listed four major mistakes by Obama?

    I guess not.

  • Clavos

    Frankly, I, too, find it objectionable in that Glenn keeps on harping on the race issue to no end…

    Which, of course, shows Glenn himself to be a race baiter.

    Calling an entire cohort of people racist is simplistic (Glenn’s hallmark) generalization and just as racially charged as is ascribing inferiority or other shortcomings to a group of people identifiable by a common physical characteristic.

  • Baronius

    Glenn – I admire you for shaking off your racism. You haven’t gotten rid of your bigotry though.

    Your comments remind me of a former alcoholic who can’t distinguish between a casual drinker and a lush. As soon as you hear someone pop open a beer, you assume they have the same illness you used to.

    But the essence of your behavior hasn’t changed much. You still lump people into groups. You see only virtue on your side of the aisle and only vice in your opponents. Your comments never have any gray. Because the one thing you’ve held constant is that you and your people (whether the whites before or the liberals now) are perfect.

  • Baronius

    Hey, how about that, Clav? We must have been thinking the same thing.

  • Clavos

    We often do, Bar.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The dribble in this article ignores the fundamental lesson of the election: the public wants a smaller and less intrusive government.

    So what was the fundamental lesson of the ’08 election, Jimbo? Or the one in ’06?

    No, it’s a lot more simple than that. Most people do not pay much attention to politics or the economy, so unless times are really good or the incumbent is especially popular personally, people blame The Guvmint for everything and want to Punish Them.

    In this instance, times are not good and the Democratic congressional leadership has all the charisma of a wet dishrag.

    Simple, really.

  • Clavos

    …so unless times are really good or the incumbent is especially popular personally, people blame The Guvmint for everything…

    Except for me, of course. I despise the gummint unconditionally, year after year.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Clearly, Clav. You despise them so much you can’t even be bothered to spell the word guvmint correctly.

  • zingzing

    baronius: “Heh. Together. There’s more racial mix in a neighborhood in Anchorage or the Louisiana bayou than in Harlem or the Upper East Side.”

    you haven’t been here very much recently (like for the last two decades), have you?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos and Baronius –

    Both of you make statements about my attitude, about what you feel are assumptions and sweeping accusations on my part. But what I don’t see either of you doing is refuting or explaining the problems presented by the facts I present.

    Instead, you are both attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.

    Do I call all Republicans racist? No, I never have. BUT do Republicans generally tolerate race-baiting by their own politicians and pundits that we Democrats would not tolerate in our own party?

    Yes.

    Did the Hispanic vote more strongly this time for the Democrats than even the 2008 election? Yes…despite the economy. And both of you know why.

    Would either of you care to prove my statements wrong, or offer any real evidence to the contrary?

    No, I don’t think either of you will. I believe that both of you will simply continue to make statements concerning my attitude concerning race and you’ll both ignore the facts I present.

    And that’s the difference between the two of you and myself – if someone brings up an issue, I’ll try to answer it regardless of how uncomfortable the answer may be to myself and my fellow liberals and progressives. But when someone brings up uncomfortable issues to either of you or to most of the other conservatives on BC, you more often attack the messenger and ignore the message.

    All either of you have to do in order to change my mind is to show me in concrete terms how my perception is wrong. Show me that my facts are wrong and misinterpreted…and I’ll thank you for it – and you’ve both seen me do this before! But if you attack me and simply ignore what I showed you, well, IMO that’s saying more about the two of you than about me.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Glenn, it’s been ages since you’ve been uncomfortable with anything that the Democrats do. Even war or aggression, extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act – all those you condone for the sake of national security, the good patriot that you are. So let’s get real.

    To take just one example, your presumption that the conservatives are more comfortable with race baiting than the liberals are. Well, that may well be the function of the extreme value they place on political correctness. Juan Williams firing by NPR is an example of the liberal intolerance.

    None of us, as Clavos or Baronius have tried to point it out, are either devils or angels. Even in the most enlightened of us, liberals included, there is a dark part of the soul. So don’t be fooled by nice sounding ideologies to be judging groups of people in any summary type of manner. It’s precisely this leitmotif which underlies most of your thinking which makes it awfully difficult for me to keep on taking what you say and write seriously.

    Generalizations are fine as far as they go, but not unless you keep foremost in your mind that we’re all individuals, more often than not, faulty to the core, that we all have our our problems and concerns. To ignore this basic precept not only violates you’re presumably Christian character and upbringing. It’s also a shortcut to thinking.

  • Dan

    Glen shames himself once again in #18 by his blind, exclusive reliance on kook websites for his dubious research.

    The figures from his [Edited] website are provided by the Hispanic hate group, LaRaza. (that means “the race” for those keeping track of actual true race baiting) The figures weren’t even actual exit polling numbers. They were provided the night before, by some unknown nefarious process.

    The actual exit poll numbers are available from CNN to anyone who bothers looking them up. The truth is that Hispanic support for Republicans in House races nationwide increased to 34%, up from 29% in 2008 and 30% in 2006.

    Sharon Angle got 30%, Fiorina got 28%, and Meg Whitman got 30%. These are the normal shares of the Hispanic vote that Republicans usually get. Even “racist” Gov. Jan Brewer, in her convincing, but underreported romp, got 28% of the Hispanic vote. I’m guessing those weren’t the disorderly Hispanics we saw protesting this summer.

    As I said earlier in the thread, the story of this election is the precipitous drop in support for Democrats from white Americans. Particularly white females. Democrats are showing themselves to be the racist anti-white party, and this is an acknowledgement that is long overdue.

    zingzing [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] I can’t endure you not to realize my statement was a intentional reference to Ms. Obama’s ‘pride in country’ speech. Probably not as funny to you now eh?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Ah yes, Dan, but you forget that minority folks who vote other than for Democrats are obviously racist and therefore actually White. Hence Rubino, West, Scott and others elected this year as non-Democrats are racist White folk, particularly those elected from primarily White districts.

    You really do need to understand what words mean. Humpty Dumpty, of course, had it right, er, I mean correct. Damn Republican racist scoundrels!

    `When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    `The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

    `The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – – that’s all.’

    Go thou and sin no more. It is written.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Baronius

    “Did the Hispanic vote more strongly this time for the Democrats than even the 2008 election?”

    Glenn said yes, so that immediately made me think the answer is no. I looked at the Pew Research survey, and although the data isn’t perfectly comparable, it showed that Republicans had gained 3%. In 2008, Hispanics went for Obama 67-31, and in 2010, Hispanics went for Democratic candidates 64-34. (To be fair, that’s probably within the margin of error.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog –

    THAT is what I was looking for – a rational response whether or not it was in agreement with what I posted!

    That said, can you find anywhere that I’ve agreed with extraordinary rendition or the Patriot Act? No. But I’ve always thought that if those of two diametically-opposed viewpoints agree on something, it might be for a good reason. Every president has blood on his hands – which is why I’d never want to be president.

    As you point out, we are all individuals. However, while it is very difficult to make assumptions about an individual, it’s much easier to assign tendencies and intentions to large groups of people. Personal psychology is FAR more inexact than mass psychology.

    That’s why it is a serious mistake to ignore the mass as a whole simply to allow for the infinite range of personalities of the individual. I make sweeping generalizations of the MASSES, for that is easy. It’s the individual for whom I am inclined to refrain from judgement.

    So I stand by everything I’ve said until shown hard data or events proving otherwise.

    Lastly, thank you, Rog, for at least earnestly trying to communicate the viewpoints of those I oppose. That’s not easy, and that’s why I hold you in high regard.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Glenn, I never ever questioned your heart,

    As to hypothetical Dan, I’m certain you can better to playing to plain Dan’s obvious racist sentiments. You do live in Panama, so I gather you rub elbows now and then with the native, forget their politics. However, the way you’re carrying on – and I do realize the intended import is mostly satirical – you do leave a rather poor impression of Harvard or Yale, or whatever other Ivy League school you graduated from, as an elitist institution. I know you can do better than stooping to your namesake’s level, so why not do it?

  • Clavos

    …You despise them so much you can’t even be bothered to spell the word guvmint correctly.

    Actually, it’s a matter of pronunciation, Doc. Mine is the southern vernacular phonetic spelling.

  • Clavos

    …you’ll…ignore the facts I present.

    Actually, a quick perusal of my comments in response to you on any thread will easily reveal that that it’s not your facts I ignore, Glenn, it’s your logically fallacious conclusions you draw from those facts that I deplore (not ignore).

  • Dan

    I think you should listen to roger Dan (Miller). he might call you in to the Dean of Yale.

    Or you could go rub elbows with native Panamanians. How much does that cost? In American?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    I “rub elbows” with Panamanians daily and enjoy the company of most (but not all) whom I know; most of the time, we converse in Spanish since few in our area speak English. I have much to learn and am working on it; still, I can generally understand them and they me.

    At least in our rural area, most Panamanians tend to work very hard six or sometimes seven days per week. They don’t live in a society with significant welfare entitlements; those who can’t work due to age or disability are mainly cared for by their (working) families or by charities. My wife participated in such a charity, and when she delivered basic food items to very poor families some generally insisted on giving her something from the garden in return; it enhanced their self respect.

    It is not uncommon to see groups of Panamanian men and women out on a Sunday clearing roadside ditches and filling in as best they can road pot holes because the government does not do it adequately; they don’t complain, they just get out and do it.

    As to Roger, I was quite serious. Only by twisting words as Humpty Dumpty did is it possible to characterize the many minority group members who voted for Republicans/conservatives, and the Republicans/conservatives who voted for minority group candidates, as White racists. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al, as well as President Obama, have played the race card to the point that it is tattered, torn and approaching meaninglessness. Perhaps this is because, “elite” racist jerk that I must be, I use the term “racist” to mean someone who bases decisions on race, ethnicity or national origin and asserts that there must be not only equality of opportunity (which I support) but also equality of achievement regardless of effort (which I don’t support).

    You are entitled to your views, but I do feel a degree of pity because of them.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan (not Miller) –

    Refute my reference – show me that the Hispanic vote did not cost the Republicans the Senate.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos – all you do, all you ever do is sit on the sidelines and say, “logical fallacy” even when I point out to you that your argument only applies to single events orsmall samples… Which fact in and of itself destroys your claim. Furthermore, you offer NO alternative explanation,which makes it strongly appear that not only do you have no alternative explanation, but that you are aware of that fact and that houses using that argument insincerely, with the intention NOT of proving your point on it’s own merit to the reader, but of tearing me down to the point where you simply don’t have to.

    My point about your insincerity, IMO, is strengthened by you repeated refusal to directly ANY of the issues I present. You’re avoiding directly addressing the issue…because you cannot do so effectively.

    I avoid no issues. You do. And you know it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan (Miller) –

    Do I need to list for you the plethora of race-baiting by Republican candidates and conservative pundits? There are many examples from this year alone…and the most telling factor is that there was VERY little backlash from the conservative base about that race-baiting.

    Do you get that? It’s not the race-baiting itself – it’s the lack of outrage by the conservative base against the race-baiting…and NONE of it would have been tolerated by the Democrats’ liberal base.

    So why is that, Dan? Why is there so little outrage among the conservative base at the weekly,sometimes daily race-baiting by your pundits and politicians? Hm?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Glen, perhaps off topic, but what do you think of the apparently disgraceful disenfranchisement of U.S. military personnel stationed overseas in combat areas and the failure of the Department of Justice to proceed effectively under the Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act)? Apparently, many of the ballots received eventually but too late through no fault of military personnel won’t be considered.

    As I understand the situation, federal ballots are available by internet to U.S. citizens abroad — I got one, printed it, completed it and returned it by snail mail, as required, on a timely basis. However, it seems likely that many troops in combat areas lack adequate access to the internet, to printers or to reliable and speedy snail mail.

    Any thoughts?

    Dan(Miller)

  • zingzing

    dan: “zingzing [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] I can’t endure you not to realize my statement was a intentional reference to Ms. Obama’s ‘pride in country’ speech. Probably not as funny to you now eh?”

    dan, i did realize that. the funny part was that the right called her statement racist, even if that wasn’t true. were you saying that you were ashamed that america elected a black president? no? do you think michelle obama was saying she was proud that americans elected a black president?

    you, on the other hand, in the same comment make clear and project your prejudices onto all other white people when you say that they wouldn’t “dare” live in a predominantly non-white neighborhood.

    you think that the dems are the party of racial hatred. yet they are supported by a vast majority of minority voters. are you saying that they’ve been duped? that they’re too stupid to know what’s best for them or who best represents their beliefs?

    “Democrats are showing themselves to be the racist anti-white party, and this is an acknowledgement that is long overdue.”

    you really think most of those white people voted republican because they view the democratic party as racist against whites? i’m pretty hopeful that that would rank pretty low on most people’s list of reasons not to vote for the democrats. also, being racist against the country’s majority race would be really stupid. other than a few crackpots, people will go on about the economy, or how obama has been a disappointment to them, or they’ll talk about local issues and local candidates, but very few moved over from the democrats because they’ve suddenly realized how racist democrats are. (face it, most democrat politicians, a vast majority, ARE white.)

    not everyone thinks like you, dan.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Glen, Do I need to list for you the plethora of race-baiting by Republican candidates and conservative pundits?

    Yes, I really would appreciate such a list, particularly an extensive and accurate list compliant with my definition of racism. I have seen very little and what little I have seen has generally resulted in chastisement. I recently wrote patently this satirical article published at a rather conservative site and although a few of the comments were quite racist they initially got past the moderators. There were complaints from several regular commentors, and the racist comments were deleted, along with the objections to them.

    I have of course seen some racist stuff from all sides, but have generally ignored it as, I think, most others do.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan (Miller)

    I don’t have much time (my Darling and I are about to go out on a date and I won’t be able to reply at length until tomorrow afternoon at the earliest).

    On the disenfranchisement, I wouldn’t blame any one person or party. Why? Because the military and/or the government was using a new technological system worldwide that required a lot of integrity.

    In other words, it was destined to be a Charlie-Fox no matter who ran it. Think about it – check on bradblog.com to see all the problems we’ve had with electronic voting systems stateside, including an internet-based system that, in a test, was easily hacked by a University of Michigan professor’s CS class…and by China.

    On the list of race-baiting by politicians and pundits on the Right, you’re kidding, right? No offense, but you mean you’re so far out of touch that you haven’t seen it for yourself?

    Okay…then this will take me a week or so, but I’ll start compiling a list of the Right’s race-baiting, and then I’ll submit it to BC Politics for publication. I’d love to see the conservatives post a similar list of race-baiting by the Left, or at least a list of actions by those on the Right against said race-baiting by their own.

    But if the past is any guide, that’s not what you or I will see. What you and I will see instead are comments like, “Here he goes again on the race schtick”.

    But I’ll get it published for you…and I’d really like to hear you (or any conservative) explain exactly why the Right lets its politicians and pundits get away with this crap.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Glen, I look forward to seeing it. I can wait; it’s almost my bedtime and I shall have other things to do tomorrow.

    I disagree on the military voting, but so be it. The point is, the Department of Justice did far too little and far too late for the military votes to count. As noted in the satirical piece linked above,

    New York is showing the way, and with enough support maybe we can prevent even more violent military scum overseas from voting. It’s a good thing that the Department of Justice is dragging its feet courageously because soon it will be too late for their votes to count. Tough; that’s neither new nor bad. Those military swine know nothing and care less about true democracy; if they actually cared they would gladly cease their killing, desert (all 26,172 of them), come home, and vote like everyone else. They get more than enough special privileges already.

    Oh well,

    Dan(Miller)

  • Jordan Richardson

    Maybe you guys should define exactly what you think “race-baiting” is before you go throwing around extensive lists that the “other side” is going to readily refute.

    Seems to me that some people read this article by Glenn and see racism, while others do not. Are we really that far apart on what constitutes racism and/or race-baiting?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    I was never in favor of group generalizations, DM, only thought it rather uncouth of you to make your otherwise sensible point by paying homage to your namesake.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    It appears PJM has the same low threshold for satire as BC

  • Clavos

    when I point out to you that your argument only applies to single events orsmall samples… Which fact in and of itself destroys your claim.

    Not on just your say-so it doesn’t, Glenn. No.

    My point about your insincerity, IMO, is strengthened by you repeated refusal to directly ANY of the issues I present. You’re avoiding directly addressing the issue…because you cannot do so effectively.

    You don’t raise issues, Glenn, only strawmen grounded in fallacious conclusions founded on dubious data.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    And we should just go by your judgement that these aren’t valid issues then? Who died and made you The Decider?

  • Baronius

    Hey Glenn, what about my comment #35?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Accusing the Dems of being an anti-white ‘racist’ party is … pretty far out. John Bircher level stuff.

    Do Clavos, Baronius, and Dan (Miller) actually agree with that nasty assertion? I wish they would call (the other) Dan on his worst excesses, but they never bother to comment. They just like to pile on Glenn.

    And I’m not sure what Dan (M) has in mind, but Obama, both as candidate and as president, has “played the race card” very seldom, certainly when compared to national black activist leaders like Jackson and Sharpton.

    Like nearly all current national politicians, from his rhetoric you would judge his main constituency to be “middle class Americans.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Handy –

    It’s because Dan presents no threat to their way of thinking. I guess I do. I’ll take that as a compliment.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    Hi Glenn,

    Good to read you here, buddy!

    IMO, the SCOTUS decision was the real reason for this over-whelming power grab pulled-off with the help of Karl Rove and The Chamber. How else could this incompetent lot have won, wouldn’t you agree?

    With unlimited funds protected by 501(c)(4) tax status, Karl and all of these *TeaParty* groups are calling themselves social welfare programs.

    Imagine this, a social program that would destroy all social programs, and make a hefty undisclosed profit too!

    Now, add a fully functional privately owned propaganda noise machine, Fox, and you have everyone sucked into the big lie: “Vote us back in and we’ll CUT TAXES!”

    I am still on my quest to tell people that taxes are not evil.

    :D I’m not whinin…take care Glenn and hope all is well for you and your family, later.

  • Arch Conservative

    Hey look everybody……..

    It’s Glenn beating his drum again………..

    All Republicans/conservatives are racists……..

    The world is just minutes away from wholeheartedly embracing a far left wing agenda which will bring about peace on earth and goodwill towards all………..

    Last week’s election means absolutely nothing at all and to suggest that it does is the epitome of foolishness……….

    Obama is the one we have been waiting for………

    Yes we can………….

    Did I miss anything Glenn?

  • Baronius

    Handy – I don’t think that the Democratic Party is anti-white. If Dan is referring to affirmative action, then I could understand his point. If he’s in Michael Savage mode, claiming that the white man is the backbone of the country or whatever, then he’s batty.

    As for the Dems being racist, I agree. At a minimum they’re fixated on race. I’ve heard some people use the term “racialist” to refer to that obsession, distinguishing it from the feelings of superiority which are part of racism. To me, if you walk into a room and start counting blacks, you’re a racist.

    I agree with Dan sometimes, disagree other times. He’s not the most caustic BC commenter in my opinion, but he triggers an outrage on your side of the BC aisle that fascinates me. I didn’t read this article until I noticed a Dancentric dustup on the Fresh Comments page. You and I agree that each side should patrol its own people and denounce their excesses. I’d been doing that with Irv (who probably hasn’t figured out that I’m a conservative yet if he’d even care about such things), but if I failed to call out Dan when I should have I’m sorry.

  • Clavos

    @ #71:

    Well put, Baronius…

    At a minimum they’re fixated on race.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • Baronius

    I tell ya, we’re on the same wavelength. (Actually, I’m a baby boomer liberal squish, but I’m hoping for a good deal on a boat when I retire.)

  • Ruvy

    and you really have little understanding of the reality in china. in order to “convince the HOME market to consume its products,” china would first have to address the massive income gap. problem is, the current trajectory of the economic boom is only widening that gap. what’s fueling that boom is the foreign markets, especially the us. so it’s not the home market that needs convincing… they’ll never to be able to afford the stuff the way things are.

    zing,

    Your government’s irresponsible overprinting of money, making whatever dollar assets there are virtually worthless unless against a fiction of pretended values, is driving the Chinese and others out of your garbage of a currency. The Chinese will CHANGE the way things are to get the conditions they want. That’s the cool thing about dictatorships – you don’t have to listen to the loudmouths, the belly-achers, the monkeys and beer-swilling fools in the back seats. You do what you have to and if a few heads get cracked – well, that’s how it goes.

    So, the Chinese WILL find a way to make it easier for its own population to buy its dirt cheap goods. They don’t mind bringing the white devils down and humiliating them – the way the white devils once brought them down and humiliated them. The Chinese, like the Jews, have very long memories.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, you’re ignoring reality for the fantasy you live in. why would china cut off the cash cow? the people making the money are the manufacturers and the corrupt communist party. they’re making that money off their never-ending supply of cheap labor. they don’t give a shit how they get their money. if the government is making money and the manufacturers are making money, why on earth would they endanger that?

    the vast gulf between city life and country life in china is nearly insurmountable. many rural areas don’t have electricity. i went to visit a family member of a girlfriend when i was there. they lived just outside of a city, but in a different area. the floors were dirt. they used benches for all their furniture, including their bed. they had a wood fire stove. they used a generator. looking out of their back yard, you could see the downtown of a city of 4 million people.

  • Ruvy

    The one decent reason there is to kill a milch cow is that is gives BAD MILK. Read this link and find out who luvs ya, babe! It ain’t these guys! And it gives a clue as to why you kill the cash cow – it is liable to kill you!

  • zingzing

    i’d love to see what alan would do to that link, ruvy. the straight up fact is that china has wedded their economy to ours at this point. they have so much of our money that if they were to devalue it, it would only hurt them. their economic boom is tied to our consumption. they certainly do not want to see it end. unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, this can’t continue forever. that bubble is getting mighty stretched.

  • Dan

    Glenn, I have already refuted your reference in some detail. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] Anyone can do a search of the 2010 CNN exit poll numbers, or they can search the many other sources that expose the specific hoax you fell for in greater detail.

    handyguy So is accusing the tea party of racism a “nasty assertion” as well? It’s possible that my “worst excesses” only exist in your mind.

    Baronius I’m glad that BC Conservatives don’t engage in the gang attacks, intentional confounding and clouding of issues, and running interference the way the progs do. I wouldn’t want to be part of that. If you ever do find any “excess” I should be called out for, I would welcome that civil discussion.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “ruvy, you’re ignoring reality for the fantasy you live in.”

    zing, why would you expect any different at this point?

  • zingzing

    “I’m glad that BC Conservatives don’t engage in the gang attacks, intentional confounding and clouding of issues, and running interference the way the progs do.”

    read this comment thread.

    “I would welcome that civil discussion.”
    [Edited] i’ve asked you a series of questions so you can better explain your ideas, but you’ve refused to answer them. i’m sure you’ll come up with some way to dodge them (or ignore them) again, but let it be known that i’ve asked for further explanation because i don’t want to assume what i’m about to assume.

  • zingzing

    eb: “zing, why would you expect any different at this point?”

    ruvy has his lucid moments, but then he’s back in full-on dooooom mode again.

    in his bloody-red visions, he sees the chinese pulling up their own people at enormous and crippling personal expense, dumping billions and billions of dollars that they could instead hold on to as a powerful bargaining chip, and riding off into the sunset, holding israel’s hand in a grand restructuring of the world’s economy that can’t possibly happen without the total destruction of their own economy.

    i’m saying you can’t sell a tv to someone who doesn’t have electricity.

  • Arch Conservative

    Whatever happened to Jet? Or that annoying women whose name escapes me but was always talking about South American politics and praising Che Guevara?

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    For some reason Jet only responds to comments made on his posts.

    I think you are talking about moonraven and she was banned for being too rowdy and combative.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Arch Conservative, if you’re sincerely interested in Jet (which I doubt), try reading his online journal, which significantly is called Blogging on the Edge of Suicide. Caution: be prepared to be depressed. Very depressed. This is grim stuff.

  • Dan

    “but let it be known that i’ve asked for further explanation because i don’t want to assume what i’m about to assume”—zigzag

    Oh, you’ll assume what you want to assume.

    You state your questions offensively to me. You demonstrate confusion, then attack a strawman point. Then you pile on additional “questioning” to bury the whole mess.

    I think its gay and not worth the effort. I’ll read what you write, and if there’s anything meaningful to exchange I’ll do that.

  • zingzing

    “gay?” come on.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    You think it’s gay? What an odd thing to post here–or anywhere else, for that matter.

  • zingzing

    and they were serious questions. i’m only questioning your words. if that’s offensive to you, i’d wonder why. why do you think white liberals wouldn’t dare to live in a non-white neighborhood? since you won’t answer, i’m fairly sure it’s because YOU wouldn’t dare to live in a non-white neighborhood. it’s the only plausible explanation. clearly, many white liberals live in non-white neighborhoods. white conservatives live in non-white neighborhoods. white racists, on the other hand, generally do not… not saying anything. not really.

    also, unless you’re in middle school, and even then it’s really juvenile, using “gay” like that is just childish and hateful. grow up.

  • Dan

    Yes it’s “gay”. meaning phony, feeble and lame. I think the meaning has transcended it’s original usage by what many people perceive the gay rights movement to be. Now it’s in use, quite abundantly, to describe anything.

    Like zings interrogations.

    good night.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    That’s one way to end a discussion.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    zing is one of the smartest commenters on here, agree with him or not. [I usually do. Not surprising that conservatives do not.]

    [Edited]

    I have never called the Tea Party racist per se. Yet it would be silly to ignore the elements of the party that carry signs reading “There’s an African Lion in the National Zoo and a Lyin’ African in the White House” or depicting the president with a bone through his nose, or [vide Carl Paladino] forwarding racist e-mails to share with buddies this form of ‘humor.’

    No doubt some Democrats have exploited race to gain political advantage, as many politicians have done with many issues. But to accuse an entire party [the majority of whom are white] of being an “anti-white racist” organization is over the top and loony. And not particularly conducive to “civil discussions.”

    When Doc pointed out the similarity of some of your comments to those of a previous commenter who was a self-described white separatist/supremacist, you didn’t protest, but more or less said, yes, I see the resemblance, that’s cool. And since then it’s impossible not to notice how many of your comments push the envelope on racial issues, and sometimes cross a very unsavory line.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    #99-100: Yes, end of discussion and ample evidence of Dan’s level of civility and maturity.

  • zingzing

    defining “gay” that way is certainly “phony, feeble and lame.” it’s immature and quite possibly homophobic. i’ll not claim to be 100% innocent of using the term now and again, but i would never use it if i expected to be taken seriously. unless i was describing a homosexual person. or using an antiquated term for “happy.” it’s a pejorative when used the way dan uses it, and not even he believes it’s actually defined in the manner he describes.

    does he see a knockoff watch and say “look at that gay watch?” no, he doesn’t.

    does he see an old dog and say “look at that gay dog?” no.

    does he see a crippled child and say “look at that gay child?” no.

    if he wanted to call my questions “phony, feeble and lame,” he would have said just that. but by putting it the way that he did, he just ends up looking like a bigoted, immature little man. if he’s not such a person, he should refrain from using the term during public conversations. or at any other time, really. given other things he’s said, however, i’m pretty much convinced that that’s exactly what he is.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Handy, this is rather embarrassing. Aren’t you being unduly deferential? Whatever you opinion as the worth of any one commenter, I should think it’s in a poor taste to be valorizing anyone so. It’s a private matter and we don’t need to know.

    Besides, it’s an argument from authority. I should certainly hope that you should be able to dismantle hypothetical Dan, including anything he throws your way, on your own accord, without the necessity of having to appeal to the authority of St. Zing,

  • zingzing

    “the authority of St. Zing,”

    sentences end in periods. the word of zing! amen.

    roger, it seems recently that because i don’t agree with you on EVERYTHING, i’m to be disliked by you. i don’t recall doing anything in the least that deserves such a personal change of heart, but if it is so, it is so.

    if handy wants to gimme a rhetorical hand-job (that’s a pun there, kid, are you even paying attention?), then handy is free to do what he likes. there’s no need to impose your will, now is there?

    that’s it… say it again… “one of the smartest commenters on here…” oh yeah… just one more time! “one of” just get to the point. “smartest commenters…” oh my god! i’m sorry. i’m sorry. hold on. jesus, that’s spelled funny. what the fuck did i read?

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    A wise old owl sat in an oak
    The more he heard-the less he spoke
    the less he spoke-the more he heard

    Now wasn’t that a wise old bird?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    well, i myself am another of the smartest commenters here, so…whatevah

    the competition is not as stiff as it should be. or used to be. or something.

  • zingzing

    “stiff?”

    please handy, you’re only turning me on. and yes, if not for only agreeing with me, an obvious sign of intelligence, you are one of the more smarter commenters round hea suh,

    sic sic

  • Arch Conservative

    Zing is a woman right?

    I guess I’m guilty of the same thing handy and zing are, thinking that only those who agree with my views are among the smarter individuals hanging around this website.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ jeannie danna

    zing is a woman?

  • Clavos

    well, i myself am another of the smartest commenters here…

    Modest and humble, too…

  • Baronius

    Dan, you wanted to be called out on any excess.

    Everyone here understands the word “gay” in the context you used it. Anyone claiming he didn’t is posing. But it’s just as much of a pose to pretend that you didn’t know that word was provocative.

  • Dan

    It is interesting how the meaning of words evolve. Zingzing acknowledges he uses it, except when he wants to be taken “seriously” but fails to tell us what he thinks the meaning has evolved to. Somehow he thinks using the word is “immature” yet doesn’t explain that either.

    My explanation for why the word has evolved is speculation. That’s allowed isn’t it?

    Zingzing apparently has little familiarity with the term “white flight” to describe the departure of white folks, many of them liberals, from neighborhoods that have grown increasingly minority.

    I don’t recall saying that the Democrat party is racist. Although their politicians have always legislated to favor some groups of people, while discriminating against others.

    What I did say was that the most remarkable thing about this election was the switch to Republican of white independent voters. I speculated that the “white flight” could be a reaction to perceived racism from the Obama administration. The failure of the justice department to prosecute voter intimidation by black panthers, health care bills larded with discriminatory perks for minorities, the justice departments intervention to prevent a very popular immigration reform law in Arizona while ignoring their duty in sanctuary cities, and much more, could all be contributing to a perception by whites that the Democratic party no longer represents them.

    But handyguy thinks a couple of indeterminate signs is reasonable cause for some to think the entire tea party is racist.

    Sorry guys, I think it is reasonable to speculate that with the demographic trends they are enthusiastically nurturing, and the steady stream of discriminatory anti white legislation, the Democrat party will increasingly experience “white flight”.

    zingzing, I like living in my white neighborhood, I could probably be happy in a majority minority neighborhood, and probably some a lot more than others, but I would need a compelling reason to move. It’s a matter of preference.

  • Dillon Mawler

    “steady stream of discriminatory anti-white legislation.”

    Please list a few of the bills which make up this “steady stream.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    You’re personalizing, zing. What I said to Handy wouldn’t have changed if anybody else were the subject of his comment.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Since zing is a women, I take my remarks back.

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Dan that is so long winded and sooooo gay

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I wonder how many people still flinch when the Flintstones theme sings “We’ll have a gay old time!” with their kids in the room?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Short-term memory loss worthy of a politician:

    Dan, comment #33, Nov 5:
    Democrats are showing themselves to be the racist anti-white party

    Dan, comment #92, Nov 7:
    I don’t recall saying that the Democrat party is racist.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The “evolving meaning” of the word ‘gay':

    The use of ‘gay’ to refer non-disparagingly to homosexuals has been in widespread use for 40 years at least — longer than that inside the gay community.

    The use of ‘gay’ to describe a weak or unsavory argument or idea ‘evolved’ as a playground insult, based on the weak and unsavory argument that calling someone a homosexual was one of the worst possible slurs you could hurl.

    This use of the word makes most gay people wince. It’s not as offensive as faggot, of course, but it lowers the level of discourse and it is demeaning, often deliberately so.

    It is completely disingenuous to pretend that anyone can employ the word this way and be unaware of the anti-homosexual component of its origin and use.

    It is true that ‘retard’ and ‘lame’ have similar origins and trajectories. The difference is that neither of those words is what disabled people choose to call themselves non-pejoratively.

    But a retarded child growing up hearing ‘retard’ as an all-purpose insult, and a gay kid growing up hearing ‘gay’ used as an all-purpose insult, are likely to absorb similarly painful blows to their self image.

  • Ruvy

    …and a gay kid growing up hearing ‘gay’ used as an all-purpose insult, are likely to absorb similarly painful blows to their self image.

    Presumably all the gay individuals reading this comment thread are adults, no? And, unlike kids, they have a tougher self-image and can fight back if they choose? (See comment #96)

    So, let’s all get a bit more adult here, and less like fools throwing mud at each other. Or maybe you can remain like fools throwing mud at each other – that way I have fewer reasons to comment, and fewer reasons to visit the site.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Ruvy (#100), I don’t follow you there. On the one hand, you expressly call for less mudslinging. On the other hand, you imply that it’s OK to use epithets in Blogcritics comments because we’re all adults with tough self-images and can fight back if we choose. Well, which is it, Ruvy? If I were to direct an anti-Semitic smear towards you personally, we can be sure you have a tough self-image and can fight back if you choose. But don’t such epithets qualify as mud-slinging?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    For the second time in this conversation I find myself in agreement with Mr Kurtz. He earlier queried the use of the word gay in a derogatory way and now picks up on another logical inconsistency.

    This latter question could be extended to ask our man in the middle east if he is also suggesting that only gay people should object to such use of language?

    That would be consistent with another point of his – that only people who live in Israel should opine about it, a position I’ve never understood…

  • zingzing

    dan: “It is interesting how the meaning of words evolve. Zingzing acknowledges he uses it, except when he wants to be taken “seriously” but fails to tell us what he thinks the meaning has evolved to. Somehow he thinks using the word is “immature” yet doesn’t explain that either.”

    it’s a pejorative, and you know it. and yes, using it the way you did makes you look immature. if you don’t understanding that, or want to pretend you don’t, that’s because you’re immature.

  • zingzing

    roger: “You’re personalizing, zing. What I said to Handy wouldn’t have changed if anybody else were the subject of his comment.”

    i was just messing with you mostly. except for the part about you being a meany-head to me.

  • zingzing

    dan: “Zingzing apparently has little familiarity with the term “white flight” to describe the departure of white folks, many of them liberals, from neighborhoods that have grown increasingly minority.”

    i understand the term. however, that’s post-ww2 stuff. it happened for a long time, and may still occur in places, but there’s a growing trend of whites moving back into city centers as well. of course, some of that just pushes out minorities after a while. but that’s real estate reality. the point is that lots of white people “dare.” oh, how we “dare.” now go rake leaves.

  • Ruvy

    Chris, if someone went after me with some nasty name, I’d go after him with both barrels. But the one thing I would not do is bitch about mudslinging. If you then edited me and not the other person, I’d go after you and accuse you of bigotry.

    But since most of this thread has been mud-slinging of one sort or another, I don’t see what the point is. And zing still has his teeth in his little bone of contention. It’s pathetic.

    And childish.

    And tiresome – like little kids throwing mud in a playground.

  • Arch Conservative

    So zing is a guy?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    the last time he looked, yes, he is

  • Dan

    handyguy #98 yes, Democrats are, by some of their actions I’ve already listed, beginning to show themselves to be a racist anti-white party. That is the general thesis of my argument for why they’re losing the white vote.

    handyguy#99 I don’t think the “gay” that has evolved into the common vernacular means “weak or unsavory argument”. Sure, zingzings arguments are often weak, I’m not sure what an “unsavory” argument is, but his “gay” interrogations are what I was describing. His hostility and presumptiveness cause him confusion which he then projects back on the object of his derision. By so doing, he turns a simple, clearly articulated conjecture into an aggressive witch hunt. It’s a simple minded bullying tactic that might work on his grandma, but for me it’s phony, laughable and “gay”.

    Of course it is a pejorative. But not to homosexuals. Just zingzing.

  • zingzing

    ruvy… so you can go after someone, but i can’t?

    and you won’t bitch about mudslinging? you’re bitching about mudslinging, you know…

    either you’re very confused about something, or you’re very hypocritical.

  • zingzing

    dan, your arguments were weak. they were hyperbolic and unbearably slanted and seemingly bigoted. i turned your own words back on you and you refused to answer any questions. i just wanted some clarification. so you called my questioning “gay.” strong argument you have there. not hostile at all. in light of recent news, it certainly smacks of a “simple minded bullying tactic.”

    and if you think calling me (or at least my arguments) “gay” is only a pejorative to me, and it doesn’t have anything to do with calling me (or my arguments) homosexual, which is pretty silly, but offensive to a great many people, i think you’re just lying to yourself.

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    You know, I told myself that if I left for a few months when I came back it’d still be like AM talk radio around here… I was right!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Actually, I do concur with Dan as to the distinction between a silly argument and attributing that quality to a person. Which isn’t to say I agree with Dan on substantive matters.

    Of course, using the term “gay” was rather unfortunate. Dan ought to admit he did so by design.

  • Dan

    Oh knock it off zingzing. You poor poor fellow. You’ve already acknowledged that you don’t always argue in good faith. Instead, as you described it, you play a game of obfuscation to render the conversation “pointless”.

    And you accuse me of immaturity. heh, heh

    That’s fine, but don’t expect me to give you equal deference to any civil, honest commenters.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Touche! By zing’s own admission, arguments are fun. Which is the main reason why I started to take him less and less seriously.

  • zingzing

    i’m arguing in good faith here, dan. although this is mostly just arguing about arguing at this point. but i’m pretty sure you do yourself more damage than i ever could.

    roger, i would hope you can tell the difference between when i’m just trying to wind someone up and when i’m being serious. i try to make it plainly obvious. you have recently been accused of arguing against points that people never made, then you say you did it on purpose simply to get a reaction. now, if that’s true, how are you any better than i? can you honestly take yourself seriously if what you say is true? don’t put limits on me that you wouldn’t put on yourself.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dan doesn’t exactly make arguments. He throws bombs, a la his hero, Andrew Breitbart.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “It is interesting how the meaning of words evolve.”

    What’s interesting is people acting like they are deep thinkers because they embrace what they saw in a South Park episode.

  • Dan

    to be clear, I did realize using “gay” the way I used it would cause offense. But, I offered the theory that the usage in vogue was a reflection of peoples perception of the gay rights movement.

    Which as we know is open to all. Conversely, not all gays are activists. Some don’t care. Some are anti gay activism.

    So technically, I offended a very diverse group, but no one sector was singled out.

    I’m going to watch some football now.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “I’m going to watch some football now.”

    speaking of gay…

  • zingzing

    dan’s obfuscating.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    With some people, one’s got to make a strawman’s argument to make a point. But the point is not to win an argument, it is to reach an understanding. That’s how we’re different. Although I deplore some of Dan’s views, there is an integrity there to reckon with. Just as ix the case with Archie, whom you so readily deplore.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    A gay divorcee?

  • zingzing

    so you can argue without integrity to make a point, but i can’t. gotcha.

  • Dan

    “speaking of gay”–elbicho

    There you go! you’ve got the hang of it.

    hey, check out zingzings full paragraph scolding of roger in #119.

    what is that?

    roger knows the landscape around here. There is a lot of posing.

  • Dan

    belated hi to Jet. I heard you’ve got a project. Sounds intriguing. I’m going to look for it, but I haven’t got around to it yet.

    hope your health is not a cause for concern.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    No, you ain’t got it. The point is to make a persons comprehend what he is unwilling to, in order to advance communication and understanding, not to win an argument. Your arguments, on the other hand, are mostly for the purpose of winning an argument. And there ain’t no point doing that.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Splitting hairs there, aren’t you, Roger? When you “make a person comprehend what he is unwilling to,” you’ve won your argument.

  • zingzing

    you assume a lot, roger. i don’t necessarily argue to win arguments. i know that’s hopeless a lot of the time. i have no doubt that you’ve come to what is probably an unchangeable opinion of me, but that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. you can take all the time you want to unpack that sentence. you give yourself a lot of credit and charity, but are unwilling to pass it on to me. from your impregnable fortress of reverse integrity, you’ve reasoned away any chance of a win against you. so what point is there in bothering? that said, i’ll continue to argue people on things they actually say, rather than on flimsy conclusions drawn from the ether.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    That;s how I read you. No offense meant.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Roger, zing and I have this in common, I think: unfair, unreasonable ‘arguments,’ aka right-wing propaganda, make us crazy and we feel a need to respond.

    I find that the process helps me clarify my own thinking, and double checking the facts before I post something is a good thing too. We all think we know so much, but we all have room to learn.

  • zingzing

    roger: “That;s how I read you. No offense meant.”

    so if i tell you i’m a liar, you believe me?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Missing the point, Kurtz. It’s not about winning the argument but winning the person. And there’s no splitting hairs when it comes to that.

    Zing, don’t play a fool. I said that’s how I read you. I said nothing about what parts of your speech I believe. Not have I said anything about making an assumption. That’s you verbiage, not mine.

    Again, presuming now you have a decent comprehension of English, that’s how I read you. I may be mistaken, of course, but that’s a subject for another time.

    I apologize if it causes you discomfort.

  • zingzing

    well, you’re the one making the assumption. i’d have to be stupid and a bit masochistic to keep coming here if i really wanted to win arguments. but you assume that i do. nothing could be further from the truth.

    it’s a pretty rare thing to “win the person,” and even rarer still that they’ll let you know if you have. trying to change people is a bit of a fool’s game. i’d say your (universal) words have done more to change you than anyone else. you get to think things through and hear counter-arguments that shift you own opinions ever so slightly. it’s a chance to argue with people you don’t know and who hold vastly different opinions and won’t hold back and you don’t care if they don’t like you afterwards. it’s about enriching yourself rather than imparting some wisdom which only very rarely will be taken.

    when i say i like to argue, it’s not without reason, like as in i’m just argumentative… it’s how you learn things, even if that thing is that you’re always right. then you gotta think about that fact.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Again, zing, yout English skills are lacking. Tune your ear.

    It’s not an assumption I’m making when I say “that’s how I read you” but an inference based on your many comments and exchanges. As I said, I may be wrong in my reading (or the inference I’m drawing), but that’s another matter.

    So let’s get our language straight first because thus far you’re speaking a tongue I don’t understand.

  • zingzing

    jesus. i’m telling you you’re wrong. enough with the word games (they aren’t even real). if that (that being that i just want to win arguments) is the inference you came to, it was something i never actually implied. you jumped to the conclusion that i like to argue because i like to win. that was the assumption you made. if you had bothered to ask why, you’d have had the facts straight.

    i’m telling you something and you’re pretending like i’m misunderstanding you. i’m not. do you recognize the pattern?

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Thank’s Dan it’s Jet’s General Store, just click my link and then the ad.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Again, your reading comprehension deserts you when you get excited. I haven’t said the inference was drawn on the basis of any single remark you had made but scores and scores of your exchanges with me and others. That’s why it’s not an assumption but a judgment that I’ve reached.

    No word games here, zing, but your obstinate refusal to come to terms with my meaning simply because you disagree with my judgment.

    Have a nice evening.

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Zing and Roger…. Do you really want me to get out the leather or are you going to behave?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Roger, you judge bloody well everyone here and then lose your marbles when they don’t agree with your personal assessment. And now you’re completely splitting hairs over “assumption” and “judgment,” but you don’t realize that your judgment is based on a damn assumption. All you can do is assume because you don’t actually know any of us.

    Why is that so hard to understand? You’ve been through this shit with me and claimed you were “misreading for effect.” Now here you are doing the exact same shit with someone else and, once again, relying on idiotic traps to cover your ass because you’ve realized your patent wrongness.

    Why is it so fucking difficult for you to “be a man, not a mouse” and admit that you’re wrong about someone or something?

    “your obstinate refusal to come to terms with my meaning…”

    What utter arrogance. YOU’RE WRONG! Your meaning is wrong. Coming to terms with your wrongness is something you stubbornly refuse to do.

    Bloody hell. “Win the person” all you like, but the fact is that you make no efforts to “understand the person.” You just assume you know and work from that incorrect foundation. No wonder you’re “misunderstood” around here so often.

  • zingzing

    roger: “I haven’t said the inference was drawn on the basis of any single remark you had made but scores and scores of your exchanges with me and others.”

    i never said that you did. never once. you’re arguing something i never said.

    “That’s why it’s not an assumption but a judgment that I’ve reached.”

    and it’s poor judgment, which has been my point every time i’ve said it…

    “No word games here, zing, but your obstinate refusal to come to terms with my meaning simply because you disagree with my judgment.”

    i do disagree with your judgment! how many times do i have to say it?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The question then arises: why do you care so much about the opinions of someone with such demonstrably poor judgment?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Jet @ #139: Very possibly both, I shouldn’t wonder.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Excellent question, Handy. Zing shouldn’t.

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Doc, if this keeps up, I might actually write and article… God help us

  • zingzing

    “why do you care so much about the opinions of someone with such demonstrably poor judgment?”

    i just like arguing?

    what did you expect?

    jet, leather does make me behave. that’s why i pay for it. sheeeesh.

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Oh Zing that’s so gay

  • zingzing

    that was a little phony. i don’t pay for the leather. i got the leather paying me. how they love to whip. countin ma benjamins…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    @ #147: He’s so gay, he probably thinks this blog is about him.

  • zingzing

    well, i am a liberal. non-classical. or however dave doesn’t define it. i’m right there in the title. so n’yah. (also that song sucks.)

  • Baronius

    “Why is that so hard to understand? You’ve been through this shit with me and claimed you were “misreading for effect.” Now here you are doing the exact same shit with someone else and, once again, relying on idiotic traps to cover your ass because you’ve realized your patent wrongness.”

    Correct, Jordan. Although, I do think Roger sometimes does complicate conversations with misreadings in some Zen attempt to attain a higher truth. I just can’t recall it ever attaining anything more than confusion.

    The real problem comes when the comments are confrontational. They burn more bridges in the short run than they could ever build in the long run.

  • Clavos

    So does Carly Simon…

  • Clavos

    Um 152 refers to 150…

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    …so it goes without saying that I have every Carly Simon CD & LP on the market today and consider her one of the all time greats….

    Doesn’t it?

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Jet, it goes without saying that your musical taste is “special”…

    ;-)

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I love the mamas & the papas too Chris

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I keep waiting for lightning to strike me in punishment; according to most people here I only comment on my own articles….;)

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    There is no comparison between them and CS. Some of the M&P stuff is truly great, Jet…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Carly Simon sings off key, but she has done half a dozen or so good songs. “You’re So Vain” is very clever, and brilliantly recorded by Richard Perry.

  • Clavos

    CS’s voice is nasal, annoying and grating to me.

  • http://jetsgaypride.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Clavos if Carly Simon sang right-wing dirges you’d declare her the most wonderful voice in the world.

  • zingzing

    well, i’ll say that once upon a time (dunno about these days), carly had a ridiculously nice body. and she did have at least one great song, that being “why?,” which was produced by chic (GOAT) and featured on the soup for one soundtrack. tribe called quest sampled it for “bonita applebum.”

  • Baronius

    I don’t know why, but I associate Carly Simon with all the baggage from her split with James Taylor much more than I associate the M&P with all their crazy stuff. Maybe because Carly and James wore it on their sleeves. Either way, the Mamas & the Papas recordings will stand up longer than Carly Simon’s.

  • Clavos

    Clavos if Carly Simon sang right-wing dirges you’d declare her the most wonderful voice in the world.

    Don’t be a smartass, Jet.

    If CS sang nothing but paeans to Clavos I would still be ungrateful enough to say she has a shitty, grating voice.

    Because, IMO, she does.

  • Unimpressed

    I think this article does liberals a disservice.

    First of all, it’s a mistake of the American left to call Obama a liberal. What has he done to diserve that discription? Be black?

    His stimulus is right down the middle being half tax cuts, his budget commission is mostly conservatives who want to cut social secruity to lower taxes for the rich, Obamacare is really BobDolecare, he’s let George W. off the hook for war crimes plus continued a lot of Bush’s complete and utter distruction the 4th amendment.

    Americans, rightfully so, HATE these things. I understand that Obama is working with a bunch of knuckle-draggers and flat-earthers, but many of his policies are going to fail (or at least not live up to expectations) and will take the good name of liberalism dowm with them.

  • Lisa

    I would live in the black neighborhood. Black neighborhoods are noisy and dangerous to live because of high in crimes.