President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 15, 2007 03:11 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 143 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“You may end up with a different math, but you’re entitled to your math. I’m entitled to the math.”

–Karl Rove, explaining how 2006 pre-election polls “add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House”

Comments

143 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

        1. who have microphones in their faces an inordinate amount of the time, will inevitably be caught in embarrassing misstatements, regardless of how intelligent and well-spoken they may be. Making hay out of such statements is a weapon of the incompentent (I even disagreed with the popular sport of trashing Dan Quayle for his frequent misstatements, though I have no ideological affinity for him). Holding people accountable for stupid statements that were delivered as intended is another matter altogether.

      1.   Did you forget that the last multi-million, bahzjhillion-dollar lawsuit, which was filed over a missing pair of paints or whatever, was brought by a judge?

  1. Kicking and screaming like the back bencher he is, Penry will do and say anything to create controversy and scandal out of thin air. Not only does Penry overexxagerates the situation, he’s insinuates vicious one-liners to push his hard right wing view.

    Penry is no longer a rising star, but rather just another radical right wing politician.
    http://www.rockymoun

    And David Sirota penned the tail on Penry with this anaylis
    http://www.coloradop

  2. but instead the White House will write a report on the progress of the so-called surge.

    “Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.” http://www.latimes.c

    When will the Bush Administration be honest with the American people?

    1. The Bush Administration will never be honest with the American people.

      From hiding the fact that they created the Tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands in Asia to the fact that they Dick Cheney personally signed the order to allow the bridge in Minnesota to collapse, the Bush Administration hides everything.

      And we shouldn’t be suprised.  After all Bush, during his childhood, caused the Korean War, started global warming, forced athiests to recite Christian prayers and killed puppies on a weekly basis. 

      Fortunately we have the Democrats to save us from the evil known as the Republicans…

      1. But you don’t have to make things up, the damage he has done to this country already verges on nightmare scenarios my mind could only imagine 8 short years ago.

        Besides he wasn’t responsible for anything before 1987, he was too coked up.

          1. Bush loves dogs, their love is unconditional (kind of like Condi).  Cheney on the other hand feeds on the life force of puppies when he can’t find a handy supply of innocent children.

              1. I don’t even see the connection.  I compare her to a dog because she looks at Bush with puppy dog longing, she would lick him if she could, and she has no life of her own without Bush.

            1. Cheney was sending a message to all the gas and oil folks that they had better tow the administration line or they will “sleep with Vincent Foster”, if you know what I mean.

              1. Destroy govt and steal the peoples money…look for yourself:

                The sprawling $43 billion homeland security department (HSD) is known chiefly for being the agency in charge of America’s color-coded terrorist-threat alarm system (“Good morning, Americans. Today is Yellow. Be vigilant. Report all suspicious people.”) It’s boogeyman nonsense, of course, doing absolutely nothing to make our country safe. But such falderal helps those in charge obscure HSD’s real mission: to serve as a giant federal cookie jar for corporate America. Go to HSD’s website, and you’ll find a prominent section called “Open For Business.” There, on any given day, corporate shoppers can scroll through the hundreds of contracts and grants available to them. Just dip in and grab some cookies, each one worth from $50,000 to more than $80 million. Like the department’s color codes, the vast majority of these projects do nothing to make our country safe. Instead, they are make-work studies, silly technologies, and useless systems that essentially serve as mediums for transferring billions of our tax dollars to a few corporate big shots. Ever helpful to its clients, HSD also maintains a private-sector office, headed by an assistant secretary who is not a security expert but a former banker from JP Morgan Chase. This office provides concierge service for cookie grabbers. For example, it recently held a corporate seminar, entitled “The Business of Homeland Security,” offering “tips, hints, and directions” on how to grab the latest contracts and grants. Lest you think that patriotism or even national security might be the motivating force behind these government-industry confabs, a Sikorksy Helicopters executive who attended the session bluntly explained why he was there: “To us contractors, money is always a good thing.”

                1. I was looking at the Republican platform just the other day and I was amazed that one of the main tenants of the party is to “destroy government”.  It went something like this:

                  Article 1, Section 3 – Purpose

                  Whereas, Republicans hate everything the United States of America stands for, including grandma and apple pie, therefore let it be resolved that the purpose of the Republican Party will be to destroy everything that is good and holy, included but not limited to: the federal government, state governments, Hillary Clinton, panda bears, the homeless, anyone who does not love corporate greed, that bastard Jim Webb (for switching parties), the poor and Santa Claus.  All hail Satan!

                    1. and just cum already. This solitary orgy or ideological masterbation is not a pretty site, and really should be done in private.

                  1. ‘The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”‘  It defines the entire GOP philosophy today.

                    Well, based on that principle, the GOP has delivered on everything they promised.  Congratulations.  Under GOP leadership, we have attained a government that can’t be trusted to tell the truth to its citizens, can’t be trusted to spend our money, can’t be trusted to its own integrity, can’t be trusted to run a free and fair election, and can’t be trusted to safeguard our natural rights.

                    If you don’t want an efficient, effective government, the GOP is here to help.

                    1. That’s, in essence, what the Bush administration has been telling the people of Iraq.

                    2. Fortunately the Democrats have been nothing but honest from day one.  Sure conservatives can state that the line “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help” is a quote from Ronald Reagan and he used it to blast the Democrats who had been in charge in Washington for decades. They could mention the fact that it was FDR and Johnson who started the United States down the slippery slope of social programs, mismanaging trillions of dollars in the process.  Conservatives could mention the hundreds of lies that Democrats have been caught in over the years or the integrity the Democrats have shown by the likes of Sandy Berger, Gary Condit, Mel Reynolds or Ted Kennedy.  They could mention the corrupt Democrats in Chicago that stole the 1960 election.  They could point out the fact that the Democrats want to safeguard our “natural rights” by passing the Fairness Doctrine and hate crime legislation to limit free speech, limiting the second amendment and .

                      But if they mentioned any of those things we can respond
                      that they are mean spirited and that we have the best of intentions. 

                    3. There’s a difference between starting social programs and mis-management of funds.  The problem I have with the GOP (and you’re apparently right with them on this) is that there’s a prevailing view that the government isn’t, overall, useful – that it’s a waste of money.

                      I don’t dispute that Democrats aren’t perfect.  I won’t even have a heated argument over the JFK election.  I will dispute that the Democrats want to pass the Fairness Doctrine: it failed in the Democratically controlled Congress just this past year.  And I will strenuously argue that hate crimes are not free speech: your rights end at my nose.  I’ll also point out that Democrats are mixed – as are Republicans – on the 2nd Amendment; I’m a pacifist, but I’ll defend the 2nd Amendment as much as I do the others.

                      I’m sorry if I, like a great many other Democrats, don’t measure up to your prejudicial ideals of the Bogeyman.

                    1. The Democrats needed a kick in the pants, I thought.  But I never thought it would go where it did, and I parted ways with the party of my youth 8 years ago now.

          1. that Democrats never err? What an absurd, transparently disingenuous, shallow ploy it is to try to discredit critiques by one group of another by sarcastically pointing out the obvious and never-denied fact that the group doing the critiquing is imperfect itself! By that “logic,” the people and government of The United States could never level any legitimate criticism against any other people or government, we could not decry the horrors of holocausts and genocides, could not accuse terrorists of any misdeed, could not call any government on any violations of international law or any act of inhumanity, simply because, by definition (being human), the government and people of The United States are themselves flawed! THIS is your argument??!! THIS is the totality of what you have with which to debunk democratic/liberal arguments and positions??!!

            By your “logic,” not only would any form of international discourse have to cease, but so would science, since it is a process which depends on critical analysis and debunking the findings of others (but who would be licensed to do so, given that all are fallable?), and so would many forms of art, which often involves some form of implicit cultural critique, and, in fact, so would a very significant and valuable part of human enterprise, all human enterprise, that is, which in any way overthrows, criticizes, or does not take at face value some conclusion or belief held by others.

            Man, you are some kind of contortionist, to have your head so far up your a** that this is the totality of YOUR critique! And, by the underlying assumption implicit in everything you have written so far, the only person or entity on this blog that has made any claim to being above all error and defect is you yourself, since you have deigned to criticize others!

            1. It is absurd, transparently disingenuous, shallow ploy to try to discredit critiques by one group by another by sarcastically pointing out the obvious and never-denied fact that the group doing the critiquing is imperfect itself!

              But watch out, because the proselytizing fanatics on the right may just pull out some examples from liberal Democrats where they attack their opponents instead of the argument. 

              For example, instead of debating the issues, liberal Larry Johnson decided to say “Karl (Rove) is a shameless bastard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.” 

              Or they might bring up liberal Kurt Vonnegutt who said “I just want to say that George W. Bush is the syphilis president. The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected.” 

              Or they may even bring up Howard Dean who has said “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”  He has also said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” 

              Now you and I understand that these quotes must be taken out of context, but those conservative renobs don’t. 

              Of course the Repugs might also point to websites like http://www.theshrubbery.com, http://www.psychedelicrepublicans.com, or http://www.bushorchimp.com, to show how liberals are not debating the issue but just making fun of their opponents.  They may even say that you are the pot calling the kettle black (or African-American if you prefer).  Those damned Repugs!!!

              As for the remark, “Man, you are some kind of contortionist, to have your head so far up your a**…”  There is nothing wrong with my lifestyle. 

              1. So, your “We’re rubber, you’re glue” argument continues unabated! Very impressive, little boy! Can you also ask “why?” to every thing an adult says? My, my, but aren’t you cute!

                Though, I have to admit, I DID like your “lifestyle” comeback to the contortionist remark. More of that humor polluted by less of your bile might serve you better. Though just a little bit of logic and reasoned argumentation would REALLY be appreciated, in either case. After all, there are plenty of opportunities to engage in poorly reasoned and childish conversations. The value of this blog is to engage in more intellectually satisfying dialogues.

                1. This is the point I have been trting to get across for the last few days:

                  “The value of this blog is to engage in more intellectually satisfying dialogues.”

                  I encourage all the liberals on this blog to take this to heart and have a debate and not attack your opponents. 

                  1. I tend to write reasoned arguments in my posts. Again, these are not mutually exclusive activities. So, if “the point (you’ve) been trying to get across” is that anyone who criticizes conservatives or conservative opinions is, by definition, failing to engage in logical argumentation, again, you are “arguing” a ridiculous position.

                    And why, if your point is to promote reason, would you single out one side of the ideological divide? Why would you say that, in your quest to improve the quality of posts, you have been trying to get LIBERALS to engage in logical argumentation? Why aren’t you trying to get ALL CONTRIBUTERS, conservatives and liberals alike, to engage in logical argumentation?

                    Because you are a complete fraud. You have no interest in reasoned argumentation, and you have done nothing to promote it. You are a knee-jerk ideologue, who responds only negatively, and only to the members of one side of an ideological divide.

                    By comparison, if you look back over the history of my posts, and particularly the history of my posts under my previous screen name (“yevrahnevets” -hi, folks), you would see a willingness to criticize both liberals and conservatives, to champion conservative as well as liberal positions that I have concluded are favored by evidence, and, in general, to favor reason and logic over ideology. THAT is what it means to promote reasoned discourse, NOT responding to every liberal critique of some conservative or conservative position with “Oh, yeah? And what about the liberals? Aren’t they just as bad?” All that promotes is argumentation on the level of 4th graders.

                    1. “So, if “the point (you’ve) been trying to get across” is that anyone who criticizes conservatives or conservative opinions is, by definition, failing to engage in logical argumentation, again, you are “arguing” a ridiculous position.”

                      You misunderstand me.  I have no problem with reasoned argument; I just feel that many liberals on this site do not wish to have reasoned debate.  One conservative jumps on the site and the liberals seem to go wild.  And it is definitely not exclusive to this site.  From calling people Repugs to comparing Bush to Hitler, I think Liberals have gone too far in trying to vilify their opponents. 

                      And let me be the first to say that when Republicans participate in name calling instead of debate, I am the first to call them on the carpet.  There is no room for it in intelligent debate.  I have not done so on this site because I don’t feel that there are a ton of negative remarks by conservatives.  Yes, there are examples that you can pull up, but not near as many as you find on Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage where I have called conservatives on the carpet for their negative remarks. 
                      “Because you are a complete fraud. You have no interest in reasoned argumentation, and you have done nothing to promote it. You are a knee-jerk ideologue, who responds only negatively, and only to the members of one side of an ideological divide. “
                      I could say this about so many of the Liberals on this site. 

                    2. you’re responding to generic “liberals” on behalf of generic “conservatives,” rather than one person responding to another. And your decrying the lack of reasoned dialogue through the absence of reasoned dialogued, and trying, through some twisted argument, to defend doing so. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

                    3. Of where liberal on this site and many others do not want to have a reasoned debate, but would rather call people names? 

                      “And your decrying the lack of reasoned dialogue through the absence of reasoned dialogued, and trying, through some twisted argument, to defend doing so.” 

                      Sorry, this doesn’t make much sense. 

                    4. continue to offer your inferior wares in the marketplace of ideas: I don’t have time to continue to point out how defective they really are, and there probably is little need to do so. I suspect that there are few people on this blog dumb enough to pay much attention to you.

                    5. You want this blog to a place where there we can “engage in more intellectually satisfying dialogues.”

                      And when I offer a debate the best you can do is say that my opinions are “inferior wares” and you say they are “defective”.  You further state that there are “few people on this blog dumb enough to pay much attention to you.” 

                      Doesn’t that seem hypocritical to you given your earlier statement that the purpose of this blog is to “engage in more intellectually satisfying dialogues.”?  It does to me. 

                    6. and one’s widgets tend to fall apart and become useless in short order, while the other’s endure, would it not be reasonable to call the first’s widgets “defective” and “inferior wares”? As such, we have established that the terms “defective” and “inferior wares” do not, in and of themselves, connote unreasonableness. The question is whether I used a reasonable measure to so judge your opinions. I would point out all of the ways that I have indeed done so, but since I have been pointing them out all along, that would be redundant, and a waste of my time.

                      Calling your arguments “defective” and “inferior wares” isn’t “the best (I) can do.” It is simply a summary of what has already been established.

                    7. (similar to the clever reparteee between a researcher and a lab rat -and, please, DO come back with the utterly predictable and painfully lame response that is the best your pre-adolescent wit can manage), enough is enough. If ignorance is bliss, then you must certainly be an enviably ecstatic individual, and I leave you to your hopefully harmless inutility.

                    8. you have completly broken down from offering any semblance of a valid argument to petty name calling cloaked in big words used to impress. 

                      “Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all.” – Churchill

                    9. After I criticized you for responding to generic liberals rather than engaging in reasoned dialogue your response is “but there really are liberals like that!” OF COURSE THERE ARE! And there really are blacks who have a great sense of rhythm, or who belong to gangs. And there really are Jews who are cheap. The point isn’t that no such people exist: The point is that when you generalize the charactersitics of specific members of a group to the entire group, and then respond to any particular member of that group (not necessarily one who engaged in the behaviors which irk you) as though you are responding to a generic representative of that group (as though they two, by association, have engaged in those behaviors), you are committing a case-book example of bigotry.

                      “And your decrying the lack of reasoned dialogue through the absence of reasoned dialogued, and trying, through some twisted argument, to defend doing so.”  This makes perfect sense: You claimed in some of your responses to be motivated by the lack of reasoned dialogue on the part of liberals on this blog, but the form of your complaint was the opposite of reasoned dialogue. In other words, you committed the crime of which you were complaining while complaining about it.

                    10. And I can accuse you and many liberal bloggers on this and other sites of responding to generic conservatives rather than engaging in reasoned dialogue your response is “but there really are conservatives like that!”
                      Also, how sophomoric is it to sink to name calling and using a silly quote at the end of your posts in an attempt to discredit me?  All is does is make you look immature and not worthy of an intellectual debate.  Is that the best you can do? 
                      “And your decrying the lack of reasoned dialogue through the absence of reasoned dialogued, and trying, through some twisted argument, to defend doing so.”  This makes perfect sense: You claimed in some of your responses to be motivated by the lack of reasoned dialogue on the part of liberals on this blog, but the form of your complaint was the opposite of reasoned dialogue. In other words, you committed the crime of which you were complaining while complaining about it.”
                      If this was what you were trying to say, then that is what you should have said.  I don’t agree with this statement at all.  You are not even trying to comprehend what I am saying, rather dismissing it out of hand and saying that you don’t have time to respond to my comments.

                    11. arbitrary opinions, not of opinions that differ from mine. That’s not bigotry (though some might call it arrogance). In fact, I have great respect for opinions that differ from mine when they are based on reasonable arguments, or at least flights of inspired imagination, and have no respect for opinions identical to mine when they are arbitrarily held. My own opinions have evolved tremendously in the course of my life, and continue to evolve, as a result of deference to the most compelling arguments. You have yet to make any argument, much less a compelling one.

                      And while irony may be lost on you, you nevertheless manage to contribute to its most sublime manifestation! Your complaint about my quoting “you” at the end of my posts is just amazing!!!

                      Don’t worry: No one needs to discredit you. You do a fine job of that all on your own.

                    12. You humbly admit to having great respect for opinions that differ from your own, but I have seen none.  You assume the moral and intellectual high ground without debate and with this statement you once again twist my words into something I never said and you lose all credibility in doing so:

                      “And while irony may be lost on you, you nevertheless manage to contribute to its most sublime manifestation! Your complaint about my quoting “you” at the end of my posts is just amazing!!!”

                      I never complained that you “quoted” me.  You haven’t quoted me.  I never accused you of quoting me.  What I said was that you “used a silly quote at the end of your posts in an attempt to discredit me.  All is does is make you look immature and not worthy of an intellectual debate.”

                    13. I forgot the rules of your game: Your actions, by definition, are above reproach, while those of any liberal, also by definition, are disgusting, especially since liberals are rude and offensive, while conservatives like you are respectful and reasonable people. So it’s okay to appropriate a quote from someone with whom you are obviously engaged in an antagonistic interaction, and to do so for antagonistic reasons, but it’s not okay for that person to respond by quoting a mock-quote of you that someone else (very wittily) composed, because that just discredits the obviously lesser-being who would stoop to such depths, blah, blah, blah, blah…. And of course these “tips from Eloise” are true by definition, because by any other measure they would be as ridiculous as the rest of us recognize them to be.

                      But thanks for modelling civility for us, and conservative reasonableness, and all of your good-faith attempts at reasonable dialogue with us “typical liberals.” Maybe some day we’ll get off our lazy asses and get a job, and stop begging on the streets and mugging people, and stop killing babies and recruiting innocent kids to perverted homosexual life styles, and teaching ridiculous so-called “theories” about decent, law-abiding white-folk having monkeys for grandparents, and all of the other despicable things that we stupid, lazy, smelly, offensive liberals do. Gee, we can only hope….

                    14. Again with twisting my words.  I never said I was “above reproach, while those of any liberal, also by definition, are disgusting, especially since liberals are rude and offensive, while conservatives like you are respectful and reasonable people.”  Never said it.

                      When you want to debate an issue instead of twisting my words into things I did not say, let me know. 

                    15. It is possible to convey a message unambiguously without ever stating it explicitly. Of course, we all realize that such subtleties are lost on you.

                    16. I am particularly intolerant of arbitrary and belligerant opinions, which is thus far all you have expressed.

                      And if you don’t consider my explanation of why, exactly, your comments are nothing more than bigotry, and not, as you keep pretending, statements in disagreement with liberal positions (which would be perfectly fine), then you just can’t follow a simple, linear, logical argument. Let me make it really, really simple for you: All you do is attack, without really saying anything, without addressing positions, without critiquing any particular comments made by others except those comments that are unflattering to you personally, without taking a position and defending it, without analysis, without, in short, a clue. You attack “liberals” generically for what you imagine some liberals have done on this blog, without acknowledging that some conservatives have done the same thing, and, most amazingly of all, you are constantly DOING THAT VERY THING YOU ARE SO DISGUSTED BY every single time you post, more so, and with more venom, and with less substance, than almost anyone else has ever done on this blog!!!

                      You want to debate substantial issues? Fine, let’s do it. You want to discuss the issues, and the various positions on those issues, and the justifications of those positions? Fine, let’s do it. You want to debate whether it is more reasonable, or simply a moral imperative, to protect the rights of an unborn fetus, rather than more reasonable, or simply a moral imperative to protect the rights of a pregnant woman, fine, let’s do it. You want to debate the relative efficacy of more, or less, government spending, of more, or less military involvement abroad, of more, or less, economic and political globalization, fine, let’s do it. And I’ll respect your opinion when you rise to that level, just as I have respected the opinions of others on (and off) this blog who rise to that level.

                      But that’s not what you’re here for, that’s not what you do, and by no means is that the level you operate on. You’re not here to discuss issues, to debate, to consider, to contemplate…. You’re just here to show everyone how big the chip on your shoulder is, how much you despise liberals, how wrong and terrible and uncouth they all are. That’s all you do, it’s all you say, it’s all you are.

                      You accused me in another post of being intolerant of your opinions. If you mean that I’m intolerant of the only opinion you ever really express, that liberals all are horrible people, and the way you can know that is that some liberals have sometimes exercised bad manners on this blog, then I guess you’re right. I’m intolerant of that opinion. I’m also intolerant of spousal abuse, of cruelty to animals, of racism, and, most relevant to the present discussion, of public defecation. Intolerance is not an inherently bad thing: It depends on what you are intolerant of.

                      You’re a one-trick pony, and it’s a trick any pony can do if it eats enough fiber. So let me tell you something Buddy; at the end of the day, as much as you might admire the pile of crap you leave steaming and stinking for everyone else to step around on this pleasant little plaza of ours, being able and eager to shit on exhibition really is nothing to be proud of.

                    17. And your earlier postings. It will be a shame to lose you, but if personal experience tells me anything it is that classes will not be able to keep you away. Good luck in school, if you are who I think you are, and best to your family.

                    18. Parsing outed me a week or two ago on another thread (also an old one that no one was reading any more). In fact, I outed myself a little bit upstream on this thread, in a parenthetical admission to having posted under a different screen-name prior to this one.

                      School started, and it’s very time-consuming, but I’m sure I’ll have a moment now and then to come out and play! Thanks for your kind thoughts.

                    19. Typical liberalism, you make a statement, but where is the proof.  You can make statements all day long, but if you don’t back them up, they are worthless. 

                      “And if you don’t consider my explanation of why, exactly, your comments are nothing more than bigotry, and not, as you keep pretending, statements in disagreement with liberal positions (which would be perfectly fine), then you just can’t follow a simple, linear, logical argument.”

                      If you take the time to re-read my post you will find that I did in fact consider your explanation of why my comments are “nothing more than bigotry” and I responded by stating that it is just as easy to point out where you are a bigot for being intolerant of any opinion that differs from your own.  And I think you are interchanging the word bigotry with stereotyping. 

                      “Let me make it really, really simple for you.”

                      This statement is classic elitist liberalism.  The liberal is smart – everyone else is dumb and you have to explain everything in simple terms. 

                      All you do is attack, without really saying anything, without addressing positions, without critiquing any particular comments made by others except those comments that are unflattering to you personally, without taking a position and defending it, without analysis, without, in short, a clue.

                      Really?  Then what do you make of these posts? 

                        http://www.coloradop

                      http://www.coloradop

                      http://www.coloradop

                      I tried to debate liberals on these issues, but if you look at their responses, most just attack and offer no debate.  I would love to debate the issues, but thus far it has been difficult dodging the ad hominem attacks from the liberals. 

                      “You attack “liberals” generically for what you imagine some liberals have done on this blog, without acknowledging that some conservatives have done the same thing, and, most amazingly of all, you are constantly DOING THAT VERY THING YOU ARE SO DISGUSTED BY every single time you post, more so, and with more venom, and with less substance, than almost anyone else has ever done on this blog!!!”
                      I have asked before and I will ask again, do you need specific examples?  I completely acknowledge that there are conservatives who do the same thing and I have never denied that.  As for me doing the same thing, I would like SPECIFIC examples of where I have done the same thing.  I would really like to know and if I have I will correct it. 
                      “You want to debate substantial issues? Fine, let’s do it. You want to discuss the issues, and the various positions on those issues, and the justifications of those positions? Fine, let’s do it. You want to debate whether it is more reasonable, or simply a moral imperative, to protect the rights of an unborn fetus, rather than more reasonable, or simply a moral imperative to protect the rights of a pregnant woman, fine, let’s do it. You want to debate the relative efficacy of more, or less, government spending, of more, or less military involvement abroad, of more, or less, economic and political globalization, fine, let’s do it. And I’ll respect your opinion when you rise to that level, just as I have respected the opinions of others on (and off) this blog who rise to that level. “
                      I would love to have a good back and forth debate on issues like abortion, morality, government spending, whether we are a republic or a democracy, and so on, but when I have tried thus far, I have gotten no debate, just attacks.  The telling thing about this comment is where you say  “And I’ll respect your opinion when you rise to that level”.  Very interesting. 
                      “But that’s not what you’re here for, that’s not what you do, and by no means is that the level you operate on. You’re not here to discuss issues, to debate, to consider, to contemplate…. You’re just here to show everyone how big the chip on your shoulder is, how much you despise liberals, how wrong and terrible and uncouth they all are. That’s all you do, it’s all you say, it’s all you are.”
                      This statement is an assumption and nothing more.  And you are completely wrong.  There is nothing else to say. 
                      “You accused me in another post of being intolerant of your opinions. If you mean that I’m intolerant of the only opinion you ever really express, that liberals all are horrible people, and the way you can know that is that some liberals have sometimes exercised bad manners on this blog, then I guess you’re right. I’m intolerant of that opinion.”
                      Again, classic liberalism.  You twist my words to say what I never said.  I would like you to point out where I have ever said that a liberal is a “horrible person”.  You won’t because you cannot.  You lose credibility whit statements like this. 
                      “I’m also intolerant of spousal abuse, of cruelty to animals, of racism, and, most relevant to the present discussion, of public defecation. Intolerance is not an inherently bad thing: It depends on what you are intolerant of.”
                      The question is, who gets to decide what is “good intolerance” and what is “bad intolerance.”
                      “You’re a one-trick pony, and it’s a trick any pony can do if it eats enough fiber. So let me tell you something Buddy; at the end of the day, as much as you might admire the pile of crap you leave steaming and stinking for everyone else to step around on this pleasant little plaza of ours, being able and eager to shit on exhibition really is nothing to be proud of.”

                      Again with the ad hominem attacks.  You just continue to lose more credibility. 

                    20. You must have misunderstood me. What I’ve been saying is that YOU’RE dumb and I’M smart, not because of our respective ideologies, but just because, well, you’re dumb…, and I’m smart. Sorry I wasn’t more clear about that.

                    21. I HAD chosen to debate, and HAVE included many logically constructed, empirically supported arguments, which are precisely the posts that YOU tend to ignore. But, yes, there are certain people, with certain attitudes, expressing certain beliefs, lacking the ability much less the will to apply reason to those thoughts and words, who invoke in others a desire to verbally deck them. While I am not suggesting that you are a member of the KKK, or some similarly offensive organization, the sensation that you produce in others such as myself (let’s say “liberals,” though I suspect there are many moderates and conservatives who are similarly affected) is analogous to the sensation that white-hooded bigots produce in folks who understand what those white-hooded bigots so viciously and ignorantly fail to understand. The recepticle of your rancor may not be blacks, or jews, or even (though some of your posts bring this one into doubt) homosexuals, but you do nevertheless reserve for yourself the convenience of identifying a categorical villian, and venting all of your immoderate and mostly unfounded rage and indignation on that categorical villain. That is the similarity.

                    22. Others on this site have debated isuues such as states rights, federal spending, health care and so on. 

                      As for you comparison to the KKK, I have to say that it is a very rudimentary argument that most intelligent people see right through. 

                    23. or is this just another arbitrary statement? By all means, invent supporting facts whenever you find it convenient to do so. Hell, just go ahead and hallucinate whatever best serves your agenda. Oh, sorry, that’s pretty much what you’ve been doing all along. I don’t want you to think that I haven’t been paying attention.

                      I am very glad that you are having such satisfying debates with other people. Undoubtedly, you are a master debater. May I proffer my congratulations on your having achieved such a laudable goal? I’m sure, someday, you will discover alternatives to master-debation. Until then, just hang in there, and try not to seem too creepy.

                      And, might I suggest that you invest in a dictionary? It would improve your, ah, *credibility* to know the meaning of challenging words such as “rudimentary” before trying to employ them.

                      Hopefully some day I’ll be able to converse on your intellectual level. Of course, that would require a lobotomy, but anything’s possible.

                    24. I am just making a statement of opinion.  That is why I said “I have to say” instead of “a recent study shows” or “a recent poll said”.

                      For a person who wants to have “more intellectually satisfying dialogues” you sure seem ready to attack the person instead of the argument.  Why do you thin you are so angry?

                      As for this comment “Hopefully some day I’ll be able to converse on your intellectual level. Of course, that would require a lobotomy, but anything’s possible.”
                      I hope to never drop to your level. 

                    25. It would be too time consuming, and too futile, to plug in the dozens, if not hundreds, of links to my thoroughly analytical posts on the topics you claim no one is willing to discuss analytically. Both as “Ockham’s Razor” and as “yevrahnevets,” I have posted extensive, thoroughly analytical discourses on all of these topics. Those posts far outnumber posts like these, dealing with the “trolls,” as some rightly call bloggers such as yourself. But, hey, don’t let such inconveniences as the demonstrable facts get in the way of your arbitrary assertions. After all, you’re all about reasonable dialogue….

      2. Take anyone guilty of crimes against humanity (or merely errors in judgement), play the role of his critics, place ridiculous and exaggerated allegations in their mouths, and, abracadabra! You have exonerated the criminal (or mis-doer) without ever mentioning or addressing any facts at all!

        You, like your talk-radio role models, do your ideology a grave disservice, if ideologies are strengthened by reason and weakened by hollow rhetorical devices (as I hope they are, over the long run).

        1. Any Republican who would try and point out where the Democrats have done the exact same thing are obviously skirting the issue.  Don’t the Republicans understand, Democrats are allowed to point out where Republicans have failed and brush aside any accusations of malfeasance on their part by those who oppose them? 

          For example, it is completely acceptable to bash Bush for not doing enough in Darfur, but give Clinton a pass for letting 800,000 people die in Rwanda. 

          Ockham, what I hate the most is when Republicans accuse me of just listening to Air America radio and regurgitating Randy Rhodes then accuse me of doing my liberal ideology a disservice. 

          1. I for one always wanted to act, but I will accept his contrition.

            What the hell do you thin the GOP would of said about that?  Afterall everytime he tried to attack Al Qaeda they accused him of “Wagging the dog” and many of the GOP think tht getting inolved in th balkans was a bad idea–although it was flawlessly executed.

            You remember the Balkans. Tri-sided civil war with grievences going back 700 years.  Clinton leads a true multinational coalition to gain control of a region that managed to defeat the Nazi’s using guerilla tactics.  He then creats a framework for rule of law, public trials and national reconciliation.

            And when Bush came into office, one of the first things he did was get rid of peacekeeping studies at the war college.  Yhey were trying to apply the lessons learned in the Balkans to future conflicts–but Bush would have none of that clinton thinking.

            I bash clinton plenty–there are no free passes–but his foriegn policy wasn’t a disaster and he didn’t wipe his ass with the constitution.

            1. Now, some conservatives may say that you accepting his contrition is nice and all, but 800,000 people are still dead.  800,000 black people from Africa are dead because Clinton didn’t have teh balls to act to stop the genocide. 

              If I were you I would tell them to get bent, after all they were black, not European. 

              1. I take it, that every error by a Democratic exonerates at least one error by a Republican, so that Republicans can not be legitimately criticized if a Democrat can be as well? I have no issue with criticizing Clinton (who hasn’t been in office for the past 6+ years), but can’t for the life of me see what relevance it has to any criticism made of Bush. There is no exclusivity rule here, which says that a Republican (or Democrat) can only be criticized if no member of the opposite party can be criticized.

                So far every post you have written is some kind of objection to criticism made by liberals on the basis that there are liberals who have done things that can be criticized.

                Which all leads me to wonder: Are you Ken Smith in a new costume, writing in a new style? It’s hard to imagine that he, being the archetype of such baseness on this blog, can have such formidable competition!

          2. “Ockham is right.” Then you lost me. But you are entertaining, in a whincing-while-watching-a-bumbling-fool kind of way, like Barney Fife. Just keep your one bullet safely in your pocket, okay?

  3. Here’s the Democratic Plan:

    NEW ORLEANS, LA—Just prior to the second anniversary of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Democrats returned to the Gulf Coast to recommit themselves to a Partnership for the Future. In a congressional delegation trip to the Gulf Coast region this week, led by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, democratic lawmakers made a new commitment.

    “We are not done with our work in this region, because you are not done,” said Clyburn. “We extend our hand in friendship and partnership for the future.”

    At the conclusion of their tour through the region Democrats outlined their legislative priorities to continue a New Direction for the Gulf Coast . Those priorities include but are not limited to:

    * A public commitment from Congress to help the region rebuild
    [HRes 551]
    * Funding for local recovery plans

    Housing

    * Working with the state to fill the shortfall in the Road Home program
    * Comprehensive housing assistance including aid for rental, public and low-income housing [HR 1227]
    * An estimated $550 million under Federal Housing Reform Act
    [HR 1427, Pending in House-Senate Conference]
    * Support for mixed-income housing, additional Section 8 vouchers
    * Help address the dangerously high level of homelessness
    * Working with state officials to address unhealthy levels of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers

    Insurance

    * Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, which includes a multiple perils provision that provides wind and flood coverage in one policy [HR 3121, Passed Financial Services 7/27/07]

    Infrastructure

    * Water Resources Development Act [WRDA] which would bolster coastal levees and provide funding for coastal restoration [HR 1495]
    * Funding and regulatory assistance to rebuild child care services, and institutions throughout the region.

    Small business

    * Disaster relief assistance for small businesses [HR 1468]
    * Small business assistance under the RECOVER Act [HR 1361]

    Health Care

    * Working with state and local leaders and private partners to determine the future of health care in the region
    * Funding for the healthcare safety net,
    * Support for hospitals that are currently serving the uninsured population and need funding,
    * Improving access and funding for mental health services,
    * Helping to increase the number of healthcare professionals
    * Tackling head-on the unacceptable rise in morbidity and mortality rates and health disparities throughout the region.

    Education

    * Provide additional resources for K-12 education including passing the remaining parts of the Renewal Act.
    * Add to the No Child Life Behind reauthorization provisions that will hold-harmless the Gulf Coast region school systems and provide targeted assistance to teachers, school administration, and students.

    Reform, Cut Bureaucracy

    * Stafford Act reform, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Recovery Facilitation Act
    [HR 3247, Passed Transportation and Infrastructure 8/2/07]
    * Providing more technical assistance from all federal agencies involved with the recovery.
    * Creating a federal-state coordinating entity for recovery.
    * Establishing a federal-state policy and dispute resolution recovery entity.
    * Removing out-of-date Stafford Act rebuilding requirements.

    Rebuilding the Region

    * Enhancing tax incentives currently existing in the region.
    * Reviewing the tax code to find more effective ways of leveraging investment in the region and not penalize residents or business owners in the region.

    Including all Communities

    * Continued support for the unique and specialized needs of the Asian, Pacific American, African American and Hispanic communities.

    Lawmakers agreed that they would work with the state and local officials to set goals, benchmarks, and timelines in these areas to ensure an expedited recovery.

      1. Well, except Lincoln who saw the need to end slavery.

        And with the execption of Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jackie Robinson, Don King, Denzel Washington, Sammy Davis, Jr., Sojourner Truth, George Washington Carver, Ida Wells, Blanche Bruce, Mary Terrell who are all black Repulbicans.

        And there is that pesky matter of the the number of blacks who currenly vote Repbulican – but we will ignore that. 

        1. Oh yeah, and Thomas Sowell…..

          Lincoln did not try to end slavery, you should know that.  His goal was to preserve the union, slavery was a side issue.

          Yes, during Reconstruction the Pubs was the progressive, protect rights party. So, sure, those long dead blacks might well have been R, but I also question if there are any sources to validate your claim…..which is right out of right wing exaggeration talk radio-web sites.  In the late 19th century, the Republican party platform sounded like some liberal Democractic platform.  In that same time perioed, for reasons I do not know of, the parties sort of flipped in philosophies and levels of corruption. 

          The claim of MLK being a Republican is from a radio spot by the National Black Republican Association. “The younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.” http://www.washingto

          Coretta Scott King has addressed the lie insofar as her husband and she points out that he was definitely NOT a Republican, but a Democrat.

          MLK, Republican, my ass. The history of R’s for most of the 20th century is disgusting, so you make up your own to fit the times.  How sad.

          1. parsingreality,

            I like your style.  Look to the past and see what the opposing party did that you want to take credit for and then say that their platform is really the Democrat platform.  For example, the Republicans could look at Thomas Jefferson and his stance on states rights and a limited federal government and say that he was more like the Republicans of today than the Democrats. 

            You are right, Lincoln never tried to end slavery, that is why I said “except Lincoln who saw the need to end slavery”.  He didn’t do enough, like the Democrats have done, to free slaves and that is why Bill Clinton was the first black president. 

            You are so right on the corruption angle.  The Democrats used to be corrupt, but the Republicans are so much more corrupt.  Now, the Republicans could mention Rep. William Jefferson, Clarence Norman Jr., Sandy Berger, Ernest Newton, Jim Black, Gov. Donald Siegelman, Paul Miller, Robert Torricelli, Charles Coles Diggs, John Murtha, Raymond Lederer and every Democrat elected official in Louisiana. 

            Your ass is Republican?  Cool.  Or is MLK your ass?  (I think that would be racist).

            1. …back and forth between sarcasm mode and straight mode.

              And as a late comer, you apparently haven’t read the threads we’ve had here on corruption. Sandy Berger vs. Abrahamoff?  Oh, my sides are splitting. Berger did not do anything corruptive.  He broke a law which he admitted to.

              And if you want to get into sexual perversion….the Gold Medal winner is…..Republicanism!

              My diary here: http://coloradopols….

        2. attributions to those of more recent vintage (both parties were quite different entities a century ago): I don’t know if MLK was ever a Republican in his life, but I do know that he was openly asserting a growing affinity for Socialism (by name) near the end of his life, and that his closest political allies were Northern Democrats. And, frankly, as much as admire MLK (who is my favorite American Hero), his admiration of Socialism does not, in my opinion, mean that I have to admire it too: I believe his analysis was flawed. And I would say the same of any of those of recent generations who you mentioned who are Republicans (most of whom I doubt actually are).

          Blacks also overwhelmingly support the Democratic party, though, of course, there is a minority who vote Republican.

          Few of those you mentioned are post-Civil Rights era personalities. A shift occurred at that time, with the Northern Democrats first becoming the party of racial tolerance, and the Democratic party as a whole eventually inheriting that mantle. The Republicans became the reactionaries, opposing tolerance on a host of issues.

          Again, as a staunch social progressive who finds the Republican party to be an obstacle to the development of intelligent and reasonable policies with which to confront our collective challenges and take advantage of our collective opportunities, I would like to thank you for continuing to discredit that group who I so revile. You represent your fellow conservatives accurately, if not advantageously.

          1. “Again, as a staunch social progressive who finds the Republican party to be an obstacle to the development of intelligent and reasonable policies with which to confront our collective challenges and take advantage of our collective opportunities, I would like to thank you for continuing to discredit that group who I so revile.You represent your fellow conservatives accurately, if not advantageously. 

            Marx, Stalin and I are so proud!!!

            1. …Communism or socialsim. 

              “There you go again,” to quote God.  You radical right wingers just cannot grasp the differences of all the “isms.”

              Why? Well, it’s sort of complicated and it takes knowledge and intelligence…

                1. is European conservativism. It is arguably farther from communism and socialism than it is from fascism (i.e., it is closer to the extreme right than to the extreme left). You seem to just spew, without a clue, Foo.

                  1. Prove your point. 

                    Because the way they look at it is that liberalism, communism and socialism are like kissing cousins.  Whereas conservatives tend to be free market capitalists who don’t believe in government regulation or control over citizens lives. 

                    Fortunately there are plenty of RINOs who side with us on economic issues. 

                    1. the same conservatives who oppose equal rights for gay couples, stem-cell research, a woman’s right to have an abortion, and the teaching of evolution in public schools are the ones who oppose government interference in people’s private lives? Hmmm.

                      Actually, Republicans, not Democrats, favor interference in private lives. What Democrats favor is interference in public lives, that is, in commercial activity which, by definition, involves exchange between multiple social actors and depends on infrastructure (property rights, reliable currency, as well as things like public highways which reduce transaction costs), and involves “externalities” in the form of public goods and public bads. Commerce is a very public activity, while the sexual preference of two consenting adults is truly a private matter.

                      And, in fact, Republicans are no more free-market capitalists than are Democrats: Republicans believe in market interference which favors capital, and Democrats believe in market interference which favors labor. *I* am more of a free-marketeer than are most Republicans, because I believe in extending the logic of the market to wider ranges of human activity: The market is indeed a very robust human institution, and should be harnassed more extensively for our collective benefit. But, the market by itself is amoral, and has no interest in human welfare: There are few economists left who don’t recognize that, as John Maynard Keynes recognized, governments must regulate and guide markets for them to function to our maximum benefit.

                      I love the way that people who know nothing about economics are such advocates of caricatures of economic arguments!

                    2. Ockham,
                      where might I find such a person ?
                      Someone who knows NOTHING about economics ? 
                      Don’t you mean “people who disagree with me ?”

                      Economics – everyone knows something about economics.
                      I don’t know a Laffler Curve from a Phillips Curve, but I make decisions every day about priorities and resource allocation.
                      E.g., do I stop by MacDonalds for a chocolate shake, or would that put too much cholesterol into my already overloaded Carotids ? 

                      Since you know so much about Economics, that Dismal Science, you must know about opportunity costs, externalities and imperfect market knowledge.  So you understand that I’m applying some apprehension of Economics to make my choice. 

                      That’s meaning 3 for “apprehension,” not “fear” or “anxiety.”
                      /

                    3. Instead of assuming what I mean, Why not just ask me what I mean?

                      I am talking about conservatives who oppose “special” rights for gay couples; conservatives who look at stem-cell research as destroying a life; conservatives who look at abortion as effecting two completely different individuals, and conservatives who believe that the theory of evolution is one point of view and that since it is a theory and not a fact other points of view should be presented to students. 

                      “Actually, Republicans, not Democrats, favor interference in private lives.”

                      Well, here is one conservative who does not agree that government should interfere in private lives in most cases.  Do what you want in your bedroom, I could care less.  I do think that Democrats do want to interfere in private lives of citizens by promoting sex education in school and opposition to corporal punishment by parents.  Now, I am sure that you agree that in certain cases, such as child molestation or spousal abuse, that there is a reason for the government to become involved in private matters. 

                      “What Democrats favor is interference in public lives, that is, in commercial activity which, by definition, involves exchange between multiple social actors and depends on infrastructure (property rights, reliable currency, as well as things like public highways which reduce transaction costs), and involves “externalities” in the form of public goods and public bads.”

                      Can you show me where in the Constitution of the United States that it allows the types of regulation you support in this statement?  If two private individuals want to make an exchange, why does the government need to be involved?  If a private individual decides to buy something from a private or publicly traded company, why does the government need to be involved?  If two private or publicly traded companies decide to exchange goods, why should the government be involved?  What really scares me about your statement is who gets to decide what is “public goods” and “public bads”?  Where does it talk about that in the Constitution? 

                      But, the market by itself is amoral, and has no interest in human welfare: There are few economists left who don’t recognize that, as John Maynard Keynes recognized, governments must regulate and guide markets for them to function to our maximum benefit. “

                      “And, in fact, Republicans are no more free-market capitalists than are Democrats: Republicans believe in market interference which favors capital, and Democrats believe in market interference which favors labor.”

                      You are right, there are many Republicans who use government to favor business just as there are many Democrats who use government to favor unions.  I favor a free market where the government does not interfere with the voluntary exchange of goods between consenting individuals. 

                      “*I* am more of a free-marketeer than are most Republicans, because I believe in extending the logic of the market to wider ranges of human activity: The market is indeed a very robust human institution, and should be harnassed more extensively for our collective benefit.”

                      I do think it is oxymoronic to us the terms “free-marketer” and “for our collective benefit” in the same sentence as I do not think they are compatible. 

                      “But, the market by itself is amoral, and has no interest in human welfare. There are few economists left who don’t recognize that, as John Maynard Keynes recognized, governments must regulate and guide markets for them to function to our maximum benefit. “

                      You are right, but the market is run by humans who do have morals and, for the most part, interest in human welfare.  After all, if the market had no interest in human welfare, it would eventually lead to fewer customers.  That is a hard truth, but the truth none the less.  I think there are many economists, including numerous Nobel laureates, who think that the Keynes school of economics is nonsense.

                      “I love the way that people who know nothing about economics are such advocates of caricatures of economic arguments!”

                      I think this is very true, but not in the same way you do. 

                    4. designed to point out the irony of your depiction of respective ideologies.

                      As for the rest, why bother?

                    5. …encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be, not to point out irony. 

                      “As for the rest, why bother?”

                      Or is it because you can’t?

                    6. 1) Rights for gay couples that are identical to rights for heterosexual couples are, by definition, not special rights, but merely equal rights. Calling them special rights assumes the legitimacy of a cultural regime of discrimination by which equal rights for gays are considered exceptional.

                      2) If killing stem cells is murder because the carry the code for a potential human life, then showering is murder, because skin cells with the same code are murdered in the process. Bundles of cells are considered human life only by those who employ a form of magical thinking. It is the height of hypocricy when those same people eat meat, for instance, since eating meat requires the slaughter of beings far more sentient, far more aware of being slaughtered, far more able to feel pain, than are those bundles of cells they are so eager to protect.

                      3a) The notion that all views that are promoted by any interest group should be presented to students would require that satanism, nazism, animism, and Islam, to name just a few, would have to find their way onto the curriculum. Aside from the objections many people would have to many of these ideologies, there is the pragmatic reality that only a limited amount of material can be presented, and some system for selecting what that material should, and should not, be needs to be in place. Fortunately, we have a remarkably wise constitution which helps to some extent with that challenge: The seperation of church and state, and particularly the exclusionary clause, requires that no particular religious point of view be promoted by any agency of the state, including the public schools. Creationism is strictly a religious point of view: Even some creationists who understand scientific method admit that it cannot be considered a scientific point of view because it does not generate any refutable hypotheses. The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that it is unconstitutional to teach creationism in the schools for this reason.

                      3b) The Theory of Evolution is, by defintion, not a fact. Neither are the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Thermodynamics, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, or other scientific theory, no matter hw strongly supported by empirical and mathematical evidence. It is not in the nature of scientific theories to ever be proven, or to ever become facts, no matter how thoroughly their accuracy comes to be recognized through repeated and constant failure either to disprove them or to displace them with more effective conceptual frameworks (effectiveness being measured by the extent to which they organize systematically gathered information in unique and practically applicable ways). The Theory of Evolution is indeed one of the most strongly supported scientific theories ever produced, not only through the archeological record, but also by latter discoveries unknown at the time of its production (such as genetics) which are comprehensible only within its framework.

                      And those are responses to your first paragraph alone. I could go on, but, again, why bother? No amount of reason can ever dissuade a determined idiot from continuing to be an idiot.

                    7. combines a combination of obvious but not particularly relevant statements, arbitrary assumptions, gross misconceptions, and tangental conclusions into a soup that says little and means less. I’m sorry: It’s just not worth my time and effort to continue this exercise in futility. I wish you all the best.

            2. Have you ever considered posting an argument of some sort? You know, mobilizing information and logic in order to make a point? While random comparisons to arbitrary boogey-men may satisfy your fantasy of playing to some imaginary audience, it’s really just noise, and very obviously so. Why don’t we debate ideas instead? Tell me why the ideology you adhere to is valuable, what problems it solves, what opportunities it exploits, whose life it enhances, and so on? Then, if you actually make a logical argument, we can engage in a mutually edifying discussion. Or is that anathema to certain kinds of Republicans, as conventional wisdom among the “intelligencia” would have it? (Strange, isn’t it, that the “intelligencia,” named for intelligence, are overwhelmingly liberals, while there does seem to be a strong correlation between conservativism – especially social conservativism- and share ignorance?)

              1. The problem is that there is no logic to those damned conservatives.  Evil has no logic.  Simply because you don’t understand means that it can’t be logical because you are a smart liberal and conservatives are debating who to lynch next. 

                Ah, the vision of the self anointed liberal, like music to my ears. 

                1. and your other recent one on not being a fool, is that you still haven’t made one single argument. I’m not sure what your point is, but the only point you’ve consistently made is that you have only an ideology, but no ideas. As I said, we liberals delight in conservatives like you: You discredit your creed with every word you write. (There are, by the way, many thoughtful conservatives who I respect greatly: George Will and David Brooks to name a couple. There are, unfortunately, many more like you, who just lash out against “liberalism” without ever stooping to making any analyses by which to support your knee-jerk ideological assumptions).

                  1. that is exactly the point.  They would accuse us liberals of spewing hatred on a daily basis while preaching tolerance.  They would accuse us of promoting equality while believing in double standards.  They would state that liberals have failed again and again with their social engineering, but are unwilling to listen to alternatives.  The would say that it is oxymoronic that liberals call themselves progressives but are against any changes to public education, social security, unions, or reducing the size of government.

                    If fact, some Republicans may even say liberals lash out against “conservativism” without ever stooping to making any analyses by which to support your knee-jerk ideological assumptions).

                    But if they do say any of that stuff we can counteract it by saying they want to kill the elderly and starve children.  Emotion works over logic every time. 

                    1. I’m in favor of experimenting with vouchers, with completely redefining the social security (and, more importantly, the medicare) systems, and with many other innovations that are traditionally considered conservative positions.

                      You use the term “social engineering,” by which I have to assume that you mean ever using government to address collective challenges by experimenting with different policies. Are you then making a libertarian argument, which is an ideology simply ignorant of the existance of public goods and public bads that markets (and other organic social institutions) are simply incapable of addresssing? Even the markets themselves cannot function without a government guaranteeing property rights (including rights to one’s own person).

                      And what is this “we liberals” and “those conservatives” game? Can’t you just make an argument, and subject it to the marketplace of ideas? Wouldn’t that be the consistent approach for such a free-marketeer as yourself? Or do you secretly know that what you have to sell requires “government” protection, in the form of all sorts of subterfuges and rhetorical ploys?

                      Such a fine work you are! It does give me perverse pleasure to cast a bright light on your dull “arguments.” There are few things more enjoyable than humiliating people who have the bad taste to combine arrogance with stupidity.

                    2. Foghorn does not present his/ her arguments in strict Aristotelian form, using more of a “pimp-my-Socrates” construction.

                      But Foghorn is definitely presenting arguments, and you are no match. 

                    3. It brings back memories of riogrande claiming victory when he was clearly losing every point in a logical debate. Leaving aside ego, pride, and all of the other related vices that might lead me to disagree with you, your claim here is simply straight out of left-field. Anyone can play the game foghorn has been playing: It requires neither skill nor intelligence. In fact, as I pointed out in another post, it is precisely the game that three-year-olds play: Asking “why?” in response to every statement made by their “adversary.” There’s nothing more subtle or talented in what foghorn has done here. So by what conceivable measure was he “kicking my butt”? And in what universe am I “no match for him”?

                      At first, I assumed that you were a sockpocket for foghorn, offering the support that no other reasonable person would ever be tempted to give. But the pattern and timing of your posts raises some doubts about that (though it is still a distinct possibility).

                      This is what drove me from this blog the first time, and what drove me from academe decades ago: The ability of arbitrary pronouncements, utterly vapid in the light of logic or evidence, to gain and retain a foothold in the arena of competing ideas by virtue of the mechanisms which permit weak ideas to survive long periods of time in democratically-determined realities.

                      I’d be sincerely interested in reading a blow-by-blow defense of your above-mentioned statements which hold me in such awe. I am truly interested in the anatomy of arbitrary beliefs and conclusions strongly held and adamantly expressed. They are central to the human condition, and to the obstinant obstacles to improving it.

                    4. With one comment you’ve just dropped about 20 points of respectability in my eyes. I’ll echo Ockham’s Razor and ask for a better explanation of how Foghorn is winning this one.

          2. I also love how you didn’t call f.sage on the carpet for saying:

            “It’s working perfectly.  A black Democratic city was destroyed. Let it stay that way.”

            That is a bold move to hold the Republicans to account but let the statement slide by.  Now, some people would call you a hypocrite, but not me. 

            1. to respond to every ignorant, belligerent, or just plain stupid comment posted on this blog. Aside from posting reasoned arguments, I respond to those posts that I both happen to notice and feel inclined to respond to.

              Interesting comments are, of course, often worth responding to. Sometimes I feel I have something to add. As for which absurd comments I respond to, I usually respond to some combination of stupidity and malignancy.  Either one by itself isn’t worth bothering with.

              The fact that you consider such a simple fact as limited time and interest on a blog to be a sign of hypocricy is just one more feather in your cap.

          3. …but of course, he grew up in an era when Democratic southerners were the party of segregation.  When RFK helped spring MLK from jail, his father changed party registrations.

                1. But to play your game, I would say in comparison to:

                  Barney “I paid Stephen Gobie for sex” Frank

                  or

                  Gerry “I was censured by the House for having sex with an underaged male page” Studds

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

67 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!