comment #1

byanyother says ...

You are one of the most self-centered media personalities out there, does that mean you're a Republican?

Also, dark skinned? That is too broad and ignorant a generalization for you to make.

But finally, you write "bastards and Darwinians"

Don't wave around words you don't understand. Clearly by your piece you don't know what the word Darwinian means or you wouldn't use it as an insult. That single phrase is probably the dumbest thing you've ever written on this blog.

Rather than explaining it to you myself, why do some research and then decide whether you should use it or not. But I'll just say this: survival is survival. You protecting your head with a helmet is survival. You being born with two legs instead of three gives you the evolutionary advantage over a three-legged.

Meditate on it and then find a more appropriate word. Sheesh.

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

byanyother beat me to it. If you look past the labels he uses to try to separate himself from those he purports to despise, Jeffrey Wells really is one of the most conservative voices on the internet.

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I know exactly and precisely what being a "social Darwinian" means. Don't be insulting. It means accepting and embracing the idea that the stronger and fitter among us will rise to the top and revel in the perks of their superiority, and that this is how the God of the well-off, white-picket-fence white people (i.e., as defined by King James bible) intends things to be.

comment #4

joncro says ...

You didn't say social Darwinian in the post though. You said Darwinian, implying the great man's theories about natural selection (which by the way has NOTHING at all to do with social Darwinism). Wells update: I've fixed this and thanks for the comment.

comment #5

Travis Crabtree says ...

"And Jett felt I was talking like a demagogue."
Nooooo!

I'll probably have more to say on this when I'm done laughing.
Or maybe not.
Probabaly not.

Good god.

comment #6

yasureubetcha says ...

I think Jeffrey fancies himself a Uncle Ellsworth-type of character. Perhaps a re-reading of The Fountainhead is required here as a sort of reality check for him. But perhaps Jeffrey considers Uncle Ellsworth the good guy in that story--which is pretty scary if you think about it.

comment #7

lbeale says ...

Jeff:
I think you're essentially correct, but you left out one key element here. Many of these righties had their minds blown as teenagers by reading Ayn Rand, possibly the worst writer, and most destructive thinker, of the 20th century. Her concept of 'enlightened selfishness' is a driving force behind the libertarian mentality, and the justification for all sorts of laissez-faire political policies. It's also why these reactionaries worship the 'free market' as if it were some sort of god, and never needed regulation.
I remember ereading 'The Fountainhead' when I was 19, and luckily, unlike a lot of self-absorbed teens, I thought it was a wretchedly written, reactionary piece of shit. If only other readers had felt the same way, we wouldn't have to deal with Randian stupidity to this day.

comment #8

vansmith says ...

righties and lefties are two sides of the same coin some days i want to kick the shit out some stinking homeless guy other days i'll throw a quater at him and tell him to beat it. depending on the day you could call me whatever....ive been watching alot of British gangster movies, the brits are real pissers, real tough guys. the rise of the foot soldiers is like their goodfellas..see it...

comment #9

Griff says ...

Forgive me for pointing out that conservatives give more (much more) to charity than self-identified liberals. (Check Joe Biden and President Obama's tax returns for how much they personally contributed to charity before they went up to the Big Show)

I suspect that this is because liberals tend to out-source their compassion: "It's terrible, and everyone should pay a little bit, and by decreeing thus, I have done something for mankind." Conservatives, and perhaps, more religious conservatives, may tend to say "That's terrible, and I need to do something about it personally."

So, I'm not so sure the "selfish" label is entirely accurate.

comment #10

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Jett's right.

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Oh, God. A revival if the old "thousand points of light" Bush 41 bullshit.

comment #12

Jeffrey Wells says ...

In the unlikely event of the creation of green internment camps for re-educating righties, I would do what I could to make sure that Travis Crabtree would get a private room in the barracks (like Sgt. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket) and other privileges. Because he's assertive and someone who engages and argues and is not a mere "baaahing" sheep.

comment #13

GKLondon says ...

Love having these arguments with my dad, absolutely my favourite way of bonding with the old man.

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

"Give me this, I deserve this, take it by force from somebody else and give it to me! And if they don't want to, they're selfish!"

Fun times.

comment #15

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I think the problem is that the public face of "the Right" in America has become so cartoonish and exaggerated that you will get liberals believing they are truly evil. I mean Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly and pro-lifers and gun nuts have distorted and twisted what it means to be conservative in America to ridiculous levels, and given that there's no sane Republicans with a high profile right now, it's easy to characterize the Right as evil. It's a problem for them and they really need to re-brand.

comment #16

byanyother says ...

I don't really think the selfish label is right either - it isn't something that can be generalized like that. For one thing, there are different factions within the party - while one might be more supportive of the wealthiest among us, another might be church-going givers. Plenty of selfish, self-centered liberals out there to more than make up for it. I say this being a liberal. Besides, RIchard Dawkins has identified the selfish gene. It's not entirely a bad thing.

comment #17

bondjamesbond says ...

It strikes me that there is an ongoing effort to identify "evil." That seems reasonable, because then we'd have a chance of stomping it out. But JW, you should get around more if you don't think there are selfish, arrogant, egotistical, knee-jerk, reactionary morons identifying themselves as "leftists," who would just as soon consign you to hell for some trumped up shortcoming as a righty would.

I think of "liberal" as meaning, more or less, generous. And compassionate. There are more than enough hypocritical phonies giving lip service to that whose hearts are really sharpened knives.

Anyway, I think the understanding of "evil" is not so easy. Understanding seems to me to progress in the manner of the first three "Alien" movies. First, the monster is out there. Second, the monsters are all around us. And finally, we realize, the monster is in us. Ripley's solution is correct.

comment #18

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Ripley's solution being...I've forgotten. She kills herself in order to kill the alien that she's become?

comment #19

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

I whole heartedly agree with you, Wells, about these right wing scumbags who only care about themselves. You forgot to add that they will gladly wave their White Privilege card anytime they feel threatened by non-white people rising to the top.

comment #20

DavidCB says ...

Jeffrey,

Exterminate all the rightwingers? Pol Pot already tried that. So did the Bolsheviks, et. al. It didn't work out too well.

comment #21

bondjamesbond says ...

Yeah, you'll remember the image -- self-immolation, falling back into the fire (molten lead).

But as a solution it's metaphorical, of course.

comment #22

allstar397 says ...

I find the only time most Dems i see fall into your idea of worrying about the greater good etc. is while talking about politics.

In their everyday lives they're just as "selfish" as you claim the right to be. Yourself included. Not meant as an insult, but when you think about it, isnt watching movies, eating at nice restaurants, travelling, worrying about your Iphone (i like doing all these things too) just getting in the way of what, under your theory we should be worrying ourselves with??

comment #23

DavidCB says ...

Liberals are extremely generous people-- but only with other people's money, not their own. And that's been proven by the data. Look up Arthur C. Brookes, professor of sociology, Syracus University. So yeah, I agree-- exterminate all the selfish people. Would suit me fine.

comment #24

btwnproductions says ...

Not to change the subject, but THE OUTFIT is screening at Anthology Film Archives on Aug. 7, 9, and 13.

comment #25

simontemplar says ...

Spoken like a true leftist...and in good keeping with your comrades, the national socialist, the chinese communist, and the soviet communist, as well as that dear Pol Pot and his gang of exterminators. You forgot one liittle detail. We're armed and still have a second ammendment. Are you mentally ill or just an attention seeker?

comment #26

Michael says ...

This was a long distance conversation, right? Because Jett apparently lives in the real world?

comment #27

yasureubetcha says ...

Chris Matthews has mentioned this scenario several times on his show over the years, about the dems in congress who treat the shoeshine man like shit whereas he notes the reps treat the little guy with dignity and respect. This has made a lasting impression on Matthews as he has mentioned it often. The point he then makes is that the dems treat the collective well and the individual they deem inferior not so much, and the reps treat individuals well and the great society they ignore. It's the classic do as I say not as I do situation (i.e., hypocrisy).

BTW Wells, are you trying to get on O'Reilly again?

comment #28

Mike says ...

The day when widespread political violence comes to this nation, the bodies of Wells and his ilk will be piled like cordwood.

comment #29

DavidCB says ...

I used to work in the non-profit sector back in the day and was exposed to the do-gooder set for many years. You never saw a bigger bunch of a-holes. Treated the people they allegedly served as if they were dirt. Made their volunteers cry, etc. Just jerks. But sure talked a big game about how much they wanted to "save the world", and of course how much they hate rightwingers. I'm no longer impressed by talk of selfish righties. I know the people too well who say such things.

comment #30

MDOC says ...

To paint things in such black and white terms seems intellectually lazy. I think it comes down to your gut. Who makes the rules? Who writes the checks to pay for the rules?

I am not scared of foreigners and "brown people", I am scared of bad decision makers. They come in all shapes and colors. If someone constantly makes bad decisions how do you allocate resources to them properly? Perhaps you er on the side of lesser resources in an effort to give them incentive to contribute at a higher level. Is that evil?

comment #31

MilkMan says ...

I see it as even more black and white.
There are only two types of people in the world:
The Rich. And The Poor.
The Poor want what The Rich have.
And The Rich do not want The Poor to have it.
The rest is just fashion.

comment #32

storymark says ...

Well, at least your kid has a level head on him.

comment #33

nceeno says ...

Jeffrey,
I am a conservative but I feel that if the left was exterminated, we'd be better off.
Let's try my way first.

comment #34

62Lincoln says ...

Jeff, it might be interesting to allow Jett to post his opinion, or perhaps you could post a follow up with your recap of his argument.

comment #35

EdHavens says ...

Milk.. I know most people think the middle class is shrinking every day, but there are still some of us around.

As for leftie versus rightie, the answer is, as always, somewhere in the center.

comment #36

longrunner says ...

LOL, Michael!

comment #37

lonniechung says ...

I can see what Jeff is saying - however harsh the wording may seem. I think the point that needs to be made is that the political discourse in this country turns a blind eye toward hypocrisy. The left and the right seem to only exist to fight each other, and typically shapes their respective philosophies in direct opposition to the other. Life is a weird intricate thing crafted out of tiny details specific to a person's life. Political philosophies these days are broad, vague and combative, wholly counter-intuitive to the true nature and spirit of what people actually face in their day to day lives. We've all been duped into believing that we have to pull for a specific team (the left or right) in the realm of politics in order to put together an identity, when the truth is none of us really care all that much about this shit. We just want to be right. Look at the nasty discourse going on in this thread - as if we all have the market cornered on the truth. What Jeff gets right (and wrong) is that the right wing too often fortifies their position with the built-in clause that you can not have a differing opinion. Most fundamentalists view life this way (one clear path), and it has corrupted a lot of perfectly reasonable people along the way.

comment #38

Aidan MT4 says ...

If you analyze Obama's poll numbers, the main sources of his declining numbers since the beginning of the year are the lower classes, men, and whites in general. His numbers are steady or have improved with nonwhites of all classes and both genders. I agree with the outlines of Jeffrey's analysis, but I would add that I think the problem--the frighteningly ignorant and fanatical turn that the right wing has taken--has become a cultural one. Remember that a majority of white people voted for McCain, who ran one of the worst campaigns in my lifetime. You cannot argue about health care or education, for example, with these people, even though I am 100% certain that Obama's approach would better help them than anything the GOP has to offer. Yes, I'm a liberal and I want a left-leaning approach, but more important I want a nimble, intelligent approach based on reason and fairness.

comment #39

Mr. F. says ...

When Jett is arrested for fire-bombing a Hummer dealership, or an investment bank, I can see the confrontation now:

Wells: "ANSWER ME! Who taught you how to do this stuff?"
Jett: "YOU, all right?! I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU!!!"

I wish they still aired that...

comment #40

mccool says ...

jeffrey --- you seem to express ideas that align with one philosophy, but then live your life according to entirely different set. I understand your confusion .... you say the things that will get you accepted in the community to which you aspire to be part, but you don't actually believe them. You don't live the liberal life.

How do you reconcile the contradiction of your words with your way of life? How do you sleep at night? Do you honestly believe that you're just a good guy who's just misunderstood? To save the planet you eat fast food (feeding an industry that may be doing more than any other to hasten the end of mankind and rape the planet), drive decrepit fossil fuel guzzling vehicles, and brazenly jet around the world. You consume like there is no tomorrow -- dvds, electronics, TWO vehicles, shoes, clothing, pear cake --- you are as material and consumptive as capitalists get....the only thing stopping you from boats, penthouses, or helicopters is a lack of resources. Then, there's your occupation. Entertainement blogger. How does this contribute anything to humanity? Add on the fact that you live off the advertising teets of some of the biggest, baddest, conservative "big" media companies in the universe, and there's only one conclusion ... you are a conservative through and through .

These rants will never convince any of us otherwise.

comment #41

messiahcomplexio says ...

you know what would solve all this...a Stalin like purge.

comment #42

KC says ...

Wells you fucking crank, only a Sith deals in absolutes. Sometimes I think this blog is some guy's elaborate new-media character study project cos it's just too much to be real, but a post like this def grounds it in reality...blustery, hypocritical, embarrassing Boomer parents are scattered across the political spectrum, it's true

comment #43

Dark Eden says ...

So let me see if I have this right. People who think thoughts you don't approve of are evil, and the world would be a better place if they were rounded up and mass murdered. You aren't necessarily advocating setting up death camps in the south or anything, you're just talkin that's all.

Oh and let's see:
.
The Poor want what The Rich have...

But they aren't willing to do the hard work to make it happen, they want the nice man from the Government to take it from the rich guy and give it to them. That's called fairness.

And The Rich do not want The Poor to have it.

The Rich either earned it through long hours, hard work, and blood sweat and tears, or that of their parents or relatives. They don't see why they should take some of that money they earned through their own sweat to some person just to be 'fair'. Fair is fair. you want to be rich? EARN IT YOURSELF!

The rest is just fashion.

comment #44

Dark Eden says ...

PS: I'm one of those poor people, I'm far from rich. I just have the common sense to ask a simple question: How does taking money out of my boss's wallet help me keep my job?

comment #45

John Locke says ...

"What Jeff gets right (and wrong) is that the right wing too often fortifies their position with the built-in clause that you can not have a differing opinion."

Mhm. Right. Jeff is the one calling the extermination of the right wing "theoretically...a reasonably good thing," and it's the right-wingers who are intolerant of differing opinion.

comment #46

mccool says ...

Mr. F. -- I knew that guy (the father). He was from Brooklyn. Sadly he passed away 10-15 years ago.

comment #47

Dark Eden says ...

Hah! Yes. Jeff is advocating murdering people who disagree with him and then calling the right intolerant. Typical leftist hypocrisy on display.

comment #48

MilkMan says ...

Poor people don't work hard, that's why they're poor, because if they worked hard, they wouldn't be poor, they would be rich, because rich people work hard, which is why they are rich, because they wouldn't be rich if they didn't work hard.

That's a pretty good tautological argument you've got going there, Dark. I like it. Because there's not one poor person who works hard. All poor people are lazy. And all rich people are not lazy. Because all rich people have earned there money. None of them bend the rules in their favor, or commit illegal activities to amass their wealth, or create systems whereby nepotism and elite affiliations determine who gets let in and who gets shut out. Therefore, poor people are inherently bad, and rich people are inherently good. The fact that you buy this kind of propaganda lets me know that you are truly a real American. God bless you.

comment #49

ketut says ...

There are two types of people in this world.

Those that think there are two types of people in this world.

And those that don't

comment #50

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I didn't advocate murdering anyone. I just said that if you did get rid of the right we'd live in a better world. I mentioned the idea of trucking right-wingers into the desert and putting them in green re-education camps. But I didn't mean it. Just making a point.

comment #51

bobnweave says ...

"Therefore the extermination of the right would theoretically be a reasonably good thing."

Just so everyone who's commenting in support of this article realizes, the writer literally said that we should exterminate a PLURALITY of Americans. Point of fact -- polling shows that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, compared to 35% moderate and 21% liberal. This man literally just said we should murder 40% of the American population.

Regardless of political affiliation, every single person commenting here should probably be condemning the advocacy of murdering nearly half of all their fellow Americans. They should also be condemning the advocacy of putting nearly half of the country in 'green internment camps.'

I have one question for the author -- why do you believe that people who disagree with you should not have the right to live? If I adopted your logic, I should be well within my rights to walk up to your door and kill you today. Is that something you're comfortable with?

It's funny. Liberals hated when George Bush labeled murdering terrorists as "evil." They said it's not right to label people as evil. Now, what happens? Liberals are the largest hatemongering group this country has ever seen. Anyone who does not prescribe to their particular brand of leftism is evil, racist, bigoted, homophobic, and deserves to DIE -- just for disagreeing with them.

Just so you know -- YOU are the reason why 40% of the country identifies themselves as conservative. You and everyone like you, whose heart is so filled with hate and virulence that you don't even realize that it's not normal to be such a hateful person.

comment #52

Nick says ...

I can't believe how angry people get with Jeff. He's expressing his opinion in a inelegant way, but still...if you agree great, if not, go somewhere else.

comment #53

Dark Eden says ...

Jeff: I didn't advocate murdering anyone. I just said that if you get get rid of the right we'd live in a better world. I mentioned the idea of trucking right-wingers into the desert and putting them in green re-education camps. But I didn't mean it.

Stewie: it's just there's always been a lot of tension between Lois and me. And it's not so much I want to "kill" her. It's just I want her not to be alive anymore.

comment #54

bobnweave says ...

Reference for the polling statistics:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

comment #55

JoeIdaho says ...

How you pigeon-hole those who lean conservative . . .

There is a LARGE number of conservatives who, while leaning right on many issues, also understand that, environment-wise, it's only right to live green, conserve our resources, etc. Climate change (global warming) or not. Many of us aren't vocal about it, we just do it (which may be why you haven't heard of us. Go out more.)

Beyond that, I'd still love to hear your replies to both Griff's and David CB's comments, sans the ad hominem.

comment #56

bobnweave says ...

And to respond to Nick --

Yes, he's just expressing his opinion in an inelegant way. However, there's obviously large chunks of people who seem to think the idea of murdering/enslaving/imprisoning 40% of this country because they disagree with leftist ideology is right. That's not something I'm comfortable with, and if given the opportunity (which these wonderful comment boards afford me) I'll speak my piece to try to show people what they are ACTUALLY saying, what they are ACTUALLY agreeing with. It's very easy to get caught up in all the hate that Jeff is spewing, and start thinking that it's acceptable to wish death upon people, or that it's acceptable to wish imprisonment/slavery on people. Hopefully, after a bit of reflection on the issue, people will realize how abhorrent the idea is on its face, and we'll have a few less crazies walking around.

To even further simplify that answer -- just as he has a write to post his blog (as angry and hateful as it was) I have a right to respond (hopefully with a lot less hatred, because I try to be a decent person).

comment #57

Nick says ...

-Griff
"Conservatives, and perhaps, more religious conservatives, may tend to say "That's terrible, and I need to do something about it personally."

Unfortunately when religious conservatives do this it happens to be against their fellow man: see gays, minorities, women, etc.

So when I think it's a good thing for everyone to pay higher taxes because California needs to keep the public schools running effectively, that's bad, but when a religious group lies to the populace about gay marriage and now my friends can't get married, that's good?

Really? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying and that sounds pretty horrible.

comment #58

Nick says ...

Well said, Milkman.

comment #59

mccool says ...

I can't believe how angry people get with Jeff. He's expressing his opinion in a inelegant way, but still...if you agree great, if not, go somewhere else.

Nick ... are you serious? Jeff's ideas should be above reproach because they are expressed fluently and with care? They are repugnant, ugly ideas. We're supposed to be tolerant of intolerant, disgusting, hypocritical rhetoric?

comment #60

bobnweave says ...

Nick --

You completely misrepresented what he was saying, and it was obviously intentional. He was talking about *giving to charity*. Conservatives (and, yes, religious conservatives in general) give to charity at a FAR higher rate than liberals. They also volunteer their time at a FAR higher rate than liberals.

Now, I'd like you to justify when religious conservatives oppress minorities and women -- you made the statement, please justify it. Obviously many religious conservatives oppose gay marriage, and I disagree with them -- but I'd really like to hear what you have to say about how religious conservatives oppress minorities and women. Go for it, buddy.

comment #61

Dark Eden says ...

"Poor people don't work hard, that's why they're poor, because if they worked hard, they wouldn't be poor, they would be rich, because rich people work hard, which is why they are rich, because they wouldn't be rich if they didn't work hard.

That's a pretty good tautological argument you've got going there, Dark. I like it. Because there's not one poor person who works hard. All poor people are lazy. And all rich people are not lazy. Because all rich people have earned there money. None of them bend the rules in their favor, or commit illegal activities to amass their wealth, or create systems whereby nepotism and elite affiliations determine who gets let in and who gets shut out. Therefore, poor people are inherently bad, and rich people are inherently good. The fact that you buy this kind of propaganda lets me know that you are truly a real American. God bless you."

Hah, maybe you missed the earlier statement I was referring to. My statement is of course simplified. Obviously there are hard working poor people and lazy rich people. I am one of those hard working poor people!

I was just referring to simplistic leftwing pap with a different perspective. There are hard working poor, but they're generally not the ones asking Holy Mother Nanny Sate to rob from the rich to give to them.

You have no idea how many hard working blue collar 'poor' people hate that attitude.

comment #62

bobnweave says ...

Also, point of fact, most of the liberals representing you in your government oppose gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage actually is not constrained to religious conservatives -- so if you want to make that argument, that only religious conservatives oppose gay marriage, you're either a complete fool, or live in a small tiny box somewhere.

comment #63

Dark Eden says ...

I'd still like to see some of our mass murder friendly leftist friends here try to answer this simple question:

How does taking money out of my boss's wallet help me keep my job?

comment #64

mccool says ...

Milk ... you're a gifted writer of run-on sentences ... we get it. The casual simple schtick is effective ... just not in every comment. Cut it back a little.

comment #65

John Locke says ...

"I didn't advocate murdering anyone. I just said that if you get get rid of the right we'd live in a better world."

It's your line of reasoning that disturbs me. Do I think we'd live in a better world without the left? Yes. But not because I think that the left in this country is "by certain lights and after a certain fashion, evil." That's arrogant and, frankly, illiberal thinking. Rather than understand our reasoning and true motivations, you simply write us off en masse as selfish. Then you try to backpedal by claiming that all you're saying is that our "core instincts and beliefs allow for a behavioral climate and philosophy that feeds and winks at the essence of evil." But we all know what you're really saying. By calling us "bastards and social Darwinians" who "only care about their own rice bowl" and write off "dark-skinned people" in favor of "rock-solid white people," you are attacking the individuals, not the ideology.

comment #66

MilkMan says ...

You're funny, McCool.

comment #67

Nick says ...

-bobnweave

I personally don't believe that Jeff actually would endorse imprisoning/murdering conservative morons. If you feel he does,fine. Not really sure how you lean politically, but if you go to any conservative website/blog, the hate against the left is so overwhelming it's almost cartoonish. Far more over the top than anything Jeff has EVER said. So I hope you're over at those places as well telling them to tone it down.

But I can see his anger over, say people who don't believe global warming exists. If we change our lifestyles and improve the planet what's the harm? If Global Warming was a big problem than we have addressed it, if it wasn't, we've made the planet a better place. The argument against it is always money. Jobs would be lost, companies would have to spend more money to make things green. WHO CARES. There's things more important than money. So I can see Jeff's argument and anger over the greed that infects Conservatives.

comment #68

John Locke says ...

"Jobs would be lost, companies would have to spend more money to make things green. WHO CARES."

Folks, let's take a moment here and see if the irony of what Nick said sinks in.

comment #69

John Locke says ...

Oh, and give him some time. He's obviously not the brightest fluorescent bulb in the box.

comment #70

Nick says ...

-Bobnweave

Oh come on. The religious right is THE main force behind getting rid of gay marriage. Don't try to pretend otherwise. I haven't seen any progressive groups protesting gay marriage.

And to address your other point taking away abortion and a women's right to choose seems to be very popular with the religious right. And I would say that if you don't think the religious right has a racist streak in them, you must be living in a small tiny box somewhere. The conservative's stance on immigration issues alone reeks of racism.

comment #71

Egalitarian says ...

So being against illegal immigration = racism?

comment #72

Nick says ...

To me: the arguments made against immigration, by conservatives, sound like veiled racism.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but when there has been many instances of Republican leaders saying blatantly racist comments, it just reinforces my opinion.

comment #73

R.J. MacReady says ...

When it comes to economics/spending/government intervention...the Dems and liberalism in general are an epic fail.

I'm with you on the culture issues for the most part but the idea that the country would be better if you got rid of all the conservatives and republicans is dumb. Now if you said it would be great if we could get rid of the liberals and the conservatives....then I'd be with you.

comment #74

Christopher Johnson says ...

Except that we're the ones who own guns and know how to use them, you little bitches. Seems to me that you brain-dead lefty wusses ought to be the ones looking over your shoulders. Because we can waste your sorry asses a hell of a lot easier than you can do anything at all to us.

comment #75

bobnweave says ...

Nick --

The issue with global warming is in the problem definition. People on the left assume that global warming is true -- that human beings are having an extreme impact on the climate. Not everyone agrees with this, and that's the fact that you're missing. Your statement of "What's the harm?" should really be examined.

The harm is not just some jobs lost, some money lost. Here's what you need to understand -- if we actually went by what global warming activists say, and reduced our pollution output by 50%, do you have any idea the ramifications that would have on the country? Using energy causes pollution. It costs energy to produce. To reduce the amount of pollution we produce, we would be forced to reduce the amount of energy we use. If we reduce the amount of energy we use by 50%, there would be a DIRECT correlation to the amount we produce. A 50% reduction in pollution, right now, would equate to a 50% reduction in production -- which would equate to a 50% reduction in jobs -- which would equate to a completely destroyed economy and country.

There is REAL danger in trying to mess with how much a country produces. There is hard, concrete evidence of the economic impact that global warming legislation will have on the country -- and it's DEVASTATING. Obama and others say that "we will invest in clean energy, and this will create jobs," but they fail to mention that we live in a capitalist society -- if "clean energy" were at all efficient, or PROFITABLE, there would be thousands of companies already producing it. So, a transition to clean energy right now is not feasible (technologically or economically) which will necessitate an outright reduction in production to meet pollution reductions.

To respond to something else you said, I frequent all sorts of sites. I frequent HuffPo and Bighollywood, I read Foxnews and CNN, MSNBC and ABC. I find the level of hatred on the left absolutely overwhelms that on the right, because leftists don't consider it hateful. Conservatives have been bludgeoned by accusations of racism/homophobia/bigotry for decades; they understand that anything they say, no matter how benign, will immediately be turned around and called hatespeak. Liberals, on the other hand, are the ones who orchestrated the characterization of conservatives as hateful, and have considered themselves beyond reproach when it comes to these issues. For instance, Barbara Boxer recently used endorsements from the NAACP as "evidence" that the chairman of the Black Chamber of Commerce should agree with her position on Cap & Trade. The BCC chairman could not understand why someone else's opinion would be put in as 'evidence' for him -- but it was obvious. Sen. Boxer assumed that she could tell a black man that other black men agree with her, so that black man should agree with her too. It was racist in its foundation, and fortunately the chairman of the BCC told her it was outrageous, racist, condescending and offensive to him that she did that.

It proves a point though, and is evidence to why I believe liberals are the more hateful of the two political ideologies -- liberals believe that because they superficially support minority and gay rights, that they can therefore treat minorities and gays as their willing subjects. Note that whenever it suits a liberal to NOT support minority or gay rights, they will crap all over them. The truth is, for all the garbage people have hurled at Libertarians in these comments, they are the biggest and strongest supporters of gay, minority, and women's rights in this country.

comment #76

R.J. MacReady says ...

To me: the arguments made against immigration, by conservatives, sound like veiled racism

They aren't arguing against immigration. They are arguing against illegal immigration. Much of it is due to inherent racism and class, but the main problem is the majority of politicians are not very well spoken or smart. So when they talk, they can't really talk about the complex problems/solutions of II...they simply appeal to the raw emotions involved in it. On both sides.

comment #77

Egalitarian says ...

It's possible to embrace legal immigrants (like my parents), while being against people who break the law and enter the country illegal. That's not such an unreasonable position, is it?

comment #78

John Locke says ...

"...but when there has been many instances of Republican leaders saying blatantly racist comments..."

Examples, por favor?

comment #79

bobnweave says ...

Nick, again --

You really need to support arguments. You can't just say "When conservatives make arguments against immigration, it's veiled racism." You have to back that up with supporting evidence.

Further, being against abortion has nothing to do with women's rights. That's you, again, misrepresenting your opponent's argument. A religious conservative believes that at conception, a baby is ALIVE. Therefore, an abortion is murder. Based on that belief, do you think that a woman should have the right to murder a child?

I'm not saying I agree with that -- I obviously disagree. But to say it's a "women's rights" issue is not fair to your opponent's perspective. I guarantee you that if Science had a way to take that baby out of the woman and have it born immediately, and put it in an adoption home, religious conservatives would fully support it. However, based on their religious beliefs, they identify that a living human being exists upon conception. At that point, to kill a living human being equals murder. Women's rights doesn't enter the situation at all.

comment #80

Jonah says ...

"Except that we're the ones who own guns and know how to use them, you little bitches. Seems to me that you brain-dead lefty wusses ought to be the ones looking over your shoulders. Because we can waste your sorry asses a hell of a lot easier than you can do anything at all to us."

Scary that the above statement is probably what most on the right are actually thinking.

comment #81

Egalitarian says ...

"Scary that the above statement is probably what most on the right are actually thinking."

Yes, I'm sure George Will is chomping at the bit to pull a Rambo.

comment #82

Josh Massey says ...

"...many instances of Republican leaders saying blatantly racist comments..."

Give me one, please.

And Nick, your vapidity is astounding on so many levels. "So what if man-made global warming isn't real and we wasted billions on a giant bullshit hoax, at least we did something good!" Really?

I'm sure you had the same mindset when Bush couldn't find the WMDs. "So what is that was bullshit, at least Saddam isn't in charge anymore!" Right?

comment #83

Knuckledragger says ...

Jeff,

There is a minor problem with the round 'em up theory. We are the cops, the soldiers, the marines, the hunters, the NRA members. We are the people that protect guys like you from criminals and terrorists.

In this wonderful world that you've concocted, who would do the hard part and come get us? Or do you think that we'd just go quietly?

In general, We are not the people that protest. But you push us far enough, we will. If you need examples, see the Tea Parties and the recent townhall meetings with our local Congressmen and Senators. And unlike ACORN "volunteers" we will drive ourselves, do our own homework (we read the bills)and express our opinions. We don't need to be "organized", bussed to an event and told what to say.

Finally, it's true, I and many like me still cling to my gun and Bible.

comment #84

JoeIdaho says ...

Alright, Nick-as you've stepped up to be the HE blog apologist, you've got some 'splaining to do. To wit:

Gay marriage. How does the POTUS's stance on gay marriage differ from the "religious right's"? Progressive groups don't protest gay marriage, but they also don't protest against the President's stated policy on it. Weird.

Abortion. How is the pro-life stance taking away a woman's right to choose? Excepting rape and incest, she had every right to choose to have sex or not. After that, excepting cases where her health may be in danger due to the pregnancy, hasn't she already made her choice? Or are you referring to a woman's right to choose not to be held accountable for her original choice? Based on your previous arguments, I'm assuming it's the latter. ("If you don't want to go to Minnesota, you probably shouldn't get on a train that's heading north." -Midwestern Proverb)

Left vs. Right on the whole hating shtick. I'll call every anonymous righty hater out there on any conservative blog that you mention, and I'll raise you some actual names on the progressive, caring left: Janene Garofolo, Babs Streisand, Rahm Emmanuel, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Cher, Alec Baldin, Shirley MacLaine, ad nauseam. Liberals all who have come up with some pretty extreme statements against those with opposing beliefs.

And let's not leave out that bastion of liberal-protectin' virtue, the ACLU. Looking for a double standard? Okay-according to the ACLU, the Brooklyn Museum of Art has every right to use public funds to display a feces-covered painting of the Virgin Mary (freedom of expression, don't you know). But when Jerk of the Decade John Rocker of the Braves mouths off and insults pretty much everyone else, he needs to be censured, fired, fined, and get professional help. Whereas I agree with the professional help part in Rocker's case, why is it cool to offend Catholics, but let someone express anything against the ACLU's approved list, and they're in it deep?

Help me out, here, man.

comment #85

MilkMan says ...

"There is a minor problem with the round 'em up theory. We are the cops, the soldiers, the marines, the hunters, the NRA members. We are the people that protect guys like you from criminals and terrorists."

Even though Knuckledragger's post is supposed to be satirical, I would still like to reply to this:

No, you don't. Much like the mafia, the only people you supposedly protect us from are yourselves.

comment #86

Knuckledragger says ...

Milkman,

Remember that next time you're getting mugged. We are the good guys. To paraphrase the new ad on NBC, we are that small percentage of people that run to danger. And it ain't cause we're going to take pictures.

comment #87

p.Vice says ...

"Except that we're the ones who own guns and know how to use them, you little bitches. Seems to me that you brain-dead lefty wusses ought to be the ones looking over your shoulders. Because we can waste your sorry asses a hell of a lot easier than you can do anything at all to us."

When you personally have the balls to start capping unarmed people and are willing to accept the consequences, you left me know. Until then, shut the fuck up.

comment #88

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Except that we're the ones who own guns and know how to use them, you little bitches. Seems to me that you brain-dead lefty wusses ought to be the ones looking over your shoulders. Because we can waste your sorry asses a hell of a lot easier than you can do anything at all to us."

Such a solid argument, you've convinced me! Seriously, where do you come from, and why do I never see you commenting on the posts about movies on here?

comment #89

byanyother says ...

You know, in the end, I'm just glad the pear cake made it back into the conversation. Did anyone mention the loud Hispanics upstairs yet?

comment #90

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Remember that next time you're getting mugged. We are the good guys. To paraphrase the new ad on NBC, we are that small percentage of people that run to danger. And it ain't cause we're going to take pictures."

Glad to see a member on the right grossly oversimplifying people that share their ideology. Yes, every conservative works in a field that requires a badge. WTF?

comment #91

Gordon27 says ...

Why is it that the righties who come here are always so stupid? I mean, feigning indignance at Wells's comments about how the abscence of conservatives would have a positive effect on society -- and yes, I know you're feigning, because you're the same guys who blindly supported Bush & co when they ACTUALLY ARRESTED PEOPLE purely for expressing opinions that differed with them.

Then you get a guy like bobnweave who expects left-wingers to bend over to the right-wing perspective (yeah, abortion has NOTHING to do with women's rights), but consistently refuses to do so himself. That's why these arguments are stupid. That's why 40% of people define themselves as conservative -- because conservatives complain and complain and complain and complain and complain until their perpsective is presented as the normal standard one.

I would say the one point that was close to a good one was about abortion; abortion itself is so far from the best example of how religious conservatives consistently oppress women that it's a stupid one to dwell on; better to focus on the simple statistics: How many female priests are there in the country vs. how many male priests? How many female Popes have there been? How many female monsignors? How many pulpits are currently teaching about how women are responsible for original sin, that's why God makes them bleed and makes childbirth painful?

Don't be ridiculous and I can respect your beliefs more.

comment #92

MilkMan says ...

Pigs = Fancy Schmancy Security Gaurds paid to protect the Haves and their Stuff from the Have Nots and to Keep the Nicer Parts Safe for Adderall-Addicted Teenagers and Yuppies.

Military (esp. Marines) = Corporate Rent-A-Cops paid to Protect Petroleum and other Resources from Falling Into the Hands of People Who Don't Believe in Jesus/Captialism.

Hunters = Unambitious Serial Killers w/ Daddy Issues.

comment #93

EdHavens says ...

Ultimately, these types of discussions are worthless, because it neither solves or resolves anything. Each person has their point of view, and nothing anyone on the other side of the topic says is going to change their mind. The left and the right will continue to goad each other, not unlike the BS going on between the talking heads at MSNBC and FoxNews. What has all the fighting between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann gotten anyone?

If the people of the world spent more time trying to find common ground instead of fighting over their ideology and demagoguery, we'd get a shitload more done for everyone.

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

comment #94

John Locke says ...

"...they ACTUALLY ARRESTED PEOPLE purely for expressing opinions that differed with them."

Examples?

"better to focus on the simple statistics: How many female priests are there in the country vs. how many male priests? How many female Popes have there been? How many female monsignors?"

Better to focus on the simple question: why does any of this matter? Or how about, why is the concept of the dignity of human life so foreign to you that you believe the protection of the unborn must be some misogynistic conspiracy?

"How many pulpits are currently teaching about how women are responsible for original sin, that's why God makes them bleed and makes childbirth painful?"

You got me. How many? And please don't make me ask for examples again.

comment #95

Gordon27 says ...

"So being against illegal immigration = racism?"

Supporting the people who are strictly against illegal immigration from Mexico while willing to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration from Canada (the country through which terrorists have already successfully entered our country), it's either stupid or there's racism involved. You take your pick. There are certainly people against it on a legal stance, but the politicians tend to (at the very least) use inflammatory language designed to get the racists's dander up. Denying that is just dumb.

comment #96

Gordon27 says ...

"Examples?"

New York Republican Convention, 2004, is the most obvious instance that comes to mind.

But, of course, they didn't cover the arrests on Fox News, so any further facts on the subject, you're just going to say they're biased.

comment #97

Josh Massey says ...

Are you seriously comparing illegal immigration from Mexico to illegal immigration from Canada? Are you that daft?

"...supported Bush & co when they ACTUALLY ARRESTED PEOPLE purely for expressing opinions that differed with them..."

Yeah, I'm going to need examples of this as well.

comment #98

John Locke says ...

MilkMan = Self-centered, self-righteous, thankless ass who can't seem to grasp that he wouldn't have the freedom to say the things he does were it not for the very people he derides.

comment #99

Gordon27 says ...

"Better to focus on the simple question: why does any of this matter?"

Yes, how could specific examples of ways in which various religious groups are institutionally biased against women have anything to do with a conversation about the misogyny inherent in many religious conversatives.

"Or how about, why is the concept of the dignity of human life so foreign to you that you believe the protection of the unborn must be some misogynistic conspiracy?"

Because the people who talk about how important "human life" is are the same people who support pointless wars and the death penalty (I support the death penalty, but it's completely contrary to any pro-life statement). And the idea that "dignity" is important doesn't really jibe with ANY of the conservative social positions either.

So, when I combine the consistent misogyny with the complete contradictions of "dignity of life" as defined by conservatives, yes, it still comes off as more anti-woman behavior.

comment #100

John Locke says ...

"But, of course, they didn't cover the arrests on Fox News, so any further facts on the subject, you're just going to say they're biased."

No, I'll bite. Hit me.

comment #101

Gordon27 says ...

"Are you seriously comparing illegal immigration from Mexico to illegal immigration from Canada? Are you that daft?"

No, as I pointed out, they're quite different. Canada is the country through which terrorists have already, provably, illegally entered this country. Mexico is the country through which Mexicans have illegally entered the country. They're obviously quite different. Another difference, the right-wing focuses solely on the latter.

comment #102

Gordon27 says ...

"No, I'll bite. Hit me."

I'm not sure what more you need to know; the fact is, thousands of protesters were herded blocks away from Madison Square Garden and then arrested and penned up down by South Street Seaport (among other places, but that's the one where I know for a fact that people were illegally held for several days).

comment #103

MilkMan says ...

My freedom has nothing to do with cops or the military, John. But keep reading your bible and that copy of your 7th grade history text book that you keep for reference whenever you get confused.

And by the way, "terrorists" don't want to kill me; they want to kill you.

comment #104

Josh Massey says ...

I have problems with illegal immigrants, no matter where they come from (emphasis on "illegal"). But yeah, I tend to focus on the ones that come in the tens of millions.

comment #105

JoeIdaho says ...

Hey Gordo,

Talking points don't serve. Lumping all supposed right wing faiths into one large group discounts the diversity of belief presented by each. If you really want to know the numbers, go out and do some actual digging. Then, once you've found out the stats, find out why they are the way they are (what's the doctrine involved?) Anything can seem ridiculous when it isn't understood. And some things still seem ridiculous even afterward, but at least then you have a little insight to temper the incredulity. Tolerance and coexistence go much farther when there's some knowledge backing them up, yeah?

comment #106

Gordon27 says ...

"How does taking money out of my boss's wallet help me keep my job?"

The reason nobody has answered this is that your question is steeped in so many false assumptions that it's difficult to translate it into any sort of real world situation, to wit:
- limiting the possible benefits of a tax increase solely to "Does this help me keep my job?"
- the assumption that your boss's income is directly related to the company at which he works, which carries with it the tacit assumption that the "me" in question works for a "small business" which, statisically, is unlikely
- the implicit assumption that conservatives are better for small business than liberals, despite almost 30 years of evidence to the contrary
- the further assumption that, in order to raise his profit back to a level he wants, he will fire employees which, as anybody who took even a one-credit Economics class would know, will negatively impact service and decrease profits over time, unless you're further assuming that you are such a bad worker that he should've fired you already.

So, you've got all that going for you, but I'll play along anyway; taking the assumption that you're working for a small business, and your boss has enough money that his taxes actually *are* being raised, the fact is, rich people spend far less of their disposable income within the community; they'll make large purchases, but buying a yacht can't be said to have any positive impact on the community either. They're more likely to invest or save their money, because they don't need to spend 100% of their income in order to survive. So, turning it around, raising taxes on richer folks so that you can lower the taxes on poorer folks, the poorer folks are more likely to spend their money within the community, thus raising the profits on the small business that you are working for, thus making it more likely for you to keep your job. That's one example of it.

comment #107

John Locke says ...

"Yes, how could specific examples of ways in which various religious groups are institutionally biased against women have anything to do with a conversation about the misogyny inherent in many religious conversatives."

I can't speak for other religious groups, but don't even pretend to understand the Catholic institution. Until you do, you have no basis on which to accuse it of misogyny.

After all, it's not like Catholics were persecuted for decades for our reverence of the Virgin Mary.

"Because the people who talk about how important "human life" is are the same people who support pointless wars and the death penalty (I support the death penalty, but it's completely contrary to any pro-life statement)."

Do you even bother to give a passing glance to religious doctrine or rational moral thought? Just War Doctrine? Ever heard of it? Don't even try to compare the killing of a convicted criminal or a terrorist to that of an unborn child.

Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I personally think there should be tighter restrictions on the application of the death penalty.

comment #108

John Locke says ...

"I'm not sure what more you need to know..."

Uh...how about details from a source more reliable than an anonymous Internet poster? Articles, maybe?

comment #109

Nick says ...

Whew, I'll try my best:
Racist Republicans:
http://wonkette.com/408934/republicans-email-racist-obama-stuff/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4798887.stm

Global Warming:
So those who don't believe in Global Warming, you want to save money and keep your fingers crossed that the few scientists who don't believe in Global Warming are right, over the majority of scientists that do? Really? That doesn't seem extremely short sited to you? I hope you're right, I hope there's no Global Warming but if there is, we're at best in big trouble, and at worst, dead. I'd rather waste billions on cleaning up the planet than fighting over oil.

Iraq
I have yet to see a valid argument as to why we had to attack Iraq. Other than to get control of the oil.

Abortion.
Regardless of the situation, why can't a woman have the choice to do what she wants? It's her situation, why is the Government involved at all? I don't care what the situation is. Conservatives want to be able to control a woman's ability to chose. You can personally not like abortion but that does not give you the right to decide for her. I believe, when a baby is in the womb the owner of that womb is the person primarily responsible for said womb.

RIghty Haters:
Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck...uh...I could probably come up with more.

Re: Art
Comparing John Rocker to artistic expression is a odd comparison....and it's a really grey area and a slippery slope to discuss. I don't know how you can defend what John Rocker said unless you're a bit of a Jerk of the Decade yourself...however not knowing what the intention behind Chris Ofili's Virgin Mary piece, I think it's hard to judge. But again, arguing the merits of art is a never ending discussion.

Why do all you Conservative folks like to hang out on Jeff's very liberal leaning blog? To shout at him?

comment #110

Gordon27 says ...

"Talking points don't serve."

Yeah, this is always the last fallback of a person with no retort. "Oh, everybody says that, you're just repeating what everybody says." Fine, that hardly makes me unique in this thread.

"Lumping all supposed right wing faiths into one large group discounts the diversity of belief presented by each."

There is certainly diversity in the right-wing. But, for instance, a person who believes strongly in a woman's right to choose who nonetheless votes Republican is *still* supporting the same thing as a pro-life Republican. And the fallback is often "lower taxes". Well, fine, you get lower taxes, and woman and gays get further oppression, and you're okay with that. So I'm okay with making generalizations about you.

"Tolerance and coexistence go much farther when there's some knowledge backing them up, yeah? "

The assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about would bother me more if I had spent a lot of time writing up a lot of specifics. But this is an Internet conversation about politics -- specifics will just get lost in the shuffle while everybody responds loudly to the generalizations, usually by shifting the topic.

comment #111

John Locke says ...

"My freedom has nothing to do with cops or the military, John."

Of course not. Because, as all of the big boy history textbooks will tell you, when the left-wing intellectuals who founded this country drafted the Constitution, Britain took one look at it, fled from the mere sight of its sheer brilliance, and went back to her tea and crumpets.

comment #112

Josh Massey says ...

So Gordon, you didn't vote for Obama because of his anti-gay rights views?

comment #113

LA in SD says ...

"I then said that while I don't like to use absolute moralist terms like "good" and "evil," one has to at least define them and use them as reference terms if you want to communicate with people. One can therefore say that the essential core quality that has to exist as a behavioral platform for evil to flourish is selfishness."

Really Mr. Wells?
I think we should be careful about bantering the word "evil". This is a word that should be reserved for truly "evil" behavior, ie: child abusers/molesters, rapist's, serial killers, animal abusers...you get my drift. I don't think that "selfishness" falls in this "behavioral platform".

Have another beer and choose your words carefully.

comment #114

Gordon27 says ...

"but don't even pretend to understand the Catholic institution."

No need to pretend. I wouldn't claim to have the deep understanding of doctrine and the institution that a priest or somebody who thoroughly studies it would, just the average Catholic upbringing. Just normal experience.

"After all, it's not like Catholics were persecuted for decades for our reverence of the Virgin Mary. "

Oh NO! *Decades* of persecution? Persecution which, it should be pointed out, was led by OTHER religious groups? Wow, *decades*. You're such an oppressed minority that you only control two-thirds of the Supreme Court.

"Don't even try to compare the killing of a convicted criminal or a terrorist to that of an unborn child. "

Ah, so "dignity" doesn't apply to wrongly convicted criminals? Interesting, it's almost as if (exactly as I said) conservatives tend to think that only fetuses have the right to the "dignity of life".

comment #115

Dan V. says ...

Ed-

True... but I wouldn't say these conversations are totally worthless. They're endlessly entertaining and in some cases frighteningly illuminating. That's got to account for something.

comment #116

Gordon27 says ...

"Because, as all of the big boy history textbooks will tell you, when the left-wing intellectuals who founded this country drafted the Constitution"

Fair enough, but you have to stretch any traditional definition of "military" to include the Americans who volunteered to fight off the invading British.

comment #117

DavidCB says ...

Conservatives have the guns in this country. Liberals have voluntarily disarmed themselves. The military is also mostly conservative.

Now I want every Liberal on his knees thanking a conservative for letting him live.

You are in this country because we allow you to be.

comment #118

Gordon27 says ...

"So Gordon, you didn't vote for Obama because of his anti-gay rights views?"

Wow, it's so fun to watch idiots try to play gotcha.

First off, the comparison is specious, since the issue of gay rights offered, at best, no choice between the Republicans and the Democrats and, to any person with open eyes, a clear distinction between the regretable position of the Democrats and the untenable position of the Republicans. So, there's that.

Then, there's the idea that you twisted my words enough that they don't resemble what I said. A better attempt at "catching me out" would've been:
"So, you voted for Obama for [insert reasons, but that would require you having a dialogue, which you've proven you can't do] and you're okay with his position on gay rights?" To which I would say, I find his position regrettable, but I am okay with it, because I believe that the country has far more pressing concerns (largely concerns that can be put squarely on conversative shoulders) that require more immediate solutions. I would like a president to support gay marriage, absolutely, but it's a politically untenable position to take right now. And now comes the part where you pretend that conversatives have nothing to do with that shift, again ignoring any facts to the contrary.

comment #119

Gordon27 says ...

"Uh...how about details from a source more reliable than an anonymous Internet poster? Articles, maybe?"

This thread is amazing; when a conservative says something specious, and a liberal asks him to prove it, the conversative says, "Find the evidence yourself, these are FACTS, people!" (Except for the one guy who offered up a lone Gallup pole which was strictly statistics with no further explanation.) When a liberal says something, the immediate conservative response is, "Oh, you have to prove that."

And anybody who's played this game on the Internet knows the next step; a link is posted, and immediately, "Oh, that source is biased." Three further links are posted, "oh, that source doesn't specify this, that one is from the media, so it's biased, and anyway, Drudge says they deserved it, so obviously you're nuts."

No thanks. You're going to believe what you choose to believe and, if this is the first you're hearing about something that happened in 2004, you don't have the intellectual curiosity you're pretending to have.

comment #120

R.J. MacReady says ...

Conservatives and Liberals are much like Athiests and Thiests.

They both are certain that they know the truth and those that choose not to agree or share their view are either dumb, naive, or ignorant.

And they both are almost always full of bullshit.

comment #121

Gordon27 says ...

"You are in this country because we allow you to be."

Now that's what I call freedom!

All of you conservatives who came on here and said "All you liberals need to criticize Wells for saying this" are proving yourself to be total hypocrites by allowing repeated statements like the above to sit there unchallenged and uncriticized.

comment #122

R.J. MacReady says ...

reverse the i and e

comment #123

Gordon27 says ...

Uh oh, it looks like the South Park style centrists (both sides are equally full of shit) are starting to trickle in too! Awesome. This thread needs a wider variety of ignorance.

comment #124

Karpfishcer says ...

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the Law and the pretentious superior notions of The Do as your told, Not as I do Czar, Jeff Wells. They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anyone else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. Nobody was allowed to want anything more than anybody else. All this imposed equality was due to and generously provided by 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of the agents of the appointed Handicapper Czar, the United Better World Handicapper General, Jeff Wells.


He was appointed to be in everyones hearts and everyones heads whether their little primitive minds believed the Czar had the right to be or not. For the Czar knew better. How things should be. By the Czars rational authority, people weren't told what to think, just the correct way how. Don't walk, don't run, don't talk, don't think, do as your told, for I know better because and for the good of the all.


Still, some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance. April still drove people crazy by not being springtime enough. And so it was in that clammy month that the HG 'persons' took George and Hazel Bergenon's fourteen year old son, Harrison, away to be equalized and normalized and homogenized and many other gizes as seen fit by them that know better.


Why so many refused to lay down and recieve the blessings and wisdoms of the Czars reasoned elightment, perhaps we'll never know...


The war that followed was devastating.

comment #125

John Locke says ...

"I wouldn't claim to have the deep understanding of doctrine and the institution that a priest or somebody who thoroughly studies it would, just the average Catholic upbringing."

Then how can you possibly make any fair accusations of misogyny against something you don't understand?

"Oh NO! *Decades* of persecution?"

Horrible, I know, but calm down. I'm not complaining. After all, I'm not a liberal.

The point I was trying to make is that if you broaden your narrow view that you seem to have set solely on the doctrine of the priesthood, you would see that Church doctrine is not misogynistic at all.

"Ah, so "dignity" doesn't apply to wrongly convicted criminals?"

It does. Hence, my support of a modified death penalty. I can't argue on behalf of the religious conservatives who support the death penalty as it is now. Ask one of them.

The point is, it's hardly fair to claim some anti-women conspiracy because conservatives support a practice designed to keep innocent people safe and oppose a practice designed to deny innocent people life.

comment #126

DavidCB says ...

Gordon,

what's to challenge? Unlike our host, I'm not calling for your mass extermination. I simply would appreciate a little bit of gratitude on your part.

comment #127

Josh Massey says ...

"Well, fine, you get lower taxes, and woman and gays get further oppression, and you're okay with that."

Well, fine. What do you think is more important than the oppression of gays? What is important enough to make you ok supporting that with your vote?

(This is obviously going along with your belief that you can't vote for somebody unless you agree with 100% of what they stand for. Unless they're a Democrat who's just trying to get elected, of course).

As for me, I voted my conscience and went Libertarian. I'm obviously not a hateful homophobe like you.

comment #128

John Locke says ...

"Fair enough, but you have to stretch any traditional definition of "military" to include the Americans who volunteered to fight off the invading British."

How so? It was an organization authorized and funded by the Continental Congress (the closest thing we had to a governing body) to use force to defend what we declared to be a sovereign nation.

comment #129

R.J. MacReady says ...

If you really want to make the country better...send all the Dems and Republicans to a island to fight it out and let the rest of us live n stay in the US.

comment #130

DavidCB says ...

Conservatives to green reeducation camps? I have a fairly wide assortment of firearms and 4,000 + rounds of ammo saying 'make my day,"

comment #131

John Locke says ...

"This thread is amazing; when a conservative says something specious, and a liberal asks him to prove it, the conversative says, 'Find the evidence yourself, these are FACTS, people!' (Except for the one guy who offered up a lone Gallup pole which was strictly statistics with no further explanation.) When a liberal says something, the immediate conservative response is, 'Oh, you have to prove that.'"

Gordie, don't play this game with me. I never said anything of the sort. I haven't shown you any inclination towards believing or disbelieving one news source over another. You're painting me with your stereotyped, generalized idea of what a "conservative" is, and more importantly, you're doing it to cover your ass.

"No thanks. You're going to believe what you choose to believe and, if this is the first you're hearing about something that happened in 2004, you don't have the intellectual curiosity you're pretending to have."

I'll believe whatever has the facts to support it. So either put up or shut up.

comment #132

Gordon27 says ...

"against something you don't understand?"

Dude, if you're going to remove the context and then claim i said the exact opposite of what I said, what's the point? I could play cut and paste games with your shit too, if I cared enough, but I briefly thought you were looking for an actual honest conversation, so I made the point that I can only claim as much understanding as anybody with 18 years of Catholicism under their belt, but that I don't think anybody who hasn't spent their entire lives studying the deeper doctrintes and trying to resolve all of the inherent contradictions can really claim to "understand" it.

But the problem comes when people start to believe that there *is* some deeper understanding of the tenets at work, that humans are even capable of said deeper understanding, and, thus, we have to follow [usually blindly follow] the people who claim to possess said understanding.

"The point I was trying to make is that if you broaden your narrow view that you seem to have set solely on the doctrine of the priesthood, you would see that Church doctrine is not misogynistic at all."

That is a ridiculous statement. But, you've made it, now back it up -- offer up the specific Church doctrine that explains why female priests are frowned upon and show me how it isn't misogynistic.

"The point is, it's hardly fair to claim some anti-women conspiracy because conservatives support a practice designed to keep innocent people safe and oppose a practice designed to deny innocent people life."

One of the many problems you're having in this conversation is that you jump back and forth between defining yourself as a typical conservative, but then backing off whenever you're asked to defend the position of a typical conservative. As an example, you say abortion is all about the dignity of life, but when provided specific counter-examples where religious conservatives to a man have supported things which clearly run counter to the dignity of life, you back off and say "Oh, I don't stand for that." Then you fall back on exactly the same statement to which I already responded.

What I'm saying is, you hear thinks like "dignity of life" or "sanctity of life" as if that's the final word on the subject of abortion. But it's funny how those things never actually come up at all when discussing any other subject, and if anybody asks about "dignity" or "sanctity", the person gets offended. The same way you did. It's impossible to have a conversation where one person gets offended if you don't come into it already sharing their point of view. Which is why it's impossible to have a conversation about abortion in general.

comment #133

Gordon27 says ...

"Well, fine. What do you think is more important than the oppression of gays? What is important enough to make you ok supporting that with your vote?"

You are either too stupid to read English or you're deliberately excising things to try and twist what I'm saying, as if I'm going to get tricked into thinking, "Wow, I guess I really was wrong."

As I said, first and foremost, there is at best no distinction between the two parties on gay rights, so, right there, there was no "choice". It's an entirely false statement to claim that a vote for Obama over McCain is a vote for homosexual oppression.

Beyond that, yes, I consider the economy, the direction of the war on terror, and the need to address pollution and other "green" concerns are far more pressing than whether homosexuals are allowed to use the word "marriage" to define their relationship.

"(This is obviously going along with your belief that ..."

If you're going to claim I believe something, you should stick with the things i have actually said that I believe, since they're all right there; whenever you try to get fancy and re-write them in your own words, they wind up being unrecognizable to me as my own beliefs.

"As for me, I voted my conscience and went Libertarian. I'm obviously not a hateful homophobe"

Ah, yes, Ron Paul is certainly no homophobe. Ahem. cough-cough.

Somebody didn't see 'Bruno'.

comment #134

MilkMan says ...

John:

No one from another country wants to take away your freedom. No one wants to invade this country and no one ever has tried. No one wants to mug you. Yes, there are random acts of terror, but, most likely, they will never effect you or anyone you know.

People around the world are too busy trying to figure out how to survive and could care less about your white ass. Stop living in fear. War is a racket. It's a business. It has nothing to do with your freedom, or mine, so I have no one to thank for anything. It sounds like the only person you should be afraid of is yourself, so if you want to arm yourself against yourself, by all means, go ahead, and then, at the end of your life, if you have managed to survive yourself, please go ahead and give yourself a nice firm handshake and don't forget to say Thank You to yourself with your last breath.

comment #135

Gordon27 says ...

"You're painting me with your stereotyped, generalized idea of what a "conservative" is"

I want to point out that, if you feel this way, I apologize. I am merely trying to paint you with my idea of how 100% of political conversations on the Internet go. Since I am talking to you specifically, I went with conservative details such as "Fox News", but "MSNBC" would be just as easy a target going the other way.

Be honest with yourself, if not with everybody: have you ever seen a single person having a political conversation on-line who changed their mind? About *anything*?

comment #136

DavidCB says ...

Shorter Gordon: gay gay gay!!!!

comment #137

Josh Massey says ...

"As I said, first and foremost, there is at best no distinction between the two parties on gay rights, so, right there, there was no 'choice'."

Of course there are choices. One is not voting, if you believe you must find a candidate that you agree with on 100% of the issues (which you clearly said Republicans should). Or voting for a third party candidate.

And I'm not sure where your Ron Paul barb comes from, as he wasn't the Libertarian candidate.

comment #138

Gordon27 says ...

Here's a link which, at a glance, seems to be better informed than most, with a lot of details. I'm curious to see how you'll dismiss it without responding in the exact ways I've already predicted, but don't worry, where there's a will, there's always a way.

http://www.nyclu.org/node/1039

Here, I'll make it easy. Here's an incredibly well-sourced wikipedia article with dozens of links on it. So, I can show you all the links, and you can respond with, "oh, I don't believe anything wikipedia says, even if it's directly quoting clearly marked sources that are also linked so that I can see the source myself and see all of the context in which the quote was offered." That way, we both win, and I can get back to work.

What? 5:30 already?! Calloo-Callay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity#Police_tactics_and_Pier_57

comment #139

DavidCB says ...

If Liberals are so open-minded how come I've never seen one admit they were wrong? EVAR.

Well, that's not entirely true. I do know one Liberal who admitted he was wrong-- me. That's when I turned into a conservative.

comment #140

Gordon27 says ...

"One is not voting,"

Which is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. Though I have previously, at times, strongly considered leaving the presidential vote blank.

"if you believe you must find a candidate that you agree with on 100% of the issues"

Good thing I don't believe that.

" (which you clearly said Republicans should)."

Again, gotta question your ability to read English. I have repeatedly explained what I said, which is that, if you're given a choice between two candidates, and one of them is for something and one of them is against something, and you choose the one who is against something, it doesn't matter to me that you are personally for it; you're choosing to support somebody knowing that they will work against the thing you believe.

If you don't see a distinction between that and a situation where "I am against gay rights" is *still* the more progressive of the two positions, then you're being willfully obtuse.

"Or voting for a third party candidate."

You know, I would make fun of you as being hopeless naive for continuing to support a third party given the political realities of the country.

I would, except that it seems as if we're getting to a point where, within ten years, the Republican party will have split, and the Libertarians will be the second party [or, at least, so I hope; I disagree with many Libertarians on many political issues, but I give them credit that they (as social conservatives in general) seem to put more thought into their positions than the religious half of the Republican Party].

Sorry on the Ron Paul thing, twas a simple brain fart because, from where I stand, Ron Paul's statements were essentially indistinguishable from Bob Barr or, for that matter, Ralph Nader in 2000. They all stand up and spout how the two party system is broken, and how they have all the answers, and they aren't answerable to corporate powers. It's all the same speeches. Sure, there are a few specific details on which they differ, but it always amuses me that third-party supporters claim that the two major parties are indistinguishable and fail to see how every single third-party candidate gives a speech which is 99% the same.

comment #141

Gordon27 says ...

"as social conservatives in general"

Note that that should be "fiscal conservatives"; now I'm sure that you'll take that quote entirely out of context and ignore this correction, but I felt I should make it just in case anybody else is actually still reading this thread (which I doubt).

comment #142

Gordon27 says ...

"Well, that's not entirely true. I do know one Liberal who admitted he was wrong-- me. That's when I turned into a conservative."

I'm quite sure that since you're conversion, you've had ample opportunities to admit that you're wrong.

comment #143

John Locke says ...

"...I don't think anybody who hasn't spent their entire lives studying the deeper doctrintes and trying to resolve all of the inherent contradictions can really claim to "understand" it."

You can't defend your ignorance by saying it's just too hard to understand simple, straightforward Church teaching. I'm not a priest, I haven't spent my entire life studying Church doctrine, but I understand the Church doctrine on the priesthood just fine.

"...offer up the specific Church doctrine that explains why female priests are frowned upon and show me how it isn't misogynistic."

I must say, I love how this all somehow turned into a theological debate. Nevertheless, I walked right into it, so here we go. I'll start with a question: why can't men bear children?

"...you jump back and forth between defining yourself as a typical conservative, but then backing off whenever you're asked to defend the position of a typical conservative."

I never defined myself as a "typical conservative." Now, if all you want is for me to defend the "typical conservative" position, I've already done it: the death penalty is designed to take individuals deemed to be a threat to society and ensure that they are no longer a threat to society. It is meant to be both a deterrent and as an absolute where imprisonment, which can be theoretically foiled, fails. Abortion is a practice that results in the death if innocent human beings 100% of the time. There is a vast difference between the two.

"But it's funny how those things never actually come up at all when discussing any other subject..."

What about embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia? Do those somehow fit into this conspiracy of misogyny, too?

comment #144

DavidCB says ...

>>>"I'm quite sure that since you're conversion, you've had ample opportunities to admit that you're wrong."

That doesn't work. You see, we don't brag to everybody who'll listen about how open minded we are. That's what you do.

We brag about being right, and not giving a crap what you think of us, winger stuff like that.

comment #145

Gordon27 says ...

"What about embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia?"

Ah, you're saying that opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia is because those run counter to the inherent dignity of life? An old man who just wants to die because he can't stop shitting himself has to be told, No, no, you've got dignity because we're keeping you alive!

That's a perfect example of the disconnect right there. I have too much difficulty fathoming that to respond.

"I understand the Church doctrine on the priesthood just fine. "

Funny how you can't explain it, though. I notice you entirely dodged that question.

"I'll start with a question: why can't men bear children?"

Immaterial. Human beings as a race are not an institution created by humanity. So unless you're saying that a female priest would be more likely to get pregnant when she molests an altar boy, it has no bearing on anything, you're just trying to score points with "Hey, men and women are different and you're trying to deny that."

comment #146

Gordon27 says ...

"I never defined myself as a "typical conservative.""

Then why is it that when I'm saying things about typical conservatives, you feel the need to jump in and say that's not you? Again, you don't seem so great with English.

"Now, if all you want is for me to defend the "typical conservative" position, I've already done it"

That's really funny. I called you out for repeatedly defeneding the typical conversative position despite claiming not to hold it, and your response is, "Well, if you want me to, I will" and then repeating the same crap again.

Again, stop dwelling on abortion if you're going to get deliberately offended with all of the people who disagree with you (including the United States of America itself and the majority of people in the country).

comment #147

le corbeau says ...

Shorter Jeff Rant:

"If you don't believe in the government giving ME everything I could ever want, you're evil."

Yeah, those evil selfish red states full of stable families where the parents work hard to raise their kids in two-parent households and teach them the value of work, sticking with it, and not running off the moment your dick tells you to. What assholes.

comment #148

le corbeau says ...

Quote from the Wells family Thanksgiving dinner 2013:

"Dad, *I* voted for Romney over Obama and I would appreciate it if you didn't turn every holiday into an excuse for your Air America Chomsky-reading undergraduate bullshit! And no, I don't want to watch Che again, five Thanksgivings is enough!"

comment #149

MovieBob says ...

If what passes for "conservatives" today actually WERE all-about self-interest, individualism and the basic grasp of the real world Jeff mis-labels as "social darwinism," they wouldn't be nearly as annoying as they are.

"Conservatives" and "Liberals" in this country are both largely infected by nonsensical strivings toward "the greater good;" which "cons" think can be found in the Bible and "libs" think can be found in federal assistance. They're both morons in this regard. There is no "greater good," there is no "right way," there is no "one big happy human family." There's the tiny slivers of happiness and comfort you can wrestle away from the day-to-day hell of the world... and that's it.

Yes, I really liked "Whatever Works" ;)

comment #150

Dan V. says ...

Weird. My red state must be blue at heart. I'm aware of quite a few unstable families with two-parent households. Incidentally, I know a few one-parent households pretty keen on the stability thing as well-- something I'm sure they share with blue state families who teach the value of work and sticking with it.

Not sure about the dick part, but generalizations are dumb.

comment #151

Gordon27 says ...

"those evil selfish red states full of stable families "

Actually, the divorce rate in red states is significantly higher than the national average; at one time it was 50% higher, though I don't think it's quite at that level anymore.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

I mean, the rest of what you said appears entirely unconnected to anything Jeff said, but that one specific thing is also factually off-base.

comment #152

Gordon27 says ...

"Yes, I really liked "Whatever Works" ;)"

Bob, if you're looking for a blog to talk about movies on, why are you here?

comment #153

lastchance says ...

As a conservative I do long for a better world. Which is why I fervently hope Mr. Wells has had a vasectomy and sleeps with a copy of Final Exit at his bedside.

comment #154

KC says ...

Can we knock it off with the Young Republican Jett fanfic, this is so clearly not a question of conservative vs. liberal - my whole beef with Wells is that he is a shitty fucking liberal

comment #155

John Locke says ...

MilkMan, if you're convinced that there's no one out there who wants to harm us and you owe nothing to the brave men and women of the military and the police force, then you're beyond all hope and reason.

comment #156

MilkMan says ...

No, I'm just not a frightened little boy like you. Like I said before, John: no one wants to harm you. Get over yourself and realize that you're not the center of the universe. Just because you didn't stop breastfeeding until your were nine years old doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest on the world.

comment #157

Stergeye says ...

Jeffrey,

For your sake, I hope that the discussion you chronticle here was fueled by a LOT of beer, under which influence you were still befuddled as you wrote your piece.
In my ignorant, bitter, clinging-to-God-and-my guns sense of charity, it would be more preferable to believe that you were blotto past coherence than to believe that you've just revealed the shallows of your deepest thoughts.
You not only feel comfortable ranting in a bar about putting "evil" conservatives like me in "re-education camps", you even feel the need to edify your readers by recounting your utterances in print. This is because you swim in the MSM groupthink, where such expressions are automatically dismissed as evidence of --well, nothing really. Just a joke. Lighten up.
Were Rush Limbaugh or Andrew Breitbart to even utter such a sentiment out loud in an overheard private converstion, let a alone put it in writing, it would receive wall-to-wall coverage, with denunciations and demands for their immediate firings, if not actual criminal charges.
You remind me of the mandarin classes at the tail end of ---pick your Imperial Chinese dynasty, the ends of each were much the same. Naddering on about the latest glorious victory of the imperial forces over the rude barbarians, while wondering where all the servants had suddenly disappeared.
You trod a mental and ideological footpath that a ninth-century French peasant would find constricting.

comment #158

Gordon27 says ...

Suggesting the Rush Limbaugh has never publicly made comments that directly parallel Jeff's? That's it, I can't take the intellectual dishonesty of this thread. John, you can feel free to quote whatever I have said entirely out of context and use it to prove that I'm a race-baiting Martian, I won't be here to read it.

At least, I hope not; I'm torn because of how comically stupid so many people in this thread are, but, after a while, it just becomes draining. I need to go check out some IMDb threads to talk to a few less ignorant people.

comment #159

John Locke says ...

"That's a perfect example of the disconnect right there."

How so? You seem to be under the impression that the concern over abortion is nothing more than a conspiracy to take away women's rights. Embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia have nothing directly to do with women's rights. They are simply issues that, like abortion, are of great moral concern to the religious right.

"Funny how you can't explain it, though. I notice you entirely dodged that question."

Again, how so? I kicked off the dialogue with a question of my own. That doesn't mean I'm dodging yours. Patience is a virtue.

"Human beings as a race are not an institution created by humanity. "

Neither, the Church believes, is the sacrament of the priesthood. Jesus established the apostolic tradition with the apostles, all of whom were men. That wasn't some decision he made out of cultural pressure. Over the course of his ministry, he flagrantly ignored numerous societal attitudes towards women. He could've just as easily made Mary Magdalene or his own mother an apostle. But he didn't. The Church therefore believes that the apostolic tradition of the priesthood was set by God himself, and that this is something that cannot be changed. It is a fundamental supernatural difference between men and women, just as there are fundamental natural differences. If you don't accept this, that's fine, but I'm simply explaining that this isn't some misogynistic tradition handed down from times when women had fewer freedoms. It's a truth that, in the eyes of the Church, cannot be changed. What matters is that this doesn't relegate women to some second-class status; women are every bit as important to the Church as men. There have been female saints, apologists, and Doctors of the Church, important minds in the Church's approach to theology.

But most importantly in terms of this debate, Church teaching has been completely consistent on the issue of the dignity of life, even if politicians haven't. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Church's stance on abortion is born of some misogynistic attitude and not out of a respect for every human life.

"Then why is it that when I'm saying things about typical conservatives, you feel the need to jump in and say that's not you?"

You never said anything about typical conservatives. You claimed that those who oppose abortion are the same that support war and the death penalty. I was defending the position that you can both oppose abortion and support war and (in some cases) the death penalty.

"Again, stop dwelling on abortion if you're going to get deliberately offended with all of the people who disagree with you (including the United States of America itself and the majority of people in the country)."

I'm not offended by those who disagree with me. I'm offended by stupidity. There is ground for reasonable debate on the abortion issue. Conflating abortion and the death penalty is not on that ground.

comment #160

Stergeye says ...

Cite me one, Gordon.
Rush's only been on the air for 20 years, and the transcripts are there for anyone to read. Find me one where he suggests putting liberals in "re-education camps", for instance.
Typical liberal reaction to what you've no answer for: feign incredulity and walk off in a huff.

comment #161

John Locke says ...

"Just because you didn't stop breastfeeding until your were nine years old doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest on the world."

You're a fan of Toni Morrison, aren't you?

comment #162

le corbeau says ...

"No, I'm just not a frightened little boy like you."

Rightwing fear: that people who say they want to kill us might actually do so, and the full power of government ought to be marshalled to prevent it

Leftwing fear: that I might have to pay full price for my Viagra and the full power of government ought to be marshalled to prevent it

comment #163

John Locke says ...

Gordon, your sources are sound, but the fact is that none of them provide any evidence of what you claimed, which is that the Bush Administration "ARRESTED PEOPLE purely for expressing opinions that differed with them." Certainly some police officers acted inappropriately, but you've given me absolutely no evidence that they did so on orders of the Bush Admin.

comment #164

MilkMan says ...

John:

No, but if what I said somehow reminds you of her, then I guess you must be. Congratulations. Judging from your posts, I didn't think you knew how to read.

comment #165

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Cite me one, Gordon.
Rush's only been on the air for 20 years, and the transcripts are there for anyone to read. Find me one where he suggests putting liberals in 're-education camps,' for instance."

Come the fuck on. What are you even trying to argue here? He's said some incredibly stupid shit during his 20 year tenure. I'm not a fan, so I've no idea if he's ever mentioned such camps. But how about the comment "I hope Obama fails," for starters? Hoping the current President of your country fails, what's that about?

I don't remember anyone saying "I hope G.W. Bush fails" when he was in office. Then again, he was doing a pretty good job at failing, so making such a statement might have just been redundant.

comment #166

Genex107 says ...

Follow the dollars.

Repeatedly, surveys show conservatives contribute 10x more to charitable causes compared to leftists. When I was working a non-profit, we saw that conservatives serve 22x more in volunteer and service projects than leftists - thus the source of our volunteers, time and money.

Leftists seem to be very generous with others money, but since they don't connect to those in need personally, they don't seem to care about the outcome - for example, AFDC ruined a generation of American black families, taking the 30% fatherless household of the 60's and transforming it to the 70% fatherless rate in the 90's.

I'm just sayin...

comment #167

Joel says ...

I think that people on the left often assume they are for the greater good, but they can often be mistaken. Most would do well to read about Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy. I guess the same would apply to most on the right, too, regarding the military.

comment #168

Travis Crabtree says ...

Wow.

This is absolutely EPIC.

I left my little note on here about 6:30 am L.A. time and merrily went off to work, knowing there'd be some action on here....

But 167 posts?!?!

comment #169

SpinDozer says ...

In case you are wondering...

the twaddle about the generosity of conservatives is based on an article in The Spectator by Peter Schweizer, a right winger specializing in deflating famous Liberals by cherry picking facts and, well, lying about their wealth and habits. So when Cindy McCain jets off from one of her lovely homes for a two week volunteering opportunity in some African nation, she can come back and home sneer at the charitable efforts of the working poor...

comment #170

TATE K. says ...

I know American political discourse has degenerated to childish name calling, but can we please stop referring to the Democratic party and liberals as the "left." There is no principled leftist or socialist voice in American politics (Not that they would get a fair shake if there were). The policies pursued by the Democratic party are just as reactionary as those pursued by the Republicans. The differences are merely tactical. Bill Maher once described it as "republicans tell you 'We're pissing you', democrats tell you 'they're pissing on you here's an umbrella'.

And we're well aware of those opportunist phony left groups who make a lot of noise, but come election time they divert it into the safety of the Democratic party where it can cause no trouble and affect no change.

comment #171

SpinDozer says ...

Stergeye wants to 'find me one where he (Limbaugh) suggests putting liberals in "re-education camps"

Obviously, re-education camps are a bogeyman for rightwingers, they don't threaten liberals with re-education camps...but that's not what Gordon sed.

TATE K. sez 'There is no principled leftist or socialist voice in American politics'

but that don't mean that you can't leverage against this non-existant "threat"...Obama = Socialist, remember?

comment #172

Jonah says ...

"Conservatives have the guns in this country. Liberals have voluntarily disarmed themselves. The military is also mostly conservative.

Now I want every Liberal on his knees thanking a conservative for letting him live.

You are in this country because we allow you to be."

Knowing how most conservatives seem to live their private lives, you want us on our knees, just not to thank you.

By the way, davie, who's the president? Who's running this country right now? That's right. At this moment in time, you're here because we're allowing it. Because liberals actually believe in the freedoms you falsely think the troops are fighting to protect.

comment #173

Geoff says ...

The Baader Meinhof Complex advertising is funny on this site-specifically the color scheme. The people who are really pissed off at Wells are now thinking 'radical communist'. They can't help it.

comment #174

longrunner says ...

@Gordon27: 'Canada (the country through which terrorists have already successfully entered our country)'

Give me an example of this please.

comment #175

Josh Massey says ...

Gordon is apparently under the impression the 9/11 hijackers were Canadian.

I can't think of any other reason he'd bring it up when comparing illegal Mexican immigrants and illegal Canadian immigrants.

comment #176

mccool says ...

Who ever thought a a conversation over a few Miller Chills could provoke such a fury??

Catholicism, gay rights, global warming, second amendment, 9/11, church doctrine, right, left, blue, red, abortion, kennedy assassination ... what else??? You guys really solved the world's problems here. Made me proud to have contributed to such a profound conversation. A little disappointed we didn't reach a consensus about the veracity of the Apollo moon landing, though.

comment #177

crazynine says ...

Huh. Give the man an award-- Wells has perfected a way to be a troll even on his own blog.

comment #178

SpinDozer says ...

'Canada (the country through which terrorists have already successfully entered our country'

I'm really tempted to stomp on those stumped by this...Gore Vidal said it, the United States of Amnesia...

Google "Millenium Plot"

comment #179

Jonah says ...

Massey said:
"Gordon is apparently under the impression the 9/11 hijackers were Canadian. "

It's almost impossible you're this stupid.

comment #180

Josh Massey says ...

It's almost impossible you are so averse to sarcasm.

comment #181

SpinDozer says ...

that's the ticket, sarcasm, yeah

comment #182

Josh Massey says ...

I can't believe I am carrying on with you two medication-guzzling jerkoffs, but here goes:

He was saying conservatives focus on illegals from Mexico instead of illegals from Canada because of racism. Citing that we should be equally concerned with illegal Canadians, because terrorists have crossed the border from Canada.

What do terrorists crossing the border have anything to do with his original point, though - that conservatives hate dark people, and therefore focus on Mexicans? Were the terrorists white?

Border security is an issue regarding the terrorists, yes, but not illegal immigration. And we tend to focus on Mexicans because of the sheer vastness of numbers involved - 81% of illegal immigrants in the US today are Hispanic, while a whopping 6% are from Canada and Europe COMBINED.

comment #183

SpinDozer says ...

How many medications you on sweetheart? Cos I'm not gonna waste anytime on you, you'll be dancing by yourself.

Remember before you take your victory lap, you were one of the select people incapable of figuring out the connection between Canada and terrorism. Why would anyone want to engage in a debate where the most basic elements of debate have to be explained time after time? Its not that you're stupid, but you are a know-nothing (fairly common with Libertarians).

comment #184

Jett says ...

To all the folks who've been emailing me - I am not the Jett this post refers to.