Tuesday Night Fights!

Last Tuesday in the month. Elections are coming up next week on November 2nd. What’s on your mind?

About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

158 Responses to Tuesday Night Fights!

  1. Realist says:

    What’s on my mind: I’m amazed at Bart’s consistent abandonment of topics just as he is backed into a corner.At least Jeff has the cojones to address challenges directed toward him. That’s one conservative I hope Bart has as a role model.

  2. shiloh says:

    I’m amazed at Bart’s consistent abandonment of topics just as he is backed into a corner.~~~~~Bart’s m.o. at 538 for the past 2+ years as consistency is a virtue. ;)Daily winger talking pts. βœ”Spamming as needed. βœ”Surrounded by irrefutable facts as he loses yet another political discussion, as per usual. βœ”Changes the subject or disappears altogether until the next day. βœ”Lather, rinse, repeat! πŸ™‚ βœ”

  3. GROG says:

    What’s on my mind? The blatant hypocrisy of 538 Refugee resident commenters. Take Shrinkers for example on yesterday’s “WE DON’T SUCK AS MUCH AS THEY DO” thread:Bart said:Krauthammer eviscerated Obama on this very subject last week.Shrinker’s reply to Bart:Translation: I can’t think for myself, and I let right wing commentators tell me what to think.Later in the thread, Filistro links to a leftwing article on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/dr-tiller-murder-domestic_b_212473.htmlUnless you know Shrinkers, you would expect his response to Filistro to be similar to his response to Bart. But no:Shrinkers said in response:Thank you for that link, Filistro.Tranlation: Shrinkers does not appreciate being faced with opinions that differ from his own.

  4. shortchain says:

    GROG,Note a couple of differences between filistro’s comment and Bart’s.1. filistro gave an actual link to the article in question. Apparently, we’re all supposed to search for what Bart refers to.2. filistro gave a clear indication of what is in the article in question, and why someone should read it. Bart didn’t. That Krauthammer, a neocon ideologue, doesn’t like Obama, is hardly news. Why would anybody bother to read him, except for confirmation of their own anti-Obama bias? Without even bothering to read him, I’ll tell you what he’s got: the same, tired, pretzelized logic Bart favors, in which the paranoid fantasies of the right are hashed up into another screed that the WaPo can publish to please their “conservative” readership.Oh, and by the way, GROG? I notice that you, also, like to ask leading questions, but tend to vanish in the face of questions that you apparently find it difficult to answer. Better than garlic on vampires, these questions, it seems.

  5. Bart DePalma says:

    Oh for heaven’s sake, a Bart thread. Folks, I am not competing with anyone here in posting. This blog, while fun comes in behind the firm, my book, my blog, and keeping up with all the election fun. Currently, Refugees gets the scraps of my time during breaks between cases when there is not another more interesting blog. If your weak self esteem requires that you win internet arguments, I concede them all in advance. You win. I am here simply to offer the occasional opinion.

  6. Realist says:

    I noticed the same thing about you, GROG. I would have mentioned you by name, but I figured you weren’t reading anyway, since you stopped posting a couple of days ago. But here you are again!So, yes, GROG, I’d like to see you grow ’em like Jeff, too. It’s easy to snipe at the more blatantly partisan posts. It takes a real man to go after the substance.

  7. Bart DePalma says:

    Jay Cost offers perhaps the best analysis I have seen of the final congressional generic polling. Pay close attention to the Hulk analysis of the traditional LV Gallup polling.http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-special-bruce-banner-versus-incredible-hulk-edition_511945.html

  8. Mainer says:

    I’d like to see a follow up on a previous Grog post dealing with tax structure. I think there were more than a few interesting points in it that we could chew on. I suspect there is no political will on either sie to fix the mess we currently have but it would be nice to try and sort out some of the crap we keep hearing.I am afraid limited government means so many things to so many people that the term has been bastardized out of useful context. No one seems to want to define what needs to be done against what they think shouldn’t be done. I have local rural friends (hell every thing is rural here) that can’t see any use for government funding for things like mass transit but can’t believe that things like maybe milk supports are low. With our system the way it is we are probably in for some time when the great mass of the American electorate that live in cities and suburbs find themselvs out voted by far fewer Americans living in rural areas.I am most confused how people can espouse limiting government intrusion on their lives but wish for it to intrude heavily into other folks lives.

  9. filistro says:

    See GROG… it would have been so easy to “man up” (as Sharron Angle would say) and simply acknowldege that “yes, when congressional Republicans go along with birtherism, they are pandering to the extreme right”.The whoel episode would be over, and everybody on both sides would have respect for you.But manning up is not a characteristic of wingers. They are more “hit and hide” kind of guys.

  10. Realist says:

    @Bart,I am here simply to offer the occasional opinion.Which would be fine, except that it is:1) not exactly “occasional”2) typically disguised as “fact”3) only defended until defense gets to be hard, and then abandoned for the next easy targetPersonally, I welcome the notion that I can be challenged to the point where I learn something new and grow from it. I have on waitlist at the library one of the books you recommended I read regarding the housing bubble. Once it arrives and I read it, I will finish my analysis of all of the stuff you provided me way back then, and will share it with you (and others here who care).

  11. Realist says:

    @GROG,While we’re on the subject of hard questions:The blatant hypocrisy of 538 Refugee resident commenters.Do you include me in that list?

  12. Mule Rider says:

    I’m already bored with this far left circle jerk. Don’t know if it’s just emotions running high before the election or what, but the escalation of name-calling and hate/fear-mongering from the resident lefties is a bit disturbing. No one is forcing me to be/stay here, so I’m going to take some time off. maybe I’ll catch you people in a few weeks/months…

  13. shiloh says:

    @BartlesOh for heaven’s sake …~~~~~Disingenuous exasperation lol followed by Bart trying to convince himself he’s not addicted to 538.On the plus side, losing his daily 538 argument(s) is not quite the same as losing one of his client’s, eh.and too funny, a thread about Bart after (1) post of stating the obvious as grog’s ad nauseam Cry me a River nonsense doesn’t even register.Did I strike a nerve Bart. btw, why do you always make such a life or death fuss re: your posts that go to 538 moderation … hmmm.>Bartles at 6:56 AM ~ Daily winger talking pts. βœ”More winger er Jay Cost biased minutia. ~ Spamming as needed. βœ”Sadly it doesn’t appear Bartles will be losing any debates at 538 today, except if he wants to disagree w/my keen grasp of the obvious!>”offers perhaps the best analysis I have seen” Indeed as a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.apologies for pissing in Bartles’ Wheaties πŸ˜‰ before he got a chance to post his daily Jay Cost er conservative gospel …>Why is it winger trolls always announce they are leaving progressive blogs like anybody really cares lol especially fools who have said they were permanently leaving umpteen times!Rhetorical question.

  14. Mule Rider says:

    “Why is it winger trolls always announce they are leaving progressive blogs…”Why is it that some people feel the need to sarcastically comment on EVERY FUCKING THING that “winger trolls” have to say????And no, it’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to know what makes some people tick and why they come across as such FUCKING DICKHEADS.Shiloh, you make your living being an ANNOYING FUCK. We get that. You troll these political websites and get your FUCKING jollies off sniping at anybody and everybody that you don’t like. In reality, no one gives a FLYING FUCK what you think or have to say. Notice how even the other regulars on here rarely address you directly. They just tolerate your sorry FUCKING ass because you articulate some of what they’re thinking with your annoying little schtick, but the catch is you rarely offer anything in the way of civil FUCKING dialogue. Must be nice to play around on a computer all day and just get your FUCKING rocks off sniping away at people and not have to do ONE PRODUCTIVE FUCKING thing in life. And to top it off, you can just sit there and hide behind that FUCKING computer screen like a FUCKING COWARD. I hope you have a good time chuckling to yourself and giving yourself high-fives for all of your wonderful “gotchas.” More like, you’re a sad, lonely, and FUCKING pathetic social misfit who lives with his elderly parents because you still haven’t gotten over all of those awkward moments from childhood. My guess is that you still piss and shit the FUCKING bed, but that’s beside the point. Whoever and whatever you are, you are a FUCKING DOUCHEBAG. No other way around it. You’re FUCKING pathetic and have no life, seeing as how your life consists of nothing but harassing people on the internet. People say I’m a nuisance and the reason that many sites moderate comments and such but that’s complete BULLSHIT. It’s people like YOU that are the reason for that with your INCESSANT FUCKING DRIVEL.FUCK YOU, shiloh. FUCK YOU to the end of the earth. I’ve never met a more annoying dickless FUCK as you. The moderators here can wash this post away like dirt from their hands, and I don’t give a SHIT, but I’m going to get this out there at least for a few seconds because I’ve unequivocally had it with your FUCKING ass. FUCK YOU again. And if you’re ever man enough to encounter me at some point and back up that sarcasm face to face, I can guaranFUCKINGtee you that I’ll beat your ass to the point that you do PISS and SHIT the FUCKING bed, namely because you won’t be able to get out of it without some FUCKING help. Got that? Sorry, rhetorical question.Now, as succinctly as I can say this…SHUT THE FUCK UP!And GO THE FUCK AWAY!

  15. shrinkers says:

    @GROGYou commented on my response to Bart. Do you recall the context?Bart had referenced Krauthammer, and I responded by pointing out that Bart couldn’t think for himself. Note that Bart’s comment was in direct response to a question of mine. Bart had previously claimed that Obama and other Democrats were “blaming” voters for being “unappreciative.” I asked Bart for a direct quote from any elected Democrat that backed up his claim. Bart sidestepped, and instead said the “Krauthammer eviscerated Obama on this very subject last week.” So I noted Bart’s inability to respond to a direct question, and instead his tendency to deflect to others when asked for his sources.Filistro, on the other hand, had offered an article for our consideration, had described it, had said why she liked it, and had offered her own thoughts about it. She had not used it as a way of avoiding a question.Context matters. I do note a tendency among some commentators to take something out of context in order to put an unpleasant spin upon it, knowing that it takes longer to re-state the context than it does to simply make an insult with a misrepresentation of a fragment of a quote.Also note that Bart had, just the day before, offered his own offensive “translations” of statements by Filistro. Observe this thread http://blog.538refugees.com/2010/10/23/the-cheerleader-the-geek-and-the-quarterback.aspx#Comment and look for Bart’s comment at 10/24/2010 3:16 PM. Yes I was snarky. Certainly no more so than Bart. Sauce for the goose.You want to avoid hypocrisy? Use some context, and spread your criticisms equally.

  16. shiloh says:

    @MRIn reality, no one gives a FLYING FUCK what you think or have to say.~~~~~Indeed!

  17. shiloh says:

    @MRso I’m going to take some time off~~~~~Let the record show MR interrupted his short-lived vacation just for me and I am truly honored!

  18. filistro says:

    This thread is proof of the essential fact:Wingers jeer, mock, attack and insult. When challenged they either equivocate like GROG… retreat like Bart… or spew uncontrolled filth like Mule Rider. This seemingly has no relevance to anything in the real world… but on second thought it IS relevant. I see this pattern among the Freepers, too. They cannot bear to be challenged, and they are incapable of seeing the other side or even acknowledging an alternate viewpoint could ever be valid. (Even disagreements among various factions on the right are handled this way… all attack, no discussion.) And now the people with this mindset are returning to a position of power and the necessity of governing a divided nation. It will be interesting to watch… in the same way a trainwreck is a riveting spectacle.A side note… I have no moderating power at this site, but if I could I would leave Mule Rider’s post in place. It’s enlightening to see the right wing mindset.

  19. shiloh says:

    re: Mules eloquent diatribe counted (25) uses of the word FUCK, and all in capital letters!

  20. Mainer says:

    Must be a pleasant day in the office with MR.I think one of the real scary things this season is that many Republicans do not even see what they have done. Some most certainly know they are pandering if not out right inciting some of this foolishness but I actually don’t think some of them get it. They get their vocabulary and talking points from luntz or Lutz or what ever his name is and just parrot on. When your entire act is to deliver the days talking points I suspect you become numb over time to the fact of what you are doing.

  21. Mule Rider says:

    filistro,All of your generalizations could easily be affixed to you left-leaners at this site. Jeer, mock, attack, and insult? Obviously some of you are worse offenders than others, but this is exactly what I just called shiloh out on, and I stand by my accusation that it’s exactly what he does with nearly every post. Number Seven is another offender, and his is usually much more biting and personal. You and shrinkers are every bit as guilty but you at least come off somewhat light-hearted. But both of you still jeer, mock, and insult nonetheless. “They cannot bear to be challenged, and they are incapable of seeing the other side or even acknowledging an alternate viewpoint could ever be valid.”Again, I see ample evidence of this from you guys. You guys are every bit as much or more stubborn in clinging to your views as any conservative as I’ve been around and are much quicker to dismiss points that disagree with your worldview. It’s as pottle-kettle-black as it gets. “It’s enlightening to see the right wing mindset.”Just like I’m glad this site is available and all of you guys’ disturbing comments are left out in the open to see. It really is enlightening to observe how warped the left wing mindset really is.So, please, continue to share with us just how deranged you and and your pals really are. We’re all waiting patiently for more evidence of your paranoia and hate/fear-mongering.

  22. filistro says:

    A typical comment from Free Republic (re: allegations of “vote fraud” in Nevada)I have been ranting here at FR about the need to be vigilant for massive voter fraud on the part of the Democrats. Voter fraud will defeat voter turn out every time. They will steal this election if it is at all possible. If they do then it truly is time for revolution. When the Democrats take away our right for peaceable change in the government they we have a right to overthrow that government. We will have no other course of redress. The court system has already shown itself to be in the hands of the left.I have done searches in the past few weeks and turned up several hundred comments like this EVERY DAY across various election threads.Moderators at FR used to routinely scrub threats of violence from the comments section. Now they no longer bother. Even veiled threats about “shots” at the President are left in place. And Bart thinks a commentator expressing genuine concern about rising violence on the right is writing a “hate-filled screed” from the “fever swamp.” What smug, utter blindness.If Dems win some of these close races, we will see “second amendment remedies.” When you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

  23. filistro says:

    Mule Rider… the post you put up at 9:01 deprives you of any right to a courteous response. You can’t spew filth like a maddened, gibbering idiot and then expect to turn around and engage people in a polite exchange of views.Either exert the effort to control yourself like a decent person, or go away and stay away.

  24. shiloh says:

    @MRSo, please, continue to share with us just how deranged~~~~~Oh the pot/kettle humanity!hmm, asked Bart if I struck a nerve, should I ask MR as well. ;)>Funny how he knew exactly who I was talkin’ about w/out mentioning his name.It’s just too damn easy to bait MR, my apologies. πŸ™‚

  25. Realist says:

    @MR,Seriously, is it so hard for you to ignore posts that are pure inanities? It’s not for me.If there’s a nugget of value in a post, I may respond to the nugget, but the sweeping generalization posts take nobody anywhere. Why give the posters of such content the satisfaction of engagement?

  26. shiloh says:

    Realist, it’s hard for winger trolls to ignore anything at a progressive blog as by definition, that’s why they are here.Some are more rational than others …

  27. shrinkers says:

    @filistroIf Dems win some of these close races, we will see “second amendment remedies.” When you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind.FOX “News” yesterday had a segment on the “massive voter fraud” that is “already being reported” in places like Nevada. I think what’s happening is exactly what you’re referring to. No one really knows how accurate the opinion polls are going into this election. As has been pointed out, the “likely voter” screens are becoming less reliable. This is particularly so since they are this year relying on untested hypotheses, such as: “enthusiasm” (read: insane right-wing anger) will necessarily translate into higher turnout; and “opposition to the Health Care Bill” all came from the right and will mean more votes for Republicans.The latest AP poll shows that around a third of voters haven’t even made up their minds yet, and that nearly a third of likely voters say they may still change their minds before next Tuesday.All that means the projections could be accurate — or they could be far, far off the mark.What this talk about “voter fraud” is for is to delegitimize any outcome other than a “massive tsunami of biblical proportions.” Any close races that swing Democratic — worse, any races now projected for the Republican, on the basis of “enthusiasm” — worse still, any Teaper who doesn’t win in a landslide — this will be taken as proof of “massive voter fraud,” a charge whose pump has already been primed.So the question will be — are these nutcases really crazy enough to begin armed violence? Or are they all chicken hawks who like to talk big amongst themselves?There was the recent study on the Teapers (wasn’t it by the NYT? Someone correct me). It was discovered that relatively few “Tea Party” cells actually do much more than sit around and talk. Very few of them do any campaigning. They mostly do really have tea parties. I imagine the vast majority of the far far right will simply sit around and complain, tune to FOX, and disable the TV remote so the channel can’t be changed. That doesn’t mean there won’t be some violence. I fully expect that. But I also suspect these are the same guys who insisted we had to go to war in Iraq, but never considered volunteering themselves. After all, if revolution breaks out, they might get hurt. Might even lose their jobs. They’re too self-involved and self-important to let that happen.

  28. filistro says:

    shrinkers… I don’t expect concerted, purposeful violence. It will be more scattershot, along the lines of what happened after HCR passed. Broken windows, random shots fired, property damage, general mischief. But the huge pent-up anger and paranoia acts as kindling, and irresponsible entities like FOX News supply the spark.If the GOP loses close races, there will be people hurt. There will be a few real tragedies… and there could be a compounding chain reaction. You can’t believe how rabid these people are about talking each other into craziness.

  29. Realist says:

    I get that there are Freepers out there. What I don’t know, but would love to know (for lots of reasons) is how many there are.There are over 300M people in the US. Are we looking at 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?filistro, you spend a lot of time over there. What do you think?

  30. Bart DePalma says:

    My the refugees are cranky this morning. I guess that is understandable given the comeuppance coming your way in a week.Back to reality, the number you need to be following is the Gallup traditional LV model assuming a 40% turnout, which is currently GOP+14. The Gallup high turnout assumption of more than 40% has no historical basis given that no midterm since the voting age was lowered to 18 has exceeded 40%.GOP+14 translates into about 74 new GOP House seats if you project up the Abromowitz model in a linear fashion. However, we really do not know how many seats would shift in what would be the largest GOP wave since the 19th Century with a completely different congressional apportionment.I have to get back to court again. You are free to return to your regularly scheduled moaning and groaning.

  31. Mainer says:

    There was always the story told around these parts about the guy that wanted to sell his old car because it had so many miles on it, but alas no one would buy the old beast with over 200,000 miles on the odometer. In desperation he turned to his friend the local used car salesman for advice. The salesman took him out back and showed him how to use an electric drill to wind the odometer back and off the lad went. Several weeks later the salesman saw the boy tooling around town quite proud in the same old car. He had to ask him if his instruction had worked. Well sure it worked was the reply. Then why are you still driving the same old car came back as another question? The puzzeled car owner looked at his friend and asked “Why would any one trade in a car with just 40,000 miles on it and drove away smiling. And the hard right wing conservo world beleives that all progressives don’t own guns and that the government can’t do any thing right…….so there my be a serious over reach here. One of those times when beleiving your own propaganda could get one killed or still driving around some thing that isn’t what you think it is.

  32. filistro says:

    Realist… FR says it currently has “more than 350,000 registered screen names.” As far as I’ve been able to determine the industry average for social special-interest blogs of that sort is about 10-20 lurkers/readers for every registered username. So… a low end of least 3.5 million regular “consumers” of the blog content, or upwards of 2% of the adult population.

  33. shiloh says:

    More Bartles daily winger talking pts. βœ”and yes, MR is cranky, as per usual.Bart, do you have a rational point or are you just gonna post more conservative minutiae …take care, blessings

  34. Bart DePalma says:

    A couple more parting shots….Angle is now polling just short of 50% – Reid is history.Gallup released its enthusiasm gap numbers and they are GOP +26 as compared to GOP +9 at the same time in 1994. Obama has failed utterly to move the Dem base.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-10-26-1Apoll26_ST_N.htm

  35. Bart DePalma says:

    Visual aid for the statistically impaired:

  36. GROG says:

    fili said:See GROG… it would have been so easy to “man up” (as Sharron Angle would say) and simply acknowldege that “yes, when congressional Republicans go along with birtherism, they are pandering to the extreme right”.Now you’re asking if those 17 indivuals were pandering which is a different question altogether. The origianal question regarded the GOP pandering to the extreme far right. 17 individuals does not make the GOP. I have no idea if those 17 were pandering for votes or if they truly question Obama’s birthplace. Do you cliam to know with 100% certainty what their true beliefs of those 17 individuals is?

  37. shiloh says:

    a low end of least 3.5 million regular “consumers” of the blog(((60 million))) voted for McCain/palin.During prime time fixednoise averages 2.5 to 2.8 million lemmings.Preaching to the choir …carry on

  38. shiloh says:

    Bartles is addicted to 538 ~ god love him!

  39. Mainer says:

    Not sure why fili but that sounds high to me. I saw just recently that the serious hard core FR types (different descripion but it is that group) was most likely < 1 million with the ones to worry about being about 1/10th of that. There are many more that are involved obviously and those estimates range all over the place but having 100,000 or so people so juiced up that they could cause trouble is concerning enough.

  40. Realist says:

    @filistro,Your reply raises a few questions.1) Clearly there is at least one Canadian lurker, and I doubt that she’s alone. I wonder what percentage of people who visit Free Republic are foreigners.2) Are Free Republic lurkers “Freepers” in the sense to which you typically refer? I’d hazard to say that a good chunk of the lurkers are not as far out there as the typical poster.So I’d say it’s certainly less than 2%. I wonder how much less.And I’m grateful that I live in a place that should have a much lower concentration of Freepers than the national average.

  41. mclever says:

    filistro,In my admittedly short life, I’ve seen so many prognostications of doom and gloom from both sides of the political spectrum, that I think I’m numb to them. It just becomes crazy person saying something crazy, “blah blah blah,” which gets promptly ignored. I think my ability to be aghast at hyperbole has been completely disabled.I agree that responsible people (meaning elected officials and other mouthpieces for the parties) should be mindful of their rhetoric, and there has been some disturbing rhetoric of late, particularly the “second amendment remedies” that keep getting bandied about by the nattering fringe. But, is it really that much worse than the 60’s? (I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know. This is a sincere question.) Limbaugh’s been agitating since the 80’s at least, and while I agree that he’s got quite the herd of “dittoheads”, so far the worst they’ve done is make illiterate signs and vote in lemming lockstep.:-)

  42. shiloh says:

    Dare I say, nobody has made an assassination attempt on Obama yet, thank god! as the Secret Service, I’m sure, is working overtime.Hopefully, these teabaggers are all hat, no cattle er passive/aggressive like MR …>Although it should be very interesting when Obama is re-elected, eh.

  43. mclever says:

    shiloh,When a conversation gets difficult, it is quite natural for people to divert, deflect, and dodge. We shouldn’t be surprised when our political opponents do it, and we should be open-minded enough to recognize when we’re doing it ourselves.When our opponents dodge, instead of gleefully dancing on their deflection, which triggers the expected angry defense response, I think it’s usually better to gently nudge them and focus on what substance can be found, because that is more conducive to elucidating a meaningful exchange. I’ve seen the gleeful dance from both sides, and in my opinion, the dancer always comes off looking like a jerk, no matter how “correct” they are in their assessment of their opponent’s diversion.Meaningful discussions are much preferred to the “I know you are but what am I?” exchanges that I’ve seen between folks on the past couple of threads. I mean, seriously. Are we all in junior high here?OK, and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of freepers and talking points… πŸ˜‰

  44. shrinkers says:

    @BartAngle is now polling just short of 50% – Reid is history.If so, we’ll have Durbin or Schumer as Majority Leader — and then, won’t you be sorry!!Unintended consequences, eh?

  45. mclever says:

    filistro,Wingers jeer, mock, attack and insult.When challenged they either equivocate like GROG… retreat like Bart… or spew uncontrolled filth like Mule Rider.From my experience lurking at a more contentious blog or two, left wingers can be just as guilty of this as right wingers. I’ve seen some pretty nasty tripe spewed from people when their ideology is challenged, regardless of their position on the political spectrum. It’s basic psychology. We (meaning humans) don’t like to have our beliefs challenged. We tend to react with anger or fear if someone tries to tell us the world isn’t quite how we think it is, while we simultaneously engage in mental gymnastics to try to reconcile our beliefs. The more foundational the belief, the more psychological resistance there will be to change, and smart people are just as susceptible because they can be far more creative in their rationale. Furthermore, the very act of challenging a (mistaken) belief directly can have the contra-reaction of actually enforcing it. Once people conceive of some acrobatic rationale to keep their worldview intact, it becomes even harder to undo the twisted logic that gets them there.I completely agree that leaving Mule’s rant intact is appropriate for this site, but we shouldn’t pretend that he is representative of the right, nor should we pretend that no one on the left would ever be like that. I would prefer that we argue policy rather than personality.

  46. shiloh says:

    @mcleverWhen a conversation gets difficult, it is quite natural for people to divert, deflect, and dodge.~~~~~So true as you diverted to the ’60s and I thought of Malcolm X, JFK’s, MLK’s, RFK’s assassinations and I then made my post.btw, what is your explanation for MR … nevermind.Let the record show I never make inane predictions like Bartles, although I just did infer πŸ˜‰ Obama will be re-elected in 2012.Also let the record show MR’s scorched earth childish attack on me had no effect, but was somewhat entertaining.Political discussion is what it is, but I do enjoy trolls saying 100% of my posts are worthless/personal.Quite the disconnect …I would posit Bartles is only here to post his spin as any discussion that ensues afterward is just icing on the cake for him as he screams: Can you hear me now! ie a true believer.take care

  47. mclever says:

    shrinkers, re “voter fraud” and the likelihood of violence…I agree with you. I think the harping on “voter fraud” being used to steal the election is disingenuous at best, considering how rare it is. The attempts to delegitimize the vote are ridiculous.Yet, despite the escalatory rhetoric, I doubt there will be any large-scale violence in the event of any Democratic surprises on election day. Sure, there will be isolated incidents, but I agree that most of the “angry” folks are too fixated on their own situations to risk their own lives and livelihoods.:-)

  48. mclever says:

    shiloh, So, what is the answer to my sincere question? Is the political rhetoric out there on the streets today worse than it was in the 60s?My current reaction to most of the extreme blather is an eyeroll or a giggle if I even bother to notice it. My question is, am I right to be so dismissive of the fringe loonies? Is it all just so much noise? Or, is this something where we should be worried about domestic terrorism, protests, and assassinations? As my friends from Texas might say, are these Tea Partiers all hat and no cattle when it comes to their rants?

  49. Realist says:

    @shiloh,I agree with mclever. Occasional rhetoric is probably unavoidable. But, on balance, substance carries far more weight and results in a better caliber of site.

  50. filistro says:

    Re: Freepers, the fringe, and winger anger… What do these people actually mean when they talk about “taking our country back?”This isn’t rhetorical… I really wonder what you all think. I spend a lot of time studying these folks and I’m still not sure what it means…. though they say it ALL THE TIME, in every conceivable venue.Is it just a nostalgic wish for things to be like they used to be?Is it a rallying cry to get out the vote and win at the polls? Or is it dogwhistle for something more sinister? I truly don’t know. (Though of course I do have a theory πŸ˜‰

  51. mclever says:

    shrinkers,If so, we’ll have Durbin or Schumer as Majority Leader — and then, won’t you be sorry!!Oooh! Dick Durbin, please! πŸ™‚ The righties will love that!

  52. Bart DePalma says:

    The only Dem victory of any note since Nov 2008 – NY-20 – is coming back home.http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/blogs.detail/display/890/Gibson-up-by-9-in-latest-Siena-poll.htmlNRO Campaign Spot blog is filled will late polling breaking for the GOP. The undecided are now joining the Indis and GOP.

  53. shiloh says:

    @mcleverSo, what is the answer to my sincere question? Is the political rhetoric out there on the streets today worse than it was in the 60s?~~~~~As this has been discussed ad nauseam at 538 like every other topic and please don’t consider this a personal attack.>To answer your question, No.but, but, but the ’60s didn’t have 24/7 cable news, ad nauseam minutia telling the weak minded yahoos how they should think 24/7.The misinformation is relentless, just look at the advertising er $$$ in the 2010 election.A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. ~ Mark TwainMentioned in the previous thread the average American voter is totally uniformed and is easily swayed by the never ending rhetoric.>Again, having grown up in the ’60s never/ever though an African/American would be elected president in my lifetime, so everything else is gravy! πŸ™‚ Certainly not a Muslim, born in Kenya named Barack Hussein Obama!Teabaggers like Bart are still trying to figure out er rationalize er reconcile πŸ˜‰ how Obama got 69.5 million votes.Quite elementary: As again, one party screws up, cheney/bush, and is replaced by the other party, 300/400 years of American racial oppression er prejudice/hatred against African/Americans notwithstanding!Sorry Bart, no Bradley Effect lol as D.L. Hughley mentioned early 2008, cheney/bush has fucked up so bad, America may elect a Black man president!hmm, what was your original question …>>>Bartles, you appear to be very busy at work today as multitasking is the key!take care

  54. shrinkers says:

    @mclever So, what is the answer to my sincere question? Is the political rhetoric out there on the streets today worse than it was in the 60s?That’s a really good question. It’s hard to say. First, do remember that in the 60s we had actual riots. People got killed, millions (billions?) in property damage.As I recall, most of the rhetoric from the politicians and the chattering classes was a lot more polite and restrained than it is today. But a lot of the protesters were pretty nasty (though lots of them, like Abbie Hoffman, had a great sense of humor).The 60s was a time of terrible upheaval, with racial issues, and Vietnam, immense changes in sexuality and culture. As shiloh pointed out, we had a shocking number of political assassinations. We were also just coming out of the era of red scares and the McCarthy hearings/witchhunts.As I remember it, there was a greater level of actual violence, but a lower level of vile rhetoric from professional politicians. I think that’s what has a lot of people so uneasy today. Elected officials did not openly call for armed revolt, nor question the citizenship and loyalty of the President. Violence today seems more acceptable, more mainstream, more frequently excused, even encouraged — at least, in theory.Also, one must keep in mind, the violence of the 60s was something of a conundrum. It came as frequently from the police as from the protesters. Indeed, many of the protesters attempted nonviolent demonstrations, which turned violent only because of counter-protests or the attempt to disperse them. The situations then and now are not identical. History does not repeat, but it rhymes. If the level of rhetoric from the pundits and our elected representatives had been then what it is today, I don’t think our nation would have survived.Others can give their impressions. And, undoubtedly, we will each have remembered things differently.

  55. mclever says:

    filistro,What do these people actually mean when they talk about “taking our country back?”The whole beauty of an ambiguous phrase like “take our country back” is that it can mean something entirely different to each person, while the concept is something that everyone (or at least all the unhappy people) can agree with on the surface of it.For some people (like my parents), they want the world to go back to 1984, no, not Orwell’s version, but Ronnie’s. They were very happy in the 80s. Life was good, their jobs were good, the commies were losing, etc. They think Clinton took that away. (Why, I don’t really understand, because they were empirically better off in the 90s than the 80s.) They see Obama as a continuation of the degradation of “good, American values” that began under the decadence of Clinton. (They mentally skip past the GWB years, probably for obvious psychological reasons.) I’m not claiming this is logical, but that’s their thinking. So, it’s mostly nostalgia. But, even with my parents, I think there’s an underlying dog-whistle that they don’t even recognize. They would be so eagerly chanting to “take our country back” if the President was an older, white gentleman who filled his appointments with other older white gentlemen, plus maybe a token minority or woman or two. It’s not overt, but it’s implied and subtle for people like my folks who just aren’t that comfortable around anyone who isn’t just like them.However, for a few people, they really do mean a more sinister “take our country back” from the *others*, referring to minority-loving, hippie, socialist, pinko, homo, surrender-monkeys. I think this represents a very tiny minority of the “take our country back” chanters, but the beauty of that phrase is that they can say it to each other, know what they mean, and no one outside can be certain. Even people who are part of the movement might miss it, unless they happen to overhear someone (like my uncle) speaking in an unguarded moment.Just my own (totally anecdotal) opinion.

  56. shiloh says:

    shrinkers, my answer to mclever’s question is better than yours.Just sayin’ πŸ˜‰

  57. mclever says:

    Ack! Moderation!! ;-P

  58. Realist says:

    I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating in this context. The last time that I’m aware of inflammatory rhetoric and threats of violence on this scale over political machinations is the mid 1800s.We know how that ended.I often wonder if the United States would have been better off had the Confederate States been allowed to go quietly.

  59. marc miwerdz says:

    The lv vs the rv difference is about +5 rep in off year elections. That is offset usually by the registration advantage of dems across the country. Why does the lv difference favor the rep? It is because they historically have a higher turnout percentage than dems. Or if you will~~~more enthusiastic about voting. For the first time I can remember we have pollsters adding arbitrarily a perceived enthusiasm gap to their results. This is adding an enthusiasm gap onto an enthusism gap. Double dipping if you will. I laugh when I see polls stating 2000 people interviewed when in reality the result is a poll of one i.e. the person who decides what the final adjustment will be.

  60. shiloh says:

    In a nutshell, 24/7 cable news gives politicians a much, much, much greater chance to make complete fools of themselves! πŸ™‚

  61. filistro says:

    I’m moving the link to the Schaeffer article up here since some may not have read his essay, and it is entirely relevant to this discussion.

  62. shiloh says:

    Let me rephrase:24/7 cable news/internet etc. gives politicians, political pundits, we the people a much, much, much greater chance to make complete fools of themselves!as ad nauseam reality tv has taken over network programming …

  63. mclever says:

    shrinkers and shiloh,Thank you both for your input. From what you both say, there are two big differences:1) The political classes are the ones engaging in some of the ridiculous rhetoric, as opposed to most of the talk being “on the street” in the 60s.2) The 24/7 news and internet saturation gives the crazy a greater spread. The signal to noise ratio is worse, meaning more disinformation. No matter how insane, you can find access to someplace where you can vent and organize with likeminded crazies. Perhaps because there is so much noise out there, the chattering class needs to ramp up its rhetoric in order to be heard at all?With the heightened noise and rhetoric from the political classes, I think more folks just tune it out. Especially younger folks who don’t see how politics affects their daily lives.But some do listen…Most people just want decent jobs, safety, and a good school for their kids. They couldn’t care less who’s in the White House or Senate or whatever. In the current economic climate, people are angry because their jobs and security are at risk. The ramped up rhetoric gives them a direction for their anger.If so, then as the economy turns around (as I expect it to do over the next year or two), then won’t that anger dissipate, and with it the rabid rhetoric?

  64. mclever says:

    Realist: I often wonder if the United States would have been better off had the Confederate States been allowed to go quietly.Perhaps so! Although, I think it would have set a precedent that would have later allowed every other major political dispute to divide the nation into ever-smaller nations. We wouldn’t have a United States of America, or even a USA and CSA, we’d have 6 or 8 or ten little countries dividing up the continent, and Canada would have taken us over by now! πŸ˜‰

  65. Mr. Universe says:

    Mule said,so I’m going to take some time off. maybe I’ll catch you people in a few weeks/months…Dude, you are so predictable. You and Bart, both. Can’t stand the heat so you leave the kitchen. But you always come back. always. We’ll be here when you return and we’ll be ready to kick your ass again when you do. You just can’t quit us.

  66. Mr. Universe says:

    PS: Mule, lay off the sauce before you post. m’kay?

  67. Mule Rider says:

    “I often wonder if the United States would have been better off had the Confederate States been allowed to go quietly.”I sincerely hope we get another opportunity. Try as I might to convince myself that the current 50-state arrangement is best and should be maintained, I am constantly losing the will to share an America with so many people who openly hate me and people like me and consider me evil/stupid/racist/etc. Don’t believe that there isn’t pervasive hatred for the South and its inhabitants? http://fuckthesouth.com/Some history books don’t call it the “War of Northern Aggression” for nothin’…I think it’s time we split for real and quit all of this internal bickering and name-calling.

  68. filistro says:

    @mclever.. They couldn’t care less who’s in the White House or Senate or whatever.Normally, yes.. but I think a number of people DO care who’s in the White House now… because it happens to be a black man, and that’s a bridge too far for many people. Among the Freepers, this results in an odd kind of ambivalence. I think a lot of them really WANT to be non-racist, and even thought they were… until Obama was elected. But the fact that he (and particularly his black wife and children) are in the White House is just more than they can endure. It’s not the way the world should be. It upsets and frightens them at some deep, visceral level.But, because they know this is a wrong way to feel, they project. They direct their anger at everything but the president’s troubling skin color… his “Marxist’ policies, his sexuality, his history, family, heritage and birthplace.And all this amorphous, free-floating, misdirected anger seeks an outlet, which makes it more dangerous. If they could just go ahead and give vent to racist views it would probably be safer… but in today’s politically correct atmosphere, even that safety valve is closed to them.

  69. Realist says:

    @mclever,I think it would have set a precedent that would have later allowed every other major political dispute to divide the nation into ever-smaller nations.This presumes that the CSA split would have been considered a success by both sides. Given the heavily agrarian focus of the CSA, while the remaining USA had a much better balance of agriculture and industry, I suspect the CSA would have been somewhere between Canada and Mexico (both economically and geographically). The CSA version of Apartheid would probably have persisted until around the 1970s or 1980s, when economic pressures of trade embargoes from the USA would have led them to relent.I’d be especially interested to see what they would have done about Cuba. Would they have followed the USA, or would they have taken the Canadian route?Anyway, the CSA would have demonstrated the economic disadvantage of cesession, and that would probably keep others from leaving.

  70. shiloh says:

    Mule, who hates you?

  71. shrinkers says:

    @Mule RiderIf you go, please give us back all the Blue State money first ….Just sayin’.

  72. Mule Rider says:

    The free market would have rendered slavery/apartheid economically unfeasible in the CSA by the end of the 19th century. This has been discussed at length in economic textbooks that explore an alternate history (ending to the Civil War). I’m confident the CSA would have been a thriving economic powerhouse, on par with that of the Union.

  73. Mr. Universe says:

    We may have to rethink this unmoderated site policy. I’ve already gotten on to shiloh for baiting Mule but it’s ridiculous to get into all these flame wars. It seemed like a good idea at the start and was popularly requested but when people show up and carpet bomb the place with the F-word, well, we’ve lost the conversation, haven’t we? I really don’t think it’s relevant to the conversation to engage or entertain such juvenile tactics despite the fact that Mule will gloat that he forced us to moderate.Yeah, that’s a feat worth bragging about. You were so vile that I had to censor you. Good job, douchebag.

  74. Mule Rider says:

    “If you go, please give us back all the Blue State money first ….”A false meme. You (or more specifically, the Union) would be no more entitled to money in a Confederate economy than the Confederates would be entitled to anything in the Union economy. Your paranoia, lies, and dementia aside, the Confederate states are not holding any money from Blue States hostage.

  75. Mr. Universe says:

    Governor Rick Perry on the phone for you…Something about secession?

  76. Mule Rider says:

    “You were so vile that I had to censor you. Good job, douchebag”Fuck you dude. Moderate away. I’ve tried to come on here and be civil but the relentless snipes, mocking, jeering, insults, etc. are just a bit much. That shit is never criticized by the lefties that inhabit this place, just like it wasn’t at the old 538. But heaven forbid a rightie come on and be a bit terse with his words, and you sumbitches go into full-fledged panic mode and bitch about how we’re trying to flame your threads.You want civil discourse with input from both sides? The CONDEMN any and all bullshit put out by BOTH SIDES.Otherwise, you’re stuck with just another partisan echo chamber.Guess that’s what you fuckstains ultimately want, I guess, because there sure seems to be little/no will in calling a spade a spade and cutting out the nonsense/drivel on your side of the aisle.In summary, FUCK OFF. I don’t care.

  77. shiloh says:

    ok, the obvious elephant in the room as to how now is different from the ’60s.Oh I don’t know, maybe the first African/American president in a country which has a deep rooted past of 300/400 years of racial oppression.An easy target for the yahoos …Again conservatives didn’t just lose, but they lost to Barack Hussein Obama!Many intelligent folk at RCP in 2008 were (((100%))) sure McCain would defeat Obama regardless, period, end of story!Quite the aftershock to reconcile on Nov. 5, 2008.

  78. Mule Rider says:

    And there’s shiloh with the fucking race-baiting…while everyone (who shares his ideology) stares on in silence.

  79. Realist says:

    @MR,The free market would have rendered slavery/apartheid economically unfeasible in the CSA by the end of the 19th century.Slavery, yes. Apartheid, I don’t think so.I’m confident the CSA would have been a thriving economic powerhouse, on par with that of the Union.I’m less confident of this, primarily due to the heavy states-rights focus of the government. While there are many things to dislike about a strong central government, it does tend to make it easier to have a more robust economy.I am constantly losing the will to share an America with so many people who openly hate me and people like me and consider me evil/stupid/racist/etc.It seems that a significant amount of the social issues between the former Confererate states and the rest of the nation comes from the Civil War itself. Reconstruction, with Union occupation, didn’t help matters any.But I don’t consider you to be evil, stupid, or racist, in part because I get the impression that you sometimes stake out a claim on a persona that isn’t really you.

  80. Mule Rider says:

    FUCK you again, Mr. Universe. If you (and the other motherFUCKING lefties that inhabit this SHIThole) won’t condemn that constant barrage of SHITstains that people like shiloh leave everywhere, then you can have your FUCKING echo chamber. And I would implore Jeff, GROG, Bart, and any other conservative who may have graced this site at one time or another to just leave you pigs to wallow in your own FUCKING filth. You classless FUCKS don’t deserve to discuss the issues of the day with the kind of rational, thinking people that we are. Sit and stew in your own self-loathing.

  81. shiloh says:

    Re: moderationRequire membership like most every other political site does and if you don’t appreciate my input, ban me.No muss, no fuss …As mentioned, MR wouldn’t have lasted (2) hours at the former political forum I frequented as Mr. U has the patience of Job!

  82. Realist says:

    @MR,Yes, I mostly stare on in silence with shiloh’s posts. But that doesn’t mean I share his ideology.You’re often lumped in with Bart, but it’s pretty clear to me that you don’t share his ideology, either.So why not tone it down? Is it really important to you to play the asshole?

  83. filistro says:

    Another obvious difference re: Violence Then and Now… There were three high-profile political assassinations in the 60’s, and lots of campus unrest related to Viet Nam. What’s new nowadays is the prevalence of mass shootings, workplace and campus massacres, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that sort of thing EVER happened as far back as the 60’s… but now it has become almost commonplace. When a populace becomes hardened to violence, the inevitable result is escalating violence.And all the ensuing publicity inflames the passions of unbalanced people who want to make a statement and go out on a blaze of glory.

  84. Mule Rider says:

    “if you don’t appreciate my input, ban me”Oh, I’m pretty sure you’re appreciated in this haven for far-left fruitcakes…and others like it (eg: Kos). But it’s not appreciated in about 99.9% of everywhere else.You only get away with that smart-ass shit because your buddies get off watching you mock/deride away. Anywhere else, you’d be taken to the FUCKING woodshed and humbled like the little BITCH that you are.

  85. shiloh says:

    Again Mule, do you need a hug?

  86. shrinkers says:

    @Mule Riderthe Confederate states are not holding any money from Blue States hostage.Of course not. We’re a single nation. We’re all in this together.My point is precisely that. We all benefit from the union. I think the people who love America so much that they want to break off have no really through through the costs of doing so.I also am convinced that vanishingly few people actually want to break off. It just sounds cool to say. It’s a threat and a fun meme. It’s a way of saying, “If you don’t start doing it my way, I’m taking my ball and going home.” But the speaker forgets he only owns a third of that ball. The other player owns another third. And the final third only exists because the two of them are in the game together.

  87. shrinkers says:

    Mule, on you and shiloh –I often find both of you amusing. Yes, I don’t comment on shiloh’s snark. Notice, I don’t comment on your gutter language, either. I find it pretty easy to ignore things I don’t want to read. It’s really not that hard. Just don’t read people who tick you off.

  88. Mule Rider says:

    “Of course not. We’re a single nation. We’re all in this together.”Yeah, I’m so glad the founders and Revolutionaries felt it would behoove us to remain a part of the British Empire because, you know, we were all “in this together.”Fuck that. The way you guys talk about me and people like me, we ain’t in SHIT together. Got that?!

  89. Mule Rider says:

    “Just don’t read people who tick you off.”Well, shit, why in the hell am I here again??? Guess I wouldn’t be reading about 99% of the posts if that was the case!

  90. shiloh says:

    @RealistBut that doesn’t mean I share his ideology.~~~~~hmm, what’s my ideology and please don’t be bashful, tell us yours as well.>See MR, I’m as dislike as you are, maybe more as all the hoity/toity progressives really do appreciate your FUCK! filled posts, eh.The other day I broke one of 538’s cardinal rules by pissing in filistro’s wheaties, who idiotically said I hated you, but no biggie as I easily corrected her and I don’t hold a grudge.Yea, when you go against fili, who is many 538’s internet girlfriend, trouble may ensue …Did I mention liberals often disagree and people who reply ITA at a political blog are completely useless!carry on

  91. Realist says:

    @MR,The way you guys talk about me and people like me…Two questions:1) Who is “you guys?”2) Who are “people like me?”

  92. GROG says:

    GROG said:The blatant hypocrisy of 538 Refugee resident commenters.Realist said:Do you include me in that list?This is what I have a bit of a problem with. Bart says:I am here simply to offer the occasional opinion.And you ask Bart:Which would be fine, except that it is:1) not exactly “occasional”2) typically disguised as “fact”3) only defended until defense gets to be hard, and then abandoned for the next easy targetHow are these (particularly 1 and 2) different from any leftwing commenter on this site? I could copy and paste hundreds of comments by filistro, shrinkers, shiloh, Mr. Universe, Monotreme, yourself…..in which an opinion is disguised as fact. That’s what we do here. Give our opinions. Are singling Bart out because his opinions are generally conservative?And are you criticizing Bart because he expresses opinions more than occasionally? Does he express his opinion on this blog more than you would like? What’s your point there?

  93. Realist says:

    @shiloh,hmm, what’s my ideologyFrankly, I don’t know. Most of what you post is focused on the conservatives, and not on your own ideals.tell us yours as well.I want what works, at the most efficient means possible, looking over the extremely long term. Nothing more, nothing less.

  94. shiloh says:

    Let the record show Realist said But that doesn’t mean I share his ideology. w/out having a clue what my political ideology is.’nuf said!

  95. mclever says:

    filistro,but I think a number of people DO care who’s in the White House now… because it happens to be a black man, and that’s a bridge too far for many people. You may well be right. I can certainly admit that I see exactly what you are saying in the reactions of my parents. Perhaps it’s the generational gap, or that I got out of my isolated community when I was still a teen, but I often forget how visceral and subtle racial/tribal reactions can be. But, because they know this is a wrong way to feel, they project. They direct their anger at everything but the president’s troubling skin color… his “Marxist’ policies, his sexuality, his history, family, heritage and birthplace.Perhaps, and I can certainly see that in some people that I know. It may be simpler than that, too. For some, it’s not really that they don’t like black people (classical racism); it’s that they don’t know very many. Ignorance makes them squeamish and fearful in ways they can’t explain, so they fish around for the reasons you list.In any case, you bring up a good point about why people who wouldn’t normally care a whit about politics are suddenly much more attuned.

  96. Mr. Universe says:

    @MuleIn case you missed it, dude, I actually stood up for you the other day when you weren’t driving the insane posse clown car.Did I err?

  97. Mule Rider says:

    “Did I err?”Not sure. Depends on what you said to “defend” me.I can be a loose cannon. No doubt about that.

  98. Realist says:

    @GROG,How are these (particularly 1 and 2) different from any leftwing commenter on this site?#1 isn’t different from anyone else, though I don’t recall anyone else pretending otherwise.#2 is something I’ve called people out for on the left as well. Bart happens to do it with more regularity than anyone else on this blog, except for perhaps shiloh.I give many opinions. I work hard to make sure it’s clear when I am giving an opinion and when I’m stating a fact. And when I’m stating a fact, I’m prepared to not only be challenged on it, but also to defend it with supporting data.And are you criticizing Bart because he expresses opinions more than occasionally? Does he express his opinion on this blog more than you would like? What’s your point there?I’m criticizing him because he comes here expressing his opinions as fact, and on the occasions that he supplies supporting data, it’s either self-referential (blogs referencing blogs, with none going to actual source data), or just as often says exactly the opposite of what he claims.I don’t care how often he posts. I want to be challenged in a way that causes me to at least reconsider my positions. I keep waiting for him to do it.At least Jeff was very consistent at producing articulate, defensible positions with a good amount of credible backup data.So that’s my point: he produces papier mache arguments…up to and including the one he started with on this thread.

  99. Realist says:

    Let the record show Realist said But that doesn’t mean I share his ideology. w/out having a clue what my political ideology is.And I proudly stand behind that statement. I cannot claim to share an ideology with someone whose ideology I don’t know. I can’t claim to dislike prune ice cream, since I never tasted it.

  100. Mr. Universe says:

    BTW, the whole idea behind no moderation was to avoid the echo chamber. The only problem is, you can’t fix asshole. That one, you’re momma failed to correct.

  101. Mr. Universe says:

    @MuleI asked shiloh to stop baiting you. Don’t recall which article it was.

  102. shiloh says:

    It is interesting the only political ideologies at 538 which are totally out in the open is Bart and the rest of the hard care, conservative troll lemmings.Bart’s total misunderstanding of Libertarianism notwithstanding lol>btw Realist, nice deflection. ok, that’s a lie.

  103. Mr. Universe says:

    @MuleFor the record, shiloh is the only person whom I’ve ever deleted a comment. I’d likre to keep it that way.

  104. shiloh says:

    Mr. UI asked shiloh to stop baiting you. Don’t recall which article it was.~~~~~Why do you continue to apologize for Mule?

  105. Realist says:

    btw Realist, nice deflection. ok, that’s a lie.Not a deflection at all. I chose my words carefully. You’re reading something into my words that were never there, nor were they implied.

  106. mclever says:

    Realist,You do bring up a good point about the potentially limited success of secession. I would tend to agree that the southern states would have been at a distinct disadvantage economically, which may have led to the ultimate failure of the secession route. However, we humans have an inordinate tendency to say, “But it’s different this time. It won’t be the same for *us*…” Therefore, I’m not sure it would have avoided setting the bad precedent.If the USA and CSA had remained separate, I doubt the Cuba situation would have arisen in remotely the same fashion, because the entire history of the United States and its relations with the world would have shifted. However, if we’re assuming a hypothetically similar situation, then I would bet that the CSA would do whatever they could to tweak their irritating, arrogant northern brother. In which case, perhaps they’d offer open support of Cuba just to piss off the USA? It would fit their contrarian attitude! πŸ˜‰

  107. GROG says:

    @Realist,Thank you for your response. I mean that sincerely. I really don’t want to beat a dead horse and make this all about Bart, but can you give an example or two of Bart giving an opinion in which he disguises it as fact.(And I’m not trying to single you out because I think you’re fair and I do read you posts. I’m just responding to a question you asked me.)

  108. shiloh says:

    But that doesn’t mean I share his ideology.Of course it infers that you knew what my ideology is.Now if you had said, btw, I don’t even know what his ideology is you would have been crystal clear er no grey area, but you didn’t.Your turn as I kinda enjoy ad nauseam minutia w/a high brow liberal, like yourself.hmm, let me recheck my phrasing πŸ˜‰

  109. Realist says:

    @GROG,There’s a bunch of posts around here over the past few days, so I’ll need to reread some stuff to find you specific examples. I promise to do so this evening.One that does come to mind, simply because it’s been brought up so many times, is Bart’s claim that Obama gave a speech that caused the stock market to plummet. He repeated that one recently (I’ll find it for you tonight), and ignored me when I asked when that occurred. He has, apparently, responded in the same fashion when challenged on that one before.

  110. mclever says:

    That sh*t is never criticized by the lefties that inhabit this place, just like it wasn’t at the old 538.Oh, please, Mule Rider. Never??I think I can point to posts by Realist and Mainer on this thread that have criticized “leftists” who’ve engaged in mocking rather than substance.Political discourse will provoke emotional responses. You can’t expect there to be no jeering or jibes, because that’s part of the game, and you’re just as much a player as anyone else here.Escalation on your part does not make it better.I’ll say the same thing to you that I said to shiloh, that when a political opponent gets combative or evasive, it’s usually better to focus on what substance can be found, because that is more conducive to elucidating a meaningful exchange.

  111. Mr. Universe says:

    And all the ensuing publicity inflames the passions of unbalanced people who want to make a statement and go out on a blaze of glory.I’ve actually made this point before. School/mailroom shootings are actually a recent devolpment. I think Columbine may have been one of the first. And the phrase ‘going postal’ has unfortunately become entrenched into our vernacular. What do you suppose the catalyst was? Proliferation of the 24/7 news cycle? Violent video games that diminish human lives? I watched the TVLand channel the other night. It has reruns of old detective shows. Remember when a murder used to be a big deal? Nowadays you can’t film an episode of CSI without a serial killer. I did a back of the napkin estimate once. There are almost 100 murders on prime time television each week (not counting cable here. I’m sure that would be higher). That’s 5200 murders a year. I find it hard to believe that there are that many homicides going on. And let’s not forget the movies. Irwin Allen perfected the all-star disater movie epic in the seventies. You could expect several dozen people to perish on the Posiden or the Towering Inferno. These days you have to have hundreds of violent and gratuitous deaths in movies like ‘2012’, or ‘300’.Death, death, death. Have we become that anesthethized that life has so little meaning?

  112. Realist says:

    @shiloh,You took my statement out of context, so let me put it back in context for you:Yes, I mostly stare on in silence with shiloh’s posts. But that doesn’t mean I share his ideology.The antecedent of “that” is the fact that I mostly stare on in silence with your posts. So, to put it in proper context, you should read it as follows:The fact that I mostly stare on in silence with shiloh’s posts does not mean that I share his ideology.In other words, one should not assume that my silence implies that I agree with your ideology. I would have said the same about anyone else, simply because I don’t want to be on the hook to respond to every single notion to which I have a disagreement.I doubt I can be any clearer about my choice of words, or my intent. If you still infer some other meaning from my earlier post, it’s all you.

  113. Realist says:

    @Mr. U,Have we become that anesthethized that life has so little meaning?What are you, some pro-lifer or something?Sorry, couldn’t resist…

  114. mclever says:

    shrinkers,Yes, I don’t comment on shiloh’s snark. Notice, I don’t comment on your gutter language, either. I find it pretty easy to ignore things I don’t want to read.I’m right there with you, usually ignoring the things I don’t want to bother reading. Most of the “nasty” comments get an eye-roll and a move-on from me as I scan for substantive content. πŸ™‚

  115. Mr. Universe says:

    Why do you continue to apologize for Mule?Not apologizing for Mule. More than one person has asked me why you’ve been going over the top lately, shiloh. And I reiterate; I don’t want an echo chamber.

  116. shiloh says:

    Damn Realist, I really got your attention, eh. :)As Bart would say: We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree ~ diminishing returns. But on the bright side, at least you didn’t say I hated Mule like fili foolishly did, ok that’s a deflection!And you really are hoity/toity intellectual lol as I want to party w/you dude! ;)take care, blessings

  117. Mr. Universe says:

    @RealistWhat are you, some pro-lifer or something?It is possible to be pro-life AND pro-choice. Just not the other way around. πŸ™‚

  118. GROG says:

    Realist said:One that does come to mind, simply because it’s been brought up so many times, is Bart’s claim that Obama gave a speech that caused the stock market to plummet.Ok, but how is that different from Filistro saying on a previous thread: If the GOP doesn’t immediately start slashing in all directions, cutting programs dear to the hearts of most Americans, the crazed Teapers will turn on their own party. Mayhem and bloodshed will ensure.Filistro doesn’t say or back up why Teapers are crazed, or why there will be mayhem and bloodshed. Bart gave his opinion and Filistro gave hers.

  119. shiloh says:

    I don’t want an echo chamber.With all do respect Mr. U …ok, when somebody says w/all do respect get ready to be clobbered!With all do respect, judging by this thread, one doesn’t have a clue what one wants.ciao

  120. shiloh says:

    due not do ~ carry on w/whatever chamber 538 has become …

  121. Realist says:

    @GROG,My example for Bart is looking at the past. History is a much easier sort of thing to consider fact.filistro, OTOH, was talking about the future. Given that I am (I believe safely) assuming that nobody here can actually know the future, any discussions about what will happen in the future is by definition an opinion.

  122. Mule Rider says:

    @GROG,Thanks for succinctly articulating a point I couldn’t seem to get across by F-bombing the entire thread.Yours is a much wiser approach, even if they dismiss it all the same.

  123. GROG says:

    Thanks Muley. I think all we ask for is a little consistency.

  124. Mr. Universe says:

    @shilohI don’t recall saying ‘with all due respect’ in any of my statements but I do respect your contributions to the site and your service to the country in the Navy. You’ve just been rather combative lately and no one can figure out why. Don’t take it as a personal attack. It isn’t intended to be.Universe

  125. shrinkers says:

    GROG asked,Filistro doesn’t say or back up why Teapers are crazed, or why there will be mayhem and bloodshed. My opinion (and I offer this because I’ve said similar things) –If someone asked filistro why she thought Teapers are crazed, or why there will be mayhem and bloodshed, I’d wager she’d 1) be willing to admit this was simply her opinion and understanding, and 2) be willing to supply the reasons she thought this way.I would do the same.Bart does neither

  126. mclever says:

    GROG,I’m not Realist, and I’m sure his answer will be much better than mine, but I can see an immediate and obvious difference between the two statements.Bart is saying that something (factually) happened in the past, and can provide no evidence for it other than blogs that reference blogs.Filistro is making a prediction, which is inherently an opinion. She has frequently mentioned her forays into “freeper” space and often provides quotes to support her perceptions. Of course, one can’t be expected to cite dates, places, and names of things that haven’t happened yet, but folks still challenged her and demanded evidence to support her prognostication.That’s the difference. Bart is presenting his idea as if it were historical fact, while filistro (in this case) is voicing her opinion on what will happen. Opinions can generate meaningful and interesting conversations, as long as no one loses sight of the line between facts and the interpretation thereof.

  127. shiloh says:

    Mr. U didn’t say you did use that phrase and although I don’t hold a grudge, when fili said I hated MR it really, really, really pissed me off, but I handled quite well, eh ~ no ‘F’ words ;)And yes, it’s true, I don’t fawn over anyone at 538 as I am and always will march to the beat of my own drummer.At Joker’s abortion/creationism etc. threads were a lot more heated than this one, except w/out Mule’s personal attacks and Mule’s ad nauseam ‘F’ word(s)hmm, let a child continually get away w/not behaving, don’t be surprised …>btw, I’m announcing today at 5:55PM that I will, as always, not be making any announcements re: myself at a smallish progressive blog on the net as nobody cares …

  128. Mainer says:

    I am thinking that most any one can get pretty heated in a political debate. I can remember more than one town meeting where a final vote was waited on for several in the crowd to go out back and have shall we say a preliminary vote.I just get antsy at this years level of anger. I fear we could see some over the top antics at polling places around the nation and I beleive police have been alerted to the possibility. So what happens if some of the same ones that have been very strong on exercising their right to carry guns at public events decide to do so at or out side polling places? When does the exercise of ones right to have arms become intimidation of the other side to vote? I would hope to see no voter intimidation, of any kind but if 3 over age over weight black panter wannabe’s sow up at even one polling place it will be seen by some of an election stolen. But the same good folks would see nothing wrong with gun toting individuals at the same polls. It is in the end ones perception.We are all over the top at times. Some of us more than others. I think we were doing just fine with out you Mule man. You have not helped the other side one damned bit. I still want to get back to Grogs tax ideas, I would still like to try to figure out why Bart thinks he’s a Libertarian and how much his state and region count on federal programs, I have a bunch of Jeff notes I would like to come back to but right now I have no Mule notes on things I would like to revisit. Are we now numb to violence? I think it depends on where one lives and how much garbage TV they watch. Marshall McLuenen (sp) was I’m afrid right but way ahead of his time.

  129. filistro says:

    Re: backing up opinions… yesterday I posted a thoughtful essay by Frank Schaeffer on the upswing in right-wing violence and what may be causing it.Bart chided me for linking to a “hate-filled screed” from the “fever swamp.” (Verbatim quotes.)I challenged Bart to cut and paste two consecutive sentences from the essay that were demonstrably untrue (because if statements are true I don’t see how they can be “hate-filled” or “fevered.”) He ignored my request… and this morning once again rebuked me again for “disappointing him” by linking to this “hateful” essay.Bart does this regularly… he takes some lofty position and then when challenged to back it up with facts, he simply retreats, reloads and fires from some other direction.OTOH when Jeff is bested in an argument he graciously concedes the point… and then likely as not goes on to score two or three solid points off his opponent the next day. That’s a right-wing thinker for whom I have respect… and who is really fun to debate with.

  130. mclever says:

    GROG,On a more general note, I’m seeing a lot of complaining from you, Mule, and Bart about people not challenging people that they agree with.What do you expect? I don’t see you or Mule or Bart challenging one another much, either. I’m not complaining or accusing you of being hypocritical for it. I just think such complaints are silly. If you don’t agree with something shrinkers or shiloh or filistro said, then *you* challenge them. Don’t expect me to do it for you!In my experience, people generally don’t challenge those opinions that they agree with for one of two reasons:1) There’s little fun in beating up your friends.2) Someone who agrees with you isn’t going to tell you anything new. For me, there’s little to be learned from someone who’s expressing an opinion that I’m already very familiar with, whether I agree or not. Therefore, if I question someone, it will usually be with the intent of gaining information so that my own future opinion will be better formed. I will confess to being the sort who likes to play Devil’s Advocate and who will sometimes pick nits over semantics, because I think precision in language is important. I know my own language isn’t perfect, and I usually *like* having someone point out what I’ve missed.The main reason I’m pursuing this topic with you, is that I think you’re smart enough and capable enough of contributing substantially and substantively to our conversation. If I didn’t think so, then I wouldn’t bother. I think it’s useful to be clear about opinions and facts, and to understand why each would get different treatment. I’m hoping that this exchange will produce fruit in future conversations.:-)

  131. filistro says:

    mclever… do you think a statement can be both “true” and “hateful?”I’m just turning this over in my mind… haven’t reached a conclusion yet. I suppose if we hash it through it’s going to come down to issues of motivation rather than content?

  132. Realist says:

    @filistro,I know you didn’t ask me, but when you asked mcleverdo you think a statement can be both “true” and “hateful?”I felt compelled to respond, because I had exactly the same question going over in my mind. My first instinct is to say that they are not mutually exclusive.In fact, as I sit here thinking about it, I recall our earlier discussion over BillO’s “Muslims killed us” (quotes not meant here to imply that those were his exact words) statement earlier this month. The statement was factually correct, but it appeared that the intent was hateful, insofar as it seems to be intended to implicate a billion people for the actions of a tiny fraction of that billion.Probably not the best example, but it’s at least an example.

  133. filistro says:

    “Muslims killed us” … excellent example. Because of course they did. So we are in fact forced to examine the intent.I should probably enlarge the question. If a true statement is spoken without malice… can it ever be “hateful?” I guess the hatred must reside in the speaker… right? The words themselves, if true, are not hateful. The speaker or writer of the words must be the one who supplies the “hatefulness…” and that would be a subjective evaluation from the reader or listener?I’m sort of getting there… give me time… πŸ™‚

  134. GROG says:

    mclever said:That’s the difference. Bart is presenting his idea as if it were historical fact, while filistro (in this case) is voicing her opinion on what will happen.Are you saying there is a reason that must be proven for everything that has happened in the past? There are many things that have happened in the past for which there is no proven answer. Bart happens to think Obama made a speach which had a negative impact on the stock market. There is absolutely no way that statement can be proven right or wrong. It’s a statement of opinion. mclever said:On a more general note, I’m seeing a lot of complaining from you, Mule, and Bart about people not challenging people that they agree with.I’m just asking for consistency. Shrinkers complains about talking points while he constantly spews talking points himself. Shrinkers hates generalizations, but his friend Filistro generalizes about the rightwing all the time and uses Free Republic posts to back it up. Or she sees a racist sign at a Tea Party rally and claims all “Teapers” are racist and crazy and defends it because she’s into messaging. Yet she refuses to acknowledge that Muslims blew up the WTC because all Muslims didn’t blow up the WTC. And no one calls her out on it. I don’t mean to beat up on Shrinkers and Filistro, but they’re two of the more vocal critics of myself and Bart. Mclever, I really appreciate your honest and respectable debate.

  135. Mule Rider says:

    “Mclever, I really appreciate your honest and respectable debate.”I second that you can usually get a straight answer out of mclever and Realist, and I really appreciate that. Occasionally Mr. Universe can be reasonable, but he’s still cranky. The others, as GROG says, shout more paranoia, talking points, hyperbole, etc. than their little brains can seemingly process yet they are indignant when they perceive anyone on the right as doing the same thing.

  136. Realist says:

    @GROG,Are you saying there is a reason that must be proven for everything that has happened in the past?No. I’m saying that if someone claims that A caused B, that person should be able to follow that up with “A happened on this date, and B happened on that date plus 1 day, which suggests that there could be a causal relationship.” It’s not proof, but it’s much more than a random assertion.If no evidence is provided, then it’s shadowboxing.But it’s more than that. Bart states “A caused B,” rather than “I think A caused B,” and does so as a casual aside, in a way that suggests everyone knows it’s true. And then uses that “fact” as supporting evidence for some other claim, ultimately building a house of cards from these claims on top of claims on top of claims, all presented as fact and none presented with backing evidence when pressed to present it.Filistro generalizes about the rightwing all the time and uses Free Republic posts to back it up.Yes she does. And I have on occasion said that I don’t believe that Freepers are representative of the Republican Party as a whole. But she’s certainly right that there are a handful of people currently in office who throw red meat to them. Do they represent the party as a whole? It’s hard to say…there seems to be a lot of internecine jockeying going on for who “represents” the party. The largest plurality of those polled say that Sarah Palin (who definitely panders to the Freepers) represents the party, so at least there’s some basis for that notion.

  137. Mule Rider says:

    Again, I agree 100% with GROG about consistency. If Bart gets excoriated for claiming, in his opinion (though I disagree with it, for the record), that an Obama speech tanked the stock market, then there needs to be equal scrutiny of comments from people like shrinkers speculating things like TeaPartiers are currently plotting to destroy America from within, gun-toting racist rednecks are going to gun down people if hotly contested races don’t go their way, and that Fox News/Rasmussen have sinister intentions of brainwashing people and usurping elected authority figures. All of that drivel is as much or more destructive to civil dialogue as anything Bart has said.

  138. Mule Rider says:

    @Realist,Then what about people on here who make statements that call out Obama detractors as racist because they shouldn’t have a rational/legitimate reason to disagree with him but just hate/can’t stand having a black man (in charge and) in the White House and they’re hiding their racism with code words like “socialist,” “Marxist,” etc.?I’ve seen that argument too many times to count. People are declaring that opinion (that conservative detractors don’t have legitimate disagreements in philosophy with Obama but just hate having a black man for President) as if it were fact, and they’re doing very little to back up that opinion with sound logic/reasoning.

  139. shortchain says:

    Grog and Muley sure have added to this thread. Specifically, they’ve added concern trolling and profanity.Consistency, GROG, is desirable in mousse and chocolate pudding. In blog comments, I don’t see an advantage, and several disadvantages.Muley, if you can’t express yourself without mindless and un-original profanity, don’t expect anybody to take you seriously. I, for one, don’t think you have anything to say anyway.

  140. Realist says:

    @MR,If Bart gets excoriated for claiming, in his opinion…, that an Obama speech tanked the stock market, then there needs to be equal scrutiny of comments from people like shrinkers speculating things like TeaPartiers are currently plotting to destroy America from within, gun-toting racist rednecks are going to gun down people if hotly contested races don’t go their way, and that Fox News/Rasmussen have sinister intentions of brainwashing people and usurping elected authority figures.Well, now, first of all I don’t recall shrinkers suggesting that the TPers are plotting to destroy America from within, per se, insofar as I doubt he believes that their goal is destruction. That might be the result of their actions. But either way, that’s talking about the future.When Jeff said that he believes that the national debt is likely to become so great in the next few years that it will cause utter economic destruction, nobody asked him for proof of that. It’s a prediction, and everyone deserves more leeway in talking about the future in those hand-wavy terms. Even conservatives.gun-toting racist rednecks are going to gun down people if hotly contested races don’t go their wayFunny you should mention that one. That stuff really is over on Free Republic…people claiming they will do just that. I don’t know if it’s credible, but at least filistro has produced evidence to support it. Even though it’s a prediction.Fox News/Rasmussen have sinister intentions of brainwashing people and usurping elected authority figures.While the evidence that Rasmussen is doing this is thin, the evidence behind Murdoch’s media conglomerate is much more substantial. Few people have doubts that marketing works. Few people have doubts that it’s more effective when it’s masquerading as something else, so people’s guards are down. The evidence to support this is massive. Whether you consider marketing to be brainwashing is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it’s a question of degree and intent, but that’s just me.Again, my biggest issue with Bart is his unwillingness to produce evidence to back up his assertions, coupled with his frequent assertions couched in the language of accepted fact.

  141. GROG says:

    MR said:…there needs to be equal scrutiny of comments from people like shrinkers speculating things like TeaPartiers are currently plotting to destroy America from within, gun-toting racist rednecks are going to gun down people if hotly contested races don’t go their way, and that Fox News/Rasmussen have sinister intentions of brainwashing people and usurping elected authority figures.Exactly.

  142. Mule Rider says:

    “I, for one, don’t think you have anything to say anyway.”Then, by all means, set phasers on “ignore.”

  143. mclever says:

    filistro,Can a statement be both true and hateful?I would say yes. For example, it might be completely true and factual that my girlfriend who weighs 300 lbs is overweight, but calling her fat to her face would probably be hateful.

  144. mclever says:

    GROG,Are you saying there is a reason that must be proven for everything that has happened in the past? No, I’m saying that when someone says X historical event happened, and someone doubts it, it should be easy to point to dates, times, and evidence of X happening. Assuming that X did in fact occur. Opinions require supporting evidence, but not proof of the same sort as a claim of fact.I’m just asking for consistency.Understandably so. But you must realize that it is “consistent” for someone not to object to statements that they agree with. If you object to filistro’s generalizations or shrinkers’ talking points, then call them out for it. Don’t expect people who agree with them to do so, in part because they might not even recognize the talking points for what they are. That’s part of the value that conservative commentators like you add to this site, by reminding the liberals when they are sliding into demagoguery. πŸ™‚

  145. filistro says:

    @mclever… it might be completely true and factual that my girlfriend who weighs 300 lbs is overweight, but calling her fat to her face would probably be hateful.But it isn’t hateful to say it here, right? You just did, and I don’t consider you “hateful” for doing so.So the hatefulness lies in the possibility for hurtfulness. No?However.. in the article in dispute, the author writes a lot of factual detail about how far-right propaganda can (and has) lead to violence. Perhaps this may hurt some far-right true believers who feel they are being misrepresented. Should the author then not write the article? Is he being “hateful” if he does?

  146. shiloh says:

    @shortchainMuley, if you can’t express yourself without mindless and un-original profanity, don’t expect anybody to take you seriously. I, for one, don’t think you have anything to say anyway.~~~~~Indeed!

  147. GROG says:

    mclever said:Understandably so. But you must realize that it is “consistent” for someone not to object to statements that they agree with. If you object to filistro’s generalizations or shrinkers’ talking points, then call them out for it. Don’t expect people who agree with them to do so, in part because they might not even recognize the talking points for what they are. That’s part of the value that conservative commentators like you add to this site, by reminding the liberals when they are sliding into demagoguery.Well said. I need to be more mindful of that. Thank you.

  148. DC Petterson says:

    @filistro“Muslims killed us” … excellent example. Because of course they did.Actually, that was both hateful and inaccurate. The Muslim hijackers did not kill “us.” I’m still here. So are you. So is BillO.They did kill many people. But not “us.”They killed many Americans. Also many people of other nationalities. And many Muslims. In fact, their attack was directed pretty much at the West in general. Maybe at the world in general (hence, attacking the World Trade Towers).I know this is heretical to say, but what the hack, I’ve been a heretic all my life. al Qaeda was more interested in causing a war than in attacking “us.” And since you and I are still here, if they did mean to kill “us,” they clearly failed. O’Reilly wanted Americans to feel personally attacked by Muslims in general. That was the hateful part. It was not Muslims in general, That was half of the inaccurate part. And they didn’t “kill” “us.” That was the rest of the inaccurate part.It was a hateful piece of inaccurate propaganda, close enough to the truth — and digging deep enough into out patriotic emotionalism — to sound plausible. But it was, at best, a twisted truth.

  149. shrinkers says:

    That’s part of the value that conservative commentators like you add to this site, by reminding the liberals when they are sliding into demagoguery.mclever’s comment has been quoted repeatedly already. Let me quote it as well, and add my own approval to it.

  150. shortchain says:

    Let me add that, although I may treat you and Bart rather rough, GROG, this would be a poorer site without you (and even some of your questions). I doubt anybody is going to wake up suddenly to a desire to move to the other end of the political spectrum, but let’s try and at least discuss them, even with the occasional flare up of acrimonious disagreement.

  151. filistro says:

    For those of you who think I’m exaggerating about the prospects of GOP civil war after the election… read this brand new thread from FR. Pay close attention to the comments. (Look at comment #40.)Does this sound like a group that’s going to play nice and compromise? Remember… they’re talking about THEIR OWN SIDE here.This is a political party on the verge of total fracture.

  152. mclever says:

    filistro,But it isn’t hateful to say it here, right? You just did, and I don’t consider you “hateful” for doing so.So the hatefulness lies in the possibility for hurtfulness. No?Well, I suppose my hypothetical girlfriend would think it was pretty hateful if I were to talk about how fat she was behind her back, too. It’s not just that it would be hurtful, but that it would show a callous lack of respect. I would be denigrating her, even if it wasn’t in her presence.Now, I didn’t choose that example necessarily to be analogous to your article… I just used it to be a quick example of how true words could be hateful or hurtful.You are correct that a lot of the perception of “hatefulness” must obviously derive from an interpretation of the motive of the speaker/writer. Some words need no interpretation, but in other cases, the accusation of “hatefulness” is merely a matter of opinion.

  153. mclever says:

    GROG, you’re welcome. :-)I’m frankly flattered by the positive response to my (seemingly?) common sense words. I just hope we’ll be able to maintain the conviviality when the conversation gets contentious again… Many of us here value the variety of perspectives that people like you can offer, and it’s easier to share ideas when we can be civil with one another.I’m sure there’ll be times when I cross the line–when I overstate my case or even get snippy or snide. Hey, when I do, be sure to let me know! πŸ™‚

  154. Realist says:

    @GROG,can you give an example or two of Bart giving an opinion in which he disguises it as fact.I promised to look for more this evening. Here’s one I found posted a few days ago in the “Health Insurance Isn’t Really Insurance At All” article:my rage at Obamacare’ outlawing of my HSA in favor of its Medicare health care evaluation board’s (Palin’s Death Panel) rationing decisions.I know Michael called his attention to the requests for clarification on this at least twice, and there has been no answer.He did at one time in some other discussion point to the section of the law in question when asked about the “Death Panels.” The text of the section was then posted in rebuttal, and the law clearly stated that it was not to be used in that fashion. His only response was essentially that the text of the law didn’t matter, that it would happen that way anyway. Clearly, this is his opinion (especially in the absence of additional data, which he has yet to provide despite repeated requests). Yet as you saw above he stated it as if it were fact.He has also repeatedly stated that the new law makes his HSA “illegal.” Stated as fact. When asked to provide an explanation as to how this law makes his HSA illegal, he has yet to answer. I’ve read as much of the law as I could get through (it’s huge, as we all know), but couldn’t find anything that makes HSAs illegal. I’m really curious to know what makes his so special that it is now illegal. In any case, stated as fact, no evidence provided. Is it an opinion? Perhaps, but either way it’s stated as fact.Does this help to illustrate the point?

  155. Monotreme says:

    From “The VoteMaster” at http://www.electoral-vote.com:[Newsweek poll analysis deleted.] On the other hand, late in the day, Gallup released a poll showing the Republicans ahead among likely voters 9% to 14%. These two polls are hard to reconcile. At least one of them is clearly wrong, presumably due to poor methodology or a bad demographic model. Prof. Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science, has examined the crosstabs on recent Gallup polls and found some very implausible data there, such as Republicans leading Democrats among minority groups. He concludes that Gallup’s demographic model may be off.

  156. Just Sayin' says:

    Mr. Universe, after reading and being disgusted with many of Mule Rider’s rants over the last two years, I wish you should BAN him. He is like an abusive husband who blames is wife for her beatings. “She ticked me off, it was her fault, she just pushes my buttons.” Every now and then he might have something valuable to say, but then he ruins it with his temper, and then likes to go on as if nothing has happened. He has no place here. He’s a classic bully.

  157. shiloh says:

    @Just Sayin’He’s a classic bully.~~~~~Only on the internet, in real life Mule is a lonely nerd.>Kinda ironic the (1) post Mr. U deleted was my sarcastic suggestion to Bart’s wife re: a gigolo on their Italian trip …Whereas MR’s (((scorched earth))) personal attack on me with 25/26 ‘F’ bombs remains in all its 538 glory! And a few other MR ‘F’ bomb posts as well.Hey, Mr. U must have a soft spot for MR or something.

  158. Just Sayin' says:

    Mr. Universe, after reading and being disgusted with many of Mule Rider’s rants over the last two years, I wish you should BAN him. He is like an abusive husband who blames is wife for her beatings. “She ticked me off, it was her fault, she just pushes my buttons.” Every now and then he might have something valuable to say, but then he ruins it with his temper, and then likes to go on as if nothing has happened. He has no place here. He’s a classic bully.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s