You have until 2pm today to respond to University of Chicago law prof, Geoffrey R. Stone. In an article in today’s Chicago Tribune, he gives a definition of what liberals believe that requires at least two brown paper sacks to get through. Unsurprisingly, he appears to be a veritable George Lakoff Mini-Me.
Example:
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
My quick response:
Professor Stone:
What a crock.
I am a liberal and have been chased from the Democratic party by the takeover of that party by the extreme Left. I am what might be called a John F Kennedy liberal–you know, a muscular liberal–the kind who actually likes the United States and is prepared to fight on its behalf. Refer to the Democratic party platform of 1960. You can see for yourself how far the Democrats have fallen in the last 40 years.
If Kennedy were alive today and tried to give any of his famous speeches, he’d be hounded from the party as a fascist just as Lieberman was hounded from the Democratic party for daring to disagree on one idea. That is not liberalism, that is totalitarianism. Kindly show me how that demonstrates an embrace of tolerance and acceptance of ideas.
I’ll tell you what so-called ‘liberals’ now believe:
They’re socialists, taxing the crap out of business and fomenting class warfare. Those tax cuts ‘for the rich’ are affecting people making as little as $28,000 a year. ‘Rich’, my ass. In truth, they have no understanding at all of basic economics.
If they are about anything, it is identity politics. Everyone’s a victim. They discourage individual strength and individualism. They foster unecessary dependency. Here’s a concept: Black Americans are fully capable of thinking for themselves. They don’t need liberals to hold them up.
Liberals also appear to be hypocrites, too. Note the virulent homophobia that has emerged in the Foley case. Talk about hate speech. Clearly, you are deluding yourself.
They’re ill-informed about history and fail to notice current events critical to our welfare. If they don’t want to deal with an issue, they just ignore it. They are childish and self-absorbed. If their gas tank can be filled cheaply, they don’t give a damn about someone else’s sufffering, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.
They hate the United States and would willingly give away all the best of our culture to salve their consciences.
They hate our military, doing everything in their power to weaken and defeat it.
They know exactly what they wouldn’t do, but never what they would. They’re great critics, liberals. The other guy is always and forever wrong. Of course, they bring no constructive ideas to the table, themselves. They just stand on the sidelines and throw stones.
They’re nihilists. Their only real moral value is the attainment of whatever it is they desire at the moment. To hell with the peripheral effects and long-term consequences. Think Cambodia. Think Rwanda.
Etc., etc., etc. Anyway, he’s soliciting feedback. So let’s give it to him.
How do you define a liberal? How do you define a conservative? E-mail us by 2 p.m. Tuesday at with “define” in the subject line. Include your name, hometown and contact information. Responses will be published online and in Wednesday’s Voice of the People.
–
Update:
I was remiss in not pointing out a wonderful review of the latest George Lakoff book, Whose Freedom? The Battle over America’s Most Important Ideas, by Peter Berkowitz. It encapsulates everything I believe about the egregious and self-deluded Lakoff. The Left accepts him as gospel, and the damage he is doing to political discourse can not be underestimated. It is an excellent piece. I wish I had written it myself.
h/t Powerline
I have a regular commenter at my site who’s always quick to police my language, if he thinks I’m confusing liberals with leftists. Of course, anything objectionable about liberalism can be attributed to leftism, and thus swept out of consideration.
The poor Democratic party is now like a parasitized cockroach, its brain controlled by the Sixties radical Left. There’s no way I’m going to trust them with the national helm in the foreseeable future–no matter how much they keep congratulating themselves on their own wonderfulness.
He says that the idea that libs are soft on defense is false; it’s just that libs always keep all sides of a conflict in mind. That’s the same as to say that, when the time comes to fight, libs are always going to get an electric jolt from their inner peacenik.
My favorite definition of liberals is from our old pal P. J. O’Rourke:
I got my response in. I saw no way to deal with that column without responding point by point and that’s precisely what I did. It will not, of course, ever see the pages of that paper but it was fun doing it anyway.
Liberals and Democrats (is there any difference really?) also like to punch babies and push grandma down the stairs.
Bastards!!!!!!
I basically started at the beginning and undermined his foundation.
I made ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ non-opposing terms, and then proceeded to define them based on their contexts, allowing any individual to be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time, depending on which traditions they defend, and which liberties they defend.
I’m a Jacksonian Liberal. I have distinct conservatisms, such as Pauline Conservatism, Constitutional Conservatism, etc.
Political Identity is now Open-Source!
My job here is done, Dark Lord Rove.
Chiaroscuro out.
As an aside (as per usual for me) I am saying that, you are a Liberal depending on what concepts of Liberty you defend (whether they be specific such as Free Speech, more general like the First Amendment, or referencing a set of ideas such as Jeffersonianism, etc. You could be a Jeffersonian Liberal and Conservative; since Jeffersonianism is more than just a set of ideas, it is also a tradition.) So you are a conservative based on the traditions you defend.
Everyone, Free Association Political Identity… Go!
Translation:
Because I am so much better than you, I am going to spend a couple of years making a decision that should have taken a couple of days, but if you think I’m not for the use of force, you’re wrong. I personally would like to increse the federal police powers so that you have none of that troublesome liberty that might trample on someone else’s dignity. I’m also all for making deals with people who are threatening our country, because that’s what Saturday morning TV taught me was the way to deal with a bully.
Or, shorter; Just see next weeks very special episode of Blossom.
What a tool.
First of all, let’s all give a big Hi-Yo Silver to Professor Stone for coming up with the Democratic Party Platform definition of Liberal.
Everybody wants to be in the kidnapping the genre business. For many years I ruthlessly resisted the concept of registering as anything but an independant. That worked for me, as there were things about both parties that pissed me off (sadly, more than things that I liked.)
Jeff’s been saying it all along: leftists/socialists in this country have shanghaied the Liberal term. Professor Stone at least had the cojones to lay out the ransom note and ask others to disagree with him.
Guilt, victimhood, mothering, endless talking (oh, I’m sorry, diplomacy ), arcane civil liberty worship, individual rights to be as big an arrogant asshole as you please, suspicious of the military and intellegence organizations, clueless as to the jihadist threat, utterly contemptuous of religions, completely suspicious of capitalism and entrepreneurs…
Ah, I’m letting my bitterness shine through. Oh, yea, and that punching babies thing that Josh mentioned…
None of which applies to FDR or Truman either—the last two Dem Presidents who helped win a hot war.
Josh…A huge difference between classical liberals and modern democrats. If you don’t know the difference, this blog may be the wrong place for you to post.
TSI nailed it with Kenedy reference. Now, this doesn’t mean that Kennedy democrats are all flocking to the repub side of the aisle. Hardly. But this modern breed of democrat is pure caricature and unfortunately more rabid than ever.
And BJTexas, republicans only punch minority babies and push minority grandmas down the stairs. Of course republicans have all the money so they actually pay someone else to do their dirty work. Or so I hear.
Yup, starts out with alot of high minded verbiage but manages to slip in typical elements of the left’s laundry list.
‘Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.’
Less fortunate than whom? Is there some absolute baseline standard? Say, three hots, a cot, and free from communicable diseases? Or does he really mean some sliding scale whereby the nanny state may be maintained in perpetuity?
I’m not even going to get started on the contradictions between the statement “[p]art of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe” and the use of PC euphemisms such as “reproductive rights’ and ‘freedom of choice for women’ much less ‘the principle of equal protection for all people’ and ‘[l]iberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.’ If this guy can’t even state his own beliefs in anything approaching plain english (i.e. abortion on demand) why should I entertain him any longer?
Tool indeed.
I just cut-and-paste the dictionary definition of “imbecile.”
It’s worth noting that imbeciles are smarter than morons, who are themselves smarter than idiots.
Right now, the idiots are in charge of the Democratic Party.
I know the difference. Classical liberals (aka “Conservatives who like porn”) are good and true and love America, while modern Democrats molest small children and want to give nukes to al Quaeda.
Yeah, we pay the Democrats to do that. Has someone not been minding the bills? Rove will be furious.
Your view of the universe is simplistic and conotative. My antidote would be to read Websters Dictionary, starting with A. I’ll give you a freebie and let you start with ‘Aardvark’.
Then you will understand the difference between a Liberal and a Democrat. If you can see past your nose to the book, that is.
TW: Faced!
So you’re saying liberals aren’t perfidious scum who would put bin Laden in the white house if they could ever win an election?
No, modern democrats, maybe such as yourself, are afraid of their own shadow and don’t want the bogieman to be upset by anything that they may have done (warranted or not) or implied. It’s obvious you’re a simple little tyke, but, no, even modern democrats can be great lovers of America. And everybody should love porn.
River, I need a minority baby and an indigent, dogfood eating minority grandmother so that I, as an uncaring, war-mongering, red squirrel killing, toxic waste eating, third world country looting, muslim bashing, morality hound might let go my rage as is our custom (wink, wink, nod, nod.) I think it is because poor Josh is stuck in the same sarcastic perpetual motion machine, cranking out small variations of the same snidety (my word MY WORD!)
Apparantly he believes that us poor, uneducated Fascist BushMcChimpy lovers can’t possibly comprehend the subtle overtones of his repeating snarkisms.
Ah thank that ah’ll jest fire on up the pickup and git me ta town and git some chaw!
Josh, can I make a suggestion? I know where you’re coming from, because I was there as recently as a year or so ago. It’s infuriating to read all these wingnuts bashing Dems/Liberals when most of their criticisms are not only hypocritical, but exaggerated and unnecessarily provocative.
That about sum it up?
Well, my suggestion is this: if you can slice through the hyperbole, the partisanship, and yes, the hypocrisy, to get to the substance of the criticisms those here are making, I think you’ll probably see that they’re not very far off. Also remember that a lot of it is intentionally exaggerated for effect.
For example, I’m sure McGehee doesn’t actually believe that all liberals are imbeciles. Even now, I find that irritating, because I still think of myself as a liberal, just one who doesn’t have a home in the Democratic party anymore… and I certainly don’t consider myself an imbecile for having had, let’s say, a few mistaken ideas.
The point is, try not to take it personally, and just look for the real point behind most of the comments here: that modern “liberals” have simply taken the idea of liberalism too far, and have what can at best be described as an immature way of handling real-world issues. If you can figure out on your own why this is the case (it won’t help if I just tell you, because it will just seem like more wingnut propaganda, as it would have to me), then the insults become less important than the meaningful ideas.
Also, and trust me on this one: this is not the place to try to get into a contest of sarcastic wills. You’ll either get drawn into a completely pointless flame war with the commenters or be verbally whipped like a rented mule by Jeff.
Later:
Clearly, Josh knows modern liberals and Democrats better than we do. Everyone e-mail Stone these descriptions.
Exactly (and sans sarcasm).
A liberal is anyone who has a line of code in their brain that goes something like:
policy_position = -policy_position.Bush
or
policy_position = -policy_position.Republican
To say they have any defining characteristic beyond this is going against all experience in recent years.
I think the correct syntax would actually be
This.policy_position = !Bush.policy_position
Abstracting policy_position would be very silly.
Aw, crap. how come that CITIZEN JOURNALIST has to show up and ruin all the fun by being all reasonable and the like. Now he’s gonna deny me the snark!
I had at least 3 more red state yokel screeds to write…
And Josh, just call Megehee “Pork Meat Testicles.” He hates it!
Modern Liberals are anti-Republican and Bush. That’s it! If gas prices go up, its Bush’s fault, if gas prices go down, its a political move. No branis are required. The universe is that simple.
Sure. It’s a free country, at least for another month. After that the liberals may start clawing their way back to power, God forbid, and we may be well on the road to socialist serfdom.
Not really. The subject here is how evil and stupid liberals are, not whether some of the criticisms may be a bit overwrought. After all, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
It goes deeper than that. It’s not liberalism taken too far, it’s glossing over the fundamental tenets of the enlightenment in pursuit of specific policy goals, or feel-goodism as a replacement for hard choices and consequences be damned. I used to try the ‘I’m a liberal’ argument too, but unfortunately like many other terms, its meaning has been hopelessly corrupted and there is little point in trying to reclaim what is now a decidedly illiberal social mindset.
Gee—ya think?
Yep, that’s pretty much what the ACLU thinks. You’ve summed it up concisely again.
CitJor pointed it out better than I did, since he sees things from a perspective closer to yours. In fact, I was not trying to actually explain anything to you at all. I was just making fun of you. And to that, I apologize if it came across as though I was trying to make a real point, because I wasn’t.
As for intellect, none of us ought to be fully judged of our intellect (even you) based on snarky, sarcastic, or silly things we write or say. If we continue to do this, people might believe they have a picture of our intellect.
As for you, I would not say I really believe what I said about you. In fact, on my part, it was merely laziness. Very hypocritcal indeed. (Well, there are two types of hypocrites: regular hypocrites, and those who are trying to do something about it.)
Usually, it is fruitless to have an honest debate with someone across the politcal aisle, or so to speak, so most of us just have a little sport with the person. Its a bad habit, but it is also hard to make us care much. This is cultural. If you distance yourselves from us via things like Bush-bashing, we well assume that you are deadset against our understandings of the world, and thus are not part of the folk culture. Out there, its just darkness and danger. So, our dismissal is more along the lines of, “We will treat you as we expect to be treated by you.”
Does that make sense?
I understand your sarcasm on the points of the oft-caricatured view of democrats/liberals. I don’t believe the generic term ‘liberal’ is specific enough to describe the whole of a political body in this nation anymore (or, perhaps ever was long after the conception of Liberty.)
Indeed, if we expect you to abuse us, we will gladly take the first shot. If you decide to start your discourse in a more reasonable fashion, we will be more considerate of you.
In this regard, we have no innate longing to bring the leftists to our camp. In fact, I would say many of us strongly believe in two-party systems, whichever side we may be on, and believe that there are people in the world who can and will be dead-set against us. The key to reaching us is not to play into that stereotype.
If, on the other hand, your intent was actually malicious, then feel free to stay, and as Citjor but it aptly:
—
I think that everyone DOES love porn, but I don’t think anyone SHOULD. But that is just the Christianist in me thumping his metaphorical Thompson-Chain.
Little girl: “….Daddy what’s a Lib-bur-rul?”
Father: “Erm, well…A very confused person baby”
Little Girl: “What’s they confusid about?
Father: “Well they don’t trust things”
Little Girl: “what things don’t they trusted?”
Father: “…Oh things like our government, our military, our religious leaders… Like that”
Little Girl: “…You means they don’t trust anybody never?”
Father: “Well no….they trust people that don’t like us…”
Little Girl: “Why Daddy?”
Father: “Well see, we give a lot of money to other countries….try to help people….and that makes the people mad at us…makes them feel bad”
Little Girl: “…*giggle*…Dadddiiiie, you just teasing me……..that isn’t making sense”
Father: “Hmmmm….I guess you do know what a Liberal is…. smart girl….”
I’m a Jacksonian Liberal. Its free-association political identities! So, um, I guess, be whatever actually fits your ideals.
We’re all Americans here. (Unless you’re not from America….)
As the human torch would say… FLAME ON!!!
Uh, Josh? When exactly was that time that modern liberals were in power? Every “true” modern definition liberal that has run for president has lost. It was, in part, the left moving Democratic congress that helped spur the “Contract with America” election disaster for liberals in 1994. Even your Ruddy Faced doyen, Bill Clinton, scrupulously ran as a moderate and worked very, very hard to hide his liberal “tendancies.” The only place in public life where modern liberals have made any kinds of inroads is the judiciary (and no doubt you were busting proud of the liberal SCOTUS judges on eminent domain.)
To use the phrase “claw back to power” is not only arrogant, it’s positively delusional.
Now, if Josh is interested in more than sarcasm, he might want to consider that while the LA Times wants to put all the blame for NK’s purported nuke test solely on the Bush Admin, even the NYT/IHT isn’t that moronic, claiming instead that it’s a failure of two decades of nuclear diplomacy.
Left unconsidered is the possibility that it was not a failure of diplomacy, but a failure to recognize that diplomacy was (is) not the solution in that case.
In the case of NK, for example, it was commonly known that the regime continued to pursue its nuke program under the so-called Agreed Framework of 1994, though the prior Administration pretended otherwise.
As for those expanded police forces Stone wants us to rely upon, in the case of Lebanon, how did UNFIL do for the past 15 years? How did the UN do in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur?
Being aware of the historical record tends to make one find Stone simultaneously simplistic and condescending, which, as noted by others above, tends to explain the tone of the response.
(wags finger, blustering) how, how HOW DARE YOU IMPUNE THE LEGACY OF THE SAINTED CLINTON!
Do you not know that said legacy was written with gold leaf ink whilst bathed in holy water? At least we had a drink with the little guy and he’s a fabulous golfer. Ted Turner didn’t see any starving people or nuclear bombs when he visited. YOU CONSERVATIVE HITMAN MCCHIMPYBUSHASSKISSING CONTRARIAN! I THOUGHT THROUGH THIS WHOLE RANT! IT’S ALL PART OF THE PLAN!
Wow! I am impressed. Your reply to Mr. Stone is about the best job of copying and pasting a Rush Limbaugh transcript I have ever seen! Nice job!
Key bit from the original post:
You see why some of us think you might be a bit of an imbecile, Josh? It isn’t because of your political beliefs, it is because you apparently can’t read.
Oh, and marblerye, which show did Rush talk about being chased from the Democratic party by the extreme left?
B Moe: That was the the “I Run Screaming from the Democratic Party and Tasty Muticoloured Toast.” show.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM…marblerye…..
but a failure to recognize that diplomacy was (is) not the solution in that case.
As I heard it the other night (and I hope I remember it correctly): it had nothing to do with the number of people at the table, now was it the shape and finish chosen for the table; it was who we were talking TO that was the problem.
TW: easy
I’ll say!
Sir, the word you were looking for was ‘Impugn’.
Good day.
Em….pug….en?
Josh:
I would say the distinction is actually the difference between liberal ideas and progressive ideas. Contrary to popular opinion, they are not identical.
I am a liberal. You are a progressive. I realize you believe you’re a liberal, but you aren’t. The two terms are erroneously conflated.
A progressive says, Lieberman disagrees with me on one point; he is a fascist.
A liberal says, Lieberman disagrees with me on one point; he is still an honorable man.
A progressive says, Bush is responsible for (fill in the blank) regardless of historical record.
A liberal says, Bush may or may not be responsible for (fill in the blank); let’s examine the historical record.
A progressive says, America is evil.
A liberal says, America is the finest realization of the Enlightenment.
A progressive says, capitalism is a great evil.
A liberal says, capitalism is an engine of wealth creation that, over time, improves the general wellbeing of humankind.
And so on. I urge you to read the Berkowitz article. It’s thoughtful.
This is not about bashing liberals–most of us here are liberals.
It is about kicking the crap out of progressives.
Its just a turn of phrase, so please go to the bathroom BEFORE stopping by.
Thanks.
-The Menagement (a trois)
I saw this on Democratic Underground:
North Korea Tests Nuke, While U.S. Troops Die in Iraq
It evokes the classic Guns vs Butter I remember from the 60s. “How can you spend tax dollars on military when people are starving!!!” Liberals never grow tired of this.
Just a reminder of the easy answer. We must do more than one thing at a time, defend ourselves AND aid struggling people/countries.
Non-linear! Embrace it!
Em…pew(g)nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
I blame the French Normans.
Ahem your litany was brilliant.
But you forgot the part about wars never solving anything, unless they are illiberal insurgencies fomented and financed by totalitarian states.
ThomasD: I could, but there are only so many hours in the day….
Or Norm from “Cheers.” (BTW: are there any Normans who were not French?)
You, Mr. River, are on a phrase turning roll. I’m officially stealing this:
I shall use it with honor!
ahem, great stuff as always.
To be fair, the Clinton Admin. had some hawks on NK, but Clinton overruled them.
– Actually insiders say they kept them in the broom closet.
– Ab-Normans…. which gos a long way to explain why “vagina” in Francias’ is masculine.
And as Jeff has noted, law profs as far to the Left as Cass Sunstein have had a nuanced view of the NSA’s international wiretap program, while Stone’s piece on the subject was titled “King George’s Constitution.” Just so we all remember where Stone is coming from regarding police work.
– Personally, I’m attracted to this new term for “Secular Progressives”, “SP“‘s, since I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the application of Liberal to this flock of young soft Marxists. the over-bearing absolutism, refusal to actually discuss any issue, in-your-face confrontational, take it or leave it mantra, bespeaks of a terribly insecure personna behind the masks.
– I Blame it on fast food.
I’m sorry. I must apologize to the group for a momentary lapse in intellectual rigor.
Stone believes in “expanded police forces and international diplomacy” to protect the nation. Which is to say he’s for the same approaches taken before 9/11, just more of it.
I’m pretty sure that Bill Clinton is among those who is fond of the old saying about the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Karl, as I re-read Stone’s article on the warrantless wiretapping, I was left with the idea that another word can be added to modern liberals.
Hysteria.
Yea, I know that this is harsh, but it took Stone all of 1 paragraph of his little analysis to invoke both 1984 and the Soviet Union. This plants the seed for something that has been bothering me for quite a while. Liberals have lost the ability to engage in something resembling rational discourse. Their writings and speeches are now peppered with language that suggests utter wasteland scenarios for any perceived vibration from their civil rights “norm.” For a group of people that embraces the Constitution as the dreaded “Living Document” they have no flexibility when it comes to their understanding of what constitutes individual rights.
This makes me a bit conflicted. While I see the inherent goodness in fighting the good fight for individual rights, I don’t see any attempt to place any of these issues into any kind of context. Whether it’s narrowly defined wiretapping, aggresive interrogation or even Katrina, the reaction is immediate, vitriolic and almost devoid of any self awareness. Perhaps this is related to their own, by my measure, flawed understanding of the jihadist threat or maybe it’s just a Pavlovian reaction to this stuff, but these kinds of tools are not even in the same universe as some of the draconian measures that were employed during WWII.
Of all of the things about Modern Liberals/Progressives/Sunshine Socialists that genuinely cause me to scratch my noggin it would be this knee jerk reaction to civil rights.
Well, sometimes, with the Knee-Jerk BDS, what is so called ‘liberalism’ or, as you have more closely defined it ‘Secular Progressivism’ seems at times more like a mental pathology than a political philosophy. I’ve met people I would call secular progressives. And then there are these folks.
Must be the inexperience of youth combined with a lack of sex.
I win points for being the first person to invoke Freud!
I am a liberal. You are a progressive.
That’s weird, because I’ve never said or thought any of the things you claim progressives say. Maybe you should worry less about labels.
You see why some of us think you might be a bit of an imbecile, Josh?
Because you’re a dickhead?
Exactly.
The reasons for the current state of discourse, but particuarly “progressive” discourse could fill a book, so the brief listing here will be both incomplete and over-generalizing:
(1) the romantic thrill of pretending to be a revolutionary; (2) a worldview which places The Man at the bottom of the Inferno, with radiating rings of oppression that extend globally; (3) relatedly, the creation of a coalition based on victimhood; (4) the fact that the civil rights movements are in fact the greatest accomplishment of the Left in the US; (5) the belief on the left in “positive liberty” (see the review of Lakoff’s book linked above); (6) an entrenched feeling of entitlement that leads one to believe that the decades-long control of the House was lost in ‘94 due to a “temper tantrum” and that the 2000 and ‘04 elections were “stolen,” which in turn breeds frustration and rage; (7) the perception that public opinion only moves in the face of a perceived crisis—which requires those with a more activist to try to create such perceptions; and (8) a general coarsening of public discourse created by a variety of factors, including the dominance of television and the dumbing down of school curricula.
Because you’re a dickhead?
Actually, I think it has more to do with the size, rather than the placement, of his….member.
Josh: I’m prepared to stand corrected. How does your political position differ from that I outlined? This is a serious question.
Yeah, can’t you discuss Stone’s article titled, “What it means to be a liberal” without obsessing over labels, maaaaaaaaaaaaaan?
HELP, HELP… I’M BEING OPPRESSED!!!
an entrenched feeling of entitlement
LOL. Thats rich.
Why I just review my concerns as expressed above and then Josh’s weighty little tome comes back with this pithy insight:
Because you are a dickhead?
Ah, it’s as if the sweet kiss of kismet (alliteration moment *ding*) has brushed across my brow. There has been a convergence of forces known to some, unknown to others and lost in space. River, or bewtter I say, Olaf, I sense the Axiom of Power has arrived. No doubt his Holy Cocoaness will be most pleased.
As for you, Josh, you might want to rethink your methodology because there are a whole bunch of people on this site better equipped to engage in token insults than you. I sense the need for an (chaste, electronic) hug. Wrong place, wrong time.
And stop oppressing Karl!
Maybe you should worry less about labels.
I’ve never said nor believed any of the things you listed as progressive.
Indeed. This “liberal/progressive” distinction that nobody (except for righty bloggers of course) cares about about is really, really important.
As for you, Josh, you might want to rethink your methodology because there are a whole bunch of people on this site better equipped to engage in token insults than you.
People on the internet will say mean things about me while their e-friends rotflmao!!1!? Pretty scary. But still preferable to wading through more of your turgid and trite prose.
Josh, if you do not get the inherent silliness of objecting to a discussion of labels based on an article that is a discussion of labels, you are irony-impaired—often a sign of liberalism.
As for the turgid and trite prose, I have to plead guilty. I have yet to discover the concise and complete originality of calling someone a dickhead to make a point.
BTW, who forced you to wade through it?
IS SOMEONE OPPRESSING YOU!?
Wait, I just found a picture of Josh being forced to read Protein Wisdom.
The horror… THE HORROR!!!
Hey, Muscles, if you support the war so much, how about flexing your biceps down at the Marine recruiting center?
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. Josh is the biggest “dickhead” at this site. He refutes (oh hell he doesn’t even try but I’m trying to give the little guy the benefit of the doubt) ahem’s polite inquiry with the tried and true technique of “na na na boo boo” without skipping a beat.
“Yeah, can’t you discuss Stone’s article titled, “What it means to be a liberal†without obsessing over labels, maaaaaaaaaaaaaan?”
Great reply Karl. You hit the “dick” on the “head” as it were. This Josh is a deeeeeeep thinker.
Josh reminds me of that guy that won’t respond to any honest questions, but isn’t funny.
Oh wait, that’s Josh.
Why are you here?
For that matter, whenever Josh departs from “na na na boo boo†he looks worse. For example:
A minute’s Googling turns up O-Dub, David Sirota, Jerilyn Merritt, and further examples here, here, here and here.
THE LEFTY BLOGGERS ARE OPPRESSING JOSH!!!
The Anglo-Protestant morality doesn’t prevent anyone from sinning; it just prevents them from enjoying it.
His direness has provided good entertainments tonight, yes.
Thank you, Mr. Josh.
—
Hissssssssssssssssssss! You must never speak that name. For it has gweat powa….
Really, though, This Josh fellow just doesn’t know how to have fun at all. Turgid prose? Turbid maybe… you know, unclear… though I have to admit, good use of SAT words. Contrariwise, it is unto a reaffirmation of an undulating ataraxia… to wit, a catatonia not unlike a fortutious sojourn to Elesium…
You know, Elven chicks, or something.
Where were we?
Right, I do sense that the Sable Seneschel is Sublimely Satisfied. The Circle is Completed!
TW: There’s just something… about… that name!
Right. Only righty bloggers like, um, University of Chicago law prof Geoffrey R. Fucking Stone.
Idiot.
It’s late. And I just have a second ..
Pretty good, but you got the sentences reversed.
Who doesn’t like 1960’s democrats?
Bring it!
After all of this posturing, head butting and Braveheart-like kilt lifting, I thought that a good belly laugh was in order.
Did anybody else notice that in Karl’s reply above, which lists several links to various authors talking about the whole Liberal/Progressive label thingy there was this particular little gem:
But in this race, which has hinged as much on looks and lifestyles as their approaches to homelessness and economic development, Newsom has been cast as a Republican in liberal’s clothing, Gonzalez the fringe spoiler.
(emphasis mine)
You may all begin: BWWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please return to your regular activities.
Actus: Source?? (or link)
I don’t doubt that stuff is in the 1960 Dem platform, but virtually none of it has to do with the Stone excerpt or ahem’s response to it, which has to do with national security.
Of course, this is typical for actus, because actus is a dissembler to the core. And one with out a shred of common decency.
Remember, this is the guy who was excusing Jeff Goldstein’s blog-stalker. Let’s review the history. When Paterrico blogged the topic, the loathesome Liberal Avenger’s response was:
Patterico responded:
Then actus jumped in:
As previously noted, actus has been to law school and knows that mental illness does not excuse criminal conduct unless the person does not know right from wrong, as Frisch admits she does.
actus tries to pretend he didn’t write that, claiming that what he said was that “she was so wrong as to appear crazy!” That’s dissembling, because he knows mental illness generally does not excuse sociopatic conduct, let alone the appearance of mental illness. Other lefties, like criminal defense attorney Jerilyn Merritt were able to simply condemn this sociopathy without excuse; actus was not, which speaks volumes.
The other reason you know it’s dissembling is because it fits the actus modus operandi. Regular PW readers and regular Patterico readers know that actus goes to both places to snark in order to pick ridiculous fights. It’s what he does. For that matter, note that he did so at Patterico, not here at PW, where it might well have gotten him banned in the heat of the moment. He knew exactly what he was doing, and so does every regualr reader at both blogs.
The actus modus operandi is also on display in a later thread at Patterico, in which he defends GiGi’s invented innuendo about Rush Limbaugh and underage prostitutes.
Everyone should visit the thread where I confronted actus with his vile garbage to enjoy the spectacle of the loathsome little creep melting down into a puddle of laughable dissembling, profanity and otherwise childish behavior. Above the entertainment value to regular PW visitors, it should inform any new visitors that the odds of having a reasonable discussion with this mope are slim to none, with slim already on the train, heading out of town.
Karl, actus is not going to change, no matter how much information you pump into this forum. As another contributor said weeks ago, the troll has been fed to the point of serious bowel bursting. Almost everyone here gets it and will continue to get it. Actus doesn’t care about all the facts, just the ones that suit his/her purpose to tweak the collective conservative/classical liberal nose and run squeeling back to his/her life’s work of building an army of muslim feminists to solve the terror problem.
Now, Karl, if you start another actus response with “From hell’s heart, I stab at thee!!” then we are all gonna have us an intervention, knowwhatImean?
And, Actus, I still want the source for the 1960 Democrat post.
Here at Protein Wisdom, the Liberal/Troll pileon on a thread ends up looking like the Agent Smith fight in the second Matrix movie.
This is known as the Movie Ninja rule: The more ninjas, the weaker each one is. Anyone who desires can watch the Anime classic ‘Ninja Scroll’ and behold this truth in its purest form.
The nature of PW being what it is, we would love nothing more than to have a giant horde of people arrive trying to discredit us. However, if all of those people were trolls, there might be some issues… you know, pollution.
Also, the democratic platform outlined by Actus is known to me as the Promise Platform. Basically the trick is, promise to do what the old democrats would have done to get elected, and then don’t do it. When called on it, point out that the Republicans have not fixed the problems. Rinse, repeat.
So … uh … I assume you’re blogging this between military sorties you regularly undertake in Iraq?
Q: What’s more tired and pointless than the chickenhawk meme?
A: The idiot who is the second to do it the same thread.
Just when you think the trolls can’t get any more clueless, a chickenhawker shows up.
Because obviously we can’t possibly support the military without joining it.
Unless we’re a democrat.
Duh!
So…..uh….I can assume that you are blogging this between decaf double lattes with extra foam?
Josh? JOSH!!! HE’S OPPRESSING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Josh has been temporarily de-commisioned for physiognomal reconstruction. He will be up and running shortly, as our dark master has commanded. More training dummies will be available soon enough, so do not fret.
-The Menagement (a trois)
TW: I am vengeance, I am the night, I am … going to be back after these messages from our sponsors!
Would you most humbly beseech our Dark Lord to have the Geek Guild adjust Josh’s artificial intellegence so that it might put out…um…more intellegence?
I cower away from his Holy Cocoaness!
Exactly. You know what I’m talking about.
We of the geek guild eternally mock everyone’s misunderstanding of how Artificial Intelligence works!
But we will NOT tell the people that make movies how it ACTUALLY works, because, well, the Dark Lord says that will kill the lagging movie sales, and especially those for Science Fiction, which are widely reguarded as ‘important’.
His intelligence isn’t lacking, just his utilization of it.
We’re tweaking the goal settings. In retrospect, “Getting it on with Jenna Jameson” Probably wasn’t the best choice.
Well, live and learn.
TW: Do you seek… the power …. 37?
Now if you had chosen Scarlett Johansson…
I would advise just horsing the goal settings to “9th grade” and be done with it.
There are so many other things that we must do like…you know…well all I can say is vanilla yogurt.
I’ve said too much…urk…
Josh, et al.
I think the reason that the liberal/leftist argument is important to some is that, as was mentioned above, many people in this country do believe in the value of a functional two-party system. Included in this is notional support for viable bipartisan solutions. The basis of bipartisan cooperation includes, among other things, the concept that the opposing political party is not monolithic, and that while one may be in disagreement about a great number of things, one can find members of the opposing party with whom work is possible. Upon this basis, many Republicans draw a distinction between leftists (with whom it is exceedingly difficult to work) and liberals (with whom one can work, even if not in agreement on all issues. By way of comparison, many Democrats I’ve run into draw distinctions between, let’s say, fiscal conservatives, and the so-called religious right.
In other words, the pursuit of these, and similar distinctions, are markers indicating that people are still open for dialog with members of the opposing party who they feel are sufficiently moderate to allow fruitful engagement.
On the other hand, your position, insofar as I can tell, seems to be comprised of equal measures of immaturity, lack of conviction, and spite. Others have asked you to elaborate on your positions – in other words, a genuine invitation to discussion – which you have responded to with such stunning policy proposals as calling another commenter a “dickhead”.
This would lead me to believe that regardless of whether or not you consider yourself leftist, progressive, or liberal, you are fundamentally unsuited to the bipartisan debate and engagement which are cornerstones of the democratic process. To that extent, you have shown your own political outlook to be essentially anti-democratic.
BRD
Sorry. Don’t blog during work. Ahem mentioned the 1960 Democratic party platform but didn’t link to it. Google gives me the link.
How far “liberals” like Ahem have fallen since the extreme left took over the party heh?
But I propose this: I’ll gladly accept the parts of that platform that it is argued are unpalatable if others will also accept what they find unpalatable in it. Anyone up for that?
And yet, you keep saying I was making an excuse, when both you and I know thats not the case. Fascinating.
I’ve quoted you. You don’t quote you, because that won’t work for you. I link to what you have written; you don’t, because it contradicts your claims now.
You attempted to excuse sociopathy with mental illness. You defended someone spewing sewage about underaged prostitutes. Everyone can read what you wrote. The regulars all know who you are and how vile you act. They aren’t stupid. to the contrary, you made the stupid mistake of exposing your moral vacuum on other people’s sites, where you can’t go back and clean it up.
No one is buying your laughably lame and childish attempts to dissemble away what you wrote. And when I see you trolling, it is going to be pointed out, lest some newbie think that they want to have anything to do with you. Get used to it. You will spend your future here having your past exposed.
You keep saying this.
So how about that 1960 democratic party platform? ready to get behind it?
I keep saying it because it’s true. And I was not the one interested in the 1960 democratic party platform. And if I had been, I wouldn’t bother wasting my time discussing it with a soul-sucking creep who is comfy wallowing in sewage.
Helps make it true too!
Oh. Its just that you mentioned it in your comment. Not interested in the topic of this post at all eh?
The only thing I said about the platform was that I was pretty sure what you quoted was in it, but only to point out that you were proceeding in typical actus fashion, just as you are now.
And pointing out what you are doesn’t help “make” it true. What I have quoted you as writing and linked is what it is. I’m sure you would like to belive that repeating something else can “make” it true. It would perfectly explain why you are so comfy with invented sewage about teenage protitutes and why you are trying so desperately to airbrush your history.
I am interested in the topic of the post generally, but see no profit in discussing it with a chronic dissembler.