12 Comments

• 1. OpChaosUK  |  June 29th, 2008 at 5:15 am

  To the DU and Daily Kooks crowd, anyone not radical left is Hitler…

• 2. extramedium  |  June 29th, 2008 at 6:25 am

  The book based on on this blog comes out on Tuesday and is sure to be a big hit. Seems to me there will be two large audiences for this - (1) outsiders who will take delight in the needling of “people who think they are better than me”, and (2) people who aspire to be upper middle class left-leaning yuppies and thus want to prove they “in” the targeted “white people” segment - or better yet, “in” on the ironic joke.

  The formula is pretty simple - examine the purchasing, eating and lifestyle choices of an elite group of people from the point of view of an outsider (though in this case the book is actually written by an insider). That got me thinking - using the same same formula, imagine what a hit a book called “Stuff Americans Like” would be! It wouldn’t be hard to write, and once translated into a bunch of languages, would surely be a global sensation. Whaddya think? Anyone care to offer the first entry?

• 3. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 29th, 2008 at 7:53 am

  Deleted - off topic, which took some doing on a humor thread.

• 4. phnx  |  June 29th, 2008 at 8:17 am

  “The trouble is, isn’t Hitler the supreme exemplar of that kind of thinking along with Mao, Stalin, and Lenin?”JAT

  There you go again, prattling on without ever having clinked on the link to the article. If you had done so you would not have made such a critical error as comparing Hitler to Mao, Stalin et al.

  “It’s also critical that you avoid the fatal mistake of getting creative and comparing people you don’t like to other evil dictators, such as Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro. With few exceptions, white people are actually fond
  of almost any dictator not named Hitler, and your remark that “this is just like something Mao Zedong would do” will be met with blank stares and possible social alienation. This is because, with the exception of Hitler,
  oppressive dictators share a passion for many of the things white people love- such as universal health care, conspiracy theories, caring about poor people while being filthy rich, and cool hats.”

• 5. phnx  |  June 29th, 2008 at 8:20 am

  “I, as a conservative…”JAT

  If true, based on previous posts, you have successfully hidden hat fact.

• 6. neocon  |  June 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am

  JAT,

  Your professors, or handlers, have done you a diservice. I seldom see the level of dementia that you display daily.

  Your understanding of historical events is based on nothing more than a frightened, stereotypical, prejudicial view that is rooted in mans mal intent towards mankind.

  “Just as the secularists would make the middle class pay for the mistakes the poor make that keep them poor, the religionists will now have us pay for the mistakes of the wealthy,…” - JAT

  The above statement is completely baseless, designed only to further peoples skeptical views of others, which liberals feed off of.

  As long as one group is suspicious of another, liberals will prevail. It’s their MO.

  have a nice day
  peace, neocon

• 7. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  Phnx and neocon,

  Thank you for your analysis. I know the editors
  don’t appreciate a deleted post that is kept alive by other commenters who AGREE! with their point of view.
  Evidently, you thought it on topic enough, however wrong you thought it to be, to give comment on it.
  Phnx, you missed the point of my comment(Remember the parethetical statement, “Sorry, I stepped outside the bounds of the article, so that must mean I’m not one of the people the article describes.”)
  What I meant for you to understand, was that the goal of destruction for “moral purposes” which is advocated by the editors of this blog
  Not Just Another Pro Life Demo
  Paragraph 10/line 1
  The goal of conservatism must be the destruction of the left.
  I, as a conservative, seek the destruction of no one.
  That’s what makes me different from all you liberals, secular and religious.
  Neocon, my professors, why I’m honored that you think I have some academia behind me, even if you think their wrong.
  The quote from my deleted post can be proven by looking at the blogs editors who see bogies everywhere except the Bush financial elite.
  They see nothing wrong with corporate boards awarding millions to welfare CEO’s who’ve destroyed our economy. They see nothing wrong with a system of corporate governence that leaglizes theft, fraud, and denies stock holders the right to band together to form a block of stock holders who put forward their own mangement teams to run the co’s they own.
  Look at the economic policies our economy is functioning under. The dems are lame, and have proposed nothing. Indeed we are coasting under the policy regime established by the repubs when they were in control of congress. Like Bush and the armed forces, the repubs in abstentia, are still running the govt.
  While this gives the dems no excuses, it doesn’t do the repubs any good either given the obvious failures of those policies.
  Have a nice day!

• 8. phnx  |  June 29th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

  “I, as a conservative, seek the destruction of no one.” JAT

  what is you definition of a conservative?

  You seek the destruction of no one, so what? Most of us seek the destruction of non one.

  I have read many of your post ad naseum and I would like for you to point out any conservative thought or philosphy in them.

• 9. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 30th, 2008 at 12:54 am

  Phnx,

  I seek the destruction of no one.

  A. Because the almighty says so.

  B. Because being the almighties self appointed enforcer Gods as this blogs editors claim to be ends in embarassment when Gods favor only seems to be shown to welfare CEO’s who’ve wrecked the economy, and get millions for their failures. Never hear the editors complain about that.

  C. The editors were in their June 25, 2008 Post
  “CHOICE AT WORK” had to admit that I “actually hit a bit of the nail on the head” (Post #14) when , with a few of the lords words from the New Testament, I said this blog was long on condemnation, and short on responsibility. The editors refused to talk about what they do take responsibility for some of the issues they discussed citing fear of “moral exhibitionism”.

  D. I’m not against you. As I’ve repeatedly said, I favor the restoration of a vigorous federal system where states take the lead in making social policy for themselves. Especially on issues like abortion.
  If you would like the power to restrict it in any fashion you wish within your own state, however distasteful those outside your state might find the restrictions the people of your state choose to impose upon themselves, so be it. If we had courts that respected the federal system, Kennedy, the stepdad put on deathrow for raping his daughter, would be heading for the gas chamber right now.
  And you’d be laughing your rear end off at the people carping for justice and humanity in other states where Kenedy might have some defenders when you ask, if his life is so precious to you, why don’t you imprison him in your state. See who volunteers.

  E. It is the assumption that there is a one size fits all solution to any and al problems that makes the editors of this blog liberals. Same for the secular liberals, one size fits all solutions that completely disrespect the experience, history, and traditions that might make the people in one state, find a completely different ways of confronting the same problems.

  F. There is room enough for all points of view, so long as everyone agrees that all pul their own weight, pay their own way, and accepts the consequences of their actions, no matter how costly. No privatizing profits, and then socializing losses. You pays your money, and takes your chances.

  G. Change occurs as states watch each others behaviors, and relative prosperity. Emulation of behavioral systems percieved as more successful will occur. Social and technological progress is insured. I appreciate McCains thinking on offshore drilling in that he has called for the states to decide for themselves how to handle the matter.

  H. This is why I have no problem with the religious point of view. I have no problem with the secular point of view. It was the intention of the founding fathers that both be accomadated within this nation. That was their genius. This thought represents, I think, the Christian tradition of tolerance, and respect
  for others that has drawn people to it, rather than the continuous drone of self riteous condemnation that flows from the pens of the editors of this blog.

  Thank you phnx, for the opportunity to offer this definition of what a conservative is.
  Look forward to your response.

• 10. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 30th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  To the editors,

  Thank you for letting me restore my deleted post(#3), with post #9 above. It’s always nice to have earned such reconsideration.
  The magnaminity of great minds you’ve demonstrated here is overwhelming.
  Thank you again for your generosity.

  God bless you all whether you agree with me or not.

  Neocon,

  Just because you an yours demonstate dementia, doesn’t mean that we are all afflicted with it.

  Have a nice day!

• 11. Kahn  |  June 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

  Party on Wayne, Party on JAT.

• 12. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 30th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  Kahn,

  Wayne and JAT.
  But
  Now wayne. Wait a minute, we have to show proper respect!
  “We’re not worthy.”
  “We’re not worthy.”
  “Hey, Wayne, dude. How about Bush and Cheney. Or Bush and Rove. Now there are some real “party” animals.
  “Party on dudes.!!!”

  And have a nice day!!.