MMmmm, DELICIOUS! More, please!

Norm, See now, there IS therapy for cynicism!

Perfect.

How can they be so stupid to choose this slogan? Don't they have google??

How can they be so stupid to choose this slogan?

And yet as stupid as this is, Americans will no doubt end up electing John McCain because Democrats can never get their shit together.

And who is responsible for the rules which place Obama in the lead?

Bill and Hillary Clinton "have been the paramount force within the Democratic Party, and most of the people that voted for (punishing Florida and Michigan) were Clinton people, because there wasn't such a thing as Obama people in the establishment then."

The clintons have decided to change the rules now that the rules don't favor them.

And if Hillary cared so much about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, why didn't she bring this up back in December or January?

And yet as stupid as this is, Americans will no doubt end up electing John McCain because Democrats can never get their shit together.

... or, more likely, because he is the better candidate.

It never ceases to amaze me how much contempt and hatred left-wingers have for Democracy in general and their fellow Americans specifically. Liberalism is the ultimate fascist belief system.

I liked the video, (you know, what we're commenting on?) until the end with the words on the screen. A bit too too.

It never ceases to amaze me how much contempt and hatred left-wingers have for Democracy in general and their fellow Americans specifically. Liberalism is the ultimate fascist belief system.

The interesting thing, Calligraph, is not the wholly unsubstantiated opinions you set forth, but rather, the implicit contempt and hatred embedded in your own commentary. It's Matthew 7:5 all over again.

Hmmm...I seem to remember hearing something very recently about consulting a mirror in instances such as this.

MMMmmmmmm....same delicious flavor, now with more irony!

"...And yet as stupid as this is, Americans will no doubt end up electing John McCain because Democrats can never get their shit together."

It's so very frustrating, Democrates are truly the only ones who could have lost this ellection this year, and yet they have seemed to gone out of their way to have done just that...Carl Rove and the Republicans couldn't have planned such a mess.

"...if Hillary cared so much about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, why didn't she bring this up back in December or January?"

This is a great and yet obvious point Joann. She isn't interested in seeing all of those votes counted, in reality she's just trying to use this as an argument to justify dragging the primary out, ALL the way to the DNC in August. I think that all those Clinton supporters who don't believe she is capable of being so devious as to intentionally stooping to try and ruin the Democrat's chances of electing a President this year, need to take a serious new look at their Candidate of choice. This woman is NOT a team player, she is merely looking for a personal win to put in her corner, no matter the cost it may have for the Democratic party.

Calligraph, I welcome an honest debate as to who is the better candidate but such a thing is not permitted in this country. Why? Well, in the last 8 years we have had an administration that has done everything possible to limit political discussion. They send people like yourself to scream out (thanks to Fox too) snippets attacking any other point of view. What is worst is that you really believe this stuff. When one tries to question the reasoning behind these comments one is accused of being a commie, a leftie, an atheist (I'm a Christian by the way), unpatriotic, etc. Get my point.

This administration is so good at what it does that it doesn't try to even hide their intention. Take for example the White House protesting the interview Bush had with one of their reporters. NBC was accused of deceptively editing to make the President look bad. They put for example the edited and unedited quotes. They "encourage" people to listen to Bush's whole speech in Israel. They asked NBC to air the whole interview (which they did is MSNBC). Well, I did all of that and you know what…the editing actually made Bush look better than he really was. He didn't answer the reporter's questions and he was talking about Obama. But how many of you actually saw the whole interview in NBC or listen to Bush's speech or actually paid attention to the questions he was asked and how he responded? The answer is probably not many and this my friend is why Bush is where he is. They know that they just have to tell you to jump and you will just jump without asking why.

And yet as stupid as this is, Americans will no doubt end up electing John McCain because Democrats can never get their shit together.

Every time someone says this a baby panda crys.

Life is about getting your shit together. Be the change. Dig in, bite down and hold on.

It never ceases to amaze me how much contempt and hatred left-wingers have for Democracy in general and their fellow Americans specifically. Liberalism is the ultimate fascist belief system.

I find fascism to slightly more impressive.

Why? Well, in the last 8 years we have had an administration that has done everything possible to limit political discussion.

Hang on, hang on. Let me get my tinfoil hat on.

They send people like yourself to scream out (thanks to Fox too) snippets attacking any other point of view

Wow, how did you find out? I am employed by Fox News! In fact, I'm really Rupert Murdoch. I realize I'm a multi-billionaire and I could be out sailing with my trophy wife (or wives, hey, if you don't allow me to be a polygamist you're a bigot and intolerant!). But I'd much rather be here having a pointless political discussion with fringe lunatics.

When one tries to question the reasoning behind these comments one is accused of being a commie, a leftie, an atheist (I'm a Christian by the way)

Oh, poor baby!

News flash: if you agree with the viewpoints here, you are a lefty. I don't know if you're a commie - Communism has entered a new vogue because we have a whole generation for whom Communism isn't a reality, but a romantic ideal, but I rarely meet actual Communists. Probably because they've all starved or been shot.

And as far as calling you an atheist: actually, I'm an atheist, and probably the most religious-tolerant one you'll find here (these people hate religion and religious people). Yet I'm called a 'fundie' all the time for having the gall to have a different opinion on their pet issues.

Look, you're obviously insane. You can't distinguish between differing opinion and global conspiracy, which is a growing problem nowadays. But stop playing the 'poor hurt me' card. The only reason your delusion is so persistent is because the media, the schools, and our society are so heavily left-biased that you never hear anything but your own dogma recited back at you. So of course when someone challenges that, you're mystified. Liberalism is the new religion, and anyone who questions it is a heretic.

And if the Democrats ever stop their little power struggle and pick a candidate, you will find out who is the better candidate. There will be debates, just as there always are, and you can use the responses to figure out who best aligns to your viewpoint. And then you can vote! And - here's where I differ from most of the fascist people here - I don't care who you vote for! Nobody should! If you like Obama's tie, vote for him. If McCain makes you think of grandpa, vote for him. It's a free country. A beautiful, free country.

Just don't vote for Hillary. Trust me.

Calligraph: If you find our discussions here "pointless" and inane, what motivates you to come here and comment? What is at stake for you in that? Obviously, it's not convincing us, because you don't make arguments, you call people by names. Not that I mind, personally, being called names by someone I've never met, but it's not always helpful for discussion, which is what most of us are, I suspect, here for.

This applies to the voting issue as well. Of course, everyone is legally entitled to vote. It does not follow that all votes are immune from criticism on rational grounds. Naturally if we already agreed on what those grounds were and what counts as probative, we wouldn't need to have discussions. What you call oppression we call 'reason giving'. And you're right--it is discriminating because it is against believing anything goes: it is irrational to vote for Obama if your only reason for doing so is liking his tie. To be sure, no one can take away your legal entitlement to do so, because that is inalienable. It is legitimate nonetheless to maintain that you have no rational entitlement to it.

Finally, stop reading Josh Goldberg, or at least try learning the meaning of the terms you use. 'Fascism' is not defined simply by the oppression of others--communists did this too, for instance; it is rather a complex and highly specific form of government with characteristic attitudes and modes of behavior: a worship of tradition, a scepticism toward modernity and modern life, the apotheosis of action for action sake, the concentration of power within an single 'hero' figure whose authority is absolute and unquestionable (call him, 'the decider'), xenophobia and jingoism, populism, the collusion of corporations with the government, an obsession with a grand plot, and much else. The classic essay is Umberto Eco's, Here.

Jonah Goldberg, not Josh

To be sure, no one can take away your legal entitlement to [vote however you choose], because that is inalienable.

Yes, because this is such a common misconception of the positions discussed here.

Good thing you took callgirl seriously and didn't think he was just coughing up a rediculous straw man argument. Good thing you thought the comparison to fascism was some sort of notionally valid comparison, instead of just being invoked as a vague insult.

</sarcasm>

Good thing you thought the comparison to fascism was some sort of notionally valid comparison, instead of just being invoked as a vague insult.

I assure you I'm well aware of what a straw-man argument looks like. One might have thought I suggested that Calligraph was engaged in name- calling rather than arguments--based on my saying, oh, I dunno, that his comments were not arguments but name-calling--and at least requesting that he (or she: I'll assume the former) be a little more precise if that is his chosen tactic (one you evidently also exhibit quite an attachment to, it appears). I don't see how merely throwing names back--like 'callgirl'--is supposed to help much, although perhaps you find it satisfying. But, as I see it, one can either ignore him, or attempt to engage him more productively.

I also seriously wanted to ask what he hopes to accomplish by name calling. Since I think he's right that a temptation of liberalism is smug and moralizing condescension--although I don't always agree with the specific instances he diagnoses as illustrative of that tendency--he may be a useful interlocutor. I take it for granted that someone can elicit thought in me even if we don't agree on much. Most of us here take things like gay marriage to be obviously OK--I myself certainly do. I don't see why it wouldn't be worth reflecting on what makes it so obvious to us, and why, if Calligraph could only be a little more argumentative than incendiary, it might appear less than obvious to others.

"Liberalism is the ultimate fascist belief system."

/: pokes the troll with a stick, so it'll go back under its bridge again :/

C'mon, OGM folks — you're too smart for this. Sometimes, people are just so damn stupid that they are completely indistinguishable from trolls. Sometimes, some people are just so completely out of their minds, that there's no point in arguing with them. Whichever way this nut leans, it's entirely pointless to argue with it.