« The Loss Of National Unity | Main | Islam Vs The Rest Of Us »

September 18, 2006

One Theory....

.... I have been mulling over regarding the motivation behind some of the otherwise unfathomable peculiarities of today's liberal-infested Democratic Party deals with their resistance {is that understated, or what?} to the President's endeavors at fighting the Global war On Terror and keeping Islamofascists from committing acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Now, it's immediately obvious (at least it is to anyone with an IQ above 6) that the liberal media and of course most of the rest of the Democrats we hear from, operating under the nickname of "the Angry Left", have been seething mad since one Tuesday in November, 2000, when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in a Presidential election. After several decades, they'd finally had one of their own in the White House for two whole terms, and they thought they were on a roll -- Al Gore was obviously going to win, how could a "dumb redneck" like Dubya possibly even dream of defeating Gore? Keep in mind, here, that liberals seem to think that everyone shares their political philosophies, because.... because.... well, how couldn't they?

And then Bush won. I think that was when the left actually became totally "unhinged" (Michelle Malkin definitely hit the nail right on the head with that book title). It was incomprehensible! It was monstrous! It couldn't be! It was not acceptable that the majority of American voters thought Bush would be a better President than Gore! So the debacle began, a spectacle that demeaned the American political system in the eyes of the rest of the world as the left made a judicial spectacle of the unsatisfying election results, going all the way to the Supreme Court.

This is the left's answer to everything these days -- if they can't get no.... satisfaction.... via the proper channels, call these channels (Congress, the polls) Daddy, they go crying to Mommy.... The Court. As they make legal issues out of legislative decisions they don't like, after the 2000 election they ran bawling to SCOTUS, accusing the GOP of "cheating".

Fortunately, despite a lot of arm-waving about "hanging chads" and other moonbattery, the desperate, flabbergasted lefties received no solace there. SCOTUS didn't go with the program, and George W. Bush became the next President of these here United States. Yay!

From the time he was sworn in, Dubya has been the target of more irresponsibly conceived, extremely disrespectful, immature and certainly rabid, drooling verbal and written attacks by both the mainstream media and our nation's entire inventory of liberals, to whom the MSM caters.

That's fine, as Americans we enjoy the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Then we endured the terrible tragedy of 9/ 11. During the Clinton years, Americans and American interests had been attacked by Islamic terrorists numerous times, and the "honorable" William Jefferson Clinton had played the passive resistance game or something similar {just ignore them and they'll go away?}, so the Islamofascists had perceived rightly that the U.S. was, collectively, a physical coward that could be "bitch slapped" and be too afraid to fight back -- except they miscalculated, they didn't take into account that a liberal was running the country, not a conservative.

After 11 September 2001, Bush responded in a 180 to Clinton's mode of being CEO of the United States Government. He launched a global war against Islamic terrorism. We invaded Afghanistan and kicked butt in record time, ousting the Taliban, and later invaded Iraq, taking down Saddam's government. After each defeat of bad guys, we helped their former subjects construct new governments. Democratic ones, where the people could determine whom and of what political dogmas their leaders were, and could have a say in the making of their laws.

Anyway, I've been digressing big time, but I've felt that giving background was a good idea, here.

To get back on topic, well, here we have the left.... Hooray, Left!!!!.... You fucking idiots!

Bush got reelected, defeating Jacques Kerry, which caused a new symptom of mental anguish, a genuine terrifying emotional malady called BDS{Bush Derangement Syndrome}

Bush Derangement Syndrome, imagine that! A disease worse even than rabies, though certainly related. Instead of being a fear of water, though, it was a fear of a "shrub" that the terrifying water had helped grow.

Okay, now ....

Back to the Angry Left.

They were .... angry enough at Bush's first victory, but once he had beaten Kerry -- a second winning of the Presidency in a row -- they apparently went completely around the bend....

They developed a new mission in life -- Damn all! Get Bush out of office at any cost! Obstruct him at every turn! We hate his so-called War On Terror, so let's make him lose it! Lie, cheat, steal {wait, before you object to the last, remember Sandy Burglar Berger.... The MSM helped all they could, a superb example being the New York Times, who went so far, on two (count 'em, 2) occasions, as to publish U.S. intelligence secrets so that the enemy got a "heads-up" and could rethink their strategies. The left has done all they can to sabotage Mr. Bush's war effort and his national security policies so as to help the Islamofascists butcher Americans and make the President fail.

Just so they might get their own politicians elected.

Right now, I'll acknowledge that Nixon had similar motives in his time that led to the Watergate kerfuffle, so anyone who wishes, still, to bring up that comparison in comments is now on notice -- we agree there, so if it's referred to in any argument, it will be ignored.

There is a difference... no one sought tragedy as a way of implementing their policy, as the Democrats do now.

Ah, finally, after all the background, we have reached the stage wherein I can make my point! Yes, friends, there is actually a point to all this.

We have an enemy, Islam, that is the antithesis of our concept of freedom. It is attacking us in a murderously brutal way, its targets innocent civilians, its ultimate goal rulership of the entire planet according to its ruthless, intrusive and oppressive Sharia law, a legal system that relegates women to the same social strata as toilet water and demands that the rest of us tow a line not far removed from spiritual, mental and physical slavery. A religion that orders its followers to murder anyone who doesn't believe as its own followers do.

You know, with all this background, I've seriously digressed!

Okay, here goes --

During the Cold War, all the folks that joined the American Communist Party came from Democrat/ liberal origins. Argue all you want, Communist Party Presidential candidate Angela Davis was no Republican.

Today, because they're pissed off that Bush got reelected, the same people are willing to sabotage him every way possible.... They would actually love to see Islam win.

....so we come to the "why"....

Because they hate Bush? Welllll, here's where the theory comes into play.

They will never be dissuaded from their opinion that they will eventually be able to reason with Islamofascsm. They are convinced that they are dealing with people who think and reason on the same plain they do.

So they are willing to do whatever they can to make Dubya fail, wrongfully thinking that they'll later be able to come to an agreement with Islam.

However, let's look back on their track record.

Today, they entertain socialist ambitions for our country. Yesterday, pure Marxist.

So --

the left doesn't believe that the people should make their own laws, a dictatorial gov't should do so.

So they supported the Commies for years, now the same people support anyone who is anti-Bush, especially Islamofascism.

Islam promises to micromanage our very lives.

That must turn today's Democrats on -- if we can't have the details of our lives dictated by communists, we'll let our friends of "the Religion Of Peace" make the rules.

Someone has to dictate, right? People, according to the Democrats, can't manage their lives without government leadership and regulation, so....

Islamofascism promises a way that the people can be ruled, as the left feels we need to be.

Sure, why not?

Unfortunately, surrendering to Islamofascism will prove a mite more extreme than surrendering even to the Nazis might have been.

Senators and Reps and rich people who believe that their wealth and/or previous status will be greeted with respect, will be treated like scum.

They all believe that Islam will treat them diplomatically, provide them deferential treatment for supporting Islam... throughout history, conquerors have left business dynasties alone. Islam will do the opposite: It will butcher them. They will be stripped of every aspect of their lives as they know them.

An Islamic will sneer at a wealthy liberal and say, "Shoot this pestilant piece of camel fesces! The infidel scum has served his purpose!"

Posted by Seth at September 18, 2006 02:53 PM


It's been a while since I've written about 2000.

It was not acceptable that the majority of American voters thought Bush would be a better President than Gore!

Actually, your sentence as written is inaccurate since in the popular vote, Gore got more votes than Bush (although neither got an absolute majority due to 3rd party candidates). In the Electoral College, of course, Bush received the majority of the votes.

Also, if I recall correctly, the Democrats were within their rights to challenge the vote according to Florida law. It was the Republicans who appealed from the Florida Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court (who should not have intervened, in my opinion and have let the Constitutional mechanisms run their course, with the Florida legislature intervening and/or Congress acting as the Constitutionally-prescribed adjudicator).

The above notwithstanding, what disqualified Mr. Gore from the Presidency, in my mind was that he did not from the outset demand a full statewide recount, which would have been the principled remedy for his objections to the vote. Rather he tried to cherry-pick recounts only in those counties that he thought would offer him the greatest advantage, trying to manipulate the situation to his advantage -- and he was hoisted upon his own petard. His behavior since then has only served to further confirm his unfitness for the Presidency.

Kerry similarly disqualified himself by his actions following the 2004 vote...


Moving on to your main point...

The great challenge to the West is to stand up against the age-old siren call of appeasement, the delusion that our wealth and privilege will protect us from the approaching barbarians and that by backing away from conflict we will be allowed to live out our days in prosperity and peace. From earliest times, history has shown this to be a frail reed.

Even worse, many will willingly submit and surrender under the delusion that they will thereby be able to go on living their comfortable and privileged existence as before. The rude awakening will come when they discover that the Islamists are not "enlightened" post-modernists who have discarded "primitive religious beliefs", but are people who follow Sharia with deadly seriousness.

The Australian government and religious leaders are keeping both their feet on the ground, unlike most of the rest of the West. (I do mean this in the original sense of the phrase.) Perhaps a future Thomas Cahill will someday write How the Australians Saved Civilization.

It would be even better if we do our part to obviate the necessity of writing such a book by preventing a new Dark Ages from descending upon the West.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here...

Posted by: civil truth at September 18, 2006 09:37 PM

Very well done. And it may very well be true that a "majority of American voters thought Bush would be a better President than Gore!"

Some of them might have voted for Gore anyway.

But to the heart of your post: the problem with today's totally unprincipaled opposition by Demcorats is the damage they are doing to our ultimate victory in the war on terror. It's going to be a long war. God forbid we have a Democrat in the White House anytime soon. But if we do, that person is going to want to win this war (at least I hope so). Yet, their hands will be tied, just as Bush's has by the insane lunatics who blocked and obstructed every effective means to win this war.

Just imagine how much more quickly we could win this war, and how many lives would be saved, if the country was united for victory instead of being split by people more interested in political power.

I was never a fan of Bush's "new tone." And it didn't get him very far did it? The President did everything he could to reach out and compromise with people like Senator Kennedy who turned right around and called Bush a liar.

The best solution I can see for our short term problem is to win the political battle by defeating the defeatists at the ballot box. Then, and perhaps only then, we can win the war on terror.

Posted by: Mike's America at September 18, 2006 09:51 PM

The liberals of our time are the direct descendants of Fabians. Fabians were socialists who came from better economic backgrounds yet possessed a poorer sense of reality. (I suspect one has to do with the other as we note some rich celebrities' attitudes).

Today they are the Muslims' "useful idiots", as their prior idol Lenin referred to them.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 18, 2006 10:33 PM

Civil Truth --

There was a lot more going on during that election than the chad issue -- there were Democrat voters in profusion from northern states such as NY who lived in Florida and voted for Gore twice, for example, once in each state, one at the polls, one by absentee ballot. The MSM kept sorta quiet about that.

Moving on, you caught my point perfectly -- the left simply hasn't come to grips (to be fair, though, neither has the right, at least on a governmental level) with the fact that in Islam we are dealing with an entire mindset that is not even remotely compatible with ours, yet they deal with these people as though this was not the case. It's like 2 teams on the field playing against each other, except one team is playing soccer while the other is playing La Crosse.

If, G-d forbid, the Islamists win, all these folks who will help make it happen from within will indeed be shocked to learn that their politicking was not as harmless as they thought, and will also find that their craving for a micromanaged society was a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for".

But you can't tell these people anything, nor can we afford to let them learn the hard way at the rest of our expense.

What a fun situation...

Mike's America --


I agree re the ballot box, the only snag there being that millions of voters go to the polls armed with information they obtained from the mainstream media.

The silver lining there is that people seem to be gradually waking up to the fact that the MSM is failing them in its mission to provide fair and balanced reporting and are looking into alternative information sources in ever increasing numbers.

We definitely can't afford to turn control of the government over to the left at this juncture. That would be like putting it in escrow while we blow the dust off our Korans and toss our copies of the Constitution in the trash.

Atheling2 --

They are exactly that. No matter how much proof they see that Islam is rooted in brutal violence and has an agenda that is a direct threat to our country and our freedom, they continue to swallow the "Religion Of Peace" propaganda.

It's tragic that the gov't has to fight this war not only against the Islamic enemy, but against a domestic foe as well.

Posted by: Seth at September 19, 2006 02:32 AM

If, as the President claims, the safety of the republic depends on our success on the streets of Baghdad why then aren't there enough troops to secure the country do you suppose?

Could it be that our Middle East policy is little more an idea without much of a plan?

No you can call anyone who raises such questions a traitor or communist or whatever ephithet du jour you choose but compounding the real problem we face is an incoherent policy for dealing with the actual threat we face from terrorists.

I am glad that Rice continues her talks with Iran. It seems to be working. Diplomacy has to be one of our major tool in dealing with this crisis.

Sending an endless stream of martyrs to paradise is counterproductive.

Posted by: Arthur Stone at September 19, 2006 09:22 AM

Boy, it sure takes you awhile to make a point, doesn't it? It's a good thing you have a blog, cause you never would have gotten all that into a comment box.

Here is a bit more evidence (or background material as you choose4) to substantiate your position. The Dem's have yet to formulate any kind of comprehesive plan to win the war on terror; that is other than a slightly reworded current plan. To me that says they do in fact believe they can negotiate with radical Islam. They won't publicize that because they know the electorate won't buy into it. The liberal elite is not as cunning as they perceive themselves to be.

And the "angry left"? You called it right; they are angry as Hell becauese their guy(s) got beat twice in a row.

Great article, Seth.

Posted by: Old Soldier at September 19, 2006 10:05 AM


Your blaming American foreign policy falls through when you see that the Muslims in Thailand murder the Buddhists there. They have a history of murdering innocent people everywhere and it's not about foreign policy. Even when they get what they want (Clinton and Palestinians and Israel) they continue the barbarism.

Wake up. It's the Jihad, stupid.

Posted by: atheling2 at September 19, 2006 10:33 AM

Excellent, Seth! Right on target with this, and as far as I'm concerned, you may digress as much as you wish, it makes for really good reading.

"Shoot this pestilant piece of camel fesces! The infidel scum has served his purpose!"

That is exactly what they will do. I truly hope that the hard-case Democrats don't have to find that out.

Posted by: Gayle at September 19, 2006 12:35 PM

Arthur --

Personally, I believe Rice is wasting her time. Iran is buying time with all this chatter, nothing more.

Diplomacy only works between entities that are mutually interested in peaceful relations. Iran's only interest in peace is to peacefully finance terrorism and to peacefully vaporize Israel with a peaceful nuclear weapon.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if the overwhelming reason we are being so diplomatic with Iran is so that when we have to act, the UN and the EURONS won't be able to say the U.S. didn't make every effort for peace first.

If, as the President claims, the safety of the republic depends on our success on the streets of Baghdad why then aren't there enough troops to secure the country do you suppose?

Coming from a lefty, that's funny -- aren't you the folks who want us to cut and run so there are no U.S. troops over there?

Posted by: Seth at September 19, 2006 01:46 PM

If you feel 'the MSM is failing them in its mission', I assume you missed the FreeSpeech segments on CBS evening news..last night it was Irshad Manji of http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ agreeing with the Pope's comments...last week Rush Limbaugh was on...they feature anyone who wants to make a statement. (Even if you don't want to be on, you might try watching!!) One wonders if it will catch on and Rush will have
Nancy Pelosi on without ANY editorial comment...?

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 19, 2006 01:51 PM

Old Soldier --


I must admit, I do tend to meander from time to time. :-)

That's just it, the left has no plan. I seriously believe that if a Democrat got into the White House in 2008, the lack of any focused strategy {or any strategy at all} and the normal mares-eat-oats-and-does-eat-oats outlook the left has when confronted with evil would be like a "gift from Allah" to Islamofascism.

And as Iraq, in its perfect strategic location became a Hole-In-The-Wall for terrorists and another Taliban arrived, the Dem administration would no doubt be attempting to set up friendly diplomatic relations with them while they plotted Mayhem in U.S. cities.

Common sense doesn't stray very far to the left.

Posted by: Seth at September 19, 2006 02:14 PM

Gayle --

So do I, even though they're the dumbjohns the enemy uses to divide-and-conquer.

I can imagine the dialogue:

"But I'm Michael Moore, you can't do this to me!"

"You are a peeeeeg! And an eenfeedel! Ali, Akmet, cut off the head of thees eenfeedel!"

Posted by: Seth at September 19, 2006 02:24 PM

BB --

I'm a fan of Irshad Manji, I would have watched that, had I known about it, but...

Certainly you're not telling me that CBS is on the way to becoming 100% balanced! Being of a suspicious nature, I can't help but wonder if the networks -- Path to 9/11? -- are "throwing a bone" to regain audiences in search of impartial news so they can continue to feed them partial news.

I would love to watch Rush interview Nancy Pelosi. There's no way in hell that it wouldn't become a heated political debate with Rush making Pelosi look foolish. It would be like locking Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken in a bare room for three days with nothing to eat, then tossing in a raw steak.

Posted by: Seth at September 19, 2006 02:36 PM

I don't know about you, but 'It would be like locking Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken in a bare room for three days with nothing to eat, then tossing in a raw steak.' would not only be great entertainment, but might do them both some good.

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 19, 2006 03:14 PM

It would certainly be entertaining -- I could imagine having the event with an announcer ala Howard Cossell circa Ali vs Frazier #1.

Posted by: Seth at September 19, 2006 06:12 PM

Bill O'Reilly is 6'4". How tall is Al? I'm placing my bets on Bill. He's a fightin' Irishman!

Posted by: atheling2 at September 20, 2006 12:51 AM

Atheling2 --

I'd go with Bill myself, he'd mop up the floor with Franken, then use what was left of Al's hot air to cook the steak, LOL!

Posted by: Seth at September 20, 2006 05:24 AM


Coming from a lefty, that's funny -- aren't you the folks who want us to cut and run so there are no U.S. troops over there?

I like the way you avoid difficult questions you don't like to have to answer.

Well done.

When in doubt blame the lefties.

The Iraq policy is a failed one. We are not greated as liberators. Oil revenues are not sufficient to pay for rebuilding the country. Corruption is rift. Civil war is raging.

And you want act II in Iran.

Might just happen for you.

Posted by: Arthur Stone at September 20, 2006 10:01 AM

Arthur --

I read a lot of other blogs, and I've seen you do the same thing at others -- I've seen where the same stuff you bring up here has been answered for you by several people, answered correctly, I might add, and you simply ignore the answers you get or ridicule them using false information gleaned from liberal media sources.

Like your previous comment -- everything in it has been hashed and rehashed in comment threads in which you've participated and it doesn't matter what answers you get, you'll always dispute them just because it is what you do.

You do not comment to share ideas, to impart or to learn, you comment only to irritate by disagreeing with everything anybody says, whether you know what you're talking about or not.

You, my friend, are a troll, pure and simple, which is why you were recently banned from one of the blogs I visit regularly -- the host, a very patient host, I might add, simply got tired of your BS.

I'm about there myself, truth to tell....

Posted by: Seth at September 20, 2006 10:34 AM

The interesting digression 'Fabians were socialists who came from better economic backgrounds yet possessed a poorer sense of reality', while having nothing to do with Islam, reminds us that this (mostly British) society
included Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and Clement Atlee, writers HG Wells, Sinclair Lewis and George Orwell (really? after Animal Farm?)and Bernard Shaw. Wonder if Fabian member Tony Blair has a poorer sense of reality? :)

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 20, 2006 11:34 AM

BB --

I didn't know that Blair was a Fabian, though he does belong to the Labour Party. Keep in mind, though, that the Fabians helped found the Labour Party but were not the party itself.

The Fabians weren't all that different, back in the day, from our own liberals, except that our liberals tend to be a lot less patient and a lot more reactionary, and their VIPs are a lot less credible than their Brit counterparts of yore.

I have mixed feelings about Blair's sense of reality where Islamofascism is concerned in the same way I have about Dubya's: No matter how much evidence appears to the contrary, both continue to deal with Islam as though it was "managed" on a plane of thought compatible with our own.

Posted by: Seth at September 20, 2006 11:56 AM

You MUST feel better after having written and published this excellent rant!

David Horowitz favors the term "Leftist utopians." And all types of utopians, despite the fact that EVERY attempted utopia has failed, insist that they know what's best for the rest. In the process of trying--futilely--to establish that utopia, these fools will run all over everybody with whom they diagree. Besides, utopians are the supreme egotists; the quality of egocentrism makes them unbearable, IMO.

Posted by: Always On Watch at September 20, 2006 02:54 PM

'I have mixed feelings about Blair's sense of reality where Islamofascism is concerned in the same way I have about Dubya's' would have been reinforced today had you been watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer interview with the President. President Bush would not be pushed into declaring war on Islam, preferring "those who use
Islam to enflame their followers". Of course being President means having to say diplomatic things, I guess. BTW, Seth, since you & others
despise MSM, how do you get your NFL scores?

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 20, 2006 03:03 PM

AOW --

Having lived in San Francisco for a number of years (thank G-d no more!) I have had the dubious pleasure of living in a liberal Utopia. If you can get around the filthy streets, the legions of aggressive panhandlers, the rush hour like shopping cart traffic on the sidewalks, the battalions of loons walking the streets, the wide open drug dealing, the ridiculous tax and spend, "let's issue more bonds!" habits of the social services worshipping city government, homeless people defecating and urinating in your doorway and a few other screwed up things, to some it might almost be Utopia. :-)

Posted by: Seth at September 20, 2006 04:06 PM

BB --

Even the MSM can't propagandize sports scores, and then, of course, there's a conservative newspaper called the NY Post, which features an on-line edition and which is known in NY as the paper to buy if you want to read a good sports section during your commute.

Posted by: Seth at September 20, 2006 04:11 PM

Seth wrote:

You do not comment to share ideas, to impart or to learn, you comment only to irritate by disagreeing with everything anybody says, whether you know what you're talking about or not.

I can imagine your frustration to have someone not buy into your conservative orthodoxy. I have learned that rightwing blogs exist mainly for people such as yourself to complain & kvetch. And, most importantly of all, to be agreed with. Now to suggest that our policy in Iraq is a failure is an idea. A very good one in fact. An idea that most of the population of the US and much of the congress (not to mention the rest of the civilized world) would agree with.

You, my friend, are a troll, pure and simple, which is why you were recently banned from one of the blogs I visit regularly -- the host, a very patient host, I might add, simply got tired of your BS.

Trolls in my experience are insulting. They resort to name calling. They wander off topic. I don't do any of those things. I pose a few quesions which rightwingers hate being raised in their little consciousness raising sessions here in blogworld. Tired of my BS? Probably not. Rather more tired of having to explain the inexplicable I'd guess.

Posted by: Arthur Stone at September 21, 2006 12:20 PM

No, Arthur --

You have established yourself as someone who always disagrees just to disagree. Not just here, but everywhere you comment.

No matter what anybody posts about or comments, you always disagree with them. They could post about the great time they had with their family at Disney World, and you would make a disparaging comment about the idea of going to Disney World.

Maybe you should start your own blog -- it would be unique to have a site up that disagrees with everyone and everything in advance...

Posted by: Seth at September 21, 2006 12:54 PM

Seth wrote-

You have established yourself as someone who always disagrees just to disagree. Not just here, but everywhere you comment.

Not true. I post at music, literature and movie chat groups & usenet threads and often have very nice things to say.

Are republican blogs 'everywhere' for you?

It's a much, much bigger world than the rightwing blogosphere Seth.

Posted by: Arthur Stone at September 21, 2006 01:05 PM

Arthur, I can only speak for where I've seen your comments. I have more important things to do with my time than track your complete travels around the Internet.

But as I've said, where I have observed your comments, that is what I have seen.

I'm not going to continue flogging a dead horse by continuing this particular exchange -- you know as well as I do what I'm talking about, and you're simply doing what you do best -- disagreeing to generate further response. No further comments regarding this exchange will be accepted here, they would be nothing more than a waste of bandwidth.

Posted by: Seth at September 21, 2006 02:00 PM

Arthur is a complete waste of energy and time, Seth. That's why I kicked him to the curb, so to speak. The idiot still comes into Halo Scan, where he posts his BS, in spite of the fact that I don't even read what he says, I simply click the delete button as soon as I see his name. So he's not only a troll, Seth; he's a pathetic troll and not very bright. I do not have the time, nor the inclination to put up with such a loon. Neither did Old Soldier. We are freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ;)

Posted by: Gayle at September 21, 2006 03:58 PM

Gayle --

I completely understand, LOL. On a scale of 100 yards, he's about 1/64th of an inch from being PNG'd from my place as well. I'm just too easy sometimes....

If this keeps up, the only places he'll be welcome are those arts, crafts and basket weaving sites where he says he only has nice things to say.

Or he can go to Daily KOS and pretend to be a neocon.

Posted by: Seth at September 21, 2006 06:28 PM

Yup, you're a standup guy, we can't disagree with Arthur on that. And it is true he has been banned (is that an honor badge, it happened to me once too?) I would just add that political blogs tend to be pretty crass in describing their
"opponents" and it seems thin-skinned and petty to dish it out without being able to take it. But, we accept that because a blog is it's owner's pretty much to use as they see fit. In
lovely contrast, I spent the day at our County
Fair, discussing politics at the Republican, Democrat and Independent booths, meeing old friends of all parties....Idaho IS what America WAS.

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 22, 2006 03:51 PM

Arthur --

As I said, the exchange re your trolldom is done. There can be no benefit to either mine or your viewpoint in its continuation.

Posted by: Seth at September 22, 2006 03:51 PM

BB --

That sounds like an interesting day, mingling across the entire political spectrum. I might've had an enjoyable time doing that, though I must admit that I have a tendency to find humor abundant when exchanging political opinions with liberals in person -- all that time living in San Francisco and interacting regularly with vocally opinionated liberals taught me to see humor in their stated political POVs and to casually and with affable sarcasm make my amusement plain.

And I would definitely have ended up in a discussion with some lefties, LOL!

My (and others') problem with Arthur is not that he takes umbrage with our political views, if you've noticed at other sites like Old Soldier's and Gayle's and even here his comments receive(d) consideration and debate. In fact, because of one of his comments, I spent a nice chunk of change ordering a history book published in England 152 years ago, and am still going through it, time permitting, to determine whether a forward I posted attributed a quote to the genuine source (prose from times of "proper" English across the bloomin' bloody pond, as you must know, differ significantly from that of today), as do both the structuring and distribution of information. On other occasions I might call that a feeble excuse, but the time demands of my own occupation, which pays the bills, do not permit me as much spare time as I would like.

Our problem with Arthur is that he uses our blogs for the sole purpose of getting attention that he evidently doesn't get "in real life". No matter what the subject or what the point of view, he will condemn every aspect of it, only because he is determined to provoke as much response as possible. It truly becomes a PIA after awhile, once you've realized what his game is, and you simply lose patience. He really needs to get his own blog.

Like I mentioned above, it would be unique, the only blog on the planet that would disagree in advance.

Posted by: Seth at September 22, 2006 04:27 PM

As for 'all that time living in San Francisco and interacting regularly with vocally opinionated liberals' Idaho liberals, while extremely rare, are fairly affable. Consider my
friend and fellow worker of many years is running GOP, and the fireman over on the next block is the Dem candidate for a district about the size of Vermont & New Hampshire. Do you know how hard it is to vote against Tony the GOP? I told him I had to, and he noted that indeed if I must, please take one of his stickers for my grandkid, shook my hand and waved as I left. The
Dem candidate exchanged cookie recipes with the wife. Kind of why I mentioned above..Idaho is what America was. My kind of politicians!

Posted by: BB-Idaho at September 22, 2006 07:00 PM

BB --


There is that old cliche about politicians kissing babies. But hell, when one has a good cookie recipe, that is different! There's no way someone who has the time and passion for cookies can possibly have anything but the most brilliant political abilites and the best intentions for his/ her constituency... by all means, vote on that basis, LOL.

By this time, you undoubtedly know how I feel about the Clinton Administration. Well...

When my mother was alive -- she was mega-liberal -- she was having a dispute with the IRS at one point that could only have been resolved by a head-to-head meeting, but the local IRS office continuously denied her that audience for some bureaucratic reason or other. Pissed, and not at all shy about writing a letter to the White House, she fired off a snail mail -- within the next couple of weeks, the local IRS office called her and scheduled an appointment --when she got there, she was treated as "the person the President personally made an appointment for", and she got her way as a result.

This does not make Bubba any better of a President than he was, it simply means he was attuned to the campaigning necessities of making private citizens believe he cared about them as individuals. My mother had a great deal of political influence in her community, and this helped local liberals as such.

I haven't lived or spent any noteworthy amount of time in Idaho, but I love potatoes -- Yum! -- and I have heard/read that liberals do well there. I know that during the 1970s job seeking exodus from California to the north, a lot of Californians settled in Idaho.

Posted by: Seth at September 22, 2006 07:59 PM

Speaking of Bill, today I spotted takedowns of two ex-presidents. What ever happened to senior statesman?

Bill Clinton and Iran:



Jimmy Carter and Hugo Chavez:



Posted by: civil truth at September 22, 2006 11:05 PM

Civil Truth --

Great links!

I was a Democrat going into the Carter Administration and a staunch Republican going out. Carter ran a nothing administration and it would seem he is trying to become a "somebody" for history's sake by gallivanting about the globe -- and here he seems to be compounding the skidmarks left by his presidency, rather than eradicating them and leaving positive tracks -- and basically pulling a high level Jane Fonda rather than coming off like any kind of great statesman. The most astute question one could ask as to what he is doing is, "What the hell is he thinking?"

In Bubba's case, I think it's more that he feels "naked" with the presidency behind him and has some driving urge to remain relevant to American political dialogue. Unfortunately for him, his legacy is a legacy of disaster and if anything, his current input demonstrates the lack of real relevance that was kept camouflaged by the people who worked for his administration.

Carter and Clinton would both do history's recollections of them a great turn if they simply shut up and went fishing.

Posted by: Seth at September 23, 2006 12:34 AM