She's absolutely right. What's your point, Blankfist? Also please explain the tag "Knives Out". Was she brandishing a knife earlier in the talk?

She speaks the truth.

Also, here's an interesting article on the manipulation of the populace by way of fear:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20050716.htm

^He's pushing you out of your comfort zone.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

>> ^gwiz665:
^He's pushing you out of your comfort zone.
quality


Who's he pushing? Out of what comfort zone?

Hm - I'd say her tirade here is an excellent example of the self-righteous, suspicious attitude of fear and negativism that dominates the typical neolib's mental landscape.

Michelle seems to be unaware of the basic dynamics of human interaction. Humans don't move about as lone individuals, treating all other individuals with perfect equality. If you enter a group of 100 people and have only 3 minutes do you spend 1.8 seconds individually greeting each person? What if there are 1,000 people? How do you sit 'equally' with 100 people without making anyone feel 'snubbed' when you sit or stand by someone else? How about eye focus? Listening? Humans move in small groups because it is just how the human system is DESIGNED.

But Michelle Obama (and neolibs like her) don't see human beings when they interact with others. They see the 'groups' and they then make judgements and cast aspersions on the motivations of others according to the 'groups' they see. Michelle didn't see an innocent group of college students hanging out in small groups of friends and classmates... She saw people who were (to her warped brain) fearfully excluding 'X' people or 'Y' people because they were mean, or racist, or whatever.

Her comments say more about her own fear, prejudice, and racism than anyone else's. It also says a lot about how small, petty, selfish, and insecure she is with herself. It's kind of sad really to think that there are people out there who are so unhappy with life and so prejudiced and mistaken about their fellow men.

WP you're obviously very happy to have your fear and misconceptions. It justifies your ignorance. You are america.

Hm - I'd say WP's tirade here is an excellent example of the self-righteous, suspicious attitude of fear and negativism that dominates the typical neo-con mental landscape.

WP (and neo-cons like him) seems to be unaware of the basic dynamics of human interaction. He doesn't see human beings when he interacts with others. He sees the 'groups' and then makes judgements and cast aspersions on the motivations of others according to the 'groups' he sees.

WP doesn't see an innocent group of college students hanging out in small groups of friends and classmates... He sees people who are being "brainwashed" by "neolib" college professors at "elitist" universities who will all grow up to cast-off his type of neo-con fear mongering, and see life for what it really is. These kids will inevitably--through their "liberal" education--be against things like invading countries for no reason, stripping away our constitutional rights, draining our treasure and giving it to the richest one-percent, denying healthcare for those who truly need it, and they certainly won't fall victim to the false sense of "upward mobility" that neo-cons like WP have been trying to shove down our throats for far too long.

His comments say more about his own fear, prejudice, and racism than anyone else's. It also says a lot about how small, petty, selfish, and insecure he is with himself. It's kind of sad really to think that there are people out there who are so unhappy with life and so prejudiced and mistaken about their fellow citizens.



ps: WP - Ending your diatribe with the word "men" speaks volumes.

I'll describe what I do when I walk into a store. It is filled with a mix of people of all kinds. One person needs a hand & I stop and help out. A group is walking real slow, so I have to get around them. One employee is polite & helpful, but another is indifferent and rude. I don't see race, gender, or economic status. I see people doing 'stuff', and I interact with them according to how they behave. This is how normal people see things. There is no fear.

M-obama doesn't think that way, apparently. She sees me helping out "white woman" and avoiding "group of young hispanics". She sees me getting along with "nicely dressed clerk", and getting impatient with "poorly dressed clerk". Her focus is on skin color, age, gender, and economic status. This is how biased, prejudiced, fearful people see things.

If spoke to a bunch of college students it would never even enter into my mind to accuse them of being 'fearful' just because they had friends and classmates. I simply don't think that way. But Mobama and people like her see sinister, prejudiced attitudes wherever they look because that's what they're obsessed with.

WP, you have to be a troll. No one could write what you write with no irony and actually believe it. You are really Stephen Colbert, aren't you?

No, you're absolutely right WP.

You and other neo-cons have been given a bad rap this entire time.

I mean, this lady, who graduated cum laude with a major in sociology, not only doesn't understand real people, but she just hates everyone and has been hating and fearing everyone since the day she was born. And it is out of this fear of others that she decided to marry a community organizer.

What a horrible, uncaring, fearful woman.

Sociologically speaking, humans seek to minimize fear - not prolong it. What she defines as 'people being comfortable with fear', is no more complicated than human beings naturally gravitating into groups of shared cultural background. It has very little to do with fear.

For the past 20-odd years, Mobama spent her sundays is an all-black church. She was living in Hyde Park in South Chicago (a well-to-do white area) and chose to go to SE Chicago to attend this specific place. Shouldn't she be moving 'out of her comfort zone', according to her own logic and attending a white church? To do otherwise is to hold on to preconception, justify ignorance, and show comfort in fear - right?

Poppycock. She chooses to attend church with a group of people with which she shares a cultural background. There's nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is for her to stare down her nose & assume the worst at people about whom she knows jack-diddly-squat.

To accuse students of 'living in fear' simply because they are "sittin' at different tables" and "livin' in different dorms" is stupid. There is no evidence that sitting at tables and living in dorms are examples of people "holding on to misconceptions & stereotypes" or "justifying ignorance". She is making snap judgements about large groups of people and assigning them attitudes & motivations based on absolutely no data.

Therefore - her comments are not about the students. They are about HER. She is displaying her own insecurity - not describing the insecurity of others.

I don't understand...is WP a psychologist because all these for certain statements strike me as not being said by a person who studies anything...but rather a demagogue.

Tee hee. You said cum laude.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Shouldn't she be moving 'out of her comfort zone', according to her own logic and attending a white church?

She did.

It's called the church of the United States government. Which is just oh-so comfortable and easy-goin for the first black POTUS (the uppity "halfrican" one who's actually from Kenya) and his black wife (who has big, strong, animal-like arms).

(snore)

Hm - technically speaking I would describe Mobama's language as that of a demagogue. She makes hasty generalizations, plays on people's emotions, and divides people into groups based on skin color or other characteristics.

Theodore Kaczynski had an intelligence quotient of 167 and everything he did and said was without error. Hehehe, academia says little about personal character. (don't misread, I am not comparing her to him, I am saying college degree doesn't clear you from the charge of bias and personal manipulation of garnered knowledge, we all do that to some extent)

>> ^Yogi:
I don't understand...is WP a psychologist because all these for certain statements strike me as not being said by a person who studies anything...but rather a demagogue.


Demagogue : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

He would first have to be a leader, and second have to want power.

I saw truth in WP's words, as I tend to see truth in Obama's words. Michelle Obama.

I also see some trollish behavior by Volumptous, which is typical. Pay no mind, no argument, and not worth reading.

Ill note that I treat every one I do not know the same, with indifference. I react to how they behave. I tend to avoid conflict, and help those who require help. Even if they behave like ass hats.

Yep.. Sounds about right.

I'm such a typical troll.

WP, your commentary is very idealistic - but unfortunately, like most flavors of idealism, entirely unrealistic. I can understand the underlying point of you comments and, of course, a lot of the time, what you say is true. People aren't operating in groups because of their comfort levels with people that are unlike them - they are operating in groups because that's simply how it shakes out. And, certainly, there will always be groups of one sort or another in human interaction.

And like you point out, we are wired to operate this way.

However, this tendency towards grouping isn't something to be reinforced and encouraged, or accepted as inescapable, or even good. In-group morality is one of the biggest flaws of the modern human mind, despite being a great benefit of the ancient mind. And at it's core, the problem begins with forming alliances to groups of "like" humans, and excluding those who are different.

I don't think she was saying that all college students are racist or guilty of that form of in-group morality. Rather, she was challenging people to step back and really observe their behavior.

In the end, you can either decide to get offended and come up with rationalizations as to why her message was inappropriate, or you can get introspective and make yourself a better human being.

But for the purposes of this discussion... maybe you're right, maybe she's projecting her own insecurities to a certain degree. But to pretend that what she's talking about isn't valid, and happening within our country, takes a degree of rhetorical gymnastics that I simply can't abide.

Not my place to comment on her psychology, I don't know the lady. What I do know is that I work in opposite of some of the generalizations. I don't like fear right about as much as I don't like pain. If I have a nightmare that keeps me up, I don't think about how awesome it was that I had that one instead of some other one that might of been worse; would or rather not had one at all.

I also don't mind moving out of my comfort zone per say. If there was a banana peal in a courtyard, I would make straight for it and trip on purpose to get a laugh at my own expense. Generally, being thought a fool I find very amusing even though it is rather awkward feeling.

I also didn't learn that I was a "white boy" until I was in 6th grade. Then, when I learned I was, I didn't know that was a pejorative!

I remember watching a program on human evolution where it was looking at monkeys and social groupings. The larger the brain of a monkey, the larger social groups they would form. If you carried the trend up to humans, our social networks would be at a max of about 120 people. I thought that was kind of interesting that human evolution might of really only prepared us for small town/tribal living and our brains really aren't capable of handling city living.

I experience that when I walk down a crowded street, how could I possibly be nice to all these people. More over, would I want to, that guy might be an asshole! Though I find certain individuals as actually identifying with groups, that is strange to me. I have never understood cheering for sports teams, you don't even know those people? I think some people do submit themselves to much to a group dynamic so that it suppresses their own rational individual ethos, some people just aren't that transcendent.

For my own opinion, it appears from the outside looking in that the first lady is pointing out that not being transcendent is bad, but she also seems to fail her own litmus test...it's hard to be a human for sure. Public people suffer from not only being human, but the subject of scrutiny for the rest of us.

*sigh*

dudes and dudettes we all fucking stereotype. That's how our ancestors knew to run from a tiger instead of thinking about whether or not the tiger might be a happy cuddly tiger.

Making split decisions is what we start training for since the day we are born.

Her explaining that quality of human nature could be either considered exploitative, or introspective. The thing that determines how you interpret it, is your personal signature of stereotyping.

Cause some spiders just wanna hug!

Volumptuous' first point was the best one, that WP is doing exactly what he says Michelle Obama is doing by talking about this boogeyman group called "neolibs" and projecting all kinds of thoughts and behaviors onto them. Stick to the facts and the evidence, or you'll discredit the valid parts of your argument.

Tee hee. You still said cum laude.

I agree with Lodurr. Everytime WP says neolib, I tend to want to skip his comments and just write him off as a troll. Even if he has something interesting to say, I find it hard to get past that stupid inflammatory label.

You will catch more bees with honey than vinegar, more minors in unmarked white vans, ect ect. Then again, sift is also pretty callus with the use of the word neo-con. Neo-con and Neo-lib are valid descriptions of political views and shouldn't be seen as pejoratives IMO. Though, using that term as a frame work for a straw-man is pretty common.

One thing is for certain, cum laude is fun to say. I want to have a maxima cum laude once in my life.

However, this tendency towards grouping isn't something to be reinforced and encouraged, or accepted as inescapable, or even good. In-group morality is one of the biggest flaws of the modern human mind, despite being a great benefit of the ancient mind. And at it's core, the problem begins with forming alliances to groups of "like" humans, and excluding those who are different.

Ah – rational discussion… I have so missed it here on the sift… I would take issue with some of your language. You say grouping is not to be encouraged and that it isn’t even ‘good’. I heartily disagree. Social groups are one of the best, most positive aspects of humanity. What you are attempting to describe (I think) is the tendency for some of these groups to foster NEGATIVE characteristics, which is something very different.

Groups can be positive or negative, just like human beings can have both positive and negative characteristics when viewed individually. To say that grouping should not be encouraged simply because “some” groups are negative is not wise. Groups can provide comfort, support, happiness, service, and learning – the best of humanity.

What you are trying to say I deem is that humans should avoid NEGATIVE groups, and foster positive ones. I can support that sentiment, but I cannot agree with blanket judgments that ‘all groups’ are bad & should not be encouraged.

I don't think she was saying that all college students are racist or guilty of that form of in-group morality. Rather, she was challenging people to step back and really observe their behavior.

What behavior? The tendency to sit, talk, and walk together in groups? It is a real stretch to believe that she is encouraging people to ‘step back and observe their behavior’ for no other reason than because they move around in generic, inoffensive groups. College is a time where you are supposed to do exactly that kind of stuff. To me is it plain that she is criticizing these kids regarding what KIND of group they are in. She thinks they are associating in groups based on ‘fear’ – I.E. she thinks (in your parleyance) that they are in ‘negative’ groups. I wonder on what exact value system she arrived at this conclusion…

In the end, you can either decide to get offended and come up with rationalizations as to why her message was inappropriate, or you can get introspective and make yourself a better human being.

I’m aware of no stories of rampant racism on the USC campus. Therefore her commentary is pointless. If she wanted to encourage people to ‘celebrate diversity’ and to ‘use the time on campus to expand your world’ then that’s what she should have said. But to say, “you people are livin’ in fear… I see you walkin’ round in groups & sittin’ at different tables & livin’ in different dorms…” That’s when I dismiss her as a judgmental buffoon. There is no cause for her backhanded insinuation of racism. To impugn an entire audience like that based on absolutely zero data? Shame on her. You would think someone who was trained in sociology would know better.

Neolib-skip

It is as valid a term as neocon. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… When people on the sift all collectively agree to stop using the term ‘neocon’ to generically describe any and all Republicans, conservatives, or anything else they disagree with then I will stop using my self-created term ‘neolib’. Until that happy day… Regardless, Mobama's ACTIONS are what make her a neolib. It isn't a bad thing to group people based on their actual behavior and record.

Winstonfield, I understand your justification in using the term neolib but I do think it's namecalling and cheapens your argument sometimes. I agree that neocon is irritating too, especially when used as a broad term to describe all on the right. In defense of that term, it started out as a way to differentiate the new more extreme direction of the right whereas the people you deem neolibs seem to me to be the same old stripe of democrat as before.

On the other hand, in defense of both terms, I feel they are negative and much better suited to insults than the words "conservative" and "liberal" which at worst should be neutral terms describing one's leanings and not slurs dripping with venom that they sometimes become.

Why is it OK for Ron Paul to argue against fear (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul402.html), but not Michelle Obama?

Is it because she is a woman? Is it because she is black? Is it because she is liberal?

I'd love an answer, but will probably have to settle for the old political soft-shoe. Entertaining either way.

pennypecker, you go ahead and keep using neolib. I love it. FYI - Technically, neoliberalism (short for neo-classical liberalism) is an old term for imstellar-type free market enthusiasts. If people want to let it get under their skin, then that's their challenge to overcome.

In defense of that term, it started out as a way to differentiate the new more extreme direction of the right whereas the people you deem neolibs seem to me to be the same old stripe of democrat as before.

The term neocon is a specific word created to label a group of liberals who supported the military in WW2 but leaned left on social issues. These were left wing guys who were 'off the reservation' regarding the military. Thru the 60s-80s was applied to people who were pro-military and nationalistic. In the 90s liberals started using the term to talk about right-wing extremists and it passed into a realm where it conjured images of people that live on compounds.

At that point, liberals started using 'neocon' to describe any and all political approaches from the right. Anything they disagreed with was/is the position of a right-wing kook. Is someone saying Obama's plan for government subsidization of health care is bad? Call them a neocon, because they are clearly freaks who drive pick-em-up-trucks full of guns & french kiss Tim McVeigh's duodenum.

I don't mind when the word is used PROPERLY. The problem is that people who are radically far left wing really beleive that anyone who does not accept thier political position is an 'extremist'. To such persons, the word 'neocon' seems perfectly applicable to people who disagree with them.

It is a matter of scale. Someone who is a sane, sensible political moderate would only use 'neocon' to describe the most insane, whacked-out, right-wing radical nutjob. But insane, whacked-out, left-wing radical nutjobs use it to describe anyone who so much as dare to tilt 0.001 degrees to the right on any issue. Who am I to swim against the tide of vernacular political speech? Therefore, I use the term 'neolib' to describe ANY political approach or philsophy that so much as has a hint of leaning to the left. I hope this dynamic changes at some point, but until it does I simply use the colloquial syntax as it has been established.

Interesting. I didn't know the origin of the word.

Whatever it once meant, at present, the term Neo-Con refers to Neo-Libs who have a fetish for aggressive, amoral foreign policy; probably best exemplified by the members of PNAC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century . These are the folks that said it would take a tragedy the scale of Pearl Harbor in order to shock and awe the public into supporting their legislation.

Agreed that the term should not be applied to social and religious conservatives, but to be clear, Dick Armey's Neo-Con astroturf outfit FreedomWorks© is leading the charge against health care.

I agree with her, but that's not exclusive to America, it's like that everywhere, part of our social dynamic. People instinctively have many social fears, even the most outgoing. These fears are usually unwarranted and should be constantly challenged.

Guess I didn't know what I was talking about concerning the term neocon. Think that will teach me about doing research and making assumptions?
I still think the term neolib is inflammatory as opposed to balancing out the misuse of neocon, but as dystopianfuture pointed out, I guess that's my problem.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker

I agree "neocon" has been overused, most of the time as a perjorative, but "Neoconservative" is a more accurate description of a single entity and movement than "Neoliberal." Specifically, "Neoconservatism" in its recent use describes the Republican base mobilization in the 2000 election by Karl Rove.

The problem with "Neoliberal," especially as it relates to President Obama, is that Obama's electorate was much more varied and not centrally mobilized. There isn't a single idealogically-unified bloc in the middle of the electorate as there was in the 2000 or 2004 elections. Most Obama supporters hardly agree on anything, as in the health care debate; the farther-left Obama voters say that Obama should stop trying to be bipartisan and pass single-payer health care reform by the democratic majority alone, and the farther-right Obama voters want health care reform toned down, without even a mandate for everyone to be insured.

Your other points have validity as relating to the way some liberal-minded people think, but I don't see any evidence that there is a unified liberal movement with those ideas as part of its platform. That's how you see it because you conceive of yourself as being opposed to them.

I mean, I hate all of Fox's pundit shows and I think everyone watching them is getting brainwashed through the cultural pressure they exert, but I know that all of Fox's audience doesn't think the same, and they don't all take the same idealogical path to get there. Some of them come from religious backgrounds, others have kind of macho atheist ideas of people fending for themselves, and others just started paying attention to politics at the wrong time and from their perspective it looks like Fox aren't the ones wearing tinted glasses. But if you listen to those pundits, they paint me and anyone that dislikes them with the same brush, we're all zombies for Obama, communists, or "neolibs."

I still think the term neolib is inflammatory as opposed to balancing out the misuse of neocon

Neocon is inflammatory when used to portray everyday conservative politics as extremist. The left has no grounds to take umbrage when the tactic boomerangs and they are painted as the extremists. That's the zeitgeist.

I don't see any evidence that there is a unified liberal movement with those ideas as part of its platform. That's how you see it because you conceive of yourself as being opposed to them.

Well - I never said they were one unified movement. They are a philosophy and a political point of view. There isn't one 'unified movement' for the neocons either. There are splinter groups, factions, lobbys, and advocates of all stripes on both sides of the asile. But neolib is 'left' as neocon is 'right' and both are very much movements. It'll shock you, but I think the Republican party today is dominated by neolibs. They are big government tax & spenders - and that's leftist. There are precious few fiscal conservatives, and we desperately need to put a bunch of fiscal 'neocons' in charge. The problem is that neocons are cumbered with a lot of stupid right wing social voters who are myopically focused on irrelevant garbage like abortion, stem cells, gay rights, and all that sort of stuff.

Frankly - I wouldn't care if we elected a President that legalized drugs, legalized gay marriage, loved abortion, and shot stem cells out of fire hoses. If he was a true FISCAL CONSERVATIVE who would balance the budget, reduce the size of the federal government, and put our spending in the black then I'd vote for them without thinking once.

But if you listen to those pundits, they paint me and anyone that dislikes them with the same brush, we're all zombies for Obama, communists, or "neolibs."

Yeah - and Madcow, Olbermann & left wing pundits are painting average citizens as right wing nut-jobs just because they are protesting Obama's huge deficit spending & other leftist politics. Go figure... How many vids have shown up on the sift that lambaste the protesters, call them nazis, and otherwise impugn the free political speech of people who lean right? A lot. Pot - meet kettle.

Neocon is inflammatory when used to portray everyday conservative politics as extremist

Agreed.

There are splinter groups, factions, lobbys, and advocates of all stripes on both sides of the asile. But neolib is 'left' as neocon is 'right' and both are very much movements. It'll shock you, but I think the Republican party today is dominated by neolibs. They are big government tax & spenders - and that's leftist. There are precious few fiscal conservatives, and we desperately need to put a bunch of fiscal 'neocons' in charge. The problem is that neocons are cumbered with a lot of stupid right wing social voters who are myopically focused on irrelevant garbage like abortion, stem cells, gay rights, and all that sort of stuff.

Agreed.

Frankly - I wouldn't care if we elected a President that legalized drugs, legalized gay marriage, loved abortion, and shot stem cells out of fire hoses. If he was a true FISCAL CONSERVATIVE who would balance the budget, reduce the size of the federal government, and put our spending in the black then I'd vote for them without thinking once.

Agreed, although we'd probably disagree on exactly how to reduce the size of government.

Yeah - and Madcow, Olbermann & left wing pundits are painting average citizens as right wing nut-jobs just because they are protesting Obama's huge deficit spending & other leftist politics.

Disagree. They are definitely inflammatory but from what I've seen on the sift, they tend to focus on the nut-jobs and on how they are protesting. It's better for ratings.

How many vids have shown up on the sift that lambaste the protesters, call them nazis, and otherwise impugn the free political speech of people who lean right? A lot. Pot - meet kettle.

Again, the vids not so much, it wouldn't be interesting. Comments on the other hand, yeah there is a lot of name-calling. Not nice, but not attacking free speech. As long as you aren't calling for banning or silencing the other (admittedly there is some of that, which I don't agree with either), I see it as merely the right to show your disagreement. As I said before, your use of neolib, well thats just something I have to get used to. (Although I still don't think it has the intended effect of countering the use of neocon.)

Agreed, although we'd probably disagree on exactly how to reduce the size of government.

Probably. After all, I'm a pro-military neocon, eh?

Disagree. They are definitely inflammatory but from what I've seen on the sift, they tend to focus on the nut-jobs and on how they are protesting. It's better for ratings.

I agree with you that they focus on the nutjobs - but I disagree with you about how they serve that up. People like MadCow and Olberman do NOT at any point go out of their way to say they are focusing only on the goofiest, most extremist fringe element. Quite the opposite. They do their damndest to make it look like the group is nothing BUT extremists. Same with Pelosi, Ried, and a lot of other Democrats who (frighteningly) are elected officials slandering the people.

It isn't hard when there is a large protest to go out and find the kook fringe. It existed in the Iraq war protests, and Republicans tried to portray it as normal. Now the neolibs are faced with large scale protests to their policies, and they are doing the same thing. Sadly, there are FAR too many people who are easily deceived by such unscruplulous methods. Here is a great example - a quote from dystopian...

but to be clear, Dick Armey's Neo-Con astroturf outfit FreedomWorks© is leading the charge against health care

Now - whether he meant it or not this is a backhanded attempt to make it sound like the protests are just right-wing nutjobs. Bull. The Iraq war protests were ginned up and sponsored by left-wing neolib nutjob extremists like Code Pink and such - but that does NOT mean that the people who attended them weren't legitimately concerned citizens who passionately believed in an issue. Groups could get tens of thousands to show up and protest because it was a REAL movement which reflected national sentiment. The fringe was there poking and prodding it along - but the essential core of the protest was legitimate.

EXACT same thing today. Some right wing groups may be doing some organizing, but the vast bulk of people who show up are NOT right wing kooks. They are people who are concerned about massive spending, big government intrusion into markets, inflation, debt, and general desire for a conservative fiscal approach. They are worried that Obama is doing way too much and has way too little to do it with, and they are there to shout "Stop!" For Pelosi, Reid, MadCow, Olberman, & the sifters to attempt to justify ignoring them just because a 'neocon' fringe element is along for the ride is insipid.

As long as you aren't calling for banning or silencing the other (admittedly there is some of that, which I don't agree with either), I see it as merely the right to show your disagreement.

On this I agree. I didn't like it when Republicans wanted to stifle Iraq war protests either, and I don't like it when Pelosi, Obama, Ried, MadCow & the rest want to silence the other side to grease the skids of thier agenda. And they DO want to silence the 'teabaggers', make no mistake.

(Although I still don't think it has the intended effect of countering the use of neocon.)

I don't see it so much as a 'counter' as it is a 'OK - right back at you'. If at some time the neolibs change and stop falsely labeling conservative thought then I'll adjust my method accordingly.

Hey , Winstonfield_Pennypacker ,
is all that you do hate?
With 3 votes for videos in 1.5 years?
426 comments , and 3 votes? Isn't there anything that you actually like?
Or are you in fact a modern metaphor for archie bunker .
You don't know science .
You bail out of any argument or debate as soon as it becomes clear your losing .
So you come here to bitch at people who don't believe the same as you .
To what end or effect ?
what change is it you hope to affect ?
This site isn't only about american points of view .
And just in case you hadn't noticed the pendulum went the other way the last time we had a say in it.
I hope you find something that makes you happy , somewhere , cause from reading your stuff , this aint it .

1 last thing , you haven't even heard the american left .
try amy goodman / juan gonzalez and democracy now , you've been getting it easy for a long time from the Centrist Media.
The 1st time you meet the real progressive radical left , your brains gonna go boom.

is all that you do hate?

Hm? Eh, what? Hate as in people? I'm not an emotive fellow. I dislike hypocrisy, deceit, and inefficiency, but that's probably not what you are implying.

Isn't there anything that you actually like?

Sure. I like honesty, efficiency, hard work, thrift, and common sense. I like taking responsibility, and refusing to pass the buck. I like getting things done, helping out folks who need it, and helping people to learn how to not need help in the first place. I like when people stand on their own feet, take care of their own, and have the guts, grit, and determination to refuse to take things they don't need. I like freedom, small government, and the original Constitution & Bill of Rights. I also like apple filled doughnuts.

You bail out of any argument or debate as soon as it becomes clear your losing .

I typically note that I'm the guy that sticks with the discussion much longer than the average sifter. I also note that other sifers - such as yourself with this thread - are the ones that generally respond with insults, attacks, profane language, non sequiters, and so forth. I try to stay on topic, keep things impersonal, and confine the discussion to issues as opposed to generic frothing and ranting.

what change is it you hope to affect ?

Change? I'm not Obama. I don't deal in platitudes. I discuss issues, and correct misinformation about the conservative position. I also - such as this thread - sometimes like to keep the left honest by spurring them to grapple with the reality of just who and what they are cheerleading. Like this vid. Mobama impugning a large group of people and calling them (effectually) racists with no evidence. It was despicable and purile, and showed her to be an intellectual lightweight and a judgemental buffoon. The early comments went on and on. "Yeah - you go girl..." I have effectively shown that at the very BEST she was a thoughtless cad - and (more likely) at worst is more racist herself than the people she was addressing. Not quite something to cheer about anymore, is it?

And just in case you hadn't noticed the pendulum went the other way the last time we had a say in it.

I don't even understand what this is in reference to. Who is 'we'? What subject was under discussion about which 'we' had a 'say'? I'm afraid I require antecedents.