Hey merc... You might be a progressive ideologue if:

[4est_4est_Gump]

1. You find that common sense makes no sense at all.

2. You know that there is no such thing as unintended consequences from your actions or proposed solutions.

3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...or mean-spirited racist idiots.

5. You do not include the word "grateful" in your vocabulary.

6. You consider your thinking based on emotion, and you express it through emotion -- even to the point of shameful antics. And you think that's perfectly okay.

7. You echo the accusation that those with opinions opposite yours obviously originated said opinion from some "echo chamber."

8. You bluster about your personal trials and tribulations as a tactic to get others to think you truly emphasize with their plights.

9. You blame others if it appears (and obviously only appears) that you may have made a mistake.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position.



My Name is Barack Obama and I approve of this PSA.

That is one fucked up cracker, but hey, I rely on fucked up crackers and big Candy dishes...

 

[kbate]

Citation?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Citation?

Cessna Aircraft offers the Citation product line which provides superior avionics, comfort and versatility on the entry-level and jets and midsize airplanes for any ...

Music is my aeroplane
It's my aeroplane
Songbird sweet and sour Jane and
Music is my aeroplane
It's my aeroplane
Pleasure spiked with pain
That motherfucker's always spiked with pain

 

[RobDownSouth]

Poor AJ.

These daily beatdowns from Mercury have really taken a toll on his tender fragile psyche.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Don't worry Throb.


Everyone knows that you are one and damned proud of it!

After all, thinking is so very hard, so it is nice that so many people will do it for you...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Mercury has exposed you for the lying fraud you are.

He
Must
Be
PUNISHED!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fawning 'round the mountain (Kneel and Kiss the Dirt)

... and we slink like alley cats,
Tearing down what we attack,
To prove that we are 'won...'
INXS

 

[RobDownSouth]

AJ's batting average this week is worse than A-Rod and Curtis Granderson combined.

 

[mercury14]

Just posting the source of AJ's OP since he removed it to make it seem like he had an original thought. It appears ol' AJ is resorting to plagiarism to make his points nowadays.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/once_again_you_might_be_a_progressive_ideologue_if.html

1. You find that common sense makes no sense at all.

2. You know that there is no such thing as unintended consequences from your actions or proposed solutions.

3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...or mean-spirited racist idiots.

5. You do not include the word "grateful" in your vocabulary.

6. You consider your thinking based on emotion, and you express it through emotion -- even to the point of shameful antics. And you think that's perfectly okay.

7. You echo the accusation that those with opinions opposite yours obviously originated said opinion from some "echo chamber."

8. You bluster about your personal trials and tribulations as a tactic to get others to think you truly emphasize with their plights.

9. You blame others if it appears (and obviously only appears) that you may have made a mistake.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position.



My Name is Barack Obama and I approve of this PSA.

That is one fucked up cracker, but hey, I rely on fucked up crackers and big Candy dishes...

 

[Liar]

1. You find that common sense makes no sense at all.

2. You know that there is no such thing as unintended consequences from your actions or proposed solutions.

3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...or mean-spirited racist idiots.

5. You do not include the word "grateful" in your vocabulary.

6. You consider your thinking based on emotion, and you express it through emotion -- even to the point of shameful antics. And you think that's perfectly okay.

7. You echo the accusation that those with opinions opposite yours obviously originated said opinion from some "echo chamber."

8. You bluster about your personal trials and tribulations as a tactic to get others to think you truly emphasize with their plights.

9. You blame others if it appears (and obviously only appears) that you may have made a mistake.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position.



My Name is Barack Obama and I approve of this PSA.

That is one fucked up cracker, but hey, I rely on fucked up crackers and big Candy dishes...

You've been a bit of a flail-fest lately, dude. I mean, this is PSW-level of silly.

Are you ok?

 

[mercury14]

You've been a bit of a flail-fest lately, dude. I mean, this is PSW-level of silly.

Are you ok?

I've really gotten under his skin lately. Let's review AJ's implosion over my existence this past week...


- He started at least two angry tribute threads with my name in them.

- He attempted to find out where my family lives via a county database.

- He attempted to discern my employer.

- He said he was considering emailing (what he believes are) my coworkers referencing some kind of material from the GB.

- He said he was putting my on iggy three times.


This is actually getting kind of dark.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*



Nobody ever tried to find you... Who would want to do that? You make our skin crawl...


#10 nails you completely.

 

[RobDownSouth]

.....aaaaand now Happy Face AJ is back, tryin' to bluster it out.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You've been a bit of a flail-fest lately, dude. I mean, this is PSW-level of silly.

Are you ok?

If you have not noticed, it is kinda boring here lately. The only opposition to speak of is pure ideologues; in normal election years (like 2000, 2004 and 2008), when Democrats think they are winning there is a lot of lively discussion of issues. Now they seemed too ashamed to speak up for their leader's point of view. Now we get "binder" threads as the big Democrat example of thinking analysis, so I am left with bupkiss other than trying to entertain myself and a few long-time friends until the election is over and Democrats go back to their usual whining instead of ceding it to this pathetic parcel of pre-programmed pansies...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

#3 is especially good too since the favorite debate tactics are LIAR! and HYPOCRITE!!!

 

[mercury14]

*chuckle*



Nobody ever tried to find you... Who would want to do that? You make our skin crawl...


#10 nails you completely.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sDDgFanGKGY/TcezyitUoKI/AAAAAAAAcu4/vQBs7pWjfmo/s1600/obsession1.jpg

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sDDgFanGKGY/TcezyitUoKI/AAAAAAAAcu4/vQBs7pWjfmo/s1600/obsession1.jpg

Ever get the feeling AJ would never have to work another day in his life if he sued Calvin Klein?

After all, AJ's obsession for men predates the CK product by decades...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

#4 is really on target too.

 

[mercury14]

#4 is really on target too.

http://c22blog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/writeyourown.png?w=300&h=280

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Debates 2012: An Exercise in Liberal Pathology
By Stanley Kurtz, NRO
October 17, 2012

Liberalism isn’t doing so well lately. In fact I’d go so far as to say that liberalism is becoming downright pathological. The disease is progressive (in more ways than one). Precursors were visible as far back as 1964, and again in the 1980s. Yet this latest uspsurege has been building since 2000, and has never yet spread so widely or threateningly across the body politic.

The chief symptom of liberal distress is an intense form of denial. Liberals now actually deny that conservatives exist. There are, of course, strange, cartoon-like images that liberals call conservative, yet these bear little resemblence to complex conservative human beings with thoughts capable of posing a reasoned challenge to liberal convictions. In psychiatic terms, liberals have split off an all-bad version of conservatism in an effort to defend against the intolerable reality of actual threats to the liberal point of view. I don’t think this denial has quite reached the level of psychosis. Perhaps we could call it high-functioning borderline instead. At any rate, we are now clearly in the realm of pathology.

The problem is visible in the 2012 presidential and vice-presidential debates. If we treat President Obama and the three debate moderators as manifestations of a troubled liberal mind, the progress of the debates makes perfect sense. It is an exercise in the gradual breakdown of denial, accompanied by increasingly frantic efforts to shore that denial up.

The first debate reflected a relatively stable form of denial. It had been going on for years, after all. President Obama and Jim Lehrer simply assumed that no conservative opponent existed. There was thus no need to prepare, no real need to show up, and no need for the moderator to impose time limits or interrupt the conservative with questions. It’s easy enough to crush a stick figure.

Once Romney broke through this first form of denial, more active and less stable attempts at denial were required to hold reality at bay. In the next debate, Vice-President Biden adopted a manic air, automatically rejecting all of his opponent’s arguments as absurd. Biden’s comportment was socially dysfunctional and could not be maintained consistently throughout the debates, yet it served for a time to stave off a severe threat to liberal self-esteem. The moderator, meanwhile, sharing the vice-president’s disregard for Paul Ryan’s existence (as anything other than a cartoon bad-guy) was oblivious to Biden’s bad behavior, and so refused to stop it.

By the third debate, the liberal patient’s internal conflict was out in the open. Obama was forced to deal with his opponent as an actual being, worthy of serious argument. Yet this distrurbing intrusion of reality forced the moderator into an embarrassing public display of total denial, simply negating the reality of Obama’s Libya coments, and breaking with her proper role (more social dysfunction). Frequent interruptions of the conservative’s argument were necessary for the moderator at this point.

So can we say that liberalism has become pathological? Yes, although perhaps not in a strictly psychiatric sense. There is a perspective from which liberalism’s apparent pathology would in fact be completely normal. If America’s liberals were gradually turning into leftists, their denial that a thoughtful and reasoned form of conservatism even exists would make perfect sense. After all, from a leftist perspective, conservative arguments are not so much substantive contributions to a necessary debate in which all sides hold some share of the truth as they are despicable manifestations of grasping wealth and power. If liberals were increasingly becoming lefists, we might say that their growing and apparently pathological denial was a form, not of madness, but of ideology. Obama’s portrayal of Romney lends considerable credence to this alternative diagnosis.

From the standpoint of the liberal democracy established by America’s Founders and elaborated upon by thinkers such as John Stuart Mill, however, this new leftist liberalism would indeed represent a form of pathology–not psychopathology, but a pathology of democracy.

It seems fair to conclude, then, that liberalism isn’t doing so well lately. In fact I’d go so far as to say that liberalism is becoming downright pathological.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Debates 2012: An Exercise in Liberal Pathology
By Stanley Kurtz, NRO
October 17, 2012

What's that you say, kbate?

The entire point of a "discussion board" is to put your own spin on it and tell us what you think. Any moron can google and come up with what someone else thinks.
Nobody cares what some wikipedia or google warrior thinks.

 

[Liar]

If you have not noticed, it is kinda boring here lately. The only opposition to speak of is pure ideologues; in normal election years (like 2000, 2004 and 2008), when Democrats think they are winning there is a lot of lively discussion of issues. Now they seemed too ashamed to speak up for their leader's point of view. Now we get "binder" threads as the big Democrat example of thinking analysis, so I am left with bupkiss other than trying to entertain myself and a few long-time friends until the election is over and Democrats go back to their usual whining instead of ceding it to this pathetic parcel of pre-programmed pansies...

Pat on the head for the alliteration in the end. That was nice.

As someone whose usual idea of "discussion of issues" is to c&p FUD hackery in quasi intellectual logorrhea guise, I fear this characherisation from you comes off as pretty much "I am rubber you are glue".

(Liar says, in quasi intellectual logohhrea vernacular. )

 

[RobDownSouth]

Pat on the head for the alliteration in the end. That was nice.

As someone whose usual idea of "discussion of issues" is to c&p FUD hackery in quasi intellectual logorrhea guise, I fear this characherisation from you comes off as pretty much "I am rubber you are glue".

(Liar says, in quasi intellectual logohhrea vernacular. )

AJ's "Prime Directive", if you will, has always been to drown out dissenting opinion. Flooding a thread with tangentially related cut-and-paste articles has been shown to be an effective, if repugnant, way for AJ to accomplish this goal.

Being intellectually bankrupt, AJ knows that he can't compete in the Arena of Ideas with the quality of his posts, so he's content to do battle instead with post quantity.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.
J.R. Dunn

The Obama campaign is veering toward antinomianism. Since it regards its own motives as pure, it feels it can dispense with the normal rules of accuracy, civility and decency. So we get the political methods of Spiro Agnew combined with the moral self-regard of Woodrow Wilson. It is not an attractive mixture.
Michael Gerson

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Pat on the head for the alliteration in the end. That was nice.

As someone whose usual idea of "discussion of issues" is to c&p FUD hackery in quasi intellectual logorrhea guise, I fear this characherisation from you comes off as pretty much "I am rubber you are glue".

(Liar says, in quasi intellectual logohhrea vernacular. )

The liberals have fully absorbed the lessons taught by their ideological progenitors, the Nazi socialists and Soviet communists. They understand that the big lie, if endlessly repeated, is extremely effective. Its purpose is to establish in the minds of the target audience an automatic stimulus-response connection, a Pavlovian conditioned reflex: capitalist = fat cat; George Bush = moron; Sarah Palin = idiot; Barack Obama = genius, any Kennedy = gift to mankind, etc. Ask the liberal spouting any of the above for proof that, say, Sarah Palin is an idiot or Barack Obama an intellectual giant, and the answer would be a puzzled stare -- why, everyone knows that she is a moron and he a towering intellect, so it must be true. Just repeat your slogan often enough, and once embedded in the minds of the people the mantra becomes reality for them. So effective is this technique that the left has made the former Alaska governor unelectable in the view of independents and even many conservatives, in effect dictating the available choices for the conservatives....
If tomorrow they decide to call the Tea Party members, say, Ghoulish Ghibellines, the moniker will stick though the people who would use it will have not the remotest idea of what it means (they would probably decide it denotes a particularly vicious breed of goblins). Why do you think liberals have such a conniption fit whenever Obama is called a socialist -- a neat and catchy label? It comes straight out of the liberal playbook and potentially is very effective.
Victor Volsky
The American Thinker