Obama--the grumblings

[Shawnee123]

Blah blah blah

Bitch moan bitch moan.

Wahhhhhh.

Sour grapes sour grapes.

Your turn.

[wolf]

liberal socialist gramsciian ...

[Shawnee123]

Now you're just getting me all hawt.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Bitch moan bitch moan.

Wahhhhhh.

Sour grapes sour grapes.

Were you doing all that?

One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps National Review and Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though. Christian Science Monitor and American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of The Weekly Standard.)

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Were you doing all that?

One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps National Review and Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though. Christian Science Monitor and American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of The Weekly Standard.)

Uh Huh. Ok. Sure.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Uh Huh. Ok. Sure.

Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.

Why yes. Yes one can. Apparently.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Why yes. Yes one can. Apparently.

Whenever UG goes really over-the-top, I have another one of my "On the Internet noone knows you're a dog" conspiracy theories that UG is an alter-ego of an existing Cellarite. That maybe s/he was going to use "Urbanana Gorilla" but decided that doing that would reveal the joke.

I do not believe that a real human being could consistently self-parody the way UG has on a primary account, even anonymously.

Maybe Brianna banned herself because she was unable to continue maintaining two Cellar accounts.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.

bwahahahahahahahahaha

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps National Review and Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though. Christian Science Monitor and American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of The Weekly Standard.)

It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.

I find Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.

One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by richlevy

As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.

I have a hard time not lumping Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity in there as well though.
What does it tell you when you cannot find their liberal equivalent/s? Is it that they do not exist? You agree with their views and therefore don't believe them "damaging"? Or is it something else. I'm seriously interested.

Originally Posted by richlevy

I find Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.

One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra.

Disenfranchised is nowhere near a strong enough word.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.

Not the national psyche, Rich -- the leftist psyche, which frankly requires severe damaging if you want a Republic. If you want a tyranny, stick with the Left. Personally, I'm not having any.

One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.

Such a "loss" would have been shown in an absence of conservative intellectual effort -- that absence is not in evidence. They're still cranking out the smart stuff, and if anything at a greater pace. What's more, so many of them are Republicans that you just can't show that Republican = intellectually impoverished. This was a clue to me that the left-of-center just ain't got it. Dinesh D'Souza remarked that the bright conservatives don't go into politics as much as their opposite numbers, but instead into business. What I see here is that richlevy is being suckered. Doesn't have to be that way. You may refuse to believe that I'm living proof -- but tell me, from what you've seen is that likely to stop me?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by richlevy

It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.

I find Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.

One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.

Nicely said.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers.

A responsible winger? What? Being off on one wing or the other automatically disqualifies a person from being responsible.

Well behaved? Maybe. Responsible? Nope.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by TGRR

A responsible winger? What? Being off on one wing or the other automatically disqualifies a person from being responsible.

Well behaved? Maybe. Responsible? Nope.

I think you're confusing "extremists" with "people rather to one side or the other of the middle of the road." For me, that's close enough to the "wings."

Welcome to the Cellar.