Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on September 5, 2008 By Draginol In Republican

I've written about this many times in the past but one of the more off putting features of American liberals is their smugness.  If you disagree with them it is only because you are either ignorant or evil. This tends to result in them losing elections. Often.

I just read a very interesting blog about this that I thought I'd share here:

This conceit of liberals -- which sometimes I think is all that sustains them, and all that keeps them liberals in the first place -- that liberals have some sort of a monopoly on brains, wit, taste, and, yes, even basic humanity will be their undoing. It always is. They keep making the same mistakes over and over and over and over again, and we're the dumb ones.

They, the ones who have made the same ten mistakes every single election since 1968, are the smart ones. Right?

Let's check the list: Demean an opponent who you really ought to suspect might be rather intelligent as an ignorant boob, bordering on a genuine diagnosable moron, to such a degree that when the candidate speaks and reveals himself as reasonably intelligent, he actually seems to be nearly a genius.

Demean those who don't live in "cosmopolitan" cities as bumpkins who have nothing to contribute to politics or culture -- not their own ideas, their own aspirations, their own fears, their own traditions -- except for the votes they're expected to cast for the Democratic elites who scorn them.

And all the rest of it.

Now, after the fact, the left is convulsing and gnashing their teeth. How could we have allowed ourselves to so demean Sarah Palin as to turn her home-run speech into a genuine star-making speech by lowering expectations so much through our derision!?!

How could you have done that, you ask. That's not the right question. The right question is Is it even possible for you to avoid doing that?, because you do every. Single. God. Damn. Election. Cycle.

It works in my favor, and yet I'm still horrified to see you doing it every time.

Have you ever done anything else? Are you capable of doing anything differently? Even as conservatives snicker at you and tell you to your smug fat faces that you're making a gross strategic error, you continue doing so just the same!

We don't even bother to hide our snickering at you any longer. We don't bother to conceal this basic error from you -- we simply declare it. We don't have to hide this, we don't have to try to avoid tipping you off that you're making this mistake for the thirtieth time, because we know you won't listen anyway!

That's the truly delightful thing about this. We don't have to scheme with each other and say, "Quiet down, don't give the game away," when a fellow conservative points the error out. It doesn't matter! We can scream this from the rooftops for all the good it does you.

It's like we're fighting a war and we don't even have to bother coding our messages to the troops because we know there's no chance at all you'll even bother to pause to read our communications. "Don't bother us with your silly orders and tactics and strategies," you tell us, "We can figure out how to beat you silly people well enough on our own without any of your stupid-brained help."

You can? You sure about that? Well, whatever, buddy. If you think so. Seems to me you guys are 3-4 since 1994 -- a losing record -- but if you guys want to keep following the same game plan, be my guest.

Ultimately the liberals' sin is their smugness. Not even so much because most people recoil from the assumption of superiority, both intellectual and moral, by those who have accomplished nothing exceptional in life except for reliably voting and "thinking" liberal, as if casting a vote the "correct" way slaps 30 points on to your IQs and counts for 100 hours of community service and child mentoring.

No, the main problem with that smugness, that belief that you're sooo very fucking clever, is that you're actually not particularly clever at all, and the great gap between your personal estimation of your intelligence and the actual real-world measure of it is wide enough to stumble into and take a painful fall. Perhaps if you weren't so very convinced of your own innate entitlement to rule, you'd spend less time seething at a public unwilling to concede that rule to you, and less time trying to trick the public into voting for you by concealing your true beliefs, and more time trying to figure out what the public actually wants in its government, and how to provide with them with that.

You know the big difference between conservatives and liberals in terms of political acumen? You guys never see this stuff coming, because you're so convinced of your innate right to control other people's lives. You convince ourselves you're always the smartest guys in the room, and anyone who disagrees with you must either be so stupid or so luminescently evil they could never prevail in a campaign.

The Ronald Reagans and Sarah Palins surprise you, because you just can't even conceive of them. Your entire sense of self-worth depends on the proposition Liberal = Smart, Good, Conservatives = Stupid, Bad, so you can't imagine clever, good people opposing you.

You go into every election thinking the score is already 24-0 in your favor -- after all, you have nothing but vicious, racist, gay-bashing hobo-killing morons in your way. How can you, the Moral and Intellectual Elect of the Earth, possibly fail?

And yet you do. More frequently than you win.

Eh. I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you this. As you've demonstrated in every past election, you're not going to listen anyhow.

Ya fuckin' dunces.

Oh, and... Good job so demeaning her you half-convinced the public she was a drooling imbecile and yee-haw hollerin' bumpkin who'd embarrass herself on stage.

Sure, sure. Smart move.

A former beauty queen -- who could have imagined she might be comfortable in front of a large, critical crowd, and might in fact even thrive in the spotlight?

A former television sportscaster -- who would have predicted she'd have some poise and savvy playing to a camera?

Amen. I have run into this in discussions with family and friends when politics come up. I try to avoid talking politics because, like many of you reading this, I keep up with it very closely, I'm pretty knowledgeable on the topic.

Most people, left or right, aren't that up on the issues. Yet, despite their lack of relative knowledge on the issues, they will presume to be more enlightened or educated simply because they hold left wing views.


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Sep 08, 2008

This coming from someone who's told me to F -off (well actually you said "F- u") several times on one thread. Just for expressing my opinion in the name of debate.

If you think any of the stuff in the link is happening here, you either cant read, dont want to read, or dont want to believe.

Lunacy - not just for idiots anymore.

on Sep 08, 2008

This coming from someone who's told me to F -off (well actually you said "F- u") several times on one thread. Just for expressing my opinion in the name of debate.

Yeah. I'd like to see those statements.

And I would like to see what "opinion" it was that you "expressed".

 

on Sep 08, 2008

Frogboy


Here's probably a good summation:
If you think someone else is dumb or inferior to you simply because they hold a different political philosophy from you, then you should probably re-evaluate.

 

Pretty much sums up my view on the issues.  If I am having an argument with someone over something in general, it alot easier to convince me when the other party presents facts and then their line of reasoning that comes from those facts.  (This doesn't always happen with  my girlfriend, but she gets a big pass from me )

on Sep 08, 2008

Leauki




This coming from someone who's told me to F -off (well actually you said "F- u") several times on one thread. Just for expressing my opinion in the name of debate.





Yeah. I'd like to see those statements.

And I would like to see what "opinion" it was that you "expressed".

 

I think I remember the day.

I rarely use the F-word, so I can remember.

https://forums.joeuser.com/320338/page/2/#1831737

But you are telling a lie. It was not about an "opinion" of yours.

It was about an anti-Semitic lie you told.

You claimed that Israel's defence against Lebanon's attack "involved large scale airstrikes on civillian populations".

And that's an often-repeated lie. There were no "large scape airstrikes on civilian populations". In fact Israel had no interest in harming civilians (what for?) and specifically dropped leaflets telling people to move away from Hizbullah's positions.

You implied that it is perfectly OK for me to die for your belief that fighting back is wrong, that fighting terrorists is the same as shooting innocent civilians because of their faith or nationality, that killing human shields is as wrong as using human shields (despite the fact that using human shields is a war crime, but that never comes into play when Israel is involved).

I stand by what I said. I don't mind you holding any opinion you want. But if you tell an anti-Semitic lie, one of many that causes death and misery in the world because people like you don't care about the effects of their propagation of these lies, I will get angry.

Those rockets from Lebanon that were shot at civilian targets were shot at us BECAUSE people believe in the stupid lies you and others like you tell.

The F-word doesn't even begin to describe the disgust I feel for people like you.

So it occurs to me that perhaps the reason you keep noticing that people accuse of you of being a liar is because you are a liar?

I have disagreed with many here on JU, especially with right-wingers, on subjects like socialised healthcare, religion, Creationism, tax systems, all the pet peeves of American conservatives. But for some reason they argue with me but don't accuse me of being a liar.

Go figure.

So that is why I used the F-word. It had nothing to do with your "opinion".

Tell me that Israel overreacted (and tell me how Israel SHOULD have stopped the five-year rocket bombardment of the north instead). That's an opinion.

But tell me a blatant lie, as if taken straight from Hizbullah's propaganda television channel; or tell me that a civilian Jew is as valid a target as a non-Jewish terrorist (hence equating Jews with terrorists); or imply that I should be the guinea-pig for YOUR pacifism, and I will hold you in as little regard as, apparently, the others that keep telling you that you are a liar.

 

on Sep 08, 2008

Most of my thoughts come from ACTUALLY LIVING in the countries I talk about and also collaborating with people that have lived in the countries as well. 

Israel is one of the countries I have lived in.  I lived in the region for some time.  I have noticed most people from the States tend to have an opinion about a country just because of what they've seen on TV, heard, or been taught.  This is fine.  Again, you can gain facts through those mediums. First hand experiences are better/more desirable then second or third hand information.

The whole Lebanon war started because ALSO (the rockets were included) Lebanon came across the border and kidnapped several of Israeli soldiers (who they made out to seem to be a live still but Lebanese had killed the soldiers) during PEACE TIME (or being Israel as close as it can be to peace which isn't peace as we think in the States).  Most people think that Israel just went in and wanted to bully around someone and that's why the world stepped in and told them to stop.  The leaflet campaign that Leauki is talking really happened because I have a friend who translated the leaflets and MADE SURE THAT THEY SAID ACCURATELY 'TO LEAVE THE AREA IF YOU ARE NOT MILITARY'.  On top of that the President of Lebanon said "that he never imagined Israel to respond the way they did and if he had known he would have called off the operation."  I'm not sure how he expected them to react.

I know people accuse Israel of the situation in Palestine and building a wall.  Well, the wall and inspections weren't as intense until (I guess some people don't like the word terriorist so the ISLAMIC RADICALS) Islamic Radicals started to take ambulances (they actually had children in the ambulance that sincerely needed medical attention) a cross the border and were several times success of a suicide bombing once they got in.  One that comes to my immediate mind was the one on Ben Yehuda Street which once the ambulance was in Jerusalem they went to the crowdest restuarant being Sbarro (sp?). 

Lets just think if Canada started doing that to the United States and was very hostile to the U.S. I feel that a lot of people's opinions would just go out the window because its no longer make believe but reality.  The States would not stand for that type of behavior from Canada and why should Israel?

 

on Sep 08, 2008

Most of my thoughts that I have about foreign countries are from actually living in that country or collaborating with others who have lived in the country as well.

Most people get their information from the media, they heard, or were taught.  This is fine.  You can obtain facts from these mediums.  It still stands true though first hand information is better/more desirable then second or third ect ect ect.

Now pertaining to Israel, I have lived there and have lived in the region for quite some time.  Most people think that Israel just wanted to bully a country around and this why the world had to tell them to stop attacking Lebonan.  This is far from the truth.  Lebonan not only was rocketing Israel (the rockets weren't even targeting military units but civilians) but they crossed the border and kidnapped several soldiers (Lebanon acted like these soldiers were alive ever since the war but the Lebanese had killed the soldiers).  These acts all transpired during 'peace time' or as peaceful as you can get while being Israel because their term of peace is way different than our term of peace.  The Lebanese President said that "if I had know that Israel would have reacted in the way that they reacted I would have never called the order of the kidnapping."  hmmmm I'm not sure how he thought they were going to react or after repeated times of them asking for Lebanon to release the soldiers.  Also on the leaflet campaign that Leauki is talking about.  I have a friend who translated those leaflets to ensure that they would be clearly UNDERSTOOD.  What country actually goes and does this before they attack another country?  Serious...... No, this is not sacrastic for this really did happen.

Now Israel gets a lot of heat because of Palestine and the wall.  The wall and inspections weren't all that strict until the Islamic Radicals (I would use the word Terrorist here) have taken ambulances (usually with little kids in them that actually needed medical attention) and used this as a cover for suicide missions.  A time that comes to mind that one of the several times this was attempted and successful was when they made it to Jerusalem.  They went to Ben Yehuda Street (which has a ton of stories and where most foreigners go shopping) and they found the crowdest place which was Sbarro (sp?) and blew themselves up inside. 

If Canada did all of this stuff to the States, I am fairly confident that most people's opinions would go out the window and they would want the States to respond.  Think about it if Canada started to bomb us and started sending over suicide bombers.  Yeah, I'm confident that that would not last all that long.

on Sep 08, 2008

The F-word doesn't even begin to describe the disgust I feel for people like you.

But if you tell an anti-Semitic lie, one of many that causes death and misery in the world because people like you don't care about the effects of their propagation of these lies, I will get angry

You implied that it is perfectly OK for me to die for your belief that fighting back is wrong, that fighting terrorists is the same as shooting innocent civilians because of their faith or nationality, that killing human shields is as wrong as using human shields

It was about an anti-Semitic lie you told.

Oh Leauki.

Nowhere was I being anti-semitic, nor am I an anti-semite. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I was questionning the tactics Israel used in the summer war of 2006.

I was not defending or condoning the actions of Hezbollah

Yes, Israel did drop leaflets telling people to get out of dodge. That does not then give them the right to kill everyone and everything in an area, especially after they bombed the main airport, started a naval blockade, and attacked major roads and bridges across the country, thereby paralyzing major transport.

Let's look at this so-called "anti-semitic lie" you accuse me of peddling-

On December 1, 2006, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan submitted a report to the Security Council president stating that, as of November 20, 2006, 822 cluster bomb strike sites had been recorded,[89] with 60,000 cluster bomblets having been cleared by the UN Mine Action Coordination Center.[83] On January 28, 2007, the State Department said that Israel may have violated agreements with the United States when it fired American supplied cluster munitions into civilian areas of southern Lebanon.[90]

Hmmmm. 60,000 cluster bomblets. Also, let's look at another "lie"

During the campaign Israel's Air Force flew more than 12,000 combat missions, its Navy fired 2,500 shells, and its Army fired over 100,000 shells.[67] Large parts of the Lebanese civilian infrastructure were destroyed, including 400 miles (640 km) of roads, 73 bridges, and 31 other targets such as Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, electrical facilities, 25 fuel stations, 900 commercial structures, up to 350 schools and two hospitals, and 15,000 homes. Some 130,000 more homes were damaged.[91][92][93][94

Now, I never said that Israel didn't have the right to defend itself. 350 schools, 2 hospitals and 15,000 homes? I never said that you should die for my "pacifistic" ideals. What I was calling to question was the massive use of force that caused damage mostly to Lebanon's civillian populace moreso than it did to Hezbollah.

And the proof is in the pudding. All of these tactics didn't work, Hezbollah remained a viable and cohesive fighting force despite the 12,000 airforce combat missions and tens of thousands of troops invading the southern regions trying to destroy it. All it did do was illustrate that Israel really didn't know where Hezbollah was, and turned public sentiment in Lebanon even moreso towards Hezbollah's side than it was before.

And what was the end result? The entire thing was completely unnecessary. Hezbollah stated that they would kidnap soldiers if hostage negotiations broke down. Those negotiations broke down, so Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers. Israel countered by starting a war that inflicted more damage on Lebanons' civillian infrastructure than it ever did on Hezbollah, after which point Hezbollah retaliated with the rocket attacks that you witnessed first hand.

Absolutely, Israel has the right to defend itself. But they needlessly escalated things into a major catastrophe. Interestingly enough, there's an article by Seymour Hirsch here-

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/21/060821fa_fact

In which he brings up the very interesting position that Israel had planned out the entire campaign long before the kidnappings and when they did occur were used as justification to execute the war that they had been planning for some time. Interesting reading indeed!

 

on Sep 09, 2008

Nowhere was I being anti-semitic, nor am I an anti-semite. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You personally told the lie.

And I don't care how many other people also tell the lie.

 

In which he brings up the very interesting position that Israel had planned out the entire campaign long before the kidnappings

That wouldn't surprise me as the rocket attacks from Hizbullah had been going on for five years. But I assume that claiming that Israel had "planned out the entire campaign long before" sounds "better" than "after several years of rocket bombardment Israel knew what to do in case they also kidnap soldiers".

Again, there is two ways to put it.

You can say that Israel hit human shields whom Hizbullah refused to let leave (i.e. the truth) or you can claim that Israel went on a large scale campaign to bomb civilians (the anti-Semitic lie). And you can mention that Israel has been under Hizbullah fire for five years and therefor was ready to fight back (the truth) or you can claim that Israel had "planned the war" long before it "started" (the anti-Semitic lie).

It's up to you and you chose the anti-Semitic lies.

And people die for this shit. People in Israel (and Lebanon) die because people (especially among the Shiites in Lebanon) believe the lies that you and others like you propagate.

And that disgusts me.

You have no heart and you certainly don't take responsibility.

_I_ was shot at because people believe the lies you and those like you tell.

How can I respect you for that?

 

on Sep 09, 2008

Most of my thoughts that I have about foreign countries are from actually living in that country or collaborating with others who have lived in the country as well.

I try to use the same method.

Toda rava havri.

 

And Artysim,

Nobody doubt that Israel used X aircraft to bomb Y targets. The NUMBERS are not the problem. The problem, and you will probably deny it again, is that YOU claimed that Israel launched a large scale bombardment of civilian targets. And that is a lie. And it is a lie that causes death and destruction around the world. People believe that shit and kill Jews because of it.

Be very proud.

 

on Sep 09, 2008

Oh Leauki.

And don't you "oh Leauki" me in that patronizing way.

You don't get it, do you. You are telling lies that cause death. I don't need you to patronize the victims or me. I need you to stop telling the lies.

 

on Sep 09, 2008

I am simply amazed that, by overwelming majorities, blacks and Jews support liberals - who for the most part do not share any of their values, and who constantly demonize them and patronize them.  But then when you have a captured constituency, why cater to them?  Ignore them and cater to everyone else.  Liberals have nothing to lose by demonizing Jews and ignoring blacks.

on Sep 09, 2008

I am simply amazed that, by overwelming majorities, blacks and Jews support liberals - who for the most part do not share any of their values, and who constantly demonize them and patronize them.  But then when you have a captured constituency, why cater to them?  Ignore them and cater to everyone else.  Liberals have nothing to lose by demonizing Jews and ignoring blacks.

Yes, that is a valid point.

And it's already happening. In many left-wing circles the word "neo-conservative" has already become synonumous with "Jew", because so many Jews became neo-conservatives ever since the liberals tried to get the racist vote.

I think more Jews vote Republican now than ever before.

Traditionally Jews voted Democrat and it was indeed the Democratic party that, when looking for a new voter base when the old south fell apart, represented the interests of minorities and new immigrants. But that's certainly over and minorities are no longer represented by or in the Democratic party. But it will take a generation or two for everyone to learn.

In the past Democrats supported Israel and Republicans didn't care.

Today Republicans support Israel and (some) Democrats demonise it. (Let me add here again that Hillary Clinton and her supporters are definitely not among that group, which is one reason for the harsh treatment she got by the new Democrats.)

But Democrats are not ignoring blacks. In fact Democrats embrace blacks and black culture. The problem here is that "black" is not a useful description (to me at least, to new Democrats it is) and "black culture" doesn't exist (because being black has nothing to do with what one does, and culture is what people do).

Republicans ignore skin colour, Democrats embrace it as an important difference between people. (Again except Hillary's supporters who very clearly didn't care about skin colour.)

The very idea that blacks can be seen as a distinct voter group is a problem. And embracing the "group" as such cannot be good for a colour-blind society.

If liberals really supported minorities, they would have supported an orthodox Jewish man for President. Religious Jews are a minority among Jews, Jews are a smaller minority in the US than blacks and certainly a minority world-wide, and there are fewer men than women.

The first Jewish President will be a Republican, I am sure. And perhaps the first female President will also be a Republican, now that the Democrats shot down Hillary.

 

It wouldn't be a surprise. Conservatives are usually more open to minorities and women:

The first (and so far only, I think) Jewish prime minister of Britain was a member of and supported by the conservative party. The Conservative Party also had a Jewish head for a while just this century.

Tansu Ciller, the first (and so far only) female prime minister of Turkey was from a right-wing party.

Golda Meir was a socialist, but an Israeli socialist party is probably considered right-wing (if not downright Nazi) because of its insistence that attempts to exterminate Jews are not "liberation".

Margaret Thatcher is a conservative.

Angela Merkel, prime minister ("chancellor") of Germany is from the conservative party (Christian Democratic Union).

 

If there is one thing all left-wing governments all over the world have in common it is that all their leaders are always men and always from a relative majority (10%+) population group.

(Hillary Clinton tried to change that, of course. Again, I exclude her and Bill's supporters from the "new Democrats" I am talking about.)

 

on Sep 09, 2008

Leauki,

shpits tovmeod va bivracha.

Bracha!

 

on Sep 09, 2008

Again, I exclude her and Bill's supporters from the "new Democrats" I am talking about.

New is a relative term.  I think of them as "New" as in the early 90s late 80s when some in the party tried to take back the party from the left wing extreme that had captured it and run failure after failure (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis) on the national ticket.  Bill is pretty much a moderate (Hillary is a card carrying liberal, unlike Bill).  I dont see the current "new" democrats being any different from the Humphrey/McGovern wing that seized control of the party during the Vietnam war.

I agree that democrats embrace race as a bargaining chip - you HAVE to have a race card (whether for good or bad is a matter for another debate).  But I dont agree they do anything for blacks - at least not the party power structure (I think many of the rank and file think they are - but they are impotent to actually do anything).  When the democrats granted Jackson and Sharpton a seat at the table it was with the understanding they would bring an asset to the table - the black vote.  And the only way they can continue to hold those seats is to keep blacks as second class citizens.  Always playing the victim card.

The overt racists of the middle 20th century did not go away.  They found a way to couch their rhetoric in sugary terms that would seem to help, but only enslave blacks.  You need look no further than the president pro-tem of the senate, who was still using the "nigger" term in the 21st century.  We all know that words are cheap, and indeed, the democrats say alot about race.  But their actions show that when blacks actually do get a leg up - Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Carl McCall, Julian Bond, etc. - they are slapped back down by the democrats using the most racist terms imagineable.

No, the democrats may embrace race as a way of playing the race card, but they do nothing for blacks, except pay them lip service.  just as Geraldine Ferraro was the first Woman VP candidate, but had no chance in hell, so it appears they are doing the same thing with Barak Obama.  Undermining his campaign at every turn so they can on the one hand say "See!" and on the other breath a bigotted sigh of relief that he did not make it.

on Sep 09, 2008

I think it's been proven that people who are more intelligent in the IQ, commonsense and academic sense are generally Liberal and non religious. I think it's best exemplified here:

 

http://www.eyje.com/pictures/amazing/Results_of_US_Election_2004_listed_by_average_population_IQ_PIC_

6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6