Luckily, we have the Emerging Diebold Protectorate.

Looks like Georgy has pissed off more people thank Tricky Dick.

However, if you extrapolate from the post-Watergate era, the two series are going to reverse course in the next few years.

That does not appear to bode well for the democrats.

Good chart anyway.

Hmm. I was 20 in 1991 and I'm a Democrat. Incidentally, I loved Reagan in the 1980's, so I guess Bush 41 changed all that.

I guess the hypothesis works on me.

Fascinating. This fits with another interesting observation, which is that most people's taste in music is fixed at about the same age. Time for a unified field theory of preferences?

No, the unified theory doesn't work for me since I came of age with The Boss and Reagan and while I will always be loyal to Springsteen, Reagan definitely doesn't do it for me.

Once those 20-somethings stop living off of student loans and making money, they'll realize that Democrats want to add yet more taxes to their already too-high burden. When that happens, they'll shift back to Republican.

Dear God,

Please keep Diebold safe so I do not have to think about icky stuff like politics.

- Al

This is not credibly unusual. People form usually affect first, then come up with the reasons to justify it. Liberals and conservatives, progressives and neocons, religious and seculars, blacks and whites, straights and lesbians all do this.

Most Democrats vote because of emotional reasons. Trying to claim thata rejection of torture, or the Iraq war, or whatever issue based on some hyper-rational chain of reasoning is the cause of shifts in public opinion is just flat out wrong and out of touch with reality. Some wonky liberals seem to over-analyze things and want to decide things on some mythical wholly rational plane of existence (specifically, I refer to people who I have debated with in the comments on places like Daily Kos about whether or not it is appropriate to appeal to religious groups), and that's why Democrats sometimes lose when they should win.

Once those 20-somethings stop living off of student loans and making money, they'll realize that Democrats want to add yet more taxes to their already too-high burden. When that happens, they'll shift back
to Republican.

Yep. One thing Kevin doesn't realize is that young people, because they're stupid and naive, are more liberal. As they grow older and wiser, they become more conservative and more likely to vote Republican. That's why Kevin's conclusion of a emerging Democratic majority is just a bunch of nonsense. I predict a landslide for the GOP in in the 2006 elections.

If you go by that chart, and I'm reading it right, it looks like Democrats outnumber Republicans by huge amounts in almost every age group. How do Republicans ever win elections?

Note to idiots: Diebold hasn't been around forever.

Interesting. I am of the JFK cohort, grew up in a Republican family and changed to a Democrat at 20 when I left home. And right after that JFK was killed.

The chart certainly suggests that twenty-year-old imprint on parties for life. The fascinating question is whether their impressionability is inevitably tied to a general thumbs-up-or-down evaluation of the current president or can instead be influenced by education.

The thing I don't understand about this chart is that it seems to indicate that there are overwhelmingly more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Presumably this is because it's based on recent polls, during which the GOP has been imploding. If this chart were produced from polls in 2004 or so (when the Republican party was less beaten up than it is now), do we think the blue points would all move down uniformly and the red ones up uniformly? Or would more interesting things happen? For example, is there a certain age group more likely to swing between the parties?

It's a great picture. I think the NYTimes does the best graphics of any news source out there.

I predict Al's paychecks will bounce in November.

I further predict that he and his fellow paid troll AH are too stupid to realize that seniors, and those in their 50's are filled with democrats too.

Most people in this country make less than $35,000 a year. They can't be scared for ever against taxing the rich more. Republicans have done a beautiful job convincing rubes that taxing the rich will affect the taxes on a family of four making $33k a year. Stupidity can only get you votes for so long.

Obviously the rule doesn't hold for everyone, just for enough people to produce swings. It doesn't much fit my experience, for example. And the inflection points in the graph are hardly perfect.

But they're still close enough to be interesting. As for how Republicans ever win elections, it's because plenty of self-identified Democrats vote for Republicans. They always have. And there's always the independents, too.

Seems to work anecdotally for me. I came of age during the fallout from Watergate and Vietnam and drank in my dad's dissillusionment, and while I was a year too late to vote for Carter (wasn't particularly intrigued by the campaign, though my girlfriend's parents had it on the TV nonstop and their Democratic political-junkie enthusiasm seemed kind of curious to me at the time. Isn't this stuff just boring as hell?). So I was pretty primed to immediately hate Ronald Reagan.

The thing that did it in for me was this ridiculously glossy post-RNC Convention spread in Time Magazine of him on his ranch in a coboy hat and riding horses. The imagemaking was revolting, though I wasn't equipped then at all to evaluate it. I became truly politically aware in the early 80s working for the League of Conservation Voters.

It's certainly true of me for music. I was "scarred for life" by early 70s progressive rock. And while I listen to tons of stuff in all sorts of genres, I do evaluate the music I like by the boundary and convention-stretching ideals I learned to love as a teenager.

Bob

Interesting.

The conventional wisdom used to be that people tended to be more liberal when they were young, and tended to become less so as they got older.

I remember freaking out the first time I met a young conservative who wasn't also a Jesus Freak. My god, I thought, if this person is right-wing now, what's he going to be like in 30 years? (This was back in the 1980s.)

I'm not sure this study is any more definitive than the old conventional wisdom. There are too many confounding factors: parental influence, influence of one's peers, understanding (or lack thereof) of history, what values the culture and society considered important during one's formative years, and how much a person was *aware* of politics during their youth.

Old European adage (that doubtless many of you have heard before, but it bears repeating):

Under 30 and not a Communist -- you have no soul.

Under 40 and not a Socialist -- you have no heart.

Under 50 and not a Moderate -- you have no brains.

Under 60 and not a Conservative -- you have no money.

Bob

American Hawk said:
"Once those 20-somethings stop living off of student loans and making money, they'll realize that Democrats want to add yet more taxes to their already too-high burden."

Once they realize that any wealth they've accumulated is only because of the social and economic infrastructure that was created by a commonwealth composed of those taxes, and that without that "commonwealth" they wouldn't have a pot to pee in, they'll realize that (as Oliver Wendell Holmes said:) "taxes are the dues we pay for civilization", they won't be so quick to try to tear down that very commonwealth the way their selfish Baby-boomer neocon predecessor generation tried to do in the 90's and the first 5 years of the new millenium.

Then, they'll realize just how close this nation came to losing it's entire treasure of freedom, not to dirty-shirt terrorists, but to greedy authoritarians who tried to destroy the middle class in order to fund just one last spasm of their own grubby consumerist lifestyle.

I'm betting on the next generation turning it's back on the ugliness of the Rove era and looking toward another age of civic responsibility.

Plus, all the kids of the religious nuts will certainly come to hate their parents and once they get sober will realize that the twisted fear of their superstitious, dominionist parents almost cost them their birthright of liberty. Then it will really be game over for the American Taliban and the Rovists who used them to accumulate power.

Yes, you can quote me.

This is the first demographically-based "emerging Democratic majority" theory that's made any sense to me, that seems like it might be based on something with some staying power.

The last such idea was the Hispanic theory - that Hispanics lean Democrat, and they're one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups, therefore the proportion of Dems is on the increase.

The problem is that over time, the voting preferences of racial, ethnic, and religious groups change. White Catholics, for instance, used to be a lot more pro-Dem than they are today. Bush's success with the Hispanic vote in 2004 certainly suggested that Hispanics weren't immune to this possibility.

But this theory looks like it may have something to it. But like the Wise Commentators always say, "It's too soon to tell."

"The conventional wisdom used to be that people tended to be more liberal when they were young, and tended to become less so as they got older."

Liberal programs lose their cause and become institutions. So we do not become less liberal, we become more anti-conservative, rebelling against staleness liberal programs over time as these programs become permanently overrun by elites.

Liberals, by my definition, are those who try to manage government such that it is not so egregiously, mismanaged by others.

We are liberal because the alternative is much worse. The Matt who has posted for years has been noticed to become more liberal. Not really, I have simply reasserted liberalness in response to the nonsense that is currently in power.

Anthony:

I think yo make a very important point. People to tend to lead with affect and then apply justifications after the fact for what initially compels them (and that's equally true, of course, with music). While I don't necessarily buy into all your wonk-bashing, I do think that the George Lakoff / What's The Matter With Kansas ideas are important -- if occasionally overstated or hoped for as a magic bullet.

Sure, it's about more than framing -- but the central idea that people are *moved* by political values and then *think about them* later is an important one. This is why the Democrats are being so successful now in the polls without having formulated a clear set of policy or even values statements. We're capitalizing on the lizard-brain visceral disgust with current Republican rule.

What we need to do if we want to sustain this success is to articulate a set of policy and value prescriptions that appeal as strongly to the lizard (limbic) brain as do the more mean-spirited and resentment-driven memes that the GOP has so successfully used.

And that means that it may be time to begin harnessing some of the irrational resentment into more constructive flavors of poulism. This is why so many of these new Democratic-leaners are sympathetic to both eat-the-rich and immigrant-bashing rhetoric.

We need to harness these drives while leeching out some of their inherent poison. And that will be, unfortunately, no easy task.

Bob

Wait a minute. Bush 41 was a popular president? Based on what? His high approval rating after Iraq I and before being voted out due to the economy?

rmck1: Seems to work anecdotally for me. I came of age during the fallout from Watergate and Vietnam and drank in my dad's dissillusionment, and while I was a year too late to vote for Carter (wasn't particularly intrigued by the campaign, though my girlfriend's parents had it on the TV nonstop and their Democratic political-junkie enthusiasm seemed kind of curious to me at the time. Isn't this stuff just boring as hell?).

Yes, but it also doesn't make sense. You begin by saying it works for you. But your chronology seems to indicate that when you were the age (20) that purportedly brings about lifelong allegiance to the party in power if it was a popular administration when you reached that age, and to the opposing party if the party in power was not popular--which was the circumstance in your case. Therefore, according to the chart's prediction, you should be a Republican.

These are the affiliations that the people of these ages have now. We can't really say with much certainty what the affiliations of people who are 20 now will be later in life, especially since the chart gives no indication of, for example, what the affiliations of people who were 20 back in the Nixon years were then. Presumably indiduals' political affilations change some over time.

What is most significant is the cumulative preferences of living adults. As I said on an earlier post today on a different thread, most people identify with Democrats. Republicans only win elections because of dirty tricks, treachery and voter apathy of the economically disadvantaged.

Ha - works for me. I'd slowly gnaw my arm off before voting for a Republican after seeing what these monsters have done over the past 6 years (my early 20's). In fact I'd gladly gnaw off any Republican's arm to prevent him or her from voting!

There's a lot more to an age cohort than who was president when that cohort turned 20.

First off they need to demonstrate that a cohorts political preference isn't a function of time. Hell, maybe Bush is just pissing off people in their 20's and 50's. After all he's threatening to send some to war and to take away the others social security.

So we see the snivelling twits and their little polls running amok this evening, and I have to catch myself and stop from laughing out loud--the Dumbocrats are about to take over? Take over what? The House or the Senate? Perhaps you liberals know something I don't but there's over three weeks to go until election day and I wouldn't be counting my chickens before they're hatched just yet.

As a brand, the Dumbocratic Party is like buying a Yugo when the Republican Party--the Cadillac of political parties--beckons with a sweet deal and leather seats.

The Conservative Bloviator:

What is most significant is the cumulative preferences of living adults. As I said on an earlier post today on a different thread, most people identify with Democrats.

Were that true, President Kerry would be enjoying himself, living high on the hog right now in his little enclave of liberals, crazy wife and all by his side. He'd have his tax and spend little hind end planted on every seat at the great table of commerce, ruining the stock market and spending billions to ensure fifth graders get free condoms and methadone. MOST people identify themselves as AMERICANS and MOST Dumbocrats are certainly not Americans. And you wonder why I gasp at your ridiculous thoughts.

rmck1:

...So I was pretty primed to immediately hate Ronald Reagan.

The thing that did it in for me was this ridiculously glossy post-RNC Convention spread in Time Magazine of him on his ranch in a coboy hat and riding horses. The imagemaking was revolting, though I wasn't equipped then at all to evaluate it. I became truly politically aware in the early 80s working for the League of Conservation Voters.

The thing that a shit-eating twit like yourself forgets is that Reagan was a winner; Americans love a winner; and you also forget that Americans look upon you and your kind with a pitiful disdain. What diseased and broken aspect of your character causes you to hate a winner? Oh, that's right! You've never held a decent job and a man with charisma and strength and ability causes you to chew your little fingernails and hate the people who do well in life. Poor fellow--you have a long life full of hating winners ahead.

Ignore these trend lines and numbers. When the American people get a nice helping of Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, they'll vote with their feet and return to the Republican Party, which will be stronger when we excise a few bad apples.

Know this, Dumbocrats: the Republican Party's grip on power is permanent.

I'm wagering the House stays the same and the Republicans gain a seat or two in the Senate. No one here is smart enough to take that bet.

As I said on an earlier post today on a different thread, most people identify with Democrats.

Lot's of people can say all sorts of things. What you failed to do was provide any reasoning for your position, thus the fact that you said something is actually completely worthless. You know, zero calories, or Garbage In, Garbage Out.

As for this chart, all informed observers know that young people are predominantly liberal and there is a transference to conservatism as people get older and start families. Witness the growing trend of married women voting conservatively, or those with families favoring conservatives while those who are single favor liberals.

What this chart doesn't show is how strong the postulated effect is when working against the countervailing effects. Further, we also know that going to college increases the chances of the student becoming more conservative:

The most recent evidence on this subject comes from the mid-1990s, in the University of Michigan's National Election Studies. These survey data uncover two facts. First, people who go to college are more likely to vote Republican than those who don't go to college. Adults 25 and under from Republican homes are, for example, 11 percentage points more likely to vote Republican if they attended college than if they didn't. And young adults from Democratic households are 11 percentage points less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if not.

Second, nearly everybody grows more likely to vote Republican as they age--but especially college graduates. It is no shock that the vast majority of people of all educational backgrounds from Republican homes vote Republican by age 40. It may come as more of a surprise that 40-year-olds with Democrat parents are far less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if they haven't. In fact, while three-quarters of the uneducated group still vote Democrat, the odds are only about 50-50 that the college graduates vote this way. And they've not all become skeptical political independents: Fully a third are registered Republicans.

Best.Fake.Norman Rogers.Ever.

Norman:

Blow me you delusional twit. I'd be happy to pound some sense into your thick Republican skull, if you give me the location of the hole in the ground you live in.

Fred

fart reader:

Wait a minute. Bush 41 was a popular president? Based on what? His high approval rating after Iraq I and before being voted out due to the economy?

He most certainly was. Were it not for the fact that H. Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote in 1992, he would have been easily re-elected. How did that turn out, liberals? Oh, yes. We threw a degenerate pity party for eight years and nearly ruined America forever.

Tango Man:

You are a man among children here, and I salute you sir.

Perhaps you could locate some evidence that hippies are dirty and smelly liberals who are inferior to people who wear decent clothing and take baths--I would very much like to hear more of your ideas. There is definitely an ethnic sensibility that is missing as well--the Republican Party commands a startling number of White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASPs) but it also contains a growing number of Catholics. Perhaps they should fight for the soul of the Republican Party, yes? Oh, what a grand thing it would be to hand those Papists back to the Dumbocrats.

General:

This is me sneering at you:

:\

Suck it up and blow it out hard, liberals. Americans love winners, and you couldn't pick a winner if your lives depended on it. And you wonder why I can't stop laughing at your silly notions!

Hormonal Citizen:

Best.Fake.Norman Rogers.Ever.

So you say.

Fled Fartlock:

Blow me you delusional twit. I'd be happy to pound some sense into your thick Republican skull, if you give me the location of the hole in the ground you live in.

Threatening me with physical harm is typical for a liberal tough guy. But if you would please join your mouth breathing brethren for a moment and have a look at what it is I'm trying to explain to you, I think you'll find that you Dumbocrats have no ideas, no decent candidates, and a lock on the Hollywood voting bloc.

Just ask President Kerry how effective it was to have Barbra Streisand and Janeane Garafalo pulling for him to win in 2004.

And you wonder why I shake my head and look away in disgust...

Excellent! I revel in thy foam-flecked, if satirical, glory.

Chart Reader:

Yes, you're correct and I thought about that after I posted. Problem is, I can't read the chart and so didn't have the specific correlates in my mind when I posted.

I do think it's still true generally though -- if the thesis is expanded to mean that one's political ideology grows out of one's formative years -- which, after all, they don't call "formative" for nothing.

So if you want to set the chronology back by five years -- I was politically formed in the crucible of disgust at Nixon, which is what the broader theory would predict.

If I'm an outlier in the stats (and it's to be expected that many people are), that doesn't change the validity of the basic mechanism underling the chart's point.

Bob

Norman quotes his ex-wife And you wonder why I shake my head and look away in disgust..

Norman, you asshole:

Just ask President Kerry how effective it was to have Barbra Streisand and Janeane Garafalo pulling for him to win in 2004.

Hollywood is about to send frickin' Arnold back for a second go-round in the governor's mansion--so much for your thesis, you bag of nuts.

It alarms me that there are so many soulless opportunists in America who are willing to sell America to the highest bidder and who are willing to say absolutely anything to get that Establishment job making mega-bucks.

I think we all realize that now the Cold War is over (if it was ever anything serious) and except for nukes we're pretty safe. Why do we spend so much on the military? Why don't we aggressively spend it on getting rid of the nukes?

Now that the public opinion is shifting towards Democrats I see the media and book publishers shifting their positions toward the Left; no doubt we'll soon hear the wailing of Republicans about the 'Liberal Media'. Oh how I long for an unbiased media who just investigate and report. I guess I'll have to keep reading RawStory.com and other Internet news sources.

As I get older my political position hasn't changed, but my understanding of why I stand where I do has become more complete and well-defined.

I sympathize with the real Conservatives of America who feel betrayed by the current Republican 'leadership'. I have occasionally felt that way about Dem leadership (Joe Lieberman is only one recent example). I suppose the worst was in the late '60s when both Dems and Repubs were flayed by Johnson & Nixon.

These days I admire the idealistic Progressives, but I still stand to their left.

How can America hope to have true representation when it can be bought so easily by the rich? Are ALL of the Senators millionaires? Remembering the story Indians told about contributing to Abramoff's causes to get a hearing within the White house it makes me wonder just how much money you have to give to see Democracy work. Can a private citizen still petition their government? Can we still speak freely without fear of retaliation?

Hormonal Citizen is much better than the anaemic attempt by Jay (global idiot) to paint himself as oh-so-clever.

Besides, it has the added bonus of being true.

Speaking of the guy whose parents named him after an initial, we haven't seen him since the "atom bomb was dropped on Japan, not a nuclear bomb" gaffe of last week.

Oops, regarding 'idealist progressives', it was "to their left", but should be "to their right".

Norman:

> The thing that a shit-eating twit like yourself [...]

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*

Ahhhhh ... the pleasures of civil discourse.

How ... unburdening :)

Bob

We are being spoofed by the best, Gentlemen. Enjoy the satire.

We threw a degenerate pity party for eight years and nearly ruined America forever.

I think this says it better than you, NR

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

We are being spoofed by the best, Gentlemen. Enjoy the satire.

Were that it so, liberals, your uncle Norman would still have a good laugh at your attempt to seize political power in this country.

Won any elections lately? President Kerry is wishing for a larger majority in the House and Senate. Speaker of the House Pelosi wants more votes so she can put a Cadillac in every welfare mama's driveway. Majority Leader Reid wants to surrender to al Qaeda and make everyone denounce Christmas as a blasphemy.

Thank God for Chief Justice Roberts. He is perhaps the only thing saving America from lawlessness and sexual perversion right now. Consider him a hedge fund against President Billary Clinton Rodham.

That Norman person is a pretty funny guy. Reminds me of a typical FreeRepublic forum member.

Here's a clue, guy: Once you take the name of anything - first name, political party, etc - and change it in an attempt to be funny, you are no longer relevant, and everything you had to say to begin with will generally be ignored. This goes for both sides - Democrat or Republican.

Secondly, to everyone else: Don't feed the troll. You're giving the man exactly what he wants. He wants people to be pissed off at him for coming in and insulting the lot of you Democrats and left-leaning peoples.

There are proper ways to debate, and there are improper ways to debate. He starts off improper, sure, but fighting fire with fire is simply retarded. Argue the man when he becomes civil. If he becomes civil. He might be making a good point, but I would never know. I stopped at the first instance of "Dumbocrat" and never bothered to read any of his other posts.

Alan - this is a caricature of the Norman Rogers we used to know. A pretty good one, but a spoof none the less.

dark avenger, be fair. violent crime is only up for the past two years, and that's clnton's fault, somehow.

Norman Rogers (more seriously this time):

Richard Nixon was one of those tenacious, never-say-die evenual winners that Americans have always had a soft spot for. Of humble origins, he worked hard in school, became a lawyer and rose through the ranks of the GOP. He even pursued his future wife Pat so attentively that he drove her for miles to go on dates and sat in the car waiting for her to come back, to drive her home.

A real gentleman, and a credit to the anti-Communist cause, as he inherited that mantle after Joe McCarthy self-immolated.

He lost to a glamour-boy for president, but did that embitter him? (Well, maybe ... ) But did he give up? Oh no. From the ashes of the Checkers speech and "they won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore," he arose phoenix-like as the New Nixon and intimated (lied) that he had a "secret plan to end the war." And thus he took the White House, and (after eight more years of carnage) brought us Peace With Honor.

And then he, umm, imploded. Spectacularly.

And watching that was the defining political experience of my life.

Which is why the popcorn is tasting especially good right now.

Bob

Alan:

Normie is a parody. A spoof. A perfect send-up of a typical moronic right-wing knuckledragger.

Pop some popcorn and enjoy it.

There are proper ways to debate, and there are improper ways to debate. He starts off improper, sure, but fighting fire with fire is simply retarded. Argue the man when he becomes civil. If he becomes civil. He might be making a good point, but I would never know. I stopped at the first instance of "Dumbocrat" and never bothered to read any of his other posts.

Civil, you say?

Blow me you delusional twit. I'd be happy to pound some sense into your thick Republican skull, if you give me the location of the hole in the ground you live in.

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*
Ahhhhh ... the pleasures of civil discourse.
How ... unburdening :)

Yes, I can see how liberals would blame me for their problems, but here's what you fail to understand: Mr. And Mrs. America think you're all foul-mouthed little pity-party throwers and they're not about to hand you their car keys. As I think I've stated over and over again, how many elections have you won? George W Bush sits astride a nation on the ascent, and liberals are little gnats trying to tear it down. As far as I can see, the man still has a smile for his enemies and a kind word for his adversaries as he stands by his friends and shows unparalleled gumption and ability, something none of you have ever had in your miserable little lives.

Fighting fire with fire is certainly retarded--thank you for illustrating what's wrong with the Dumbocratic Party.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron.

Norman:

Of course you have to quote all of that out-of-context and leave off what it was that, umm, stimulated such creative rejoinders :)

GOP shills, after all, are nothing without having mastered the Disingenuous Arts.

Bob

Richard Nixon wasn't "A real gentleman." He was a ruthless son of a bitch who, for example, didn't merely defeat Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas for the House and Senate respectively. He destroyed those people by smearing them as communists.

At least Gahagan Douglas got the last laugh. We have her to thank for branding Nixon with the moniker that will travel with him throughout history:

Tricky Dick

Mr. Rogers writes:

I'm wagering the House stays the same and the Republicans gain a seat or two in the Senate. No one here is smart enough to take that bet.

I'll take that bet. How much?

When *Norman* types, I have a regular Green Acres moment of reverie - I hear the fife and drum in the background. Much like Lisa did every time Oliver spoke of the little "seedlings, shoosting up through the soil."

rmck1:

Of course you have to quote all of that out-of-context and leave off what it was that, umm, stimulated such creative rejoinders :)

What's the matter? Don't like being lumped in with the mouth breather who physically threatened me earlier on this thread? How many elections do you liberals think you're going to win with such public displays of lewdness and violence. You're third rate, if nothing more than common thugs. Perhaps you have a sexual need to simulate urinating in another the mouth of another man--that's nothing to do with me. I have read that thread where you have essentially dissolved into a maniac and a shrill little man, and I don't much care to respond to someone who has these types of perversions. We've had enough of Bill Clinton, my good man. We certainly don't need any more of that.

GOP shills, after all, are nothing without having mastered the Disingenuous Arts.

Dumbocrat shills merely make threats they cannot support or follow through to conclusion; and you wonder why I'm not concerned about you as a political force.

CORRECTION:

How many elections do you liberals think you're going to win with such public displays of lewdness and violence. You're third rate, if nothing more than common thugs. Perhaps you have a sexual need to simulate urinating in another the mouth of another man--that's nothing to do with me.

I misspoke. This section should properly read:

How many elections do you liberals think you're going to win with such public displays of lewdness and violence? You're third rate, if nothing more, than the common thugs you really are. Perhaps you have a sexual need to simulate urinating in the mouth of another man--that's nothing to do with me.

Distracted from laughing at the liberals?

Yes. Guilty!

Winda Warren Terra:

Hey, aren't you one of the ones who's convinced that ol' Normie's a parody? (My personal jury's still out on that -- though if he's not, he certainly may as well be :)

You didn't hear the High Snark in that Tricky Dick thumbnail?

Of *course* Nixon was a broken bottle-wielding sonovabitch.

And chauffeuring Pat around on his dime while she flirted with footballers and more attractive guys is less a testament to gentlemanliness than pathos.

Bob

qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

Norman:

You won't respond to me -- expect in multi-screen diatribes alleging psychosexual proclivities because you're apparently too stone-stupid to detect sardonic snark when you read it, or own up to what crawled off your own fingers to provoke it :)

And you *wonder* why we think you're a parody?

And those of us who don't, think you're a self-parody :)

Bob

You won't respond to me -- expect in multi-screen diatribes alleging psychosexual proclivities because you're apparently too stone-stupid to detect sardonic snark when you read it, or own up to what crawled off your own fingers to provoke it :)

In point of fact, I did; what's the matter? Have you been paying attention or are you full of yourself?

Bill Clinton stick his wang in your claptrap? Billary take your shrunken balls for her own use?

The unhinged left is such a spectacle to behold. The point of Kevin Drum's post was a radical assertion that the Dumbocrats are headed for a permanent majority because of the number of kiddies who are coming of age.

Well, this thread proves that it is not so: far too many unhinged, smelly hippie types and not enough brains means those kids will reject such politics as displayed here and summarily flock to the Republican Party when they get jobs and start to make some money; and as the song says, same as it ever was.

Get a life, liberals, and quit waiting for the world to hand you power.

Norman reminds me of nothing so much as the big Lebowski.

"My advice to you? Get a job, sir ... "

Which reminds me -- I haven't seen that movie for a few years ...

Bob

I'm not so sure how meaningful the comparisons are to earlier swings, particularly to the '60s swing. Remember, these aren't measurements taken in the '60s, they're measurements taken today; it's entirely likely that many of those who came of age in the '60s became more conservative over time, and that took the edge off the surge in this chart.

EXACTLY THE NEW MATH IS BUSH = NIXON. THE 2O SOMETHING GENERATION THINK BUSH IS MORE THAN A JOKE.

Norman:

I'm not willing to bet that the Democrats take the Senate this year. The VA race looks a bit problematic, and sadly, Webb is something of a stiff as a candidate. A more dynamic presence on the stump would definitely make the difference, but southern VA is a different ballgame than the wealthy, highly educated suburban North -- and Allen's support is pretty solid there. Plus I'm a bit uneasy about the TN race. Ford's a bit too glib for all his polish and "language of faith" stuff.

But I most certainly *am* willing to be that we'll take the House. Not a sweep -- I don't predict anything bigger than a 5-seat margin; the GOP still has an awesome GOTV machine. But I will make a wager on that if you like.

Bob

The theory/chart works anecdotally for me. Mostly. I was in JrHi and HS during the Watergate/Ford/Carter era and I turned 20 in 1979. I was nominally a Dem--repulsed by Nixon, but less-than-enamored of Carter--but I was crushed by Reagan's election in 1980 and overwhelming re-election in 1984. So I spent my formative 20s under the Reagan era.

And I'm from Arkansas and know all about Clinton--his strengths and his flaws--and I watched, with ever-increasing revulsion, the Repub slime machine campaigns against him and every other prominent Dem over the last 15 years. And now we have The. Worst. President. Ever. I will NEVER vote for a Republican.

The Repubs lost me during my 20s but they had a chance (slim though it was, admittedly) to appeal to me after Reagan. But not after what they did to Clinton and certainly not after Bush II.

So, yea, the disdain I had for the Repubs in the 80s has turned into utter loathing, thanks mostly to Bush II, but my voting-preference-for-life was set during the political climate during my 20s.

Bonues points to Norman for mentioning 'a few bad apples' in his first post.

Mainlining the zeitgeist, baby!

rmck1:

I don't banter with common scum.

Zzzzzedar:

it's entirely likely that many of those who came of age in the '60s became more conservative over time, and that took the edge off the surge in this chart.

As we like to say when someone says something blitheringly obvious, duh!

The hippie dream crashed and burned at Altamont. When the hippies discovered that they had to go out and get jobs, they realized the sham of the Dumbocratic Party. Few, if any, of you remember Hubert Humphrey and the choice he offered America--chaos or strife, take your pick. They conveniently remember Nixon, if only because it's the only victory, and I speak of his untimely resignation, liberalism has had in forty years. George W Bush is the fulfillment of a dream for the convervative movement. One tough election season isn't going to undermine that.

To those of you who want to take my offer of a bet, please. The only thing you can bank on is that a bunch of liberals aren't going to have two nickels to rub together. I cannot in good conscience take money from the destitute.

If there were any justice, the sight of a blonde floating down a river face down near Chappaquidick would be pasted on the logo of the Democratic Party. That might win you the serial killer degenerate vote, you know.

And you wonder why I haven't stopped laughing at all of you.

Catcher:

Same age as I am. Same basic macro-political experiences (though I grew up in NJ).

Only difference is that after my junior high Nixon infatuation (my mom worshipped Nixon), I never thought of ever voting for a Republican except in local races (where ideology is irrelevant and I used to live in a one-party Democratic machine county) and once for Millie Fenwick because the Leage of Conservation Voters endorsed her bid for US Senate re-election.

She was a relic (in her late 70s when I voted for her) of that bygone era when Republicans actually took the public weal seriously.

Bob

I don't banter with common scum.

Yeah, they've got standards, I'm sure.

Under 30 and not a Communist -- you have no soul.
Under 40 and not a Socialist -- you have no heart.
Under 50 and not a Moderate -- you have no brains.
Under 60 and not a Conservative -- you have no money. posted by rmck1

I know what you are trying to say but somehow your inequalities don't work. i.e Everyone under 60 is also under 50 , under 40 and under 30.

There must be a better wording.

Norman:

Glad to know that I got under your skin :)

I was the only one who offered to take you up on your bet, btw. Calling me "common scum" is a rather ungentlemanly way of backing out of it, don't you think?

Whassamatter, Norman? Lost the courage of your convictions?

I have $100. We can escrow it in PayPal and make the transfer online.

Heh :)

Bob

ppk:

Oh jesus -- it's a *saying*, not a frickin' Boolean equation.

And, since these sentiments are (tongue firmly in cheek) expressed by each new group, they are merely projecting their own newly changed views onto everybody younger than them without much introspection. That's why the line is meant humorously, not literally.

Bob

They conveniently remember Nixon, if only because it's the only victory, and I speak of his untimely resignation, liberalism has had in forty years.

Oh, I don't know:

The gradual acceptance of gay rights; gay marriage in the more enlightened countries of the world; popular music, films and literature; the interest in non-mainstream religions and/or secularism; the rise of youth culture; the collapse of the military dictatorships in South America; the end of apartheid in South Africa...

The way Bush is a complete laughing stock worldwide...

We've had plenty of victories, Normie baby. Progressivism progresses, my sad little friend. It's what it does. You're the conservative - keep trying to hold back the tide.

It's good for my soul to laugh at you.

And I'm from Arkansas and know all about Clinton--his strengths and his flaws--and I watched, with ever-increasing revulsion, the Repub slime machine campaigns against him and every other prominent Dem over the last 15 years.

Woo, Pig! Sooie! Sooie!

And who should come running but a Razorback? Did the so-called slime machine create out of sackcloth every degenerate thing that man did? Hardly. You, of all people, should know a phony when you see one.

And now we have The. Worst. President. Ever. I will NEVER vote for a Republican.

That's a shame; I doubt very much whether you'll ever vote at all.

I will tell you that when they write the history of the Bush years, they'll remark sadly as to how the fringe hippie liberal left came completely unhinged and started to squawk and bark in public. Again, this thread is a testimony as to how far away from electoral success the Dumbocratic Party really is. Read it and weep, Dumbocrats. The posters you see here are probably the best you have, and a good many of them should be incarcerated and kept away from decent folk.

I heard David Gergen once say that you take on your grandparents' politics. I think there's some truth to that observation (and in fact I think it goes beyond politics). I was born in the 1970s, and sadly never knew either my paternal grandfather Edward Hempel (he was an alcoholic who died in the early 1970s), nor did I know my maternal grandfather (Kennie C Smith of the SE Kentucky Smiths; he died of complications from a gunshot wound sustained between the wars in the months before my mother was born).

But the GIs were good to my generation. They were the great-uncles who bought you a carton of smokes and a six pack of beer for your thirteenth birthday then took you out shooting. They were the teachers who shared unseemly details of the black dahlia case (my high school psych teacher was one of the first cops on the scene; he had a girlfriend in Vegas named "'Cile" [short for Celia I guess]...he went outside to smoke about every fifteen minutes), told you what kind scotch and cigarettes you should prefer (that was one a gay, alcoholic Episcopal priest), and inspired you to convert from your parents' mushy Methodist faith to high Anglicanism (not least because they taught you to read Eliot properly).

We adopted a lot of their (later-life) libertarian attitudes (which always seemed more benevolent in their hearts and minds than they were embodied by your half-indifferent parents). We took up swing dancing and hard liquor drinking. The men made it seem okay to be soft and tough at the same time, and your grandmothers taught you to respect intelligence and independence in women.

The GIs were a great generation, but they were different later in life, and great in a sense not often recognized, or revered.

Norman, you're such a freakin' relic.

Altamont.

*snickering helplessly*

You haven't had a new idea in 30 years.

Bob

Some very good posts here.

I grew up in a conservative Republican household and practiced that religion myself into my 20s, was a Goldwater Girl in 64 (but too young to vote), voted for Nixon when I was 22 in 68. In 72 I abstained, disgusted with Nixon, not yet enough of a leftist to vote for McGovern. Gradually kept leaning further left.

OK, my "formative" years politically speaking were during JFK/LBJ, but I wasn't really influenced by them particularly. But the Republicans have always been too authoritarian and too lacking in concern for fellow human beings for me to be totally comfortable in their camp, although they were not nearly as mean-spirited back in the 60s.

I am a radical egalitarian. I don't think that everyone should have equality in all things; people are too diverse for that, and I celebrate that diversity. I'm ok with people being wealthy as long as everybody has at least some chance to make a decent living. I have NO desire to be wealthy myself, but if others feel that need, as long as they aren't stepping on and ripping off people in the process, then go for it.

The Democrats are only marginally better than the Republicans. Both parties are way too beholden to special interests. But Democrats wouldn't be trying to dismantle Social Security. They don't always act only for wealthy people. Had Al Gore been able to take his rightful seat in 2000, we wouldn't be bleeding people and treasure in Iraq now. Katrina would have been handled more efficiently, although lives would still have been lost and property destroyed.

Also, please ignore Norman. Don't respond to his incivilities with further incivilities. Same goes for other posters like Hawk and Al. Call them on their errors and irrelevancies but please don't insult them. Let's stay above that, ok?

aka Linus says:

heard David Gergen once say that you take on your grandparents' politics.

Truer words were never spoken. FINALLY, someone who can think and chew gum at the same time.

Dingbat extraordinaire Arianna Huffington sez:

"Remember Ned Lamont? He was that guy who came out of nowhere to beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006, only to turn around and lose to him in the general election when he got too cautious and stopped running the hard-charging campaign that had excited everyone in the first place.

I really thought he was going to win there for a while. He probably could have, but, hey, hindsight is 20/20 -- too late to do anything about it now."

That's not a real quote -- yet. But if things keep going the way they're going in the Senate race in Connecticut, you're likely to hear many variations on it in the years to come. Which would be too bad -- especially because it's so preventable.

Yes, dirty hippies, read it and weep: Huffington the dingbat says very succinctly that the Dumbocrats very own Ned Lamont is probably going to lose to a good, decent man by the name of Joe Lieberman--remember him? Your 2000 VP candidate?--and that's because you are bloated, consultant driven and ineffective.

What say you now of the brand you're selling? Three weeks before the election and one of your movers and shakers is essentially tearing your best story a new asshole in public.

And you wonder why you keep losing elections.

Kenneth/Linus:

Always love your reflections on your upbringing and meditations on the GI generation. Though I've read them before in other contexts, they are especially appropriate here.

The GI generation changed later in life in response to the huge social currents sweeping up their boomer children. But with the wisdom of age, they were more able to take the good in those currents while preserving what was worthwhile from their own generations.

A noble synthesis of libertarian values with personal restraint. Hats off to all of them you celebrate in your posts.

Bob

fartmeister:

the collapse of the military dictatorships in South America; the end of apartheid in South Africa...

Which happened thanks to Ronald Reagan, of course. Did he send the US Marines to prop up the Botha regime? No, of course not.

Wolfdaughter:

I am a radical egalitarian.

Translation:

I wish to pick up Chairman Mao's Little Red Book and read you some sections that I have underlined with a red felt-tip pen.

And you wonder why you haven't won anything lately.

Anyone who suffers from head-in-ass syndrome, as I do, feel free to contact me for advice on how to type with this terrible affliction.

"...you are bloated, consultant driven and ineffective." Yes, I also suffer from severe projection disorder. Just another sad, pathetic member of the the Gay Old Pedophiles party.

Norman:

No, you're wrong about Lamont. If anything, it's the national Democrats (Joe's colleagues) getting timrous and backing off from strong support, knowing that either way a Democrat is going to take that seat. Lamont's running a classic insurgent campaign, not heavily bloated by inside-the-beltway types. If anything, his sagging polls might be more a testament to the inexperience of Tom Swann, his campaign organizer -- a man who came from labor and consumer issue organizing, not electoral politics.

Bottom line for Connecticut residents I think is senatorial experience. Joe brings home a lot of bacon. Plus, in response to Lamont's endless drumbeat, he's moderated his positions on the Iraq war and been much more aggressive criticizing the administration.

I can assure you though, that the progressive community has bigger fish to fry right now than that race. Let the CT voters sort it out; in any case, it remains in our column.

The reall piss-your-pants embarrassment is Schweitzer (I think that's his name), the single-digit Republican :)

Bob

More Dumbocrat insanity before election day:

October 15, 2006 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called John McCain yesterday to personally apologize and denounce comments an adviser of hers reportedly made slamming the GOP senator over his time in captivity in Vietnam.

The move from one potential 2008 presidential candidate to another was sparked by a column in The New York Times, in which Maureen Dowd quoted an anonymous adviser talking about McCain's criticism of the Clintons over their North Korea position.

The adviser said Team Clinton thought McCain was doing the White House's dirty work by criticizing the Clintons and ended up "looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crewmates."

That was a reference to an unsubstantiated rumor used to tar McCain, a Vietnam war hero, as off-kilter during the 2000 GOP presidential primary.

MoDo is worth ten House seats and a Senate seat this year! She steps up to the plate and hits a home run for the Republican Party with one invective-filled, shrill column. I would call that a significant backfire, wouldn't you? Contrast that with the filthy, unhinged commentary found here and you'll see why the recipe for an electoral meltdown needs a healthy helping of Dumbocrat commentary. Karl Rove is simply beating you at the expectations game, liberals, and it has to be driving you batty. Moonbatty, as it were.

And you are STILL wondering why you can't get your act together and win an election.

The possibility of Joe Lieberman winning is the only possitive thing I have to cling to right now.

I'm sure gonna miss Rick Santorum in the Senate, that guy's more of a raving jackass than I am. Maybe racist, self-loathing Jew George Allen can eek out a win. Go figure, a racist in my party. Who woulda thunk it?

Anyone who suffers from head-in-ass syndrome, as I do, feel free to contact me for advice on how to type with this terrible affliction.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Right on cue, one of you does a spoof when I am soundly handing you defeat.

Typical unhinged liberals--can't win an argument on the merits, why not sink deeper into filth and perversion--how's that going to play on election day?

A shame--a few of you had smarts and ability, only to be drowned out by the deranged and unfunny.

Yeah, some irrelevant MoDo column is going to save my party of pedophile enablers! How many more dead in Iraq? Who cares? Check out this column that most Americans never read! We're saved!

Norman:

So Norman, ol' bean, why don't you put your hard-earned cash where your mouth is?

I have $100, and it says that the Dems will take the House.

We can make the transaction easily and anonymously over the internet.

What say you, ol' sport? Surely a man of such background and good breeding as yourself wouldn't want to seem an ungentelmanly poseur, eh?

Bob

No one can match my wit and intelligence. Like the way I call all you dirty hippies "Dumbocrats". HAHA! Get it? It's a combination of "dumb" and "Democrats", which conveys my belief that all Democrats are stupid.
That's what me and all the other moronic batshit crazy survivalists at Free Republic call you dirty hippies.
Because we're better than you, and we know it!

Bob, a third shift job cleaning the jizz off the floors of an adult movie theatre doesn't pay me enough to place that kind of wager. Sorry.

Fake Norman Rogers:

Can you try to be slightly more subtle? Ol' Norman isn't some unwashed West Virginia hill country Freeper, who just got one a thim newfangled PC computer thing cuz a Wal-Mart just opened on the highway.

This is a man of taste, class and good breeding. Notice how fastidious he is about vulgar personal insults. You don't parody a gentleman such as he by spouting rhetoric redolent of the Idaho Panhandle. You need to aim for the more genteel, Westport lockjaw tones of an effete Yale grad walking in the footsteps of William F. Buckley, Juuuuunnnioorr ...

Bob

fuck u norman you corporate suckup - we are not hippies we are the fucking righteous. fuck u and your greed and your fucking republicand dickwad party - fucking great job catching bin laden you ass

If this is a parody of our good senior Trolletariat member Norman Rogers it is a fairly good one, as it certainly has his sound and feel. He also has a tendency of popping up right in the last weeks of an election period, so I can believe it is him. Assuming things continue to trend the way they do it is going to be sooooooooooo much fun picking out his old posts regarding how the GOP was going to retain control of both Houses of Congress. How the Dems are out of power for good, etc.

My politics were defined in my childhood because I was not only raised in a very political family but also ended up being the protégé of the political powerhouse/operative in my family once I was 8 years old. So this chart does not work for me, but as a generalization it does sound like it might have some accuracy, with of course the inherent limitations of any generalization. However, it does make sense for there to be more Dems out there with the GOP still managing to get the needed votes, the GOP base has been more inclined to vote in general over the past couple of decades combined with until this election usually having the greater intensity to want to vote as well. Combine those and you can see a basis for such a discrepancy I'd bet.

P.S: Nice to see you ranting as usual Norman old chap, given how poor the quality of the Trolletariat has become as of late. At least you can string your talking points and attacks on character in complete sentences, something that has been lacking as of late from your brethren. At least you have some ability with the English language, even if your contentions about your political opposition are generally laughable and far more a projection of yourself and your side than anything else. Remember Norman old boy, don't waste your time trying to get a rise out of me, it never works, and all you have ever done when you came after me was make yourself look even more foolish than usual, well aside to your fellow travelers and Trolletariat comrades. Of course it is not in your nature to be able to ignore such as myself so it will be amusing to see what kind of bilge you are going to try passing off as nectar this time. That ability of yours to transmute gold into lead is one of things most endearing about you, you know.

I think ol' Norman's heart was severely broken by the spoof posts, and he has bid us a not-so-fond adieu for the evening, sadly enough.

Damn ... the party was only just beginning, too :(

Bob

C'mos Scotian - you know it's a spoof and if you apply yourself you will know who it is. The sharpest tool in the shed is slicing and dicing and doing a better Norman than Norman himself ever did.

Which happened thanks to Ronald Reagan, of course. Did he send the US Marines to prop up the Botha regime? No, of course not.

?

Gotta be a parody - my bad.

Globe:

Are you saying this with inside information -- or is this just a surmise?

Because I'm not reading spoof vibes ...

Bob

fuck u norman you corporate suckup - we are not hippies we are the fucking righteous. fuck u and your greed and your fucking republicand dickwad party - fucking great job catching bin laden you ass
Posted by: e on October 15, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Really, does it get any better than that? One can actually see the thick fingers plodding along, trying to pound out something suitable. The unhinged hippie left can't maintain any semblance of honest debate and then they wonder why they can't close the deal on election day.

Of course, when someone actually makes a point on Kevin Drum's blog, and when it rings true, it just HAS to be a parody if it causes the unhinged and the foolish to think about their circumstances, correct? Because we simply can't handle the possibility that it is the unvarnished truth, yes? Ah, the truth--something liberals avoid like clean clothes and a bar of soap.

The reason I don't think it's a parody is that parodies aren't normally so defensive. The idea of a sardonic parody is to capture the tone, but give the game away with humor for folks able to read between the lines.

I don't see the effort put into the quotes of obscene rejoinders as somenthing a parodist would do. Nor the defensiveness at being spoofed.

I've definitely seen Norman parodies, and they were actually much funnier. The one who said he was an alcoholic on his third liver transplant. Or the story of how his servant Manuel recently died. Those kind of over-the-top Thurston Howell III-isms would signal a parody Norman to me.

This one was too humorlessly focused on Dumbocrat-bashing and rebutting personal attacks. Sounds too invested in the idea of Norman to be a parody.

Although, of course, I could be wrong.

Bob

What does any of this matter?

The Republican Party has control of the Diebold machines.

The entire Republican Party could appear on television eating babies, rutting Congressional pages and shoving shrieking reditionees into ovens - and it would not matter a whit.

Republican operatives will toss in the codes, flip the votes they need and go to bed not even needing to watch the returns on TV.

Done. Until the Democratic Party makes a public case for rolling back electronic voting until their are strong audit trails, cryptographic or otherwise, evoting systems will benefit the party with the deepest pockets and least scruples.

And we know the Republicans would suck the eyes out of their own mother's skulls if it would save them busfare.

I just happened to be paying attention in the last 48 hours when one of our very keenest wits posted an offhand remark about "resurecting Norman Rogers" and lo and behold, he was back mere moments later. I could be wrong, but the coincidence would be quite startling if it were indeed a coincidence.

GC:

I hate to have to point this out, but I really don't spend much effort on figuring out who are the spoofers and satirists from the Trolletariat sock puppets. I recognize them in action as a rule and that is about all I feel the need to do since there are others here more than willing to out the twits. This Norman does feel very much like the Norman Rogers I have dealt with in the past, but I am also aware that this could be someone other than he since it is so easy to duplicate identities online. Either way though he certainly has the same defensiveness that Bob points out as well as much the same tone of raw contempt, naked bile, and generally toxic ruminations/exhalations.

As I said earlier, we are being spoofed by one of the very best - he is doing a better Norman than even the real Norman ever offered. The real Norman would weep with envy at the subtle skewering he is getting in the capable hands of our very own....

Everyone is having so much feeding the troll--whether real or spoof--that I hate to ask whether others find this graph as confusing as I do?

So this is a snapshot of the population today, organized by age, on which has been mapped the percentage of people at each age, 20 through 91, who vote either Republican or Democratic. And then in gray--really a third dimension--who was president when each was 20. Correlational research if ever I saw it.

I have to reframe it to make any sense of it. What I see:
1) People born ~1915-1926, turn 20 1935-1946. Trend Democratic. There was a particularly large jump in Democrats among those who turned 20 in 1939. They fought the Nazis.
2) People born ~1927-1932, turn 20 in 1947-1952. A sharp increase in Republicans. They missed the drama of the war years and had to compete with all those returning war heroes.
3) People born 1933-1941, turn 20 in 1953-1961. No trend, the nation rebuilds, things hold steady.
4) People born c 1942-1953 turn 20 from 1962-1973. Trend Democratic. Civil rights and the great society are overtaken by Vietnam.
5) Those born 1954-1970 turned 20 in 1974-1990, Trend Republican. the economy struggled.
6) Those born 1971-1986, turning 20 from 1991-2006. Trend Democratic with a Republican hairpin in 1999-2001.

It seems to me that the President in office when you turn 20 is less important than the larger economic and political winds blowing that put various people in office in the first place. The people who put their lives on the line to fight fascism in Europe preferred more progressive, liberal Democratic approaches. During Vietnam people trended Democratic.

The two periods that trended Republican occurred right after wars. One group turned 20 in period after WW2--they didn't participate in that great struggle and the benefits of participation were showered on GIS. The other group were those who turned 20 in the years following 1973. The economy was flat and the best jobs were being filled by the slightly older cohort--no surprise that the late boomers and GenX'ers turned to Republican voodoo economics and promises of tax cuts in the hope that they would either have opportunity, too, or at least keep more of what they earned.

This chart suggests that during prosperous times or when the nation needs to unify to defend itself against enemies, people turn to the Democrats. They turn to the Republicans when they want to protect their bacon.

Over the next 15 years, as the war years generation and the first wave of boomers retire, people entering the job market and in the mid-years of their careers should have lots of opportunities. In addition, we need to defend ourself from the fall-out of the Bush years misgovernance and global warming. This should be a good time for Democrats.

It doesn't take much to befuddle a bunch of Democrats. Do you even know what the topic of the thread was?

Norman Rogers: If Americans love winners so much, does that mean you'll accept the fact that your crowd is thoroughly unloved when the big losing slide begins next month. Look forward to two years of steady erosion—although obviously you will find a way to blame Clinton for it.

Yeah, the ’90s were awful, weren't they? Too bad 70% of Americans disagree with you. Are they losers or winners? Think carefully before you answer. (Yes, I'm asking the impossible, as this crowd snickers first and then doesn't bother thinking later.)

Kevin, wasn't it a given for the last century that there were always more registered Dems that Repubs, and that the right depended on their money and left apathy to ever win anything except in rural areas? When did that change, if it did?

Bob - you could be right. The nutty, unrelated, throwaway line about 'Reagan sending Marines to South Afica' was the one that made me think of parody.

But yes, this guy could be for real. And that's equal parts frightening and funny.

But funny is good ;)

Globe:

Well, as the stats majors always say -- correlation doesn't prove causation.

I'll go with my gut. This Norman doesn't have the effete mannerisms of a really good Norman parody -- and he's too obsessively repetitive, besides. Real Norman is likely an OCD sufferer in his pajamas in a planned adult community somewhere living on investment income. The rigid personality seems to speak of a plausible identity there.

Plus the obsession with the 60s seems just too much like some curdled High WASP late baby boomer who never recovered from PTSS at seeing teenagers frolicking in the mud at Woodstock. The parodist I'm thinking it might be came from a different generation and doesn't have those 60s memories quite as cauterized into their limbic system.

Bob

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Special bonus anti-semitic remark:
I'm sure gonna miss Rick Santorum in the Senate, that guy's more of a raving jackass than I am. Maybe racist, self-loathing Jew George Allen can eek out a win. Go figure, a racist in my party. Who woulda thunk it?
Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

All of these posts are unfunny, unhinged and unremarkable. The talent pool at Kevin Drum's sad little blog is about a millimeter deep and spreading itself thin as fast as possible. Add to that some poor soul jumping up and down and saying, to the effect of,

pay attention to me! I have something to say! Blah, blah blah

...while I'm having a discussion is quite laughable. I started out with a few innocuous comments and the liberal bandwagon wound itself up and became absolutely unhinged and perverted:

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*
Ahhhhh ... the pleasures of civil discourse.
How ... unburdening :)
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on October 15, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you have any standards here? Apparently not.

And you wonder how well you're going to do on election day? Prepare for disaster, as any good political movement would do. Instead, three weeks before the deal is closed you're all high-fiving each other and spewing obscenities and the worst imaginable parodies ever.

I've seen some of the parodies of me that have been offered, and they're all dreadful and overbearing. If you watched a lot of Johnny Carson in the 1980s, one would think that the art of being funny died at the hands of the liberal elites that Johnny was so fond of making light of. No, I'm not a parody this evening, shitheads. But persist in thinking that--it will help you avoid dealing with the truth.

And you wonder why I think you're all morons.

No, we wonder why you waste our time with your soulless, tape-recorded ranting-by-the-numbers. Guess God's Party depends on hacks like you to enforce its hateful view$.

Roberto:

And we know the Republicans would suck the eyes out of their own mother's skulls if it would save them busfare.

Come now, Mother's eyes are worth more than busfare.

Scotian:

As if you knew what a parody looked like. Has someone put a pan of water in front of your face recently? Did the reflection bear examination? A haircut and a bar of soap might help make the view tolerable.

Potentante in MN:

Yes, when you actually examine the evidence--surprise, not one silly liberal actually has commented on the subject at hand, save for myself of course, you find that world events really do outstrip any careful analysis of the numbers. Is it a stretch to say that history does NOT repeat itself? The GWOT is most emphatically not WWII, so how could we possibly come to any useful conclusions when looking at the evidence at hand? Is it more accurate to say that specific events create specific political identifications in the generation that lives during their occurrence and a graph is about as useful as wiping your ass with a porcupine?

Kenji:

If Americans love winners so much, does that mean you'll accept the fact that your crowd is thoroughly unloved when the big losing slide begins next month. Look forward to two years of steady erosion—although obviously you will find a way to blame Clinton for it.

I'm sad to say, you are late for the pity party this evening. No, if the Republicans do lose on election day, it won't be Bill or Billary's fault--but one does take note of the fifteen million dollars she is sitting on top of right this second. If the Republicans hold onto Congress, will you be honest enough to say that Billary should have unclenched her legs and let a little of that money go to the respective House and Senate election committees to try to tip those close races?

Honesty from liberals? No, just more whipcrack funny parody posts is all we can hope for.

I think that post seals the deal.

This Norman is the Real McCoy. He has *way* too much to pove of his eternal Normanity.

Oh, and Norman?

Your very first words to me in this thread were to call me a "shit eating twit."

So spare us your indignity at the water sports in reprisal. You're lucky I didn't cut of your head and shit down your throat :)

Bob

wolfdaughter: the dynamic you cite actually characterizes Dems as being much more than "marginally better" than Repugs. How can catering to "special interests" like teacher's unions and minorities (Americans, after all) ever be as destructive as Big Pharm and Big Oil?

The fact, unfortunately, is that Dems cater to the same bad guys, especially at the expense of the environment. But they also bother to do some good, and statistics show that to be healthier for the economy than is the monoculture of greed demanded by the Cheneys, etc.

There's another factor: when Dems are in, they at least pay lip service to the notion of human rights, tying aid to dictators in with their domestic policies—a far more cost-effective (if far-from-perfect) method of soreading democracy than, say cluster-bombing civilians based on motives that are spurious at best.

...when the Republican Party--the Cadillac of political parties--beckons with a sweet deal and leather seats.

Pimp My Ride

Norman:

I see you're using conditional clauses when discussing the upcoming election.

I guess this means that your offer of a wager was a complete fraud because you have no faith that the GOP will prevail three short weeks from now, eh?

Quite ungentlemanly of you to make the offer to begin with, old man. Imagine if word of this gets back to your club.

People are so indiscreet these days.

Bob

Lot of right wing comments in here, generalizing left wingers. Poor. Whiny. Having no decent jobs. Not understanding the big picture.

Hi right wingers! I work for a small research firm in the Pacific NW. Nearly every one of my co-workers makes over $50,000 per year, and nearly every one of my co-workers votes Democrat.

IBM and Microsoft have both hailed my little organization as their premier provider of research, analysis, marketing, branding, and overall business intelligence. We're their number one go-to team.

You're ignorant - if you choose to believe that left wingers are, generally speaking, jobless and lazy. To the contrary.

Right-wingers... be careful generalizing. You're not fit to generalize. Leave that to the younger, more nimbler, more open minds of the left. You're out of your intellectual jurisdiction.

The more your demograph typecasts 100% of the Democratic party as lazy, jobless and whiny... the more you disenfranchise yourselves from 50% of America.

Lazy, jobless and whiny?? Bill Gates is one of this country's greatest entrepreneurs ever! He's rich, he's leftist, and he's charitable.

You want to look at lazy, jobless and whiny, take a cold hard look at the former Board of Directors for Enron, gentlemen. Those fools were about as right-wing as they come.

Our Republican president has a 35% approval rate, and it continues to drop. Do you think that your right-wing vitriol hasn't contributed to this in any way? Nobody likes a sore winner, and you're all fools to think that your negative, "in-your-face" rhetoric over the last 5 years won't bode negatively for your party, come November 7.

******
To the posters on this thread, who lean to the left... one word of advice, one warning.

This is a smart statistical diagram. But its measuring history, with the years on the X axis, and both age and political affiliation on the Y axis.

Its a *bit* simplistic, to say the least. =)

Be careful not to get too pompous. Be careful not to confuse causality with coincidence.

"Always love your reflections on your upbringing and meditations on the GI generation. Though I've read them before in other contexts, they are especially appropriate here."

Thank you Bob. You are a bright and cordial man.

Part of what we learned from the GIs was the value of class (not as in classism, but as in learning the importance of manners, and the goodness of dressing up. We were the kids that chose the schools with the strict dress codes in defiance of our au naturale Silent and Boomer parents.)

When Nancy Reagan told us to "just say no," we spotted the wink and nod. It didn't mean just say no but just don't get caught.

But I've said all this before.

Thank you for indulging me Bob.

Norman:

I do absolutely agree with you that Hillary should give up more of her cash to the DCCC and DSCCs -- although, to be fair, she's been regularly cutting checks.

We have more than halved the fundraising difference between us and the GOP from last cycle, though. We're fully competitive in places we never expected to be.

But yeah, a little more never hurts -- and Hillary is sitting on top of Ft. Knox.

Bob

rmck1, still jumping up and down:

So spare us your indignity at the water sports in reprisal. You're lucky I didn't cut of your head and shit down your throat :)

More threats of violence--well, that, as you say, seals the deal. Unable to answer even ONE of my posts with your own ideas, you resort to physical intimidation of a clearly illegal and felonious manner. Terroristic threats are illegal in one or two jurisdictions where the rule of law is upheld, but a blog thread hooligan would only be sneered at in a court of law and let off with a warning. I'm sure that, medically speaking, I could survive having my head cut from my body, but I'm thinking a good investigator would see that for what it is--a terroristic threat--but still have a good laugh at your attempt to be masculine and strong in the face of someone who has handled you quite effectively. I would rather not have your shit in my presence, and if you would be so kind as to clench your cheeks and keep it home with you, I know I would be grateful. It is apparent you believe releasing a bowel full of your shit wouldn't give off a foul odor, and I will have to leave it for you to figure that one out. Pinch off a loaf and write us from jail when you figure out what yours smells like.

What's even more amazing is that there hasn't been a single dissenting voice from the violent, perverted, and thoroughly vicious posts. It is as if you all rally behind this rmck1 character as your standard-bearer and support his threats and his chest-thumping as your own. Am I to conclude you are all sheep, being led to the slaughter, unable to think for yourselves and speak up? Apparently so.

What few decent voices I've heard are drowned out by cheap thuggery.

Let's see what transpires on Nov 7. My guess is that either republicans keep both houses or democrats take both. i.e. no split, the dam will burst or it will hold.

But of course, what do I know? For about half an hour last november I actually thought that Kerry had won.

And of course it all comes around.

I'll be sporting tye dies and long hair (if I have any left) by the time I'm eighty, and if I'm lucky all the grandkids will call me "groovy gramps."

Here is a more detailed breakdown of party identification 2000 – 2004

A study of [pdf] party preference shows a difference between voters "thinking" Democratic and "feeling" Republican [table page 31], hence the history of Republicans winning election despite their disadvantage in numbers in party identification.
The Democratic advantage in partisan identity ends, however, when our new
affective measure of party identification is employed. Respondents are substantially
more Republican in their identifications when affect rather than cognition is primed. The
left side of Table 1 shows that using responses to the standard "think" prompts,
Democrats outnumber Republicans (as defined by the first party identification question)
by almost 10 points. This is comfortingly similar to the differences found nationally over
the last several decades. But the "feel" measure reverses this difference to 10-point
Republican advantage.

I don't think this recent trend for party identification has much significance for predicting future elections. I believe that, contrary to Democratic strategists, the Party that is more passionate about itself and its beliefs does better convincing the electorate that it deserves to win.

burnt:

Hi right wingers! I work for a small research firm in the Pacific NW. Nearly every one of my co-workers makes over $50,000 per year, and nearly every one of my co-workers votes Democrat.

My, you must feel like you're on top of the world! All of that money in your hands must feel like gold! Adjusted for cost of living, you'd be penniless and forced to rent a squalid apartment in New York, Los Angeles, Denver or Chicago, but keep believing in yourself. Hopefully, your three roommates will as well. And you wonder why no one votes for your candidates--you think $50,000 means something in the real world! It might get you started on the path to greatness, and I would certainly never denigrate someone who works for a living because dirty liberal hippies refuse to, but get a clue: that's just not a lot of money.

Contrast that with John Kerry's money, and I think you'll find yourself sucking down ramen noodles.

Mike:

Democrats outnumber Republicans (as defined by the first party identification question)
by almost 10 points. This is comfortingly similar to the differences found nationally over
the last several decades. But the "feel" measure reverses this difference to 10-point
Republican advantage.

Exactly! Those kind of mush-headed statistics swept President Kerry into office! Sad to say, but perhaps people were lying when they responded to that study so that they wouldn't have to give out financial advice to the questioners, hmm?

I know that if I wanted to make someone go away, I'd just tell them I was a Dumbocrat.

Thank you Bob. You are a bright and cordial man.

rmck1:

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*

So spare us your indignity at the water sports in reprisal. You're lucky I didn't cut of your head and shit down your throat :)

Bwa hah hah hah hah hah!

Yes, cordial to a fault.

Wow, Mister Rogers an't seem to leave the neighbourhood of his toilet, can he?

...a terroristic threat...

...more comedy gold...

Kenneth:

Thanks for the kind words. True in the right company perhaps -- when I'm not tossing running chainsaws at trolls, of course :)

You're one of my favorite posters, Kenneth, and I only wish you had more time to hang around. I like your posts on the sociology and culture of the Mideast a lot, too.

And speaking of trolls ...

Norman:

*snickering helplessly*

You know ... I've been responding to entirely civilly (if with a somewhat facetious tone) on a whole range of things you've brought up: Your putative wager on the election (which you'll no longer talk about), the Lieberman race, Hillary's contributions to the Party, the odds of the Dems taking the Senate.

Not one word from you in response. And yet ...

When I finally get your attention (and I was merely pointing out your own hypocrisy at casting the first, umm, turd), you'll go on a multi-screen rant on the subject of fecal matter -- replete with every fourth-grade schooyard cliche extant.

You're one disturbed fellow, old chap.

Bob

The Republicans on this site can chortle all they wish about Lamont, but the RNC is pulling out of both Pa.'s Santorum campaign and Ohio's DeWine campaign. Things aren't looking so good for these influential conservatives, folks. At least, so says Fox News about Santorum and The Times about DeWine. Looks like the movers and shakers will move and shake to K Street.
This nation is not on the ascent, and a growing group knows it. The deficit is sky-high, the balance of trade is way out of whack, all the clothes and furniture you can afford now are made in China (the U.S. clothing, shoe and furniture factories having closed) and our moral standing in the world is in the toilet. And then there's the Foley mess. Oh, and Rumsfeld thinks nothing of sitting on boards of companies that sell nuclear technology to North Korea. I could go on and on, but I will wait until Nov. 7.

Take all this energy and disgust damnit and Vote against anything remotely Repub, at 65 and retired I've never given more money than this cycle to Dem candidates around the country. I'm voting strictly Democrat. Victory will be ours !!!!

OOOO Norman--

How selective your edit of Huffington's post...how clever to quote the beginning and not the ending.

The capper of the post finishes:

"It's a truism in politics that candidates often give the best speech of their campaigns when they are conceding (see Al Gore, circa 2000). And it makes sense -- after they lose, they're suddenly liberated from their handlers, their advisors, and their fears of saying "the wrong thing." All at once, they remember to speak from the heart, summoning the passion and purpose that drove them to enter politics. And what a shame this is -- because if only they'd spoken like this during the campaign, they'd likely be giving a victory instead of a concession speech.

So why not have Ned Lamont lock himself in a room tomorrow and deliver his concession speech to a few of his most trusted friends so he can be freed up to act as if there is nothing left to lose between now and the election? Why wait for the inevitable post-game Monday morning quarterbacking when, with a little help from the blogosphere, the Lamont campaign can do some pre-game Sunday afternoon quarterbacking that might help get Lamont to the U.S. Senate?

At some point, Ned Lamont is going to speak from the heart, and tell us about his hopes and dreams for the country, and the passion that drove him to challenge Joe Lieberman when almost everyone said it couldn't be done. The only question is whether he'll do it now, and win, or do it on the evening of Nov. 7, as he thanks his crest-fallen supporters.

To make sure that Lamont never has to grit his teeth and congratulate Joe Lieberman on his victory, why don't we help write his "concession speech" now? Post your ideas in the comments section below and we'll cobble the best ones together and send the speech to the Lamont campaign."

Then again, most Kool-Aid packets have less than a full paragraph.

Interesting Norman.

You begin your counterpoint by degenerating me... then claim you would never degenerate a worker? Flip-flop much? hehe, sorry, thats hitting under the belt.

You're not reading, sir. I did not say I hail from New York, Chicago or L.A. I said "the Pacific NW". You know... home to Boeing, Microsoft, Intel, Nike - I could go on. The Pacific NW, Norman... that place in America where the cost of living is considerably lower than those right wing corporate meccas you detailed.

I also never said I make $50,000 per year. I said nearly everyone in our little firm (IBM's premier service provider) makes over $50,000 per year. I'm talking about the kids fresh out of college drafting hundreds of pages of reports.

A lot of people in the urban areas of this region, make good money, eat cheap, and pay less for housing. Interestingly, a lot of people in the urban areas of this region, vote Democrat.

However - not everyone in the Pacific NW is left-leaning. Our rural areas are populated with tons of right-leaning Christian types.

These are the folks sucking up our states' public assistance resources. You know... kind of like a lot of the poor people in the south who support your party.

Ooooohhh... guess I'm proactively counterpointing your next argument about how you heard the Pacific NW has a bloated and redundant welfare system. Sorry about that.

Speaking of which, shouldn't you be helping your party pander to more of the lazy, whiny, jobless Christian welfare families out there? November 7 is right around the corner, friend...

Dumbocrat
noun
1. A Republican who thinks that fiscal policy is a fitness craze.
2. A gay twink who joined the Republican Party because he heard the GOP had a Big Tent.
3. Joe Lieberman.

Webster:

And since Dumbo is a famous Walt Disney elephant, that leads us to:

Dumbo-crat:

4) A Republican.

Bob

" And you wonder why no one votes for your candidates--you think $50,000 means something in the real world! "

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 16, 2006 at 12:57 AM

Gee, I wonder what percentage of the American public this is equal to or greater than their own annual income. For that matter anyone within say another 12500 or so (roughly 25%) would be close enough to call this real money for their needs. How much of the middle class would this define I wonder, and what does it show about our dear Norman's contempt for that middle class along with the poor that he routinely demonstrates? Yet he has the gall to claim it is the lefties that are elitists full of contempt for the honest hard working folk in America. Yet one more example among a multitude of dear Norman's incredible powers of projection.

Bob, I got to say this is really feeling like the real deal, but then anyone that has been here long enough that had their own bouts with Norman could replicate it with enough effort I expect. Still, the flavour of the contempt is rather distinct to the one Norman always had in his work, and there is a fair bit of variety in the flavour of Trolletariat contempt, anger, hatred, and such feelings. Just because I dislike those emotions and tend to be careful about them in myself does not mean I am incapable of detecting the fine variations in them like the bouquet of a souring wine. If it isn't it is one very good replication IMHO and I salute the person doing so. As I said when Norman first reappeared at least he is capable of full sentences and paragraphs to express his bile as opposed to the more simplistic material that has become the norm as of late.

Well, I doubt I am going to follow this for too much longer, so in case this is my last post of the night, enjoy playing with him folks, the real Norman was a one man proliferation of mass deception, displacement/transference, and bilious commentary. Both in terms of content and quantity in his posting frenzies. If he is back then things must be truly desperate for the Trolletariat and those that they are supporting.

heard David Gergen once say that you take on your grandparents' politics.

Well then...one grandfather was a classic New York Irish-Catholic Democratic machine politician who spent his life working for the poor and the working man, campaigned against child labor and the death penalty and for fair housing and veterans, and was an early supporter of Israel.

The other was a Nazi in WWII Germany.

*sigh* And people wonder why I'm complicated....

For burnt (this is copied from a great rant someone sent me):

-------------------------

"All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice."

"The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That’s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy, asshole, they’re blue states. It’s not your money, assholes, it’s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes."

...

"Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass."

"And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time. Fuck off."

floop:

Damn, I have read that somewhere ... Is that RudePundit? Who's the other blogger who went ballistic at Katrina ... I forget his name.

That's a famous rant though. "but you had to have your fucking orange juice." You can't forget lines like that.

You have a source?

Bob

The Kansas City Star - not a well-known bastion of liberalism by any stretch - did something yesterday it has never done. It endorsed Sam Graves opponent, Sara Jo Shettles.

It also endorsed incumbent Democrats Dennis Moore for the house race in the KS-03 and Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Paul Morrison, the Democratic candidate to replace Phill (never trust a guy who can't spell 'Phil') Kline as Kansas Attorney General also received the Star's endorsement in that race.

The endorsement in the KS-02 is not in yet, but I will not be surprised if the Star endorses Nancy Boyda over the incumbent Jim Ryun. The former world-record miler is having trouble running away from a sweetheart deal on a townhouse purchased from the from U.S. Family Network. The US Family Network is the only recorded seller of a DC Townhouse in the last two decades to lose money; providing the place hadn't been gutted by fire.

The Star has the largest circulation of any paper in Kansas, and the second-largest circulation in Missouri. It has never before endorsed so many Democratic candidates. It is really unprecedented. If Kansas breaks blue, and it looks like it might (although neither Roberts nor Brownback are up for election this year) can we just admit Howard Dean was on to something with his 50-States-Strategy> How the middle goes will be a bellwether of hope, or a harbinger of doom.

More on MO-KAN races here.

floop:

Steve Gilliard is the other guy I'm thinking it could be ...

Bob

Globe:

Gods bless. Mazel tov.

*fingers crossed*.

Yes, that is highly significant. The endorsements themselves might not motivate many people to change minds -- but it surely is a valid barometer on the thinking in your state.

Bob

The rant...

Fuck The South

writ:

Don't you have anything better to do? Dogs to kick? Birdfeeders to lace with rat poison?

Webster:

You know the author?

Bob

Nicholas Wind

Webster:

Cool. I *knew* I read that somewhere ...

I love a good rant :)

Bob

too bad 20 year olds dont vote now . . .

I had not seen the Fuck the South rant, but I had seen this one: Dear Red States and it is pretty damned funny, too.

twit:

Why did you sign your name as "nit," Bob? Norman wouldn't have bothered about that, you know.

I just have to say that the person who created this graph clearly never graduated from high school. A large number of people are having a hard time understanding it. Simply put, this graph fails in it's most important role, clarity.

Globe:

ROTFL !

"You get that dirt weed they grow in Mexico."

Bob

twit:

Go away. And no, as much as would have enjoyed snarking at you for taking a swipe at a poster who left (talk about couthless), I don't sock puppet.

Find sombody else to blame.

Bob

My niece emailed me that after the 2004 elections. She is one of those pathetic democratic young people with no future - she graduated from the UC system in May with a degree in bioengineering. My own kids are real losers too. A grad student linguist, a mathemetician in med school and a 20 year old who already has her BSN and is in a nurse practicioners masters program already. I should hang my head in shame, so lousy are my parenting skills and so weak my example. I really should.

NOT>

Actually, I could kvell.

Rioku:

I never looked at the graph (text interface here), but the general thesis seems to be pretty straightforward. My major problem with it other people have mentioned in the thread -- it's hard to correlate cross-historical events. The formative years in the Depression (which produced a lot of Dems) is hard to equate with the formative years of Nixon (which also produced a lot of Dems). Plus, there are longitudinal social changes that vary from era to era which influence a person's politics.

As Globe said, we're dealing with some very inferential data, although the basic point -- that people's formative years entering young adulthood shape their long-term political values -- strikes me as pretty intuitively true.

It's hard to demonstrate empirically, though.

Bob

Globe:

Kvell?

Bob

It is a yiddish word. The best way I can describe it is a combination of boasting and justified parental pride.

It's a Jewish Mother thang, ya know?

Globe:

Well, not being one, I *don't* know, but hey -- I can learn :)

Did you ever see that famous New Yorker cover a couple months after the Afghanistan invasion, btw? I'm sure it's on the net somewhere. It was a fanciful map of New Yorkistan.

Basically it just arbitrarly hacked up the city into fanciful pseudo-Arabic names:

Bad
Verybad
Veryverybad
Notsobad
Gaymenistan
Youdon'tunderstandistan
Irate
Irant
Khandibar
Kharkeez (that was CT)
Botoxia

Several others I can't recall atm,

And my favorite,

Kvetchnya :)

Bob

I did see that. And as I spent quite a few of my formative years in Brooklyn, my children say that I am from Kvetchnaya.

Globe:

Yiddish is an amazingly expressive language. I wish more loan-words from it were part of common speech -- although you may have a few you could help enter into common circulation, I'm sure.

Bob

I drop a Yid-bomb now and again. It is essentially a hybrid language of Hebrew and German with some Slavic thrown in for spice and color.

How do the languages actually merge? Is it like Hebrew words with German grammar, or vice-versa? It's hard to imagine an equal blending of radically different language families ... how does that work?

Bob

Um. To me it looks periodic. I'd like to do a fourier transform of it. It looks like it has a period of about 30 years. I wonder if all of our rationalizations boil down to kids rejecting their parents ideology? You know, your parents loved kennedy, so your love reagan. You love reagan so you kids love Obama. Hell, music and fashion work like that ... for most people politics is simply another mechanism for self definition.

Proximity. The Jews of eastern and central europe spoke the local languages, but also Hebrew. The language emerged as a unique dialect over a couple of hundred years.

Yep - that's the whole rant! I had it emailed to me so I never knew where it came from...

Bob writes:

I have $100, and it says that the Dems will take the House.

I will add $100 to that to anyone else who will take the bet. I think the Democrats will have a net gain in both the House and Senate (from where they are now), and they will win control of either the House or Senate. Put your money where your mouth is, if you're so sure - and I'm not even a Democrat.

Global:

Oh okay ... so it's a dialect of German and the language of whatever other East European countries? That would mean that the German and Slavic languages were the original template that was modified by the Hebrew, correct?

Bob

rmck1: Yiddish is an amazingly expressive language. I wish more loan-words from it were part of common speech

Oy, what a meshuga world. Now the goyim are kvetching there isn't more Yiddish in their schmoozing.

More loan words? You're not from NY, are you?

Oy, Bob - you are putting a hell of a lot more thought than I ever did into it. You are getting into the realm of stuff my son would be much better qualified to answer.

Now if you want the stoichiometry of the greenhouse emissions in the exhaust of the average '04 Civic driven 12,000 miles per year in the city; I'm your girl.

I'm wagering the House stays the same and the Republicans gain a seat or two in the Senate. No one here is smart enough to take that bet.

Posted by: Norman Rogers

You mean, of course, no one here is smart enough to MAKE that bet, but you're too stupid to get the phrasing right. dumb shit. I would gladly TAKE the bet and your money, by the way. See you in November.

Globe:

Stoichiometry -- what a headache that was, and I only took the weenie chem class requirement for liberal arts majors. I'm not sure I ever fully understood molar weights. Kicked ass on the essay part of the final exam, though, which saved my bacon.

alex:

Nope. Raised in Joisey -- which is Tri-State Metro enough to catch all the humor in Woody Allen (not to mention Sarah Silverman).

Bob

http://yochai.totalico.com

CAPITOL COOLIES OR CHULOS
We’re at the three-quarter poll in the race for a congressional majority, will the Democrats pull it off, or will it be a photo-finish?

Republicans are hocking lower taxes, while the Democrats want to talk peace, at least last weekend.

Saturday's Dem Radio message addressed the Bush Administration's “open-ended commitment to failed foreign policies”.

While the Democrats offered themselves as both nunnery and friary, possibly even of the Franciscan sort.
More:http://garart.org

While I hope that the Democrats regain a majority of seats in Congress, I don't expect them to undo the Patriot Act, pull our troops out of Iraq or get rid of the Military Commissions Act. Remembering that they were a compliant majority complicit in Bush's crimes doesn't give me great confidence that their ascendency will make any real difference.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996

助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
中国助听器大全
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器信息网
中国助听器折扣网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
中国名牌助听器直销网
国际品牌助听器(北京)直销中心
安徽助听器资讯网
助听器（广州）验配中心
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗
浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
进口轴承
噪音
消音

As a brand, the Dumbocratic Party is like buying a Yugo when the Republican Party--the Cadillac of political parties--beckons with a sweet deal and leather seats.

Norman, most of the candidates the GOP has offered us lately have been the equivalent of the Cimarron. (And that's all I'll say; I feel no need to devolve into vulgar, scatological comments.)

arrogrance and ignorance have led to this... Republicants have no one to blame but themselves for tolerating corruption, giving the gov't away to lobbyists and to President Bush's insane agenda...

As a democrat I know I want to cut and run.
Cut and run from incompetence and corruption.

I'm working as hard as I can for the democrats but because of the Republicans e-voting control. They will appear to eek out majority in both houses. Just heard Saddam verdict to be announced Nov. 5th. That couldn't have anything to do with American politics.

Comment span sucks as bad as the GOP is going to get beat this November.

Norman Writes: As a brand, the Dumbocratic Party is like buying a Yugo when the Republican Party--the Cadillac of political parties--beckons with a sweet deal and leather seats.

---------

Cadillacs depreciate in value faster and more significantly than any other luxury car. Like many Republican voters in 2004, Cadillac buyers often regret their decisions to buy after seeing (too late, unfortunately) what a bad deal they've actually received.

Stick to Japanese or German luxury. The "Cadillac" party of America will keep you upside down on a loan worth more than what you're paying for(Like say, the Iraq War).

I hope some of the movement by younger people away from the Right (conservative/libertarian; let's get real....) comes from them realizing that libertariansm is an intellectual fraud. It is based on a logical fallacy. That is the idea that the economy and existing property claims are natural; a priori defaults that the government interferes in. That's rubbish. The government has imposed property claims and rules to begin with (what little percentage of land now claimed was really originally farmed etc. and passed down without interruption?), fiddles with the money supply (the way that impacts employment would deserve compensatory damages in any other case), the other part of which increases money in a way that allows taking of interest that wouldn't otherwise be possible in a hard-currency regime, etc.

Democrats had better find a charismatic leader if they are going to cash in on this generational thing, which makes the American electorate like a demographic for beer or cigarette consumption, locked in to choices made while becoming adults.

In America, alzheimers begins at twenty.

They are afraid dees Republicans...will they attack Iran...is there an October surprise still coming...probably. I don't think people will be so easily fooled by these jokers this time.

Most wingers are by nature emotional and reactionary. This explains their stubborn refusal to accept that the evidence - i.e. reality - never supported the Admins reasoning for (and their support of) the war. Whether we are talking about aluminum tubes, mobile trailers, Iraq-al Qaeda links, whatever.

All we really knew was that Saddam might wage an attack, sometime, somewhere, maybe. However, this was highly unlikely, given the reprocussions that he knew would certainly follow (we also had Inspectors on the ground in Iraq with unlimited access who were finding nothing).

Wingers (and initial supporters of the war) felt very afraid after 9/11. Somebody had to pay for making them feel so powerless, feel so victimized. Now, I'm not saying everyone didn't feel these things, I'm just saying it was the wingnuts and hawks who let these 'feelings' dictate their choices. This is the exemplification of emotional reactionary.

Wingers chose war because it 'feels' powerful to strike out at others regardless of any real benefit. Additionally, this was a particularly easy choice for the emotionally undisiplined since little personal consequence results from sending others off to war in a weak, third world country far, far away.

Also note that emotional motivations for the war are not at all concerned with post-war realities. It is easy to be in denial about later realities when one is pursuing more immediate and base gratifications.

This dynamic is also why wingers still cling to their illusions despite more and more evidence to the contrary. To consider the thought that they are still out of control is too much to bear. The increasingly shrill nature of their arguments and ever evolving justifications for the war their reactive nature.

This emotionally imature nature also explains why deferment to irrational belief systems is so endemic in the Republican party. As long as Repubs "believe" they are doing "good", it doesn't matter how bad the result of their policies actually become.

Republican have demonstrated not only an inability to challenge their own assumptions, but also the lack of disipline in simply planning for the results of their choices. These inablities have put Americans needlessly at risk, escalated tensions and violence in the world and wasted trillions in national treasure. While it's harder to sell disipline and sacrifice over hate and fear, it's time to put the grown-ups back in charge and vote the Republicans out of office.

While it's harder to sell disipline and sacrifice over hate and fear, it's time to put the grown-ups back in charge and vote the Republicans out of office.

Grown-ups? And by translation, do you mean that the Dumbocrats are to be considered better grown-ups?

Bwa hah hah hah hah hah!

Deluded fools, one and all, and filthy scum, no less...

I'm glad to see that Norman seems to have disappeared from the thread.

I said I was a radical egalitarian. In other words, I don't see that there are inherent differences in people which automatically entitle some people to wealth, or influence, or whatever. I don't want to go on about this at length. A thread where we could discuss egalitarianism vs. authoritarianism, would be very interesting, though.

And silly comments about Mao's Red Book--Mao was no egalitarian. And it gets really boring to read the rightwing's constant concatenation of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, communism, etc., and the indescriminate application of these labels to anyone who questions the current status quo in this nation of ours.

Kenji:

"wolfdaughter: the dynamic you cite actually characterizes Dems as being much more than "marginally better" than Repugs. How can catering to "special interests" like teacher's unions and minorities (Americans, after all) ever be as destructive as Big Pharm and Big Oil?

The fact, unfortunately, is that Dems cater to the same bad guys, especially at the expense of the environment. But they also bother to do some good, and statistics show that to be healthier for the economy than is the monoculture of greed demanded by the Cheneys, etc.

There's another factor: when Dems are in, they at least pay lip service to the notion of human rights, tying aid to dictators in with their domestic policies—a far more cost-effective (if far-from-perfect) method of soreading democracy than, say cluster-bombing civilians based on motives that are spurious at best."

I absolutely agree with all of the above, and this is an excellent and concise summation of what I mean by Democrats being better but only marginally. I'll concede your point that perhaps Democrats are even somewhat more than marginally better than Republicans.

I am a registered Democrat and intend to vote myself and to do what I can to help elect more Dems this fall. But if we can succeed in taking back one of the congressional chambers, then (just maybe) the presidency in 08, we need to demand certain results, such as writing a new law to overturn that abortion known as the Detainee Bill, and to restore habeus corpus. Just for starters.

Iraq war--no good solutions there, just trying to avoid the worst of bad solutions.

And we all need to work together to figure out ways to reduce the huge expenditures of campaigning so as to reduce the overweening influence of money and special interests, so responsible laws which benefit the majority of us can be passed. And irresponsible proposals shot down.

Wolfdaughter - check your email! Great minds and all...

Wolfdaughter,

Were you always as deadly serious as the Gang of Four?

And we all need to work together to figure out ways to reduce the huge expenditures of campaigning so as to reduce the overweening influence of money and special interests, so responsible laws which benefit the majority of us can be passed. And irresponsible proposals shot down.

Mmmm, well, I didn't know you were opposed to free speech--oh, just like the Gang of Four.

And you think I'm a moron.

Bob,

Thanks for your kind words. I always scroll down the comment threads to find yours.

Where in Jersey did you grow up?

I was born in Freehold, grew up in LA though.

Thomas1: Care to make a little wager that the Democrats will NOT take both Houses of Congress?

You're asking him to make that wager? Meaning you want to make the wager that the Democrats WILL take both Houses of Congress?

Giving up already?

Woof Daughter:

And it gets really boring to read the rightwing's constant concatenation of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, communism, etc., and the indescriminate application of these labels to anyone who questions the current status quo in this nation of ours.

How do you drink your Marxism? Straight, no chaser or do you sprinkle in a dash of lime and mix well? Vodka for Russian, rum for Cuban or anti-freeze for North Korean?

In any case, please give up those car keys because you're not driving anyone anywhere.

Norman Rogers: How do you drink your Marxism? Straight, no chaser or do you sprinkle in a dash of lime and mix well? Vodka for Russian, rum for Cuban or anti-freeze for North Korean?

No need to ask how you drink your fascism because you've been caught sucking it straight out of Bush's ass so many times, you've got a permanent stain on your lips.

No need to ask how you drink your fascism because you've been caught sucking it straight out of Bush's ass so many times, you've got a permanent stain on your lips.

Did you work on that all day? Did you go to your hope chest and copy that straight out of your personal book of snap insults? Because you're just not getting it, liberals:

George W Bush is drinking victory right now, and liberals only know the vinegary taste of defeat.

Now, where did all of the sensible liberals go? Is there even one left? Where's that fellow who said that we adopt the politics of our grandparents, because that was more profound than anything else deposited here. Oh, except for everything that rmck1 person said--that was to die for in its brilliance. One must descend deep into the gutter for such audacity.

And you wonder why I'm still laughing at you liberals

sorry norm, but you repugs have no plan for victory in nov. or in Iraq....enjoy your 3 weeks that you have left, because it's all over now....

oh and norm....get a life....you've been sitting on this post for over 4 hours....sad, very sad..

Norman Rogers: George W Bush is drinking victory right now, and liberals only know the vinegary taste of defeat. And you wonder why I'm still laughing at you liberals

Any victory of Bush's is a defeat for not only liberals, but for the planet. Like you, he minds not at all that the majority of his fellow citizens--the majority of the world--has the taste of vinegar in their mouths as a result of his brutal regime.

Your admiration for a brute reveals the vinegar in your heart. And what you call "laughter" is nothing but the gruesome sound of a torturer's cackle.

nIm-rod:

Your admiration for a brute reveals the vinegar in your heart. And what you call "laughter" is nothing but the gruesome sound of a torturer's cackle.

Reading The Lord of the Rings is not a substitute for actually getting an education. Remember, the government is not here to give you a hand out, so please get off of this thread and go get yourself a comfortable position mopping floors at the mall. I suggest you drool a lot so no one asks for directions.

Norman's comment of the thread:

> I'm sure that, medically speaking, I could
> survive having my head cut from my body ...

*imagining Norman's head in a jar on the marble mantlepiece
among the heirlooms, jowls flapping vigorously in a rant about
his fair share of the will, while the machines connected to the
tubes run into his neck purr quietly from within a linen closet*

Just how Addams Family *is* that, anyway?

If you were one of Norman's relatives (not least those
competing for him in the will), just how *tempting*
would it be to pick up that jar, stick it in a leather
satchel and take it to the nearest bowling alley?

Kenneth (this is the wise fellow you were looking for, Norman):

> Thanks for your kind words. I always scroll
> down the comment threads to find yours.

Thanks much. That much less ammo for my persecution trolls.

> Where in Jersey did you grow up?

North. Nutley originally, after we moved from the Philly
suburbs. Then after my dad's career took off, Glen Ridge,
where I spent the formative years of my adolescence.

> I was born in Freehold, grew up in LA though.

Really? My dad and stepmom live there now, smack
in the borough by the highschool and Masonic Lodge.

I've never really wanted to visit LA, though my first abortive
college attempt was in the Redlands. What a cultural wasteland ...

Bob

Norman Rogers on October 16, 2006 at 2:05 PM:

And you think I'm a moron.

You get that a lot, don't you, Normie?...Ever think that maybe it's true?

You ever think that it's people like you that's driving voters away from the GOP?

grapey:

Honestly, I don't think Norman is representative of anything other than Norman.

He's clearly the least cogent and most eccentric of the long-posting trolls -- though he has a gnarled wit that's highly amusing, if entirely self-parodic. Makes ex-liberal, repubicrat or minion of rove -- or even rdw -- sound veritably Clintonesque :)

Rdw is a long-posting GOP shill that genuinely gets my hackles up. Norman only makes laugh -- no matter how relentlessly he tries to personalize the arguments.

Bob

> Thanks for your kind words. I always scroll
> down the comment threads to find yours.

Me, too. Bob adds a thoughtful, philosophical and considered perspective to these conversations. I *love* reading his expertise on music, too.

> Bob adds a thoughtful, philosophical
> and considered perspective to these
> conversations.

Make that three of us, bro. Save for Bob,
these threads wouldn't be worthwhile most
days.

Phil:

But be careful that your praise isn't too effusive -- else some troll will start accusing you of being my sock puppet.

And I wish I could mean this more facetiously than I do, unfortunately. I'm trusting you're not a setup, because your email looks real.

Thanks for the support -- and sorry for the suspicion. I've just been down that road before ...

Bob

> Make that three of us, bro.

It's not just the *bros.*

Experts agree: Bob is a hit with us
women posters too.

End of story.

Rob R:

Alright -- cut it out. Nobody on a blog has a freakin' fan club.

If you're a genuine supporter of mine, you'll completely understand how this would look and cut it out for everyone's sake.

If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, nobody likes sycophants.

Thanks,

Bob

Fuck *all* of you.

I caught you out last time by calling out your cornball emails. So yu decided to concoct some real-looking emails.

Well, you almost fooled me for one post.

Bob

Thomas:

Thomas, for all I know that was you. The only reason I don't seriously suspect you is because you've given no hint of being able to cop elements of other people's writing styles.

Bob

Thomas:

It's true, I suppose. You could be some sort of evil genius troll who has one carefully defined "Thomas" persona (very careful to remain consistent with subtle things like emoticon style) who does most of the sock puppeting around here.

Anything, after all, is possible.

Thing is, I kind of highly doubt it -- much as it might gratify your ego for me to think so :)

Bob

Thomas:

But see, the reason all the regulars here are convinced you're Charley is because your rhetorical quirks (and there are too many of them for it to be simple coincidence, although that's always your main defense) have been shown time and time again to be virtually identical.

That's the main reason I'm inclined to reject the Thomas the Puppetmaster theory ...

Bob

Alright -- enough horsin' around on this thread.

Bob

still jumping up and down rmck1:

*imagining Norman's head in a jar on the marble mantlepiece
among the heirlooms, jowls flapping vigorously in a rant about
his fair share of the will, while the machines connected to the
tubes run into his neck purr quietly from within a linen closet*

Actually, I would be dead and you would be charged with manslaughter, if not murder. Do you know that there is ample evidence here on this thread for me to contact the New Jersey State Police? What kind of moron threatens to kill a man and then tells everyone where he lives? Oh, that's right. A moron. Sadly, the NJ State Police would just shrug and tell me there was no point in apprehending a useless hippie like yourself. You present more of a threat to polite society than you do to anyone else. And bar soap and grooming products are safe in your presence, what with your ability to stew in your own juices and fling your feces about.

Just how Addams Family *is* that, anyway?

It is quite likely that a snivelling shit like you has no acquaintance with the genius of Addams and instead prefers the wiseass remarks of Grandpa Munster.

If you were one of Norman's relatives (not least those
competing for him in the will), just how *tempting*
would it be to pick up that jar, stick it in a leather
satchel and take it to the nearest bowling alley?

Bwah hah hah hah! I can see by the devotion of your fans that you are, in fact, the ringleader of Kevin Drum's blog nowadays.

What good news for the liberal movement!

And you wonder why I think you're a moron.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if you think.

Norman:

Wow Norman, you really really *do* have like no genuine sense of humor whatsoever :)

Bob

Norman:

I was imagining your head in a jar! Jaws still flapping away as the state-of-the-art medical technology (which is quickly eating away the family fortune) pumps and whirs away, keeping those lucid synapes firing as you hurl sexist epithets at the young maid :)

How is a little righteous bowling with your disembodied head by the younger family members who've grown quite tired of your verbal tirades tantamount to imagining your murder?

It's a Tim Burton screenplay, for crying out loud :)

Bob

Norman:

Besides, Norman -- if you were dead, you couldn't entertain us anymore with your hallucinatory terror of unwashed 60s hippies attempting to take over the government.

We *need* a troll around here who believes that Nancy Pelosi doesn't shave her legs or her armpits :)

You're a national treasure, Norman. If anything, we all wish you'd come around here more often.

Bob

How is a little righteous bowling with your disembodied head by the younger family members who've grown quite tired of your verbal tirades tantamount to imagining your murder?

More homicidal thoughts, that's what it is. You say you're leaving, but there you are, back to dig yourself even deeper.

Let you uncle Norman help out:

TROOP B / New Jersey State Police
Somerville Station
790 Route 22 East
Bridgewater, N.J. 08807
(908) 725-0107
(908) 722-7840 (FAX)

My kind suggestion is that you turn yourself in and get someone to assist you. Obviously, paying that old woman to squat on your chest and defecate hasn't been satisfying your urges as of late.

And you wonder why I call it the fringe liberal left.

Norman:

Wow ... you really do seem to feel *actually threatened* by my posts -- you know, as if I had meant them literally or something, or if my scenarios were somehow unprovoked by your initial gratuitously obscene remarks and not meant as a sardonic reductio ad absurdum to them.

That's a pretty good sign of megalomania, you know.

Any cop who saw this thread would certainly be laughing, Norman.

But they wouldn't be laughing *with* you.

Bob

Any cop who saw this thread would certainly be laughing, Norman.

Is that so?

Remember your earlier threats:

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*

So spare us your indignity at the water sports in reprisal. You're lucky I didn't cut of your head and shit down your throat :)

Urinating in another person's mouth is felonious assault; cutting off their head? That's murder. Shitting down their throat? Deviant behavior, much like urinating on another human being.

rmck1 thinks the New Jersey State Police would laugh at his posts.

In point of fact, Sgt. Kendall Wynn, a shift supervisor for the New Jersey State Police in Bridgewater took my call a half an hour ago and had me submit, electronically, the contents of this blog thread to an administrative account for his office, which forwards complaints to the cyber crimes division.

Or did he?

rmck1 probably thinks everything he does is safe from prying eyes. And it could very well be.

But you never know.

Norman:

No cop is going to take an out-of-context assemblage of quotes seriously as a genuine threat, without seeing the entire conversation in context, and also being aware of the rules on Kevin's blog.

And since the cop would have to go through Kevin in order to get my IP to identify me, he'd need some sort of probable cause for a warrant.

So your complaint is entirely laughable, Norman. Any sane person can tell the difference between sardonic humor and a genuine threat.

Cops get nuisance complaints from unhinged individuals like yourself all the time. They know the score -- and they know from which side the genuine attempt at harrassment is coming from.

Bob

Norman:

The cop would thus have to read *your* posts as well, and all the scenarios that crawled out of your own vulgar imagination in reprisal. Is peeing into someone's mouth all that different than accusing someone of having an old woman squat on their chest and defecate?

Not really.

If you submitted cut-and-paste, the cops won't take it seriously because you could've written them in your word processor. If you submit a link to the entire thread -- they'll see you right down in the same rhetorical playground as I.

And they'll most likely snicker at you for calling the cops to prosecute a flamewar that you attempted to start to begin with.

Bob

Look at the liberal shit his pants in public!

Do you seriously believe anyone takes you seriously enough to actually do anything about you? Of course not.

But two quick, unhinged and terrified posts later, you're probably still looking out from the crack in the drapes, trying to decide whether or not to bar the door or keep posting in the hopes of quieting the voices in your head.

Typical unhinged lefty liberals--at first mention of the police, they always panic and start changing their story!

And you wonder why I'm still laughing at you two days later!

rmck1:

You are a fine fellow. You are probably the best example of a liberal I have seen in quite a while. Good night to you, sir! Keep screaming to make the voices in your head go away!

Norman:

And it really and truly *is* the soul of a Fascist who attempts to prosecute someone's speech on a blog with absolutely no posting guidelines. See Kevin's free speech thread for an insight into the blog host's opinions on this. Note his wide-spectrum condemnation of speech repression, regardless of content.

You sir, are an enemy of the First Amendment.

And you wonder why the GOP is tanking in the polls?

Bob

And it really and truly *is* the soul of a Fascist who attempts to prosecute someone's speech on a blog with absolutely no posting guidelines. See Kevin's free speech thread for an insight into the blog host's opinions on this. Note his wide-spectrum condemnation of speech repression, regardless of content.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

Repression? Threatening to kill me doesn't constitute repression, condemnation or prosecution?

And you wonder why you're sick in the head.

Norman:

No Norman, sadly enough I *do* believe, after seeing enough of your posts, that you're enough of an unhinged and thoroughly coddled megalomaniac (you're probably some sociopathic isolate living on a trust fund or investment income) to actually call the police for something like a blog exchange.

And regardless of the absurdity of your complaint -- it would be a hassle, to Kevin if not myself, to have to spend ten seconds on the phone with a cop to address it.

So congratulations, Norman. You successfully bullied and intimidated me for the brief time it took to have this exchange.

Which only goes to further underscore both your morality and your mental issues.

Bob

The most violent and deviant liberal on the entire thread--now those are words that are hard to quantify--bleats on and on about repression and free speech when it was he, himself that posted this:

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*

So spare us your indignity at the water sports in reprisal. You're lucky I didn't cut of your head and shit down your throat :)

Outstanding, sir! Outstanding! You are a credit to your kind and a true ringleader on this blog! One wonders if you can ever roll down from the massive turd pile you have built for yourself! You are easily the most unhinged, despicable liberal on the blog! You have good company, to be certain, but you are the most deranged of the deraged set, and for this you must be proud.

I say again, good night and thank you for the laughs!

Norman:

Not being able to tell the fancifully sardonic from the actual is a truer sign of mental illness.

An actual threat would express the genuine intent to do such a thing in real life.

Bob

Norman:

Why am I bothering to even explain this to you?

Goodnight, Norman. And do please come back :) Now that you've admitted you're only a paper tiger, just *think* of the Abu Ghraib-like scenarios await your next sojourn here, eh? :)

Bob

"Thomas1":

You finally figured out how to do the emoticon, I notice.

That wasn't exactly a "debate."

It's impossible to win an argument with the (apparently clinically) delusional.

Bob

And yeah -- I deserve a little slapping around for prolonging that.

Bob

Thomas1:

For you, there is no "us."

Like Norman, you represent no one here but yourself.

The "us," in fact, is a hint you might be a spoof.

I don't know if even Thomas is delusional enough to think he speaks for anyone but himself on this blog.

Bob

助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
中国助听器大全
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器信息网
中国助听器折扣网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
中国名牌助听器直销网
国际品牌助听器(北京)直销中心
安徽助听器资讯网
助听器（广州）验配中心
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗
浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
进口轴承
噪音
消音
冬虫夏草
海参
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
北京网站设计
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网站制作
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站优化
yahoo竞价
google推广
google排名
google优化

Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia -
Buy meridia -
Discount meridia -
Buy meridia online -
Generic meridia -
Cheap propecia -
Buy propecia -
Discount propecia -
buy propecia online -
Generic propecia -
Cheap proscar -
buy proscar -
Discount proscar -
Buy oproscar online -
Generic proscar -
Cheap finasteride -
Buy finasteride -
Discount finasteride -
Hair loss pills -
Weight loss pills -
Cheap Rogaine -
Buy Rogaine -
Discount Rogaine -
Generic Rogaine -
Discount minoxidil -
Buy minoxidil -
Cheap cialis -
Discount cialis -
Buy cialis -
Buy cialis online -
Generic cialis -
Cheap tadalafil -
Buy tadalafil -
Discount tadalafil -
Cheap hytrin -
Discount hytrin -
Generic Hytrin -
Buy hytrin -
Buy hytrin online -
Cheap terazosin -
Discount terazosin -
Buy terazosin -
Cheap viagra -
Generic viagra -
Discount viagra -
Buy viagra -
Buy viagra online -
Cheap sildenafil -
Buy sildenafil -
discount sildenafil -
discount anafranil -
buy anafranil -
cheap anafranil -
generic anafranil -
buy anafranil online -
discount asendin -
buy asendin -
cheap asendin -
buy asendin online -
generic asendin -
cheap celexa -
buy celexa -
discount celexa -
buy celexa online -
generic celexa -
cheap effexor -
buy effexor -
discount effexor -
buy effexor online -
generic effexor -
cheap elavil -
discount elavil -
buy elavil -
buy elavil online -
generic elavil -
buy endep -
cheap endep -
discount endep -
cheap luvox -
discount luvox -
buy luvox -
generic luvox -
buy luvox online -
cheap pamelor -
discount pamelor -
buy pamelor -
generic pamelor -
buy pamelor online -
Cheap paxil -
discount paxil -
generic paxil -
buy paxil -
buy paxil online -
cheap prozac -
generic prozac -
discount prozac -
buy prozac -
buy prozac online -
cheap
sinequan -
buy sinequan -
generic sinequan -
discount sinequan -
buy sinequan online -
cheap
tofranil -
buy tofranil -
discount tofranil -
generic tofranil -
buy tofranil online -
cheap
wellbutrin -
generic wellbutrin -
discount wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin -
buy wellbutrin online -
cheap bupropion -
buy bupropion -
cheap zoloft -
generic zoloft -
buy zoloft -
discount zoloft -
buy zoloft Online -
cheap
vermox -
discount vermox -
buy vermox -
buy vermox online -
generic vermox -
cheap aralen -
discount aralen -
generic aralen -
buy aralen -
buy aralen online -
cheap sporanox -
buy sporanox -
generic sporanox -
discount sporanox -
buy sporanox online -
cheap zyprexa -
discount zyprexa -
buy zyprexa -
generic zyprexa -
buy zyprexa online -
cheap compazine -
generic compazine -
buy compazine -
discount compazine -
buy compazine online -
cheap
claritin -
discount claritin -
generic claritin -
buy claritin -
buy claritin online -
cheap
allegra -
discount allegra -
buy allegra -
generic allegra -
buy allegra Online -
cheap benadryl -
discount benadryl -
generic benadryl -
buy benadryl -
buy benadryl online -
cheap periactin -
discount periactin -
buy periactin -
generic periactin -
buy periactin online -
cheap advair -
discount advair -
generic advair -
buy advair -
buy advair online -
cheap albuterol -
generic albuterol -
buy albuterol -
discount albuterol -
buy albuterol online -
cheap salbutamol -
buy salbutamol -
buy theophylline -
generic salbutamol -
cheap singulair -
discount singulair -
buy singulair -
generic singulair -
buy singulair online -
cheap aceon -
buy aceon -
generic aceon -
discount aceon -
buy aceon online -
cheap altace -
buy altace -
generic altace -
discount altace -
buy altace online -
cheap avapro -
buy avapro -
generic avapro -
discount avapro -
buy avapro online -
cheap capoten -
discount capoten -
buy capoten -
generic capoten -
buy capoten online -
cheap diamox -
discount diamox -
buy diamox -
generic diamox -
buy diamox online -
cheap lipitor -
buy lipitor -
discount lipitor -
generic lipitor -
buy lipitor online -
cheap zocor -
buy zocor -
discount zocor -
buy zocor online -
generic zocor -
cheap lopid -
discount lopid -
generic lopid -
buy lopid online -
buy lopid -
cheap mevacor -
generic mevacor -
discount mevacor -
buy mevacor -
buy mevacor online -
cheap pravachol -
discount pravachol -
generic pravachol -
buy pravachol -
buy pravachol online -
cheap actos -
discount actos -
generic actos -
buy actos online -
buy actos -
cheap
avandia -
generic avandia -
buy avandia -
discount avandia -
buy avandia online -
cheap precose -
discount precose -
generic precose -
buy
precose -
buy precose online -
cheap micronase -
discount micronase -
generic micronase -
buy micronase -
cheap glucovance -
discount glucovance -
generic glucovance -
buy glucovance -
buy glucovance online -
cheap lamictal -
discount lamictal -
buy lamictal -
generic lamictal -
buy lamictal online -
cheap mysoline -
discount mysoline -
buy mysoline -
generic mysoline -
buy mysoline online -
cheap neurontin -
generic neurontin -
buy neurontin -
discount neurontin -
buy neurontin online -
Cheap sodium valproate -
Generic sodium valproate -
Buy sodium valproate -
discount sodium Valproate -
buy sodium valproate online -
cheap tegretol -
discount tegretol -
buy tegretol -
generic tegretol -
buy tegretol online -
cheap dilantin -
discount dilantin -
buy dilantin -
generic dilantin -
buy dilantin online -
cheap aciphex -
discount aciphex -
buy aciphex -
generic aciphex -
buy aciphex online -
cheap bentyl -
discount bentyl -
buy bentyl -
generic bentyl -
buy bentyl online -
Cheap carafate -
discount carafate -
buy carafate -
buy carafate online -
generic carafate -
cheap cephulac -
generic cephulac -
discount cephulac -
buy cephulac -
buy cephulac online -
cheap colace -
generic colace -
buy colace -
discount colace -
buy colace online -
cheap dulcolax -
discount dulcolax -
buy dulcolax -
generic dulcolax -
buy dulcolax online -
cheap imodium -
discount imodium -
buy imodium -
generic imodium -
buy imodium online -
cheap nexium -
discount nexium -
buy nexium -
generic nexium -
buy nexium online -
cheap prevacid -
discount prevacid -
buy prevacid -
generic prevacid -
buy prevacid online -
cheap prilosec -
discount prilosec -
buy prilosec -
generic prilosec -
buy prilosec online -
cheap protonix -
discount protonix -
buy protonix -
generic protonix -
order protonix -
cheap reglan -
buy reglan -
discount reglan -
generic reglan -
order reglan -
cheap zantac -
buy zantac -
discount zantac -
generic zantac -
order zantac -
cheap zofran -
discount zofran -
buy zofran -
generic zofran -
order zofran -
cheap rebetol -
discount rebetol -
buy rebetol -
generic rebetol -
order rebetol -
cheap ribavirin -
buy ribavirin -
order ribavirin -
cheap zovirax -
discount zovirax -
order zovirax -
buy zovirax -
generic zovirax -
cheap epivir -
discount epivir -
buy epivir -
order epivir -
generic epivir -
cheap pyrazinamide -
discount pyrazinamide -
order pyrazinamide -
buy pyrazinamide -
generic pyrazinamide -
cheap retrovir -
discount retrovir -
buy retrovir -
order retrovir -
generic retrovir -
cheap viramune -
discount viramune -
order viramune -
buy viramune -
generic viramune -
cheap zerit -
discount zerit -
buy zerit -
order zerit -
generic zerit -
cheap aldactone -
discount aldactone -
buy aldactone -
order aldactone -
generic aldactone -
cheap calciferol -
discount calciferol -
buy calciferol -
order calciferol -
generic calciferol -
alfa calcidol -
order alfa calcidol -
buy alfa calcidol -
cheap danocrine -
discount danocrine -
order danocrine -
buy danocrine -
generic danocrine -
cheap decadron -
discount decadron -
order decadron -
buy decadron -
generic decadron -
cheap deltasone -
discount deltasone -
buy deltasone -
order deltasone -
generic deltasone -
cheap provera -
discount provera -
buy provera -
order provera -
generic provera -
cheap cycrin -
cheap synthroid -
discount synthroid -
buy synthroid -
order synthroid -
generic levothroid -
cheap levothroid -
cheap robaxin -
discount robaxin -
buy robaxin -
order robaxin -
generic robaxin -
cheap soma -
discount soma -
buy soma -
order soma -
generic soma -
cheap zanaflex -
discount zanaflex -
buy zanaflex -
order zanaflex -
generic zanaflex -
cheap alphagan -
discount alphagan -
buy alphagan -
order alphagan -
generic alphagan -
cheap betagan -
discount betagan -
order betagan -
buy betagan -
generic betagan -
cheap mydriacyl -
discount mydriacyl -
buy mydriacyl -
order mydriacyl -
generic mydriacyl -
cheap propine -
discount propine -
buy propine -
order propine -
generic propine -
discount tobramycin -
buy tobramycin -
cheap tobramycin -
order tobramycin -
buy flour-op -
order flour-op -
cheap flour-op -
discount flour-op -
cheap advil -
generic advil -
order advil -
buy advil -
discount advil -
cheap celebrex -
discount celebrex -
buy celebrex -
order celebrex -
generic celebrex -
cheap imitrex -
discount imitrex -
buy imitrex -
order imitrex -
generic imitrex -
cheap ponstel -
discount ponstel -
order ponstel -
buy ponstel -
generic ponstel -
cheap timoptic -
discount timoptic -
buy timoptic -
order timoptic -
generic timoptic -
cheap tylenol -
discount tylenol -
order tylenol -
buy tylenol -
generic tylenol -
cheap anacin -
buy anacin -
cheap ultram -
discount ultram -
buy ultram -
order ultram -
generic ultram -
cheap benadryl -
order benadryl -
discount benadryl -
buy benadryl -
generic benadryl -
cheap ditropan -
discount ditropan -
order ditropan -
buy ditropan -
generic ditropan -
cheap eldepryl -
discount eldepryl -
buy eldepryl -
order eldepryl -
generic eldepryl -
cheap arava -
discount arava -
order arava -
buy arava -
generic arava -
cheap feldene -
discount feldene -
order feldene -
buy feldene -
generic feldene -
cheap mobic -
discount mobic -
buy mobic -
order mobic -
generic mobic -
cheap naprelan -
discount naprelan -
order naprelan -
buy naprelan -
generic naprelan -
cheap naprosyn -
discount naprosyn -
buy naprosyn -
order naprosyn -
generic naprosyn -
cheap relafen -
generic relafen -
order relafen -
buy relafen -
discount relafen -
cheap zyloprim -
discount zyloprim -
order zyloprim -
buy zyloprim -
generic zyloprim -
cheap ambien -
generic ambien -
discount ambien -
buy ambien -
order ambien -
cheap aygestin -
discount aygestin -
order aygestin -
buy aygestin -
generic aygestin -
cheap clomid -
discount clomid -
order clomid -
buy clomid -
generic clomid -
cheap diflucan -
order diflucan -
discount diflucan -
buy diflucan -
generic diflucan -
cheap evista -
discount evista -
order evista -
buy evista -
generic evista -
cheap fosamax -
discount fosamax -
order fosamax -
buy fosamax -
generic fosamax -
cheap nolvadex -
discount nolvadex -
buy nolvadex -
order nolvadex -
generic nolvadex -
cheap parlodel -
discount parlodel -
order parlodel -
buy parlodel -
generic parlodel -
cheap premarin -
discount premarin -
order premarin -
buy premarin -
generic premarin -
cheap rocaltrol -
discount rocaltrol -
buy rocaltrol -
order rocaltrol -
generic rocaltrol -
cheap triphasil -
discount triphasil -
order triphasil -
buy triphasil -
generic triphasil -
cheap dapsone -
discount dapsone -
order dapsone -
buy dapsone -
generic dapsone -
cheap desowen -
generic desowen -
buy desowen -
order desowen -
discount desowen -
cheap differin -
discount differin -