Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 10, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

MYTH BUSTING....You're probably all a little tired of exit poll wonkery by now, but here's one more anyway. In an earlier post I showed that the Democratic win was a broad-based victory, not one based on appealing to any particular demographic group, but several demographic myths have turned out to be hardier than I expected. So let's take a minute to bust a few of them.

First, though, a technical note. I have a feeling that some of the myths making the rounds might be based on comparing the 2006 House exit polls to the 2004 presidential exit polls. This is fine if you're specifically trying to compare, say, Sherrod Brown's performance to John Kerry's in Pickaway County, but in general you should be comparing nationwide House results to nationwide House results. Here they are:

Now, on with the myths. And remember, the key question for each of these groups is whether they swung in favor of the Democrats by more than the overall national swing of 5 percentage points. If all they did was follow the national trend, there's no story.

Myth #1: It was the youth vote that pushed Democrats over the top.

Nope. In 2004 Dems won 55% of the youth vote. This year they won 60%. That's a swing of 5 points, exactly the same as the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats.

In fact, it's actually worse than that: the number of young voters (age 18-29) decreased from 16% of the electorate in 2004 to 12% of the electorate in 2006. This means that in 2004 they amounted to 8.8% of the total Dem vote, compared to 7.2% in 2006. The youth vote was a fizzle.

UPDATE: It still doesn't appear that the youth vote was an overwhelming factor in the 2006 election, but the picture may be a little more complicated than it seems from a simple comparison with 2004. Steve Benen has more details here. Also worth noting is that young people have been moving steadily into the Democratic camp for the past decade, as you may recall from this data posted back in October.

Myth #2: Democrats won a third of the white evangelical vote.

I have no idea where this one came from. In 2004 Dems won 25% of the white evangelical vote. This year Dems won 28%. That's a swing of 3 points, which is actually a bit less than the overall Democratic swing. Turnout was about the same both years.

Bottom line: Nothing happened here.

Myth #3: Democrats won by running conservative candidates.

A few high-profile Democratic candidates had conservative views on certain issues (Casey on abortion, Tester on guns), but overall the newly-elected Dems look a lot like the current Democratic caucus.

And the exit polls back this up. In 2004, Democrats got 17% of the vote from self-described conservatives. This year it was 20%. As with evangelicals, this is less than the overall nationwide swing. Conservatives are still solidly supporting the Republican Party.

Kevin Drum 9:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (486)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Truthfully, I doubt that Pale Rider will be up to contributing to this thread either. He's way too angry, and I sense that the rage is real.

Hey, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just saying.

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

The 1/3 of white evangelical vote was a specific reference to Webb's win in VA. I think Begala said it on CNN on Tuesday...

Posted by: moliver on November 10, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

FACT #1: When Democrats lose elections, they make bogus claims about cheating and voter suppression and intimidation of Black voters. When GOP loses, they admit they lost.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on November 10, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

I know you're just talking ballparks here, but it seems a bit odd to be saying that the change from 17% to 20% is the same as the change from 25% to 28%, or from 55% to 60%. For the people whose careers depend on this stuff (be they politicians or academics), there are pretty big differences between increases of 18, 12, or 9 percent.

Posted by: Miller on November 10, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency! Would you like to go over some of your pre-election prognostications?

I would say that the difference is the Democratic party had legitimate complaints and the R's do not. And really - ate they the party that wants election fraud investigated too closely?

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

Fact #2: When Republicans lose an election, it's because they're responsible for the deaths of over half a million Iraqis.

Posted by: Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy on November 10, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency nails it! There is nothing to the voter roll purges in FL or the 6-hour lines in black areas in OH! And that exit polls just happened to be totally off in FL in 2000 -- nothing to see here! Harris and Blackwell are totally upstanding citizens!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 10, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Myth #4: Democrats won because Republicans were too conservative.

Fact: Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough. The ideas of conservatism weren't beat. Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values. Rather than challenge liberals, Conservatives have tried to appease liberals and the liberal media. Because of that, the American people don't have confidence conservatives will make conservative policies when they are in power. Also, conservatives have given in to the tax and spend impulses of liberals rather than cut taxes and cut spending. Also, conservatives have not done enough to defend traditional American values by banning abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and protecting unborn stem cell embryos. If we stay true to our conservative values, conservatives will rout liberals in the next election.

Posted by: Al on November 10, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Miller: I don't quite get you. The three numbers you mention are changes of 5, 3, and 3 percent. Those just aren't big differences.

More to the point, they aren't any different than the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats, which was 5 points. If you want to say that a particular demographic group was heavily responsible for the Dem win, that group needs to have swung much more strongly than the country as a whole. None of the three groups I mentioned did.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on November 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

And it isn't as though we Good Guys have opposed paper trails at every turn! NO! Not us!

And robocalls in the middle of the night? And bussing in homeless to hand out bogus voter guides? NEVER!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Al also nails it! America just LOVES those of us who oppose Baby Butchers! And who oppose stem cell research! And want gays run out of the country!

If only we'd run on that, and our brilliant fiscal record, we'd have every seat!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 10, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Clap louder ALoser.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives have tried to appease liberals and the liberal media

Conservatives are appeasers? That explains why they should not be trusted with power.

/wingnut

Posted by: trex on November 10, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats in 2006 verus Republicans in 1994
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/11/the_democrats_i.html

The Democrats received 56% of the average district vote for the two parties in 2006, whereas the Republicans only averaged 51.6% in 1994.

56% of the vote, only 53% of the seats
Even with their large vote majority, the Democrats only received 53.3% of the seats in the House. This is as we and Bafumi et al. anticipated. More info on the seats-votes relationship is in our recent paper. (For example, had the Republicans received 56% of the vote in 2006, we estimate they would've won about 250 seats.)

By the way, the Democrats' 56% share of the two-party vote tracks closely with the "generic congressional vote" in which they were also getting 56% in the polls ...I think the 56% share was depressed by low turnout in NY and CA, because the statewide races in those two states were blowouts. States where statewide races were expected to be tight had much higher turnouts.

Posted by: sysprog on November 10, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

I wnat to know where the fuck this so-called "liberal media" is hiding?

Is that the "liberal" media that sat on the NSA domestic spying for a year?

Or the "liberal" media that gave Judith Iscariot a microphone to pump up support for a war based on lies?

Or is it the "liberal" media that failed to report that Jim Talent had skipped 65 of 95 Senate Armed Services Committee meetings, even as he touted his seat on that committee?

The "liberal" media that thinks balanced means the Dems have to be painted with the same corruption brush, whether it is deserved or not? Did anyone else see Leslie Stahl trying her damndest to make Pelosi look specious on 60 Minutes?

Where is this "liberal" media?

I think it is just another myth.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

My blockquote was messed up. Most of the stuff at the bottom of my comment was from Columbia U. and was spozed to be in the blockquote box.

The stuff about CA and NY was from me.

Posted by: sysprog on November 10, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I think Miller's point is about the denominator:

  • (20 - 17)/17 = 18%

  • (20 - 17)/100 = 3%

I'm not sure what's the proper denominator to use to figure out the growth in support. Consider different numbers: Suppose only one white, evangelical, conservative Christian in 1000 voted for Democrats in 2004, while ten in a 1000 voted for Democrats in 2006. Is it more meaningful to say that the increase was about 1%, or is it more meaningful to say that the support increased tenfold?

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on November 10, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

What about:

Myth #4 -
Republicans didn't cheat as much because Dems had 7000 lawyers watching them.

Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 10, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of NYC sent a team of attorneys to St. Louis to keep an eye on the tactics of his own party. That is telling.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 10, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

The ideas of conservatism weren't beat. Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values.

And that's why you guys lose elections. (I've been dying to use that line!)

Posted by: Pennypacker on November 10, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

If I'm reading Kevin's "mythbusting" correctly, and I'm not sure I even understand it, frankly, this indicates that no one demographic can claim responsibility for the Republican's thumping.

So, does this indicate that the Democrats' victory is a result of being more generally appealing to voters across the spectrum? Or that revulsion of Republicans' incompetence and arrogance was basically universal, that is, not limited to any one particular group?

Posted by: RobW on November 10, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Al:

Please, by all means continue to believe that.

After all, your entire moderate wing was halved in the Northeast by Democrats -- even more reason to believe that Republicans can't win by being Democrat Lite !

If you really push and prod your even *more* conservative caucuses to stay that way -- if you persuade them that the Solid South can trump the Solid Northeast and the Purple West (those mountains' majesties) and Plains, guess what?

You'll never win another national election and the entire country will call the GOP a party captured by elitist extremists, just as you have painted the Democrats for coming on 30 years.

You wanna turn "conservative" into a dirty word -- by all means, Al -- continue to convice yourself of this thesis.

BTW, I dunno if Pale Rider has anything to contribute to this thread or not.

But whoever spoofed me at the top of the thread on his behalf sure seems to lack something in the sense of humor department ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

RobW:

That's essentially what Kevin is saying, yes.

It was an across-the-board rejection of the GOP.

Which implies that the election wasn't driven by ideology, but rather by disgust at the Bush Administration and its congressional enablers.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK


Kevin, is there some mechanism whereby the tiresome cliches in Al's posts would automatically render his blatherings unpublishable?

Al, child, it's C- stuff in any English 101 class in the land.

Posted by: harrison on November 10, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

See Daryl.

If 17 out of every 100 conservatives vote for you in election 1, and then 20 out of every 100 conservatives vote for you in election 2, that's a 17.6% jump in conservatives voting for you. If 55 of every 100 youths vote for you, and then 60, that's a 9.1% change. The first change is almost twice as significant as the second, even if the second changed by 5 percentage points, while the first changed by only 3. It of course matters (as you point out for youths) what the absolute size of the group is for vote-counting, and thus in some sense it matters what the percentage-point change is, but in terms of comparing changing levels of appeal between different groups, Democrats improved their evangelical vote a lot more than they improved their youth vote. (Though of course there was a lot more room for improvement for the former, starting at only 17%.)

I know I'm not making a very deep point here, just distinguishing between percentage point increase and percent increase. Perhaps best would be to report a) percent increase, and b) the raw number of votes before/after, to give a proper sense of the scale and electoral importance of these demographic shifts. Heck, even better would be to focus on non-overlapping groups, to not double-count additional votes (eg, in youths with "no religion").

Another thing to remember is that in most cases this is a zero-sum game: 3 more conservatives (out of 100) voting for us is also 3 fewer voting for them. If there were 10 million conservatives, that would be a change from being down (8.3 mil - 1.7 mil = 6.6 mil) to being down (8 mil - 2 mil = 6 mil)-- that is, although our votes only increased by 300,000 (17.6%), our deficit decreased by 600,000 (6% of the total). Of course, this last point makes no difference in comparing between groups--except when you keep the raw totals in mind and look at how much you gain for each tweak. Again, nothing deep here--but those apparently small changes can make big differences.

Posted by: Miller on November 10, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't the definition of evangelicals something like anyone who goes to church more than once a month? That might be over half the population. A 3% change in that demographic that votes very reliable is potentially pretty big. I'd be interested in knowing what the percentage of actual voters are evangelical similar to the number that was given for the youth vote.

Posted by: Chad on November 10, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

It was an across-the-board rejection of the GOP.
Which implies that the election wasn't driven by ideology, but rather by disgust at the Bush Administration and its congressional enablers.

This is the best evidence yet that you are, in fact, probably the finest liberal that this blog has to offer. I bask in the glow of the analysis you shine outwards to illuminate a world that is cold and dark and wondering how the world really works.

I say that because you are 100% correct--you Dumbocrats gave the American people a reason to vote AGAINST the Republican Party (of which I'm not a member-I'm a Libertarian) and no reason whatsoever to vote FOR the Dumbocrat Party.

How does it feel to know that you have not been embraced at all? The other side merely wandered off into the wilderness. And who can blame them? Defending a country and fighting two wars and keeping the American economy running smoothly has simply worn out the Republican Party to the point where they became punchy-like a long haul trucker who has been driving for 12 hours. That's exactly what happened to the Republican Party, I believe. Faced with the burdens presented to them, they tired and they let the big rig drive straight into the pylons supporting the overpass and they burst into flames. Not even a fist full of trucker speed could have kept them going. I pity them; at one time, I may have had common cause with them. Being a Libertarian means you can find common cause with people who have good ideas.

And you wonder why no one's talking about the Dumbocrats' ideas. Taxing everyone into oblivion and surrendering to al Qaeda just aren't going to cut it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 10, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Al's Mommy,

Well, you must admit that the some of the Pubs have come a long way. Robo-calls in the night? Well, they used to just have "knocking on doors in the middle of the night"

Is there a not a bit of coincidence of bragging about such things as 1,000 year reigns and becoming the dominate party in perpetua and both lasting for 12 years?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 10, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

And you wonder why no one's talking about the Dumbocrats' ideas. Taxing everyone into oblivion and surrendering to al Qaeda just aren't going to cut it.

Has Speaker Pelosi set the date to surrender yet? I need to clear my schedule for that day.

I'm fairly sure the "taxing us into oblivion", is part of the first hundred hours, but I could be wrong on that.

Posted by: AkaDad on November 10, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

Paulthethirdone-

Robo-calls in the night? Well, they used to just have "knocking on doors in the middle of the night"

Do you (or anyone for that matter) know how to get the American Red Cross to stop calling us? No shit-we gave money to the Katrina Fund and the Tsunami Relief and they won't frickin' stop calling us - Saturday mornings, after 8pm, etc.

It's like all the telemarketers that lost their jobs when the Do Not Call thing happened ended up going to the Red Cross to torment America.

Saaaaaaaaaaay-maybe Normie can fix this problem for me.

Whaddya say, old bitch-can you fix it for me?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 11, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

...Incidentally, I'm starting to lose my ability to tell which of the comments here are satire and which are in earnest. This is a very post-modern flavored blog you've got here, Kevin!

Posted by: Miller on November 11, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Hey GC,

better watch that blood pressure now

you know you want to be around for the 2008 massacre

Remember Veterans Day every one !

One on the Wall - Brian L. Wells

Posted by: daCascadian on November 11, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

You know, you're really quite a bore when you try to be serious.

We're all talking about Democratic agenda items on the long itemized thread for it, if you care to join in the discussion.

This is election analysis, and Pelosi was very wise indeed not to give out a detailed platform the Republicans could attack.

You'll recall that the Contract With America wasn't given wide publicity prior to the landslide of '94, either.

When an election is a clear referendum on the party in power, it would be dumb politics to do otherwise, as I've told you many times before the election. The American people have given us a chance, and they'll know soon enough what the content of our proposals will be.

The first 100 hours have already been more than clearly outlined.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

AkaDad,

As to the surrender, we first have to get the USS Missouri out of mothballs, sail the Big Mo around the Cape and dock in the harbor of New York City - Sort of fitting, don't you know, to have the formal surrender there.

But, will al-Quada really attend the ceremonies. What if this is a devilish plot by the Speaker of the House to have the vessel rigged with explosives, then when Omar and his cutthroats sit down - Ka-Boom

As you well know, one can never, never trust a sneaky Demo. We want your babies, your graves, and your money, especially all of your money. Do you ever see a true Democrat during the day time?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

daCascadian - I shall not be purchasing any poppies this year after the Duckworth slap in the face.

We live mere blocks from the national headquarters and my husband went in and quit his membership in person. Told them they exhibited real "Band of Brothers" thinking - with the emphasis on "Brothers."

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, one last point, that in fact ties together my previous two. I don't know whether, once this thread descends into flame-wars (as most comment threads here seem to), you (Kevin Drum) ever return to read the comments. As far as I can see, you will reply to comments made in the first 15 minutes or so, and then never be seen on a thread again. This discourages the reasonable folks who want to discuss your ideas from commenting at all. I know you're a big fish in this pond and don't have time to debate everyone, but when the evidence suggests you don't even open a comment thread after your first 10-minute-later glance, it means that most of the time, reasonable folks who check your blog a couple times a day have no real reason to post thoughtful comments.

That said, I won't take your non-reply to this post as proof of my point :)

Posted by: Miller on November 11, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Miller:

If you'd like to make a substantive point later in the thread, you can always email Kevin with it. There's a chance it could include your idea in a later thread.

Kevin actually does respond to his email and takes suggestions from commenters. I think it's more a question of time for him than it is something calculated about the way the threads evolve.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 12:09 AM

I never considered that angle. That would be devious of her, and it just might work.

Pre-911 mentality, Ha!

Posted by: AkaDad on November 11, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK
. Taxing everyone into oblivion and surrendering to al Qaeda just aren't going to cut it. Norman Rogers at 11:49 PM
Even blowhards should be able to realize that deficits are deferred taxes on future generations, and no one has run up deficits like Republicans. Here are the increases in our national debt thanks to Bush:

9/29/2006 $574,264,237,491.73
9/30/2005 $553,656,965,393.18
9/30/2004 $595,821,633,586.70
9/30/2003 $554,995,097,146.46
9/30/2002 $420,772,553,397.10
9/30/2001 $133,285,202,313.20
9/30/2000 $17,907,308,271.43

Of course, others aside from Bush bitter enders also know that bin Laden prefers Bush.

On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as Osamas endorsement of John Kerry. But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.

That's all you have to offer: deferred taxes, bullying, namecalling, and doing all you can to aid the cause of international terrorism.
When will Republicans sober up?

Posted by: Mike on November 11, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah - the "Ideas of Conservativism" have the same problems as Communism.

If you try to implement those ideas, you need POWER to do that.

And Power Corrupts.

This lesson on the triumph of pragmatism of ideology brought to you by the letters F, and U.

Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 11, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

s/of/over/

Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 11, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1:

This is election analysis, and Pelosi was very wise indeed not to give out a detailed platform the Republicans could attack.

Yes--it was wise to keep the American people from figuring out just how badly the Dumbocrats want to raise taxes, surrender to al Qaeda and give everyone who has a pathetic look on their face a free handout. When do you stagger into the local welfare office with your palms out and ask for your unearned share?

Pale Rider:

Whaddya say, old bitch-can you fix it for me?

You'll need a veterinarian who accepts payment on the barter system for that, you whiny cunt.

akaDAD:

Has Speaker Pelosi set the date to surrender yet? I need to clear my schedule for that day.

It's going to be early March, if memory serves me. The olive branch will be extended and Usama bin Laden will be welcomed to the US Capitol to address a joint session of the newly-Dumbocratically controlled Congress. The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown.


Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, so sad, but true - We are often left without adult supervision around here.

They used to sing "When the lights go on, all over the world" thinking that there would finally be peace. Not to be.

However, Armistice Day, Remembrance Day in Canada and Veterans Day here in the states is nigh.

To all who honorably served, combat or non-combat, of whatever gender or sexual orientation, hold your heads high and fly your banners and flags proudly.

And by the way, Semper Fi to the birthday of the US Marine Corps.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin actually does respond to his email and takes suggestions from commenters. I think it's more a question of time for him than it is something calculated about the way the threads evolve.

Apparently, rickmick's nose is up everybody's ass these days.

[and that was my shot for this thread-well, not a great shot but that's it for me tonight. While I would not normally miss the opportunity to be called the C-word for anything in the world, I think it's hilarious that Normie would think that the abandonment of a US soldier to the enemy is anything other than the Republican Party surrendering to al Qaeda.]

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 11, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Source of Myth #2: ABC News, which said: "Almost a third of white evangelicals voted for Democrats in today's election"

Was ABC wrong? Maybe. If ABC and CNN give significantly different numbers, then one of them has to be wrong. But we don't know which one it is. Until there's a reason why we know CNN's right and ABC's wrong, who's to say ABC's claim is a 'myth'?

Posted by: RT on November 11, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Pale,

I think he rather liked Operation Backward Together, orchastrated by Gen "Lick Spittle" Casey.

Posted by: stupid git on November 11, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

stupid git:

Yeah, it ain't a good sign when our allies are ordering us to abandon our own troops because they want to push back against the Republicans.

Good night to you, Stupid Git-keep giving them hell.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 11, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown.

Now THAT was funny.

Night, all.

Posted by: shortstop on November 11, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

I'm more than a little pissed at Carville right now for trying to stir up dissent and oust Dr. Dean from the DNC chair.

I have a better idea than fragging the winning General.

Let's throw Carville and his ilk under a bus, but let's set them on fire first.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

'Night Shortstop. They can try, but they can't succeed in wresting the sweet victory from our clutches.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I really have no idea why I'm addressing this to you, because this is a post about ideas and you've yet to give me any faith you take ideas seriously. But, since this concerns Libertarianism, you could do worse than to listen to me think out loud about this.

On an earlier thread, Matt wrote something that's been rolling around in my head all night, and may well fundamentally influence my thinking about political alignment. In a nutshell, he says that there's a three-pronged alignment of American ideology: Libertarian -- Liberal -- Conservative, with Liberal being the synthesis between the two antipodes of Libertarianism and Conservatism.

Lemme 'splain:

First of all, forget you ever heard the phrase "small-government conservative." If this was ever true, it's mostly a myth and an epiphenomenon of American history. Conservatives at root are statists. They're authoritarians and traditionalists. They believe in an imposed hierarchy because human nature is inherently flawed. Conservatives revere the past.

The anthesis is not liberalism, but rather Libertarianism. Libertarians are anti-statist. They believe in political and legal equality founded on natural rights. They're suspicious of hierarchy and tradition, and believe "human nature" is what we make of it. Libertarians look to the future.

Neither pole on their own can govern. A pure Conservative social order is an idealized feudalism that never existed. A pure Libertarian utopia devolves into anarchism. What steps in the breach to mediate between the two is Liberalism.

Liberals are neither statists nor anti-statists. Liberals believe in appropriate government, less when government is oppressive, more to assure natural rights. Government in the role of referee, to assure the political and legal equality essential to liberty for all. Liberals are conservative in the sense that they believe in the rule of law and adjudication by a central government, and honor the traditional values that uphold them. But Liberals are libertarian, because the government is subordinated to the service of guaranteeing natural rights and not equal outcomes.

Liberalism is not Socialism, which looks to the well-being of the collective over the individual. Liberalism serves to militate between the two tendencies of conservative hierarchy and libertarian anarchism by providing the pragmatically -- not ideologically -- appropriate level of government for a given situation.

And these ideas are just fresh out of my head, so please, good people, be gentle on them ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Globe:

I caught Carville's snarky comment in The Note -- but how is he attempting to get Dean ousted?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

No, it was a really dumb shot since all I did was make a practical suggestion to somebody who wanted Kevin to read his comment.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

And these ideas are just fresh out of my head, so please, good people, be gentle on them ...

Eye-popping contradiction #2,985 from the swirly-eyed freak named rmck1.

It is always amusing to be lectured on an ideology that I have lived my whole life--and one that has brought me success and great fortune--by someone who is not even remotely able to understand that of which he speaks.

What is a theory to you is a life to me; what is the amateur analysis of yours is the professional assessment of my own.

Lecturing a parody doesn't make you look very bright, now does it?

And you wonder why you're the mouse that kitty-cat me just ate. Nummy!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Now speaking of inconsistent, Norm ol' chap -- but isn't a cornerstone of your persona that Thurston Howell III aura of entitlement you like to project? You know -- all that matters about a man is who his father worked for and all of that? Don't you heap all kinds of scorn at your fellow conservative rdw, mock him with the snide epithet Working Class Hero, because he is not, as are you, To The Manner Born?

So you speak of living Libertarianism. Really. A product of your own bootstraps. Well, if it were genuinely true, you'd hardly be a person worth parodying, would you. You'd be ... honest and hardworking, rather than such a gleefully scamming white-collar criminal -- right?

You only started calling yourself a Libertarian because the Republicans lost, Norman :)

And sorry you couldn't follow my discussion. I posted it to you more so you could kind of look over my shoulder and ask your mom what the big words meant.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the advice, bob/rmck1.

Posted by: Miller on November 11, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Bob - maybe that he came right out and said Harold Ford should replace howard Dean as RNC chair? That was enough of a proclamation for me.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

.... The olive branch will be extended and Usama bin Laden will be welcomed to the US Capitol to address a joint session of the newly-Dumbocratically controlled Congress. The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown....
Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

You forgot the institution of the new holiday:
National Baby-Eating and Grave-Robbing day.

And Stalin's Birthday.

And the creation of a new government Bureacracy to ensure separation of church and state:
The Department of Lion Feeding.

rmck1;
Not sure I agree with your assessment. (see my prior post on unpragmatic ideological utopians). Libertarians are a subset of Republicans - who were forced to unite the Corporatist Church of Mammon, with the American Taliban of Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, coupled with some kind of Secret Republican Gay Sex Fratboi Ring, and of course, Eisenhower's "Texas Oil Millionaires". Most of them have bought into the "evil communist conspiracy menace" story of the McCarthy era. All of them are morally bankrupt, and fairly gullible with their ideological positions. So in order to get their fantasy to WORK, they have to get Power to enforce their fantasy onto reality. And the first thing they do when they get power, is they are seduced, and realize that power for it's own sake is important, and that they must fool the other subsets of Republicans that they're in mutual coalition (instead of a scam-fest). They will use any rationalization, including fooling themselves into believing that since they're working for the good of the nation, they're patriotic, and anyone who opposes them, for whatever reason, is evil, and therefore must be part of the communist conspiracy.

You really can't use a rational political theory to explain these people. There's only two ways to deal with the reality-challenged; prison, or antipsychotic drugs.

As Norman so aptly demonstrates, it's very difficult to keep these guys on their meds. And those who have stolen a great deal of money in their pursuit of power for it's own end, it's very difficult to keep them in prison for any significant length of time.

It's tragic, really. For the rest of enlightened, rational, human civilization.

Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 11, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Myth #3 is actually a variation of the daily spin by right-wing nutjobs and the media; i.e. the Democratic Party is made up of nothing but left-wing radicals and they'll never win without embracing conservative values and blah-blah-blah. in fact, there's never been a lack of centrist Democrats (Feinstein, Daschle, Reid, just to name the obvious) and even some with conservative leanings (Nelson, for one; not Lieberman because he is an unthinking sycophant to the right wing). Until Tuesday, they've been too weak counter the demagoguery from the right abetted by a complacent and compromised media. The post-election b.s. talking points spew from Bay Buchanan and the other tools is just more of the same, except now they have to tweak it to justify having their right-wing asses kicked and claim conservative values for obviously centrist Democratic winners. Aside from abortion, there's no effective difference between Bob Casey's viewpoint and Dianne Feinstein's, I will wager, but there's a massive split between Casey's views and the ugly, hard-core extremism of Sen. Ricky. PA voters backed far away from the right and went to the middle with Casey.

Posted by: secularhuman on November 11, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Globe:

Shit. That sucks. Where did you read that?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

On some mainstream website that isn't blocked by the net-nanny at the hospital. CNN maybe? I was paying more attention to the bloodbank than the news, but that leaped right the hell out at me.

I didn't elect Nancy Boyda all by myself. I had to have some help from Dr. Dean and the 50 State Strategy.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

OBF / IRCPJ:

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all on a practical level. Capital-L Libertarianism has always been one kind of rationalization or another. Always helps to know that most Randroids in cyberspace are highschool students :)

I was making a more political science-y kind of argument, to ressurect liberalism as *the* practical governing philosophy of America -- which militates between the good and bad tendencies of Conservatism and Libertarianism alike.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Shit. That sucks. Where did you read that?

It's called the "Internet" shit for brains.

See? Now I can be Pale Rider! Good show for me! Would anyone else care to engage in a rousing game of insults in lieu of discussing the topic at hand? Anyone?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

I was making a more political science-y kind of argument, to ressurect liberalism as *the* practical governing philosophy of America -- which militates between the good and bad tendencies of Conservatism and Libertarianism alike.

By pulling bullshit from your ass?

I like this, I like this a lot. Oh, your uncle Norman has found a new way to wreak havoc upon the liberals.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

secularhuman:

Agreed.

Globe:

Fuck. Believe me, Globe -- I was firmly behind what Dean was doing back when I was posting on BlogForAmerica after he got the DNC nod. It bugs me to no end the way the media have thrown him under the bus in favor of Rahm- and Chuck-worship.

Rahm and Chuck did a stellar job, and kudos all around for them.

But damn straight that more than a few of the victors would have never come out of the woodwork to win without the netroots/state organizating spadework laid by Dean, and in some cases Democracy For America.

Harold Ford, DNC chair? That mealy-mouthed centrist? No fucking way.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

It's called "thinking."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

Stellar Job? Rahm-lets-concentrate-on-25-races-Emmanuel? Please. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire in the center of my synagogue. Fuck.Rahm.Emmanuel. He can go strait to hell as far as this red-state Democrat is concerned.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK
The ideas of conservatism weren't beat. Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values -AL

So, my Son, you are saying the Conservatives got tired of the Conservative [non-Conservative] bullcrap and turned to the left because they were more conservative than the neo-liberals that you elected, and apologized for, because they told you they were neo-conservatives?

Boy that is one confusing tale you got to rationalize a bunch of screwups in office. And Amazingly NONE of it is your fault. You did nothing in support of these neo-cons?

I thought I raised you better AL jr. Now get your fanny perpendicular to school right now young man.

Posted by: Als Daddy on November 11, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, rmck1 Bob, that's about the clearest and most succinct summary of the American political/philosophical landscape I ever seen. I think you're right on the mark.

A few comments comments:

Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by the need to control personal behavior. They think that human behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some nominative social standard. To them a primary role of government is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Both conservatism and libertarianism are driven by fear. Conservatives fear anarchy, libertarians fear tyranny. Both are fatalistic in their world view, rejecting the the thesis that people can work together for the common good absent a selfish motive. That selfish motive is usually greed, but it's occassionally self preservation in the face of an external threat.

In my experience people who call themselves conservative or libertarian usually lack the self awareness to understand their own motivations and don't understand the philosophical basis of their belief system. Most self-professed libertarians are really only conservatives without the religious baggage.

Democrats/liberals are closer to libertarians when it comes to personal liberties. We generally believe that the government should stay out of peoples personal lives. But we believe that people can work together for the common good based on altruism, not just greed and fear.

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

I was firmly behind what Dean was doing back when I was posting on BlogForAmerica after he got the DNC nod.

Well, well, well. Let's go have a look and see what gems we can find.

Perhaps on this other blog from several years ago we'll find a person such as myself giving you hell for being a self-contradicting bloviating jackass who couldn't add two and two with an abacus and a calculator that only to go up to "two." I highly doubt we'll find a dozen acolytes who are fawning all over you.

To the liberals who are waiting for me to tell them what to do, a mild apology--I am under house arrest. I am forced to wear a monitoring device on my ankle. We have done just about everything possible to slip it off and defeat the infernal thing, but there it is. I have a great deal of free time and I shall be working on these matters with due diligence. I'll be spending a few hours researching rmck1's previous blog comments--I shall synthesize the best parts and report back to the group. Please--talk amongst yourselves and engage in lively debate until I return.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK
I like this, I like this a lot. Oh, your uncle Norman has found a new way to wreak havoc upon the liberals. --Norman Rogers

I see our Princeton Ivey League Neo-Liberal is back.

Posted by: Als Daddy on November 11, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK
I have a great deal of free time and I shall be working on these matters with due diligence
Good Lord man get a fecking hobby....get some wood and whittle some clothespins or something... Posted by: Als Daddy on November 11, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1 uses a SOCK PUPPET:

aa
Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

By the by, why did you use a "sock puppet" style posting to try to bolster your argument? What kind a twit thinks he can slip that by the more observant members of the group.

In the past you have stated that you have a "tic" on your computer that prevents you from posting text in a manner which formats the comments as those of us who use normal means of posting would utilize.

I leave it to the group. Read these sentences and see if they are not, in their phrasing and composition, merely rmck1 performing a sock puppet dance for all of us to see:

To them a primary role of government is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Now, compare to what rmck1 wrote earlier:

They're authoritarians and traditionalists. They believe in an imposed hierarchy because human nature is inherently flawed. Conservatives revere the past.

And this:

The anthesis is not liberalism, but rather Libertarianism. Libertarians are anti-statist. They believe in political and legal equality founded on natural rights. They're suspicious of hierarchy and tradition, and believe "human nature" is what we make of it. Libertarians look to the future.

Now, we'll go to the sock puppet post and review again:

Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by the need to control personal behavior. They think that human behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some nominative social standard.

I would submit that these paras were written by the same person.

And, I would say rmck1 is busted.

Welcome to the world of dishonest sock puppetry, rmck1.

You are discovered and revealed, sir.

Take your dishonesty and leave.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

Globe:

I don't blame you at all. Rahm was a latecomer to the truth about Iraq, and I think all he's concerned about *at all* is "the game" of politics. I don't like him one little bit, either.

I was just being dryly sardonic in acknowledging the media's turning him into some kind of new Karl Rove of the left, is all.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK
FACT #1: When Democrats lose elections, they make bogus claims about cheating and voter suppression and intimidation of Black voters. When GOP loses, they admit they lost. -FK

Like George Allen who was having a nightmare???


BWHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAA!

Posted by: Als Daddy on November 11, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK


Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing fishy here at all. (rolling eyes in disbelief)

Good night, liberals. I don't engage in debates with individuals who resort to sock puppetry. How pathetic and dishonest.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I'm going to bow out of this flame war. Goodnight all. When we wake up tomorrow, you know what?

We will still be the winners of last Tuesdays election. Just once more before I go, check out this this election map. No bright red at all, just lots of bright blue!

Sweet!

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Hormonal Citizen:

Well, I'm going to bow out of this flame war.

You're not a bad debater. I don't see you utilizing a sock puppet like rmck1 would. I will grant you that one point of order before I tell you to go shave your other armpit.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

(rmck1--I shall not let you live this down. This is a promise made to you by your uncle Norman. Bank on it, you dishonest hack.)

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, shaving is so yesterday. We tough girls wax.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

*rolling eyes*

Aaron aardvark is a regular here, you goof.

Search the archives for his posts.

And, while I appreciate the kind words, I don't quite agree with his thesis. If I weren't so tired, I'd point-by-point it. I may do that tomorrow.

I don't violently disagree; I think our ideas are in the same ballpark. But there are some key distinctions.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

G'night, Globe.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK
(rmck1--I shall not let you live this down. This is a promise made to you by your uncle Norman. Bank on it, you dishonest hack.) Posted by: Norman Roger

Your assuming alot of facts not in evidence unk

Computer TCP/IP packet logs, with computer name, some IP numbers,something along those lines because otherwise you look like a gibbering gibbon...

Posted by: Als Daddy on November 11, 2006 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

Night Bob. Night Norman. Night lurkers. Night Mary Ellen. Night John Boy.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Norman...

I seem to recall that you made some pretty specific predictions as to the outcome of Tuesday's elections in advance of the fact, but I can't bring the figures to mind.

Could you refresh my memory?

Posted by: Rand Careaga on November 11, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

Well Storman Norman, you have proved that you are technically, textually, and most likely verbally illiterate, in one fell swoop.

Congratulations!


Bwahahahhahahaaaaa!!

Posted by: Als Daddy on November 11, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

Rand Careaga:

Norman wouldn't know. He's a Libertarian now.

ROTFL !

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

GOD FUCKING DAMMIT THE YOUTH VOTE WAS NOT A GODDAMN FIZZLE!!!!1111!!1!one!!

Sure less youth voted than in 2004 but more Americans voted in 2004 than had EVER voted before. To claim youth votes put the Dems over the top (that is, more than any OTHER voting bloc) is hyperbole but to say it was some how a disappointment is wrong. They increased their turnout proportionally in regards to an off year election (2002) more than any other single demographic and they were just as valuable to Dems this year as any other demographic.

You know, for someone who's party has a substantial bloc of young voters you sure like to beat on them.

Posted by: MNPundit on November 11, 2006 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

This is a very post-modern flavored blog you've got here, Kevin!

You want post-modernism - how about regulars arguing with with their own parody sockpuppets and then having their sockpuppets accuse other regulars of sockpuppetry.

Or is that merely cubism?

Posted by: Zany Cut-up on November 11, 2006 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK

aaron aardvark:

> Wow, rmck1 Bob, that's about the clearest and most
> succinct summary of the American political/philosophical
> landscape I ever seen. I think you're right on the mark.

Well thanks, aaron, but don't say stuff like this too effusively,
lest the Moron Contingent accuse you of being my sock puppet :)

> Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by
> the need to control personal behavior. They think that human
> behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil
> impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some
> nominative social standard. To them a primary role of government
> is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't
> extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian
> in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Well I think you're conflating some things. While this is certainly
true of social and/or religious conservatives -- I don't think
it's true in the corporate or business world at all. Business
"conservatism" isn't really conservatism -- it's libertarianism;
an ideological belief in the Free Market whether it exists or not,
the upshot being that everybody in business is supposed to watch
their backs and be very insecure all the time. If they got
comfortable in their corporate niche (as used to happen in a different
age when the world wasn't so competitive with American business), this
would be scorned as a type of paternalism and these sorts of employees
would not be pitied if they were canned in the next round of layoffs.

> Both conservatism and libertarianism are driven by fear.
> Conservatives fear anarchy, libertarians fear tyranny.

That's what they seek to avoid, yes. But there's a key
distinction here. Conservatives are pessimists; libertarians
are utopians. Conservatives believe in externally opposed order
and hierarchy because human nature is weak; libertarians believe
that order and hierarchy will arise naturally from merit alone if
people (who are basically good) are left to their own devices.

This is a very very important distinction. Though they may believe
that a natural order may arise, and it may be quite ugly and
Darwinian, Libertarians are *not* temprementally conservative.

> Both are fatalistic in their world view, rejecting
> the thesis that people can work together for
> the common good absent a selfish motive.

Conservatives are more pessimistic than Libertarians. Conservatives
accept greed as a mainspring but aren't necessarily happy about it.
Libertarians believe that greed can become "enlightened self-interest"
which does indeed serve the common good, as John Locke laid it out.

> That selfish motive is usually greed, but it's occassionally
> self preservation in the face of an external threat.

Well, that happens at an instinctual level if the threat is
direct, so I don't know how connected it is to political ideology.
I think group preservation in the face of a collective threat
tends to produce conservative impulses to preserve the group,
and this has anti-libertarian implications (witness the erosion
of our civil liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism.")

> In my experience people who call themselves conservative or
> libertarian usually lack the self awareness to understand
> their own motivations and don't understand the philosophical
> basis of their belief system. Most self-professed libertarians
> are really only conservatives without the religious baggage.

I'd say this is true.

> Democrats/liberals are closer to libertarians when it
> comes to personal liberties. We generally believe that
> the government should stay out of peoples personal lives.

Yes. Democrats tend to be civil libertarians (while supporting
limiting economic liberty), because they accept the distinction
between the public sphere and the private sphere. Since economic
activity affects so many more people than the actor, it's right
that the actor's conduct should be regulated, whereas personal
behavior affects no one but oneself and one's associates.

> But we believe that people can work together for the
> common good based on altruism, not just greed and fear.

I'd hope that this would be true as well.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

aaron ardvark:

A brief codicil about big corporations:

You're correct that there's an inherent authoritarianism in big business, and there's no getting around the corporate hierarchy in expressing this. Underlings are supposed to be subservient, top manargers are supposed to be "great men" (and women) who offer charismatic leadership. So in a way, corporate culture in terms of personal interactions can be feudal and plantation-like.

However, the ideas of corporate employeess are encouraged to be libertarian. Every employee is responsible for his or her own fate, for retraining themselves, for keeping their resumes out there, for aiming for promotions and not getting comfortable in one spot. This is all sustained with individualist ideology. Corporate managers are supposed to be "bold risk-takers," and a truly conservative outlook would smother a corporation not looking to adapt and continually grow.

So there are two sets of dynamics here -- one conservative, one libertarian -- operating at once, sometimes at cross-purposes.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, y'all.
Rummy's probably not going to get that sweet CEO job at Halliburton;

He's not going to be able to be doing a whole lot of foreign travel for a while:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

I guess Germany wasn't happy at being referred to as "The Old Europe".

Maybe Rummy can find some little banana republic or emirate with no extradition treaty with Germany - or maybe he can hide-out in France like the Ayatollah did under the Shah.

Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 11, 2006 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK

OBF / IRCPJ:

Yeah. When I read that in the AP, I was smilin' ear-to-ear.

They have the same deal for Henry Kissinger, too. Although in his case, I think the magic country is France.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 3:41 AM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure I heard Dean say, on CNN, that the Democrats won 1/3 of the evangelical vote. (It might've been a different cable news channel.)

Posted by: Agnoiologist on November 11, 2006 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Miller: I don't quite get you. The three numbers you mention are changes of 5, 3, and 3 percent. Those just aren't big differences.

More to the point, they aren't any different than the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats, which was 5 points. If you want to say that a particular demographic group was heavily responsible for the Dem win, that group needs to have swung much more strongly than the country as a whole. None of the three groups I mentioned did.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on November 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

I am not good at math. However, I think what Miller is referring to is a concept used in Texas Hold 'em Poker. If I am dealt AK suited I am favored to win against 8 other player 25% of the time. If I am dealt AK offsuit I am favored to win 20% of the time. So, the odds of me winning the hand only went up 5% in absolute terms, but it really went up 25%. I would win 5/20 suited, 4/20 non suited. 5/4=25%.

I am not sure if that is a valid reasoning, but it seems like it a valid perspective.

However, your Myth #1 is not really refuted. You are comparing 2004 election results when a more valid comparison would be 2002.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- An estimated 10 million young Americans under the age of 30 voted in Tuesday's midterm elections, an increase of at least two million compared to 2002, according to exit polls and early published tallies of votes that are likely to increase as additional precincts and ballots are included. The preliminary data were analyzed by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), which is the nation's premier research organization on the civic and political engagement of young Americans.

The estimated youth turnout rate or percentage of young eligible voters who cast votes also jumped from 20 percent in 2002 to at least 24 percent in 2006, an increase of at least four percentage points (see note one). Voters under the age of 30 accounted for 13 percent of all voters, which is an increase of about 2 points compared to the 2002 midterm elections.

"This is an extraordinary turnout for young voters," said CIRCLE Director Peter Levine. "In a year of rising turnout, young people led the way -- repeating the pattern that we saw in 2004. Youth were an especially high proportion of voters in Montana, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri. Nationwide, in House races, 61 percent of young people voted for Democratic candidates --the highest proportion for any age group."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75954

I have felt the last few days, you have gotten into Broder, Brooks, and Kaus territory by willfully or ignorantly using misleading information or facts while withholding information that might refute or call into question your point.

Still a big fan.

Posted by: mdana on November 11, 2006 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINK

I have no expectation of understanding this during my time on earth...but for SOME REASON it took six years for enough voters to realize what a bubblehead they have in BUSH and (geez a caller on WJ is making my point as I write) and voted AGAINST him and this corrupt administration and fools in greater numbers than we could pull off in 2004. This will only work for Democrats (and the rest of us) IF the newly elected are wise (and disregard the MSM pundits) with their upcoming moves and decisions. NOW, let's get to work on media consolidation issues before there are NO OUTLETS left for the people to receive actual REPORTING of facts and information!

Posted by: Dancer on November 11, 2006 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

ALSO...I think people in the Democratic party disparage and disregard Howard Dean at their peril. He should be listened to and his thoughts and observations and opinions weighed with care. He was correct about the 50 state focus and if now DEMS begin to eat their own (as it's actually fun watching REPUGS do) we'll deserve whatever the future holds.

Posted by: Dancer on November 11, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

According to Tne Independent (London), 40.4% of the potential population voted. Was this the same roughly 40% that voted in the presidential election, or another set of the voting population? Just curious.

Posted by: wmmbb on November 11, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Bob wrote:

"Democrats tend to be civil libertarians"

Eh, depends.

But Democrats don't agree internally on much here, do we? There are plenty of internal rifts in the Democratic Party on a variety of social issues where Democrats occasionally lean toward GOP style authortarianism (drugs, booze, sexual politics, tobacco, etc).

As a Democrat, it usually comes down to where you fall on the social-contract-versus-individual liberty scale.

Posted by: Sebastian on November 11, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, Kevin, what you ought to be comparing is midterm-to-midterm, i.e. 2006 to 2002.

Posted by: The Fool on November 11, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Re Bob on liberalism and conservatism and libertarianism:

My analysis of Marx is that he was correct in his analysis but wrong in his prediction. That is, he was correct that capital tends to concentrate in the hands of the rich but wrong that it inevitably results in revolution. I trace Marxs error in prediction to John D. Rockefeller, Jrs insight in 1914.

After the 1913 strike at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Co, where 40 people died, Rockefeller was afraid of an American communist revolution. He hired Mackenzie King, labor minister of Canada who later became prime minister, to tell him what he had to do to prevent a revolution. The answer included things like an 8 hour day. Rockefeller basically did what King told him to do. Then he hired Ivy Lee, early PR genius, to tell everybody about it.

That is, Rockefeller figured out how much he had to give workers to keep them from storming his castle with pitchforks, and he gave them exactly that much. Other capitalists understood and eventually followed suit.

The history of the US Congress since then is back and forth between the two factions on how much the workers have to be given to prevent a revolution. Marxs prediction turned out to be wrong because capitalists figured out how to prevent it.

Posted by: anandine on November 11, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Four more troops killed yesterday in Iraq - Trools start your blame game - You've never mentioned any deaths before, but I believe that you find no hesitation now.

Ah, yes, the "There's a WMD directly pointed at YOU" election of 2002. Wasn't Fear a wonderful vintage in that off year? When it hit your palette, the trembles began.

Someone up thread had a little too much of Dick Kazmaier stepping on his head in days of old.

CBC Radio 2 will have a day of music honoring Remembrance Day, today. But, for we had the same for our Veterans Day.

And a solemn Taps to the Forty Three Canadians who have died in Afghanistan.

And kudos to the Teamster leaders in Vegas for maintaining strong contracts for those workers setting up Comdex today.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

There's a piece on Karl Rove and his observations about the election in Time. He points out that a switch of the right (from memory) 79000 votes and the Republicans control the House. That wouldn't change the overall % of the vote much. Democrats would still have captured significantly more votes. But it exposes the huge structural and distribution problems that Democrats face in trying to forge a sustainable majority. Gloating and schadenfreude longer than 10-12 minutes would probably be a major mistake.

Howard Dean's 50 state plan probably prevented Rove's minority majority. Now, we've got to expand that.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on November 11, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Norman

It's going to be early March, if memory serves me. The olive branch will be extended and Usama bin Laden will be welcomed to the US Capitol to address a joint session of the newly-Dumbocratically controlled Congress. The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown.

With arguements like this, how is it possible your side lost the election?

Posted by: tomeck on November 11, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Many of the Democratic incumbents were conservatives that Democrats supported for partisan reasons despite their votes to give Bush war power, torture power and their subservience to large corporate issues like the pharma medicaid bill and reducing bankruptcy protection for the average American. In a normal year, an election year without Bush's War, these candidates would not have had party solidarity to help them win elections.

Posted by: Hostile on November 11, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Tomeck - we need to let James Carville know that we will not stand for him and his ilk throwing Dr. Dean under the bus for Harold Ford Jr.

Hows about we throw that asshole Carville under the bus, after we set his ragin' cajus ass on fire?

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

All that happened was pissed off independents turned against the war, corruption and the economy. I know that people who do this for a living want to parse this kind of thing, but this time there's no parsing. There were no soccer moms, no angry white men, no Reagan democrats--just a vote by independents for accountability and a new direction.

Posted by: jayackroyd on November 11, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Nurdman Ragger:

Too often weak-minded individuals let others define nouns. They fail to see how Dumbocrat conveniently packs a noun and an opinion in one lumpy package.

This portmanteauism is a skill almost everyone is born with, but for most persons, it decays badly after junior high. Bravo to you for maintaining it!

It is especially heartening to see in a self-described Loonitarian--an adherent to the most deeply out-of-touch microparty this side of the theosophists. Do you really vote for other Loonitarians, or do you sell out to Dumbocrats, Rob-the-public-ans, and the occaisonal Green-with-envy? I hope not.

Posted by: hexatron on November 11, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Global,

Where is your concern for family values? Shouldn't Mary Matalin be by his side?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

> Wow, rmck1 Bob, that's about the clearest and most
> succinct summary of the American political/philosophical
> landscape I ever seen. I think you're right on the mark.

Well thanks, aaron, but don't say stuff like this too effusively,
lest the Moron Contingent accuse you of being my sock puppet :)

And then:

This is a very post-modern flavored blog you've got here, Kevin!

You want post-modernism - how about regulars arguing with with their own parody sockpuppets and then having their sockpuppets accuse other regulars of sockpuppetry.

Or is that merely cubism?

Posted by: Zany Cut-up on November 11, 2006 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK

When caught, your typically dishonest hack has to back and fill and manuever to make it look good.

rmck1 has been caught using a sock puppet--has this happened before? I must examine the archives to see if it is so.

And you wonder why you're a dishonest little shit.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, Dumbocrat is an interesting word - The trools may be a tad young, but Dumbo was a delightful cartoon of a flying elephant named by Disney, Dumbo.

So, some slow witted trool thought he was calling the Democrats dumb by adding the name. Instead he added the Republican logo to crat, which would indicate to me, a fence sitter - One of our weak kneed politicos who has tried to be a touch too friendly with Shrub. Anyone from Connecticut come to mind?

The strong minded prevailed on Tuesday. Any flying elephant-donkey hybrid named Dumbocrat can fly away with little Shrub to oblivion land.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Yes, Norman -- it's happened before that an anonymous troll tried for a few days to accuse me of sock puppenting.

However:

1) I don't sock puppent, and

2) Nobody will believe your charges, because you have exactly zero respect on this blog for everything other than comedy value, so don't waste your time.

If you'd really like to make yourself useful, you can do a search on aaron's posts and tell us all what you find, k?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Right Paul - we should spark her up first and use her to light him. Then throw them both in front of an oncoming train.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

18 WAYS TO BE A GOOD LIBERAL

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-aside s are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.


GOD BLESS AMERICA


Oops, can't do that either!

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

That ankle bracelet still chafing? :)

Sebastian:

Fair point. I was thinking of liberals here. We did elect a bunch of social conservatives, and there appears to be a growing pro-life wing in the party.

And, of course, you and I famously disagree on gun rights :)

So yes -- there's a large flux of opinion on social issues in the Democratic Party. Probably always was thus, too.

You know what bothered me the most? That whole "communitarian" thing that was popular when Clinton was president. Gore's V-chip, his wife's attempts to put warning labels on CDs for explicit lyrics, Hillary's recent tocsin about violent video games ...

Yeah ... we do have a social nanny side that's fairly popular among a number of us, unfortunately enouh ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this analysis is interesting, but how about some commentary on the (delicious) fruit that Howard Dean's 50-state strategy helped to produce this cycle? No, Dean does not get all of the credit for this victory, but NEITHER does he deserve anything like the crass disrespect and Machiavellian machinations that James Carville has been publicly ruminating about. Dude, WTF? Care to call out Carville on this one? What a disgrace. Dean's efforts help to put the Dems in a very muscular position for the 2008 elections, and THIS is how the Democratic establishment chooses to thank him? What does the party need Republican enemies for when we've got James Carville to deal with?

Posted by: Doug on November 11, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

And if you want to be a good conservative, all you need to do is to be able to crank out a Top 10 list of liberal straw men :)

Since conservatives are incapable of thinking about anything in context, this will appear to them to be not only marginally witty -- but tremendously insightful as well.

To everybody else, it just looks like another snickering fatwa issued by the frat-boy mullahs of Dumbfuckistan :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

anandine:

Very true. The other salient example is, of course, the New Deal -- when the American Left was actually a force and some of our most significant social legislation -- the 40 hour work week, unemployment insurance -- we got directly from the American Communist Party.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

If you'd really like to make yourself useful, you can do a search on aaron's posts and tell us all what you find, k?

Quite vehement this morning, eh?

Apparently, the charge is valid enough for you to begin obsessively trying to clear your name. If this has happened before, I guess it's nothing new to have your veracity questioned.

As for me, no, I don't debate dishonest little shits who have to use sock puppets. I see plenty of liberals who, while misguided, are far more honest and worthy of my attention. You are ridiculous to start with, and now you have no credibility. What looks like parody to you liberals from me is full disclosure--this is what gives me a thing called "credibility." I refuse to live my life in the shadows and I refuse to be dishonest in my actions.

A little tip for you--obsessively posting when you get caught doing something wrong just makes you look more guilty, and the look of guilt just drips from you. You appear to be nervously trying to stamp this out--it won't work, I have a long and detailed memory. I can tell you things that happened forty years ago to the level of detail and accuracy that I can actually testify at trials and put people in jail. Yes, it has happened.

Now fuck off and do your sock puppet dance elsewhere. That sort of thing is beyond the pale and I cannot understand why your fellow libs tolerate this sort of thing. You cannot tell me that the post you wrote and that this "aa" sock puppet wrote were not written by the one and the same person. And he is the only one I see today who signs their posts in an identical fashion to yourself, revealing a habit or a tic that you are not talented enough to disguise.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

You're under house arrest. You're wearing a monitoring device.

Defensive? Moi?

ROTFL !

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

1. Some people just deserve to die.

2. Corporations are part of the landscape. Some are good corporate citizens and some are bad. I so not spend my hard earned money in establishments that I deem to be bad corporate citizens.

3. You didn't get the memo. Those of us who wanted the Dems to throw the gun-control plank in the fireplace finally won our way and we won the election.

4. I could not care less about the NEA.

5. If you are unaware of the differences between the long (geologic) and short (biologic) carbon cycles, then sure, I can see where you might think that SUV's have a negligible environmental impact.

6. Sexual preference is a genetic trait and most every scientis of repute agrees. Additionally, some of us are still pissed off at the feminists of the 60's and 70's for insisting that women and men were inherently the same. We aren't.

7. AIDS is spread by high-risk behaviors. Funding of education efforts and intervention slows the spread of the virus.

8. Agre appropriate sex ed decreases the rates of STD's and teen pregnancy.

9. I am a hunter. I do not support PETA. For dinner last night, we had venison, although I do not know if it was the deer I shot or the one my husband shot.

10. Self esteem is important, but if it is not earned it is not real.

11. Mel Gibson probably had ulterior motives but they were not financial. South Park addressed this very well.

12. The NRA is a political lobbying organization. The ACLU fights to preserve the constitution, letter and spirit.

13. Taxes are too low on some classes of our society, and ATM fees are too high.

14. I have been a NOW member for 20 years and never heard anyone say that Sanger and Steinem are more important than Madison, Jefferson or eEdison.

15. Standardized tests are written by educated, mostly white people. Their inherent racism and classism are exposed when the test designers are asked to take standardized tests created by members of other ethnic groups. This has been common knowledge in ed psych courses since at least the 80's.

16. Socialism has not been an abject failure in Switzerland, or even in France. Been either place lately?

17. I have no problem with drag queens or with Christmas.

18. If you are part of a vast right wing conspiracy, they are getting desperate.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

You're under house arrest. You're wearing a monitoring device.

This is what gives me credibility; I am secure enough to admit embarrassing things about myself as I post honest and thoughtful observations about liberalism. The only reason why you have that piece of information about me is because I TOLD you I was wearing an ankle bracelet as ordered by a court of law as part of an agreement that I would not flee the country while being investigated.

Pardon me for being a man of means. Pardon me for disclosing information that a dishonest sock puppet using shit like you would use without hesitation.

Now, fuck off and look for YOUR credibility in the gutter.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

You must respond immediately to the list that Hormonal Citizen has posted. While I think she's unhinged and possibly lies about shaving her armpits, she seems to have beaten you pretty soundly with a substantive post from the liberal perspective.

I myself have renounced all ties to the Republican Party--how is it that they could not see that getting rid of Rumsfeld in August would have saved them the Congress? I have always been a solid Libertarian, you know.

Watch out for rmck1, Jay: he is a cloying, dishonest little shit who uses sock puppets. Be wary of him.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Globe:

Hmmm ... there are a few things there I'd quibble with you about. I don't think, for instance, it was feminists of 30 and 40 years ago who were pushing the social construction of gender; they were fighting for equal rights.

Academic feminisim, influenced by poststructuralist theory, began pushing that after Derrida became a fad at Yale in the late 70s and it percolated through the academy in the 80s and early 90s.

But it was really little more than an academic fad. The culture around it was howling with feminist backlash at the time.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, we've addressedc this. Shaving is so outdated. I wax.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Hormonal Citizen:

I am a hunter. I do not support PETA. For dinner last night, we had venison, although I do not know if it was the deer I shot or the one my husband shot.

My estimation of you just rose significantly; how is it that you are liberal? How can a liberal reconcile eating the flesh of a wild animal?

I am a bow hunter myself; I have the full cat suit designed for fall/woodland hunting, I can take a special shower in deer urine before a hunt and I use a tower that is 80ft. in height from which I can shoot an arrow down into my quarry. I have been a bow hunter since the 1970s and have weathered more than a few fall snowstorms, a random shooting accident or two and even had to wound and subdue a pesky game warden once, although I shouldn't "disclose" that because rmck1 will think he figured that out all on his own.

All of my previous abuse of you was still justified, though. I think you'd probably enjoy a love tryst with me, but the fact is, I'm just not that into you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

And often poetically as well.

Posted by: stupid git on November 11, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

You have exactly zero credibility here. Most people think you're a parody, or that if you're some genuine form of conservative (I haven't decided which) -- that you just make outrageous shit about yourself up to get attention.

You're also a cad. You were a diehard Republican up until election day -- when you suddenly flipped and disowned your Party, to claim that you're *really* a lifelong Libertarian.

Really honorable behavior there, Norman old chap.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Citizen with Hormones:

Shaving is so outdated. I wax.

I don't follow. Is this candle wax? Are you kinky or something? I don't approve of freaky sex talk, by the way. Don't think I'm trying to elicit anything from you. And please--do not leave your husband for me. I am still waiting to meet the future ex-Mrs. Norman Rogers number five.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Norman. My tender little girlie heart is just shattered at your rejection.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Norman. My tender little girlie heart is just shattered at your rejection.

Yes--that's exactly what Paula Zahn said to me in 1989.

Another full disclosure item, liberals. Sorry, but there it is.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Why am I getting Tom Leherer's The Hunting Song stuck in my head?

"Two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow."

:)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Well Norman, since Wikipedia has everything (if you don't believe me just Wiki "gerbilling") here is a link about waxing.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Survey after survey for decades, you can go back to 30s if you want, has shown that the Democratic Party is more broad based than the Republican Party. Think back to when the Democratic Party included Eleanor Roosevelt and the Dixie segregationists.

Because I am an authoritarian kick these days I will point out the work of Bob Altemeyer. In the 1990s he used his Right Wing Authoritarian survey (the scale is a continuum) to get a sense of the opinions of Canadian and American legislators (1,233 at the state level). This survey shows a strong predictive relationship between economic outlook, nationalism, ethnocentrism, abortion and sabotage of equality and freedom among other things.

There are a few interesting points:
1. There were no extremely low (non-authoritarian) American legislators in either party. The most authoritarian legislators were Americans with one American legislator providing the highest (most authoritarian) score of any person Altemeyer has measured. The US scale starts 20 points higher than the Canadian scale.
2. The Republicans were all clustered at the higher end of the RWA scale with only a few legislators from Connecticut in the less authoritarian portion of the scale. The Democrats had a much wider range and a lower average RWA score but they still had a substantial number of authoritarians in the party. This is probably why they have less caucus discipline
3. 26% of lawmakers agreed with the statement: Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poising our country from within.

Posted by: bellumregio on November 11, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I won the Heisman back there at Princeton - But my one regret is that I didn't step on that yo-yos head with both feet. And maybe that turned him into a Buttons and Bows hunter. His pink mufti does look rather smashing in the brush.

Posted by: Dick Kazmaier on November 11, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

bellumregio:

Very interesting piece of historical data.

It's true. America has always been a more authoritarian place than either Europe or even Canada.

Which really begs the question of where we get all that gol durned libertarian ideology and popular mythos from, doesn't it ...

Big and interesting question.

Nice place to start is Richard Slotkin's (American studies) extensive survey of popular culture, "Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in 20th Century America."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I won the Heisman back there at Princeton

It's my old friend Dick! How are you, Kazzy?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Speaking of ... you know ... sock puppets :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

bellumregio:

Be wary of rmck1. He has been caught using a sock puppet. He is a dishonest, lying little shit.

Hormonal Citizen:

Wikipedia is chock full of lies. Now, stop blushing and try to get some shots or something to help you get those raging hormones out of control. You're like a poodle in heat when you get like this.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Shit, I should've checked the email.

Nice Norm bait, 3rdPaul :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Norman. I'm at my low-estrogen point right now. But thanks for your concern.

As to the Wiki on waxing, I can personally attest to the veracity of the waxing entry.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of ... you know ... sock puppets :)

Oh, so now you're accusing the mirthful poster named thethirdPaul of being a sock puppet? Well, shit for brains--he does these little jokes at my expense but has the decency to leave his E-mailing address the same so that we can spot him and give him a pat on the back for a joke well turned. If I was thethirdPaul, I'd be outraged and offended by your cheap shot. Take your misguided ire out on me for exposing your dishonesty, if you like, but it is really unseemly to accuse your fellow liberals of doing what you, yourself have been caught doing. Oh, that's right! Another of what that fellow obscure called an "eye-popping contradiction" from you.

And you wonder why YOU'RE the dishonest little shit.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

This has been fun and all, but I have things to do today. Back later when we have a new thread.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Do I even have to be here? rmck1 is making a complete ass out of himself with no assistance necessary.

And you wonder why the abuse you receive is so well-deserved.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers:

Norman:

Why don't you do a search on aaron aardvark and prove to yourself that he and I aren't the same?

Answer: Because the truth is meaningless to you as this is all just a silly game to get you attention.

Which, to my discredit I suppose, I do tend to get sucked into playing.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

That, of course, is not true. Up until a few decades ago the United States was the paragon of human freedom and modernity. The real question is how authoritarianism came to dominate American politics. Altemeyer found that freedom means something entirely different to High RWA scorers than it does to Low RWA scorers. The authoritarians have no commitment to other peoples freedom. For them the fox should be free in the hen house. They care nothing for equality.

Posted by: bellumregio on November 11, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers:

Norman:

Why don't you do a search on aaron aardvark and prove to yourself that he and I aren't the same?

Answer: Because the truth is meaningless to you as this is all just a silly game to get you attention.

Which, to my discredit I suppose, I do tend to get sucked into playing.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

bellumregio:

I dunno. From the Alien & Sedition Acts, Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Red Scares after McKinley's assassination and later in the 20s, the Comstock raids, goon violence against labor, the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2, the abuses of HUAC and McCarthy, to J Edgar Hoover and COUNTELPRO ... this country seems to have always had a strong authoritarian streak running at cross-purposes to our Libertarian rhetoric -- and much of it was justified not in the name of personal aggrandisement as you seem to suggest, but rather for the alleged common good.

It may be related to how much more religiose (as opposed to religious) we are compared to Europe and the Commonwealth.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Can't you do anything right? Was that a double post or did your sock puppet leap out of your pants and attempt to give you a shout out?

A dishonest little shit like you isn't worth my time, so fuck off and quit pretending that you didn't write both posts.

Again, here is the proof. Read these sentences and see if they are not, in their phrasing and composition, merely rmck1 performing a sock puppet dance for all of us to see:


To them a primary role of government is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Now, compare to what rmck1 wrote earlier:


They're authoritarians and traditionalists. They believe in an imposed hierarchy because human nature is inherently flawed. Conservatives revere the past.

And this:


The anthesis is not liberalism, but rather Libertarianism. Libertarians are anti-statist. They believe in political and legal equality founded on natural rights. They're suspicious of hierarchy and tradition, and believe "human nature" is what we make of it. Libertarians look to the future.

Now, we'll go to the sock puppet post and review again:


Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by the need to control personal behavior. They think that human behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some nominative social standard.

I would submit that these paras were written by the same person. And this is really unintentionally hilarious:

Wow, rmck1 Bob, that's about the clearest and most succinct summary of the American political/philosophical landscape I ever seen. I think you're right on the mark.

And I'm the parody?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Did you read my point-by-point with aaron upthread? It's here.

Correlation doesn't prove causation, my sociopathic friend.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

RE: Myth #2: Democrats won a third of the white evangelical vote.

Perhaps this Reuters story about a BeliefNet poll can help explain this "myth".

Seems like a trend to me, but whadda I know?

Posted by: David H. on November 11, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Norman, you have no respect from anyone here, Norman.

Norman, I refer you to looky I finally learned this if you think you're up for a fight, Norman.

The thing is, Norman, I think we're done here, Norman.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Fake rmck:

He doesn't.

*shrug*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

Bob, I don't think, Bob, that you really got the point, Bob.

That's okay, Bob. We're here, Bob, to help.

Bob

Posted by: fake rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, Bob....

Can you guys please take this outside?

Gawd, the trolls are less annoying.

Posted by: Zany Cut-up on November 11, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Fake rmck1:

You know, when you go around and around with a malicious egomaniac like Norman to the point where it begins to monopolize the thread, it's sort of like being in a political campaign against a mudslinger.

No matter how scurrilous or outrageous their charges, your negatives go up. It's a law of physics.

So to the peanut gallery: I accept full responsibility for going round and round with Norman. It's a weakness of mine that I enjoy jousting with posters like that.

But truthfully, I'd rather discuss some of the issues upthread we were batting around.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

I think we are asking the wrong questions to try to come up with some national reason for the Democratic wave. Democrats won because of regionally-base, agressive candidates. Tester was a perfect Democratic choice for Montana. Ditto on Casey for Pennslyvania. Both those guys would have been killed in New York (or even California).

Sure, the War in Iraq and the corruption in Congress helped the party. But it helped the individual candidates, which helped the party. We need to look at it in the right order.

Regarding evangelicals, the fact that Democrats picked up 3% is big news, IMO. But bigger news is that many evagelicals simply stayed home. It is far to big a leap for us to presume that evangelicals would switch parties. But the half-step they took in their political conversion is as important as anything else in this election. Remember: Bush won in 2004 because he energized evangelicals, and their increases at the poll offset Democratic increases. By their sitting out this one, we have the opportunity to capture many of them back to the big tent party.

Posted by: Fred on November 11, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Fred:

They're discussing this very question on the newer thread. Kevin doesn't believe that 3% nationally is all that significant, because it's lower than the 5% average across-the-board jump for all demographic groups.

There is a danger to read too much into this. Next cycle there might not be so many scandals, and they might be more burning social issues set up by court rulings. We don't know.

But the really encouraging long-term thing is that a segment of evangelicals -- perhaps burned by some of the empty promises of Bush's "faith-based initiatives," are beginning to take traditionally Democratic issues more serioulsy again, like global warming, protecting the environment and helping the poor.

If we can make a religious / values arguments for what the government can do on their behalf (and then, critically, *deliver* on it), we may well begin a process of long-term leveraging of the evangelical base.

Also consider that every year gays become a little more accepted into society, regardless of what happens on the courts.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

But truthfully, I'd rather discuss some of the issues upthread we were batting around.

People tried that. Then, you introduced a dishonest sock puppet because you weren't getting your way.

Go suck your thumb and stop trying to deny the obvious.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

BULLSHIT.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

BULLSHIT

...said the man, in a panic, when called on it.

And you wonder why the regulars are tired of you and you alone, rmck1.

They love me. Hormonal Citizen and Shortdrop said so themselves.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

"Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values."

Conservatives beat themselves by doing what the rich always do, suck up all the money they can get their mouths around.

The middle class finally awoke from their fear to see clearly how corrupt, incompetant, and greedy the Republican'ts are.

Democrats won. Get over it.

Posted by: Cal Gal on November 11, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Your posts can be very funny. I've said that myself. But you also have an extremely ugly, vicious side beyond all parody self- or otherwise.

Which Global, sort of obviously, intimated as she abandoned this thread.

People tend, as a coping mechanism, to patronize bullying sociopaths.

As for me -- yeah, I annoy a few people by continuing exchanges like this.

I'll live, though. I suspect we all will.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Cal Gal Pal Sal Mal:

The middle class finally awoke from their fear to see clearly how corrupt, incompetant, and greedy the Republican'ts are.

That would be accurate if it were true; however, there really is no middle class--at least in my estimation. There are the rich, like myself, and then there's everyone else trying to make ends meet--that's you and the rest of your liberal ilk. What used to constitute a "Middle Class" in this country was a curious and misapplied term to those who were in a median income group of $100,000 to 500,000 a year--well off, but not able to go several years without working or making money. These people were called a "Middle Class" but they never really existed. They were just poor people who were temporarily lucky enough to make a bit of money, nothing more.

No, this election was about voting AGAINST something and not about voting FOR someone--once we all agree on that, it'll make it easier to explain to you why liberalism is doomed.

And you wonder why I'm loved and respected around here--being right helps.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Gee whiz -- that meant most of "everbody else" had to vote Republican, just from the sheer numbers, in order for you to win any elections at all.

No *wonder* your party lost :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Jay:

You must respond immediately to the list that Hormonal Citizen has posted. While I think she's unhinged and possibly lies about shaving her armpits, she seems to have beaten you pretty soundly with a substantive post from the liberal perspective." - Norman


My post was purely tongue-in-cheek. It is high time that everyone relax and find their sense of humor once again. Life is too short and really not that important.

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

"Life is really not that important?"

No wonder you support the war in Iraq.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

My post was purely tongue-in-cheek. It is high time that everyone relax and find their sense of humor once again. Life is too short and really not that important.

And let these liberals run roughshod on My President? You go to hell, sir. I, for one, will defend George W Bush against these al Qaeda collaborators with every fiber of my being. In two short months, the liberals will take control of the US Congress and throw open the door to terrorists and molesters and magicians and this country will become a battlefield once again--despite the fact that George W Bush has done a stellar job of keeping it safe.

No self-respecting conservative thinks the situation we are in right now--Islamic fascists are standing by to strap semtex to their bodies and kill our women and children--is where any kind of "tongue in cheek" commentary is appropriate.

Apparently, you don't think the war we are in right now means a goddamned thing. Apparently, you don't think this nation is under attack from radical elements. Apparently, you don't think standing up to wrongheaded liberals means anything.

You go to hell, sir. You go to hell, you die, and you shut your filthy cake hole.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

"If I'm reading Kevin's "mythbusting" correctly, and I'm not sure I even understand it, frankly, this indicates that no one demographic can claim responsibility for the Republican's thumping."

Kevin only discussed a few of the demographics. Here are some others.

White men increased from 36 to 39 percent of the voters, and their support Democrat/Republican't went from 38/60 to 44/53. Republicant's LOST 7% of the white male vote in a year in which it turned out.

The Latino vote went from 55/44 Democrat/Republican't in 2004 to 69/30 this year. Now that's a big switch, due entirely, one would think, the to botched job the Republican't government did on immigration.

Non-union households went from a 10-point advantage for Republican'ts in 2004 (44/54) to a tie in 2006 (49/49).

No high school (a small part of the electorate at 4%) made a huge shift, from a slight preference for Democrats (48/49) in 2004 to a huge preference in 2006 (64/35). High-school graduates also swung from Republican't to Democrat--50/49 in 2004 to 44/55 in 2006. Republican'ts lost their advantage among "some college" and "college graduates" and Democrats increased their advantage among post-graduates.

Here's a biggie: born-again or evangelical Christians went from 74/25 Republican't in 2004 to 58/41 in 2006. They also represented a bigger chunk of the voting populace this year, 24% of the total compared to 23% in '04. So it looks like may Turdblossom DID get out the white evangelical vote, but it backfired on him.

SO, it looks to me like the revolt of the working middle class, white men, Latinos, high school graduates, non-union voters finally realizing the Republican't party does not have their best interests at heart.

Posted by: Cal Gal on November 11, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Clarification:

In two short months, the liberals will take control of the US Congress and throw open the door to terrorists and molesters and manipulators

I misspoke; I am shaking with rage.

How dare anyone make jokes at a time like this? How dare anyone be glib about the threat of liberalism? How dare anyone make a funny at the notion this nation has been bloodied and is now struggling--on Veteran's Day of all days--to keep the world safe from the threat of fundamentalist Islamic terror?

I just find it difficult to grasp--this is a time for knee-slapping and grab-assing and having a chortle?

It's about protecting George W Bush so he can protect America, you cocksucker.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

John Kerry thought that this political season was the appropriate time to make jokes. John Kerry joked that our troops were stupid for getting stuck in Iraq.

Here's cocksucker Jay saying:

It is high time that everyone relax and find their sense of humor once again. Life is too short and really not that important.

Have you gotten down and blown John Kerry today? Please wipe your lips when next you speak.

In my outrage, I have spit coffee all over my office; I must get Minerva to clean this up.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

senor rogers ms loco que una cabra!

liberales, por favor, how you say??

Qu caractersticas seran ms loco? O, Cmo deberamos implementar esto? Equipos bien pagados pasan horas discutiendo como se deberan hacer las cosas,

!!! ay yi yi

y los argumentos se basan en algo ms que pequeas preferencias personales - no like rmck1.

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Minerva," LOL !

Hey waitaminute, Norman -- didn't you say you were a Libertarian, why -- just up this thread a piece?

Ever read The Cato Institute's position on Iraq?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

People tend, as a coping mechanism, to patronize bullying sociopaths.

Oh, now this is too rich. Mr. Lonelyhearts lecturing me on what does and doesn't make the feminine heart go pitter-patter. Are you aware that I've bedded women from the Social Register to the scullery, including one case of nailing the former in the latter? Yes. Yes. And unlike your own encounters with the gentler sex (though I admit to liking an occasional yowl and scratch), only a small percentages of my horizontal waltzes involved the disbursement of dinero.

Can you say the same? I thought not.

No, best to accept gracefully that Hormonal Citizen and Shortdrop (into the gutter or onto her knees, I'll wager; hippie girls are easy like a Sunday morning) have been swept away by my charms like their 2004 votes were swept away by Diebold. Liberals = Zero, Party of Winners = Infinity. You lose again, sir. Yes, you've failed again ; )

And you wonder why the mocking laughter of the crowd follows you as you stagger hither and yon ; )

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

I really have no idea why I'm addressing this to you, because this is a post about ideas and you've yet to give me any faith you take ideas seriously. But, since this concerns Libertarianism, you could do worse than to listen to me think out loud about this. ... And these ideas are just fresh out of my head, so please, good people, be gentle on them.

I think the mark of any moderately intelligent person is that when they have "no idea" why they feel like speaking, they exercise restraint and keep their trap shut.

Because this blog is not your personal audience and it's a shame you can't help yourself from treating it as such.

Posted by: obscure on November 11, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

, , no mas!

deseo que los Golpes Paren!!!

Deseo que el golpear parara. l grita. El mal hombre es violento. l est bebiendo el licor!!!
Deseo solamente limpiar tocadores

no mas!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

"...I [am] wearing an ankle bracelet as ordered by a court of law as part of an agreement that I would not flee the country while being investigated."

Now THAT'S funny!

"How can a liberal reconcile eating the flesh of a wild animal?"

That question shows how prejudiced Norman is against "liberals." Actually, Norman, many liberals PREFER eating wild animals to eating farm animals. Haven't you heard of the Slow Food movement?

But what this question really reveals is that Norman does not understand basic logic.

If ALL vegans are liberals, it does NOT follow that all liberals are vegan. OK?

Also, thinking that $100k to $500k per year is what MOST people mean when they say "middle class" is a perfect example of the idiocy of the "rich" like Norman. Especially of the rich that are being investigated and therefore wearing an ankle bracelet.

Have fun while you can, Norm.


Posted by: Cal Gal on November 11, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK


si si si!!!

Aydeme por favor. Este hombre utiliza lengua asquerosa y olores como cebollas!

l est loco y conduce demasiado rpido. Deseo a veces que tena Guatemala nunca izquierda. Para esto gano treinta dlares por semana. Bullshit!

rmck1 l suena como una perra whiny sin vida

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

"I, for one, will defend George W Bush against these al Qaeda collaborators with every fiber of my being."

As long as they take off the ankle bracelet...

Posted by: Cal Gal on November 11, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

You're making me worry using Charlie's patented " ; ) " emoticon.

I'm still betwixt and between on the Norman Issue. What keeps me from deciding you're a parody is that for all of the satire in your self-descriptions, your ego remains inviolably defended.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

l est viniendo lanzarme abajo de las escaleras otra vez A usted, por favor.

rmck1 is suck bitch. No provoque a este hombre enojado!!!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

I just can't get Norman's ankle bracelet off my mind. I see him there at his computer, can't really go out and hunt from platforms anymore.

(And is that kosher? Doesn't give the animal much of a chance, does it? And if you're in a tower, why do you need the full camo? Reminds me of like Unka Dick hunting farmed quail. Democrats like the hunt, Republican'ts just want to kill animals.)

Can't enlist to shoot ragheads. Crikey, can't have ANY fun anymore, except spilling bile on the
lefty blogs, no matter HOW fucking rich he is.

Posted by: Cal Gal on November 11, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Haga que el mal hombre para!!!


Haga que el mal hombre para!!!


Haga que el mal hombre para ngn

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody get Minerva a taxi, huh?

Norman, it's just not that hard to spot your inner beauty.

Posted by: shortstop on November 11, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

I just can't get Norman's ankle bracelet off my mind. I see him there at his computer, can't really go out and hunt from platforms anymore.

Pardon my housekeeper, Minerva. She is a lovely woman, does an excellent job with the linens, but she tends to gab a little too much. She found the spare laptop and was pounding away in the closet down in the basement--I suspect those posts will be removed as spam at some point.

I hunt from a high platform because that's what bowhunters do, dingbat.

Anyone else have any stupid questions?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Life is really not that important?"
No wonder you support the war in Iraq.
Bob" - rmck1

There are much bigger, and more important things than you rmck1.

"And let these liberals run roughshod on My President? You go to hell, sir." - Norman


You are unhinged Norman

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

obscure:

It's an open comment thread, not a message base. "Addressing" a post to this or that person is meaningless.

As it was, that particular post generated some thoughtful comment from a bunch of different parties, and a lotta hoo-hah from Norman -- as anyone would expect.

Why don't you go, like, find a more congenial comment thread to leave posts on which might actually pertain to the discussion?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

"I just find it difficult to grasp--this is a time for knee-slapping and grab-assing and having a chortle?

It's about protecting George W Bush so he can protect America, you cocksucker." - Normie


Norman, you're part of the problem.


Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jay--you're the problem. Traitor.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

"I hunt from a high platform..." - Norman


Does anyone else see the irony in that?

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

"I hunt from a high platform..." - Norman


"Does anyone else see the irony in that?

It is called a deer stand, you ignorant cocksucker.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

RELAX Norman


Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

General Franks, I'd like to concede my title to the successful challenger above.

Posted by: Doug Feith on November 11, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Cocksucker Jay:

RELAX Norman

I'll relax when the liberal onslaught against my President abates. I'll relax when this country is same from Islamic terrorists. I'll relax when traitors like you are exposed as the shallow hypocrite that you are. What kind of a man passes himself off as a conservative and then doesn't back it up?

A coward, that's what. You and rmck1 are both cocksucking twits.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Jay & Cal Gal:

Norman's posts are broadly satirical. It's doubtful you can take anything he says at face value. I could rattle off a list of things he's admitted to in the past month -- many of them felonious -- but it would be pointless. The ankle bracelet says it all. He changes his persona on a dime. After the election, he claimed to be a lifelong Libertarian. Now to Jay, he's an ardent Bush defender. It all appears to be some kind of strange game he's playing.

So I think we're left with two, fairly equally plausible choices.

Norman is either a leftie, maybe a regular in drag, with a nihilistic sense of humor who's willing to go much further than most spoofers to make himself appear legitimate (like posting interminable arguments about how the GOP was going to win the election), or ...

He's a genuine conservative, with genuine ego issues, who makes up outrageous and often unflattering things about himself because he loves the the attention he gets when he pushes our buttons.

I honestly wouldn't know how to guess which.

In any case, I think it's safe to say that much if not most of what he says about himself is likely made up out of whole cloth.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

"What kind of a man passes himself off as a conservative and then doesn't back it up?" - Normie


Passing judgement on one you don't even know does speak well of you. I am certainly conservative, but hardly the drama queen you appear to be.

This shall pass.

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

I honestly wouldn't know how to guess which.

You're a dumbass as well. I'm really a rich white man, living in Connecticut, who is trying to defend George W Bush against you liberals as part of my belief that attacks cannot go unanswered. I have posted here for years--unlike you, you can find MY posts in the archives of Political Animal.

Now, fuck off and play sock puppet elsewhere.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Does NOT speak weel of you"....

My bad

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

I am certainly conservative, but hardly the drama queen you appear to be.

I have a sense of urgency; these are dangerous times and liberalism is Public Enemy Number One.

You're no conservative. You're a traitor and a fraud, plain and simple.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

George Bush handed the GOP's ass to them.

You admitted that the day after election :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

I am a conservative who would have probably voted for someone like Heath Shuler and James Webb.

I am not the single party maniacal moron you obviously are.

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm really a rich white man...." - Normie


You may be financially rich Norman, although that is the least of rewards.

Are you spiritually rich?

Are you physically rich?

Are you family rich?

Are you friendship rich?

Are you philosophically rich?

Those are the rewards in life more worth obtaining.

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

'I'll relax when this country is same [sic] from Islamic terrorists.'
--Norman Rogers

I assume you mean 'safe'. And when will you know that this country is "safe", Norman. When every Muslim is dead? News flash - You have one billion more to go...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 11, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

This is not the first time I have stood nobly alone, solitarily defending virtue while my countrymen went berserk over a small setback. No. I recall in late July of 1974, when the entire nation was overreacting to some two-bit tape or other, I was one of a very few steadfast Americans to stand up for the notion of the imperial presidency.

And by God, it was imperial! Do you remember the Southern Strategy? Do you remember Operation Gemstone? Do you remember the White House police uniforms? Do any of you dare tell me now that I was wrong and you were right about Richard Milhous Nixon?

No. No. You dare not. The burning shame of your filthy, hippie-fueled, ill-conceived attack on the greatness of America stays with you to this day. There exists not enough Thunderbird and Nyquil on these shores to mitigate your 4 a.m. spasms of guilt for taking Dick from me. As well it should be.

So I am saddened but not surprised, liberals and RINOs, that all of you would react to the events of Tuesday by either running around cockeyed with joy, high-fiving each other over the terrorists' big victory, or slinking around like kicked Pomeranians (Jay, I am looking at you, sir), spouting nonsense about working together and loving one another and being "rich in friendship," whatever this is supposed to mean. If it takes a Libertarian to stand up for the courage and singleminded of George W. Bush, my commander in chief, then let it be a Libertarian, sirs. I stand ready to do my duty.

And you wonder why I spit on my monitor as I type your names.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, there really isn't an ounce of difference between you, Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez and Ahmendijad. You're all fucking nuts.

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

I've got TradeSports odds that Norman is pulling our leg :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Jay:

You forget Manuel Ortega :)

"San-da-nista ... "

Prolly The Clash's best album :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

Did you really mean to say the youth vote was a fizzle, or that the idea that the youth vote was key is a fizzle?

Posted by: Romat on November 11, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Romat:

The latter. Kevin's point is that no demographic group in particular gave Dems an edge. Rather we gained points across the board with everybody.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

When Norman types, I read his posts in the voice of David Huddleston as the Big Lebowski. "Get a job, sir!"

Hi Norman. I'm going to join Shortstop and Globe and say I've fallen a little in love with you. Not enough to cancel the upcoming nuptuals, but none the less, you have won a tiny piece of my heart, you big lug.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on November 11, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I'm a libertarian, although I've never voted for a dumbocrat...or a libertarian, for that matter. Come to think of it, I must be a Right Wing Republican. Go figure.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

I really want to point out that Tuesdays elections have almost become commonplace in the American democracy:


In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.


During eight years of Clinton, Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections.

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I've got TradeSports odds that Norman is pulling our leg : )

You'll have no takers here, nitwit. Smart readers prefer my odds that you won't be able to resist responding to this. Your unconvincing attempts to be blase ("Oh, it's fun to poke Norm for 20 minutes! ; )) fool no one who happens to notice your much-proven inability to have an unexpressed thought. My posts are like a methadone clinic on free Thursdays--you just can't stay away, boy.

No, I own you sir, and your real-life skills, as you sit in your rented room doing nothing for 20 hour stretches but posting among the savages here--sleep a few hours, awake at noon, repeat process--are worth half of what I paid for them, which is to say zero. But cheer up, old lad. Among the 500,000 words of gibberish you generate every day, there's got to be a pearl of wisdom lurking somewhere. Remember the million monkeys!

And you wonder why I suffer fools so ungladly. Next!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only one who thinks of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and Jack Nicholson when I read a Norman post?

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I'm a libertarian, although I've never voted for a dumbocrat...or a libertarian, for that matter. Come to think of it, I must be a Right Wing Republican. Go figure.

Who is responsible for this pathetic effort at imposture? Even the Dumbocrats here can do better than this--no, wait, I see it now. This is rmck's sad attempt at impersonation. Pitiful, pitiful.

And you wonder why liberals can't get a job. No sense of craftsmanship, no pride in your work! Bah. Next!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Prolly The Clash's best album :)

Bob"

Rock the Casbah baby!

Posted by: Jay on November 11, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Jay - Okay, I'll read him in the Big Lebowski voice on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and as Randall McMurphy on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. On Sunday, I will abstain from reading PA.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on November 11, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Joylessly Smurfette:

Normally, I avoid sexual congress with persons of your political ilk--they tend to be curiously unable to produce documentation of absence of disease, or of a recent bath, for that matter--but I admit, young lady, that you have piqued my interest at last. It's been a long time since I had a foursome, yes, a long time.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

that ",yes," is tather a tell, my friend.

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on November 11, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

I've little to add other than Global Citizen's refutation of the 18 neocon talking points was maybe the best thing I've read all day.

Well done.

And that's coming from a vegetarian (well, pescovegetarian). :)

Posted by: Sebastian on November 11, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

Huddleston's good. That was my first impression, too.

I'd suggest Patrick Bateman (forget who played him) in American Psycho -- but Norman would have to be timewarped 20 years into the future for all the 80s pop culture references :)

Norman:

Hey, at least I'm not sitting here with an *ankle bracelet* awaiting sure incarceration for destruction of property with intent to suppress the vote :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

What about claims that 'uncorrected' exit polls in Montana and Virginia show bigger wins in the Senate races than the actual vote totals show? The implication is that vote rigging occured but not enough to overcome the Democratic tide, and that Burns and Allen did not push for recounts out of fear that this would be discovered.

Posted by: Dave on November 11, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with Nicholson in Cuccoo's Nest is that Randle McMurphy, weird as he is, is a good guy ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Well this is getting rather tedious, isn't it. At least Minerva, bless her Guatemalan corazon, isn't versed enough yet in her adopted tongue to calll 9/11 after our little droit de sigeneur games in the walk-in closet. Such fire in that woman!--it's going to take a couple of weeks at least for the scratches to heal, and I'm nearly out of antibiotic ointment. Thank goodness I got to know my fourth ex's gynecologist. Comes in handy when an under-the-table proceedure or two or three comes up--as they so often do. Strike while the iron is hot! Cash on the barrelhead--at least some in the medical profession haven't been completely strangled by government--not to mention DHS--paperwork. Heh. He assured me she was clean after the last one, too. Good man.

Ah well, time for another single malt. Or perhaps a blend this time? Johnny Walker Blue, ahh yes. $300 a fifth, liberals! Envious enough yet? Rmck1, stop dribbing that Boone's Farm on your unwashed jeans and consider just why it is that you'll wake up tomorrow in a pile of your own vomit soaking through the mattress, still wondering how on earth you're going to remove the stink after Minerva's changed all my linen and hosed my porcelain right down to the gleam--even with all of the time-consuming feels I cop, whenever I want to cop them!

It's called the sweet smell of success, rmck1. Inhale deeply its bracingly pristine Lysol aroma. Savor it--in other people!

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

And you wonder why the Special Victims Unit hasn't scented my trail!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bush Administration, Dying at the Border

This is from Skeptical Economist. This is the one of the best articles I have ever read on economics and illegal immgration.

It is no secret that the Bush administration is failing and failing badly. The woes of the administration are legion, Iraq, immigration, the economy, Katrina, health care, gasoline prices, etc. The impact on public opinion is profound. Bush is well on his way to being one of the least popular presidents in U.S. history. His current popularity rating of 31% may be a high water mark. The twenties and perhaps teens are not that far off. Increasingly he has lost, not just liberals and mainstream Americans, but conservatives as well. The key question is why? Why has this once promising administration gone downhill so far and so fast? Is it just bad luck or is their a deeper force at work? In my view, the ideology and practice of Open Borders has condemned this president to complete failure. Could the Bush administration turn itself around by changing its stance on immigration? Yes, but it is exceedingly unlikely to happen. Bush is doomed and may not finish his term in office.

It is clear that the immigration polices of this administration are deeply unpopular and contrary to what the public wants. Clearly, immigration is contributing mightily to the low standing of this president. However, immigration is also directly responsible for the economic failings of this president and is (one step removed) also responsible for the debacle in Iraq. Immigration is also partially responsible for all of the other problems (Kartrina, gasoline prices, health care, Dubai ports, etc.). The links between immigration and what ails Bush (and America) are explained in more detail below. What should be clear by the end, is that immigration is either directly or partially for everything (and there is a lot) that is weighing down this president.

The immigration failures of this administration are obvious. The border is totally out of control and Bush completely refuses to even try to control it. Ordinary Americans are demanding immigration control and Bush has abandoned even the pretense of enforcing our laws (by some measures enforcement has declined by 95% at least, but other measures 100%). Ordinary Americans fiercely resent illegal aliens taking over their neighborhoods, jobs, and schools. Bush actually proposed legislation to replace every American worked with a foreigner who would do the same job for less (the willing worker program).

To call the administration out of touch on immigration would be an injustice to the language. Polls show strong support for greatly intensified enforcement. Bush is still trying to have the Kennedy Amnesty bill passed. Why the administration is so committed to policies that the American people regard as toxic is another matter. However, the reality of a president at war with his own people on this issue, should not be in doubt. Astoundingly, Zogby finds that only 17% of Americans approve of Bushs immigration policies (7). On border security, Bush gets a 16% approval rating.

Immigration is also responsible for Bushs economic woes. Superficially the economy should be a source of considerable strength for Bush. The high level numbers are actually rather good. Unemployment is down to 4.6% from a peak of 6.3% in June of 2003. GDP growth in Q1 2006 was 4.8%. The economy grew by 2.7% in 2003, 4.2% in 2004, and 3.5% in 2005. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has rallied from a low of 7286 on October 9th, 2002 to a recent high of 11,643 on May 10, 2006. That a gain of 59.8% in less than four years. The S&P is up 57.25% in the same period. Definitely a lot for investors to cheer about, particularly in the aftermath of the Tech Bubble and corporate scandals (Enron, Tyco, Health South, etc.).

The zooming stock market has reflected fast rising corporate profits. Pretax profits bottomed out at $714 billion (annual rate) in 3Q2001 and have since risen to $1,293 billion in 3Q2005 (not adjusted for inflation) (11). As a percent of GDP profits have grown from 7.0% of GDP (3Q2001) to a peak of 10.9% of GDP in 2Q2005 (down to 10.3% in 3Q2005). At 10.9% of GDP, corporate profits were higher than any year since 1968.

The productivity numbers have also been very, very good. Nonfarm productivity has risen by 17% or more since 2001. What the BLS calls multifactor productivity is up almost 8% since 2000. Per-worker/GDP is perhaps the broadest measure of productivity growth. In chained 2000 dollars, per-worker GDP is up by 8.73%. CPI-U adjusted, per-worker GDP has grown by 7.95%. The strong growth in productivity has almost completely offset nominal wage growth. Unit labor costs have only risen by 4.3% since 2001 (9).

Of course, Americans havent been shy about spending under Bush. Indeed, its been party time for several years as anyone who travels or frequents upscale restaurants can attest. The number tell the same happy story. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) rose by 15.64% from 1Q2001 to 4Q2005. Not bad given that GDP only rose by 13.9% in the same five years (13).

As you can see it is easy to come up with a whole panoply of good economic news. But still The American people just dont agree. Poll after poll give gloomy views on the economy. Indeed 59% of Americans rate the economy as only fair or poor (8). Is the public wrong? Deluded? Confused by liberals? Where it only so. The sad truth is that the economic boom has passed the American people by. Indeed, they are suffering more from the backwash of inflated prices than enjoying any of the fruits. Why? As is all too frequently the case, Open Borders is killing the American Dream by making sure that only immigrants (legal and illegal) and the elites get richer while ordinary Americans get poorer.

This is not some liberal/left-wing fantasy. Indeed the left goes to great pains to avoid using the I word when they are talking about jobs/wages/incomes. The sad reality is that from the standpoint of ordinary working Americans, the economy is weak, at best. Some of the facts are downright scary. For example, only 9% of the new jobs created from 2000 to 2005 when to the American people even though Americans accounted for 61% of adult population growth (1). Worse, labor force participation has been falling since Bush took office (10). In January of 2001, it was 67.2%. Now it is 66.1%. You have to go back to the first days of the Clinton administration to find numbers this low (actually 66.2% in January of 1993). Labor force participation does not normally fall in an expanding economy (12). Indeed, this appears to be the first recovery with declining labor force participation.

Sadly, the minority data is worse. Black male labor force participation has fallen from 69.4% in January of 2001 to 67.7% in May of 2006. Black female labor force participation declined from 60.1% to 59.1% in the same time period. Hispanic labor force participation (both sexes) has also declined, from 69.9% in January of 2001 to 68.7% in May of 2005.

The jobs growth numbers all point in the same direction. This is, by far, the worst recovery in modern history for employment. The last recession ended in November of 2001. Since then (actually the next 48 months) employment has grown by 4.7%. The worst prior recovery enjoyed jobs growth of 6.2%. The average recovery since the 1960s has produced 9.5% growth in jobs. Sadly, the payroll employment data is much worse (14) showing only 2.6% growth over 4 years.

Average weekly earnings peaked back in November of 2003 and have since declined. Amazingly, weekly wages are now back where they were in 1959 and 17% below the high in 1972. Forty six years without a raise. Something to be proud of. Not surprisingly the poverty rate has risen steadily since Bush took office. Back in 2000 the poverty rate was 11.3%. By 2004 it reach 12.7%. The poverty rate always rises in recessions. This may be the first boom with rising poverty (3).

Median household income tells the same tale of woe. Median incomes have declined every year Bush has been in office and are now 3.8% ($1740) below the 1999 level (4). Quite an accomplishment for a president who thinks tax cuts for the wealthy will make us rich.

The superficially nice consumption numbers (15.64% growth in five years) start looking rather dodgy once you look under the covers. Cleary GDP didnt grow nearly fast enough to pay the piper. Nor did compensation keep pace. Indeed, compensation of employees rose by only 8.3% in the same period. Something had to give. Indeed, the savings rate fell from 2.4% of disposable income in 1Q2001 to -0.5% in 4Q2005 and -1.3% in 1Q2006. Where is the money coming from? Greenspan found the home equity extraction reached $600 billion in 2004 (15)(16) an immodest 7% of disposable income. Are folks using their homes as ATM machines really thrilled with the economy? Does ever rising debt pave the road to heaven? Or would that be hell?

Of course, none of this had to be true. Productivity has risen strongly in recent years (see above). Soaring productivity could have brought large wage and salary gains to ordinary Americans. Productivity alone should have increased incomes by 8% since 2000. No one likes paying $3 for gasoline. However, not too many people would be complaining with fast rising wages. This is not a fantasy. In the 1950s and 60s, wages and median incomes rose right along with the economy. Then we abandoned our borders

There are other dismal numbers as well (after all economics is the Dismal Science). Household inequality has increased under Bush (5). Inequality also went up under Clinton (no interior enforcement). Back when we took our borders seriously it declined, from 1947 to 1968. Inequality only started to soar when mass immigration resumed in the 1970s. Predictably, male median earnings fell from 2002 to 2004 and are now lower than they were back in 1973. The percentage of Americans without health insurance has risen from 14.2% in 2000 to 15.7% in 2004. Employment based health insurance fell from 63.6% in 2000 to 59.8% in 2004 (6). Why bother proving benefits when you have illegals?

If the economic statistics werent bad enough for Bush, we have the Iraq debacle. Is Open Borders really responsible for Iraq? At least indirectly, the answer is clearly yes. No we arent fighting illegal aliens in Ramadi or Sadr city. However, the connection to Open Borders is far from trivial. The easiest linkage is simply the cast of characters. Almost without exception, the cheerleaders for the Iraq war were Open Borders fanatics. Of course, the WSJ and Senor Bush fall into this category. However, you will also find the likes of Fred Barnes (The Weekly Standard), William Kristol (The Weekly Standard), Ben Wattenberg (AEI), and Michael Barone (US News & World Report) in this group.
By contrast, the strongest advocates of immigration reform were generally skeptical of the Iraq war or overtly opposed (Michelle Malkin being a rare exception). What is the connection? Both the Iraq war and Open Borders were/are based on a panglossian view of human nature. If you think America can tolerate massive legal/illegal third world immigration, then the idea that Iraq could be transformed into a model Middle Eastern nation with human rights, free elections, a free-market economy, peace with Israel, and U.S. bases might make sense. Saner voices recognized both ideas as deeply crazy. Crushing Saddams murderous and ultimately dangerous (sanctions were fading) regime might have made sense. Pouring American blood into the desolate soils of the Middle East to nurture democracy was, and is, folly.

Is immigration responsible for the other problems weighing on the Bush administration? In many cases, the answer is yes, at least to some extent. Only a president deeply wedded to Open Borders would have threatened his very first veto over the Dubai ports deal. A saner administration would have quashed the deal upfront or authorized it only after deep and credible scrutiny. Gasoline prices? The population of the U.S. has risen by 82 million since the mid-1970s when we built our last oil refinery. Most of the growth has been do to immigration. Runaway population growth doesnt work with highly limited energy development. Something has to give, prices it would seem. A different president would make these choices clear or simply tell the American people that immigration must be stopped until we have a consensus in favor new pipelines, power plants, refineries, offshore drilling, etc. Hard choices in the Pollyanna world of Senor Bush? They dont exist.

The immigration sickness infecting U.S. health care has already been mentioned. Of course, as the uninsured population explodes the costs fall on taxpayers and those with private insurance. These burdens make insurance even less affordable, pushing more and more folks into the ranks of those without. Why so-called conservatives would demand an immigration policy than can only end with socialized medicine boggles the mind. Perhaps non compos mentis explains it all.

Did Open Borders bring Katrina to the Big Easy? Actually, No. Even the most ardent restrictionists dont suggest an enforceable ban on category 5 hurricanes. However, in a normal economy the reconstruction work would be providing well paid job opportunities for poor and working class Americans. Such a thing will never happen with Bush in office.

The Bush administration is clearly infected with some kind of End of History globalist worldview where mass migration is both inevitable and desirable. In this wonderful future fantasy, borders will disappear and all of mankind will embrace capitalism, free markets, free trade, democracy, etc. Sadly, this Pollyannaish view of the human condition has led to tragedy abroad, and economic failure at home. What should be clear is that the ideology of Open Borders is directly and indirectly responsible for the woes of the Bush administration. As of this late date there is little they can do about it. After 9-11, Bush had a perfect moment in time, to change course and save his presidency and his country. With malice and forethought he threw it away.

Posted by: John Konop on November 11, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

In reality Libertarians are just Republicans that smoke pot.

Posted by: JPark on November 11, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

In reality Libertarians are just Republicans that smoke pot.

Laughing my ass off at that one.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 11, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Ahh, suck on THIS, liberals, I have won that sweet but elusive maiden Freedom at last!

What's the secret to picking the lock on a monitoring device? A tale told out of school and best saved for my memoirs at this juncture--but let's just say it involved cunning rather than brute force. Although "force" it surely involved--and you know who you are...*wink*

Well the first thing I did upon my release from the prying eye in the GPS satellite sky was to search my five-car garage for the chainsaw, and mix the requisite light oil into the petrol for a full charge.

Revenge, thy name is Norman! Rzzzzz !

First target were those pesky Labradors on my insufferable neighbor's estate. Always barking and barking at me while I took my morning constitutional, like they somehow knew something--special--about me that the humans I encounter do not. An unendurable feeling, that. Well bark no more, doggies! I found some togs in the garden shed and, with the help of a little cosmetics from the tanning salon left over from my ex, I made myself bedraggled and swarthy enough to appear like a proper renegade hired servant in the twilight. The fake green card left at the scene (with the terrified illegal's fingerprints it was stolen from) was an inspired touch, I must say.

Arf! Arf! Arf! I left their heads George Allen-like in the mailbox of their cretinous nouveau-riche owners. "It's your RED-LETTER DAY..." The bloody torsos went into the organic compost.

I had to move quickly. The thrill of the chase was upon me--the delicious thought of compound penalties raced through my mind as I tossed the togs into a field three miles away, out the window of my faithful and roaring Escalade. Who shall ever I torment next?

To Be Continued...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

Por favor, liberales!

Conocer por favor a Sr. Rogers est rompiendo la ley.

l es un fugitivo de la justicia! Policia, policia!

Ay yi yi!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

What do you do when a commenter on your blog is certifiably insane? This Norman Rogers, or tonight's fake Norman, is unquestionably loony. Out to lunch. Daft. A nutball.

Can we trace his IP address and send the men in white coats in his area to pick him up? He is a fruit loop. PLEASE HELP THIS MAN!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 11, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

si, liberales

No estoy loco. Soy ama de casa para Sr. norman Rogers. No llame por favor a polica. Soy un extranjero ilegal en su pas y significan a los liberales para ayudarme. Gracias.

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

tre Conservativo Deflector::

Usted est loco! usted est loco!!!

Usted no ayuda a una vieja mujer. He visto Sr. botellas normandas del tiro de Rogers de la cerveza en los coches del polica.

Casi es hora para m de darle un bao de la esponja.


no patrol of border borderes patrollas. rmck1 is bitch and no like.

No English. espanol. ay yi yi!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 11, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, a Colbert you ain't...give it a rest.

Posted by: Plutodog on November 12, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

The Norman Chainsaw Massacre, continued:

*ahem*

Roaring down the dimly-lit two-lane highway which winds its graceful leafy way though the estates of Connecticut, with the window open and air on my face, I had a chance to collect my thoughts and consider how to proceed. First, I basked for a moment in utter triumph. I had not only escaped the ankle bracelet's bond (beaming happily in the bottom drawer of my dresser, underneath the extra longjohns, that Norman was securely house, or rather estate-arrested), but I had lustily butchered my neighbor's two dogs in the cold, hazy light of a veritably lycanthropous full moon--and no one was the wiser. Amazing how quickly the horse traquilizer worked--only about a minute and a half after they consumed the raw hamburger. Come get your treats! Hehe. Rzzzz!

By my calculation, Minerva's formerly falsely-documented beau should be receiving that ever-popular knock on the door about now. Having him beaten senseless was really the only way to keep him quiet about her last abortion. Stealing his fake green card was an afterthought--sort of an added bonus--I had no idea how handy it would have come in, just a little later on. Sandwitch bags around the hands went into the field with the gardener's togs.

So who shall be my next victim? I glanced quickly at the chainsaw on the floor of the passenger seat, teeth still glistening in dog's blood--how beautiful it shone in the moonlight--and then...oh good heavens! Errrrrrrrrcchhhh ! SLAM!

Distracted ever-so-slightly for a moment, it appears I made some roadkill. I immediately thought of my Escalade's poor front end...

To Be (suspensefully) Continued...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Now that was awful.

Apologies, children. Someone is spoofing your uncle Norman.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

By my calculation, Minerva's formerly falsely-documented beau should be receiving that ever-popular knock on the door about now. Having him beaten senseless was really the only way to keep him quiet about her last abortion. Stealing his fake green card was an afterthought--sort of an added bonus--I had no idea how handy it would have come in, just a little later on. Sandwitch bags around the hands went into the field with the gardener's togs.

One should never try to structure a joke around and abortion. Abortion is not a source of comedy.

This hamfisted attempt at comedy really reveals the psychosis of the writer--violence against women seems to be a theme that runs through what is written and consequence free violence against people is considered "mischief" in a way that the reader just wouldn't accept. Pointless violence comes across as way too over the top for the reader to suspend any disbelief. And that's where this either works or it doesn't work. It should sound just plausible enough to actually happen and the structure of the spoof Norman Rogers posts dissolve into a laundry list of ineffective lines and jokes that leave the plausible behind. And when something isn't plausible, it ain't funny.

This line reveals the writer:

First, I basked for a moment in utter triumph. I had not only escaped the ankle bracelet's bond (beaming happily in the bottom drawer of my dresser, underneath the extra longjohns, that Norman was securely house, or rather estate-arrested),

This was written by Bob. Bob has tormented Norman Rogers with some sort of inquisition over money from the drawer of Gomez Addams or something--very droll but not funny. Bob has also focused on the ankle bracelet, and any spoof post has to start with Norman getting the thing off of his ankle. Note how that entire para falls apart from the get-go. If Bob didn't write it, I would be surprised. I think he has started spoofing Norman because he realizes that he cannot ever get the upper hand. Plus, he was caught being a sock puppet again and the group as a whole just accepts the fact that Bob is going to do whatever he can to attract attention to himself and try to look better than anyone else. This has manifested itself into Bob now trying to do Norman. And it has gone badly, at least in this attempt.

Ideas are formed and abandoned too quickly. One set of dashes seems to express an idea that would be better explored in a paragraph. You don't write comedy in parentheses, by the way. You use them in more formal writing, but never in something you intend to be funny.

No, I'm sorry to say it--someone without the requisite amount of talent and skill has attempted to spoof your uncle Norman, and the admonitions against it are quite apropo. There isn't a good line to be found anywhere in here that doesn't trip over itself and fall flat on its face.

Flat. That's where the jokes fall. Flat on their face and with a dull, wet thud.

Posted by: Norman Rogers (?) on November 12, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Questions for our aspiring literary critic:

Is it plausible that, by his own admission:

1) Norman kicked a person in a wheelchair down three flights of concrete stairs in a parking deck because he got too close to Norman's Escalade?

2) That Norman spent some time in Club Fed for insider trading?

3) That Norman disabled 48 election day busses with sugar in the gastank, and then spent the day handing out money to poor people who pledged to him not to vote?

4) That Norman was held for a night in jail, and then beaten by the police, who for some reason paid him for the privilege?

5) That Norman shat himself in an expensive restaraunt on Partner's Day, in celebration of a hostile takeover which destroyed a firm to enrich the stockholders of Norman's business?

6) That Norman watched Rich Man / Poor Man in its entirety, and shat his couch and ruined it because he couldn't pause the VCR?

I submit to you that they are not. That they are, rather, Walter Mitty fantasies.

Are they humorous? Are they, in some measurable way, "appropriate?" What do you think they are intended to reveal or convey?

You need to answer these questions for yourself.

As for doing humor in parentheses, you might acquaint yourself with the American black humor tradition, starting with Joseph Heller.

Posted by: The Literary Critic on November 12, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, you suck, Bob.

And everyone knows it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

I submit to you that they are not. That they are, rather, Walter Mitty fantasies.

Bob, you've used that "Walter Mitty" line, like, ten times.

Nice attempt at doing another sock puppet turn as "The Literary Critic" with a forcefully faked E-mail address.

Isn't it sad when everyone knows just how *awful* of a writer you really are?

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

You might wish to address the substance of that post and answer the questions posed.

Something tells me you wouldn't want to get into a moral equivalency debate about kicking a crippled person down three flights of concrete stairs.

Posted by: The Literary Critic on November 12, 2006 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

I submit to you that they are not. That they are, rather, Walter Mitty fantasies.

Posted by: The Literary Critic on November 12, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

-----------

Norman:

Nobody believes your Walter Mitty fantasies.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 6, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Yawn. Another day, another meltdown by rmck1.

Nice try, amateur hour. Do you need to have someone loan a shovel to you? You've dug yourself in pretty deep on this thread, and it'll be at least two days before it falls under the front page fold. Think of all the people who will read it on Monday when traffic shoots back up and everyone can see rmck1 be exposed as a sock puppet twice and a fraud at least, what? Seven or eight times? And that's just on this ONE thread?

And you wonder why you're my faaaaaaaaayyyyvorite liberal!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

You might wish to address the substance of that post and answer the questions posed.

Give it up, Bob.

You're done. Your credibility is now, officially, gone. Go find another blog to torment.

This is where you need to just take the hint and leave. It doesn't get any worse than this. It just doesn't get any more definitive and brutal than this. One cannot be as destroyed as this and expect to be able to continue.

You are finished.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that's shame filling your cheeks, Bob.

Shame is an overwhelming emotion. Learn from it. Move on.

You know, when you set up shop elsewhere, try to find a community that doesn't have smart people in it. Find one where they'll be enthralled with you and will accept you as one of their own.

It didn't happen here. It's a tough thing, really. We all know what rejection is like.

But you'll be a stronger and healthier person if you move on.

Take it from your uncle Norman.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah. Uh-huh. I've been destroyed by Norman Rogers and a sock puppet.

And you think *I'm* pretentious? Listen to yourself, Jesus.

Big Fat Confession: Yeah, I wrote those three Norman spoofs. You nailed me. I am *so* wounded over it. But I wrote them for a reason, which was to perform a reductio ad absurdum on Norman's inherent nihilism.

You don't get tar-black humor? That's cool. I'm a Thomas Pynchon fan. He did a coprophilia scene and that novel won the National Book Award. Call him an influence. Your opinion is duly noted.

As for sock puppeting, GMAFB. Aaron aardvark is a regular here -- check the damned archives. I didn't write that post -- and in fact, I didn't completely agree with it, which is explicated here.

You wanna continue perpetrating that slander -- you're gonna insult aaron aardvark. You might consider the morality of that -- since all the guy did was have the fucking nerve to agree with me and say so.

As for that other sock puppet accusation -- also complete bullshit, perpetrated by anonymous trolls. You know, I get some flack here for attempting to speak for people, but your assertion of "consensus" about that is beyond asinine. Nobody took that seriously then. Nobody took the aardvark accusation last night seriously, either. Check the thread.

If it's a choice between my rep under my handle and two trolls posting as Norman Rogers, it's really kind of a no-brainer.

Sorry if my sense of humor offended you.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin you forgot one thing - the Dems were mum about "gun control" plans, something that hurt them in the 90s as I recall. We'll get a atset of the plans soon enough I am sure. :-O

Posted by: webdonkey on November 12, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

The Fake (and sophomoric) Literary Critic "Norman":

>> By my calculation, Minerva's formerly falsely-documented beau
>> should be receiving that ever-popular knock on the door about now.
>> Having him beaten senseless was really the only way to keep him
>> quiet about her last abortion. Stealing his fake green card was an
>> afterthought--sort of an added bonus--I had no idea how handy it
>> would have come in, just a little later on. Sandwitch bags around
>> the hands went into the field with the gardener's togs.

> One should never try to structure a joke around and abortion.
> Abortion is not a source of comedy.

One can define standards of personal taste. One can also come to
a consensus with others about community standards. But what cannot
be done is to draw a circle around any given subject matter and rule
it off-limits to comedy. Gallows humor and black humor are inherently
transgressive. What makes something horribly not funny can also be
precisely what makes it hysterical. Should we boycott the Borat movie,
since so much of its humor revolves around anti-semitic bigotry? How
about South Park? -- a show that never would have made it on the air
a decade before it did. This isn't to comment on whether or not you
found my post funny; you have a right to your taste. Only that you
have no business ruling any particular subject matter off the table.

> This hamfisted attempt at comedy really reveals the psychosis of the
> writer--violence against women seems to be a theme that runs through
> what is written and consequence free violence against people is
> considered "mischief" in a way that the reader just wouldn't accept.

Who, exactly, is this "reader" you're talking about -- you? You
realize that criticism is supposed to say something generalizable,
right? Hiding behind "the reader" is vacuous unless you articulate
a principle. "Just wouldn't accept" amounts to an empty tautology.

The purpose of that rather dark graf was to expose Norman's
rapacious instrumentalism about everything, in this particular
case with women, through exaggeration -- the standard MO of satire.

> Pointless violence comes across as way too over
> the top for the reader to suspend any disbelief.

Spoofs depend on the context of what is being spoofed. If Norman
has written of many incidents which defy credulity (and I enumerated
them under another handle in this thread), then stretching
credulity even further in the spoof is precisely the point.

> And that's where this either works or it doesn't work.

That's vacuous.

> It should sound just plausible enough to actually
> happen and the structure of the spoof Norman Rogers
> posts dissolve into a laundry list of ineffective lines

How are they a laundry list? Why are they ineffective?

> and jokes that leave the plausible behind. And
> when something isn't plausible, it ain't funny.

This is, of course, roundly false. Humor is constructed precisely
on exaggeration. But satirical parodies aren't quite the same as
spoofs, either. My intent was obviously to send the Norman persona
into orbit. No sane person would think even for a microsecond
that Norman Rogers killed his neighbor's dogs with a chainsaw.

It's, rather, a metaphor for Norman's sociopathology.

> This was written by Bob.

Give that critic a cigar :)

> Bob has tormented Norman Rogers

Is that even possible? :)

> with some sort of inquisition over money from the drawer
> of Gomez Addams or something--very droll but not funny.

Norman's bail money. If Norman is to be believed (and that's
questionable), he committed some felonious crimes on election
day involving voter suppression. The sort of crimes that if we
heard about them in the news, we'd all be up in arms about it.

> Bob has also focused on the ankle bracelet, and any spoof post
> has to start with Norman getting the thing off of his ankle.

That's one way to go. The previous post "just" had Norman
raping his housekeeper. Is rape "funny"? Not in itself. What
I found darkly humorous is the way that Norman would rationalize
it to himself, and how he can throw cash at a gynecologist so
he can do what he wants without government interference. If
there's something sick about this (and there is), it's not like
these sorts of arrangements don't occur with the wealthy. Since
Norman blithely jokes about insider trading and kicking crippled
people down concrete stairs, this is only a reductio of that pattern.

> Note how that entire para falls apart from the get-go.

Assertions aren't arguments. If you think that graf
falls apart, you have to demonstrate how it does.

> Ideas are formed and abandoned too quickly.

It's called synedoche -- an essential tool to write any kind of
short fiction, let alone a screen-and-a-half vignette on a blog.

> One set of dashes seems to express an idea
> that would be better explored in a paragraph.

I'd conjecture you couldn't demonstrate that in the text.

> You don't write comedy in parentheses, by the way.
> You use them in more formal writing, but never
> in something you intend to be funny.

Laying out an unargued "iron rule" is sophomoric. Do you think it
makes you sound like your last English teacher? Have you ever read
David Foster Wallace? My intent wasn't to use dashes to be humorous
(although intentionally convoluted syntax can be quite hysterical),
but rather to mimic to a certain extent Norman's dash style, and
primarily because I find them a natural tool in my own writing.

> No, I'm sorry to say it--someone without the requisite amount
> of talent and skill has attempted to spoof your uncle Norman,

Your argument certainly doesn't seem to demonstrate this.

> and the admonitions against it are quite apropo.

The admonitions amount to opinion, to which you're entitled.

> There isn't a good line to be found anywhere in here
> that doesn't trip over itself and fall flat on its face.

To each their own, I suppose.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 3:55 AM | PERMALINK

Just to finish this out, in my considered opinion the 6:35 and 7:30 Normans aren't Norman, either. I have a fairly strong intuition who they are, but I won't share it, because there's been enough acrimony on this thread. They did, however, serve as the inspiration for trying my own hand at the Norman game. Hey, I enjoyed writing those posts; YMMV. It was fun to watch The Conservative Deflator freak out, at the very least :)

The Nixon post I thought was somewhat amusing, if a litany of things too transparently the fright-images of liberals. The 7:30 was just a transparent snark, the content of which I've heard from various trolls for months. Neither of them are Norman because Norman's posts rarely stray from the central subject matter of Norman himself.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK

In reality Libertarians are just Republicans that smoke pot.

You forgot: "and prefer female prostitutes."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on November 12, 2006 at 7:12 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Hayden:

And if you're the Cheney distaff side, you don't need the pot :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

[url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]手机铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]手机图片[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]图片[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]免费铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/275.html?f=6047]免费铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]手机铃声[/url]
[url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]免费铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]图片[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]手机图片[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/274.html?f=6047]免费铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]手机铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]免费铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]免费手机铃声[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]免费铃声下载[/url][url=http://img.zhangxiu.com/2/260.html?f=6047]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]铃声[/url]
[url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]手机铃声[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]手机铃声[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]免费铃声[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]图片[/url][url=http://www.u8u.com/zt/6/index.htm?a=16991&b=0&c=601&d=965&e=0]手机图片[/url]
[url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]铃声[/url]
[url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]手机铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]免费铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]图片[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]手机图片[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/main2/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=&g=]免费铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]手机铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]免费铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]图片[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]手机图片[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/Pub/mms/4/index.html?uid=11401&a=&b=&c=&d=&e=&f=]免费铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]铃声[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]手机铃声[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]铃声下载[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]免费铃声[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]免费铃声下载[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]图片[/url][url=http://ad01.a8.com/unionY/full5/index.asp?uid=3018]手机图片[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]铃声[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]手机铃声[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]免费铃声[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]免费铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]图片[/url][url=http://www.caiku.com/s/index.htm?uid=12035]手机图片[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]铃声[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]手机铃声[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]铃声下载[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]免费铃声[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]免费手机铃声[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]图片[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionY/full4/index_vola_uid_3018.html]手机图片[/url][url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]铃声[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]手机铃声[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]免费铃声[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]免费铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]手机铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]图片[/url]
[url=http://mms2.caiku.com/?uid=12035]手机图片[/url]
[url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]手机铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]免费铃声[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]手机铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]免费铃声下载[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]图片[/url][url=http://u.7town.com/html/780_2140/Daywang1/index.html?uid=11401]手机图片[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]彩铃[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]免费彩铃[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]12530彩铃[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]手机彩铃下载[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]免费彩铃下载[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]移动彩铃[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]联通彩铃[/url][url=http://ad04.a8.com/unionR/popfull/index_vola_uid_3018.html]12530[/url][url=http://www.soumms.com]彩铃[/url][url=http://www.soumms.com]彩铃下载[/url]
[url=http://www.soumms.com]免费彩铃[/url][url=http://www.soumms.com]手机彩铃[/url]
[url=http://12530sms.vicp.net]彩铃[/url][url=http://12530sms.vicp.net]手机彩铃[/url]
[url=http://12530sms.vicp.net]免费彩铃[/url][url=http://12530sms.vicp.net]彩铃下载[/url]
[url=http://shop.7cv.com/products.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]成人用品[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/gerenhuli.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]个人护理[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/neiyi.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]性感情趣内衣[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/health.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]成人保健品[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/cosmetic.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]化妆品[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/bycys.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]紧急避孕测孕药[/url]
[url=http://www.seodown.com]software download[/url][url=http://www.seodown.com]Let's everyone get their softwares[/url][url=http://www.seodown.com] fix hard disk[/url]
[url=http://sms.7598719.com]彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com]彩铃[/url][url=http://www.12530w.com]彩铃[/url][url=http://www.12530w.com]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://www.12530w.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://www.12530w.com]彩铃[/url][url=http://ivr.07541860.com]免费点歌[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]铃声[/url][url=http://sms.07541860.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.flash8888.com]免费铃声[/url][url=http://SMS.3g-era.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.3g-era.com/sms/60004.htm]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.3g-era.com/sms/11040.htm]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://mms.flash8888.com]彩信[/url][url=http://sms.flash8888.com]手机铃声[/url]
[url=http://mms.flash8888.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.flashmusic8.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.flashmusic8.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://hi.baidu.com/07541860/blog/item/23aaa71eb90ff41f41341799.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://mms.7598719.com]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://dj1860.blog.com.cn/archives/2006/1328293.shtml]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://ma.baidu.com/fs/rcv/click.php?gid=1&sid=22410&wid=5059&kid=50581&opos=1&rpos=1&fn=wugengqian1982_pg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsms.3g-era.com%2F&key=6fc085166e8b94a19f9ba56b0bc22f53&s=70e13b8288ab23da&sn=1]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://st1860.blog.hexun.com/4854077_d.html]手机彩铃[/url]
[url=http://st1860.blog.sohu.com/8005290.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.07541860.com/]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/568bece3010004ou]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.yeeyoo.com/user1/771092/archives/2006/276982.shtml]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://mms.flash8888.com/]手机图片[/url][url=http://MMS.3g-era.com]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://MMS.3g-era.com]免费铃声[/url][url=http://MMS.3g-era.com]手机图片[/url][url=http://mms.flash8888.com]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://sms.flash8888.com]免费铃声[/url][url=http://www.7598719.com]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://www.7598719.com]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com]免费彩铃[/url][url=http://hi.baidu.com/07541860/blog/item/daa89f514ba5052442a75b53.html]成人电影[/url][url=http://blog.xuite.net/st1860/srjx/7459429#trackback]成人电影[/url][url=http://home.njau.edu.cn/blog/detail.php?titleid=580&uid=2796]成人电影[/url][url=http://dj1860.blog.com.cn/archives/2006/1346551.shtml]成人电影[/url][url=http://28380556.qzone.qq.com/?url=http%3A//imgcache.qq.com/qzone/blog/blog.html%23blogId%3D0%26v%3D2]成人电影[/url]
[url=http://wugengqian.bokee.com/viewdiary.11815618.html]成人电影[/url]
[url=http://shop.7cv.com/index.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]商城[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/index.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]商城[/url]
[url=http://shop.7cv.com/products.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]成人用品[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/products.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]成人用品[/url][url=http://shop.7cv.com/neiyi.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]内衣[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/neiyi.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]内衣[/url]
[url=http://shop.7cv.com/health.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]保健品[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/health.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]保健品[/url][url=http://shop.7cv.com/cosmetic.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]化妆品[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/cosmetic.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]化妆品[/url]
[url=http://shop.7cv.com/gerenhuli.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]个人护理[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/gerenhuli.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]个人护理[/url]
[url=http://shop.7cv.com/bycys.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]避孕测孕[/url] [url=http://shop.7cv.com/bycys.php?asstfrom=wugengqian]避孕测孕[/url]
[url=http://blog.xuite.net/st1860/07541860]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://hi.baidu.com/07541860/blog/item/23aaa71eb90ff41f41341799.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://home.njau.edu.cn/blog/detail.php?titleid=579&uid=2796]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://dj1860.blog.com.cn/archives/2006/1328293.shtml]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.xuite.net/st1860/07541860/7003415]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://st1860.blog.hexun.com/4854077_d.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://st1860.blog.sohu.com/8005290.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.china.alibaba.com/blog/wugengqian/article/b0-i1020303.html]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/568bece3010004ou]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.yeeyoo.com/user1/771092/archives/2006/276982.shtml]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.yeeyoo.com/user1/771092/archives/2006/287734.shtml]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://blog.xuite.net/st1860/07541860/7003415]手机铃声[/url]
[url=http://blog.hc360.com/portal/personShowArticle.do?articleId=61296]手机铃声[/url][url=http://dj1860.blog.com.cn/archives/2006/1144529.shtml]手机铃声[/url][url=http://blog1860.blog.hexun.com/4318063_d.html]手机铃声[/url]
[url=http://blog.hc360.com/portal/personShowArticle.do?articleId=61296]手机铃声/手机铃声下载/手机铃声免费下载/ 免费手机铃声[/url]
[url=http://blog.xuite.net/st1860/07541860/7003415]铃声下载[/url] [url=http://blog1860.blog.hexun.com/4318063_d.html]免费铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://www.mslv.net/msblog/more.asp?name=07541860&id=1206]免费铃声下载/下载铃声/mp3铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://blog.china.alibaba.com/blog/wugengqian82/article/b0-i741938.html]铃声/mp3铃声/mmf铃声/和弦铃声/搞笑铃声[/url]
[url=http://sms.7598719.com/]12530彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com/]彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com/]彩铃下载[/url][url=http://sms.7598719.com/]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.07541860.com/]免费下载彩铃[/url[url=http://sms.07541860.com/]移动彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.07541860.com/]彩铃下载[/url]
[url=http://sms.07541860.com/]免费彩铃[/url][url=http://sms.07541860.com/]手机彩铃[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/dj.html]DJ铃声[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/dj.html]免费DJ铃声[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com/dj.html]免费下载DJ铃声[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/index3.html]手机游戏[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com/index3.html]手机游戏下载[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/index3.html]免费下载手机游戏[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com/index3.html]S60手机游戏[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/index3.html]智能手机游戏[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/index3.html]移动联通手机游戏[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]图片[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]免费手机图片[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]手机铃声[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]手机图片[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com]免费移动联通铃声下载[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]铃声[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]免费彩铃 [/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com] 彩铃下载[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com]免费彩铃下载[/url]
[url=http://se.7598719.com/]成人商城[/url][url=http://se.7598719.com/]成人用品[/url][url=http://se.7598719.com/]网上商城[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]手机彩信[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]手机彩图[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]彩信[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]彩图[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]特效铃声[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]彩信下载[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/yesky.html]彩图下载[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku.html]大长今-希望[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku1.html]情人[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku2.html]神话-无尽的爱[/url]
[url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku3.html]一路向北[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku4.html]哎呀[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku5.html]爱海滔滔[/url][url=http://www.07541860.com/5ku6.html]暧昧[/url][url=http://movie.07541860.com/]手机电影[/url]
[url=http://movie.07541860.com/]手机视频[/url][url=http://movie.07541860.com/]电影[/url][url=http://movie.07541860.com/]免费电影[/url][url=http://movie.07541860.com/]免费电影下载[/url]
[url=http://movie.07541860.com/]3PG电影[/url][url=http://blog.hnby.com.cn/user1/3837/archives/2006/23495.htm]周杰伦夜宴满城尽带黄金甲在线影院[/url][url=http://movies.07541860.com]周杰伦夜宴满城尽带黄金甲在线影院[/url]
[url=http://movies.07541860.com]夜宴满城尽带黄金甲[/url][url=http://movies.07541860.com]夜宴黄金甲[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]彩铃[/url]
[url=http://mms.07541860.com]手机图片[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]手机游戏[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]手机铃声[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费点歌[/url]
[url=http://mms.07541860.com]手机游戏,彩铃,图片,铃声下载[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费手机游戏,彩铃,图片,铃声下载[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]移动联通手机游戏,彩铃,图片,铃声下载[/url]
[URL=http://mms.07541860.com]彩铃下载[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]手机图片[/URL]
[URL=http://mms.07541860.com]手机游戏[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]手机铃声[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]免费点歌[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]手机游戏,彩铃,图片,铃声下载[/URL]
[URL=http://mms.07541860.com]免费手机游戏,彩铃,图片,铃声下载[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]移动联通手机游戏,彩铃,图片,铃声下载[/URL][url=http://jpg.07541860.com]手机图片[/url[URL=http://jpg.07541860.com]手机图片[/URL]
[url=http://game.07541860.com]手机游戏[/url][URL=http://game.07541860.com]手机游戏[/URL][url=http://www.07541860.com]手机铃声[/url][URL=http://www.07541860.com]手机铃声[/URL][url=http://ivr.07541860.com]免费点歌[/url]
[URL=http://ivr.07541860.com]免费点歌[/URL][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费彩铃下载[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费铃声下载[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费彩信下载[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费彩铃下载[/url][url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费铃声下载[/url]
[url=http://mms.07541860.com]免费彩信下载[/url][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]彩铃下载[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]彩信下载[/URL][URL=http://mms.07541860.com]铃声下下载[/URL]

Posted by: 07541860 on November 12, 2006 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

The Norman Chainsaw Massacre -- Chapter III

The THWUMP was loud and jarring, but not quite stiff enough to set off the airbags (thankfully), so I steered my trusty steed to the side of the county highway. Though the moon was full, it was very dark, between as it was a stand of large trees on either side of the road and thick underbrush. No streetlights, of course--and no sidewalks. Estate country in Connecticut is like this; long, two-lane roads meandering through private property. Heh. If this were Jersey, one side would be condos and the other a strip mall. But this is Old Money country--land locked up in trusts and estates, in one of the most densely populated states in the nation. You certainly wouldn't know it from this neck of these almost literal woods.

With the right wheels deep in the gulley and pitched well over (no sidesipes for me), I heaved open the enormous door of the Escalade and clambered out, expecting to examine some deer damage, antlers mangling the grille. Hmmm...no punctures. But a big, red, dripping stain. Oh dear. I looked around for the--deer carcass, what else could it be?--and found nothing of the sort. Wait....what's this? thrown clear into the gully, some hopefully inanimate fleshy shape. Oh...my...God.

The first indication that my night under this gorgeous moon was not going to proceed as I expected was the color of its skin. White. God DAMN it! Considering the human potential before spotting it, I had hoped it would be a Hispanic, a man trucking many miles on foot (no public transportation, no cab fare) to meet his chiquita, a live-in nanny on one of the estates for an illicit midnight tryst. The chainsaw would just relieve the DHS of some paperwork, and your uncle Norman would've done his good deed for streamlining government.

No such luck for me tonight. It was a youngish woman...in jogging togs...hand still gripping her iPod in its death rictus.

Let's see...I have about an hour to think this through. I should be safely tucked in bed, under house arrest. If I'm caught, it won't go well for my old Princeton and family chum in the FBI who unsprung me during the coke binge I facilitated for him. Not to mention, of course, for me. Flight risk; I'd have to liquidate my whole damned portfolio this time. If it was an undocumented gardener, well...the woodchippers would be up and running soon enough--it rained and blew last night--and I had the foresight to raid the cash drawer before I left. But this is a young...white...female. Probably the trophy wife of an arbitrageur--I can see her wedding photo on Nancy Grace now...Vehicular homicide? Disabled tracking device? Vote suppression? I may not even--get--bail this time with David Boies himself.

Think fast, Norman old man, the local constabulary will be out and about any minute. Hit and run? Too risky to be pulled over with that big stain on the grille. Real men act, Norman, and this is the moment of your decision...

To Be (scarily enough) Continued...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

That one's not funny either. You guys are trying way too hard. Can you say "plodding"?

Posted by: The Audience on November 12, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

What were you expecting? Joyce Carol Oates?

Posted by: The Heckler on November 12, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

No. But stick to photography.

Posted by: The Audience on November 12, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

You're a tough crowd....

Posted by: The Author on November 12, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Big Fat Confession: Yeah, I wrote those three Norman spoofs. You nailed me. I am *so* wounded over it. But I wrote them for a reason, which was to perform a reductio ad absurdum on Norman's inherent nihilism.

The problem is, Bob, you're so sick you don't know the coup de grace when it's brought down on you. You did it because you can't stand the fact that you have no talent, skill, or ability.

Fuckin' A, Bob.

Get. Some. Help.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Just one para for examination:

With the right wheels deep in the gulley and pitched well over (no sidesipes for me),

More of this parenthetical crap--the inner monologue doesn't work here--one would normally hear this as a narration in film and it doesn't work here. It is a distraction to the reader.

I heaved open the enormous door of the Escalade and clambered out, expecting to examine some deer damage, antlers mangling the grille.

"Expecting" is asking the reader to follow along, suspending their disbelief long enough to allow the supposed narrator to be surprised by something. Anyone who has ever been in an SUV knows the doors are big but not enormous so none of this rings true.

Hmmm...no punctures.

This doesn't work because we're expected to believe you actually said "...Hmmm?" Where this falls apart is the notion that what would normally be presented in narration is presented as text and it dissolves into a failure to understand what works in the context of a visual presentation of the material doesn't translate to text. The viewer has one set of rules that work, the reader has an entirely different way of accepting the presentation of the material. Mixing the two leaves the written presentation in a weak and diluted form.

But a big, red, dripping stain. Oh dear. I looked around for the--deer carcass, what else could it be?--and found nothing of the sort.

This is supposed to be blood? The reader knows that a blood mark on metal would be accompanied by a massive dent. A vehicle that strikes a standing object smashes the vehicle and leaves a dent. There would be a lot of broken glass as well, but the lack of accurate detail does not assist the reader in suspending disbelief.

Wait....what's this? thrown clear into the gully, some hopefully inanimate fleshy shape. Oh...my...God.

Again, this is dishonestly presented because the writer has no real knowledge of the fact that a vehicle that hits something becomes severely damaged. An object thrown clear wouldn't be thrown to the side--it would be thrown back or fly over the vehicle. The phrase "Oh...my...God" is a trite attempt at horror and shock. Because it is cliche, and coupled with the fact that the reader has been allowed no opportunity to suspend disbelief, the phrase rings hollow.

And, needless to say, there is no comedy here. Just a flat attempt at some sort of dramatic presentation where the expected comedic payoff would come at the end. By this stage of the game, the reader has not suspended disbelief, accepted the facts as actual possibilities or plausible occurrences, and probably doesn't care what the surprise will be when the object that the vehicle struck is revealed.

Again, this is just more amateur hour stuff, very weakly written, and Bob should probably just call it a day. Leave the funny to the professionals.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Get. Some. Help.

There's plenty of help being cried out for around here, Norm.

Posted by: shortstop on November 12, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Shortdrop:

There's plenty of help being cried out for around here, Norm.

Silence, impertinent minx, or it will be a Shortdrop from my hand to your bottom. No, never mind, you'd probably adore that, given your abject submission ... to liberal orthodoxy. Foolish woman.

I think you'll find that defending Bob is a mug's game, no matter how his pathos pulls at your tender feminine heartstrings. You'd best cast your lot with Hormonal Citizen, Joylessly Smurfette and me. I have not yet been successful in convincing either of these ladies to meet me in Manhattan for cocktails, but I am undaunted. Few women have resisted the pull of my success, clout and, to employ a word you liberals can't stop thinking about enviously, cashola. No. I shall prevail in the end.

And you wonder why your end is is my sight.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

"After the 1913 strike at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Co, where 40 people died, Rockefeller was afraid of an American communist revolution. He hired Mackenzie King, labor minister of Canada who later became prime minister, to tell him what he had to do to prevent a revolution. ..."

That is, Rockefeller figured out how much he had to give workers to keep them from storming his castle with pitchforks, and he gave them exactly that much. Other capitalists understood and eventually followed suit.

The history of the US Congress since then is back and forth between the two factions on how much the workers have to be given to prevent a revolution. Marxs prediction turned out to be wrong because capitalists figured out how to prevent it."
Posted by: anandine on November 11, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting that.

Still, when FDR came to power the Rich hated him passionately. I guess it always comes down to power and they didn't want somebody elected by the public to have the power they thought was theirs.

Well, today they have the money, the media, the government and the public has as little as they feel they can get away with giving 'em. Power won.

Can it shift back towards the public? Time will tell.

Democracy...wow, what a revolutionary concept.

Posted by: MarkH on November 12, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the drama, Bob.

[that's my one shot, and that's all I got to say about that.]

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 12, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

"How can a liberal reconcile eating the flesh of a wild animal?" -- Norman Rogers

The difference, ya see, is Liberals cook the food first. Republicans just eat it off the hoof.

That's why former-Senator Allen showed so many "hoof in mouth" disease symptoms during this last campaign.

Posted by: MarkH on November 12, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Lit Crit Norman:

Who are you, Stephen King's publisher? :)

Well that was certainly a more honest and useful critique than your rather pedantic attempt to define humor (notice you didn't touch my pushback on that). I have no reason to assume it wouldn't be the sort of things an editor or a writing teacher might say, so I accept your criticisms for what they're worth. I do not aspire to write fiction; I don't do it as a hobby, I've never taken a creative writing course, and what's more, I read very little popular fiction. So I wrote that on an insomniac lark and hung my ass on a line with it on a public blog. I certainly accept the reactions to it.

After I sent it up, I did realize it was kind of lame and plodding. Oh well. Live and learn. I do still think there were a couple of inspired moments in the first three -- but maybe that's just me :)

Although you're speaking from convention, I don't know if I buy your critical paradigm. I know aspiring writers who struggle with it to be published, and I think some of these rules reflect convention, not principle. Certainly you can't argue that the state of published fiction reflects a sturdy bulwark against egregious writing. My favorite authors are the mid-century American paradigm-stretchers, many of whom faced steep rejection from publishers before they hit paydirt. So I'm sort of enamored of interior monologue and nested clauses. I'd quibble with you also on what had been previously established (from the prior stories), and about what can be left to suggestion. I won't quibble with you about the cliches. My bad.

I think where I lost the humor of it was to depart from the Norman persona. The Norman persona is decisive -- even in the face of calamity. There's a great George Booth New Yorker cartoon from the 80s: Two decrepit seniors in an old car with the wheels falling off in traffic, bolts sproinging into the air. "As fellow Conservatives, we musn't squabble within the ranks!" Instead, Norman become panic-stricken. Sort of like *I* would in that situation. That severed the story from parody and made it self-indulgent. A lesson learned.

Finally: Fiction needs to be plausible, but parody does not. We know Al's Mommy, the fake Norman Nixon-worshipper precisely because it is not plausible that anyone believes in killing brown people or the Imperial Presidency. Parody makes unstated premises explicit.

And again, thank you all for your indulgence. Consider me humbled -- probably a tad less so than a few of you might wish :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Well that was certainly a more honest and useful critique than your rather pedantic attempt to define humor (notice you didn't touch my pushback on that). I have no reason to assume it wouldn't be the sort of things an editor or a writing teacher might say, so I accept your criticisms for what they're worth.

You're still here? Talk about a shameless little bitch with no talent. You are caught, sir; you have been caught TWICE using a sock puppet to defend yourself. That alone makes you worthless and without credibility.

as to this:

(notice you didn't touch my pushback on that).

There wasn't any; virtually all that you said confirmed your own ignorance.

You are a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I think a little shit like you ought to have more humility in the face of utter destruction.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Norman Rogers" has been co-opted by a satirist.

This isn't the one-and-only Norman from Darien, CT, spittle-flecked champion of "the great George Bush."

Posted by: Alfred E. Newman on November 12, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I have *never* used a sock puppet to give myself highfives. I posted as The Literary Critic in the face of a totalistic attack, because I wanted to defend the reason I was satirizing you without the baggage of ad-hominem. I used that post to make an argument, not dispense props.

Aaron aardvark is not a goddamned sock puppet, and I'd wish you'd stop insulting him because he's a regular here. That Kevin person I have no fucking clue -- but I sure as fuck wouldn't nominate myself for Secretary of Defense, for crying out loud.

Now either prove this slanderous claptrap, or STFU.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

> You're still here? Talk about a shameless
> little bitch with no talent.

Oh what, Norman ... do you think that have, like what -- any *ego*
invested in being a fiction writer? It was a lark, bro -- something
I did in the wee hours to bust your malignantly distended balls for
shits 'n' giggles. An experiment. I have the notes. I guess I
won't be spending that big advance from Simon & Shuster after all :(

> You are caught, sir; you have been caught
> TWICE using a sock puppet to defend yourself.

Stop lying, Norman. And stop insulting regulars here (chech the
fucking archives) who have the fucking gall to agree with me.

> That alone makes you worthless and without credibility.

Credibility? You're lecturing *me* on credibility? Norman, you're
a grotesque narcissist. All you *are* is ego. You pull the standard
sociopathic BPD shit, reinventing yourself to suit the circumstances:
before the election you're a rock-ribbed Republicans, after you had
your ass handed to you, oh no -- you're *really* a Libertarian and
now, using a facade of reasonableness in a foreign policy debate you
claim to actually be a *Rockefeller* Republican. Only somebody with
no inner convictions whatsoever would attempt to change their spots
like that. And egomanics have no principles to defend but themselves.

Bite me, Norman. You are an empty shell.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

I posted as The Literary Critic in the face of a totalistic attack, because I wanted to defend the reason I was satirizing you without the baggage of ad-hominem. I used that post to make an argument, not dispense props.

Oh, and you admitted to using MY name and MY E-mail address to make your weak, dull and unfunny satire posts--do you think it makes me happy to see an unfunny pretender like you take a shot at me?

You attempted to post as The Literary Critic in order to hide your identity. You manufactured an E-mail address for this new handle that was different from your own. You see, when a regular poster uses a different handle, they will leave their E-mail address loaded in the slot in order to tip off other posters that they are merely taking another handle to make a joke. You attacked thethirdPaul for this recently; he is honest enough to LEAVE his E-mail address loaded to make his comments.

When you were quickly and effectively caught using the obscure "Walter Mitty" line, you panicked and dropped The Literary Critic as a handle. Since you were blatantly acting with a sock puppet, how is anyone to conclude that you are honest? If anything, it CONFIRMS that you were using the aaron aardvark or whatever handle earlier. You have a disturbing pattern of this type of behavior; you've used my handle, at least two or three other handles, and all because you are being eviscerated and humiliated. And I'm supposed to be a parody?

The door where bitches leave is behind you--make good use of it. Your credibility? It left months ago. This is sad and pathetic; you make things worse each and every time you try to argue your way out of a pretty deep hole.

A hint to you sir--just stop digging. Your credibility and honesty are gone and are seriously in question because of the fact that you have been caught acting in a dishonest manner.

And who is supposed to believe anything you ever say again?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

And egomanics have no principles to defend but themselves.

[sigh]

The pot called the kettle black again.

Poor little bitch, rmck1. When your good name is sullied and when no one can believe you anymore, you resort to all manner of hysterical things and you say things you don't mean.

It's perfectly alright. I will accept your apology when you are man enough to make it. I cannot speak for the group, nor would I wish to, but whether they accept your apology is up to them.

The healthy thing to do is to admit you have a problem and to get help. Beyond that, posting on the Internet should be far down on your list of things to do before you get the help you need.

A word of kindness from your uncle Norman.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Norman -- STFU. Of *course* I parodied you. You're a fucking asshole who likes to brag about kicking cripples down concrete stairs. You either committed election fraud and are under house arrest for it -- or else you constructed the whole story as some kind of grotesque, nihilistic parody of a Republican *goon*.

And you think it was over-the-top of me to stick a chainsaw in your hands?

Norman -- aaron aardvark is a regualr. Talk to him when he shows up again. The very least you could do is to stop dragging *him* in to this asinine attempt to drive me out of here, because the guy's got nothing to do with it.

As for TheThirdPaul -- that was an honest mistake. I went "whoops" about it before you wrote your response; I should've checked his email and I didn't.

As for The Literary Critic -- that was highly pompous, true. If I had to take it back, I probably should've just responded in my handle. But I wanted to make some key objective points about why I was satirizing you (see first paragraph) out of the context of a personal exchange. But if you'd like, I'll concede that I should've used better judgement on that.

As for spoofing you under your email, Norman -- no apologizes at *all*.

If you didn't paint such a grotesque caracature of yourself as a one-man goon squad, perhaps you might be entitled to the respect you appear to be demanding from me.

Actions have consquences.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

And the reason you're attacking me, Norman, is because your own credibility has been shredded. That's what's up with the Mr. Reasonable tone. YOU BRAGGED ABOUT COMMITTING ELECTION FRAUD.

It's classic projective identification -- standard in the toolkit of a sociopathic narcisssist who has nothing aside from the face he shows to the world.

Only one thing -- it won't work. There are some people who have always been annoyed at me because they think I post too much and because I take an excessive enjoyment from jousting with trolls like yourself, and there are others who've always liked my posts.

And that's where it will remain after you've finally learned to STFU about it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

As for The Literary Critic -- that was highly pompous, true. If I had to take it back, I probably should've just responded in my handle.

Too late for that now. The only reason why you're saying that is because your uncle Norman is lightning-quick and can destroy people like you with one hand tied behind his back.

Actions have consquences.

Oh? You're threatening me now? Gee, I've never been threatened by a girl before.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

And the reason you're attacking me, Norman, is because your own credibility has been shredded. That's what's up with the Mr. Reasonable tone. YOU BRAGGED ABOUT COMMITTING ELECTION FRAUD.

No; I told a sweet little story about it and you believed it. My credibility is fine. Yours? One look at this thread indicates your credibility is gone. Stop hyperventilating, shithead, and just leave now. You're not doing yourself any good by freaking out like this. Did you really threaten me? Don't you think you should threaten another man while wearing pants and not that skirt of yours?

It's classic projective identification -- standard in the toolkit of a sociopathic narcisssist who has nothing aside from the face he shows to the world.

Pot? Kettle. Kettle? I'd like to introduce you to the pot. Pot! Don't call the kettle black!

One who projects cannot seriously accuse others of the same thing. Stop parodying yourself.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

There are some people who have always been annoyed at me because they think I post too much and because I take an excessive enjoyment from jousting with trolls like yourself, and there are others who've always liked my posts.

How many of the people who like your posts are going to continue to like them now that you've admitted you used a sock puppet on this thread? And by the by, this thread is going to be here...forever.

And forver is a long time when you're a little bitch who gets caught doing something wrong.

Did you threaten me? Do you really think a gal with sweet cheeks like you ought to step out of line and try to do-si-do with a man like me?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Do you really think a gal with sweet cheeks like you ought to step out of line and try to do-si-do with a man like me?

I'll be your daisy.

How about you take on someone your own size, Normie? Aren't you about done fucking with this poor idiot? You know, on the other thread, you've got some 'splainin' to do, Ricky. What's up with you saying you're a goddamned "Libertarian" now and what's up with your bullshit about being a defender of the Arab people? Aren't you Mr. NeoCon your damned self? What's up with that?

[no, that wasn't a shot at Bob--already did that on this thread. What it was is an attempt to get Normie to shut the hell up. Will it work? I dunno. But have you ever seen anything as fucked up as this???]

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 12, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

Hmmm.

No, I don't believe I will allow you to "be my daisy." You can fuck off as well. From what I hear, you're rather humorless these days and you cannot debate worth a damn.

But maybe that was rmck1's sock puppet that told me all of that.

No. Stay out of this. You don't have the requisite skills necessary to handle a hysterical little weenie who is issuing threats.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

>> Actions have consquences.

> Oh? You're threatening me now? Gee, I've
> never been threatened by a girl before.

*laughing* Norman ... are you really *that* insecure and defensive
that you'd read a "threat" into that line? It's just the objective
truth. For a month before the election you painted yourself out to
be both a white-collar criminal and a violent sociopath. Not in
one post as, you know, some sort of sick joke, heh heh heh. But
in multiple posts, with a narrative line, each one adding greater
detail and greater moral monstrosity. That's the "Norman" you
created. And since you created it over weeks of posting, it's going
to take more than a couple of blithe dismissals to live it down.

>> And the reason you're attacking me, Norman, is because your own
>> credibility has been shredded. That's what's up with the Mr.
>> Reasonable tone. YOU BRAGGED ABOUT COMMITTING ELECTION FRAUD.

> No; I told a sweet little story about it and you believed it.

Oh Norman, "sweet little story?" That is just *rich*. The
posts are in archive. I could bury you with the Grand Guignol
Norman Rogers, White Collar Criminal and Violent Sociopathic
Menace if, you know, I actually cared all that much :)

Every time you say "sock puppet," I'm going to say
"kicks cripples down concrete stairs." Deal? :)

> My credibility is fine.

As what? A Republican troll on a lefty blog? Who brags about
paying poor people not to vote and vandalizing voter busses?

> Yours? One look at this thread indicates your credibility is
> gone. Stop hyperventilating, shithead, and just leave now.
> You're not doing yourself any good by freaking out like this.
> Did you really threaten me? Don't you think you should threaten
> another man while wearing pants and not that skirt of yours?

Wow. Look at all that unhinged anger. I
really make you *that* insecure, don't I.

>> There are some people who have always been annoyed at me
>> because they think I post too much and because I take an
>> excessive enjoyment from jousting with trolls like yourself,
>> and there are others who've always liked my posts.

> How many of the people who like your posts are
> going to continue to like them now that you've
> admitted you used a sock puppet on this thread?

Two points:

1) My, but you are naive. You've been here awhile, you say,
Norman? Ever look around? Regulars occasionally use alternate
handles as a matter of course. Sometimes, somebody wants to
make a snark without being dragged into it. Trolls get spoofed
-- with or without an email confirmation of who they really are.

This isn't, properly-speaking, sock puppeting. True sock puppets
are created to highfive each other. While there's some ambiguity
with The Literary Critic -- that persona didn't reference me, merely
laid out the fundamentals of why your posts are spoof-worthy.

You could argue that case either way. Had aaron aardvark been an
identity of mine, then that would indeed be classic sock puppetry.
But he's not. In fact, aardvark's on the immigration thread
now. Why don't you go jump in there and attack him for being me?
Why don't you go tell him that I stole his handle the other night?

ROTFL !

2) I'm not an empty egomanic, Norman. While it's nice to have the
approval of others, I don't live for it. Nor am I so worried about
my "image" here that I think a GOP goon like you could damage it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Regulars occasionally use alternate handles as a matter of course. Sometimes, somebody wants to make a snark without being dragged into it. Trolls get spoofed
-- with or without an email confirmation of who they really are.
This isn't, properly-speaking, sock puppeting. True sock puppets are created to highfive each other.

So the "regulars" all use fake handles? Wow, talk about digging yourself deeper. Hear that, Pale Rider and all the rest? rmck1 just called you out on your dishonesty.

While there's some ambiguity with The Literary Critic -- that persona didn't reference me, merely laid out the fundamentals of why your posts are spoof-worthy.

No, you used a dishonest sock puppet like the little bitch that you are.

Seek help. You're pathetic.

And you wonder why you're so popular! I wonder what the "regulars" will think of your charges. You must not have a very high opinion of the "regulars."

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm not an empty egomanic, Norman. While it's nice to have the
approval of others, I don't live for it."

Quite possibly the funniest thing ever posted at Washington Monthly.

Posted by: on November 12, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

See that, Norman?

The person who just posted using HTML code in his name field to make a blank spot is an example of precisely what I referred to.

Since it was a snark at me, you can hardly accuse me of doing it.

I neither condemn nor condone this practice. It merely happens. If it were up to me, I'd like Kevin to update MoveableType for registration, so we could at least reserve our handles from being spoofed. Spoofing's fun sometimes, but losing it would be worth the tradeoff.

If WM updated the software (a money issue), Kevin could also ban posters as well. He's not big on that practice, but he can think of one or two he'd like to, if he could. And I'm not speaking for him; he posted about this about six months ago.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

blank:

That's correct. I hardly lose sleep knowing that there are people like you who think otherwise, but who lack the courage of their convictions to state it openly.

Whatever, dude(tte).

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter rmck1:

Wah. Wah. Suck on booby. Get milk. Pee pee. Poo poo.

Repeat as necessary.

Over 280 comments--wow! How many of your liberal pals are going to log in on Monday morning and take a trip through this rather illuminating thread?

How are you going to live down your attack on the "regulars" who post here?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Isn't the bottom of that barrel scraped out *yet*?

I think you might need to use your tongue at this point. In fact, put the whole barrel over your head. Maybe it will get stuck.

Norman, for weeks the Gleeful Kicker of Cripples Down Three Flights of Concrete Stairs, chooses to call this a "sweet little story" while attempting to scourge me for ... hehe, get this ... *dishonesty*.

You can't make this stuff up, kiddies.

*shaking head, snickering*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

*shaking head, snickering*

This would be more aptly described as crying uncontrollably in the fetal position at the thought of being exposed as a fraud with no credibility.

Somehow, I think you've been here before.

Oh, and then there's this: I thought, to you, I was just a parody. Isn't it funny that a parody has reduced you to hysterical convulsions?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

No, this Norman here is the Norman of the last few weeks, definitely. As I noted upthread, there are a couple Normans who are not you, one a bring back Nixon post and the other a snark at me in your style -- but this Norman here is the Real McCoy.

The glass ego is unmistakable :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Please tell us again how jail time for insider trading is "a sweet little story."

Seeing as how you're such an expert on fraud and credibility and all :)

Then when you're done, maybe you can tell us s'more about paying poor black folk not to vote.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

So I'm not the parody, then?

Sure about that, Bob?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Well as I've always maintained, Norman, you've always been a good self-parody -- but you can't be dead-certain of anything in cyberspace, only by degrees.

I'm fairly certain that I'm talking to the same Norman who came on here three weeks ago, yes. A parody Norman would have to have a rather staggering level of chutzpah to try to attack me so vigorously for spoofing a spoofer :)

You have all the Norman characteristics: A rigidly-expressed exteral morality which is entirely fluid for yourself (it just doesn't register what a damned liar you are if you made up all those stories about yourself, or how they count as spoofing in their own right), a belief that might makes right (as you're arguing about Israel in the other thread), a fixation on appearances which you believe I share as well (I don't), and which makes up the bulk of the ways you're trying to attack me.

Yes -- I'd say it's certain that the Norman I'm talking to right now is a flaming narcissist.

So no, you're not a "parody Norman" of the Norman who's usually been on of late.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hehe, you know, Bob-Pale Rider has been doing this to you for weeks and you'r still too fucking stupid to see it, aren't ya?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Why would Pale Rider be making perfectly sincere arguments on behalf of Israel in the other thread in the name of Norman?

Nope. Doesn't parse. Pale Rider would have to demonstrate some versitility writing under his own handle for me to believe it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Besides which, the "Norman" directly above has a null email :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider has been doing this to you for weeks and you'r still too fucking stupid to see it, aren't ya?

Oh, please. Pick someone good, will you?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I thought that was pretty lame for Pale, truthfully.

I mean, c'mon -- a null email after weeks of Norman@hotmail.com? With the goddamn capitalized "N"?

Sheesh, Pale, even *I* fell off the turnip truck longer ago than *that* :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Nope. Doesn't parse. Pale Rider would have to demonstrate some versitility writing under his own handle for me to believe it.

I agree completely; he would have to be a bit more accomplished and capable than he has displayed so far. He would certainly have to demonstrate a greater understanding of topics outside of military affairs and domestic politics.

Oh, and he would have to be less of a humorless, whiny cunt.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and he would have to be less of a humorless, whiny cunt.

Normie, I thought we were pals. And then you go and throw that at me? I know you better than anyone around-you're the straw that stirs the most evil drink imagineable and you oughta be locked up.

Does the parody ever stop?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

What's amusing is watching the emergence of the Reasonable, Tempered Norman on the thread where we're talking about israel.

No engagement with what other people are saying at all. Critics of Israel are anti-semitic, Palestine has its own authority, why don't they build their own prosperous state (while they're eating cake), yada yada yada.

I will give the guy credit for trying, though. It is marginally better than GOP talking point invective prior to the election.

Heh, but did you *see* Norman the day after election? What a meltdown *that* was, watching him run screaming from the GOP -- "No, I've always been a Libertarian."

You just can't make this stuff up.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Prescription for Norm's condition:

Equal parts Preparation H and Summer's Eve. Repeat ad infinitum.

Posted by: dryveby on November 13, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

That's exactly what happened to the Republican Party, I believe. Faced with the burdens presented to them, they tired and they let the big rig drive straight into the pylons supporting the overpass and they burst into flames. Not even a fist full of trucker speed could have kept them going.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 10, 2006 at 11:49 PM

LOL!!! A+++++!!!! Would read again!!!

Posted by: ebay dustbin on November 13, 2006 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK

General Franks, I'm begging you. How much more evidence do you need before the title is conferred?

Posted by: Doug Feith on November 13, 2006 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK

I was brought here by a link from TPM and I can honestly and quite earnestly say that this fellow rmck1 is about the stupidest person I have ever seen in my life. A sockpuppet? What a dishonest person does is their business, but if I got caught using a sockpuppet I would probably hide or beg forgiveness. Parody is one thing, but no way "Norman Rogers" can be a real person. No way! What kind of idiot would fall for this?

Posted by: Wow on November 13, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

O.K., Bob. If your tormenter is not Pale Rider, what if Norman Rogers is really Charlie? Remember your worst Internet nightmare? Everyone you've been talking to here are / is the same person.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

Give it up, Charlie.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

I dunno, Bob.

He might have something there...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Wow:

Well, since we don't know who *you* are (null email, one-off handle), your opinion and a $1.70 will get you a latte at Starbucks. How do we know you're not just another troll? We don't. You'd do *something* to estabilish your credibility.

Norman has a consistent persona. Being a egomanical braggart who makes up implausible things about himself only goes to support this, since that's the Norman we've known and loved for the past three weeks. Had you read in context, you would have noted that.

As for sockpuppeting -- you're absolutely correct. You'd have to be a moron to use a sockpuppet to highfive yourself.

Perhaps you missed the part where aaron aardvark (the guy who's supposed to be my sock puppet) was on another thread last night, and I rather imploringly asked Norman to go confront him about it.

Now stop lying about *your*self, or skedaddle back under your bridge.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Oh please. You think I haven't gone a few rounds with Charley / Thomas1 / Cheney / Charlie?

Much different style -- and in ways much more obnoxious than Norman, whose pathological ego gives him certain weak points in exchanges like this.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Bob.

You're the expert. You would know.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

No one can put one over on you, Bob!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Difference between Charlie and Norman: Norman is aggressive and dominating. In every post, he has to make himself feel like he won the encounter. This is the key Norman tell. Marcissists fear psychic annihilation, and so are compelled to keep themselves puffed up at all times.

Charlie is *passive*-aggressive. He prefers indirection, inane rhetorical questions, deception. Charlie's weak point is that, as some flavor of Christian extremist, he's incredibly literal-minded. That's the Charilie tell.

When he was on a spoof rampage a few weeks ago, I said to him sardonically that my worst nightmare would be that everyone here was actually him.

Charlie took that literally, and has been periodically bringing it up ever since.

Sheesh, this stuff just isn't *that* hard.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Sheesh, this stuff just isn't *that* hard.

I totally agree with you, Bob. You've nailed it.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

*roling eyes*

Give it up, Charlie.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

and in ways much more obnoxious than Norman, whose pathological ego gives him certain weak points in exchanges like this.

How precious! Start the movie, boys--the projectionist has arrived.

Son, it ain't bragging if it's true. The difference between my admittedly robust ego and your inexplicably bloated version of same is that I have accomplished everything I set out to do in this life, amassing wealth, resources, contacts, shoes, feminine companionship and prime tee times beyond my dearest hopes. At the end of this day, sir, your accomplishments will total a couple of hundred repetitively whiny posts and a set of disgustingly stiff sheets.

And you wonder why I gulp antacids after I eat you for breakfast.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I think that proves my point. Bob is so easy to play for the fool -- everyone else read that was your worst nightmare too -- a dishonest little shit like you isn't worth my time. Your logic is in the crapper. For instance, I can't very well be "some flavor of Christian extremist" if I am, as you claim, LYING about not being a follower of Christ. I mean, come on -- this is Logic 101 -- what an idiot you are! Now, fuck off and DIE in the gutter, Bob.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, now.

Let's take it easy on poor Bob, here. He's only trying to be a good liberal and a good friend to everybody.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK
... disgustingly stiff sheets

That IS disgusting. Now, Bob, you are going to have to make a choice. It's no coicidence that Norman Rogers shows up AT THE SAME TIME as Pale Rider and I. One of us has to be "Norman". You pick. Either way, thanks again for being such self-contradicting bloviating jackass.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

LOL - which of his sock puppets do you think is the BEST friend to everybody?! ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

You can if you're a Dominionist and have the antinomian belief that the ends justify the means. In all your various personas, Charlie, you've been caught out in the most egregious lies. Lying is your stock in trade. Now we're supposed to believe that you're "Jeffrey" -- a guy who shows up after election right after you last persona Chuck vanishes -- and you suddenly recall things from flamewars on dead threads from a month ago? What -- you were lurking the whole time like Thomas1 the "lifelong Democrat" claimed to be, too?

Just because you assert something that contradicts something you asserted elswhere doesn't contradict logic. It does, however, make you a liar. The Jeffrey persona has been carrying water for all the extremist "Christian" positions we saw your other ones. Nobody argues the extremist abortion position (it is wrong in all cases, including rape and incest) save you, Charlie.

Like I said my friend, give it up.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Self-contradicting, Bloviating Jackass-Musings #6,348 and #6,350:

Truthfully, I doubt that Pale Rider will be up to contributing to this thread either. He's way too angry, and I sense that the rage is real.

Posted by: rmck1 on November 10, 2006 at 9:48 PM

Charlie is *passive*-aggressive. He prefers indirection, inane rhetorical questions, deception.

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:19 PM

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

The three of you have vastly different rhetorical styles, with very little leakage between them.

Sorry, it's a cute trick, but I'm not really a paranoid person.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Keep repeating that softly to yourself:

"I'm not really a paranoid person.
I'm not really a paranoid person.
I'm not really a paranoid person."

Oh, yeah, maybe "Chuck" vanished because he finally got Battlefield 2142 and that was more fun than arguing with a paranoid idiot like you?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

LOL - the "Jeffery" at 1:44 is, obviously, fake.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

And you also have different agendas and different strategies. Pale's pissed because he claims I dissed him -- and Pale's somebody who can't let an insult stand. Jeffrey/Thomas likes nothing better than to try to play head games with sock puppets and spoofs. And Norman just like to thwap anyone he considers a threat to his dominance of a discussion.

There's no way you'd have a Pale nearly frothing at the mouth over what he perceived as a lefty Israel critic's anti-semitism while simultaneously making the neocon arguments the "Rockefeller Republican" Norman was making in that thread -- even if they did momentarily seem to agree on one point.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

Good analysis! You're way too sharp for us. ; ) What if you're wrong though?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

It's only cyberspace, Charlie.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

True, but aren't you the "expert" of cyberspace? Why haven't you yet guessed which one of us is Norman Rogers? Is it because you really are paranoid about your worst Internet nightmare: we could all be the same person?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

There you go with the inane rhetorical questions :)

You know, I'd really prefer jousting with Norman than you. At least the guy's occasionally witty. Why don't you fire him before I start to get bored of this thread?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

The fake Jefferys around here are multiplying : ) One thing though - you never explained why you think I'm NOT a Jew. That Dominionist answer is just a little forced don't you think?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

As you wish, Bob. Cue: Norman Rogers ...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

No, Charlie, I don't think much, truthfully, abont your attempt to get me to engage in some sophistical game. I don't know of any Jews, truthfully -- even Orthodox -- who are anti-abortion extremists.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

I am sorry that you think I'm not witty. At least I did what I came to do - no one is talking about the election "myths" ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Pale:

You seem to be a little slow on that cue, there, slugger.

Let me say that if it turns out you actually *are* Norman, my respect for your abilities would peg the meter. What a pain in the ass it would be to use an entirely different formatting scheme, and to meticulously proofread all your posts for spelling and grammar errors -- things which aren't exactly a hallmark of the normal Pale Rider rhetorical style.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Cue: Norman Rogers ...

Isn't that sweet? The debauched Marxist with diarrhea of the mouth now thinks I work for him. Never forget, Pale Rider, that there is a social and intellectual caste system in this country. I am, naturally enough, a Brahmin.

You cannot hope to touch the hem of my garment. Fortunately for you, rmck1 is a pariah whose job is swallowing gratefully any verbal poop you care to shovel his way. Have at it. I have a late lunch date with an accountant who is reputed to be better at offshore rigging than Amoco or Exxon, whose third-quarter returns I shall, incidentally, be presenting for said professional's massaging. Do your worst, as feeble and frantic as that may be.

And you wonder why I pump abuse at you from the full-service lane!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Wait! I thought it was MY TURN writing the next Norman Rogers post?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that was Pale Rider, Bob. I do agree with the description of your "job" though ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Well, I guess this means you're no longer wearing that ankle bracelet. How much did you bribe the judge?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

You have to move FASTER faster than that, Jeffery!!!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Duh duh duh...me stoopid.

Me stooopid.

Uh huh huh he huh huuuh...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Take the Norman Rogers Test:

Write a post in that rhetorical style under your own handle -- and I'll consider myself thoroughly humiliated.

My guess is there is no incentive extant that could make that happen ... but hey, you know, I could always be wrong :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

As I have explained, the ankle bracelet was only a temporary setback. You seem pretty obsessed with it though - why IS that?!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Write a post in that rhetorical style under your own handle -- and I'll consider myself thoroughly humiliated.

How about you just shove a potato in your ass and shut the hell up?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oh well, maybe next time. It looks like Pale Rider is up next. Ride 'em cowboy!

I really have to get to that lunch and have no more time to "play head games with sock puppets and spoofs". Maybe I will post another "Norman Rogers" when I have a few extra hours to devote to the subject. Given Norman's most recent switch from Libertarian to Brahmin -- I'm sure it will take meticulous planning and execution -- I did like that almost-too-casual "caste system" reference thrown in though.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

An incentive extant that could make that happen would terminate along rhetorical lines made cognizant of the fact that absurdity is conflated with dissonance and emerges unscathed from the gaseous swamp of a fevered imagination... but hey, you know, I could always be metastizing into projectionist territory heretofore unseen to the naked eye :(

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

The above Norman Rogers is Charlie, obviously. Norman addresses me as rmck1, uses a conjoined dash style and doesn't CAPITALIZE words for emphasis. Nor does he ask inane rhetorical questions. Only one of you does that consistently :)

Pale:

Well, you got the formatting. Mazel tov.

But you're a tech guy, after all. You'd need at least a paragraph to clinch it. The one-line AOL chatroom insult is vintage Pale :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

But you're a tech guy, after all. You'd need at least a paragraph to clinch it. The one-line AOL chatroom insult is vintage Pale :)

I'm so glad I was able to pull that off, fucko.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I have a good solid guess who the Jeffrey is at 2:51 -- and the parody spoof of me -- but I won't share it in case I'm wrong.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

The above Norman Rogers is Charlie, obviously. Norman addresses me as rmck1, uses a conjoined dash style and doesn't CAPITALIZE words for emphasis. Nor does he ask inane rhetorical questions. Only one of you does that consistently :)

You got me again, Bob! I'll be ready to give up soon! ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

"The above Norman Rogers is Charlie, obviously"??

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

LOL - good idea, Bob - you've never been wrong SO far - so why blow your record?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Desert loving in your eyes all the way
If I listen to your lies would you say
Im a man without conviction
Im a man who doesnt know
How to sell a contradiction
You come and go
You come and go

Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
You come and go
You come and go
Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dream
Red, gold and green
Red, gold and green

Didnt hear your wicked words every day
And you used to be so sweet I heard you say
That my love was an addiction
When we cling our love is strong
When you go youre gone forever
You string along
You string along

Every day is like a survival
Youre my lover not my rival
Every day is like a survival
Youre my lover not my rival

Im a man without conviction
Im a man who doesnt know
How to sell a contradication
You come and go
You come and go

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

When you're having these conversations with yourself days into a dead thread, does it ever occur to you that you might, yourself, be writing the posts from your various antagonists?

Read the above paragraph again. Are you certain you didn't type it?

Is it a coincidence that you are the only person this happens to? Again and again. Day after week after month--all your life, really.

Isn't it time, Bob? Isn't it time to admit some things to yourself? Take stock. Other will help you. Even those who mock and snicker now will be ready to show compassion when you ask for it. As soon as you ask, you will deserve it.

Redeem yourself, Bob.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

For the love of God, General, will you transfer the title already?

!

Posted by: Doug Feith on November 13, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda like the realization by the Ed Norton / Brad Pitt character(s) in Fight Club, Norman?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

First rule about Fight Club: NEVER talk about Fight Club.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Opps! I forgot.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK
First rule about Fight Club: NEVER talk about Fight Club.
Yes, but that rule leads to destruction. Perhaps Bob will break it to save himself.

Posted by: Brad Pitt on November 13, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Or, he could simply shoot himself and save us all the trouble?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Bob who?

I think that sumbitch's head exploded.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Or, he could simply shoot himself and save us all the trouble?

Not funny, lads. I draw the line at this sort of thing.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

You never saw / read Fight Club? The narrator ends up shooting himself in the head to "kill" his multiple personality -- it's a riot!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Aw, come one, Norman Rogers -- don't go soft on us now -- you were the one who floated the damn theory in the first place:

When you're having these conversations with yourself days into a dead thread, does it ever occur to you that you might, yourself, be writing the posts from your various antagonists?

Read the above paragraph again. Are you certain you didn't type it?

Is it a coincidence that you are the only person this happens to? Again and again. Day after week after month--all your life, really.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ayuda

Ayuda


Senor Rogers ha comenzado a referirse en la tercera persona!!!

Ay yi yi

rmck1 bitch socks off tres gatos

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 13, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

a este hombre mentalmente!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 13, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

You never saw / read Fight Club? The narrator ends up shooting himself in the head to "kill" his multiple personality -- it's a riot!

Of course I never saw it, fool. Peopled by characters of low repute, filled with violence that doesn't step up my bank balance--that is to say, unnecessary violence--what is there about this film to attract a man of my taste and refinement?

And you wonder why people like me don't go to the cinema and sit down near people like you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Cayate, Minerva y culpa me!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

culpa = chupa (damn ENGLISH spellchecker!)

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Estoy buscando a hombre que har a mujer honesta fuera de m!

ay yi yi

las perras rmck1 tienen gusto de una muchacha de la escuela

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 13, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

All right, Minerva. We've had our little hand-waving melodrama for the afternoon. Now kindly return to ironing my boxer shorts and then take these WIC coupons--no, it doesn't matter where I got them--to the store and pick up a few groceries for me. I'll take you to the Olive Garden on Thursday night if you're a good girl. There you are.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Lo siento. Ha llamado al polica?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

The fake, philosophical Norman Rogers (who I suspect wrote the two other fake Normans I noted above):

No, I wasn't thinking of Fight Club (although it works). More like Borges or John Barth. Or Paul Auster, too, especially City of Glass. The classic postmodern dilemma, eh. The solipsism question that Bishop Berekley found God at the bottom of, but now we find emptiness.

(Gods, but Pale has got to be thinking what a pretentious twit I must be, right? :) Well, sux to be him, then. I like that sort of stuff.)

What am I doing at the end of dead threads, fighting interminable flamewars? It's a reasonable question. It's fair to call it pointless, a waste of life energy and corrosive to one's standing in a place like this. What exactly do I think I can accomplish?

I dunno. I enjoy it. Some people like video games. It's actually one of my favorite kinds of posting, because it's all about intuiting the truth behind texts. What are the stakes? Well, pride of course. But also objective truth and moral values. For instance, so many of my antagonists seem bent on utterly destroying me, and I think it's worthwhile to expose the malice behind that. Then there are objective issues like sock puppeting. I either did that or I didn't. And if I didn't puppet aaron aardvark, then somebody should stand up for the poor guy who's not even involved in the fight and produce a convincing argument to that effect. And I think I've made a reasonable go at that, trolls aside.

I also like it because the goals are not quantifiable. And since most people have a distaste for this sort of stuff, as long as I'm not dragging down active threads with it, it really doesn't hurt my rep as a garden-variety liberal regular here who gets his fair share of props. That some are going to think I'm a dweeb is part of the price for playing, and I can live with that. I'd like to dispel the notion that somehow I aspire to be universally loved here.

It reminds me both of a political campaign and a D&D-inspired war game. You start out with a certain amount of hit points, and as the game/campaign progresses and you take fire, they go down. So you work to restore them by responding effectively to attacks. That you'll never get back up to full strength (even the best candidates see their negatives go up after being attacked) comes with the turf. Your goal is not to survive -- but to make a reasonble argument. If you try to define success strictly in your own terms, you're more likely to lose as more lurkers chime in to snark at you. Of course, when your opponents are immune to the support of the group like Norman and Charlie, then you really *are* fighting dragons. But if people I respected here told me to quit it, either in email or publicly (and my email works), then I would. But it'd take more than a troll chorus.

And I play until I or my opponents get bored with the game. And I try to honor my opponents by not attempting to destroy them in return, but rather to methodically point out the weak points in their arguments and motivations.

And at the end of the day I will be judged by my peers. So far I haven't suffered any lasting damage from indulging in this.

So I hope I've answered your question honestly and reasonably.

Bob

Posted by: lynx on November 13, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

That was me. Wrong macro.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

That Minerva is one crazy bitch, ain't she?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Wrong macro" or "aborted sockpuppet"? Look, if your goal is not to survive, please, just shoot yourself in the head!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

She's my little Latina spitfire, Pale Imitation of a Man. If I see you near her, I shall shoot first and dispense with the questions entirely.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

Once again, with feeling ...

Give it up, Charley.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

And at the end of the day I will be judged by my peers. So far I haven't suffered any lasting damage from indulging in this.

Ohmigod! You gotta be fucking kidding me!!! Your peers think you are the biggest fucking asshole and the stupidest fucking guy on the whole fucking planet you fucking fuck!!!

You are a fucking buffoon you fucking idiot!!!

It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider! It was Pale Rider It was Pale Rider!

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

Like I said, Pale, you'd have to prove it by writing a believable Norman post under your own handle.

If you do, I'll eat my words and go quietly.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK
If you do, I'll eat my words and go quietly.

Were we so lucky; Norman would simply post to you some invective under Pale Rider's handle! We know you won't go away quietly into the night. Which is why I suggested the more direct, violent method. Whenever you hear the voices in your head, just keep repeating, softly to yourself, Bob:

"I'm not really a paranoid person.
I'm not really a paranoid person.
I'm not really a paranoid person."

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

And I say that with a fair degree of confidence because I believe that Norman would rather dine on Little Friskies than post anything himself under your handle.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

Normn's style is not easily coppable. There appears to be only one other person here who can manage a reasonable facimile -- and that person ain't Pale Rider.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

So, Bob, you PROMISE to go quietly into that good night? Neither you, nor any of your multiple sock puppets, will ever post on Washington Monthly again?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

Truthfully, I don't think it was you. You say so now, but you simply haven't presented the adjectival repertoire that the person posting as Norman has demonstrated. Hey, I can appreciate that you're trying to *save face*, bro, but anyone reading this thread is going to know this was just you trying to score another point off me.

Why you do that, I don't know. I've always tried to debate honestly and straightforwardedly with you, but you've resisted my attempts to extend the old olive branch and instead indulged in sophomoric ad hom attacks against me and my governor. I'm quite certain all the regulars here, whose good opinions I care about but don't really *need*, would agree that insulting someone's chief state official is really beyond the pale, if my good friends here will pardon the pun.

And so I have to conclude that you're lying, dude. You're fooling no one with this fresh claim to be Norman Rogers. I don't know who it is yet -- and I admit I'm curious in a detached sort of way -- but it isn't you.

Pale, I have nothing against you. We're on the same side politically save for your cheap shots at Frank Lautenberg. For some reason, others here seem to like you and I have no desire to go against the tide of the regulars' opinion. I'm willing to forget this little episode ever happened if you'll do the same.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

Never forget.

Bob:

What is "coppable" and "facimile"?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Well, yeah, you thought "truthfully" that Pale Rider would not be up to contributing to this thread either. So much for your "intuiting the truth" -- LOL!!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

There's nothing wrong with attacking the NJ governor or calling him corrupt if you had an argument or evidence to that effect.

Your spoof falls flat for any number of reasons -- though it may work as a satire of the things you don't particularly like about my rhetorical style. Satire is a matter of personal taste.

Helpful hint: Trolls don't speak for this blog.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, Bob - that spoof was pretty good actually - I'm not surprised that you didn't like it though ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

"Facimilie" is a typo for facsimilie.

"Coppable" means capable of being copped (acquired).

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

On top of everything, you are calling Pale Rider a TROLL now?! Wait til shortstop hears about that one!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's spelled "facsimile" Bob - better luck next time!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffery:

I don't think Pale Rider wrote that. I have a suspicion who did, and it would be the same one who wrote the three fake Normans I pointed out upthread.

Anyone who won't make an argument straight out, under their own handle, is only stirring the pot like a troll, whoever they are in fact.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

You're right. It was a typo of a correction of a typo. Don't you hate when that happens?

Score one for you :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

More important than typos and trolls, Bob, you PROMISE here and now (before all these voices in your head) to go quietly into that good night if Pale Rider posts another "Norman", right?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you think there were only three "fake" Normans, Bob? You mean three that YOU spotted, right?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

STFU, Chuckles. How many bets have you welched on, how many times have you proimsed to leave but didn't.

The post would have to pass muster. If it does, we can take it from there. I may just use it as a cue to leave this thread like I should've done hours ago anyway.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, so it's only "leave this (dead) thread" now, huh? What good would that be? BTW: I've never promised to leave (unlike you).

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, Bob - well, you promised to leave once before, didn't you? I doubt that anyone here is trusting you to keep your word now ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

The dishonest little shit promised to leave once before -- why doesn't that surprise me?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, I have nothing against you. We're on the same side politically save for your cheap shots at Frank Lautenberg. For some reason, others here seem to like you and I have no desire to go against the tide of the regulars' opinion. I'm willing to forget this little episode ever happened if you'll do the same.

Good God. I'm calling the undertaker to pick up the last lifeless shred of dignity of the Dumbocrat Party. Yes, it's pathetic that a crude ass like Pale Rider tried to take credit for my well-buffed and polished political stylings. But your begging him to take you back to his breast, rmck1, is a shameful display of naked need.

Stand up for yourself, you spineless twit, and stop worrying about what these loser liberals think of you! You don't have much else to offer, to be sure, but does rank capitulation after a sound thrashing have to be your claim to fame?

And you wonder why I shove you aside with my boot as you lie prostrate on the berm.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 13, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Chuckles, if you're going to try to "cop" Norman, at least try to evoke some of his salient characteristics. "Dishonest little shit" just isn't enough. Oh, and basic rhetorical quirks, too.

I've never promised to leave, even to Pale Rider upthread.

Jesus, it's like being menaced by a chiuahuah.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

That post was a spoof. Check the email. Rather disappointed that you didn't catch it, old man.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus, it's like being menaced by a chiuahuah.

Or eight or nine chihuahuas, huh Bob?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

Death by a thousand chihuahuas!

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

That's a pretty goddamn funny image, truthfully. Like walking into a kennel full of chihuahuas with all the cages open, with your legs slathered in liver pate :)

Another reason why Pale could never be Norman and vice-versa.

A week ago, I caught out Norman misspelling "facist." He grandly tried to save face by crossposting a hastily translated Italian newspaper article that he googled. To his credit, ol' Norm did back down and beg forgiveness.

With Pale's extensive military readings, misspelling fascist is just something he'd never, ever do.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

S! Los muchos perros matan al hombre muy estpido!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 13, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

I like Pale Rider's imagery better. For what it is worth, I think Pale Rider = Norman Rogers too.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Another reason why Pale could never be Norman and vice-versa.

Aye yi yi!

El hombre es as que estpido l no puede sacar sus calcetines sin ayuda!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 13, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Look, if Pale were masquerading as Norman, it would be easy enough to prove.

I suggested the Norman Test: Write a Norman post under his handle.

He balked.

Case closed.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Le damos la respuesta.

l no hace caso de la respuesta.

Un qu tonto!

Posted by: Nor MINERVA on November 13, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

You've been PUNK'd, Bob!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, Bob - and people here say I'M stupid!!!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

And Bob, you never answered my question - how do you know there were only THREE "fake" Normans? I counted a lot more ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of, you know, one of Charlie's worst nightmares :)

How you danced on Jason's grave after he left, Chuckles. How you taunted me to to bring the whole thing up. You wouldn't STFU about it for a week.

Notice I ignored every single attempt you made to bait me about it. I said not one word about that incident on the blog after it was over.

I try to have respect for my opponents.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, Bob - that's why you keep making gratuitous snotty remarks about Pale Rider then?! "Respect"?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Just wait til you get all the emails from this thread, Bob.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

There may be as many as one of them from that person who feels so sorry for you ; )

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Chuckles -- give it up already.

Had I known Pale was Jason when he came back, I would have studiously avoided conversing with him, even to simply agree. But I didn't. I thought Pale was made of stronger stuff and could take the odd snark over something he said previously.

Turns out I was wrong.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Pale was made of stronger stuff and could take the odd snark over something he said previously.

LOL, Bob - is that how you describe the spanking you got here in front of everybody?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Fighting Bob ever here, so we don't have to fight Bob on the other threads.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus Charlie, will you just shut the fuck up already?

You and your "ding dong the witch is dead" dance, good grief.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

But Bob, you said about 100 times that you were ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CONFIDENT that it wasn't Pale Rider and that Norman ABSOLUTELY was one person. Do you want to apologize now?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

Nobody fights with me on the other threads. And "everybody" doesn't read the dead threads. Decidely an acquired taste.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

They will read it if I link to your post above on every new thread ...

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie -- no they won't. You're probably the single most despised troll on Political Animal -- somebody who'd Kevin would probably ban if he could, and nobody would give a shit about some irrelevant fracas on another thread.

Now since you live to twist and misread everything let me spell it out for the last time. Jesus this is getting tedious ...

I am 100% confident of *nothing* in cyberspace. But I'd bet the farm that Pale/Jason isn't doing Norman. He had a golden opportunity to prove me flatly, unequivocally wrong in a humiliating way that might've gotten me to split from the thread in total defeat -- and he didn't.

Now I've identified about five posts on this thread which I'm *fairly* confident but not positive are not Norman's. Could there be more that I missed? Sure.

And whether the Norman character is the original Norman Rogers who estabilished himself before last year I have no idea. But it strikes me as quite implausible that Norman would be making serious neocon arguments about Israeli supremacy and defending Republicans with crossposts before the election. If you're going to write parodies of an an elitist conservative, you just don't need to go that far.

Could I be wrong? Of course.

Have I been proven wrong? Not yet.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

If you build it, they will come.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

You, sir, are an asshole.

Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Bob - I'd say you've been humiliated whether or not Pale Rider writes that post - as for your being "proven" wrong - just because you won't accept you got PUNK'd doesn't mean you didn't!!!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Get lost, Prog Bob!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on November 13, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, Bob - "about five posts on this thread"? And people here say I don't get it!!!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

STFU Bob.

Posted by: ckelly on November 13, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

I will ignore you forever, Bob.

Posted by: Global Citzen on November 13, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, Bob.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Woo hoo, Pale Rider!! That was magnificent. Ride 'em cowboy!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

STFU, Bob!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well I've seen vindictivenes before, but this is just insane.

This is what liberals descend to after the election?

Talk about the politics of personal destruction. Good grief -- if I left, I'd vindicate this sort of thing, wouldn't I?

What, exactly, do you think you're defending? Really think about that for a minute ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Bob. Though I don't disavow agreement with its contents, I didn't write the post under my name at 6:35.

Nor did any of these other people you're flailing madly at. This should be, you know, extremely obvious.

Jesus, what is wrong with you?

Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Someone is spoofing shortstop now too?! I didn't write those. In fact, those could NOT be mine, as Kevin's comment software automatically bans any IP address that posts that many times in a row. Try it yourself, Bob, if you don't believe me. Please.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

As I said, it was only a surmise. That's why I didn't reveal that guess until you showed up.

What, exactly, am I supposed to get here? That I was wrong about who was writing Norman? Well, color me humbled about that. Jason did a rather amazingly good job of covering his rhetorical tracks.

But to what end? Revenge in a flamewar?

Look -- this is really, really toxic. And based on nothing substantive. So I like to have these sorts of arguments on dead threads -- why is this such an issue?

And where's your sense of moral integrity? You guys just pulled off the mother of all cyberspace deceptions while claiming that I sock puppeted aaron aardvark, which I didn't do.

Step back from this abyss a minute and think about what you all are doing, and why.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

I thought you were leaving, Bob?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Charley, STFU. I *don't* hold a grudge. Jason and I had a rather poisonous argument, after which he left. Had he returned as Jason, I would've studiously avoided him -- just out of respect for what happened. Jason was, to say the least, not very reasonable in that exchange.

I had no fucking clue he was Pale Rider.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, stepping back from the abyss is exactly what I'd strongly suggest that you do.

I just informed you that I didn't write that post and that it seems extremely obvious that Apollo, Paul, Global and the others didn't write the ones under their names, either. Your reaction is to continue to go after me as though you still think all these posts are real.

You are out of control right now. Back off and calm down, please. You'll feel better later.

And Charlie, shut the fuck up.

Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

You said you would leave if Pale Rider were spoofing Norman Rogers. Do I need to post your own words for you?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Here they are:

"Pale, you'd have to prove it by writing a believable Norman post under your own handle.

If you do, I'll eat my words and go quietly.

Bob"

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Now that you've eaten your words ("color me humbled about that. Jason did a rather amazingly good job of covering his rhetorical tracks"), please just go quietly!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

Thanks. It never even occured to me to check their emails. Global's is obviously fake; 3rdPaul's is real, so is Apollo 13's. I'll duly consider the chance that those are spoofs.

You're the only one I thought might have written a couple of the Normans -- and that's only because I consider you one of the better writers here. I'd love to know who gave me the literary advice upthread, though.

If those posts *are* all spoofed, then something really rotten is going on here ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

So, are you leaving or not?

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

A pest, and a liar, for not going quietly.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

You can leave any time, Charlie.

You're a bigger cancer than Bob, to be fair about it.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not Charlie, but I'd still like to extend my gratitude -- no apologies necessary -- even if Bob continues to fuck up WM with his endless, circle-jerk personal drama.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not Charlie,

Whatever, dude.

"No thanks, Jeffery"

And you can't even consistently spell your own name correctly.

Nah, Bob's never going to leave. This is all about him, and his personal drama is the hell we've all been forced to live with.

Of course he would take the tack that he would be vindicating the politics of personal destruction by leaving because that's what a compulsive asshole does to people who don't want to put up with his shit anymore.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Fine, but maybe you do need to apologize to the girls:

"Silence, impertinent minx, or it will be a Shortdrop from my hand to your bottom. No, never mind, you'd probably adore that, given your abject submission ... to liberal orthodoxy. Foolish woman.

I think you'll find that defending Bob is a mug's game, no matter how his pathos pulls at your tender feminine heartstrings. You'd best cast your lot with Hormonal Citizen, Joylessly Smurfette and me. I have not yet been successful in convincing either of these ladies to meet me in Manhattan for cocktails, but I am undaunted. Few women have resisted the pull of my success, clout and, to employ a word you liberals can't stop thinking about enviously, cashola. No. I shall prevail in the end.

And you wonder why your end is is my sight."

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 12, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't write that one, dumbfuck.

See, we had quite the organized command and control going, and that one? It's good, but I can't take credit for it.

Next?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Well, how was I suppose to know that?!

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

attract women pheromones attract women pheromones
attract men pheromones attract men pheromones
Attract opposite sex Attract opposite sex
Human pheromones Human pheromones
Pheromone cologne Pheromone cologne
Pheromone perfumes pheromone perfumes
Breast enhancement pills Breast enhancement pills
Breast enhancement Breast enhancement
Increase breast increase breast
Natural breast enhancement Natural breast enhancement
Breast enlargement Breast enlargement
Breast enhancement natural Breast enhancement natural
Breast enhancer Breast enhancer
Breast enhancement herbal Breast enhancement herbal
Herbal breast enhancement Herbal breast enhancement
Cellulite Cellulite
Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment
Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction
Cellulite cream Cellulite cream
Revitol Cellulite solution Revitol Cellulite solution
Cellulite removal Cellulite removal
How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite
Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite
Anti cellulite Anti cellulite
Anti cellulite cream Anti cellulite cream
Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite
Best cellulite cream Best cellulite cream
Remove cellulite Remove cellulite
Eliminate cellulite Eliminate cellulite
Cellulite product Cellulite product
Cellulite solution Cellulite solution
Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy
Cellulite eraser Cellulite eraser
Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer
Cellulite gel Cellulite gel
Reducing cellulite reducing cellulite
Cellulite remover Cellulite remover
Erection enhancers Erection enhancers
Erection enhancement Erection enhancement
Orgasm enhancer Orgasm enhancer
Multiple orgasm enhancer Multiple orgasm enhancer
Sexual performance enhancement Sexual performance enhancement
Sexual performance enhancers Sexual performance enhancers
Enhance sexual performance Enhance sexual performance
Carb blocker Carb blocker
Low carb Low carb
Low carb recipe Low carb recipe
Carb blockers Carb blockers
Carb solution Carb solution
Low carb product Low carb product
Low carb weight loss Low carb weight loss
Dietrine weight loss patch Dietrine weight loss patch
Easy weight loss Easy weight loss
Natural weight loss Natural weight loss
No diet weight loss No diet weight loss
healthy weight loss healthy weight loss
Weight loss patch Weight loss patch
Weight loss diet pills Weight loss diet pills
Natural pain relief Natural pain relief
Pain relief
Sexual enhancement sexual enhancement
Natural glucose natural glucose
Glucosium glucosium
Hair removal hair removal
permanent hair removal permanent hair removal
natural hair removal natural hair removal
Remove hair Remove hair
Sleeping pill Sleeping pill
Sleeping pills Sleeping pills
Sleeping aid Sleeping aid
Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid
Natural sleeping pills Natural sleeping pills
Natural sleeping pill Natural sleeping pill
Menopause relief Menopause relief
Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief
Menopause treatment Menopause treatment
Herbs for menopause Herbs for menopause
Herbal remedy for menopause Herbal remedy for menopause
Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy
Menopause supplement Menopause supplement
Vitamin for menopause Vitamin for menopause
Menopause remedy Menopause remedy
Menopause product Menopause product
Quit smoking quit smoking
Stop smoking Stop smoking
Help quit smoking Help quit smoking
Stop smoking help Stop smoking help
Stop smoking aids Stop smoking aids
Quit smoking herbal Quit smoking herbal
Quit smoking aids Quit smoking aids
Quit smoking patch Quit smoking patch
Quit smoking product Quit smoking product
Herbs to quit smoking Herbs to quit smoking
Quit smoking herbal remedy Quit smoking herbal remedy
Hair loss treatment Hair loss treatment
Male hair loss treatment Male hair loss treatment
Female hair loss treatment Female hair loss treatment
Hair loss product Hair loss product
Hair loss remedy Hair loss remedy
Hair loss solution Hair loss solution
Female hair loss Female hair loss
Stop hair loss Stop hair loss
hair loss woman hair loss woman
Male hair loss Male hair loss
Hair loss prevention Hair loss prevention
Prevent hair loss Prevent hair loss
Regrow lost hair Regrow lost hair
Hair loss prevention Hair loss prevention
Man hair loss Man hair loss
Natural hair loss treatment Natural hair loss treatment
Natural hair loss remedy Natural hair loss remedy
Best hair loss product Best hair loss product
Hair loss medication Hair loss medication
Best hair loss treatment Best hair loss treatment
Hair loss treatment for woman Hair loss treatment for woman
Hair loss treatment product Hair loss treatment product
Stress relief Stress relief
Stress reduction Stress reduction
Stress reliever Stress reliever
Stress relieving Stress relieving
Reduce stress Reduce stress
Anti stress Anti stress
Stress reducer Stress reducer
Stress vitamin Stress vitamin
Natural stress relief Natural stress relief
Stress depression Stress depression
Wrinkle cream Wrinkle cream
Anti wrinkle cream Anti wrinkle cream
wrinkle treatment wrinkle treatment
natural wrinkle treatment natural wrinkle treatment
Wrinkle Wrinkle
Anti wrinkle Anti wrinkle
Wrinkle reducer Wrinkle reducer
Wrinkle reduction Wrinkle reduction
Best wrinkle cream Best wrinkle cream
Anti aging wrinkle cream Anti aging wrinkle cream
Best anti wrinkle cream Best anti wrinkle cream
Anti wrinkle face cream Anti wrinkle face cream
Skin care anti wrinkle cream Skin care anti wrinkle cream
Anti wrinkle treatment Anti wrinkle treatment
Anti wrinkle product Anti wrinkle product
Cream remover wrinkle Cream remover wrinkle
Face wrinkle cream Face wrinkle cream
Facial wrinkle treatment Facial wrinkle treatment
Remove wrinkle Remove wrinkle
Wrinkle remover Wrinkle remover
Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal
Stretch mark Stretch mark
Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream
Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment
How to get rid of stretch marks How to get rid of stretch marks
Remove stretch marks Remove stretch marks
Prevent stretch marks Prevent stretch marks
Natural stretch mark removal Natural stretch mark removal
Herbal supplements Herbal supplements
Weight loss supplements Weight loss supplements
Diet supplement Diet supplement
Anti aging supplement Anti aging supplement
Fat loss supplements Fat loss supplements
Best diet supplements Best diet supplements
Natural supplements Natural supplements
Discount supplements Discount supplements
Human growth hormone supplement Human growth hormone supplement
Best weight loss supplements Best weight loss supplements
Natural health supplements Natural health supplements
Antiaging Supplement Antiaging Supplement
Diet supplement products Diet supplement products
Natural diet supplement Natural diet supplement
Hemorrhoids treatment Hemorrhoids treatment
Natural hemorrhoids treatment Natural hemorrhoids treatment
Hemorrhoids cure Hemorrhoids cure
Hemorrhoids relief Hemorrhoids relief
Hemorrhoids remedy Hemorrhoids remedy
How to get rid of hemorrhoids How to get rid of hemorrhoids
How to treat hemorrhoids How to treat hemorrhoids
Treating hemorrhoids Treating hemorrhoids
Natural weight loss Natural weight loss
Natural skin treatment Natural skin treatment
Skin care treatment Skin care treatment
Skin treatment Skin treatment

herbal supplement, herbal supplement
herbal, herbal
herbal medicine, herbal medicine
herbal remedy, herbal remedy
herbal tea, herbal tea
herbal breast enhancement, herbal breast enhancement
natural breast enhancement, natural breast enhancement
breast enhancement, breast enhancement
natural breast enlargement pills, natural breast enlargement pills
herbal life, herbal life
buy herbal product, buy herbal product
herbal essence, herbal essence
herbal cleanse, herbal cleanse
herbal cleansing, herbal cleansing
herbal magic, herbal magic
herbal weight loss, herbal weight loss
herbal product, herbal product
quit smoking herbal, quit smoking herbal
herbal smoke herbal smoke
herbal store herbal store
herbal nutrition supplement herbal nutrition supplement
herbal skin care herbal skin care
herbal nutrition herbal nutrition
Prostate Treatment Prostate treatment

Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Posted by: top on November 13, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Did you just spoof Global, Apollo 13, ckelly, and TheThirdPaul, as shortstop suggests? They all miraculously responded in the time it took me to write one message, and haven't been back since.

If you did -- while claiming to speak for the group -- you have a lot to answer for, my friend.

Because if you did, you're not expressing love for the community. You're expressing your own rather enormous ego issues. Thinking about it, it makes perfect sense now that you could cop the persona of a narcissistic sociopath so easily. Because our last fight was all about your grotesquely overinflated ego and pathological need to "destroy" me.

Look, the healthy way to deal with a so-called pest is to ignore them. You know damn well that you can't chase away trolls by winning arguments. Which is precisely why you've got a ton of emails pending to write, to try to explain this contradiction.

This is just a schoolyard fight, of no greater consequence than that. You won nothing worth winning, you proved nothing worth proving. You deceived everybody for the purpose of playing a practical joke on somebody who you went so psychotically ballistic on, a mutual friend had to tell you to lay off -- which was such a loss of face to you, you felt you had to leave the blog.

At the time I said you were a rageaholic. You haven't raged here, but you exhibit the same kind of narcissistic desire to annihilate the Other.

Even when your better nature knows it can't be done.

Get some therapy, Jason. Introspect a little on why Hannabal Lecter seems like such a significant role model to you at this moment in your life.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

This was my favorite -- maybe Bob got some Depends to help with his "leakage" problem:

"The three of you have vastly different rhetorical styles, with very little leakage between them.

Sorry, it's a cute trick, but I'm not really a paranoid person.

Bob"

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie -- you insignificant little twit -- it had never even occured to me that somebody would return under the handle of a long-time regular.

Look, if somebody wants to toss the rules of the game out the window, then anything is possible. Cyberspace is remarkably rule-free, but there are certain modes we take for granted. One, that regulars don't exchange handles. When you do that, then it becomes possible to mount a deception campaign which violates assumptions people learn to take for granted.

Did you read Jason's posts? Crowing about how carefully he set this up? He planned this out like a fucking bank robbery.

Of course I was deceived. I never figured Jason into my calculations of who could be doing Norman. Which was, of course, entirely intentional. Jason counted on a feint -- pawning off the speculation on somebody who's not known for rhetorical flights of fancy. And he cultivated that AOLish Pale Rider persona deliberately so I'd come to that conclusion.

If Jason were back posting under his own handle, this whole thing never could've happened as it did.

And that was entirely the point.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Did you just spoof Global, Apollo 13, ckelly, and TheThirdPaul, as shortstop suggests?

Oh, for crying out loud--that's a brazen misrepresentation. I suggested no such fucking thing. I said they were blindingly obviously spoofed--and so they were, something only a completely tone-deaf reader would miss--but I'm convinced that Charlie (who's been poking you with a sharp stick trying, with your complete acquiescence, to get you to have an even bigger meltdown) is the culprit.

Honest to God, I felt pity for you for two minutes, Bob. Knowing how little respect there is between us, you can appreciate the meaning of my trying to prevent you from making an even larger ass of yourself with over-the-top accusations and maudlin melodrama. But in your need to control, lash back and have the last word (why, oh, why are you still talking instead of having the wisdom to stay silent until you can get it together a little bit?), you even crap all over people who throw you a lifeline. It's disgusting and tragic.

I'm leaving for a volunteer gig. I hope Charlie will be in his crate when I get back. I hope everyone else will calm the hell down.

Posted by: shortstop on November 13, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

Jesus, you're right. I apologize and stand corrected. Jason, to you, too. It is rather unnerving to be under such relentless attack.

Kind of ironic, isn't it, that the whole thing began escalating with an accusation that I'm the inveterate sock puppeteer ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

I already said I didn't write those posts. They could NOT be mine, as Kevin's comment software automatically bans any IP address that posts that many times in a row. Try it yourself, if you don't believe me. In fact, please try it.

Regardless, though, no big surprise you are not "quietly leaving" as promised. You are a liar.

Posted by: Jeffery on November 13, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Dude-rmck1-look: he went and pulled all that stuff out of the archives. He spewed it all by cutting and pasting. He used the "Pale Rider" handle but he put the wrong E-mail address in. take a look at my handle-it's the way it always has been. Spoofs aplenty on this thread. And that probably wasn't shortstop and that probably wasn't a slew of regulars. He had to have had all that saved up, like an ambush or something and was waiting for you. On at least three other threads, he's heavily baiting you-did you see it?

Deep breaths, deep breaths.

Charlie-quit fucking with the guy and get back in your crate, you abortion-eating asshole.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Pale:

I'm taking you seriously, but I'd appreciate it if you spell it out for me. Are you saying Charlie was Jason? That Charlie was Norman, too? That would violate a few things I have third-party confirmation of through a mutual friend of ours.

I understand how multiple connex would have produced all those spoofed regulars that a single connex wouldn't be allowed to do with throttling, if that's what you meant by the first part.

But help me out. Spell out explicitly what you think I should be getting, because I'm honestly not following you ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

He's not ANY of those people. He's one guy spinning a yarn.

How the hell am I supposed to know how he did it?

Just ease yourself into a comfortable place and let it all go.

Charlie as "Jeffery" did a huge amount of damage today, and you were the victim of it. It might have looked funny at first, but we're not laughing anymore and we're not going to let the game go on. He was playing one of his games and the whole thing blew up bigger than anyone wanted it.

GAME OVER!

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

How the heck should I know?

But how perfect would it have been for him to drag that shit out of the archives?

Did you ever stop to think that the guy might have the ass for you?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider:

To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen any of the other threads, nor do I fear damage from Charlie because nobody takes him seriously.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

Are you claiming that Charlie actually *wrote* them?

Charlie could have easily copied the style; anyone can copy the style.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, Charlie is a helluva lot more dangerous than you give him credit for.

You seriously need to read the archives from the first six months-I mean, take a day and just go back to 2004-05. You'll soon see why he CANNOT use the old Charlie handle.

The most important thing right now is that the game is over, no one is fucking with you anymore, and you can just go on and not have to worry about being fucked with-we're turning on the lights in the spookhouse and all the special effects are shut down. The garage door is open, the yardlight is turned on, and this is over and done with.

It got WAY out of hand and we need to all just chill and not think this is all that serious. It's cyberspace, as you said earlier, and I'm not taking any shots, I'm being as straight with you as I can-just breathe deep and avail yourself of some serious Charlie education.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

No, Pale, you're not remotely taking shots and I appreciate it.

So what you're saying, in effect, is that Charlie, using multiple computers, spoofed not merely Jason using your handle but did all the Norman posts? And you bring up archives to make it plausible that Charlie could've read about that fight (he was actually there at the time) in order to cite all the stuff in the Jason posts ...

And so it was Charlie who pulled off the Norman charade for the past three weeks, for the sake of sucking me into it --- all the while maintaining his two-or-three-line Charlie clueless-rhetorical-question persona, to throw us all off his trail?

*That's* what you're saying?

I just want to get this clear ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 13, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Will you idiots go to bed already? You're wakin' the baby!

Posted by: shortstop, wandering through in a ratty robe, hair in curlers (okay, not the latter) on November 13, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway Bob-I'm not going to forensically go through and try to figure this out for you. You have a pretty clear picture that one if not three people started fucking with you and then when they stopped fucking with you, Charlie took the reins and slammed you with archived data.

I would think of all this as a shitstorm that has passed. There's a really anti-Semitic guy posting on the Hillary thread and he needs some love and affection-why don't you go have at him if you feel like it or just call it a night?

You gotta understand, Bob-I'm the goon around here, just like in the old NHL. The new NHL has no goons. The old NHL had goons who would crawl up the ice or come off the bench when someone would mess with the stars and put some ass whuppin' down. I'm a goon-I stomp the trolls and step back so the scorers and the skaters can get up and down the ice without being distracted.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 13, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

No, Bob.

I did the Norman Rogers posts.

And that's the end of that. Just let it go, okay? The game is over, no one is gonna pull this shit on you anymore, you can go back to what you were doing and we're just gonna all hold hands and sing kumbayah now.

We're all pals and we're all letting each other off the hook-this got out of hand and we're stopping the game and we're all gonna stop pretending.

Take the hint, okay? We're gonna stop this crap and everybody is going to be a-okay.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Then who did the Jason posts? You're saying Charlie?

I can't help being curious ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Bob-

You gotta let it go. While we're all just wound down and happy, you gotta let it go.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, Bob-nobody's fucking with you and you need to get on your E-mail and talk to your pals or whatever and just let it go.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Because the first Jason post slipped effortlessly into Norman Rogers rhetoric. Did you write that?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9......

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

It's a fair question, Pale.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Good night, Bob. Tomorrow's a new day.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

You wrote the Jason posts.

*sigh*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Good night, Bob. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie. Another phrase you might not know. It means that if there's a hound dog asleep on the porch, don't go up and grab him by the nuts and swing him around the room.

GAME OVER.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Those Jason posts were pretty fucking sociopathic, Pale.

Just for the record.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for being gracious, Bob. No one's gonna fuck with you any more and there's plenty of trolls to fight when everybody comes back tomorrow.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

I wasn't intending to be ungracious. It just, you know, kind of winces a little bit trying to smile after you're been kicked in the balls with hobnail boots.

Is all.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

You have every right to be pissed and I'm not going to try to make a case otherwise. We're all cool here and it would probably be best to just let it all go. It's late, I gotta get to sleep, and I think we're all just a little drained. This got out of hand and that's why the brakes got slammed on and it was all stopped in its tracks.

The boots are thrown away. No one's gonna bring them out again.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

Thank you for respecting my right to be angry about it, Pale.

Goodnight.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, shoot. I'd be pissed too.

But it's over and I really hope it won't happen again.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, you just don't get it, do you? Are you fucking with me now?

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's over, it's done, and I think we all just need to treat this thread like a barrel of toxic waste.

MESSAGE TO FUTURE GENERATIONS WHO READ THIS THREAD:

It's bad. Don't go in, don't read it, and you might want to take a shower if you do.

See? We've warned future generations to just stay out of this thread and to let it go.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

Kumbayah, my lord...Kumbayah...


Kumbayah, my lord.........Kumbayah.......

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Pale:

I am definitely not fucking with you, Pale.

I'm just trying to learn the truth, is all.

You already admitted, in in effect, that you were Jason in this thread.

So the admission that Jason is an alternate handle of yours (if it is), really doesn't change anything. It would just help me to put the history of this whole conflict in perspective, is all.

It adds not another shred to whatever damage has already been done, and which I agree with you needs to start healing. It's not an indictment. More like a post-mortem.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

Sing it with me, Bob...

Kumbayah, my lord...Kumbayah...


Kumbayah, my lord.........Kumbayah.......

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, dangit-my battery is dea-----

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 14, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly