Don Quixote’s Thought for the Day: Left of Center?
Don Quixote on Jan 18 2010 at 4:41 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Back when I was more active here in the Bookwormroom, we had a number of liberal readers, most of whom were here more to insult than to discuss, but some of whom made valuable contributions to the discussions here. I wonder whether liberals/progressives/folks who see themselves as politically lef-of-center still visit here or are right-of-center folks here just talking to ourselves. Whether you usually leave comments or not, if you self-identify as left-of-center and visit here from time to time please leave a comment, just to let me know you’re here. Thanks!
Related posts:
- What would make this blog better (besides Bookworm’s return)?
- Comments on posts
- The story I thought I’d never see
Email This Post To A Friend
18 Responses to “Don Quixote’s Thought for the Day: Left of Center?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The debate’s over. On most mainstream political issues, there is no debate, thus a lack of debate opponents doesn’t change what happens much.
On secondary or tangential byproduct subjects, that’s not true. For example, Reclusive Leftist, Sarah Palin, and the 3rd wave Feminist movement all have something in a pot and it’s stirring things up right now.
<B>are right-of-center folks here just talking to ourselves.</b>
Oh. Do you find it troublesome that you have no subject you can contest with anyone here, or are you under the impression that everybody agrees simply because they aren’t arguing like in adversarial systems?
<B>we had a number of liberal readers</b>
It’s not our fault they voted for Obama and left to join his Crusade against the economy. People should have noticed by now that not even hard core Leftists have the energy to devote to full time self-deception and doublethink when reality and their beliefs are so contradictory. Doing so while arguing with real thinkers would be even more strenuous. Their health would be endangered if they stayed here.
I wouldn’t call it a collection, either. It’s more like a continuum where when one joins then drops off, they are replaced by somebody else. This started with the multi hydra “Pastor Ray” from the Wayyback, to HelenL, to Ozzie, to the other one. Blaming Bush on websites such as this got less rewarding, I suppose, as Obama came to reign supreme.
Firm anti-statist over here, so I’m not one of the sought-after folks (for this post, at least)
Helen Losse departed before she departed. For her last four months or so, she would only stop in long enough to fire off a silly shot, usually something like: “OMG, you are all so amazing. LOL!” Pop in, insult, pop out! That was it. Whereas in the few years before that when I began visiting, I found her comments to be interesting. Interesting enough to visit her site and find she was a thoughtful liberal given to poetry. Rather typical of the left, but without the anger. I wonder what happened to turn her into a “Pop-In Insulter”, and then to cause her to completely leave? (Aside from the fact that we never agreed with her)
I think that in general, the liberals have been astounded and disappointed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi. What began in 2006 for them culminated in 2008 with the election of Obama. I remember being blown away by his speech at the Democrat National Convention in 2004. I was completely amazed at the time, and I thought this guy was going to be something very special on the Democrat side. That sentiment lasted a few months into the presidential campaign, when as I investigated and dug and read, what lied beneath his surface began to come out.
For the liberals, they continued to believe through his win in 2008. They TRULY believed, and deeply. He was Hope and Change, and they thought he would practically walk on water. And now that he’s been making so many blockheaded neophyte mistakes; been exposed as the bare-knuckled take-no-prisoners pure politician from the Chicago Game; gratuitiously insulted long-term allies and cozied up to monstrous dictators; engaged in massive spending on a scale that gives nearly everyone pause; been exposed to have taken just as many special interest campaign gifts and donations as the most brazenly corrupt politician; cozied up to the pharmaceutical, insurance, banking, and investment industries even while pretending to fight them; engaged in vote buying and influence peddling of the kind that they thought only Republicans could engage in… Even the teleprompter gaffes have probably made it through their filters so that they realize he’s just not all that. Those soaring speeches, that cadence, the enthusiastic rhetoric… turn off the teleprompter and it all goes away. What’s up with that?
Well, they’re crushed and disappointed, and the hope and change has died, leaving a very bitter aftertaste. Already, in only a year. So they have less to say right now as they try to figure it all out.
I suppose that without That Devil in the White House, life just lost its spice . . .
And if prodded, I could come up with a feminist screed.
But I doubt you lot will give me reason–I suspect quite a few of you would join me in a lineup with a pro-life, pro-chastity, anti-statist feminist.
>>I wonder what happened to turn her into a “Pop-In Insulter”, and then to cause her to completely leave? (Aside from the fact that we never agreed with her)>>
Maybe because she could see that her ideas were indefensible, but couldn’t leave her political “religion”?
I drop in from time to time and usually leave no comment. Most of the readers here have closed their minds to the truth. Thus, I’m off to tell others. We shall overcome some day.
Glad you are still with us, Helen. Couldn’t drop by without an insult, though, could you? All the same, you are welcome any time.
Kali, depends on what kind of feminism you have in mind, but generally I’m with you.
Mike, the first time I ever saw Obama was at the DNC in 2004 and I had the same reaction. My prediction at the time was that he would be VP in 2008. Guess I underestimated him.
<B>Most of the readers here have closed their minds to the truth.</b>
Keep that Hope and Change coming. Maybe institutional slavery will rise again with enough work.
<B>are right-of-center folks here just talking to ourselves</b>
You haven’t addressed this issue, Don, of what you were thinking of. How do you say that there is a conversation even if assuming different orientations are reading the blog, though not commenting. Talking stipulates that there are at least two sides. Even if there is someone saying something, if the audience is passive, then that’s a monologue.
>>Maybe institutional slavery will rise again with enough work.>>
Indeed. And this time it’ll be the white folks doing all the hard work, and the black massahs who have all the wealth.
Shouldn’t be long now – now that they “own” the political machinery…
Helen is simply making better use of her time. Her postings here were not converting anyone. She is a poet, not a debater.
Thanks, Gringo. I am going to post a link. Note the number of hits.
It’s Bush’s fault this didn’t happen sooner.
Helen, I enjoyed your video. There certainly was something to celebrate on Nov. 4, 2008. The election of a black man to the presidency destroyed your very tiresome and tedious assertions that America is racist to the core.
It’s too bad that in the process of showing how unracist they were that so many voters cast their ballots for one of the most empty, vapid, narcissistic men to ever occupy the White House.
Could we call it “Losse’s Law” that voting for a (half-white) black man might involve also voting for something other than his skin color? Character and philosophy come to mind.
Oh, wait, I forgot. For guilty white folks like you, dark pigmentation always trumps content.
I think it was Dagon (peace) who constantly challenged any skepticism of global warming. His mantra was that the research was conslusive and doubters were too lazy to read it. He was especially deferential to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which claimed the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. .
Wherever he is, I hope he reads this:
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
“… [the scientist]has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
I also need to say that it takes guts for Helen to keep coming back. I don’t agree with her, but I think she gets treated a little harshly for speaking her mind.
That’s cause she has learned by now not to attack any of us personally.