Typical liberal response. I recently posted about Obama's arrogance in his derogatory and wrong statements about average people - you know the gun-toting, church-going, beer-drinking, immigrant-hating types - and opined that it was going to hurt him badly in the rest of the primaries and even more in the general election.

In response I had two different people say I was overreacting among other things, but never did they address my main point which was that what he said would hurt him in the future. They simply were unable to do so, instead attacking me for being too sensitive or not understanding that what he said was actually correct.

And just a few moments ago tried to engage my son, a big liberal, in a discussion about Obama's mistake. He just won't do it, telling me that I get my information from the wrong places so I don't really understand what he said and that it won't have any impact. In other words, "Dad, you're just an ignorant conservative and don't know better and I am not going to discuss it with you."

Eh, what can you do? It's my fault for dropping him on his head when he was a baby.

Gee, Ralph, you sound kind of scary.
When 64 percent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq is "not even worth fighting," and 81 percent believe that the country has "pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track" you might actually be surrounded by the very liberals you threaten to destroy.
And Theocritus, if you keep using five-dollar words like "ratiocination" and "lucubration" we're going to have to take your Thersauras away.

Pandora ,
Please excuse an older fella for being a bit thick in the head . Could you please cite the report and author of the "64% of American soldiers not supporting the war and the 81% saying we're off the track , as it might be useful to me. Were I ,however , to quote numbers without qualifying them and quoting the author..why my friends would certainly cut me off at the knees .

As you have probably discovered , the folks here at the well have become spoiled by honesty in numbers and names of sources and getting the truth out . Thus we tend to take a dim view of generalities and sloganeering especially when it comes to issues which run counter to our established conservative ideals .

As you may have noticed , there is a large amount of "CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUALISM" ( an oxymoron to the effete left wingers) that goes on here..All that is being asked of you is to share your sources .

If you wish to change others thinking when they are wrong..Certainly if I am wrongheaded I would like to be told about it by somebody clarifying How , Where ,When ,Why and what I can do about it by Who's Authority ?

So far you've taken on Theo and Walsingham and made it seem you have brought a knife to a gunfight (I'm surprised Ospurt hasn't thrown his dog in the ring yet) but..But you see , whilst "NAMES" are being bandied about , you must realize these men are gentlemen . If you're still spoiling for abuse..call Vaughn a name and we'll see what happens (He's good with names).

Your opinions are yours, Pandora . But until you can present verifiable information, they remain just that..opinions .

This is why I tend to only comment on things like the beauty of the moon and the quality of rums.

Mr S.A.et al; It is not my intention to speak for the group as to what makes up the content of the Well. It is only my " perceived " vision of the group's thoughts I am citing here .

There, Pandora ! See how it's done ?!

Pandora's consistent dialogue of name calling, unsubstantiated data, and loaded word choice ("scary") provides a fantastic case study for the liberal mental disorder. I would offer Theocritus' examination of liberal discourse to be placed on Axis II in the DSM-IV. The difficulty in assessing Pandora's case study is quantifying the severity of her psychological stressors, or Axis IV, because, in theory, the efficacy of liberalism lies in the perceived deficiencies of her social roles and the inherent need to better or provide excuses for those deficiencies at the expense of others.

I would also like to counter another assertion made by Pandora:

To form an opinion of whether another human being is crazy, you have to go about it as a scientist. The minute one begins to label people as insane for having a political opinion which differs from one's own, science is in the scrap heap.

To begin with, defining a person as "crazy" for having a mental disorder is ignorant. A disorder is an illness. Likewise, crazy means to be affected with madness and should not be used to identify the nature of a person. The term should not bear any permanence for it is basically a descriptive of action. (For example, the crowd when crazy when Soriano hit a home run.) I would continue this argument on your choice of "insane," but you get my drift. The author of the Liberal Mind, being a psychologist, would not use such terms. Such rhetoric would disqualify his theory when reviewed by others in his field. His book is based on data collected from his observations over a period of years. You cannot get more scientific than this. In addition, I doubt the author derived his theory on liberalism from political discourse with his patients. His points seem based on the reasoning of his patients in dealing with their world in a social sense. Thus, the patients political beliefs or attitudes about politics (effect) would be the result of their liberalism (cause).

The 81 percent was the latest New York Times/CBS poll, and the 64 percent (I didn't say soldiers, just citizens) was the most recent CBS News poll. I do understand that there are not too many networks or big newspapers that the Right still likes, only Fox, I guess. Does Fox do polls?

cra·zy (krz)
adj. cra·zi·er, cra·zi·est
1. Affected with madness; insane.

Babe, that means that according to your definition the dictionary is ignorant, right? And the Thesaurus is in even worse shape:

Noun: crazy - someone deranged and possibly dangerous, looney, nutcase, lunatic, madman, maniac - an insane person
Adjective: crazy - afflicted with insanity, brainsick, demented, unhinged, unbalanced, mad, disturbed, insane.

Then: "His book is based on data collected from his observations over a period of years. You cannot get more scientific than this."
Perhaps you meant "you cannot get more unscientific than this."
If you believe in pixies or unicorns for a number of years, does that make for scientific fact?

You guys are really getting nowhere with this.

Theo, how did you know that Pandora herself would provide the Exhibits to your original post?

If over a number of years, I observed and could quantify the existence of pixies and unicorns it is scientific fact. Please, do not argue science with a scientist.

"Getting no where with this?" I beg to differ. As site admin just mentioned, you continually provide the evidence to support every statement made by Theo.

Also, as expected, Pandora, being the liberal she is, is just trying to change the subject or insult our intelligence.

Last, do not call me babe. I am not your boyfriend.

Dr. Wilson, I'm rather flattered that you'd consider submitting what I wrote to the DSM. I realize in what capacity you mean it, but nonetheless I do thank you.

I do other work on thepeoplescube where we all pretend to be communists, and it is very brisk and rather ribald with a good mixture of people, and I am, or pretend, to be quite the roue, instead of my normal, retiring self. In this I have had some experience with what we call a troll, and there is a ranking of trolls. A 10 on the troll scale is someone who is impervious to reality, who makes charges which he cannot defend, and doesn't even try to. It's not really a callous disregard, but rather like a blind man walking past a garden in bloom. When challenged he simply doesn't hear it, and then delivers himself of a platitude or an ad-hominem accusation, which suggests that the argument is won and settled, and that only an idiot would argue with him. It is very easy to take it as bait and I have done so, and not that long ago.

But something twigged me. I went back to some of the work of the-eurasian, and I also Googled "the-eurasian" and found that he'd, on another site, given advice which was bad and then a day later apologized for he'd not taken his medicine. I felt sympathy and laid off for a while until my patience snapped.

There was this complete denseness, an utter inability to take in data. I was very rude indeed to Pandora, and she didn't notice the true rudeness. Also I checked her syntax, grammar and diction, and in particular her prepositions--which are, to my mind, are the most indicative of knowledge of the relationships between words. Hers are fine. And her spelling too--the only one I remember off the top of her head was misspelling "thesaurus," when she threatened to take mine away. (I had defined the words in the the next phrase, by the way, to avoid such a charge.)

So the verbal skills are fine. It's just the that nothing informs her writing; she takes on no information that she does not want to hear. A deafness which I found familiar. And to be frank, once I was involved with someone who didn't take in any information, but was sharp enough to graduate cum laude from Rice, go to Georgetown and Chicago, and now is an economist for the State. Intelligent, honest, reliable, truthful, but, well, a bit psychopathic in his mental and emotional insularity. He had the same deafness to others. I was very glad he was not sadistic, so complete was his disregard of others. When he closed his eyes, the world disappeared.

What I found familiar is the certitude of her positions, like a toddler who doesn't care for anything swirling about it, and who only continues to scream.

And so I deliberately set up the trap, choosing a single thing which could not possibly be misunderstood except by a deranged mind, and stated it as plainly as I could.

Her best hope was to steal quietly into the night. Next would have been number 2, for proving me wrong, in number 1, is quite simply impossible. I wrote two versions of an article setting that forth, and an apology for something spoken in haste would have gone a long way toward dispelling any thoughts of dementia.

But I got even more than I had wanted, and am doubly blessed for she's entertaining and I don't want her to go away. And to her immense credit, she is not spitting rage--the Kos Kiddies and the Mime trade in anger, furious at a world which doesn't care about them, their lives a tantrum at the world's indifference, like a baby screaming in a restaurant while the adults are talking.