As Jonah Goldberg remarked, more or less, liberals think they can have the old circus parade without the horse manure. Conservatives know there will always be horse manure.

Policy wise, he is the typical Senate liberal. In face, according to the National Journal he was the most liberal Senator in 2007.

But his followers are beginning to remind me of cultists rather than political supporters.

The other night he said he would transform the world. And my first was: Maybe the world does not want to be transformed.

I hate to admit this because I can not imagine voting for Hillary Clinton, but I am almost rooting for her.

There is just something wrong about Obama.

I don’t understand it. It just seems insane to me.

AQ may do a last gasp “Tet offensive” in Iraq and Afghanistan; North Korea may decide to launch another missile; Iran may try to capture soldiers or provoke an attack in the Strait of Hormuz. China may get frisky toward Taiwan.

If these tests occur, Obama’s responses will set the tone for the balance of his Presidency, for better or worse.

Here’s a great essay by Evan Sayet:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/hl1020.cfm

“If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight. If we didn’t fight, of course we wouldn’t go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It’s a utopian vision, and all that’s required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi­dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency–all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.”

I know just what you mean. I am waiting for someone to throw her panties at him. Or something equally bizarre. Weeping, hand wringing, giggling, screaming, ranting, chanting…very weird. Hopefully it will pass. The sooner the better.

It’s times like these when a Democratic candidate like Obama comes to the fore that I feel this especially. What does he have besides youth and charisma? Reagan was fairly old when he took the oath but he was a radical president relatively speaking and had a lot of fresh ideas. Obama seems to espouse the same old same old. Are we really going to elect this guy because he makes everyone feel good? Are we really that naive as a country? Even JFK was more qualified.

Although I’m only 32, it takes me back to the good old days at UNC Chapel Hill when everyone was in the Pit demonstrating for their cause, etc etc. A 21 year old I met the other day gushed to me about Marx, and I thought to myself, will we always be doomed to repeat history?

Not so he could avoid the pitfalls of the past, but to see how the big guys before him managed to get a really crazy wave of popularity going.

Based on cries for Change, Action, and Unity, which is what the other fascists before him touted. This quasi-religious fervor that he’s generating is exactly what Mussolini and Hitler were aiming for and largely accomplished, including the swooning women.

No, I don’t associate Obama with the Holocaust. I do think, however, that he very much intends to increase the role of government in our daily lives: the more micromanagement the better. The Mother State will take care of your every need. Don’t worry!

Which is the fascist goal, after all, not genocide.

“Does Obama know he is spouting platitudes? Or, does he think he is actually saying something?

The more I watch him, the more I suspect he knows he is spouting bs. Obama is Elmer Gantry.

Except, EXCEPT: Elmer Gantry had street smarts. When it comes to foreign policy, economics, Constitutional principles, Obama is dangerously naive. He’s a babe in the woods.

Well, yes….., and “Elmer Gantry” is an apt association, it’s no coincidence that the enemy endorse him above the others; By endosing Odinga in Kenya, he is giving tacit approval to the establishment of sharia in Kenya; Obama’s church in Chicago isn’t the church of MLK, it’s the American version of Odinga’s “church” in Kenya, and who has stated something like Islam is the “one true religion”, no surprise that Obama’s “pastor” and “church” awarded L Farakhan a major award for 2007; And promising to capitulate, essentially surrender the achievements of our military and the hope of a modern Iraq to the brutal takeover of an Iranian surrogate, similar to Carter’s catastrophic decisions in Iran. I’m sixty now, in the sixties and seventies I eventually fell for it too, rationalizing that a state of “perpetual war” (as Paul now describes it) was something you could simply walk away from, and that the cessation of immediate violence was preferable and morally superior. But except to the very shallow, there is a huge difference idealogically and religiously between that adversary and the current one. Enough said about youthful idealism and naivete, from me. If there was ever an authentic Manchurian Candidate and cult being bred in our culture, it’s now, with the smug and smiling Barry….

From Ronald Reagan’s address to the 1984 Republican Convention:

The President. Is there any doubt that they will raise our taxes?

Audience. No!

The President. That they will send inflation into orbit again?

Audience. No!

The President. That they will make government bigger then ever?

Audience. No!

The President. And deficits even worse?

Audience. No!

The President. Raise unemployment?

Audience. No!

The President. Cut back our defense preparedness?

Audience. No!

The President. Raise interest rates?

Audience. No!

The President. Make unilateral and unwise concessions to the Soviet Union?

Audience. No!

The President. And they’ll do all that in the name of compassion.

Audience. Boo-o-o!

The President. It’s what they’ve done to America in the past. But if we do our job right, they won’t be able to do it again.

Audience. Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!

The President. It’s getting late.

Audience. Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!

Really? This is your test for fascism? You have set a low bar indeed. I hear that some fascists also ate bread; since you have likely also eaten bread at least once in life…

…J’accuse!

Well put “some guy”….. but of course it’s all much deeper than that, unless you’re a believer:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

This is a fascinating, though incredibly disturbing, look into the mind of someone who apparently seems to think that people who disagree with him (her?) politically are subhuman. “Incapable of rational thought.” Rational thought is, perhaps, one of the most important, defining characteristics of “human being,” no?

Maybe we liberals are, instead, vermin? I believe the term in German is Ungeziefer. Perhaps you prefer the Kinyarwandan inyenzi, or “cockroaches”?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/’

Well, I suppose if you’re relying on the blog of a woman who keeps company with the like of Vlaams Block, then you’re world view is going to be a little skewed.

Hey, I was born in 1968 and all I have heard for 40 F’in Years is how Woodstock was the zenith of modern culture and how my generation will never live up to whatever the boomers did; or are currently doing.

Some Guy: Notice how the Reagan audience was cheering actual political policies instead of just hopeful platitudes of changiness?

I love the fact that the democrap primaries have pitted Obama al Hussein’s weird old white ladies, hippie wannabes, and blacks against the traditional democrap constituencies of hispanics, ne’erdowells, white union workers and political grifters.

This has been fun to watch–and when they go to a brokered convention, I cannot wait to see the cries of Racism! Disenfranchisement! and law suits.

I hate the dirty, dirty leftists, but this has brought a smile to my face….

Has no Republican ever cheered a platitude?

Also, if you’ve only ever heard platitudes from Obama, I’m guessing you haven’t been listening very hard.

“I hate the dirty, dirty leftists…”

Because nothing could be more American than hating people who disagree with you politically!

It has nothing to do with politics:

They aren’t bad people because they are dirty leftists, they are dirty leftists ‘cuz they are bad people.

I haven’t met a Bush-hater who didn’t have 1 or more of 3 problems:

o a problem with their daddy
o a problem with Jesus

and the outlier:
o a problem with Jews.

As for you, I’m sorry about your daddy problems, but it’s not Bush’s fault.

Are their more weird old white women, hippie wannabes and angry blacks than there are angry hispanics, union workers and political grifters?

This is great!

Thanks for letting me in on the show! Keep up the good work! I look forward to learning just how many more of you hate liberals, think they’re subhuman, etc etc etc, in November!

You see, Obama is not about going forward, he is all about going back.

BTW, his fellow Democrats gave Bush the victory on that. When push came to shove they caved.

Thank you…. Thank you…. I know…. Really, it’s a gift….

“Are their more weird old white women, hippie wannabes and angry blacks than there are angry hispanics, union workers and political grifters?”

Is there really any adult way of responding to dreck like this? Daddy jokes and “angry blacks and angry hispanics”? I couldn’t really think of any other than pointing out that, as the Republican Party implodes, the histrionics on a site like this increase in direct proportion to the Democratic primary turnout.

Of course not - I have no illusions that the Democratic presidential victory in November (in some states, as many as nine times as many Democrats as Republicans are primary voters) or the likely accompanying Congressional victories (how many Congressional Republicans are retiring rather than face the mess they’ve created?) represent some sort of Permanent Democratic Majority (is that how Karl Rove phrased the reverse?).

That doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy it while it lasts.

Stop cherry-picking my comments and start answering them: It’s not the Republican party thats imploding–McCain has it locked up after not much of a primary fight and we’ll all vote for him in the General.

The problem is that each of the democrap extremist candidates alienates at least half of the dem constituency at any one time.

What will you say when there is a brokered convention? Rasism! or Disenfranchisement! ?

Wait ’til the party machine delivers Hillary as your candidate against the tide of hope’n'change. They’re gonna come unglued!

Oh no! Obama has voted to uphold the law! OH NOOOOOOES!!!11!

But seriously folks, if you believe that current laws on intelligence gathering in the US are outdated (and they are), then there’s a bad way of dealing with them and a good way. The bad way is what your team did: ignore them. ERR! Sorry, you don’t get to ignore laws you don’t like. Even the president! We fought a Revolution to get rid of sovereigns with extra-legal power.

I’ll let you in on a secret: the good way involves a whole process of changing laws you don’t like, the legislative process. It’s such a great process that it has an entire branch of government devoted to it, one of only three, so you know it’s gotta be important!

So, voting to end the President’s ad hoc, extra-legal attempts to ignore the law doesn’t mean you’re pro-90s, it means you’re pro-law.

Har! That’s funny. Did you guys see how he replaced “Democrat” with “democrap”? Gold!

“Wait ’til the party machine delivers Hillary as your candidate against the tide of hope’n’change. They’re gonna come unglued!”

I’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the candidate. She’s a centrist technocrat, and I don’t think she’d be a bad president. I just like Obama better. I think that where Clinton tends to take the “safe” way out - tinkering around the edges of bad Bush policies - Obama pursues politically risky but better policies. Take, for example, their respective stances on Cuba policy.

“What will you say when there is a brokered convention?”

I hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, the rules are the rules and everyone agreed to them from the beginning.

“It’s not the Republican party thats imploding”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

“The problem is that each of the democrap [sic] extremist [sic] candidates alienates at least half of the dem constituency at any one time.[sic]”

There’s simply no part of this sentence that’s true in any way. If it makes you feel better to believe the pleasing fantasy that half of Democrats will be alienated by their candidate and won’t vote for him or her, then please, continue believing this fantasy. I suppose getting high off bullshit like this is cheaper than weed!

Pro-terrorist.

The FISA court ruled that it is illegal to listen in on US phone numbers discovered in Al Qaida hideouts in Afghanistan because all we had was a phone number, not a named individual we could obtain a warrant against.

It was further illegal to listen in on those US phone numbers found in Afghanistan to determine who was using them to plan attacks in the US ‘cuz the individual on the phone ‘could be a US citizen’.

It was nonsense and designed by the dirty leftists to cripple US Intell gathering.

Imagine that: not allowed to listen in on numbers found in Al Qaeda hideouts ‘cuz those are US numbers!

Those are exactly the numbers you gotta listen in on!

It was further illegal to listen in on those US phone numbers found in Afghanistan to determine who was using them to plan attacks in the US ‘cuz the individual on the phone ‘could be a US citizen’.

If this were true, that would be bad. Know what happens when you have a bad law? You change it through the legislative process. You don’t just ignore it.

“It was nonsense and designed by the dirty leftists to cripple US Intell gathering.”

Or it could just be that the law, written in the 70s, is outdated and needed to be changed through the legislative process.

Or do you propose that the president be granted the emergency power to ignore whatever laws he wants? What do you call a country in which the executive faces no legal constraints on its behavior? Come on, I know you know this…

She’s hard left, though truly, not quite as far left as Obama al Hussein.

I don’t think she even knows how to use a computer.

She was a bad First Lady, a lousy senator and a crappy primary candidate. How could she not be a bad president?!

I hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, the rules are the rules and everyone agreed to them from the beginning.

Yep, just like Florida 2000!

Strawman much?

There is a difference between a president giving direction to the military and Intell agencies as Commander in Chief in a time of war and “facing no legal constraints on his behavior”.

The president does retain some power in that capacity to direct our efforts and forces.

As I’m sure daddy told you many times: Grow up!

Ah, nothing like ethnic (or religious? do you bother to distinguish?) slurs to really elevate the discourse. Ooga booga, his name sounds like he’s a Jew Muslim! Oh noes!

But seriously, hard left?

How is a politician who voted for the Iraq War, who supported the surge, who voted to ban flag burning, who wants abortion to be safe, legal, but rare - this is your hard left? Who’s your centrist, Martin Borman?

Anyway, I’ll point you to this:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/placing_the_candidates.php

“Yep, just like Florida 2000!”

If I recall, Bush filed the first lawsuit to stop the legally-required recount. But that’s a wholly different story.

Oh noes! After years of accusing half of America of treason for criticizing policies, it might be your turn! Oh noes!

The point still stands.

The various anti-war factions, from the incredibly harmful right-wing realist camp to the isolationists to the leftists, are illiberal. The War on Terror is being prosecuted in liberal fashion with liberal goals, definitively so in Iraq. In that context, Barack Obama presents himself as a Wilsonian progressive liberal, which would seem to be a good with an American mission in Iraq that is a Wilsonian progressive liberal mission. However, the anti-war factions provide some the strongest support for Obama, and his own rhetoric is mixed, both promising to unite the nation against the enemy, while also promising to “end the war”. The part of me that wants to support Obama is trying to convince me that once Obama deliberates upon his own principles as a serious - liberal - leader, he could not - in good conscience - abandon the peace-building mission in Iraq and our global liberal leadership there for the sake of appeasing his illiberal anti-war supporters.

Rational thought is, perhaps, one of the most important, defining characteristics of “human being,” no?

Yes - so why do you insist upon being sub-rational instead?

Que?

Wait. How is using his name: “Obama al Hussein Barack” a slur?

His name is a slur?

It doesn’t just ’sound’ muslim. It ismuslim.

His dad was a muslim. His mom was a hippie chick who liked some strange. His stepdad was an Indonesian muslim and he was raised in an Indonesian school that was ‘all faiths’, but mostly muslim.

He now belongs to a black African Nationalist church which is cozy with the Nation of Islam.

He is the most liberal senator on record.

He’s the photo-negative Ron Paul.

You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?

“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.” http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

May God help us.

Gee, maybe that’s why the Senate voted to continue and expand what’s already being done intelligence-gathering-wise…

Damn that democratic process!

Yo, “guy”— was there anything in my comment that characterized “progressives” or “modern liberals” as “subhuman” or “inhuman”? Maybe if you’d taken the time to, you know, read the essay I cited, you’d have a clue as to what I was talking about…but it’s so easy to toss out the ad hominem, isn’t it?

Thats interesting. Which faction are the “harmful right-wing realist camp”? Are you talking about those conservatives too anti-McCain to either vote for him or vote against him? Im not sure what you meant there. Other than that, the only truly anti-war Republican Im aware of is Ron Paul camp, and he strikes me more libertarian than right wing.

I think, finally, that people are just glad to find a man who is obviously brave, intelligent, and authentic, not your standard pol. Yes, he has a magnetic power, but the miracle is there’s something there.

And I hate to hear you dumping so vigorously on the idea of “hope.” My God, this is where real change always gets birthed. After so many years and so many disappointments in the political system, especially with a country in a recession and at war, the American people want something to turn it around.

You may not agree with him, but he is a figure to be reckonded with. Hell, why not give hope a chance.

Your second post suggests you’re movtivated more by hate than hope.

Because his name is not “Obama al Hussein Barack.” His full name is “Barack Hussein Obama.” That name, his actual name, is a Kenyan name, not a Muslim name (since his father was a brown foreigner, I realize you have trouble with the nuances), but that’s really beside the point - from the “Obama went to school at a Madrassa!!!” to “Obama is a stealth Muslims!!!!” to “Obama sounds like Osama!!!” people like you have been doing their best to smear Obama as the worst possible thing one can be to you folks: a Jew Muslim.

It’s the lowest kind of fear mongering.

OMG HE’S LIKE TOTALLY THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR EVAR!!!!1!

Of course politicians, around election years when they plan on running for a big office like, I dunno, the presidency, tend to vote in such a way that they can be listed as the most liberal or conservative to appeal to their base. Try looking at his or Clinton’s records in other years; they’re pretty run-of-the-mill.

Considering George Bush issued loyalty oaths at some of his rallies, I suppose Obama only has the best from whom to learn.

‘To a “progressive” or a modern “liberal”, it’s all about emotion, because they are incapable of rational thought.’

Isn’t rational thought one of those defining requirements of membership in the human club?

Considering that major figures on the right have, variously, called for Democrats, liberals, and critics of the president to be imprisoned or murdered for their political beliefs (ie, “treason”), again, I repeat: I don’t feel particularly bad for those of you who will now have to suffer through years of being called bad names for what you believe.

“I hate the dirty, dirty leftists…”

Hey! Maybe our two sides have more in common with each other than we thought!

Could it be that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political orientation, have far more in common with one another than any of them do with the political fringe of each side? Could it be that my life is not really all that different from yours - that my political beliefs do not make me alien from you?

You still here? I would have thought by now you’d have realized you were talking to yourself. Oh well, turn out the lights and lock up when you’re done.

Since when did I become religious?

President Bush, 2004: “Some who call themselves “realists” question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality. America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”

Google ‘realist Iraq’ are a similar variation, and you will find many articles by the top proponents of realism explaining their opposition to our Iraq mission. They have been prolific in their opposition of the mission since the first day the Bush admin made it a prospect. Indeed, it would almost seem that the vindication of their fundamental beliefs as relevant in the 21st century, ie, after the Cold War in which they made their mark, relies upon a defining failure of liberalism in Iraq. It’s been a symbiotic relationship between right-wing realists and radical anti-war protestors. You find few realists stridently protesting the Long War with guerilla theatrics, but their opposition has provided much of the substantive material and legitimacy for the anti-war movement, which has in turn, has obliged the realists by applying theory to practical use. Why? Due to their Cold War legacy, realists are highly respected and entrenched authorities in the academic, military, and political (foreign policy) establishments. For their part, the anti-war movement is highly adaptable, because while most of it is ostensibly leftist, it is able to freely adopt and sample the right-wing realist opposition to the Iraq mission. Doing so is not a contradiction for them. The “anti-” of the anti-war movement means their standard of judgement is less about upholding an affirmative belief than whether something can be practically used to attack our nation’s strategy or more specifically target the Republican party or this Bush administration. As such, the realists have been eminently useful in fueling the anti-war movement.

In sum, the realists oppose the Iraq mission because it has been shaped as a Wilsonian progressive liberal mission. Much of the prevailing anti-war argument against the Iraq mission as a (liberal) “fool’s errand’ is realist-based. However, Barack Obama presents himself as an enthusiastic, even aggressive, Wilsonian progressive liberal who wants the US to be a proactive, leading liberal change-agent in the world. So, how can Obama’s classically liberal principles square with his professed allegiance to the illiberal anti-war movement? Well, the hope - my hope - is that those principles cause him to be the enthusiastically liberal CinC upholding the Iraq mission that we’ve needed all along. Or, he could be
anti-war. Much like John Kerry in 2004, Obama holds forth both promises.

BTW, I had close access to realist thinking as a recent Poli Sci/IR grad from Columbia University, where the realist school is dominant. As a campus activist, I also had close observations of the anti-war movement.

FYI, the link to the 2004 Bush speech that I quoted from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html

I think the “realist” conservatives have a secret desire of wanting to be accepted by the ultra-left with out seemingly having to compromise their values. I think I know one or two around these parts. Their candidate of choice: John McCain.

Im with you that I feel advancing democracy is a traditional Wilsonian idea also now considered neoconservative.

You might be right that once in Obama might grow into the realization that it is in the best interests of Iraq, the US as well as the world that seeing our mission in Iraq is in everyones best interests, I just dont think that it will considering all he has said about the subject of Iraq.

The guy is just far to left for me to consider, but what you’ve said was an interesting take.

Well, if so, then you’re not in it…

Precisely - this is why I asked whether the preference was for the German Ungeziefer, for vermin, or the Kinyarwandan inyenzi, or cockroaches, to describe the people you’d like to see dehumanized?

I mean, again, what could be more American than trying to deny the humanity of people who disagree with you politically?

Is this really what the American right is coming to?

Yes - so why do you insist upon being sub-rational instead?

some guy:Que?

You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?

Why do you insist on being an ass?

“You want to withdraw from Iraq as per Obama, right?”

Yes, I do - for purely pragmatic reasons.

Again, if you were actually rational, you claim, you’d understand that what I said was the result of reading Evan Sayet’s essay at the url I posted way back when. In that essay, Mr. Sayet lays out his rationale for saying that “progressives” are not capable of rational thought; not that they’re bad people, evil, stupid, subhuman or vermin, but that due to indoctrination by our failed and leftist education systems, they are not capable of approaching discussions with a rational viewpoint. They are, in fact, not capable of reasoning, because they lack the capacity to discriminate between competing ideas and values, because they have been told that discrimination is “wrong.”

If you’d read the essay, you’d understand. But then again, you apparently are incapable of rational thought. Not vermin, not subhuman, not evil, not stupid—just unreasoning. It’s actually sad, because apparently, you can’t help it.

This would seem to be a pretty clear denial of their humanity.

“It’s actually sad, because apparently, you can’t help it.”

Now, it’s perfectly clear that we disagree about a lot of things, but I don’t deny that you have reasoned yourself to your positions, as wrong as they are. Reason is not the key to the right answer, and you are not the sole owner of reason. One can reason one’s way into the wrong answer just as easily into the right, and maybe a perfectly logical, internally consistent argument for or against any position.

So, try this on: how about, instead of denying the humanity of people who disagree with you, try acknowledging that two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue.

Absolutely true. But since you refuse to be reasonable and actually debate the essay I’ve based my reasoning on, I conclude that you’re an idiot and not worth further effort.

Again, I don’t think you’re not part of the human race, I’m not “denying your humanity”, I’m just saying that you don’t think very well, if at all. Not the same thing.

Because I won’t read an essay that argues that I am incapable of rational thought, written by a partisan hack from the hackiest of all partisan think tanks?

You have set a high bar for eulogos.

Har har. Stumbley, would you like to read an essay that argues that you are an idiot, that you’ve been brainwashed, that everything you believe is either wrong or a lie, that you lack a fundamental characteristic of being human, because of your political beliefs?

No? Really? You don’t care to be told that you’re an idiot, brainwashed, wrong, and subhuman? No? You don’t want to spend your time reading such an essay?

Hm. Go figure!

What follows logically is not necessarily what is real or what would be wise or what would be reasonable. Based upon the logic premises of the Hitler party, it was logical for them to try to exterminate the Jews, if what they said about the Jews were really true. But logic is not about determining truth, it is about perfecting the way you arrive at a conclusion so that it is systemetic and scientific.

Reason is more valuable, because rationality prevents two things that logic cannot prevent. Emotionalism, which is making decisions and choices based upon feeling. The feeling that Obama gives hope and progress. The feeling of righteousness, rather than the actuality of it. The second thing reason prevents is insanity. Which is related to emotionalism except what you make your choices on does not exist in this world. Emotion exists in this world, we know that people feel things, even if we believe they are the wrong things to feel at the wrong time. Joy at kicking out Marines from Berkley is the wrong thing to feel, but we recognize that it exists, in one form or another. Insanity, however, is making choices and actions based upon what does not exist, literally. There is not even a possibility that you could make it exist in your lifetime.

When people call you irrational, that’s another form of saying you are insane. Not just that you are illogical or that your logical axioms are wrong, but that you literally are not making your thoughts, your thoughts even, on this reality. When people call you irrational, they also mean that you are emotional. Which ones they choose to mean really depends upon what their intent and thoughts about your thinking are.

instead of denying the humanity of people who disagree with you, try acknowledging that two reasonable people can disagree fundamentally about any issue.

The logic that you are human, thus you are reasonable or are likely to be reasonable, is false and incorrect logic.

The idea that just because you are irrational, emotional, unreasonable, or insane makes you all of a sudden “inhuman” is also demonstrably wrong and incorrect. Human beings are human beings because of the tendency to become embroiled in emotion, con games, insanity, and what not.

To say that you are insane and unable to think, that you have shackled your free will to the will of your masters in the Democrat party, is the same as an accusation of being human as saying “two reasonable people can disagree funda