Wanna bet?
Keith Olbermannnnnn
Rachel Maddow
Chris Matthews
Al Franken
Barbara Boxer
Barney Frank
Janeane Garofalo
Hillary Clinton
Nancy Pelosi
Barbra Streisand
Caroline Kennedy
Harry Smith (CBS)
Barack Obama (occasional hints of it, anyway)
Etc., etc., etc. I could go on for pages.
What you’ve done there is list a bunch of liberals. In fact, almost every popular liberal, all the way up to the top. Good work.
Dude, what?
There’s taking things too seriously, and then there’s questioning the very nature of my existence because I posted an unappealing number of threads.
My “so goddamn stupid” thread was met with a level of adoration that really surprised me, because that’s basically how I always talk when I’m riled up about something. Imagine if you drew a funny picture of a teacher in class, complete with stink lines, and then everybody who saw it said it was a work of art and deserved to be in museums. That kind of thing can screw with a man’s head.
Anybody whose first attempt at anything is regarded as greatness will tell you that it’s a crippling thing. Any subsequent work is bound to be compared to it, and could never match people’s expectations.
With that over my shoulders, I knew I’d always be too hesitant to post another rant. I’d spend too much time polishing it, it’d turn into a manifesto, people wouldn’t even understand it. I’d have to ride the fame and glory of my magnum opus and then die in obscurity, because nothing I could ever do would be good enough. “That’s your follow up to ‘goddamn stupid?’” they’d say. I’d be Truman Capote, never able to follow up In Cold Blood.
So, I worked proactively. I sabotaged any chance of people considering me a master by immediately following up with a hurried, unfocused mess such as you see at the top of this page. That way, in the future, I’d never have to debate endlessly whether an idea I have is worth posting. Hopefully, anything I post in the future can be judged on its own merits, and not as some long-awaited sequel to my freshman submission.
And, no, I’m not a sock puppet or the long awaited reincarnation of some long-missing messiah. I’m just some guy. Seek no higher meaning to my presence, you’ll find no answers to life by assembling every thirteenth word. Attributing any significance to me over anyone else here would be like naming one drop of water in a pond.
So… relax.
Al Gore came across as very smug during one of his debates with GWB.
Well, what I actually did was refute your assertion that it can’t be said that liberals are smug. The list (and how could I forget Bill Maher :smack:) was the merely the means of doing that.
I will concede that Gore during the debates was smug (and made up like a TV preacher), and that Bill Maher is very smug.
I think my premise was, if I can put myself into my mindset last night, that you can’t say that all liberals are smug, whereas it seems to be a common trait amongst republicans.
In Gore’s defense, though, I think if someone who could multiply two digit numbers together were engaged in a debate against George W Bush, you might naturally get a kind of self-satisfied smugness feeling. The same would happen if an eighth grader were in a debate against a moderately intelligent gray squirrel.
Well, of course it can be said. You can say that GeeDubya is smarter than a plate of scrambled eggs. You can say that. I can even do it with a straight face.
Well, your not exactly making it easy!
Total Posts: 93
Posts Per Day: 0.04
CMC fnord!
It’s every tenth word right … RIGHT?
Well, you’d have to translate it into Hebrew first, but— I’ve already said too much.
Okay, thanks for the explanation.
It seems the opposite to me. So much so that to me smugness is virtually a defining characteristic of liberals.
Look at the way the two sides refer to each other. To the right, lefties are tree-huggers, environmental wackos, traitors, dirty hippies, socialists, etc. Most of these are references to leftist behavior or ambitions.
But on the left, comments about the right almost invariably go to what righties are, or qualities they supposedly have. Conservatives are invariably portrayed as stupid, backward, uptight, knukkle-draggers, mean, selfish, evil, etc.
And the way lefties refer to their opponents veritably reeks of smugness. People who come around to their point of view are deemed to have ‘evolved.’ Liberals and their goals are ‘progressive.’ Etc., etc.
Each of these proclamations insinuates or claims outright that liberals occupy a higher moral and intellectual plane than do their opponents, and such a view almost invariably leads to feelings of superiority and smugness.
As for myself, much of what liberalism favors is so wrongheaded that it seems to me it is guided primarily by that well-known primary human quality of wanting to seek out a perch from which to look down on everyone else. In other words, liberals are guided more by a desire to view themselves as superior than they are by the causes they espouse. And again, once a liberal reaches the point where he or she has convinced themselves of this superiory, an attitude of smugness is almost inevitable.
George Bush’s IQ was higher than John Kerry’s. He flew jet fighters. He was highly successful as two-term governor of Texas. No less than Elton John and Bono had to admit they were impressed by him during private meetings.
Christopher Hitchens once told Bill Maher right to his face on Maher’s show that 'Bush is stupid" jokes have become the jokes that stupid people laugh at in order to make themselves feel smarter than Bush, and when Maher looked butthurt and his audience jeered, Hitchens declared that no one in the audience was in fact smarter than Bush, an he flipped 'em off. (The clip is available on Youtube.)
So no, I don’t agree that conservatives are more smug than liberals, though I do agree that O’Reilly and Hannity are smug themselves. Limbaugh is too, but IIRC from the time when I used to listen to him, his was a more humorous and affected smugness than the type of intense and angry smugness one finds in O’Reilly and Hannity.
If you’re saying that political opinions are subjective and based on party lines, I’ll have to disagree with you on the basis that you’re a republican.
I would be willing to accept that provided that you are willing to acknowledge that, while subjective and based on party lines, the conservative point of view is nonetheless the correct one.
I scoff and call you smug.
You’re dying of smug exposure and you came HERE? This place has a very low hanging cloud of thick smug, especially on the hot days. Even though there is a lot of wind here it doesn’t seem to push it out to sea, like ever.
Wow I was with you the whole way until you shit out this gem of complete idiocy. Liberals can and often ARE smug. In fact I’d argue that it’s the rule rather than the exception.
Are you replying on a line-by-line basis?
He’s a very slow reader.
Also it’s time for his nap. He sounds out a few sentences, sucks his thumb for a bit, and then sometimes he crashes afterwards. It’s a lot of work for him.
:rolleyes:
No, I mostly agreed with your rant about Bill O’Reilly but then I couldn’t stand the smug look on your face when you saw that we were watching you suck your own dick.
It’s actually kind of funny how smug your posts in this thread are.
By the way, you’re welcome on the Factor, any time.
=^}
That’s a very good smug smiley. 