Why do minorities still vote for progs? (1) Some of the people are barbarians who want to loot the productive people's castles, and the progs use gov't to do that for them. For example, "He gave me a free phone!!!" (2) Some like being the automatic "good guy" in every conflict. Progs believe in "cartoon morality" in which the "little guy" is the good guy by definition. So, for example, if you're black (thus the "little guy") it can't be your fault that you're poor and miserable, even though you had four kids by four different guys (all druggies) and didn't marry any of them. No, it's Whitey's fault, because Whitey is the "big guy," and thus the bad guy by definition. Conservatives would say that your poverty is largely your own fault in this example, and a lot of people don't like that.

I really believe that in these Mideast civil wars it's the Bad Guys fighting the Bad Guys. Assad is a very bad man. If what happened in Egypt and Libya is any indication, there's a very good chance that Assad's defeat could bring even worse people into power. Who wants to side with the Bad Guys? I agree with Sarah -- let them fight this one out among themselves.

Comrade agitator: "Explain how poverty programs protect people from their own behavior." ANSWER: People behave immorally (e.g., drop out of school and breed babies out of wedlock). Welfare pays them money, food stamps, etc., to support their immoral actions. Thus not only are they protected from the consequences of their immoral behavior, but are rewarded for it. Comrade agitator: "What causes poverty?" ANSWER: Poverty does not need a cause; it is the natural state of human beings. The real question should be, "What causes wealth?" But in this culture, poverty correlates overwhelmingly with two behaviors: dropping out of school and breeding out of wedlock. These two destructive, immoral behaviors are enabled and encouraged by the welfare system. Comrade agitator: "Do you just oppose helping others?" Answer: it does not help an alcoholic to give him booze, as that just encourages his destructive behavior. Similarly, it does not help poor people by enabling and encouraging them to do the destructive behaviors that correlate with poverty, e.g., dropping out of school, doing dope, breeding out of wedlock. It is the lefties like you, comrade, that are hurting the poor by enabling their destructive behaviors. When you see the wasteland that is Detroit, for example, that is your fault, lefty. That horrible mess would never have existed without the welfare system you lefties have created.

Comrade stedes: I assume that you mean that faith, family, personal moral responsibility, hard work, faithfulness, and the like are the "white values" that Ms Parker and Mr Jackson stand for; and thus welfare, crime. dependence, unrestrained and irresponsible sexual behavior, drugs, gangs, stratospheric abortion rates, and life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".(to quote Hobbes) must be the "black values" you espouse...? Like libs in general, you are truly a racist pig, if you think that the values espoused by Parker and Jackson are "white values" that somehow oppress black people.

I find most interesting Williams' point that eco-freaks continue to be praised long after their claims have been proven false (or in Ehrlich's case, utterly ludicrous), It calls to mind that the most famous of them all, Algore, had his infamous "Earth in the Balance" published back in 1992 -- that's 21 years ago. Since that time measured world temperature data have shown Algore's predictions to be utterly bogus. (The computer models predicted ever-rising global temps, at an increasing rate.) Yet the greenies still reverence Algore, and they claim that Algorian Global Warming is "settled science." What is actually setted (by the facts, that is, the data) is that the Algorian computer models were bull-crappola, and so Algore's whole thesis failed. But hey, these idiots still listen to Ehrlich...

But run-of-the-mill Dims will continue to cover their eyes and ears like the see-no-evil monkeys. The truth is that they don't want to know the truth and/or don't care. The welfare gang want their free cell phones -- who cares about the truth, especially if the truth would weaken Santa Claus in the White House? The gays want sodomy accepted as normal -- who cares about the truth, especially if the truth would weaken their supporter in the White House? The greenies want to control everyone's life to "save the planet" -- who cares about the truth, especially if the truth would weaken the King of Hot Air in DC? Da unions don't give a rat's rear about da truth... ya gotta problem wit' dat? And on and on and on...

What will never cease to amaze me is that Kim Dung Un and the rest of the ilk that runs N Korea are so mad for power that they continue with their stupid totalitarian statism when they could have it so much better -- not only for their people, but for themselves; and after all, what else do they care about, except themselves? Of course, given the tubby appearance of the Dung family that has ruled the People's Republic of NK, I figure they have a regular shipment of Double Whoppers with Cheese and Cheesy Fries secretly delivered from the Burger King in Seoul; but if they ditched the Commie thing, they could even have all-you-can-eat pizza buffets! (Not to mention baseball.) If Dung ditched the Commie thing, he could be just like a Western president and spend more time on the golf course than in the office! And judging from the LPGA tour, Korean golf courses are overrun with cute young female golfers. I guess Commies, progs, lefties, and libs (sorry for repeating myself) are all just power-mad fools (but then, we all knew that anyway).

Right from the start the Dims recognized that Sarah Palin was an enemy that could overwhelm them: charisma personified, a Magical Girl. They saw their worst nightmare, Ronald Reagan with a pretty face and figure. Unlike the Repub establishment, they saw that the Repub that had done them the most damage since Lincoln -- Reagan -- had won because of his charisma as much as anything else. So the Dims attacked Palin in the most personal and vile ways, as Hawkins describes. They wanted to destroy her personally because that is how you defeat someone's charisma. And the Repub establishment (Rove et al.) stood by and let it happen, and at times even participated in the attack. And for that, I will never forgive them.

Reagan won twice because his public charisma exponentially outshone those of his two rivals, Jimmuh the Scold and Walter Mon-dull. The major-party candidate with the best public charisma has won every presidential election since 1980. Repubs have a chance in 2016 is not because they will or won't have made inroads with the HIspanic vote, but because the Dims will very likely nominate the Wicked Witch of the West (a.k.a. Hillary). And Hillary turns out more stomachs than voters. If the Repubs pick a high-charisma candidate, they can win.

A basic underpinning of the leftist ideology is what I call cartoon morality -- the "morality" of the children's cartoon. In cartoon morality, there is only one principle: little = good, big = bad. Police represent authority ('the man"), and so they are bad by definition. Those who oppose them (cop-killing radicals) represent the "little guy" so they are good by definition. To be poor or black (or to be in "solidarity" with the poor and/or black) makes you the good guy, no matter what you do. So lefties celebrate murderers (and so forth), and blame "the man" for all of the troubles.