Winky
Well-Known Member
All Hail Lord Leftie and Lady Liberal!
by Mac Johnson
Posted Dec 28, 2004
link
On November 2nd, George Bush was re-elected to the presidency by 60,000,000 slant-headed, inbred, gay-bashing automatons who worship someone named Fetus Christ six days a week in suburban megachurches. This we know for sure; the only mystery is how these drooling cultists all found their way to the polls. The best explanation so far is that Karl Rove sent them directions the night before -- via church courier and in comic book form, of course.
This is what I have learned from the media's exit poll analysis of "Election 2004 -- America gets it wrong!" It is interesting to note, however (meaning I am about to say something clever), that in all this analysis of why someone might possibly vote for George Bush, no one in the old Media has thought to analyze the exit poll data for a clue as to why someone might vote for John Kerry. Apparently, voting Democrat is the default setting for anyone with good sense and requires no explanation.
But there are two results in the exit polls that I believe shed considerable light on the nature of liberalism in this country. And by this, I mean these results support something I already believed, so it must be true. The voters in these polls were divvied into every demographic class imaginable, being categorized according to race, sex, sexual orientation, income, religion, church attendance, political beliefs, union membership, gun ownership, shoe size and preference for paper or plastic. Very little in the results was surprising (unless you're Keith Olbermann) -- except, perhaps, for the education and the income analyses.
These results were interesting because the correlations of voting choice with education and voting choice with income were "biphasic," meaning they change direction as one progresses from one extreme to the other. All other data could be described as a simple correlation.
But John Kerry won two very different categories in the education data: high school dropouts and those with post-graduate degrees. The three groups in the middle -- high school graduates, those with some college, and college graduates -- all went for Bush. Kerry also won the extremes of income, winning amongst the very poor and the super rich, while the middle classes chose Bush. How can one explain the two categories with the least in common going the same way in a "both ends against the middle" pattern?
I believe it is illustrative of a basic truth: liberalism is a form of elitism. One in which those who see themselves as a wise and benevolent elite are paired up with constituencies that have just given up and want to be kept by a wise and benevolent elite. It's a kind of dating service in which the indignant are paired with the indigent for the purposes of justifying the former and alleviating the latter.
Suppose you are an overeducated college professor underappreciated by a society that would be so much better off, if only it were to just let you run things. Living in a self-sufficient society composed of the independent can be frustrating and sad. Or suppose you haven't got a clue how to be self-sufficient and independent. Living in a self-sufficient society composed of the independent can be frustrating and sad for you too. Separately, you two have nothing, but through the miracle of the Bleating Hart dating service (i.e. the Democratic Party), you are matched up into a functioning whole! "Angry know-it-all without a cause," and "helpless know-nothing without a clue" now compose a well thought out movement with a legitimate grievance. Just like that, you both make sense.
Or suppose you are living off a fortune you didn't earn and don't deserve. Worse yet, it just keeps getting bigger and more crass as the stock market climbs and you constantly marry wealthy women. Were you to spend your whole life, say, just wind surfing and skiing, well, you'd be feeling pretty low when the lights go off each night and you wonder what your special purpose in life is. But just then you get a call from an angry and well-intentioned college professor telling you about some helpless people that society has left behind -- and only you can help!
Well it's here isn't it? Your special purpose is here. Only you can help. Only you have the money; only you have the heart to spend all but a few hundred million of it helping the less fortunate. You're no longer a drunken leach grown fat suckling at the ancestral tit, you are a philanthropist! Now when people see you surf the wind in a body glove that costs more than a working man's truck, they'll say "There goes a kind-hearted philanthropist. He does so much good in the world." This is better than, say, "Look at the idle rich snot still playing children's games at 45, while I have to stand here with his towel and a fresh margarita."
In fact, the Liberal coalition is frighteningly like the class structure of the European societies from which America diverged. A needy underclass sending respect and obedience up to a privileged elite. The elite, in turn, dribbles down bread and hospitals. Needy souls dependent upon charity for the sustenance of their bodies, in symbiosis with an elite of busybodies dependent upon giving charity for the salvation of their souls. It's not progressive. It's medieval. This is one reason why the liberal elite is so in love with Europe. There the two classes know their places and dance the dance without interruption by freewheeling hillbilly hayseeds that just want to be left alone. Europe is more liberal. Liberalism being a co-dependency.
America, by contrast, still has a large middle class that values independence over co-dependence. This leads to considerable frustration of America's liberals, who cannot even imagine how anyone would not want their help. So they are left -- in piqued disbelief -- to pore over exit polls to find how their pets were led astray, again. Yeah, the answer is in those exit polls somewhere, My Lord.
by Mac Johnson
Posted Dec 28, 2004
link
On November 2nd, George Bush was re-elected to the presidency by 60,000,000 slant-headed, inbred, gay-bashing automatons who worship someone named Fetus Christ six days a week in suburban megachurches. This we know for sure; the only mystery is how these drooling cultists all found their way to the polls. The best explanation so far is that Karl Rove sent them directions the night before -- via church courier and in comic book form, of course.
This is what I have learned from the media's exit poll analysis of "Election 2004 -- America gets it wrong!" It is interesting to note, however (meaning I am about to say something clever), that in all this analysis of why someone might possibly vote for George Bush, no one in the old Media has thought to analyze the exit poll data for a clue as to why someone might vote for John Kerry. Apparently, voting Democrat is the default setting for anyone with good sense and requires no explanation.
But there are two results in the exit polls that I believe shed considerable light on the nature of liberalism in this country. And by this, I mean these results support something I already believed, so it must be true. The voters in these polls were divvied into every demographic class imaginable, being categorized according to race, sex, sexual orientation, income, religion, church attendance, political beliefs, union membership, gun ownership, shoe size and preference for paper or plastic. Very little in the results was surprising (unless you're Keith Olbermann) -- except, perhaps, for the education and the income analyses.
These results were interesting because the correlations of voting choice with education and voting choice with income were "biphasic," meaning they change direction as one progresses from one extreme to the other. All other data could be described as a simple correlation.
But John Kerry won two very different categories in the education data: high school dropouts and those with post-graduate degrees. The three groups in the middle -- high school graduates, those with some college, and college graduates -- all went for Bush. Kerry also won the extremes of income, winning amongst the very poor and the super rich, while the middle classes chose Bush. How can one explain the two categories with the least in common going the same way in a "both ends against the middle" pattern?
I believe it is illustrative of a basic truth: liberalism is a form of elitism. One in which those who see themselves as a wise and benevolent elite are paired up with constituencies that have just given up and want to be kept by a wise and benevolent elite. It's a kind of dating service in which the indignant are paired with the indigent for the purposes of justifying the former and alleviating the latter.
Suppose you are an overeducated college professor underappreciated by a society that would be so much better off, if only it were to just let you run things. Living in a self-sufficient society composed of the independent can be frustrating and sad. Or suppose you haven't got a clue how to be self-sufficient and independent. Living in a self-sufficient society composed of the independent can be frustrating and sad for you too. Separately, you two have nothing, but through the miracle of the Bleating Hart dating service (i.e. the Democratic Party), you are matched up into a functioning whole! "Angry know-it-all without a cause," and "helpless know-nothing without a clue" now compose a well thought out movement with a legitimate grievance. Just like that, you both make sense.
Or suppose you are living off a fortune you didn't earn and don't deserve. Worse yet, it just keeps getting bigger and more crass as the stock market climbs and you constantly marry wealthy women. Were you to spend your whole life, say, just wind surfing and skiing, well, you'd be feeling pretty low when the lights go off each night and you wonder what your special purpose in life is. But just then you get a call from an angry and well-intentioned college professor telling you about some helpless people that society has left behind -- and only you can help!
Well it's here isn't it? Your special purpose is here. Only you can help. Only you have the money; only you have the heart to spend all but a few hundred million of it helping the less fortunate. You're no longer a drunken leach grown fat suckling at the ancestral tit, you are a philanthropist! Now when people see you surf the wind in a body glove that costs more than a working man's truck, they'll say "There goes a kind-hearted philanthropist. He does so much good in the world." This is better than, say, "Look at the idle rich snot still playing children's games at 45, while I have to stand here with his towel and a fresh margarita."
In fact, the Liberal coalition is frighteningly like the class structure of the European societies from which America diverged. A needy underclass sending respect and obedience up to a privileged elite. The elite, in turn, dribbles down bread and hospitals. Needy souls dependent upon charity for the sustenance of their bodies, in symbiosis with an elite of busybodies dependent upon giving charity for the salvation of their souls. It's not progressive. It's medieval. This is one reason why the liberal elite is so in love with Europe. There the two classes know their places and dance the dance without interruption by freewheeling hillbilly hayseeds that just want to be left alone. Europe is more liberal. Liberalism being a co-dependency.
America, by contrast, still has a large middle class that values independence over co-dependence. This leads to considerable frustration of America's liberals, who cannot even imagine how anyone would not want their help. So they are left -- in piqued disbelief -- to pore over exit polls to find how their pets were led astray, again. Yeah, the answer is in those exit polls somewhere, My Lord.
