The Monday morning link dump of CRAZY
• What a difference two weeks makes: No less than five national Republican figures dump on Mitt Romney on the Sunday morning talks shows; prompting the headline, “The GOP’s Favorite New Punching Bag: Mitt Romney.”
• Secessionist gun store owner bans Obama voters from his joint. (How’s he gonna know — because they’re brown or black?)
• How you know there’s a God: The recount demanded by king-hell crazy Rep. Allen West puts him further behind, oops!
• A dramatic reading from Paula Broadwell’s book about Gen. David Petraeus, “All In.”
• A rotten prognosis for non-voter whose Obama-hating wife ran him over.
• The REAL reason they despise FiveThirtyEight blogger Nate Silver?
• GOP poobahs scheme to ban Tea Party candidates who lecture on rape.
• A new snack for hicks!
November 19, 2012 - 8:00 AM
Poor Romney. Victory has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.
I truly do not know how long a nation with so many crazy people can last. They used to be such a solid minority and we could ignore them. Not any more.
Holly Solomon has those Mchelle Bachmann eyes!
Sandi, the crazies were always out there. We’re just more aware of them now thanks to the Internet (though it’s likely some of those who might have remained latently loopy were drawn out by the lure of a global stage).
lol
Re: “A new snack for hicks!”
Back in the day when I long-distance hike, I cold-packed in the warm weather — i.e., No pot. No stove.
My morning coffee was fine grounded coffee bean dipped like snuff. A good pinch between gum and lip and down the trail I’d go.
.
Wow, the Repubs are really ripping into Romney for his “gifts” comment. And, suzie, note that this group includes Jindal.
“Roanoke County officials are moving the recycling trailers at Hidden Valley High School to the Brambleton Center because excess recyclables, household garbage, and bulk items were being consistently left in the area.”
Imagine that, 24018ers leaving excessive trash around.
The GOP has to blame someone for their loss, so why not blame the guy they nominated. Anyone of the GOP slate would have lost, not due to the campaign they ran, but because of their policies of exclusion and indifference to the plight of anyone outside of the upper tax bracket.
Re: Laura @ 11:44 am
Laura,
Yup. You nailed it.
Your “those who might have remained latently loopy were drawn out by the lure of a global stage” is dead on, but, IMHO far too understated.
IMHO, the major truth is that the internet has made “them” more aware of each other has changed the whole scene more than us just being more “aware of them.” (BTW think Pogo http://tinyurl.com/d7tmnuh )
In the 80′s, folk predicted that the “net” would become a force for broadening views and minds; that, through sharing, it would educate and enlighten; it would build consensus; it would draw the world closer together via acceptance of diversity; etc.
Even back then (having been an early UUCP Usenet poster), I said that rather than draw folks closer it would fragment society, even more.
Even in the Usenet days, as one newsgroup developed a form of “orthodoxy” on any given subject that form of “orthodoxy” became an established and defended against all argument, variation, disagreement, etc. Once the enforcers of the group’s “orthodoxy” took hold, inevitably schism followed and different newsgroups were established and then developed a counter point “orthodoxy”. Then they would find true-believers and schism would follow. Although the different newsgroups were logically organized into hierarchies of subjects, few folk looked at newsgroups that were counter to their own version of their group’s “orthodoxy.”
IMHO, the net has enabled schisms within society and fragmentation and divisiveness of social and political thought as great or greater than did the 15th-century invention of the printing press enabled schisms within the doctrines, rituals, and ecclesiastical structure of the 16th-century. Just as there are moves of Ecumentalism from time to time they as basically non-stable clusters of secular orthodoxies and that too trend too to be followed by yet again schism.
To me, even back then, the Usenet, BBs, blogs forums, etc looked like rather the reinvention of the printing press on steroids. I anticipated that it would fragment society even more; that the like-minded (including nuts) would find each other, parrot each other’s personal form of “truth” (or perversion – think porn) back-and–forth within their self-selected group; and seldom, if ever, would they accept heresy to the particular “orthodoxy” of their ranks.
Sad to say, I think that I had it right. As a result, IMHO, there has been a great expansion of the false-consensus effect or the false-consensus bias (See: http://tinyurl.com/btnhbrn “In all 3 experiments, [subjects] continued to show consensus bias despite the availability of other statistical information.”; and http://tinyurl.com/cl6b8qp ; and also Brown, C. E. (1982). A false consensus bias in 1980 presidential preferences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 137‑138].)
IMHO far more folk tends to seriously overestimate how much other folk agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are “normal” and that others also think the same way that they do. This is particularly reinforced because all the WEB sites that they visit, all the news that they watch/read, etc is self-selected to reinforce their personal “orthodoxy.” Their blind faith in their personal “orthodoxy” precludes seeing reality for what it is and labels the truth as heresy.
This false-consensus bias brings out the nuts in full force. It distorts their perception of reality. (One need look no father than the recent false assurance of winning an election and when reality hits them between the eyes the truth is rejected in favor of yet another conspiracy theory. In their distorted false-consensus bias they are assured that they, their side, could not possibly be wrong, but rather the dastardly dark forces of their personally defined and feared heresy somehow prevailed through devious means.)
It can’t be County people doing that, Gdad. It must be City residents driving in to dump their trash.
yeah, this thread isn’t catching on… I wonder why?
Re: Frank @ 6:01 pm
No dispute, no controversial, hard to argue w/ facts.
Like apple pie, no need to defend — unless or until someone, who is out of touch with reality, begins spouting yet another conspiracy theory of how the dastardly dark forces of their most feared heresy somehow prevailed through devious means.
hey Dave Hicks,
I’m game. Are you?
The Right Wingers just keep topping themselves and pushing themselves back to the fringes where they belong. Even using your own twisted, demented logic, a black Muslim from Kenya beat your lunacy twice, doesn’t that tell you anything?
Wow, the Repubs are really ripping into Romney for his “gifts” comment. And, suzie, note that this group includes Jindal.
I already pointed that out.
Yes, I am disappointed some Republicans chided Romney for telling the truth. I’m looking for the person who openly agrees with his statement to be my next president.
It’s an uphill battle when some Republicans accept the MSM/CPUSA meme of the day.
sandi,
if you are referring to who i think you are referring to, he’s half white.
Re: Frank @ 7:44 pm
I’m game for logical discussion.
#10 I know you’re joking around, Debbie, but for anybody who might believe that’s the case, I’ll just point out that the city has recycling and bulk pickup. All you have to do is leave it at the curb.
hey Dave Hicks,
Based on an easily understood definition of “hate” (Webster’s: to feel hostility or animosity toward; to dislike intensely), is it logical for people to conclude that Mitt Romney hates women?
Re: Frank @ 2:57 pm
Huh?
Did I say something about Romney hating women?
no, don’t know that you did, Dave.
i was replying to your post last night at 11:09 pm., and i must have misunderstood your comment. i thought you were willing to try a logical discussion. my bad.
Re: Frank @ 7:44 pm
Hum?
You think it is logical to ask a question out of the blue and w/o any context?
In what context are you talking about Mitt Romney hating women? All women? Some subset? If a subset, what subset?
Dave Hicks,
I explained once that we had a misunderstanding. Now, I’ll say it again. We clearly have a misunderstanding. There. Done.