The phrases The Right loves to bash The Left with

I've pretty much stopped arguing politics face-to-face. It's not worth the anger and homicidal feelings.

(nb this is actually a brilliant and mellifluous phrase.)

ineffectual
unrealistic
overdramatic
eaten alive by pity
humanistic to the point of ignoring human nature
third-wave feminist (ooh! that's ugly!)
Michael-Moore-ish

I never quite got that one.

stuff about being the chardonnay sipping set or the latte set or suchlike. I'm more left than anything and I resent being lumped in with boring skivvied knobs from Kew, thanks very much.

I do think the situation goes both ways, though. I find myself attacked at least on a semi-regular basis by The Left, which includes CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NPR, and the New York Times*. (Even as a hardcore Freeper I was still able to watch NBC News and MSNBC because of Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, and I could read the Washington Post.) Thankfully it's happened fewer times than expected here.

*: I used to run a virtual nation from a "create a nation" site. I must've made a total of about 15 decisions in the span of time I was there. Every time I made one of the four last decisions, the classification of my nation would remain the same -- a "New York Times Democracy". The seeming inconceivability of this and the ensuing reassessment of my personal convictions moderated my politics. I still can't stand watching CNN, but at least I've gone back to reading the New York Times (used to be assigned a daily reading of this newspaper for my collegiate government classes) and can watch half of the ABC News reports.

maybe it's time to consider calling the british embassy and asking about their citizenship laws then ...

... and if howell raines = a "crusader for the left," he's been a pretty inept one (as well as being strictly self-styled ... i'm straining to think of anyone even vaguely left-of-center who'd consider mr. raines a "crusader" for their causes).

Anyway, I admitted as much in other posts, so it's not like it's a surprise or anything. Plus, it shouldn't have been much of a shock to you anyway. (Oh, and even when I was there I avoided certain topics like the plague, such as the ones dealing with homosexuality and abortion. I certainly wasn't going to walk into a maelstrom by declaring myself pro-gay rights and pro-choice.)

I'm not going to say anything further because then you people will jump all over my post much like the Free Republic site would've jumped over my posts were I to have posted anything regarding my "progressive" views on homosexuality and feminism, and I've just about had enough with people judging me negatively based on my political viewpoints alone. I am a whole person and I have so many other facets to myself that you may actually really like.

p.s.: James, you don't have to post defenses of my positions. Really. I recognize there are differing viewpoints and maybe I should have qualified my original post by saying those were media I felt were "liberal" and left-leaning. Perspectives are like fingerprints in that everyone's got one and they're all unique. But I do appreciate it, and I guess it does feel kinda nice in that otherwise I'd feel all alone. Thank you.

I don't think those labels were created exclusively as slurs against the non-leftists, they just became slurs. It's much like the label "liberal", really. On your other point, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore -- at least not with an uncritical ear. I do sometimes listen to him and have to laugh at what he says, but now I recognize just how hilarious he can be and that to take him seriously would be like taking Buster Keaton seriously. I listen to Glenn Beck and, sometimes, Sean Hannity, but even then I don't agree with them 100% of the time, so I do have that ability to make up my own mind there.

As for CNN being left-leaning -- well, maybe not during certain stretches of this year's Iraq war. In fact, I darn near loved some of the field reports I was getting from CNN. But normally I do feel as though it still would rather lionize a liberal way of thinking at the expense of balance and "fairness". If you could point me in the direction of a major CNN report that shows the U.S. in a favorable light, that would be lovely.

p.s.: You only THINK my politics "suck". It's all about opinions, m'dear. You're entitled to yours as much as I am, just so long as we acknowledge them as such.

*stumbles onto bed, immediately falls asleep [sleep sleep GLORIOUS sleep]*

Interesting. Specifically, what is this "liberal way of thinking" that CNN reports "lionize" and what, specifically, would CNN have to add to or subtract from their reporting before you felt differently?

If you could point me in the direction of a major CNN report that shows the U.S. in a favorable light, that would be lovely.

It'd be worth a look but I'd want to know what you regard as a "major report" and exactly what you regard as "favorable." CNN reporting tends toward the small story (headlines at the CNN US page right now include: Porch collapse kills 12 at Chicago party, Bush visiting Fla for senior votes, re-election cash to pick two) rather than headlines like America: Classic or Dud?. So is a story, say, about a US space mission that includes no other especially laudatory language about the US still "favorable?" Or is the story only favorable if it explicitly or implicity states that the US is the only nation on Earth that can attempt such a mission? Is there a degree of "boo-yah! In yer face!" every news story needs to be "favorable?" Is it the lack of such "favorable" news stories that makes a news network "liberal?"

there was a third wave of feminism??!! where was it, and why wasn't i invited?

Ex., a paragraph from an e-mail I received:

"n apologist for the racist colonialism and extermination of Filipinos who had the audacity to believe the US would actually keep their promise and allow them to have independence? The same US that took Filipinos over in cages and paraded them around as animals at the World's Fair? The same US that put them in concentration camps and tortured and annihilated them? The same US whose President McKinley (Thank God that bastard was assassinated, may he rot in hell), said it was America's duty to "civilize" and "Christianize" the pagan brown Filipinos?

When will these racist fucks just roll over and die and give us all some relief?"

Now, I agree with the sentiment, but why can't leftists learn to phrase this stuff in such a way that it doesn't scare off anyone not already in the SPUSA?

For a portion of the ideological spectrum that has traditionally enticed artists/writers/etc., the modern left has a serious problem marketing itself.

(I feel that instead of pissing on advertising/marketing/branding ala "No Logo," the left should learn to use them.)

I also like the way how people always counter the other side of the argument with 'With all due respect, ...', when it's obviously clear there's absolutely no respect for anyone else's opinion involved at all.

I could also rap about how the use of the term 'illegals', when referring to asylum seekers, is a phrase used by people who have no idea of history and law at all, but I won't. It should be clear enough to anyone with a brain.

Somehow the fucking Republicans managed to get my e-mail address, though. I got a bunch of shit from them, normal mail and e-mail at the last election. Pretty sure they're not hitting a target demographic with me, as I'm the least likely Texan to vote for a Republican IN HISTORY.

(teeny's x-post is excellent and scarily right in line with what I was thinking 'bout)

I loved when Jon Stewart had that Governor Bush vs. President Bush debate...it was simultaneously one of the funniest and most disturbing things I've ever seen.

Ha ha, conservatives in being liberal with every thing* SHOCKAH!

*liberal with definitions of words, liberal with spending of tax dollars, liberal with making moral judgements for the American public, etc.