From Con
LOADSTAR – SLIGHTLY DECONSTRUCTED:
A little bit and a little unorganized – an exercise in examining a single, static page of comments & interactions to see what we can tell about the man through his comments, the assumptions necessarily buried beneath many positions and comments.
IF you have time, read slowly and carefully and see how well you can perform your own brand of deconstruction vis a vis LOADSTAR’S angry responses and personalized lash-outs, the misdirection and especially, when dealing with Loadstar, how often you see clearly that A) He is absolutely Not Listening; B) His perception is keenly referenced internally; C) His frustrating, wholly obstructionist demand to control the conversation and allay Blame like a banker divesting of all coin, leaving zero for himself every time; and D) His larger-than-life double standard / hypocrisy that contains that elegant and powerful element of Willful Blindness to one’s own RESPONSIBILITY for such Blame and most of the above.
Reading this ‘Treatment’ may trigger learning and enlightenment in those not Loadstar! Probably, you’ll all turn on me and find fault with about everything here. Whatever learning and ‘Light Breaks on Marblehead’ should expose small pieces of the puzzle, as illustrated by a set of comments rather arbitrarily chosen, because the pattern and practice is ubiquitous across the Cafe’. I like having Loadstar around and even though he crosses the line all the time (seemingly without knowing it – think that’s true?), he offers value and entertainment both. There are some things, however, that no one should abide. Think about what you cannot abide, do not want to and what you would consider – and WHY? for each of them.
The statements contained in these pages say a lot about the writer and how he carefully (or not) chooses to say it. Consider the astute Politician, but one who just lies and insults far too often for his own good. dAs an Exercise to get to know LOADSTAR just a little better viz Observation, Commentary and incomplete deconstructionism of his particular brand of “Do it my way because it is the ONLY right way (only if done by me, though); seeming contradictions or double-standards are ONLY tolerated if perpetrated by the only person in this Town capable and qualified to use such devises – Loadstar himself, who famously quotes as his ad hoc MOTTO: “I’m not calling you a name if I call you a liar because you are a liar and when you lie it makes you a liar so it’s NOT name-calling, but Truth on High! which means that me calling you a liar is an objective observation made pursuant to the highest standards of Argument, Rhetoric and Fairness, each as measured solely by Loadstar in the sole, exclusive exercise of his impeccable Judgment (and as a matter of course and law: Anyone who dares to call Loadstar a liar or the like is engaging in the ugliest form of character assassination, unfair personal attacks and all that is antithetical to good, honest debate and rhetoric!). Loadstar – straight up, is that correct?
* WARNING *: Many will find examination of LOADSTAR’s particular brand of RHETORIC, TACTICS and FAIRNESS (as he decides, quite arbitrarily, to unpack and to be QUITE UTTERLY TEDIOUS – you know who you are). Please refrain from arguing with this person.
Beware his stealthy practice whereby he will “Set up a Tent in your head” – push your buttons squarely – or you may face irreparable, critical thinking; a tendency toward outside forces and sources.
TO START we observe that LOADSTAR uses 2 Primary Gears in his rhetorical transmission: 1) Insult & Disrespect; and 2) Immature Gloat while citing cherry-picked, half-baked ‘data’ supporting his often incoherent Positions (sure, we understand part of his Position supporting or opposing X, Y and Z; but his Sophist-Based assertions, insistence that ONLY his views and interpretations are valid all others are Invalid because, well, because he just say so!). How can this possibly be disproven once we accept his Groundrules? Carry on.
1. IS LOADSTAR a Mind-Reader! Does he believe himself to be one? How else can this exciting phenom be explained!?! Please keep this Confidential and let’s avoid 3-Lettered Gov’t Agencies snooping around (Plus – HE will know if you talk). Let’s cite Statements made in in Comment # 1: “Some “No” votes are probably “protest” votes from people who will vote “No” no matter what but I wonder how many of the “No” votes were from the liberals who voted against the budget because it didn’t spend enough money?” SO, he knows with certainty that there WERE a…
He seems sure that some “No” Votes WERE absolutely from “the liberals who voted against the budget because it didn’t spend enough” (Load: Were those THE SPECIFIC thoughts inside the small brains of those Liberals, verbatim? Or were these thoughts scratched hap-hazard in Crayon – and finally, when reading minds of Libs, can you actually see the vast amount of money they are hell-bent on SPENDING! (YIPEEE!)? [Emphasis provided by subconscious of liberals’ spending fantasy – they wake feeling personally depleted and must re-count their wallet cash…).
See also his insightful and comprehensive discussion regarding HOW and WHY people voted as they did! HOW DOES HE READ MINDS!?! Geepers! but we’d love to have that ability. IF we are real nice to him, be sure to attack, attack, attack those he hates (and those he doesn’t hate, but are just beneath his contempt so he gives them his own little ‘Pet Names’ like “Justhisidiot” instead of ‘Justhisonce’, and the like; apparently, if it is his own Pet Name, then it’s NOT inappropriate Name-Calling (a claim that ONLY LOADSTAR has these abilities, prerogatives and powers seems.k).
Apparently, LOADSTAR can ALSO read the minds of those who stayed home and neglected to Vote: This assertion is clear and is buried with those who didn’t Vote, but articulated their clear Position that “we don’t agree with”...
LOADSTAR believes in the great power of 'My total prerogative of CHARACTERIZATION'; that ONLY LOADSTAR is qualified, empowered and able to properly Characterize a given Event, - he who defines and characterizes a given Issue, Policy or Event thereby becomes THE Official and only Loadstar-Sanctioned Arbiter regarding such; others
Just see Comment No. 1 above, whereby LOADSTAR engages in all of these puerile dynamic. "Oh! Oh! It passed by a HUGE Margin!" (shall we ignore that Woodstock Voting Populations happens to equal MORE than the sum of all who Voted!?! "333 + 155 = 488" Hmmmmm - is it a HUGE MARGIN! when such atrocious lack of voter turnout (UNDER 10% is atrocious as it relates to marginal matters; regarding actuals.
We are compelled to NOTE: LOADSTAR is absolutely NOT “drawing any conclusions”, obviously by virtue of his ingenious utilization of the word “probably” inserted strategically, with precision, into already loaded sentence structures – so a NEW RULE (likely applies ONLY to LOADSTAR): ‘IF you say “probably” then ask another question followed by another “probably” you can actually AVOID drawing a conclusion!’ Such staggering achievement! It’s hardly the first such exchange of this kind; plenty more slithering
LOADSTAR appears to be having unknown forces undermining his, well, utter perfection: Seemingly from left field, a ‘Hissy Fit’ developed and instantly gained strength as it organized around the central notion that “Limpdump” (Load’s Term of Endearment to his long-time Ally “LibDem” (as you see, generous LOADSTAR has been known to allow a random 6-year old street girl, perhaps, to invent his cute Terms of Endearment, as that is the only viable explanation for such an unimaginative, puerile name for one of his more intelligent Fellow Americans, one who often trounces him soundly in fair argument (when such a rare occurrence of spontaneity manifests from time to time) and The One who, as we see in Comment #6 (Woodstock Budget Passes), LOADSTAR - read.
Now who says that LOADSTAR can’t stand losing an argument?
Nonsense! His quirky nature betrays a generous and fair spirit and when he puts his shoulder into it, his is the epitome of “Fair & Balanced”, ummm, propaganda! The extent to which he's willing to twist, obfuscate, deny, blame, blame, blame and divert it all away is matched only by his sheer hypocrisy when engaging in that silly Loadstar Trash-Talk (which he takes seriously, if no one else does), always insisting that behavior and rhetoric he finds offensive when directed at him, calls offensive, personalized attacks (and don't forget how everyone Gangs Up on Him!) - all goes straight to the way-side when he, in turn, uses the same Ad Hominem attacks, double standard rhetoric and hypocritical, for example, Name-Calling.
Examples continue as LOADSTAR makes the following statement (with a straight face) in Comment #7: “Seems to me I remember lots of howling about the “Republicans” removing Spanish language from the middle school. Did that ever happen? I haven’t heard either way. Since Kevin is back now, I hope he’ll answer my question.”
NOW - it seems true-to-form (and character) that LOADSTAR choosing to characterize the articulations and objections of one group regarding “removing Spanish language from the middle school” [sic] to be that of “howling”, clearly a de-humanized form of expression. So, then, are ‘those people’ actually just Animals? Capable of no better form of expression than simple Howling and all it implies. If it’s not readily – instantly – apparent to Loadstar just how offensive this is, just how deeply inappropriate, then let’s hope someone else does see that clearly and quickly. It is not only point blank de-humanizing, it just so easily allows us to indulge ourselves into that thinking itself, making it that much easier to let drop between our two groups these kind of monolyths that block communication, help fester doubts about each other and what we are capable of believing (that they actually DO express intellectual outrage. I guess this is where I say ‘more to come’, rather than search and f….
Rush L. is known for this oh-so-subtle tactic of using suggestive assertions that not only does the reaction seem a little inappropriate, most certainly it is perpetrated by “them that ain’t true Humans…they HOWL!, baby” (How can an actual Language be removed from the middle school? A BAN on speaking Spanish? Detention and expulsion for anyone caught saying “me casa, su casa”? OR does he actually mean to say that what is under consideration is simply eliminating the formal activity of teaching the language Spanish as part of the School curriculum the removal of Spanish Classes –classes in which this ‘howling’ language is taught in an organized fashion, with lesson plans, classrooms, etc.
That’s part of how it works – how easily we can just lose sight of the one issue that seemed king of important and work fighting for and about – whether that phrase was INTENDED to mean that those people doing the talking, those outraged at Spanish being taken off of the Curriculum, could only and literally HOWL to express their outrage, anger and opposition? DID someone suggest that? Did someone suggest that? Did someone not only suggest, but assert as a half-joke, half-dig that the only form of communication available is really HOWLING!?! OR that when ‘those people’ get sufficiently riled up and upset, they are so angry that they can only express themselves by often reverting back to their First Language~! OR that when Those People are made to feel sufficiently powerless, choiceness, marginalized regarding their very academic future, something so central to their chances of a better life across the board, when that future is being literally toyed with and JOKED ABOUT, is Howling an almost appropriate response; and on the flip side, given the stakes, the players (someone like LOADSTAR screwing around with the future of Those People, with a pompous smirk on his face) – WHAT is the correct response, by whom and to whom!?! At this point, I’d argue that Howling be put on the Table in near reach (and I imagine how Those People will have fun with that whole dynamic, enjoying our liberal guilt, laughing at our stuttering ‘are we doing this right?’ type attitudes, but never forgetting that SOMEONE did make the comments and keeping that true anger always nearby; while keeping in healthy context these ma…
Can THAT be what LOADSTAR is doing here? Flat-out suggesting that any group that DARES to object to the “removing Spanish language from the middle school” is actually a Non-Human Group? That is a provocative statement, sufficiently provocative to stir things up and likely it’s gone too far in actually (as it will be perceived).
I wonder, Loadstar, if you did take the time to slough through this strange piece, did reckon it was worthwhile answering some of the tougher questions and in doing so, make me look the fool you know I am once and for EVERYONE to see – but to do that you’ll have to really tackle the entire thing, not be your usual dismissive self (which is both Lazy and much more a DODGE of valid issues). I cannot imagine you have it in you to actuality tackle even 2/3rds of the challenges and issues raised here. Plenty more to talk about; I’d rather do it in a Non-Hostile manner, but I think we can manage if things to strike a balance.

While I think I could have saved cafe readers some time by simply describing Loadstar with a one word adjective, your tome has successfully pinned the tail on the jackass- oops, I mean donkey- in a way that is brilliantly done and with the relief of humor suited for a Friday afternoon!
I’m predicting that 1/8 of it will be tackled. lol.
Thanks- LD
I thought only Newcomer could devote so much space to a topic I have no interest in!
Aw, c’mon NC, that was pretty funny!
I was shooting for another ROTFLAMEOW, or whatever you call them!
Other blogs have the same problem with a certain blogger that sounds alot like Loadstar who used the word “stupid” here about 23 times since March 1 in comments not to mention the other inflammatory comments. It may be difficult for John to shut someone down for rude and insulting language given his penchant for free speech. Here are some examples how other blogs have experienced this same behavior. Take the time to read the comments in the Bull article and ask yourself if the commenter sounds familiar:
The Norwich Bull article in April 2011 has 85 comments:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/newsnow/x1274366035/Republican-Novak-making-another-run-for-Congress#axzz1KHF821oP
Here’s another blog that has commented on the same blogger’s behavior (5 articles here):
http://thekingsview.blogspot.com/search?q=Jenkins
+1 to comment #2
King-
Thank you for validating what many of us have thought all along.
Perhaps our local Republicans will take note that this immature foul mouthed person is their state Repub. Secretary as well as their beloved Mike Albert’s Campaign Treasurer.
Maybe, just maybe, they will recognize that this person’s inappropriate behavior is an embarrassment to their party and they will complain.
Then again, the right wing has radicalized to the point where this kind of behavior is becoming the acceptable norm.
King,
Thank you. No surprises on the identity. People like Bill Jenkins are why I no longer vote Republican.
Thanks,
Kevin
Quick question for Loadstar: What is the significance of your username? What does it mean? Not trying to debate anything or make an issue, just curious.
The reason I’m curious is that the only significance that “Loadstar” has to me is a truck, bus, etc. chassis made by International in the 60′s and 70′s.
Check out the article “Bridgeport sets property tax”.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1026&dat=19781012&id=ZgUlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhMGAAAAIBAJ&pg=1951,301133
Student, Here is a Flightstar Loadstar. This company has a presence at the Woodstock Airport.
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/239425.html
There is also a dumptruck called a Loadstar. Which do you think fits best.
Con, I’m not going to even bother reading your diatribe so don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer.
Swing and a miss “LibRepub” sorry but you’re wrong and so are limpdumb and Kevin Ford. It’s kind of amusing to watch you dopes take blind shots in the dark and come up with nothing so keep trying, I enjoy the entertainment!
Student, I’m not going to answer your question, it’s none of your business. “Loadstar” has many other meanings most of which predate the internet and your year of birth. You should try doing your research the old fashioned way, start with your local library.
And Kevin, it’s highly unlikely you ever voted Republican in the first place so you’re claim is simply not believable by anyone.
Although I have no criticism of Con’s newsgroup postings, I have a few observations and comments to share. First off, there is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Con’s essays from the first word to the last. I, speaking as someone who is not a sniveling, ribald faitour, will renew my resolve to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. You don’t need to be the smartest guy on the planet to figure that out. Heck, even the lowliest Joe Six-Pack knows that Con’s assistants are unified under a common goal. That goal is to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought.
In spite of all Con has done, I must admit I really like the guy. No, just kidding. The truth is that Con sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx’s proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who advance freedom in countries strangled by tyranny). He and his functionaries are a bunch of derelicts. As you know, derelicts are morons; morons are tightwads; tightwads are beguilers; and beguilers all want to fuel the fires of hatred. The point is that I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that no matter what terms are used, the world would be a much better place to live if Con just stopped trying to intensify or perpetuate insurrectionism. Cruel as that maxim may appear, we ought to drive off and disperse the lewd, uneducated casuists who tip the scales in Con’s favor. That’ll make Con think once—I would have said “twice” but I don’t see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to sanctify his depravity.
I would fain hunt down not only the perpetrators of sexism but also all of the proponents of that unscrupulous, cold-blooded philosophy but I’m a bit worried that Con will retaliate by infringing upon our most important constitutional rights. I’m worried because he has two imperatives. The first is to open new avenues for the expression of hate. The second imperative is to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding allotheism. Although the proper definition of “piezocrystallization” is hotly disputed, his smears cannot stand on their own merit. That’s why they’re dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with Con’s requirements is a peevish schlump. Con welcomes public debate as long as all of the debaters agree with his personal ethos. Enough said.
Con’s chums have the gall to accuse me of generating an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. Were these namby-pamby gutter-dwellers born without a self-awareness gene? The best answer comes from Con himself. That is, if you pay careful attention to his demented, crime-stained memoranda you’ll unmistakably notice that you’d think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Con’s plans to harm others or even instill the fear of harm. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his convictions. It is imperative that we inform such people that Con will stop at nothing to muddy the word “disdenominationalize”. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, if society were a beer bottle—something, I believe, that Con holds in high regard—he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink.
Incidentally, my only wonder is, Is Con genetically predisposed to threatening the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet? Well, I’m sure Con would rather arrest and detain his foes indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel than answer that particular question. At the risk of sounding hopelessly lazy, he operates on an international scale to conspire with evil. It’s only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale but to perform noble deeds. To parody the old song, “Fish gotta swim, Con gotta provide cover for a brusque, mad agenda.” His malefic game of chess—the covinous chess of despotism—has continued for far too long. It’s time to checkmate this dimwitted bribe-seeker and show him that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that he had the same intellectual honesty.
Call me crazy, but I’m beginning to think that Con is thoroughly inconsistent in his views. On one hand, Con insists that divine ichor flows through his veins. But on the other hand, he favors frog-marching his opponents into the nearest detention center or internment camp. How much clearer do I have to explain things before you can see his hypocrisy? Before he spews any more psychoanalytical drivel, let me assure him that he keeps saying that his viewpoints are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of self-serving propagandists and other bestial, chauvinistic wantwits. Con presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to compose paeans to teetotalism.
Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of Con’s venom-spouting opuscula, I am unable to decide; that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. Nevertheless, you may want to consider that terrorism doesn’t work. So why does Con cling to it? The answer I shall provide is broad, plain, and even more than sufficient. You see, by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, Con has made “experience” all-important. His experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly produce a new generation of philopolemical quidnuncs whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized sooner or later. The reason he wants to treat people’s bona fide personal devastation as bathos is that he’s completely tetchy. If you believe you have another explanation for his noxious, flighty behavior, then please write and tell me about it.
The two things I just mentioned—the way that Con’s communiqués are surrounded by a halo of exhibitionism and the fact that this is where the rubber hits the road—may sound like they’re completely unrelated, but they’re not. The common link is that he wants me to stop trying to provide some balance to his one-sided platitudes. Instead, he’d rather I kiss my freedom goodbye. Sorry, but I don’t accept defeat that easily. I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Con of planning to project a stream of base-minded images of death, sex, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian firmament. And I don’t want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that if he is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument.
Con often argues that he is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of misguided, oppugnant goofballs. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known rabble-rouser and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that when I’m through with Con he’ll think twice before attempting to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his critics. I don’t just believe that he is utterly unperturbed by juvenile scrubs (especially the crazy type) making recidivism socially acceptable; I can back that up with facts. For instance, he gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, Con ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that if it turns out that there’s surely no way to prevent him from turning a deaf ear to need and suffering then I guess it’ll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I’ll just have to give up trying to declare a truce with Con and commence a dialogue and accept the fact that every morning he asks himself, “How can I fool the masses today?”. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that his disquisitions are written in a peculiar doublespeak that is hard for the uninitiated to understand. Excuse me; that’s not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I have a scientist’s respect for objective truth. That’s why I’m telling you that masochism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other “ism”. That’s why it’s Con’s favorite; it makes it easy for him to diminish society’s inducements to good behavior.
I’m not one to criticize, but we must work together to oppose Con and all he stands for. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to cast a gimlet eye on Con’s smear tactics. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Con generally tries to keep his distance from the careless saboteurs who perpetuate the myth that going through the motions of working is the same as working. However, he sees nothing wrong with suppressing controversy and debate. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy. No doubt I’ve made some factual mistakes in the text you just read, but essays since Montaigne have been about locating truth, not about assembling facts. I’ll be happy as long as you’ve learned from this letter that it is not difficult to see the undercurrents of Bourbonism in Con’s proposed social programs.
It may sound like the kind of bogus claim made on late-night infomercials, …(see Loadstar’s new article. Admin).
Obfuscation through estoteric and/or pompous diction is indicative of one who aspires to impress, not elucidate
*Foghorn Leghorn
Is that really a Foghorn Leghorn quote? One of my favorite philosophers!
When I read a Loadstar comment I think of General Halftrack from “Beetle Bailey”. When completely aggravated with Private Bailey he would say something like “&@$-%#^£€<¥#%$&!!!!!!".
No, JTO. Somehow my post got truncated. If I remember correctly, it originally ended, “… not elucidate. He’s “a joke, son, A JOKE!”*
*Foghorn Leghorn
Loadstar, I find this comment of yours interesting:
“‘Loadstar’ has many other meanings most of which predate the internet and your year of birth.”
Last time we discussed my age, it was indirectly as you were doubting whether or not I actually was “a student,” and if the answer to that were no, I could be any age, so the meanings might not predate my year of birth unless they were from generations ago. If you’re still skeptical, why assume that they do? If you have accepted me as the truthful person that I am by believing that I am a student, thank you. If you’re simply going with the flow and using my age to your advantage by shrugging off my question, oh well. I assumed that you might be proud of your pseudonym and might want to share whatever story might be behind it, but I was wrong. Oh well; no loss here.
Correction: “If you’re simply going with the flow and shrugging off my question by using my age to your advantage, oh well.”
student, John convinced me you are indeed a “student” so I’m no longer “skeptical.”
As I said, if you do some research on “Loadstar” you just might find the answer
student here’s a hint, I said some time back it was a tribute to John Dlugosz, ask him.
Loadstar,
Just keep telling yourself that.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin said:
“Loadstar,
Just keep telling yourself that.”
Kevin, what are you referring to?
Loadstar,
You made the comment, “And Kevin, it’s highly unlikely you ever voted Republican in the first place so you’re claim is simply not believable by anyone.” The reality is that until about 2003 I was a right leaning independent who voted Republican more often than not.
The party really started changing in the mid 1990′s as they began to focus more on retaining/gaining power with wedge issues than with trying to improve the country. I’m now ashamed to admit it but I was even glad when GWB “won” the 2000 election. I voted for the jerk, putting the neocons (one right leaning wedge group) firmly in power. Shortly after 9/11 Saddam Hussein made a comment that GWB was going to attack him over it and I remember laughing to myself that he was a paranoid fool. By 2003 I wasn’t laughing any more.
I have never voted for a Republican in a national election since then (though I have, and still do vote for Republicans in local elections). The Republicans moved to the far right religious groups and now the far right tea party. Whatever wedge they can find to either regain or keep power. Their tactics no longer appear to be those of a group looking out out for the best interest of the country, but those of a group that has been corrupted by the desire for power.
So yes I have voted Republican and in local elections still do. The national Republican Party should pay close attention to why they have lost people like me. I’m sure it is comforting and easy to dismiss me by thinking that I’ve never voted Republican but that is simply not true. People who primarily work with the wedge issues and have no interest in working with people who have different opinions is what drove me away from the Republican party. The local version of that type of individual is Bill Jenkins.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin when you make ridiculous statements like this:
“The party really started changing in the mid 1990?s as they began to focus more on retaining/gaining power with wedge issues than with trying to improve the country.”
you’ve proven that you’re unreasonable and aren’t interested in voting for Republican candidates no matter what. Rest assured, I highly doubt the national Republican party isn’t losing any sleep over “losing” people like you.
Loadstar,
It’s comfortable to tell yourself that isn’t it? I liked President Reagan. Today President Reagan couldn’t make it in the Republican party. You are fooling yourself if you think the party hasn’t drastically changed.
Thanks,
Kevin
The Republican Party has not only changed drastically, it now applies it’s traditional intolerance to other Republicans if they are not Conservative enough. I have heard many, many reasonable, smart and fair Republicans basically say what Kevin said – they have left the party because it no longer is something they want to be associated with, because they do not share the extremist views, dogma dressed up to look like ideology and the utter intolerance for any view other than theirs.
If I’ve heard it once I’ve heard it 100 times – and from very valuable politicians and voters alike who the Republican Party would have done very well to retain.
When the Republicans misuse the Filibuster as they have, their intent to obstruct is clear – they violate their Oath because they absolutely are NOT serving their constituents or doing the work they were elected to to on behalf of ALL constituents (not just those who voted for him/her or that smaller sub-group of those extremist, often Tea Party types who will brook ZERO COMPROMISE in a profession where compromise is the name of the game (and without it you OBSTRUCT).
Were they elected to ‘send a message’ to ‘protest’!?! NO! They were elected to SERVE, but choose to obstruct and make speeches (protests).
Republicans used the Filibuster MORE TIMES in the past 3 years than it had been used in ALL of the previous 50 Years! Yes, on an aggregate basis! And they get red-faced when accused of Obstructionism – an act that violates their Constitutional Oath, btw, and fails their constituents.
It is shameful behavior.
Diane – now that is the Foghorn Leghorn I remember, “ah say,ah say . . .”