PDA

View Full Version : PJ O'Rourke Explains Democrats.



Odysseus
01-03-2011, 08:17 PM
They Hate Our Guts
And they’re drunk on power.
Nov 1, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 07 • By P.J. O'ROURKE

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

Photo Credit: Jason Seiler
I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739.html

wilbur
01-03-2011, 08:32 PM
Wow...

Does this kind of Nuremburg style rhetoric actually pass for substantive, meaningful information in your world?

Rockntractor
01-03-2011, 08:36 PM
Wow...

Does this kind of Nuremburg style rhetoric actually pass for substantive, meaningful information in your world?

He missed one, Democrats find the truth offensive!

Wei Wu Wei
01-03-2011, 08:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bCtJw.jpg

Madisonian
01-03-2011, 08:49 PM
Wow...

Does this kind of Nuremburg style rhetoric actually pass for substantive, meaningful information in your world?

P.J. O'Rourke is a political satirist.
Democrats obviously have no sense of humour either.

CueSi
01-03-2011, 09:06 PM
Wow...

Does this kind of Nuremburg style rhetoric actually pass for substantive, meaningful information in your world?

No. I guess P.J. could add one more item to what Democrats hate.Humor.
:p

~QC

Molon Labe
01-03-2011, 09:08 PM
Wow...

Does this kind of Nuremburg style rhetoric actually pass for substantive, meaningful information in your world?

PJ is a humorist/satirist and a quite good one at that. You should read him. He's great. And I'm really particular about pundits.

Peace Kills (http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Kills-Americas-Fun-Imperialism/dp/0871139197)

FBIGuy
01-03-2011, 09:14 PM
It does seem like that whole humor/satire thing slips past the incorrect thinkers on this board.

lacarnut
01-03-2011, 09:16 PM
Wow...

Does this kind of Nuremburg style rhetoric actually pass for substantive, meaningful information in your world?

You did not get the memo? What a shame cause millions of voters decided to clean house with many of these cockroaches.

wilbur
01-03-2011, 09:25 PM
PJ is a humorist/satirist and a quite good one at that.

Oh, ok... so he was just doing his best Limbaugh/Coulter impression... well, in that light, its pretty funny and masterfully done.



You should read him. He's great. And I'm really particular about pundits.

Peace Kills (http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Kills-Americas-Fun-Imperialism/dp/0871139197)

Yea, some of this stuff looks pretty good!

Odysseus
01-04-2011, 10:02 AM
Oh, ok... so he was just doing his best Limbaugh/Coulter impression... well, in that light, its pretty funny and masterfully done.



Yea, some of this stuff looks pretty good!

If you couldn't tell that this was a humor piece (and really,
how is it that you don't know who PJ O'Rourke is?), you need to get out more. And by out, I mean that you need to look beyond the syllabus at the community college, stop pretending to be an intellectual and just broaden your reading list.

Just when I think that you couldn't be more of an elitist tool...

wilbur
01-04-2011, 10:43 AM
If you couldn't tell that this was a humor piece (and really,
how is it that you don't know who PJ O'Rourke is?), you need to get out more. And by out, I mean that you need to look beyond the syllabus at the community college, stop pretending to be an intellectual and just broaden your reading list.

Just when I think that you couldn't be more of an elitist tool...

Hmm interesting... perhaps you should have looked at the syllabus a little harder at your local community college, and maybe you wouldnt be so incompetent when it comes to basic math, statistics, and reasoning... just a thought.

In any case, O'Rourke's piece was brilliant satire... because it imitated the real thing so well. Hell, it looks almost like a typical post of yours.

Odysseus
01-04-2011, 11:22 AM
Hmm interesting... perhaps you should have looked at the syllabus a little harder at your local community college, and maybe you wouldnt be so incompetent when it comes to basic math, statistics, and reasoning... just a thought.

Or what passes for a thought. My reasoning skills are more than adequate to defeat you, Wilbur, especially since you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.


In any case, O'Rourke's piece was brilliant satire... because it imitated the real thing so well. Hell, it looks almost like a typical post of yours.

O'Rourke is brilliant, but what would you expect from one of the founders of National Lampoon?

Oh, wait, you didn't expect anything, because you had no idea of who he was, and your huffed up, indignant response was based on your ignorance and lack of a sense of humor, rather than his ability to deceive you (although deceiving you doesn't appear to be very difficult, as you'll fall for anything if it's wrapped in the appropriate pseudointellectual mush). It's not Rush or Coulter he's lampooning, it's you.

BTW, for someone who adamantly denies being on the left, you sure spring to their defense pretty quickly. That knee jerks very nicely when the reflex is stimulated, doesn't it?

Lager
01-04-2011, 11:39 AM
He does rise to any attack on the left quite quickly, and though he disparages Coulter etc, I bet he finds quite a bit of common ground in Bill Maher, James Carville, Paul Begala and Michael Moore. :p

wilbur
01-04-2011, 12:39 PM
Or what passes for a thought. My reasoning skills are more than adequate to defeat you, Wilbur, especially since you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

O'Rourke is brilliant, but what would you expect from one of the founders of National Lampoon?

Oh, wait, you didn't expect anything, because you had no idea of who he was, and your huffed up, indignant response was based on your ignorance and lack of a sense of humor, rather than his ability to deceive you (although deceiving you doesn't appear to be very difficult, as you'll fall for anything if it's wrapped in the appropriate pseudointellectual mush).


My response was based on the fact that his satire, which you claim is lampooning democrats, looks a hell of a lot like (indistinguishable really) the articles you (among others) typically post (non-satires).

And no, wasnt really familiar with the guy, but I have read some of his stuff unknowingly, without regard for the who the author was, now that I'm looking at some of his stuff. Oh well. But then again, at least I didnt dismiss him as obscure (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=336885&postcount=77) or accuse him of corruption, simply because I had not heard of him.



It's not Rush or Coulter he's lampooning, it's you.


Then his lampoon is more clever than even he realizes.



BTW, for someone who adamantly denies being on the left, you sure spring to their defense pretty quickly. That knee jerks very nicely when the reflex is stimulated, doesn't it?

Didn't defend the left anywhere in this thread. I criticized the right. Not even close to the same thing.

Odysseus
01-04-2011, 01:14 PM
My response was based on the fact that his satire, which you claim is lampooning democrats, looks a hell of a lot like (indistinguishable really) the articles you (among others) typically post (non-satires).

It is indistinguishable from other satires, in other words? Rush and Coulter are satirists. I sometimes am, although with you, it becomes difficult, since so many of your arguments are already beyond the scope of satire and beggar humorous commentary. Regardless, if you could read that and not see the humor in it without being told that it is supposed to be humorous, then the fault is not in us, but in you. We can add cluelessness and humorlessness to the other sterling qualities which you have continually demonstrated, but which you get incensed about when we point them out to you.


And no, wasnt really familiar with the guy, but I have read some of his stuff unknowingly, without regard for the who the author was, now that I'm looking at some of his stuff. Oh well. But then again, at least I didnt dismiss him as obscure (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=336885&postcount=77) or accuse him of corruption, simply because I had not heard of him.
You've learned to link! Will wonders never cease?

O'Rourke's not exactly obscure, while your source in the other thread was. I never said that he was corrupt, but I did point out that the NY Times, which you cited as authoritative, is. Care to argue that point? Be my guest.


Then his lampoon is more clever than even he realizes.

Well, you are an easy target...


Didn't defend the left anywhere in this thread. I criticized the right. Not even close to the same thing.

You attack the right, or what you perceive as the right, but do you recall the old Chinese (and Arabic) proverb that "the enemy of my enemy is my ally?" Or perhaps it is the person posting the article that you find objectionable? It's hard to say with you where malice ends and idiocy begins, but feel free to clarify the matter.

Madisonian
01-04-2011, 01:40 PM
I would strongly suggest that wilbur not read Mark Steyn if he is offended by stinging satire from the right.

While I have read P.J. and like his writings, Steyn can make P.J. look like a boy scout at times.

wilbur
01-04-2011, 01:57 PM
It is indistinguishable from other satires, in other words? Rush and Coulter are satirists.


Sometimes they are - but their satires usually involve imitations or caricaturization of liberals or liberal policy. A couple of examples would be Rush's Al Sharpton commercials or "Barak the Magic Negro" bits.

But this article appears to do for republicans what Rush often does to liberals. Whatever its intended target, it looks like caricature of right wing pundits and media (and a significant amount of CU posters, like yourself). When Rush and Coulter put on their serious faces, the words in this article could have come straight from their mouths. If the guy's point was to imitate the absurdity in much of the right wing press' demonization of liberals, it hits the nail on the head.

Or maybe the article is actually expressing some genuine sentiments of the author.. in which case I would bring us back to my original post in this thread.



I sometimes am, although with you, it becomes difficult, since so many of your arguments are already beyond the scope of satire and beggar humorous commentary. Regardless, if you could read that and not see the humor in it without being told that it is supposed to be humorous, then the fault is not in us, but in you. We can add cluelessness and humorlessness to the other sterling qualities which you have continually demonstrated, but which you get incensed about when we point them out to you.


Oh I do find the article pretty funny, when I look at it in the context of a satire.



You've learned to link! Will wonders never cease?

O'Rourke's not exactly obscure, while your source in the other thread was.

Only if we define "obscure" as "somebody Odysseus hasnt heard of".



Well, you are an easy target...

You attack the right, or what you perceive as the right, but do you recall the old Chinese (and Arabic) proverb that "the enemy of my enemy is my ally?"

Yep, heard of it. But I don't care much for silly proverbs. If a left winger had posted a similar article here aimed at the right, I would have said the same thing.


Or perhaps it is the person posting the article that you find objectionable? It's hard to say with you where malice ends and idiocy begins, but feel free to clarify the matter.

Malice and idiocy are not mutually exclusive - and you've got the combination down to a science.

Odysseus
01-04-2011, 08:08 PM
I would strongly suggest that wilbur not read Mark Steyn if he is offended by stinging satire from the right.

While I have read P.J. and like his writings, Steyn can make P.J. look like a boy scout at times.
This is true, which is why Wilbur ought to read him. Best case, he learns something, and worst case, his head explodes like the scene in Scanners. Either way, I can live with it.

Sometimes they are - but their satires usually involve imitations or caricaturization of liberals or liberal policy. A couple of examples would be Rush's Al Sharpton commercials or "Barak the Magic Negro" bits.

But this article appears to do for republicans what Rush often does to liberals. Whatever its intended target, it looks like caricature of right wing pundits and media (and a significant amount of CU posters, like yourself). When Rush and Coulter put on their serious faces, the words in this article could have come straight from their mouths. If the guy's point was to imitate the absurdity in much of the right wing press' demonization of liberals, it hits the nail on the head.

Or maybe the article is actually expressing some genuine sentiments of the author.. in which case I would bring us back to my original post in this thread.
That you're a humorless drone?

O'Rourke really does believe that Democrats are hateful power junkies. Feel free to argue otherwise, but most of us here concur with that view.


Oh I do find the article pretty funny, when I look at it in the context of a satire.
So, you don't agree that Democrats are hateful power junkies? Funny position for someone who attacks the right, while claiming not to be of the left.


Only if we define "obscure" as "somebody Odysseus hasnt heard of".
I prefer to define "obscure" as "somebody only Wilbur has heard of."


Yep, heard of it. But I don't care much for silly proverbs. If a left winger had posted a similar article here aimed at the right, I would have said the same thing.

Funny, but Satanicus, Wei and a number of others have done just that, and I don't recall you ever coming down on them this way.


Malice and idiocy are not mutually exclusive - and you've got the combination down to a science.
Whereas you have elevated it to an art.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you were malicious or an idiot, but since you accept that one can be both, no doubt a lesson learned from your mirror, I will concede that the two can coexist, but argue that you are the proof, not me. I'm not the one who wants to upend centuries of law to satisfy my petty ego, without any concern or even pretense of concern for the malign effects. That would be you.

Molon Labe
01-04-2011, 08:18 PM
I think you attributed all those quotes to the wrong fella Odysseus :p

Madisonian
01-04-2011, 08:26 PM
I think you attributed all those quotes to the wrong fella Odysseus :p

Well, one was right anyway.
I do hope the Major shoots better than he quotes!;):D

Odysseus
01-04-2011, 08:56 PM
I think you attributed all those quotes to the wrong fella Odysseus

I stand corrected. I'm blaming it on a day of intense PowerPoint slide production.

Well, one was right anyway.
I do hope the Major shoots better than he quotes!;):D

I do. I just hope that the CG's BUA slides don't have Wilbur quotes pasted in. :eek::D

Madisonian
01-04-2011, 08:58 PM
I stand corrected. I'm blaming it on a day of intense PowerPoint slide production.


I do. I just hope that the CG's BUA slides don't have Wilbur quotes pasted in. :eek::D

Easy Section 8 if you're looking...

Odysseus
01-05-2011, 12:17 AM
Easy Section 8 if you're looking...

LOL! More like a swift kick in the ass in the middle of the BUA.