There are plenty of well intentioned groups that are not generally labeled among the Christofascist Neocons. As an example, I would toss up Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their call for random road block sobriety tests that stomp on the principle of probable cause. I’m sure that too is motivated by a traumatized excessive fear of the other.

Whenever you hear, “If only one child can be saved, it will be worth it!” ask yourself what principle of social liberty is being sacrificed.

Link to article (required NYTimes access) : http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The article is both insightful and humorous.

I observed shortly into Bush’s first term that his disinclination to introspect, cooperate, and weight other perspectives while excepting himself from certain laws while citing God as his justification …. well, it resonated with and emboldened the same sort of narcisistic grandeur and unrestrained superego that those with already precarious psychological balance often possess.

Our politicians who engage in these shamefully farcical public shenanigans bear some responsibility for sounding the trumpet call that summons up their unbalanced minions like the zombies from night of the living dead.

Is this the sort of highly touted personal accountability that we can expect from the right? If this is what we were promised by the right, it speaks for itself.

Disrupting discussion is a game but it’s also a game with a purpose - it’s the internet equivalent of sending in a few louts to turn an orderly demo into a violent riot. Rad-cons are terrified at the prospect of a new mainstream consensus developing that sidelines them to the extremist fringe where they belong, so let’s recognise their tactics for what they are and cut off their oxygen by ignoring them.

What we need to do is take the negative term, “politically correct,” and label your opponents with it.

Example:

–These days, being politically correct is pretending Bush is an honorable man.

Given the preeminence of the rambling wingnuts within the mass media, we must conclude that thier position, regardless of its problems, is striving to become the popular ethos. Though it is typically gratifying and evan humorus to dismiss the most outrageous hyperbole of the wingers (ie. soy milk make you gay), is should aways be considered that each hyperbole simple allows for a lesser extreme view to become accepted. As an example, I ask you to consider the mainstream acceptance of torture, and the endless discussions of when it’s appropriate; and little discussion of its inhumanity. Populism is generally a dark political road, and its desination is often lead to very dismal places.

The caveman references are apt.
They feed the masses that undoubtedly are descended from cavemen that dined on vegetarian liberals of failed tribes. The meat they serve may be spoiled but their is no shortage of buyers.

I agree, but before I ban you for being annoying I want to explain, patiently, that the problem with liberals in the past several years is that we haven’t had a “party line.” And the Democrats have been stumbling over each other playing “more conservative than thou.”

One of the things that’s held us back is a knee-jerk tendency on the part of some people to always find “balance” by claiming both sides are just as bad. Sometimes they are, but sometimes they aren’t.

I am always happy to speak up when I think someone on “my” side is in the wrong. I really don’t need lectures on that point, thanks.

If Wikipedia is right, the current sense of “politically correct” seems to have originated among radicals who were chafing at the party line laid down by other radicals.

I sincerely believe Wikipedia is wrong, as it often is, although I can’t prove it.I suspect whoever wrote it was a rightie who is not as old as I am and has no clue what he is talking about.