« They'll say anything to get a vote | Main | "Did I violate journalistic ethics? You tell me." »

January 26, 2005



Why, in short, do republicans hate democracy?

Want to talk about a word that's undergone a massive redefinition? Democracy has become, in the last 50 years or so, a synonym for capitalism, and the argument, pushed by the Republican party but espoused by many a Democrat as well, seems to be that the more laissez-faire the capitalism, the more democratic the society. It's crap, of course, because the two have nothing to do with each other--a society can be democratic politically and communist economically and can just as easily be a dictatorship politically and capitalist economically, but you'd never kow that from the rhetoric that burbles out of Washington and the news media daily.

So when Bush says we're bringing democracy to Iraq (and by extension, "freedom"), what he's really saying is that we're bringing capitalism to Iraq, and we're going to secure the greatest amount of Iraq's capital for American-based companies.


He's a fuckwit???? Is that your educated, adult-level opinion? Is that how you plan to lift this blog from sophmoric level up to respectable and professional?

Why do republicans hate democracy? What? All of them? Most of them? Some of them? What kind of juvenile commentary is this?

I am really becoming disillusioned with this blog. Anyone can blurt out obscene name-calling. It's rational discussion that takes some intellect and effort. You can do better than this. Can't you?

Julie O.

Hmmm, I think Buckshot has a point. Is it an educated opinion that Frank Luntz is a fuckwit?

The Urban Dictionary defines a fuckwit as "a person who is not only lacking in clue but is apparently unable or unwilling to acquire clue even when handed it on a plate in generous portions."

The Daily Howler's examples of Frank Luntz' career as a pollster indicate a man who uses his abilities and credentials to get and disseminate results which favor his partisan opinions. I don't know, however, if he is truly clueless about how to run honest polls, or if he purposely skews them. He may be a fuckwit, a partisan hack, or something else. But I think the opinion is valid.

Ed Drone

"Private" accounts? "Personal" accounts? It's still gutting of Social Security, no matter what you call it. I've seen other suggested names, on other blogs, and so far, the one that appeals to me (wish I'd thought of it first), the one for us to use from now on, is:

"Alpo Accounts."

That's it in a tin can.



Alpo is what a lot of seniors will be eating if this goes through--assuming they can afford a dog food of that quality.

On a side note, is there some reason why even though I've clicked the "remember personal info" box multiple times, this page refuses to do so? Just curious.

Julie O.

Incertus: Maybe it prefers to be referred to as "private" info.


i read this blog cause i like the vitriol and occasional immaturity. but i agree with J.O. above in saying that Luntz isn't a fuckwit - by J.O.'s def. - necessarily. don't get me wrong... he gets my goat. he just about implied that the president dictates the terms that reporters need to use. that's asinine, as you adeptly point out. the problems with words is that they are subjective symbols that are loaded with connotation. that Luntz understands and takes advantage of this is his brilliance. but that he uses it for evil makes him a dick. and the way he tries to do it so patronizingly, like everyone else is a complete idiot, incapable of understanding this glorious knowledge of the gods which he has is infuriating.

no, frank... we know what you're doing. you're playing with wording. yes, it's not above our heads, you dick. we know what the president WANTS the newspapers to say, but are they obligated to do it? no - because any attempt at objectivity (however futile) dictates that the reasons behind these word changes come to light. i thought reporters weren't supposed to be mouthpieces.

also, is "buckshot" your first real troll? congratulations.

here's what's left

Dr. Mr./Mrs. Buckshot,

Of course, it's your right not to read this blog if you're disillusioned with it. I don't think I ever claimed that anything that I wrote was "respectable," but if you think it is, thanks.

For what's it's worth, Julie O. and d have me convinced that actually Frank Luntz is not a "fuckwit," so I retract that. He's just an unscrupulous, corrupt, and intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

In asking why republicans hate democracy, of course, I was being ironic. Because no one hates democracy, and certainly it's not something that one can seriously accuse someone else of. Though I have my doubts about Mr. Bush's party, what with their apparent dislike of African-American voters.

The irony lies, of course, in the fact that the right has mastered the art of political character assassination. People who claim to be serious publish books with titles like "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" (by Ms. Coulter) and "Why the Left Hates America : Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness" (by Mr. Flyn). I'm sure you've got both in your collection. Since I have not claimed to be serious, it's fun for me to occasionally poke my "friends" on right by giving them a taste of their own medicine. Perhaps the ironic tone of the post in general with its assertion that the NYTimes should be replaced by talking points, could have clued you in to that fact.

For what it's worth, in your search for rational discussion, you neglected to address the actual subject of the post, which was, of course, the rather frightening implications of Mr. Luntz's contention that everyone should use the same words as the president. Since you probably didn't read that far, I'll quote it to you:

If the president stops using a word, and everyone else is supposed to follow suit -- as Luntz is unable to deny he wants them to do -- there is no role for the press at all in American society. If the president has the final word on how an issue is presented to the American people -- the American people whose opinions republicans claim to cherish -- then why have newspapers at all?

You want a serious discussion? First of all you have to tell me why it is that the president thinks he has the right to define the terms of the debate.




Well allow me to apologize to the lot of you. I was under the assumption that fuckwit was an inappropriate word to be used in conversation.

Now, I'm not a prude - I suppose I'm just a bit older than most of you. I had not ever looked in the "urban" dictionary.

From now on, I will just use the freewheeling verbiage of my youth in the mining camps of Montana where I grew up.

Now this cocksucking fag Frankin was discussing polls with this prick Luntz, and they had a spat. A real fucking hissy fit, over semantics. Let's say just for kicks that Luntz was a real Nazi dumbfuck. A real piece of shit mother fucker. A fuckwit to boot.

Now what was my point? Oh yeah. Yes, Luntz should not expect "everyone" to use the same words of the president. Okay? But who really gives a fuck what one pollster thinks?

I'm suddenly reminded of this lefty dude who was really pro-fag marriage. A real butt fucker. His point was that after the election, the Zogby polls showed that 69 percent (not 68 or 70, but SIXTY NINE) percent of those polled thought gay marriage should be legal.

Of course I challenged that silliness (politely) and offered to give him $1000 cash if he could provide one credible reference to that rather ironic 69 percent. He couldn't, of course. But he did call me a homophobe, a racist, a bigot, and everything else he could think of.

A real fucking intelligent converfuckingsation with a real goddamn genius.

Boy this is so much better. I'm really digging it now - this is phat - rad - bad - sick - etc etc.

Well if I'm too much of a prude here I'll try somewhere else. Let me know or ban my IP.

here's what's left

Mr./Mrs. Buckshot,

As I said, you're welcome to look elsewhere if you want. But in your entire, and rather strange if I might say, rant, you neglected to address the point of the post, which, I remind you was the logical extension of what Luntz is saying. And if you don't care, as you seem to imply, what one pollster thinks, please feel free not to comment.

I don't censor anything anyone writes. It's my policy not to block commentators (except spam, obviously), but you're certainly not going to convince anyone of anything by not addressing an issue.

Julie O.

Hey, Buckshot, I'm a fan of colorful language, myself, but I think it should be used appropriately and intelligently. Michael did attempt to use "fuckwit" appropriately. I think Luntz was in fact being a fuckwit (when I said the opinion was valid, I meant the opinion that Luntz is a fuckwit is valid). He is just probably intentionally being a fuckwit, which is worse.

But there is no evidence that Al Franken has ever engaged in activity for which he might be described as a "cocksucking fag."


The interesting thing about homophobia is how a neurotic fear is transformed into perverse rage. Such persons literally convince themselves (or allow themselves to become convinced) that there is something to be afraid of. The Bible is a great tool for making people afraid, always with the expressed purpose of preserving innocence.

Yet what is driven out by the fear? Compassion and humanity, for one. Fear leads to anger and lashing out, as BuckNaked just did. In seeking to objectify the focus of fear and attack it as if an alien invader, hatred arises like a shield and sword to transform the homophobe into the same apparition he fears, a neurotic stress bucket that twitches like a spastic charlie horse while simultaneously carrying a hair-trigger violent rage.

In many cases the most outspoken and violent are those who seek most desperately to eradicate their own instinctive sexual desires. Who wants to hang out with an outspoken bigot who might be suffering from a self-destructive form of self-loathing due to his own inability to reconcile his sexuality with socially accepted norms? Talk about a time bomb.

In cultivating neurotic fears, the Bible puts those susceptible to torrid scriptures completely at odds with the expressed objective of bringing everlasting blissful utopia to the faithful. For in the truest terms, there is no heaven nor hell but what we all make for each other here on our home, the earth. As long as we are at each other's throats over things as irrelevant as our sexuality, we are denying ourselves access to the gates of heaven and condemning ourselves to eternal damnation.

The comments to this entry are closed.