100 monkeys typing.

Man, you said it. May your tribe increase. I hope hundreds more like you will take to the airwaves and blogosphere and tell the world what real Democrats, what real liberals stand for. No more of this fake "centrist" talk every election cycle. No more running right in the general election after running left in the primaries. You are saying EXACTLY what we need- unvarnished truth. People today wonder what the Democratic Party stands for. They are naturally confused about what it means to be a liberal. If Dems will follow your advice, speak up, speak truthfully, stand up and be counted, then we can truly have a majority party.

By majority party I mean a 60+ margin in the Senate. By "we" I mean conservatives. It's people like you who give conservatives like me great hope that in succeeding election we can gain a filibuster-proof Senate majority. I dislike it when Kerry and HRC fake a centrist stance, partly because they can peel off moderate voters. But you-- you are the voice of ideology and and if Dems will speak like you then Republicans can mop up with new gains. Again, may your tribe increase. I love it.

"Bullshit Posted by: gamma at June 9, 2005 05:21 AM"

So all of the bigotry, corruption, lying about war, inequitable taxation, ect. is just dandy with you, so long as Republicans win?

I believe that's what's inferred. If what we now have, is the result of a "narrow" Republican majority, just think of the havoc they can inflict with absolute power.

Administrative denial, the by-product of an Ownership Society.

I would be interested as to the definition of the term conservative used by gamma. I consider myself conservative, but I have not felt a connection to the Republican party that I am registered. There are many disenfranchised GOPers who aren't on board with the Falwell, Buchanen and Bob Jones crowd and the way Dean is talking that won't sway them.

Currently, I don't make enough money to justify supporting the Republican agenda, but Im workin real hard to get there! ;)

Great comments and they show some heat and passion.

That is what is missing in the current debate from those who oppose this runaway train called the Bush Administration. More of us need to get good and pissed. There are good reasons.

Just today someone who wanted to toe the Republican party line said all emotion needed to be removed from any debate. Bullshit! That is why we are where we are now.

If someone knocks you down and pisses on you, your damned straight you are going to be mad.

Guys,
"I believe that's what's inferred" YOU infer from my post. I stated or implied in my post. Q. 1. How old are you? Q 2. What sort of "education" did you have that you don't know the difference between "infer" and "imply"? I know you might carp that this is a meaningless cheapshot but why not simply use the English language correctly? It doesn't cost anything extra to speak and write correctly.

JRI, there is little point in touching the tar baby of the charges. I seem them as disputable, I surmise (perhaps incorrectly) that you don't, so we'd likely just talk past each other. What's the point? I'll only comment where I agree with you-- the corruption charge is one that resonates and each Member and Senator that is found guilty should be punished. And I agree on inequitable taxation-- if it's progressive it's inequitable. I'm for a flat tax. :)

Kerry, the goal of conservatives is to RUIN and DESTROY. We will not be sated until the skies are scorched, all that is green becomes grey or black, 100% of the wealth is controlled by .0001% of the population, military ops are taking place in every nation, and concentration camps are created for people who differ from us one iota.

I think it's just as ludicrous when friends on the Right claim Dems are out to destroy the country. Good grief. Each side has interests, an agenda to push. Perhaps with EVERY agenda in the world there are winners and losers. I cannot believe that either side wants to DESTROY the country but both sides seek to advance their interests. You don't think 100 years from now and 200 years from now the country will be humming along, no matter who is in power? If not, I guess I believe our society is more durable than you do.

CB, I am not enamored of the fiscal liberalism of the current GOP Members and Senators, nor the terrible lack of enforcement of border control/security. People tell me that the Southern border cannot be secured. Let's at least try! It's a matter of will and I believe there are those who have the will to ensure that close to 100% of immigation to our country is legal. Liberals who like the New Deal could rally around a Secure the Borders program because it could be a like a new PWA.

Some examples of gamma's magnificent command of the English language:

"It's people like you who give conservatives like me great hope that in succeeding election (sic) we can gain a filibuster-proof Senate majority."

"you are the voice of ideology and and (sic) if Dems will speak..."

"I believe that's what's inferred" YOU infer from my post." (Is this supposed to be a sentence?)

"I seem (sic) them as disputable, I surmise..."

Gamma, it doesn't cost any more to proofread. But of course this is standard practice for the new conservatives - attack your opponent from your weakest position.

Lob charges of adultery while divorcing your wife who has cancer, claim your own sexual/drug-using/drinking past was "youthful indiscretion." Attack the purple heart awarded veteran even though you deserted from the national guard. Champion "states rights" unless those rights involve decriminalizing certain personal choices like marijuana use, death with dignity, or homosexual's rights.

Scream about the Dem president's "lies" when those lies involve personal private behavior between consenting adults, yet ignore/enable/excuse the bald-faced lies of the Rep president that enmired us in an unnecessary & ineptly planned blood-bath costing hundreds of billions while enriching the president's friends at Halliburton.

Be a pillar of morality like Bill O'Reilly while making unwanted dirty phone calls to your young production assistant. Be another pillar of morality like Rush Limbaugh while hiding a secret drug-addiction. Awwwww- I know, it's not nice to make light of drug addiction... but it sure is fun to expose hypocrites.

Yes, inferred, as my follow up was to JRI.

But, just for the record;

in·fer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fûr)
v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers
v. tr.
To conclude from evidence or premises.
To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy).
To hint; imply.

Kerry,

You wrote, "I believe that's what's inferred." If you wrote "that's what's" about your own inference, it is grammatically correct but an unusual construction. I read your statement to mean, "JRI, I believe that's what Gamma is communicating." If I got your meaning correctly, you confused "infer" and "imply." See Bartleby's for the common error:
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0174.html

Worse for your perspective is the authoritative (for English) OED.
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50116217?query_type=word&queryword=infer&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=iCKs-7nQz8b-6896&hilite=50116217
The OED lists the usage you highlight and then comments, "This is widely considered incorrect."
:)

My GUESS as to its listing, even with the statement that it is incorrect, is as follows. People who do not know any better communicate incorrectly and the incorrect usage becomes popularized. Eventually the language, under the weight of collective ignorance, absorbs the opposite meaning as one of the lesser meanings. Democracy at work, I suppose, but ignorance as well.

If you were to do a Google search on "infer" and "imply" you would see ample confirmation that your usage is erroneous.

Ironically, as the stereotypes go, backward redneck theocrats are the ones who lack education.

Dear gamma:

Nobody likes a prescriptivist.

*heart*

So did this turn into an argument for school vouchers? or against them?

Peter,
If true, how would one account for hordes of friends that some prescriptivists have?

R Whitley: THANK YOU. I love it when mistakes in proofing are exposed. I fail to understand why others don't also relish correction. You are correct that it doesn't cost any more to proof and I will be more diligent in the future.

I recall veterans, including Purple Heart recipients and highly ranked officers, criticizing Kerry. But their criticisms don't count to you, do they? Your nominee, right or wrong.

Most (perhaps all) conservatives that I communicate with would reject "states rights" meaning one cannot have federal laws respecting matters like murder. What you call death with dignity some see as taking innocent life. It is at least disputable, worthy of debate and subject to elections, legislation and referenda. Perhaps the country will decide as you see it. I suspect many conservatives would agree on the states rights nature of medical marijuana. Not quite sure which rights pertaining to sexual orientation you find in the Constitution. As for marriage, there is a lengthy history to the term and it has entailed, ever and always, heterosexual union. It seems civil unions, supported by many conservatives, don't infringe upon people of any sexual orientation. Do you object when President Bush and VP Cheney say that civil unions are fine? They are on record in support of civil unions.

It's not worth responding to your point about lies because you clearly inhabit the left's echo chamber about Iraq and Halliburton. No matter how silly those beliefs are, the left WILL believe them. So be it. What is baffling is that absent from your commment is any criticism of a sitting President lying under oath. Because his sex in the White House was between consenting adults, why lie? Lying under oath was criminal, and the law does not distinguish lies about sex from other lies. Perjury is perjury. But liberals like you don't care, do you?

Back to what started all this: does anyone here object to my full, robust embrace of the original post? I LOVE this sort of rhetoric from Dean and the left and truly hope you folks keep espousing it. I hope your nominee in 2008 does not use fake centrist rhetoric. Please be as authentically left in public as you really are. And the country will keep voting Republicans into office.

The best part of all this is that folks like you tried really, really hard this election. You gave billions of dollars, hours of time, and you gave your hearts to the cause. Your laid it all on the line...and you LOST! The country is not where you are. It's pure delight to see you try and fail.

great post

Monsieur Gamma is feeling threatened. That much is obvious. Clearly unable to present anything of value in a debate, he instead nitpicks at grammar? Sing it with me, Kids, "He's a smooth operator, a smoooooth operator..." YAWN.

Great post as always, Kerry. Liberals who are ready for a REAL showdown and refuse to BACK down are in the majority and our numbers are growing. I teach 19 and 20 years olds and have yet to meet one student who is Republican or even conservative. The neocons are dying off. They will be replaced by young liberals. [Consider this. The first day System of a Down's new album, Mezmerize, was released it knocked red-state favorite Toby Keith off the number one spot on the Billboard album charts.] Get used to it, G. Your glory days are over. The future is ours. Now you can let that SCARE you, or you can accept it. It's your decision if you want to remain an unenlightened conservative and die a bitter, miserable, broken shell of a man or accept the truth and set yourself free. Totally your choice. And THAT is just one of the things that I LOVE about America. CHOICE!! ***cue music*** "Oh Beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain!......"

Lulu,
I live in reality, you live in hope. If you were correct, how come seven months ago the country returned a horrible (in your estimation) President to the White House and expanded the GOP lead in the Senate? You're right about "choice." I can choose to believe your wishful thinking, or I can choose to believe cold, hard electoral data. Cue that music, baby. Guess I'll stick with the data.

While we're in our glory days, we'll keep confirming justices that your ilk think are terrible for the country. We not only control the legislative and executive branch NOW in REALITY, but we are in the process of tilting the judiciary in a more conservative bent for the future. Will you win on judicial nominees? If my glory days are "over" then the GOP will lose on nominees. If you are correct, Bush won't get his nominees confirmed. Stay tuned, Lulu, and see who wins. :) Winning NOW settles whose days are over.

Curious...did you think you were going to win in the days leading up to the last election? Did you have frissons of delight when the early returns suggested a Kerry win? Mmmm...yes, I am scared. Keep your hope, and I'll keep reality.

Memorize your little "nanner, nanner, nanner" speech for the future, G. Perhaps that underpaid convict working in the nursing home would be interested in hearing it while he's changing your diaper. You'll have plenty of time to reflect upon your empty, hateful life then. Now there's some reality for ya.

You used the term "hate speech" as a descriptor of the Bushies as though they invented it. I think you'll find the truth if you actually cared to look. Be honest with yourself...

The majority of hate speech comes from the left these days.

1/10 for emotion without substance

JTB, here's a little secret I'll share with you. Your pretty little head may think that "I know you are but what am I" is a powerful argument but really, Sugar, it's not. It's right up there with "nanner, nanner, nanner." Hey, I'll bet you and G are buddies, huh? Or the same person..... Run along now. There's a good boy.

Attack the Republicans, not Dean. Good idea. Will the Deaniacs remember that when the rest of the Democratic Party asks them to attack Republicans and not Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Hoyer, Salazar, etc., etc., etc.

Let's stay focused on policy, that's the point.