Not too long ago, I discovered Mahablog through Dean's World. Read a small amount of Mahablog, and you will soon discover that Maha is a die-hard liberal.
While discussing one issue a few weeks ago, I became banned in Maha-land. Nevertheless, I continued to visit there occasionally (I love black humor), and when I saw the ban had been lifted, I decided to ask a couple questions about Maha's denunciation of all things conservative. Here's what I wrote:
Why do you assume that all economists working in this administration, at the WSJ or any other conservative organization must be irresponsible?
Do you not think that intelligent, responsible individuals can have opposing points of view?
After being pilloried for asking these questions, I went to respond anew - but, alas; once again, Maha had banned me.
I know that not all liberals have such appalling manners and such thin skins. But really - how can people who behave this way even begin to call themselves liberals?
A mockery of what the word is supposed to mean.
They aren't liberals in the traditional sense of the word, of course. They are fascist leftists.
Posted by: David Andersen | Monday, January 03, 2005 at 02:58 PM
Peg, you experienced the very same kind of thing I went through during my college years. Disagreement with a leftist liberal is not looked upon as constructive debate or a 'dialougue' but rather as subversive dissent which must be crushed or in your case, banned lest common sense ideas or facts sway the the weak minded. I learned a long time ago that the left is big on rhetoric, small on facts. I have freinds who I don't even discuss politics with anymore because such 'discussions' generally result emotions taking over where facts and logic no longer work in thier favor. Then we end up pi$$ed at each other for a month and then forget about it so it's better to discuss other safe issues.
Posted by: Eskimo | Monday, January 03, 2005 at 05:34 PM