I love comments. I receive so few of them, and I enjoy reading each and every one - positive, negative, neutral, and unrelated. Plus, if I blog about a comment or commenter, I'll link to one of his/her sites. Unfortunately, my current PageRank of 2 won't really help.
Anyhow, I received a peculiar comment from Vote for Hillary Online, who wrote:
"Hillary is the ONLY candidate with these 4 attributes: honor, patriotism, loyalty, and kindness. I got $35 in the bank that says no other candidate has those attributes. Jerk.From what I can tell from the Vote for Hillary Online blog and website, this commenter is a militant Clinton supporter and/or an awesome satirist.
Satire, you say? Well, check out this post entitled "Grassroots Hillary. Mission: Bumper Sticker." This proposed mission has since been either aborted or put on hold, but initially, the writer suggested that other Clinton supporters place Hillary Clinton bumper stickers on other people's vehicles without their permission. It's brilliant in its blatant sponsorship of vandalism! Because pissin' folks off will no doubt win support for an indirect cause, in a reverse psychological kind of way.
As far as the comment goes, the commenter ends his/her message with "Jerk." Under normal circumstances, a vague insult from a Hillary Clinton supporter against the writer of a moderately positive review of Hillary Clinton is just ridiculous. As far as I can tell, only two kinds of people would try to bully another into voting their way: (1) Satirists and (2) the criminally insane. Because I'd rather not use an ad hominem attack, I'll say it's satire. (I could be wrong, of course.)
Do keep in mind that I am still a registered Democrat and therefore will have a bit of say in my state's closed Presidential primary. And the jury's still out when it comes to my endorsement of a Democratic candidate. (Aside from Elizabeth Kucinich, of course!)
As far as analyzing candidates on the basis of honor, patriotism, loyalty, and kindness goes - while noble and ideal...it's just not funny. "Fundie, Jingo, or Pinko?" is moderately offensive across the political spectrum (but does lean left a bit) and tries to inject some hyperbole, humor, and useful knowledge when it comes to identifying the candidate your party should nominate.
Here's an exercise in stating the obvious when it comes to DeRamos.org's little game of "Fundie, Jingo, or Pinko?":
If you're an Evangelical Christian, then you should consider a fundie candidate. Likewise, if you are not an Evangelical, you might want to avoid voting for such an incompatible candidate.
If you have unwavering support for the Iraq War, using the military to rebuild nations, etc., then a jingo candidate might be for you. If you've ever called French fried potatoes "Freedom Fries" or boycotted French's mustard, vote for a jingo. If you dislike the Dixie Chicks in a way that doesn't involve music, vote for a jingo. However, if you believe that patriotism involves dissent sometimes, then a jingo might not be for you.
Finally, if you have progressive/liberal beliefs, then a pinko candidate might be for you. While we have two categories that mock conservatives, pinko is the most loaded of the three pejoratives. If you didn't know, pinko refers to socialism - which is a slippery slope that implies Soviet communism to many. As long as our pinkos don't advocate totalitarian government, then all this slippery slope red scare fear is baseless.
Anyhow, fundies might advocate a totalitarian theocracy - which is bad if you are not in 100% agreement with the theocracy's dogma. Of course, jingoism can degenerate into nationalistic fascism pretty quickly. All's I'm sayin' is that totalitarianism blows - and non-ad hominem debate is good.
And yes, comments are awesome.