Don’t forget Surge drinkers.

...that there’s some pretty fired up persecution complex the author has going on there.  I must not hang out in the right corners of the intertubes, since I’ve missed all the calls for the forced extinction of Hillary supporters…

There was an orange Mountain Dew?

Why don’t people tell me these things in time????????

Vanilla Coke!

I can only get it at Steak ‘n’ Shake or other ‘fountain drink’ places now.

I feel so abused.

Wait a minute.  Does that mean that white men are PUMAs, or PUMAs are white men?  Because Jonah Goldberg teaches that white men are the new Jews.

But, whatever the reason, they did not accept that Jesus was the savior.

Of course, the messiah was supposed to bring about a time of peace and justice. Seen any swords beaten into plowshares? Sure; and there aren’t any more spears either, they’re all pruning hooks, right? So why wouldn’t Jews accept that the messiah has come?

And oh, the bullshit doth flow in the comments.  The writer starts whining that the premise of her column was not what she meant to say.  Lots of the usual Republican-inspired projection about Obama’s alleged messiah complex, not to mention the usual litter of trolls.

Oy.

Let me add Turbografx-16 gamers to that list, too.

Oh! And the 20 people who bought the Pontiac Aztek.

God, this is fun.

Dutch football fans.  Brazilian &$_^(&*%#^%* was offsides on the final 1994 quarterfinal goal.

Hold the phone!  Flowbee writes an article that is critical of Israel and the PUMAs somehow transform it into yet another opportunity to paint themselves martyrs because they supported Israel’s Best Friend, Hillary Clinton.  WTF??  Two things spring to mind:

1.  Your typical PUMA doesn’t have a clue about any political issue.

2.  At this point, it’s safe to say that Hillary is officially the PUMA bus along with NObama.

History will vindicate the Edsel owners and the Crystal Pepsi drinkers!  And someday, we of the PC-DOS diaspora will come home at last!

One might read replies like Donna’s and start to understand the link post’s premise.

And someday, we of the PC-DOS diaspora will come home at last!
damnedyankee on 01/08 at 07:40 PM

PC-DOS? No! OS/2 will conquer!

Wait a minute.  Does that mean that white men are PUMAs, or PUMAs are white men?  Because Jonah Goldberg teaches that white men are the new Jews.

Ummm, I think that white men are like Conservative Jews, and PUMA’s are like, uhh, Reconstructionists.  Or something.

Dutch football fans.  Brazilian &$_^(&*%#^%* was offsides on the final 1994 quarterfinal goal.

And there’s no way they woulda lost in 1978 with Cruijff!!

PUMAs can’t be the new Jews.

Jews are statistically significant.

ZING!

Yeah, and speaking of which, why won’t A-Sharp release a Vista-compatible version of “King of Dragon Pass”?  Because that game was really good.

PUMA is the (n-word) of the United States?

Awww ...

This thread is mis-titled ... it should be PUMA is the New Wingnut.

Where’s the love for the Commodore 64 owners?  They’re still big in Germany, you know.  (Well, they were 10 years ago.)

One might read replies like Donna’s and start to understand the link post’s premise.

And one might read your reply and understand why PUMAs only receive mockery at this point, since apparently pointing out that the link post is very confused about where Hillary and Obama stand on Israel is us being evil and picking on you.

Crissa, one might read your reply and think you are not a very nice person.

I am not a puma, however, I stopped posting here and almost stopped reading here for nearly six months because a large number of posters were absolutely rabid if anyone questioned anything Obama.
The PUMA hate and accusations expressed towards anyone who questioned anything were truly mind boggling.

I am not a puma, however, I stopped posting here and almost stopped reading here for nearly six months because a large number of posters were absolutely rabid if anyone questioned anything Obama.

I stopped reading Shakesville for a while for the opposite reason—too much rabid Obama hate by the commenters.  Pretty much everything he did was proof that he hated women.  It happened on both sides, unfortunately. 

Most people got over it once the convention started and a few die-hards got over it on election night.  It’s only the truly nutty—like NoQuarter—who are still keeping up the paranoia and victim complex.  Which is why we’re pointing and laughing at them.

I even thought at least half of No Quarter’s readership—half of those who didn’t get over it on election night—would at least be happy that she was chosen to be Sec. of State.

I was wrong.

I liked the red Mt. Dew. Can I be oppressed?

The PUMA hate and accusations expressed towards anyone who questioned anything were truly mind boggling.

Yeah, the hatred shown by PUMAs IS really mindboggling ... just look at how much space they STILL devote to the whole “birth certificate scandal” that isn’t.

Really.

I didn’t see hatred toward PUMAs on this site so much as I saw well-earned derision of stupidity and racism and whining entitlement.  But I suppose you also think that criticism of Israel is antisemitic by that logic, too?

Shit, I loved Pepsi Light when it was a lemony, low sugar drink and not a completely sugar free one.  I’m totally oppressed!

I can’t drink coke out of glass bottles and get the far tastier sugar version anymore either.  Witness the injustice inherent in the system!!!!

Let me start by saying that I am NOT defending the original post, nor the inane ‘controversies’ like the birth certificate crap, but…

If the question is simply, “Are people who do not support Obama persecuted for their beliefs, and eventually for their failure to fall in line, and follow the chosen one?” (leaving out the rest of the noise) - the answer may be that you, who still point and laugh are making her case.

Here’s the thing I don’t get (and I say this as a longtime lurker here who also stopped reading during the campaign): What is the point of continuing the pointing and laughing? Sure, you can feel like part of a club that isn’t ‘those people’ but so what? What does it gain you, or for that matter, the country one might think you care about, to keep up the hatred and mockery?

There are a lot of liberal/progressive NON-PUMAs who don’t like Obama much, and we can point to an ever-growing list of reasons why we think he’s a bad choice. Is it your position that we have no place in the political discourse? Silencing dissent seems to the intent of your actions; in any case, it is certainly the effect.

I know I am tired of feeling like my decades of working for civil/human rights doesn’t count for shit amongst the people enjoying those rights.

I would love to see an open and honest discussion of how you see the old coalitions that made up the liberal/progressive/whatever Democrats coming together again. Or do you really just want anyone who isn’t in 100% agreement to shut up and go away?

Use the term “chosen one” for Obama as a “well all YOU people call him that” and you are so full of shit people will not read further.

Keep this in mind: a goodly number of the people on the blog supported Edwards initially, then they were undecided.  I know I was.  I also know that it was the hateful bullshit spewing from Clinton supporters that pushed me to check out Obama’s web site.

With many people here, Clinton had her chance to make her case.  Unfortunately, she did so in such a clumsy way (having her minions demand loyalty of the vagina while using disrespectful words like “shiny” and any derisive adjectives that came to mine short of “n——-” toward Obama) and screwed up her campaign so badly on the finances and the pandering to white men that she lost our votes.

There are a lot of liberal/progressive NON-PUMAs who don’t like Obama much, and we can point to an ever-growing list of reasons why we think he’s a bad choice. Is it your position that we have no place in the political discourse? Silencing dissent seems to the intent of your actions; in any case, it is certainly the effect.

Oh, rubbish. You’ll find that Obama supporters like myself and the owners of this blog will be riding his arse every time he screws up. The whole Rick Warren inaugural debacle is a case in point: look at the earlier posts here on the topic, and then come back and tell us how we’re giving him a free pass. When Prince Bush made an obvious blunder, his base would cheer him on blindly; Obama’s base of supporters have thus far proven themselves of quite a different temprement.

PUMAs come in for special disdain around here because they’re self-destructively obsessed with Boomer-style identity politics. And I think it’s Obama supporters’ rejection of that generation’s “confrontation for confrontation’s sake” politics that really rankles.

Hell, at least the Crystal Pepsi partisans had their day in the colorless sun. Those of us who loved the Crystal Gravy concept had to make do with nothing more than an ad on Saturday Night Live.

Now that’s oppression.

@‘tude: You go ahead and work on that list of reasons we shouldn’t vote for Obama so you have it all ready for 2012. Meantime, you can endure the tribulations of the next four years of a Democratic presidency…which probably is largely in line with your values (unless you’re not actually a Democrat). Call me crazy, but I’m thinking you might not hate it so much.

Keep this in mind: a goodly number of the people on the blog supported Edwards initially, then they were undecided.  I know I was.

I was too.  I was on the Edwards thing (whew, dodged a bullet there) because he was the only one really talking about class.  And no, Hillary didn’t, unless “hard working white people” is talking about class.  I didn’t even vote in the MA primary because I was really in the “I could take either of ‘em” category.

No, Obama isn’t a lefty-liberal. Neither was Hillary.  They’re both center-lefties, with an emphasis on center.  So, yeah, when “the One” gets brought out and all that nonsense, well…..

And, yeah, sometimes pointing and laughing is fun. But, don’t assume that folks here, including me, are all about not criticizing the administration.  There will be criticism. After all, he’s not as far left as most of the people here. He’s a politician. Of course he’s going to disappoint people. And he’s got fuckwits like Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, which means that even less left-style, even decent, policy is going to get passed. 

So, PUMAs, get off the cross.

Mnemosyne:

I mock your commodore 64 (even though I still have one in the basement, in the same box with my sinclair) and raise you an Amiga. Talk about diasporas…

That’s the other thing about oppressed peoples: even within the tiniest sect you can find factions.

I wasn’t enthused with any of them (Clinton had too much baggage, Edwards struck me as vaguely slimy* despite his good rhetoric). Obama was kind of meh…but in the fall of 2007 I decided he was the least worst. Now, I liked him more later on. But it’s not like I was enthused with him from day one.

*I was right about this, huh? Also: see his debate with Cheney.

You Pepsi drinkers are punters.  I’m really oppressed:  I like Moxie, which you can’t buy outside of certain parts of New England, and which the new owner messed up by making it taste less nasty!!

Also, I’ve never liked The Princess Bride.

There are a lot of liberal/progressive NON-PUMAs who don’t like Obama much, and we can point to an ever-growing list of reasons why we think he’s a bad choice. Is it your position that we have no place in the political discourse? Silencing dissent seems to the intent of your actions; in any case, it is certainly the effect.

Shut up.

Seriously, though,  Obama was my senator.  I knew then and I fear now that he’s not going to push the agenda I want nearly as hard as he could nor as hard as I believe the nation wants.  He’s simply not that liberal; he’s a centrist, should we use words as they are supposed to be used instead of Overton Windowing the hell out of them.

At least he’s smart as a whip—evidenced not only by his education, but also by the way he’s handled himself and his campaign—and taught Constitutional law—thank whatever that someone who respects the country is in charge of it again.

Legitimate criticisms of Obama abound.  Legitimate criticisms spark debate while not killing hope.

PUMA complaints are in bad faith and are full of shit.  PUMAs aren’t real dissent, they are men masquerading as women or feminists who see as little difference between Obama and McCain as between Palin and Hillary.  No real feminist could vote for John “health reasons” McCain/Sarah “Rape Kits should be paid for by the victims” Palin

Legitimate criticism is always welcome.  It may be snarked over, but it’s what keeps the conversation going.

PUMA shit?  Deserves nothing but disrespect.  “NObama” “Obamessiah” “the Chosen One” bullshit?  Not conducive to conversation and way way way too connected to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter and other “controversialists” who say irritating things just to get a rise out of people.  PUMAs’ complaints were not legitimate, they were a completely fabricated group, and I’m astonished that their 15 minutes are still not up.

I think perhaps the re-emergence of PUMAs and their portayal of themselves as victims may have something to do with the massive blog war going on between The Confluence and Wonkette as a result of the Weblog Awards. 

My money is on Wonkette.  Those people are nuts (in a very funny way).

In case my hint wasn’t strong enough, GO!  NOW!  Go vote for Wonkette as Best Liberal Blog!  Stop the PUMAs!! 

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-liberal-blog/

You and me, outside, now.

Shouldn’t that be: “prepare to die”?

And in re: Obama, I’ll add that I was another Edwards supporter initially. HRC was never an option for me, after the arrogant response I got from my Senator’s office in 2003 re: Iraq. After Edwards dropped out, I became more and more impressed with “No Drama” Obama and his well-run campaign, but I had no illusions then or now that he was anything other than a centrist. Ask me then or ask me now: I’d prefer his taking the oath in two weeks over McCain, which is what would be happening if the PUMAs had had their way.

I voted for Talking Points Memo.

Ah, I see that reading comments and responding to their actual content is hard.

1. I am not a PUMA. Please keep that in mind. Clinton wasn’t even my first choice.

2. I am not talking about your response to Obama. My questions concern your response to people who did not support him which is (looks upthread) dismissive at best.

Webster’s defines persecution: 1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict ; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief 2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)

How does that not match the responses to self-professed PUMAs (which I am NOT) by many (not all) Obama supporters? There are people I have known for years who stopped talking to me because I was not voting for Obama. Not because I was voting for ____ instead, but just because I didn’t support Obama. Punishment due to belief, indeed.

Ms. Kate, was this directed at me? “Use the term “chosen one” for Obama as a “well all YOU people call him that” and you are so full of shit people will not read further. ” If so, I simply quoted her question and didn’t replace the ‘chosen one’ reference. (btw, anyone seen the book about Bush titled “The Chosen One”? Makes the derision of the use of the term look different when you acknowledge it is a more common phrase than just about religious stuff.)

However, given that the person in question has said, about himself, “...this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” on a night when he had, in fact, not done anything that would impact any of those things…well, I can see how the snark cuts both both ways.

Orange, I am not saying that I think I will necessarily hate everything Obama’s administration does. But as he makes appointments and statements, I find more that makes me question WTF he is thinking. So sure, better than McCain, but not that great.

Oh, God, really? I mean….Rreally?! These are the women who protested the way Hillary got treated by….latching onto Palin, a woman who opposed everything Hillary had ever worked for, did so with a smirk and a wink, and believed in witches besides. Why? Because, evidently, she had a vagina. Because she appealed to women who felt unappreciated. Whatever. This shit is out of hand. When PUMAS are complaining that now that Obama’s elected, women are screwed, um….I can’t cope with the illogic. Because McCain would be better HOW?!

Incertus, as I said above, I quoted her original question without removing the two words. If that invalidates everything else that I say then so be it.

ginmar, project much?

Most of this PUMA shit is a straw man argument.  Sure, one or two exist.  But you pretend like Clinton had anything to do with them, or that they were ever a force to be reckoned with.

And then you’ve got people making shit up like ‘Shakesville’s Obama hate’ like it’s a real equivalence?

Stop painting Clinton supporters or leftie women who didn’t support Obama from step one as if they’d all support Palin/McCain.

It makes you look pissy and is really extra stupid when Clinton is going to be in the cabinet.

I think it’s safe to say that any analogy that requires that much explanation indicates poor writing skills.

Count me as another early Edwards supporter who said that he’d still vote for Edwards even after the affair came out, because I really don’t care if my political leaders are fucking around.

Nah, he wouldn’t have gotten my vote after the affair was discovered—it says something about his judgement that he’d risk his campaign by hooking up with an limelight-hungry starf*cking “artiste” like whatshername. The last thing we needed was to give McCain more ammon.

How does that not match the responses to self-professed PUMAs (which I am NOT) by many (not all) Obama supporters?

It matches the dictionary definition absent any sense of qualitative judgement about the reasons for persecution. Persecuting someone for their birth religion or skin colour or other immutable characteristic is obviously wrong. Persecuting some loudmouth leader of a self-described movement for pressing his idiotic and destructive political views is something quite different—especially when the “persecutor” uses logic and reason to counter the (frequent) outbursts of stupidity.

Gracchus:

you forgot: voting or not voting for someone isn’t a belief, it’s an action.

One might read replies like Donna’s and start to understand the link post’s premise.
Crissa

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

god DAMN that’s some tasty stupid.

oh NOES, she said PUMAs are ignorant, and someone came along to prove her right. JUST LIKE BEING GASSED TO DEATH.

do words have any meaning on your planet, crissa? i’m not thinking so.

Webster’s defines persecution: 1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict ; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief 2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)

How does that not match the responses to self-professed PUMAs (which I am NOT) by many (not all) Obama supporters? There are people I have known for years who stopped talking to me because I was not voting for Obama. Not because I was voting for ____ instead, but just because I didn’t support Obama. Punishment due to belief, indeed.

Seriously? You don’t see the difference between people not talking to you and the persecution Jews have faced for millenia? You don’t see that mocking PUMAs is different that insisting that they convert to Obama-ism or die? You don’t realize that we won’t, in fact, be charging PUMAs a higher tax rate, or, in all probability, making their children cry at school for being different?

And Crissa, I don’t think Ginmar is projecting. This blog has always said that PUMAs don’t exist in the numbers the media claims, that the majority of them are men or republican women, pretending to make the Democratic party look bad, that they don’t have any real significance, that most Hillary supporters voted for Obama and would have done what it took to make sure McCain got nowhere near our wombs.

No Quarter brought up PUMAs, however many of them there may be. Ginmar just mocked some more. Don’t act like it’s Ginmar, or any other commenter here, who won’t let the concept die.

Crissa going at Ginmar like Ginmar was an Obama supporter?

Stop painting Clinton supporters or leftie women who didn’t support Obama from step one as if they’d all support Palin/McCain.

Crissa, Ginmar was one of the most voiciferous Clinton supporters on this blog, past the time when Obama was nominated if memory serves. Before that, she had little use for Obama, called him “frat boy” and “the one with the penis who couldn’t care less about women” etc. and only came around late to help keep McSame from getting into office. To paint her as any sort of anti-Clinton type is just too damn fucking funny. 

Ginmar did not like Obama.  Period.  But she still rejected PUMA bullshit because she saw right through it as toxic stupid that would not advance women.

any of you concern trolls saying the author has POINT somehow?

hol⋅o⋅caust
   /ˈhɒləˌkɔst, ˈhoʊlə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.
2.    a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering.
3.    (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the).
4.    any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

sit the fuck down.

you forgot: voting or not voting for someone isn’t a belief, it’s an action.

I didn’t forget—people in this country are entitled to vote any damnfool way they choose. Vote for a candidate simply because she has a vagina? Why not? That’s an individual action based on belief, and it’s an American’s right.

But when that same person cries “misogyny” every bloody time someone else points out (and backs up with polls) that candidate’s poor chances in the general election; or reminds us of her refusal to apologise for endorsing Bush’s war; or deconstructs her trying her hand at 3AM dog-whistling to “hard-working, white Americans; or expresses concerns about the overpaid incompetents on her campaign staff ... yeah, I’m going to “persecute” him (in the purely technical sense of ‘Tude’s dictionary citation).

That’s quite a different thing from persecuting someone because she’s a woman, or is bi-racial, or because a maternal grandfather was Jewish.

Thanks, Crissa.  I am struck by the extent to which “party unity” is continuing to be trashed by people who can’t get over the primaries.  Er, Obama supporter people, that is.  Taking one batshit post from No Quarter and using it as Yet Another Opportunity to crap all over Clinton supporters strikes me as doing rather little to build Party Unity, since that nominally what’s at issue here.  Jesse’s posts are the reason I read Pandagon but this one was rather unfortunate, not because of what he wrote (which I enjoyed) but because the reaction from the crap-on-Clinton-supporters contingent was entirely foreseeable and therefore avoidable.

One problem: if PUMAs were “clinton supporters”, they would have avoided drooling on the Palin and supported Clinton in her support of Obama.

Your equating PUMAs with Clinton Supporters is stupid.  Period.  It is also insulting to those who understand that (gasp) their favorite candidates can and do lose primaries because they don’t campaign successfully ... and yet they Grow up and get on with supporting the best option available - you know, the one that is closest in beliefs and values to the one that didn’t make it?????

Melissa, you right well enough ... and yet, you are so very lacking in some fundamental understanding here.

melinda. buy a clue, sweetie. no one is bashing ACTUAL intelligent clinton supporters. many of us like her just fine. we are mocking the MORON who said people calling her/him/whatever dumb, ignorant, short-sighted, whatever, is JUST LIKE BEING MURDERED. either catch up to the discussion or don’t partake. you seem to have no clue what is actually going on in this post.

we mock the poser liberals who decided to childishly vote against their supposed values as an act of defiance. they are having meaningless temper tantrums. if you’re not that type, then chill. but it is absolutely worth calling out for what it is: either lies, stupidity, or being a total unprincipled sellout. pick your poison.

Taking one batshit post from No Quarter and using it as Yet Another Opportunity to crap all over Clinton supporters

I think Jesse’s point was to crap all over No Quarter for presenting such an insulting and spurious equivalence. The disdain for the views of the PUMA crowd (who do not represent Clinton supporters in general) from the commenters comes in the course of demonstrating the basic intellectual dishonesty of a comparison between Jews and PUMAs.

Obama supporters got over the primaries several months ago. It’s the PUMAs who can’t seem to let go, and as long as they keep whinging I have no compunctions about “persecuting” them.

“I am struck by the extent to which “party unity” is continuing to be trashed by people who can’t get over the primaries.  Er, Obama supporter people, that is. “

oh, and that’s some real good party unity there. lol. everyone’s fighting and it’s all your fault!

I love the structure of the original post, which is quite typical of Wingnut and Wingnut alligned literature.

Headline: Shameless, Insane, Outrageous Statement!

1st paragraph: I don’t *really* mean the shamless, insane, outrageous statement I just made.

Rest of article: Relentless argument about why shameless, insane, outrageous statement is true.

The PUMA is the Jew of ObamaFascism !!

Who are these people that’re hating on PUMAs? The election’s over… I’m really surprised anyone would continue have beef with them.

I have a hard time taking her assertions in good faith, since as far as I can tell she only referenced Judaism to slam Jews for killing Jesus (implicit assumption that he ever existed),

But, whatever the reason, they did not accept that Jesus was the savior. They didn’t believe or accept that he was The Chosen One, or sent down from God, as his son, and they have paid for their beliefs ever since.

and as a way to make a sideways assertion that Obama is a false Christ

But wasn’t that their right? To reject an idea or belief of someone else? To reject someone who claims to be the *chosen one* the *one we have been waiting for*? If you don’t believe that this one, is the one, is that not your right?

Because surely, being mocked on the internet for petulantly supporting a particular political candidate for reasons that have more to do with one’s own pathological narcissism than with anything that or any other candidate actually did or said is exactly like having you and everyone like you rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the most brutal, inhumane way possible.

Anyone who seriously feels the need to defend — in any way, shape or form — a post that makes an earnest comparison between the “plight” of PUMAs and that of Jews is welcome to spend five to ten years slowly starving to death a in concentration camp in rural Poland. Please, be my guest. That is, if you aren’t randomly selected to be gassed as soon as you step through the gate. I’ll even pay for your train ticket myself, if you like.

Shit like this is why stupid people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

PUMA thinking is and always has been about single-issue obsessiveness. I had assumed it was originally started in good faith—a movement of centrist feminists who felt that Obama didn’t represent what was good for the party and that Clinton was unable to win because of endemic sexism—but it seems like it was never really about Clinton to begin with. The stark raving hatred of the PUMAs towards Obama simply wound up looking obsessive and ridiculous.

I do think Clinton would have been a fine president, if too conservative for my tastes. Honestly, my vote in the primaries damn near came down to a coin flip in the booth between Obama and Clinton. But I have to say the PUMAs remind me far too much of the braindead far-righters who supported McCain hoping he’d die and leave Palin as president.

I thought the white man was the new Jew.

As I said, I think the people who are causing “party unity” problems are the ones who won’t let go of the “PUMA” cudgel.  If you want to know who’s calling Obama “the chosen,” “NObama,” and so on, go read some right-wing blogs.

Ken, you got there first.  Well done.

Damn, I hate being out of the loop. I’d be up on this stuff if I hadn’t cancelled my subscription to New Jew Review.

Ms Kate, as far as I’m concerned the PUMAs are the people who keep whacking away on the “PUMA” thing.  There were never more than a small handful of Clinton supporters who switched to McCain when Obama got the nomination, and as nearly as I can tell the people you’re complaining (and complaining and complaining and complaining and complaining and complaining) about aren’t even Democrats.  I’m still trying to figure out on which planet someone who writes:

But, whatever the reason, they did not accept that Jesus was the savior. They didn’t believe or accept that he was The Chosen One, or sent down from God, as his son, and they have paid for their beliefs ever since.

represents any kind of liberal.

Crissa, go to Reclusive Leftist and see for yourself. Follow the links. It’s all about how nice upper middle class women are being victimized by not getting Palin elected—-oh, yeah, and screw young women, because the PUMAs don’t need reproductive rights themselves, that’ll teach ‘em.

  I gotta say—-Shakesville is an anti-Obama site? Really? I must not have noticed, what with the series about how he was getting subtly and not-so-subtly attacked by racists. 

Thanks, Ms. Kate. I still have problems with Obama, but you know what? No candidate is perfect, and the thought of McCain in office for some self-indulgent protest vote chills my blood to this day.

Sorry, when did I become anti-Hillary? Um…what?

You know, being a boomer and all, I can understand the sort of identity politics that drove some folks into the PUMA camp. Those folks are to be pitied, not because of their adoption of such a narrow, self-defeating form of 60’s Sexual Politics, but rather because so many (a large majority of the more vocal ones, I’d wager) of their fellow PUMAs were quite obviously lying Republican concern trolls.

In true PUMA fashion, the No Quarter post under consideration perfectly mimics standard Republican whining about the unfairness of basic criticism of their silly words and beliefs. 

Here’s a tip.  If you don’t want people to make fun of your delusional flailing obsession with the StrawBama, then maybe don’t make such an obvious ass out of yourself by claiming to be oppressed by reality.

pepito:

Not the US per se, but the rise of exploration in general and the Renaissance. Admittedly that’s a rather ethnocentric way of looking at it.

melinda:

Don’t you think that comes off a little like “everyone in the world is insane but me” or “all my exes were crazy”? The PUMA movement was a concerted (and, rumor has it, astroturfed) effort to strip centrist voters from Obama in an attempt to embarrass the Democratic party. The fact that it only captured a few people blinded by identity politics was irrelevant at the time, because no one knew the impact the PUMAs would have. The point of continued PUMA-bashing is that for the left, policy should trump identity at all times, or there’s no point in being a liberal.

- The cast and crew of Chicago Hope

Man they SO kicked ER’s ass.

I’d like to thank Pandagon for this reminder of 2008’s attention whoredom. Speaking of which, I’m still waiting for Larry Noquarter to produce Michelle O’s Whitey tape.

PUMA who?

I can’t believe they are still operating.

Captain Bathrobe, may I suggest We Shall Oversleep?

Ivan:

If the militia movement of the 90s is any indication, they’ll probably keep operating as long as there are still obsessive idiots to follow them. Some will probably slide all the way to Standard Issue Wingnut, if they haven’t been there all along (i.e. Zell Miller DINOs).

But wasn’t that their right? To reject an idea or belief of someone else? To reject someone who claims to be the *chosen one* the *one we have been waiting for*? If you don’t believe that this one, is the one, is that not your right?

Yes, it’s the right of anyone to believe anything they wish. It’s called freedom of thought.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the same of you for those who believe homosexuality is not ‘normal’ and shouldn’t be trotted out as an equivalent to the normal man and woman thing. Forget that in the world, they are the vast VAST majority. Forget that just a few years ago, homosexuality was a mental disease and without any new research or new findings, it was reclassified for political purposes.

Forget all that. It just makes sense that if you wish to live in a free society, people need to have the right to think and believe as they wish. Ideas must be allowed to thrive and die on their own merits.

Homosexuality is not exempted.

The question is how free do you wish to be?

Er, what?