Really, people. Don’t act like those odious Democrats did. Describing Obama’s attempts to move the country far to the left should be undertaken in the measured and refined tones of a Bill Buckley fart. Because Republicans, why, they have more class.
— Oh. And a few million less presidential votes, fewer House and Senate seats, and, soon, a diminished role in the judiciary.
But still: they have more class!
So, like, GO TEAM!
****
update: for the strangely gleeful.
update 2: Rather than develop an entire new post dedicated to answering Patterico, I’ll just point you here, here, and here.
update 3: Despite my having answered him several times — and providing links to those answers — Patterico continues to insist I haven’t answered him. So I answered him again.
From Kiss of the Spider Woman, Valentin:
Ed Morrissey’s a really nice guy.
A fool. But a nice guy.
This is like watching a boxed set of Saw. The bloodletting is too much! I can’t bear it!
I am really going to be enjoying these next four years.
Well, and all that class pays off, because it helped us wi—oh, wait…
James Bond had class. He could also kill you with his little finger.
I’m just sayin’
The finger wagging has begun. While the sufferers of BDS had 8 years to wail, we don’t get 8 minutes. It’s like serving tea and crumpets while the Vikings are raiding through your village.
Why is everyone so down on crumpets?
Not interested in ODS. Really, I don’t have the energy to be as much of an asshole as some of our friends on the left have been. I’m an asshole, sure; I’m just not that much of an asshole.
Anyone here remember Warbloggerwatch.com? Those guys were the cream of the crop, too; mostly because they died an early death. Alicublog and SN1! and the firedicks are still hard at it, as if they were constantly doing eighballs to sustain teh outrage.
And then there’s Larry Johnson, who pretty much hates everyone. EDS, I imagine.
“Why is everyone so down on crumpets?”
Too much carbs.
Dan, you’re still on that Valerie Plame thingy?
Let go, man!
let’s contest the election/ give obama’s transition team half the time to prepare-no-wait
let’s hang him in effigy-no..no
let’s overwhelming vote yes for a major ,historical congressional resolution..
then 3 months later yell quagmire/quagmire/-all the while leaking[whistleblowing] classified material that would put american lives at stake-no,wait,wait
let us [lettuce] not argue[argula]
i got my puppethead on-but my strings can’t be yanked
We fought a war to free ouselves from crumpets, and tea. Donuts and coffee, it’s American!
Dan, I think you’re confusing crumpets with strumpets. No calories or carbs in the latter, and some are tasty!
Lisa, AJB, et al:
The very worse that the right will offer in criticism, snark, insult, name calling and internecine warfare will be as a summer stroll through a flowery meadow with unicorns and pixies compared to the 8 years of vitriol, filth and dark churlishness that we and our candidates received from the left bloggosphere.
Don’t make me do a search and link. You know damn well it’s true.
So snicker all that you want: Any attempt to portray the right as suffering from “ODS” at this point in time is transcendent irony, burning so hot as to boil the oceans into space.
Puh-leeze! Oh, and Obama is a fascist.
“I’m just arguing that we have to stick to the facts rather than screeching historically inaccurate references to Nazis every time we disagree with Obama.”
Howze about historically accurate screeches then?
Are they allowed?
This song always reminds me of BDS sufferers:
AJB and Lisa, evidently, are used to the master narrative, deviators from which are consigned to the outposts of the Democratic party, if not outright purged.
Whereas on this side of the aisle, we can disagree about tactics and have those arguments publicly. Because it is ideas we are debating. The personal is not the political — which means that I won’t be sending emails to Patterico or Captain Ed wishing them a slow painful death, or the desire that harm come to their children.
Let that difference percolate and see if you can distill from it a cup of intellectual joe.
I think the phrase that descibes the reactinary left’s hatred for Bush and the Republicans and progressive conservatism in general is “a hatred burning with the intensity of a thousand super-novas”.
Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach him now.
There is a world of difference between criticizing actual statements and actions and running around in giant puppet heads.
It is considered an attack and a smear, if you quote a leftist, in context and accurately. That is not a derangement syndrome.
On the Left however.
Everyday Progressives wake up. Go to the bathroom. Look in the mirror. And there they see that fascist evil bastard they hate staring out at them.
Yeah we should just do whatever works, regardless if its right, good, or productive in the future. As long as we win, who cares what we do or why? Nothing matters but victory, at all costs.
That’s the ticket.
Is Special Ed nicer than Forrest Gump, Christoph?
I hear snuffles is alphie? Is this true? Because I can rid us of that mistake again right quick.
I’ve been framed!
“8 years of vitriol, filth and dark churlishness that we and our candidates received from the left bloggosphere.”
Since when is Dick (never a man more aptly named) Durbin a blogger?
“Donuts and coffee, it’s American!”
Like Hell! Sounds Continental to me. Biscuits and gravy! Grits! And don’t you dare put sugar or syrup on them…
we can disagree about tactics and have those arguments publicly. Because it is ideas we are debating. The personal is not the political
Here, here, Jeff.
As I’ve said before, on the morning of 9/11 one of the first three comments I heard, when we still thought 10,000 were dead, was a Progressive faculty member saying, “Well, I certainly feel safer knowing Bush is behind missle defense.”
I vowed that day that when the Dems took over, I’d not give in to that kind of hate.
And I did so again when another prof, in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, said “I’ll tell you who’s evil — f*cking George Bush is evil.”
I fantasize about what it could mean to this country if Obama was a good man, and if he pursued mainstream policies. Unfortunately, there’s not enough lipstick to pretty that pig.
Looking on the Bright Side #2
At least Margaret Cho’s out of material.
The real problem is that Obama flipped and flopped so much during the campaign that nobody really knows which promises, or pronouncements, uttered at which point,he will choose to try and implement…
And, which aspects of his hidden ideology and wish-list agenda, that we never heard of at all, will also be foisted upon us. I agree that in some ways the Hitler and Stalin analogies need to be refrained from; but where the shoe fits, well, you know…
Patterico has drawn that conculsion and tossed him overboard. But you should probably nuke him from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
As for Ed, I see what he’s saying:
He makes a fair point. The Donks haven’t taken a significant majority because of the screeching, they’ve taken it in spite of it. The reason the GOP is banished to the wilderness is because it did a shitty job of being the GOP. Oh, and Baracky’s media.
Agreed, Pablo. I don’t want to become one of those rumor chasing snot nosed maniacs who can’t wait to log in to write in bold letters that Obama has secretly joined the Muslim Brotherhood and even now is planning nuclear attacks on the American Heartland! Terrorist! I suspect that we’ll have plenty of facts about his actions that will be sufficient fuel for the fire and we ought to be forthright and blunt.
But enough of that: Do you guys think that Obama is a good man?
(ducks and runs)
“Comment by Bob Reed on 11/11 @ 2:26 pm #
The real problem is that Obama flipped and flopped so much during the campaign that nobody really knows which promises, or pronouncements, uttered at which point,he will choose to try and implement…”
Oh, that’s easy.
Just pick whichever statement is farthest to the left.
On any subject.
Ed is dangerously close to calling those who haven’t been entirely “gracious” to the Office of the President-Elect ODS sufferers. Sure, he picks out the use of Nazi comparisons, but then, as Jonah showed us in Liberal Fascism, there is a degree of truth to some of the comparisons, and so, from a disinterested and historical point of view, we shouldn’t have to shy away from those that are legitimate.
After all, the bit he quotes says that Obama is not to be compared to Hitler. Whereas Ayers and his 25 million consigned to extermination…well, that’s more Stalin, I think.
I hate the preening marxist twat. Deal, Cap’n.
Whereas on this side of the aisle, we can disagree about tactics and have those arguments publicly. Because it is ideas we are debating. The personal is not the political  which means that I won’t be sending emails to Patterico or Captain Ed wishing them a slow painful death, or the desire that harm come to their children.
So you say. So you say.
AJB and Lisa, evidently, are used to the master narrative, deviators from which are consigned to the outposts of the Democratic party, if not outright purged.
Just call me Colonel Klink from now on. Master Purger of Brave Defenders of Freedom(muhahahahahahhahahahahahhahah!)
hahahahahahh!
I really a lot nonchalantly hate the preening marxist twat.
Lisa, you know they have this stuff you can put in your coffee, it’s called Equal.
You still get the benefit of caffeine, but you don’t go all seven-year-old-on-a-tear crazy from the sugar.
I didn’t vote for Barack Mugabe. Because I don’t like Barack Mugabe and I don’t like people who like him.
Oh, Lisa. If you only saw my email, dear.
And people wonder why I’ve learned to kill with my bare hands.
You still get the benefit of caffeine, but you don’t go all seven-year-old-on-a-tear crazy from the sugar.
I heard that Equal gives you cancer. I prefer agave nectar in my “herb” tea. Don’t ask me about the “herbs”, buddy.
And people wonder why I’ve learned to kill with my bare hands.
You don’t mess with the Zohan!
Jeff, sometimes you have to decide for yourself what you think is right. If what you think is right is to be as big an asshole as Kos is, why, then that’s what you’ll have to do.
Jeff… you have to decide what is right. For yourself.
Don’t knock Marxist twat before you’ve tried it.
Jeff, sometimes you have to decide for yourself what you think is right. If what you think is right is to be as big an asshole as Kos is, why, then that’s what you’ll have to do.
Meh, he will mellow out from the Serious Defender of Freedom and Liberty Who Will Stand Ready to Cover the Tits of Lady Liberty and Defend Her from the Slobbering Curs of Marxism.
hey now, Mr. thor, I was mocking the charlie and I was gonna do that thing where I follow up a comment straight away for teh clarity. In this case I just wanted to say “Gack.” There. Gack.
So many conservative/right wing-type bloggers are saying the same message. But, our fears as based upon a gathering of facts and information (and more every day), not personal dislikes or general opinions.
Oddly, that wasn’t the argument Jeff was making.
I think Cap’n Ed can’t really get his Cap’n Ed head around the idea that it’s a for real personality cult what’s afoot. Other people too. Bush never not ever tried cultivating one of those, and jeez if he’d tried that would have been … something else, the reaction from the left and their media. No. A preening marxist Chavez wannabe in my White House means something has gone terribly wrong. It’s not too soon to start detailing the anatomy of this propagandy farce and how he got his dirty socialist ass elected.
I had that thought myself. The Hitler thing grates. The Stalin thing, not so much. But it needs significantly more evidence before it can be reasonably voiced. Give Him a few more weeks.
Criticism is hate speech — and everyone knows that all hate speech is the same. Thus, Jeff = asshole = Kos.
Fine.
Meanwhile, I’ll just keep shrugging that kind of thing off and refusing to let anyone tell me that the best strategy for defeating progressivism is to lend it credibility and try to engage it by way of intellectual discourse.
I have seven years of proof on this very site suggesting that such a strategy is a loser. And honestly, I don’t think any so-called “extreme right-winger” tried harder than I to hold those kinds of discussions.
In fact, I’ve been willing to have them on both sides, and have happily engage “my own” side: witness Schiavo and Miers and Kid Rock, eg. Or Katrina.
Bottom line: we should start selling classical liberalism as such, highlighting how and why it differs from what passes for both “liberal” and “conservative” these days, and fight the battle in the arena of ideas.
Rhetorical strategies for doing so are also worth considering; I just don’t happen to think lending legitimacy to the position of the New Left disguised as the new “moderate” or “pragmatic” is wise.
YMMV. To some, the personal is the political, I guess.
That right there is the bit I think we’re supposed to avoid.
That’s not what Ed was doing. I can’t begin to understand what about Ed’s post is objectionable. He didn’t say we need to be “classy” in his post. He didn’t say we need to “play nice” in his post.
He said:
Sounds pretty sensible to me. What about that prompted this post??
Of course we should treat Obama with the same respect that the left showed for President Bush..
I tend to agree with Patterico on principle, and my gut tells me ODS is something we need to avoid.
Still there is some logic to be had that BDS worked exactly as intended. Bush is universally disliked so the whole damn “brand” stinks, but I think three-quarters of the problem is the dipshit wouldn’t take his own side in a fight.
I don’t know. I don’t think Obama is a “good” man, save for the fact that he is on the skinny end of the bell curve vis a vis being a good husband and father. Still, fouling up the nation for your children isn’t exactly a good legacy, either.
Rhetorical strategies for doing so are also worth considering; I just don’t happen to think lending legitimacy to the position of the New Left disguised as the new “moderate” or “pragmatic” is wise.
Thank you. I’ve been trying and trying to say that and there it is. I’m thinking chew hyperbole like it’s bubblelicious I think and let Mr. Marxypants prove me wrong.
Oh. One of those, is he?
Then he’s just one thin sliver away from Obama Worship Syndrome.
To some, the personal is the political, I guess.
Or maybe the personal and the political are both funny. I know it is a Serious and Sober Issue that Will Determine the Direction that Our Great and Buxom Lady Liberty will turn her Overly Mascaraed Eye….
But we are still pretty fucking hilarious, as a nation. Particularly when things aren’t going the way we think they ought to.
See comment 33 patterico. I don’t feel like repeating myself.
Why defend your convictions and beliefs with vigor, especially when you can become a milquetoast eunuch sucking up in the hope of currying favor with some gutless pseudo-intellectual? Keep your self-respect!
OUTLAW
Seems to me there’s some fair territory between being all lovey and capitulating to the left… and being a hysterical fearmongering infant like the Kos Kidz. Let’s not push either of those boundaries, eh?
Jesus, this is why lawyers bug the shit out of me. That portion you excerpted, Patterico, is juxtaposed against its counter (both the explicit and implicit), a signal for which is the title of the post (one that presumably Ed wrote).
If the comparison is apt, make it, is what I’m saying. Why worry about people using it to invoke “Godwin’s Law”? As if that is anything more than an internet convention used as shorthand to dismiss arguments like those made in Liberal Fascism.
Bottom line: I don’t care if Ed thinks certain comparisons are out of bounds — particularly pre-emptively. The idea that many on the right won’t be sticking to the facts and will instead be acting like the hateful morons on the left is an insult to those of us who have spent years arguing the facts, and will continue to do so, even as the facts have become “smears” and we’re being taught about the “fallacy of proof”; in short, the post smacks of the same kind of elitism that was leveled at Palin by those who have assumed the role of official pundits for the Party.
You can continue to play at nitpicking, but my point remains — and will remain. The very same people who were the go-to voices on the right the last several years are giving advice now that I believe to be wrongheaded. Doesn’t mean I hate them or think them evil of ignoble. Just wrong.
Their motivations I understand, but I disagree with them. And I’m going to say so.
Period.
listen up u homeless bums
when u corner me and demand a cigarette or some change…
save the sob story-i mite give u something cuz i’m kind
but when u put a knife in my face
and steal my money
and i run to the cops and they shrug
i get pissed!
that’s why i really gotta buy a gun
any suggestions?
for a novice?
YES BDS did Work and PDS worked. Everyone thinks Palin is a moron. Attack Attack Attack and never let up on the Dems for one second..
I wrote this over at Patterico:
I think about Morrissey’s suggestion much as I think about the old joke about expensive yachts, where the punchline goes  If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.  So it will be with the personal behavior of political followers  if you have to ask, they don’t have it. So flip it about  if they have it in them, you don’t have to ask.
YES BDS did Work and PDS worked. Everyone thinks Palin is a moron. Attack Attack Attack and never let up on the Dems for one second..
That’s right, and Karl Rove came out and said so. Too bad it took so long for him to grow a set.
As long as we’re attacking ideas and not people, then ODS cannot occur. I am quite sure, however, that any attack on ideas will be twisted around as an attack on the person. The left enjoys rewriting texts they disagree with.
Oh, Jesus. Did he run back and do another post?
Christ.
Well, let me put it this way: clearly, I’m willing to have this discussion. Not only that, but I think it a crucial one to have. The GOP can go about trying to figure out how they lost key demographics and what promises they need to make to them next time in order to win them back. But that strategy keeps moving us ever more leftward.
Me, I think we need to re-affirm the ideas. This doesn’t make me a “purist”; rather, it marks me as one who believes we should be reevaluating what is important to us, ideologically speaking, and going from there in terms of putting together a strategy for how to best sell those ideas.
Frankly, to me — like the ShamWow — classical liberalism sells itself.
“Jesus, this is why lawyers bug the shit out of me. That portion you excerpted, Patterico, is juxtaposed against its counter (both the explicit and implicit), a signal for which is the title of the post (one that presumably Ed wrote).”
Jesus, this is why academics bug the shit out of me. Sometimes I can’t understand what the hell you’re talking about. When you say the part I quoted “is juxtaposed against its counter (both the explicit and implicit), a signal for which . . ” I’m already lost.
Maybe you could explain, in small words that I can understand, what Ed said that you’re objecting to.
It could be that you’re just smarter than me, but it looks to me like you’re criticizing a caricature of Ed’s post as opposed to what Ed actually said. You imply that he said we should be “classy” and “play nice.” I don’t find those words in his post. What I find is the stuff I quoted. And it seems perfectly sensible to me.
“Did he run back and do another post?”
No, but he did post on yours vis Morrissey three or four hours ago.
“Comment by thor on 11/11 @ 3:18 pm #
Don’t knock Marxist twat before you’ve tried it.”
How would you know, you’ve never had any twat.
Marxist or otherwise.
“Oh, Jesus. Did he run back and do another post?
Christ.”
Yeah. Did you do so first?
Christ.
Evidently Jeff is allowed to post on these topics, but if I do so, then “Christ.”
It must be frustrating to have people posting things that disagree with you, Jeff.
Christ.
Yeah, that’s what I meant.
I hadn’t seen it and don’t have a trackback.
No idea what that means. Just meant that I thought you commented here then wrote the post. Haven’t been over to your site yet and received no trackback. Is all.
– Dealing with the Obots and the Left intellectually would be like trying to use logic with an idiot. It is idiocy. And it is impossible to argue against emotion.
– Does this mean we no longer get to use out Outlaw name? El Tejon!!!!!!
Imo, Obama’s already got enough visable full-blown derangement going on in himself that no one needs to prophylactically worry about ODS elsewhere, especially to the point of being worried about being “charged” with it – as Ed seems to be – or that ODS will sink Classical Liberalism’s ship, which must float entirely on its own, under its own power – or else, so be it.
So I say, yes, focus on Obama’s policies, but also his manifestations – the latter which seem to be grossly anti-free thought/Classical Liberal so far, and are thus always fair targets – but, no, don’t get overwrought with the Bogeyman of ODS’s specter and effect, especially to the point of censoring one’s own thought or that of others.
Running scared of progressivism’s frenetic games and propaganda is not a plan.
I
knewguessed as much. Pat didn’t.#74 Patterico:
“Oh, Jesus. Did he run back and do another post?”
I think he just means you’re keeping him busy; comments are pouring in; he’s running to and fro. He also says, “Clearly, I’m willing to have this discussion. Not only that, but I think it a crucial one to have.”
#74 Patterico:
Or, um, his own explanation, in #75.
Why defend your convictions and beliefs with vigor, especially when you can become a milquetoast eunuch sucking up in the hope of currying favor with some gutless pseudo-intellectual? Keep your self-respect!
I agree. That is why Lieberman is Teh Suck.
what I just posted at Pat’s place:
————————————-
I “get” JeffG’s frustration, because the more I see the fingerwagging at any Republican/conservative who might want to vent or even be nakedly honest is just way too Church Lady.
How many cheeks do we turn and for how long until the line has been crossed from being “nice” to being a bloody lump on the floor?
STOP IT. For more than 8 years Leftists/Progressives have slimed, slandered and smeared Republicans and conservatives as “haters”. For heaven’s sake Howard Dean said
and no one stood up and called Dean out on it.
Republicans have let the Democrats define the right. We have let THEM do the “branding” as it were and have lived in a fantasy world that everyone would see the “real” Republicans through the Left-controlled narrative.
WAKE UP. Republicans/Classical Liberals/Conservatives have to insist, firmly, that words mean what they mean. They cannot accept other’s bad faith spins or interpretations.
The next Dem that sneers that the GOP is about “rich” people letting seniors and children starve needs to be forcefully confronted and shown for the cur they are.
If moderates/independents are looking at Republicans with disdain it is because too many are wimping out and do NOT have the courage of the convictions they profess.
first they came for jeff [but i’m not jeff-wtf do i care]
then they came for patterico [again]
and then i seen chuck schumer on my porch and i said to myself
“wasn’t halloween last week…?”
uh -oh
two of my fave sites
keep up the good work!
Lisa
Yeah, Lieberman should just be the good Jew and remember to keep his mouth shut as Leftists talk about “apartheid” Israel or how things were so much better under Saddam.
buttons is always giving and everyone just comments around him but for real I think he’s brightened up the place a lot. buttons makes threads better.
One of the reasons I’ve burned out on politics is, even the good guys keep having the same arguments over and over again — and now we’re having them with each other.
Captain Ed says, “Don’t be like Kos.”
Jeff G. says, “Argue facts, not vitriol.”
Patterico says, … ah, screw it. He said it before and we already had this argument in another thread.
There’s a lot of heat being shed on all sides of this that needn’t be, because everyone’s looking for the negative — even from those on the same side politically. And the worst thing is, there’s plenty of stupid idiot spittle-flecked negative to find. On all sides.
If y’all can’t sit together without fighting we’ll have to separate you. And no TV for a week.
The next Dem that sneers that the GOP is about “rich†people letting seniors and children starve needs to be forcefully confronted and shown for the cur they are.
And at this point, what have they (the GOP) got to lose? Time to go big-time backbencher.
You got a point there McGehee. Kinda reminds me of discussions I’ve had over how to have a decent discussion about the substance of an idea as opposed to just going ahead and having the damned discussion about the substance of the idea, be it decent or no.
I’m worried about this Happy Hate. It sounds too much like The Joker.
I agree. That is why Lieberman is Teh Suck.
Just rejoice that he no longer holds a candle to you qua sucker. oops, sorry, must just be the ODS, eh?
*
I kind of agree with the sentiment that we should be…uh…a wee bit less hair-trigger in our airing of Presidential laundry, but a lot of this Republicans-should-be-doing-this and Republicans-should-not-be-doing-that smacks of a scene from the Life of Brian.
I agree. That is why Lieberman is Teh Suck.
Lisa, what planet are you living on? Lieberman is a straight-line liberal save for one issue – the war on terrorism. In that light, he’s the most ballsy of any of the lefty “eunuchs” we have on capitol hill.
Geez.
TV (Harry)
Sorry, was off picking up my son from school and didn’t see this.
You may of course comment on any topic you like. I understood sdferr to mean you’d created a post in response to this one that would rehash our earlier exchanges.
Thought you’d have gotten past that by now.
And no, not frustrating at all having people post things that disagree with me. Unless those things are self-righteous loads of garbage that I feel compelled to respond to.
Then yes, it does irritate me to have to restate myself because some people just can’t fathom what all the fuss about!
But as I noted in the body of the post in an update, I’ve rectified that. You don’t seem particularly eager to address any of it — nor to mention that I’ve done so.
So I guess I’ll just cut and paste the update over in your comment section, if I can find a way in through all the OUTRAGE.
This is a snakeskin jacket and for me it’s a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.
The strawmen over at Patterico’s are threatening to rise up and become a straw army.
Of course, they’ll allow the enemy to choose the weapons and have the first shot.
Prediction: enemy choses flaming arrow, fires into center of battalion. Hilarity ensues.
“If we plan to offer a rational alternative to the coming debacle of the next two years, then we’d better stick to facts and eschew hyperbole…”
Yeah Patterico because that worked so well in the campaign. If you show a video of someone mouthing exact words and you use that in a campaign ad it becomes an “attack” ad or “negative campaigning”. We can’t win that argument with the MSM pushing it 24/7. The left excels at hyperbole and that’s why they’re in charge now. We on the right are the red-headed step children.
OK pdbuttons, you won my heart with #12.
You are an OUTLAW!
It ain’t hyperbole if it’s true. And who has been arguing we shouldn’t stick to facts?
This isn’t about sticking to facts. It’s about adopting a certain tone. People can pretend otherwise — and try to turn me into a raving ODS sufferer incapable of putting together a rational argument — but that, in my estimation, is a mistake.
Funny how the people who are so committed to this idea of comity are working hard to cartoon my criticisms, and so shame me into getting on board with the correct “tone” “we” need to adopt in order to “win back” the “moderates.”
Groupthink.
And yet I’m the one behaving like a leftist…?
See I don’t get it either. If we’re opposed to take Baracky seriously like a for real president of America I gotta tell you he did it all wrong. Not just that but Baracky’s contempt for my little country is palpable. You can palp it.
“The strawmen over at Patterico’s are threatening to rise up and become a straw army.”
Indeed. Why, there’s even one commenter over there advancing the strawman argument that people like me are trying to dictate what is “authorized,” as opposed to what we’re actually doing: suggesting that it’s counterproductive to engage in hyperbole, like the left has done with Bush for 8 years.
Oh, it’s just a suggestion? Because the whole “”In the meantime, there is a real philosophical battle for the soul of the Republican Party going on” got me all confused.
Must have been the “real” thing. As opposed to the kinds of things others are talking about. Which are useless and not “real”. According to you.
But then, there I go again with the implicit juxtaposing. Silly silly Jeff.
At any rate, I’ve noted that I’m more than willing to have the discussion, and have answered your objections 3 times in this very thread.
You have not responded to those, but have instead moved on to additional bouts of OUTRAGE over my decidedly unlawyerly way of phrasing things.
“It ain’t hyperbole if it’s true. And who has been arguing we shouldn’t stick to facts?”
I dunno. Ed said that we should, and you got mighty upset at him. I still don’t understand what he said that got you so riled up. (I know, I know you already told me: the answer must have something to do with juxtaposing portions against their counter, both explicit and implicit. And I can’t understand what that means because I’m one of those lawyers who bugs the shit out of you. Christ.”
The lesson I have learned here is that being an OUTLAW means trying to put down people who see things the way you do politically.
You have fun with that.
Misplaced quotation mark there. Sorry.
“You have not responded to those, but have instead moved on to additional bouts of OUTRAGE over my decidedly unlawyerly way of phrasing things.”
Yeah, well, if I understood what you were talking about I’d respond. The only things you’ve said that I understand is that I bug the shit out of you. The rest of it is $10 words that are beyond my ability to comprehend. We’re over 100 comments into this and I still have no idea what Ed said — actually *said* — that so upset you.
Sigh. It’s like NPR. They’ll edit in the hyperbole anyways, just like they always find the inbred Christian retard what can represent. The idea that there’s a forum in which we can make a firm and reasoned and good faith oppositional case against this dirty socialist and his dirty socialist schemes is a huge huge illusion. If that forum develops it will be discredited. It will be destroyed. The left is not on board with the idea that discussion not in service of The Narrative is legitimate.
Pretty much. As far as I can tell, the argument among the principals here stems from the fact each perceives that the other has said things about them that are both unkind and untrue.
Here’s an idea: let’s stipulate that everyone’s complaint about everyone else is valid.
THEN WHAT?
Do we have some ideas to talk about, or are we going to keep hashing out personal grievances?
‘Cause if that’s what everybody wants to do, I can jump in and insult everybody, make myself the target, and make all of y’all forget about going after each other.
Whaddaya say? Jeff? Pat? Any takers?
The ideas are right here, in this thread. I’ve even helpfully placed them in an update.
None have been addressed because I use big words.
On NPR, David Brooks represents the Conservative point of view. David Brooks has never owned a snakeskin jacket. Because he’s a big girl.
Quoting Tapper isn’t a good start, mebbe: “We already need a name for the reverse disorder.”
No we don’t. I haven’t seen anything approaching the mass phenomenon that caused Krauthammer to coin the term in the first place, and building the case on some obscure congressman from Ga that nobody but his constituents knows is no way to find it. If the phenomenon does actually appear some day in the future, that would be the time to say something about it. Until then, give it a rest.
any suggestions?
for a novice?
Try a turtle.
I will have the conversation. Others will respond by taking offense in the manner I choose to have it. Which, at the very least, has people talking and thinking about the way forward.
And that’s just the way it will be.
It strikes me now as kinda like Obama’s frequent claim, “they’re going to say I don’t look like the presidents on the dollar bill, they’re going to say my name sounds funny, etc…” Bullshit. They never did anything remotely like that. It was bullshit from the start and bullshit all the way to the finish, a convenient vehicle to insinuate his opponents were closet racists.
All right then.
OUTLAW!
But the idea that we can edit ourselves into the narrative by couching things just so is to deny what just happened here in our little republic if we could keep it.
vs. Voguers.
McGehee,
I put up a post that takes off of the David Brooks column to address the issue I think Republicans are facing: what do we do now?
Do we get back to fundamentals, or do we “reform” to appeal to constituencies we’re losing?
I tend to think we need to get back to fundamentals, but be smarter about it. Less doctrinaire and beholden to the fundamentalists, but more serious about our core principles, like limiting the size of government.
I think part of what he have to do is diagnose why we lost the election. To me, it’s clear: people were fed up with Bush, mainly because of the economy, but also because of the war — and because under Bush, we racked up huge deficits. Our federal government represented everything wrong with our economy as a whole: too much borrowing and spending, not enough restraint.
If we can get back to conservative principles in a smart way, I think we can win.
Yeah, I guess using a little humorous hyperbole is considered gauche. Better to be pedestrian in your approach, lest you offend some limp wristed RINO, creating the Democrat-lite bullshit we’re left with today.
McGehee,
Assuming you agree with the thrust of the post you’re commenting on, maybe you can explain to me exactly what it is about Ed Morrissey’s post is objectionable. Because it seems sensible to me.
Well stated, though I think both options are going to demand some reform — just different kinds. I think the reform that takes us back to fundamentals would be the more legitimate.
“Well stated, though I think both options are going to demand some reform  just different kinds. I think the reform that takes us back to fundamentals would be the more legitimate.”
Why do you think we lost?
I’d say the hyperbole has worked quite well for the left. I must not understand what you mean by “counterproductive”.
Yes. Also, if its not true, its a fucking lie. The only rhetorically winning way to deal with the scum on the left is to reveal them as what they are. If one of them calls you a racist, you don’t say,”I’m not. Some of my best friends are brown people.” What you say is, no I’m not, and you are a scumbag low-life mother-fucker for saying/implying that I am. If you were anything other than a piece of shit, you would apologize.
These people are fucking animals. They need to be treated as the vermin they are. Getting along with them is a fool’s errand. Appealing to virtue in dealing with them is futile.
Patterico you say
To me, it’s clear: people were fed up with Bush, mainly because of the economy, but also because of the war  and because under Bush, we racked up huge deficits
which has a great deal of truth. Now, Sarah Palin just said the same thing, almost word for word.
And what does the Lamestream media make for a headline of it? “Palin blames Bush Admin for loss.”
We have to be willing to go into the trenches and take back the narrative. We have to stop allowing others… those people who are NOT acting in our interest … to define us.
Our problem is NOT social cons or “fundies”, it is the Left who spot a person wearing a cross for anything other than fashion and screaming “theocrat!” and WE DON’T DEFEND OURSELVEs… we just wimper and apologize for the offense.
My friends are still arguing.
I used to read Captain’s Quarters. Ed’s new digs, not so much.
From a quick scan, it doesn’t really look to me like Ed is talking about ideas, but tactics. Almost like there’s another election next month or something. Meh.
The GOP was just plain out of gas. Did you see the candidate pool? The best one in the running barely walked.
There are people on this thread, like you, who have seemed to imply that acting like the KosKids is exactly what we should do. There’s another guy upthread who said: “Of course we should treat Obama with the same respect that the left showed for President Bush.”
Now, maybe you guys are kidding to make a point, but I want to ask straight out: is there anyone who thinks that we *should* engage in hyperbole? That we *should* ignore facts?
To say we shouldn’t is not saying we should roll over. But I am wondering if there is anyone here who actually think we *should* do those things.
OK, but he talks ideas in plenty of posts. And there will be another election in two years.
What I want to know is whether there’s anything in his post that you disagree with.
All my life people have tried to define me at one time or another. I succeeded best against their efforts just by being myself and demonstrating that what they said about me wasn’t true — not with counter-arguments, but by example.
In politics it’s a lot more complicated than that, but I think the principle is sound. Let them waste their energy defining is if they can. We’ll define the debate. We’ll define the ideas. And we’ll define the American people in the way that best appeals to the American people. Not as helpless losers in need of President Jesus’ largesse, but as the engine of prosperity and the beacon of liberty.
It worked pretty damn well for Reagan. We just need to find the way to cut through the fog and make it work for the generation that will be voting in 2010 and beyond.
Patterico
via Dan Collins, you need to look at this. And understand that the lefty wackos that invaded the church will not be punished and the church goers who turn the other cheek yet again are just setting themselves up for another ambush or the ambush on another church.
And it is the church goers that will be painted in the press as “haters” who brought it on themselves for being “Bible believing” homophobes.
Republicans/conservatives have to stop thinking that silence in the face of slander will make them look good to others. The lie unchallenged is the lie that is accepted as “truth” by bystanders.
Does my opinion of that particular post really matter? To me, not really. Otherwise I’d read it more closely than I have.
Though clearly some kind of reform is in order, in politics, I always thought reform meant “fuck shit up worse”.
What don’t you address what I disagree with? That would be awesome.
Fixed that for me.
not with counter-arguments, but by example.
If an example is not reported on, did it really occure?
If an example is defined in the press as “hated-filled” how is it NOT hate-filled?
Gonna go work out for a bit. Back later.
If Pat needs help with some of my “$10 words,” could those of you with access to a dictionary help him out?
Thanks in advance.
Two years. Not next month. We can worry about tactics when we’ve figured out what the fuck our ideas are. Okay?
Our facts are not facts anymore. 95% of American will get a tax cut. The land in Utah, it is fragile. Drilling there, madness. He’s just a guy from my neighborhood. The desert birds are indignant but so what?
They don’t have to. The MSM is doing it for them.
If a tree falls in the forest and the press claims it didn’t make a sound, they lie.
People know that the press lies. We used to be able to work that knowledge to our advantage. We seem to have forgotten how. Reagan used to do a little thing called “going over the heads of the media.” That might be a clue.
Republicans/conservatives have to stop thinking that silence in the face of slander will make them look good to others. The lie unchallenged is the lie that is accepted as “truth†by bystanders.
Who thinks that, Darleen? That just seems like another strawman.
Ed and I between us have something like ten years’ worth of challenging lies by the left.
Hence my frequent formulation, “Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself).” And what the fuck do the “MS” in “MSM” stand for, since none of us believes for a moment they represent the mainstream? Can we stop giving them that rhetorical cover in our own discussions? Please?
Baracky’s media is what it is. Servility is the watchword.
Topic of post:
O!:
Who “We’ve”?
Cap’t Ed
So Ed says hey it is just words don’t worry.
Golberg LF:
Call me a rightwing nut if you want. But, there is something troubling about a man who was just elected President who doesn’t have any sort of paper trial, who pals around with anarchist, communists, black liberationists, PLO terror supporters, who uses Saul Alinsky as his guide book to attain power, and whose devotion to the Constitution as it was promulgated is questionable.
I find most of what the left screams about Bush to be merely projection of what they would do if they had a chance. Now the left has its chance.
I vote BP (Big Press).
(Baracky Press).
He may be close, but he isn’t there. Just as you are not ODS.
True. The restraint is merely to refrain from the batshit crazy. That said, you can be completely rational with a boatload of fact to back up your assertions and you’re still going to be labeled batshit crazy by the usual suspects. You know who they are.
So, just be right.
Why did we lose? Given the playing field, it would have been a daunting task for anyone. But when we nominated McCain we all but guaranfuckingteed a loss. My vote was against Teh One rather than McCain, not a recipe for success.
“Does my opinion of that particular post really matter? To me, not really. Otherwise I’d read it more closely than I have.”
I’m trying to find someone besides Jeff who can explain to me what he found so offensive about Ed’s post. It’s not currently productive to discuss it with him directly because he’s too busy starting fights with personal attacks (“Jesus, this is why lawyers bug the shit out of me.”) and then getting his ego all bruised when someone responds in kind.
Plus, when I did ask what was wrong with Ed’s post, he never quoted a single line that he disagreed with, but instead threw out a bunch of gobbeldygook that I couldn’t begin to follow. I’d have been more diplomatic about saying I didn’t understand him, but after being told that I “bug the shit out of” Jeff I didn’t much feel like being any more diplomatic than he was.
I’m a little tired of that back-and-forth, which is totally unproductive, and am trying to find someone who can explain it to me without insulting me, and who can do so by referring to actual things that Ed actually said, as opposed to arguing with strawman arguments like “Ed wants us to stick out our pinkies and be dignified like Bill Buckley” and crap like that.
I’m a little tired of people suggesting that because I don’t want to be the mirror image of the KosKiddies, that all of a sudden I’m not authentic or I want to leave liberal lies standing.
If you don’t want to explain the point of this post, McGehee, that’s fine. Can anyone?
And I’m happy to debate ideas with you, McGehee, but I think we mostly agree on that.
Yes. And they will define themselves by being themselves.
They will call upon the
buggy whip industryinstitutional media to obscure that self-definition, but they can only succeed if we cooperate in their attempt to make rhetorical definition (their strength) the issue, rather than the ideas that are at work in the administration.Patterico, there’s your answer: We have lost because we played to their strengths and our own weaknesses.
I’ve been having the kind of discussion in this thread that I wish I could have been having all year.
Their hyperbolic counterproductivity just gave them all three branches of government. The handwringing “let’s try not to offend the middle” was a lost cause.
The McCain Doctrine Of Politics is over. Good riddance, my friends.
“He may be close, but he isn’t there. Just as you are not ODS.”
Exactly. Ed was taking issue with a particular claim by a particular Congressman — a claim that seems pretty overheated and hyperbolic. And he was warning us generally not to be the mirror image of Kos.
That is hardly the same as saying we have to “play nice” or level all our criticism “in the measured and refined tones of a Bill Buckley fart” — to use Jeff’s terminology in the post. That just strikes me as a gratuitous and inaccurate shot at Ed Morrissey.
hf has it right, so it should henceforth be known as BM.
“Ed was taking issue with a particular claim by a particular Congressman  a claim that seems pretty overheated and hyperbolic. ”
Not to us who have read Golberg’s book. Seeing how O! used his cultists to try to silence Kurtz, his choice of Emanuel as CoS, Pelosi and other Dems wanting the “Fairness Doct.”, it is not that much of a leap to see a resurgence of progressive fascism.
Given the depth of his body of work on this site, I’m pretty sure there’s more than enough thread running down through the years to explain it. It would be his responsibility to draw it together, but if he’s half as burned out on politics as I am, I’d have to say that pressing him on it right now is not going to be the most productive course.
If I know him at all, he’ll develop the thought over the next few days and there will be much sinking of teeth into the substance of it.
True. But again, that draws us into playing to the proggs’ strengths rather than our own. Ideas, not rhetorical labels.
Ok, my opinion.
The first part of this, “stick to facts and eschew hyperbole” is fine. However the second part, “critics invoke Hitler and Stalin instead of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson” is an opinion and calls for a unilateral disarmament.
What if the “facts” show Obama and friends to not be like LBJ of Jimmie Carter but more along the lines of Chavez or Mugabe or even, heaven for fend, a Stalin or Hitler? Calling, factually and accurately, what someone actions, words and policies are most akin to is the correct thing to do. Ruling out comparisons because they are distasteful is to give the Left a benefit they do not deserve. Language must serve clarity and reality.
I’m sure there’s plenty there over the years to explain what he’s trying to say in general, but none of it will address the particular question I have: what about Ed’s post was so bad? Because Ed’s post was written just today.
I’m a little insulted that there are people on our side that think we hick on a stick Palin people need to be reigned in, that we could contract ODS and go completely native.
You’re not superior to me. I could never imagine Jeff, or any of the other regulars here, becoming like Kos. That the possibility is cause for concern tells more about you than us, and how you really regard the(lack of)contrast between opposing philosophies.
What is being argued is not the plan to give back to Obama what was done to Bush, but the frame of reference from which we will be proceeding.
My personal reference is like HF; We got a dirty socialist in office, and I’m going to characterize him as one whenever he is referenced.
I do think we should steer clear of Hitler and Stalin comparisons though. I’m thinking “Il Duce”
We need to talk about these things the progg Left wants to do over the next few years, not in the language of tactical political rhetoric, but in terms of how the underlying ideas relate to American ideals. Their ideas are fascist and Marxist, but those labels are meaningless to voters today.
People may not have a firm grasp anymore on what “freedom” means, but they still like how it sounds. So they’ll listen while we remind them what it means.
“What if the “facts†show Obama and friends to not be like LBJ of Jimmie Carter but more along the lines of Chavez or Mugabe or even, heaven for fend, a Stalin or Hitler? Calling, factually and accurately, what someone actions, words and policies are most akin to is the correct thing to do. Ruling out comparisons because they are distasteful is to give the Left a benefit they do not deserve. Language must serve clarity and reality.”
Indeed. And if we get to the point where Obama resembles Stalin or Hitler, we’d better have the clarity and courage to say so.
But if we say so now, we’ll be perceived as the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Because it just ain’t there. Stalin and Hitler were mass murderers each responsible for millions of deaths. Obama’s a far left Democrat who just won the Presidency.
Pat
I’m not saying you or Ed don’t point out left lies
what I am saying is that the insisting of Marquis of Queensbury rules for only one side when the other side is a fully armed street thug is a little self-defeating.
We may feel good about ourselves, but we are a bloody pile on the floor.
If we fail to get our message out, it is as good as having no message at all.
or not of
I don’t think Jeff would have reacted this strongly if Ed’s post hadn’t touched badly on something Jeff’s devoted a lot of effort to developing already. Please read the rest of my comment about that. You might just have to wait.
Patience, padawan.
Look up at 109 (and less so, 112) for my take, Pat. I don’t think the evidence is quite in yet for Ed’s need to upbraid the potential ODSers, if they should ever come to be in any numbers worthy the appellation.
Yes. That too.
First, my ego isn’t at all bruised. Second, you sure are sensitive to “personal attacks”. And third, I’m not “starting fights”; I’m engaging in arguments.
Gobbledygook! Oh, my wounded ego!
My arguments weren’t strawmen arguments, and they weren’t gobbledygook. Engage them or don’t.
And really, are you so much of a literalist that you think subtext is some sort of fiction? From the start, I’ve been arguing with what I take to be the underlying messages of posts like yours and Morrissey’s. I don’t expect you to come out and say, “hey, all you rightwing whackjobs whom I feel uncomfortable having on ‘my side,’ control yourselves. I don’t wish to be lumped with the likes of you, because I’m more a thinker than an emoter”. Instead, I expect you to say things like “don’t hyperbolize, stick to the facts, don’t demonize your opponent, don’t act like the Kos Kiddies.” Which is what you’ve said — even though the vast majority of folks are not acting that way at all.
Someone mentioned above that the idea that we already need to establish a corollary to BDS is preposterous — and even accepting THAT PREMISE puts us immediately on the defensive.
For you and Ed to come out with pre-emptive warnings about such things suggests that you fear the less educated conservatives may behave poorly — that you have, in fact, given the premise of ODS at least the cover of plausibility, this before the man has even taken office.
Me, I believe conservatives argue ideas, and they aren’t interested in “fake but accurate.” So I see no need for the warnings, and I find them insulting. Further, I don’t see pointing to inconvenient truths about Obama’s political education as problematic.
I also don’t much like being told what kind of tone is legitimate, and what referents are sanctioned (no Hitler, ’cause that’s what the Kos Kidz used; try Johnson). But any good rhetoritician knows you don’t take any of your options off the table — and you certainly don’t announce you’re doing so.
More, you don’t announce to your opponents that those who refuse to heed that advice are subject to being scolded by their more “thoughtful” political allies — because then you’ve given them a way to discredit those people should the comparison prove apt. That is, you’ve given them a convenient way to dodge dealing with the criticism.
If you want to argue with me, argue with me. If you tire of this back and forth, stop engaging me. But my “gobbledygook” is anything but.
And really, stop with this “I’m being personally attacked” stuff. Lawyer jokes are a rather trite convention. Sorry if it hurt your feelings.
Or — sorry — “bruised your ego.” Wasn’t meant in that spirit, I assure you.
I’m done for now.
Indeed. And if we get to the point where Obama resembles Stalin or Hitler, we’d better have the clarity and courage to say so.
So we’d better have the good sense to practice.
It’s interesting that Lisa and Thor are still compelled to leave their waste piles here. I understand that it must be satisfying to do the HaHaHaHa…. thing for a while, but after a few days, what’s the point?
You two feeling a little at loose ends? Is your life suddenly meaningless? Your posts don’t seem to be a little half-hearted lately. Might I suggest it could be time to call therapists.
Smells about right. So shall it be.
Well, we’re talking about a particular example in this post: Ed Morrissey talking about a Congressman saying Obama wants to create a force like the Gestapo.
I have some people here suggesting that Republicans *should* engage in hyperbole, and others like you suggesting that it’s insulting to suggest anyone here would agree with that.
But the reason I posted and commented in the first place was to question what in the heck was so wrong with Ed’s post.
It couldn’t be the case that it is Ed engaging in hyperbole citing Tapper citing as I said, an obscure congressman talking out of his ass?
Sigh.
“True. But again, that draws us into playing to the proggs’ strengths rather than our own. Ideas, not rhetorical labels.”
Well the idea is to inform the public of the Obama Progs and their history.
So what are these “national security objectives we’ve set”? and how does that give way to having “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”?
To do what exactly given we have an FBI, state police and local police? What are these new folks going to do?
“We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Why?
Sorry ain’t no pinheads in this land asxing the brother from the Southside of Chitown, whose pals like to hang with Chavez and Momar the Libyan,these questions.
Thanks, Sdferr. Guess you bought that gobbledygook decoder.
Lemme guess: eBay?
If I were the one posting about what that congressman said, my response would have been along the lines of, “What an idiot. That’s not where we need to be going if we ever want to win again.”
And I would have left it at that.
No warnings about ODS. No “play nice” admonitions. I would have that much respect for my readers.
Agreed.
I’ve been active on the internet since the early 90’s and it always seems/feels like that the conservative side is giving ground verbally so as not to either lose the squishy moderates or hurt the feelings of the Left. Doing so is a way to lose before you fight.
Don’t use hyperbole but don’t back away from ugly facts either. The USSR was an “Evil Empire”. Calling it that was necessary for winning. It wasn’t “prudent” perhaps but it was correct.
With this Left wing group it is and will be necessary to call them what the are. Factually, accurately, over and over till everyone can see it clearly.
some people here suggesting that Republicans *should* engage in hyperbole
So, ixnay on the “I just flew in from DC, and boy are my ears tired” jokes, people.
I think I get it.
Being insulted and not much liking being told what tone is acceptable is different from having one’s feeling hurt. Plus the strawman about “playing nice” and Chris Buckley’s farts weren’t really strawmen, they were metaphors for…..
Saving the planet from the dirty socialists
for
TEH CHIRREN!!!!!11!1!
Agreed.
Patt, Jeff just wrote:
Correction: #170
… posts DO seem to be a little half-hearted lately.
Anyway, that’s my last treat to the trolls. Carry on.
To answer myself at 173, well no, of course not, of course it couldn’t be Ed because he’s a well known calm and steady cucumber, he doesn’t engage in hyperbole when he goes after his political foes. Pshah! Ed, hyperbolic? Ridickle-dackle!
what in the heck was so wrong with Ed’s post.
extrapolation from one un-nuanced congresscritter to all potential critics of PE BarryO!
Note the “we” in the line.
No one here as said “make shit up”, but Ed’s line smacks of a poor teacher’s tactic of warning the whole class over the misbehavior of one or two students.
Also, it is a device poor supervisors substitute for personal responsibility … sending out a memo to all employees when they should be taking the one offender into the office and talking to them.
It grates and causes resentment.
oh, my mom gave me one for my thirteenth birthday and I’ve kept it ever since.
I think that we need to put this in the context of the spectre of a return to the Fairness Doctrine. As others have pointed out, there will be arbiters of what constitutes “fairness” whose opinions will circumscribe our right to express ours, just as the FEC can determine whether or not to do their duty to the public by their own lights, and fair elections be damned.
Take that together with Obama’s thug-by-proxy tactics and the press’s complicity, and consider whether it’s reasonable to cry wolf or not. Once again, we have a difference of opinion regarding the prognosis. Perhaps we could ask Mark Steyn for an expert opinion.
That’s fine — but it helps to speak a language that the American people are willing to listen to. Again, we can’t rely on them to understand what “fascist” and “Marxist” mean, so we have to relate what they’re seeing from the Obama Administration to American ideals they do like to hear about.
Let me respond to Jeff’s comment by using the tone and language he has taken with me all thread.
Is it another comment by Goldstein? Christ.
This is why thin-skinned blogging academics bug the shit of of me.
I keep trying to, but sometimes I feel compelled to respond to self-righteous loads of garbage.
Yes, Jeff. I am the whiner and you are the tough guy. You’re the Blogger of Thick Skin who never whines about being attacked. The things that people say about you bounce right off you. You never dwell on them and bring them up, time and time and time again.
People who insist on being assholes bug the shit out of me.
what in the heck was so wrong with Ed’s post
I resent the comparison to a Congressman.
No warnings about ODS. No “play nice†admonitions.
Ed didn’t say to play nice. Jeff implied that he did. But he didn’t.
Lordy. Well, maybe people other than the principals have been listening…
That Congresswoman in MN got crucified for saying a lot less. Media complicity. But smoke ’em if you got ’em.
So far, so good. In the first instance, the offense is general and is meant to set up what is proper and what is not as we move forward strategically; in the second, well, one’s feelings are hurt.
Bill Buckley. Chris Buckley’s farts would not be quite so refined in tone.
And not actually using the words “playing nice” doesn’t mean that the message wasn’t just that: use facts, don’t hyperbolize, stay away from certain referents, don’t engage in the kind of tone that gave rise to what has come to be called BDS, etc.
In short, play nice. Or, if you prefer, “behave decently.” Which is fine. If people were behaving indecently, or had been engaging in the kind of attacks the left has been using for years.
Which they haven’t.
So why the need for the warning?
Oh, I was thinking for the country, but if you wish to cartoon for hyperbolic effect, have at it.
It won’t be me who scolds you.
Most of #189 is a paraphrasing of stuff Jeff has said to me in this thread.
Fine. If some part of that comment is inoperative, just fucking ignore it.
I’m about to send you both to bed without supper.
All I know is that things are going to be a lot sunshinier under Sunshine, cloudy, stormy, tempesty or not.
Now you sound like Paleo Pat.
That was about McGehee in 196.
I think what we’re saying, Pat, is that there’s no need to self-censor. Obama’s got people for that.
Yea well you know Frank Marshall Davis was what? Rev. Wright? “The guy down the street” Ayers? ROTARIANS all boys.
What I find maddening, is that we don’t NEED to liberal bloggers to bring up and point out whenever a conservative crosses some imaginary line. Self-proclaimed arbiters of common sense step forward and blow their whistle. FOUL.
Footnotes !
Still no addressing of the argument, eh Pat? Just more concentration on the tone of my responses, which were hardly as nasty as you’re trying to make them out.
And here I had the outrageous idea that certain conservatives were concerning themselves a bit too much with the “proper tone”.
Damn good point at 200 Dan. His people.
*furtively looks over shoulder*
Yeah. Them. Myrmidons.
I sincerely hope you all will defend my right to be an asshole. It’s all I’ve got.
Link for 201
Heh. Love that thin skinned bit.
Meantime I’m still here, and Karl is now over at Patterico’s, hiding behind a thor barrier.
George W Bush is not universally disliked. There are still 300 of us left who like him.
Find me someone, one friend, one person who has ever said or who is willing to say about Obama what Karl Rove, upon his retirement, said about George W Bush.
I’ll then take another look.
But until then, words like “Brilliant”, “Transformative” and “The One” sound like things you pluck out of the air to describe someone with whom you are only acquainted.
There’s a “thor barrier”? wow, Sham-Wow even.
It comes down to the same as the last time. We think they’re Pollyannas and they think we’re Chickens Little.
Sorry to dip.
But enough of this.
I’ve learned my lesson. If you are going to criticize some on the right for what you perceive to be a misguided fidelity to maintaining a particular tone, at least have the civility to do it in the kind of tone they find proper.
I’m tired. And I don’t care anymore if Patterico thinks I haven’t answered his questions. I made my argument. It can now sink or swim without me.
“Still no addressing of the argument, eh Pat?”
OK. Now that you’ve said a few things I can understand, I will.
“And really, are you so much of a literalist that you think subtext is some sort of fiction? From the start, I’ve been arguing with what I take to be the underlying messages of posts like yours and Morrissey’s. I don’t expect you to come out and say, “hey, all you rightwing whackjobs whom I feel uncomfortable having on ‘my side,’ control yourselves. I don’t wish to be lumped with the likes of you, because I’m more a thinker than an emoterâ€Â. Instead, I expect you to say things like “don’t hyperbolize, stick to the facts, don’t demonize your opponent, don’t act like the Kos Kiddies.†Which is what you’ve said  even though the vast majority of folks are not acting that way at all.”
So there are some who acting that way, you concede. That’s a start.
“Someone mentioned above that the idea that we already need to establish a corollary to BDS is preposterous  and even accepting THAT PREMISE puts us immediately on the defensive.
“For you and Ed to come out with pre-emptive warnings about such things suggests that you fear the less educated conservatives may behave poorly  that you have, in fact, given the premise of ODS at least the cover of plausibility, this before the man has even taken office.”
If some people are already acting that way, as you have conceded by implication, then it’s not pre-emptive. Ed addressed a particular comment by a particular person. That was not pre-emptive either.
“Me, I believe conservatives argue ideas, and they aren’t interested in “fake but accurate.†So I see no need for the warnings, and I find them insulting. Further, I don’t see pointing to inconvenient truths about Obama’s political education as problematic.”
That’s because you have chosen to be insulted by warnings that are directed at others. It’s like when you said in one of your posts: “Patterico accused me of ‘demonizing’ all Democrats . . .” To my recollection, I did not. In fact, I said:
I do think some people have been doing that; witness Christoph and his self-righteous rants that anyone who supports partial-birth abortion is evil.
“I also don’t much like being told what kind of tone is legitimate, and what referents are sanctioned (no Hitler, ’cause that’s what the Kos Kidz used; try Johnson). But any good rhetoritician knows you don’t take any of your options off the table  and you certainly don’t announce you’re doing so.”
I disagree. I think when people on your side of the fence are going off the rails, it’s the right thing to do to point it out. And it gains you credibility.
“More, you don’t announce to your opponents that those who refuse to heed that advice are subject to being scolded by their more “thoughtful†political allies  because then you’ve given them a way to discredit those people should the comparison prove apt. That is, you’ve given them a convenient way to dodge dealing with the criticism.”
Once again, as I argued above, I think that engaging in hyperbole when it’s not warranted is what discredits you. When people start invoking Stalin and Hitler at this point, it discredits us. And in the future, if we do face such a danger, people will laugh at us when we try to point it out.
Cap’t Ed
Yea right because the O! being a Good Man™ he would come out and say on the campaigne trail that he wanted to establish a Chavez democracy in the United States.
“Heh. Love that thin skinned bit.”
Oh, I know. As someone whose ego doesn’t get bruised by such commentary, you’ll probably bring it up at least four more times.
Indeed. And if we get to the point where Obama resembles Stalin or Hitler, we’d better have the clarity and courage to say so.
But see, that’s exactly what you are criticizing. That Congressman, who pointed out that the creation of a civilian national security force is more along the lines of Lenin than Franklin and should be regarded suspiciously, was exactly right. You seem to be saying such talk is the moral equivalent of BDS, and should be shunned.
Fuck that. I was thinking/saying the same thing months ago when it was being discussed. Before Obama had won, much less since I had contracted ODS.
“When people start invoking Stalin and Hitler at this point, it discredits us.”
Fine. ok. Woodrow Wilson, or Chavez if you want some salsa.
Baracky’s a far left Democrat who just won the Presidency with his far left media and his far left academia and his far left civil service and two houses of congress to match in the wake of an oil shock unique in many people’s lifetimes and a Peace Prize for squiggly bulbs and an economy knocked off center and none of this is hyperbole and Cap’n Ed says ho ho there, keep a level head young feller, nothing a tasty cup of Ovaltine and saltines can’t put right.
Your Hitlers and your Stalins are unremarkable men what exploited remarkable times and not at all alone did they do it. We’ve been promised fundamental change. We’ll get it. Believe it.
Ultimately I think all sides agree on this: no reason to degrade ourselves to the gutters that the left got into, but at the same time the right has not been fighting back and has not countered what the left lies about and smears us with. In part that’s out of our hands: our leadership is too afraid to try, the media is not likely to publish any rejections or clarifications, and they can get away with slogans and pat lying phrases where we have to explain and educate.
Our way take longer, and like the man said, the lie is halfway around the world as the truth is pulling on its pants. Sure its unfair, and sure its unethical, but that doesn’t mean we ought to take the same path. Your worldview dictates how you behave and what you do – the practical is defined by the theoretical: you practice what you believe.
Yet we’ve done far too much sitting back and trusting the system, working at home and not working in the community, and let the left control the entire narrative and culture. That’s being reversed, slowly, by home schooling and other efforts, but we’re in the grip of a powerful tide of leftist effort that took decades to build up in force. It took them a long time to get this far, it will take a long time to fix the problem. Our children’s children may see the results of our efforts, ultimately.
Or it might all fail and we may see the Republic collapse as the founding fathers warned and feared it would, once people were no longer virtuous and decided they could vote themselves money. Personally I lean toward that result, but that doesn’t mean we ought not fight.
I think they are Dr. Silberman. They think I/We are Sarah Conner. Meanwhile the T-1000 is roaming around and let’s not even think about Skynet.
I’m an asshole too Dan. It’s a calling.
Look. With all the Saul Alinsky background and the Prarie Fire and the lost years, we’ve walked a different evidentiary path than they have. Let’s leave it at that and hope that they’ll do more of the same background reading that we have.
Pat hasn’t gone after the LAT for burying the Rashidi story because the cover story about protection of sources is technically credible, and because he wishes to save his powder for transgressions that he can nail them on. We see a pattern that he doesn’t, because of our particular journey. Let us hope that he is correct, and prepare for the eventuality that he isn’t.
yeah, well dre, we mustn’t concede that ugly freetrade agreement with the fascist bastards in Columbia, no-sir, not one goddamned inch to those labor-union fighting capitalistic Columbian pigs.
[…] Jeff Goldstein is grumpy. And that’s the way I like him: grumpy with a side of snark. The press bias has him apoplectic and the moderates have him mad. It makes for very good reading. […]
No, it’s a non-starter. The number is so few that the desire to point them (or is it just him at this point?) out speaks more to the motives of those who do so than to those who wonder why they are being highlighted.
Is this really how you think, or are you putting me on?
Ed used this one example as an “occasional” to move into his larger argument. It was the launching point for a broader warning, one that would have been unnecessary had he (and you) not believed the problem to be more widespread. And if you don’t, again, why highlight the outlier?
And that is where the preemption comes in. He addressed “we,” not merely the Congressman. He was concerned with the spread, not with the carrier — even though there is little sign of contagion.
But that hasn’t kept ODS from being labeled a kind of potential epidemic already, even though I can’t really see many people who are suffering from it.
They were directed at “we”.
Except when I do it, evidently.
And of course, who gets to define what is “going off the rails”? You? Ed? Why?
Why are you concerned with the names and not the quality of the analogy?
I’m more interested in the latter.
“no-sir, not one goddamned inch to those labor-union fighting capitalistic Columbian pigs.”
Makes sense. Hugo Chavez has some plants over there he wants to sell.
Look, Patterico.
Even in the quote from the biased AP piece, did Congressman Broun say: “may” and “may not, I hope not” ?
Further.
Did Barack Obama propose a Civilian National Security Force “just as strong, just as powerful, just as well funded” as the military (500 billion/year) or did he not?†
Because here are his words.
Rep. Broun was doing his job as an American patriot by cautiously and moderately sounding an alarm for people to consider Barack Obama’s outrageous proposal, which he never backed off on, but rather stopped talking about after receiving criticism.
And as you did recently with your last blow-up with Jeff G. when you went out of your way to defend Obama’s “decency” and “goodness” a couple days after telling people they should vote against him for reintroducing the “horror” of stabbing fetuses in the head with scissors and sucking their brains out…
… just as then when you sucked up to Obama post-election, you’re being a pussy.
†Are you comfortable with a President with ties you’ve questioned to Marxist anti-American terrorists you yourself have denounced, who also appears to be a charismatic person who — at a minimum — creates some very strange cultish symbols of power for himself before even getting elected being in charge of that strong, powerful, and well funded of a “Civilian” National Security Force?
Is there any reason in particular you feel your nation’s elected representatives shouldn’t express their concerns?
. Ed addressed a particular comment by a particular person
Yes, Pat, then he moved into “we” territory.
How many swallows does it take to make a summer?
My understanding is that Christopher Lambert is called Christoph when he’s at home. This girl that went to Europe told me.
Darleen, you’re making me wish I were in college again.
So, Lisa, had the “O” been white would you have voted for him?
You can audit my class on hyperbole Dan.
The fact that:
1. Barack Obama’s background and associates are nowhere near the same as Jimmy Carter’s (when he took office) or Lyndon Johnson, and neither man handled themselves on the campaign trail the same as Barack Obama, 2. Neither Carter nor Johnson built a personality cult around themselves creating their own Presidential seal among other things prior to election and giving addresses in Berlin, revealing megalomania
3. Or Proposed a Civilian National Security Force “just as strong, just as powerful, just as well funded” as the U.S. military
… among other things we know or are learning about Obama.
That would be why, Patterico. That would explain it.
Partial-birth abortion is a “horror”, remember. That’s your word, and the final reason you gave why people should vote against Barack Obama.
Why, Patterico, is it unreasonable to think someone who is responsible for bringing back and increasing the spread of a “horror” in the United States might be evil?
In a spiritual sense (Catholicism, Christianity generally, Mormonism, even simply human rights), it is evil.
You asshat.
“No, it’s a non-starter. The number is so few that the desire to point that out speaks more to the motives of those who do so than to those who wonder why they are being pointed out as an occasion to launch a campaign of rhetorical warnings.”
We disagree about that, and I don’t think it’s something that capable of “proof.” It’s like liberal bias in the media; either you see it or you don’t. It’s basically impossible for someone who believes in it to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.
I’ve watched my commenters call Obama slimy, corrupt, communist, evil, Stalin, and Lenin, and say that the people who voted for Obama are ignorant, idiots, and stupid. Compare him to Hitler. Call him a “lying crook” and “devious bastard” and say that he doesn’t have the nation’s best interests at heart. This is just a short random sampling. The fact that isolated parts of it may be true (he has told lies, for example) doesn’t make the whole picture any less troubling to me.
“And of course, who gets to define what is “going off the railsâ€Â? You? Ed? Why?”
Pfffft. I get to determine what I think. Ed gets to determine what he thinks. You can define it in your own way. Just because we define it differently doesn’t mean that we’re somehow usurping anyone else’s right to define it for themselves — which is the only possible point of your question.
Whoops. I made a mistake even acknowledging the mental patient from Canada. Back to “ignore” with him.
I bet Obama makes me take Ritalin.
Well, then you’ll respect my right to call you and Ed for going off the rails.
But I’m on to reindeer poems now. So that’s that.
I am curious, though. What do you think of the majority of Obama voters?
I think they’re white.
“Why are you concerned with the names and not the quality of the analogy?
I’m more interested in the latter.”
Why do you assume that the names are unrelated to the quality of the analogy?
“I’ve watched my commenters call Obama slimy, corrupt, communist, ”
Dudes from Southside Chitown. Do you think he is not any of the above? Go ask some of O!’s people in their Rezko housing.
Not to change the subject or anything, but HUGE savings on Elmo’s Kitchen.
And free shipping with Amazon Prime.
You think a Representative who points out that the President elect whose built a personality cult around himself, who has associated with Marxist terrorists, and so on and so forth, and has announced his intention to raise a 500 billion dollar per annum Civilian National Security Force…
… you think that Representative is being unreasonable to raise these concerns publicly?
Patterico, you’re lame. And don’t bother addressing any of my comments, because you clearly don’t have good arguments other than Barack Obama’s decent because he said some nice things on the campaign trail.
Brilliant reasoning.
You know, Christoph, when you’ve got a track record like Pat’s, I’ll take that into consideration.
History will reveal all, Dan.
Baracky told people that a vote for him was a vote against “Bush”. They’re all terribly curious to find out what they voted for. Me too. I can’t wait for the sacrificey part (tbd). Change is fun!
Right you are Dan. Lame is not Mr. Patterico. And if you say it right it’s fun to say like mango or chipotle.
It is this sort of non-discussion that leaves me as an un-fan of the ‘right roots’. Too much high talk, not enough basic policy issues. Not bills or plan, but basic policy… but that requires proposals, backing for them and actually stating them. Can’t do that… might require doing more than organizing straw or actually getting off of talking about a subject and back to talking on the subject.
Exactly, Christoph. But, you know, calling someone who’s obviously not a dumbfuck a dumbfuck tends to be counterproductive.
I don’t think that was Jeff’s message. But that’s just me.
“You know, Christoph, when you’ve got a track record like Pat’s, I’ll take that into consideration.”
Folks: AN APPEAL TO AUthorITY!
People build up reserves of good will when they do you a service. It’s a human thing.
That was like your shortest comment ever ajacksonian. I keep stats.
[…] Political Punch, Raleigh News & Observer, http://www.redstate.com, Patterico’s Pontifications, Political Machine and protein wisdom […]
“People build up reserves of good will when they do you a service”
They do but no body bats 1.000.
“Well, then you’ll respect my right to call you and Ed for going off the rails.”
If that’s what you think, go nuts. You and I never would have fought if you hadn’t insisted on insulting me.
Every single time our exchanges have gotten personal, it has started with you. You seem oddly proud of it — as if insulting fellow conservatives cements your view of yourself as an OUTLAW.
Funny, though, you save the most outrageous stuff for your own blog.
If you’re so courageous, come tell me that I “bug the shit out of” you on my blog. Tell me that I post “self-righteous loads of garbage” on my blog. Whine incessantly about Karl and thor on my blog. Suggest that my arguments are dishonest and unprincipled on my blog. Where you don’t have this crowd always standing by waiting to defend you.
Yeah, your tone sucks. Yeah, this was unnecessary. Yeah, you started it. Yeah, you bear some guilt. I bet you never apologized to anyone in your life — I’ve known the type and you’re it — but you bear some guilt for all this ugliness.
You can’t redistribute wealth without taking it from the folks who earned it.
Taking other folks wealth is stealing.
Good people don’t steal.
Any questions?
I think that went well. You guys?
My problem with Cap’t Ed is that he could have quoted the congrescritters words from ObamaAP. Or called the man himself given his “stature” as a GOP establishment blogger. What’s up with dat?
Please, be careful with me. I’m sensitive, and I want to stay that way.
I didn’t call him a “dumb”fuck. I provided several examples of where his reasoning made no sense, and called him a pussy and an asshat.
There’s no productive with Patterico. He’s slandering a man, Representative Broun, who is far more intellectually honest and courageous than he is, and who has a much clearer grasp of the situation. Patterico didn’t address all the differences between Carter and Johnson vs. Obama I raised, or the breathtaking scope of Obama’s Civilian National Security Force proposal.
The $500 billion per year price tag it would require should be enough to examine it on purely fiscal grounds. If Obama didn’t mean it somehow, the pure absurdity of saying such a thing is worth bringing up, and Representative Broun was in any case doing his job. Well.
Patterico says I’m off base by saying supporters of partial birth abortion, what Patterico calls a “horror” and his last argument to vote against Obama, evil. Partial-birth abortion and infanticide in this case.
And your defense of Patterico is his “record”? Of what? Being a (somewhat) conservative blogger? An LA (brilliant office, that one) prosecutor?
None of that invalidates my points, or Broun’s points, or indeed Patterico’s point back when he was warning people of the “horror” Obama planned on unleashing on the nation.
Eh. Needs more salt.
I’ve got an idea: let’s all question each others’ motives and insult each other. Let’s all give each other unsolicited advice and consider how stupid people who disagree with us are. I bet we can get this thread over 1000.
Well, I’ll volunteer.
If this Broun for real had spoken compellingly to where he evoked phrases like intellectual honesty and courage and clarity the AP would never have done their article I don’t think.
Dan, I question your motives and insult you. Your turn. Come on 1000!
“He makes a fair point. The Donks haven’t taken a significant majority because of the screeching, they’ve taken it in spite of it.”
tactically speaking this is not true. The screeching was very helpful in laying the groundwork for the heavy amount of flak Bush got on practically every single thing he did. blamed for the weather, blamed for terrorists bombing, blamed for terrorists NOT bombing (hey! its a fake war on terror! bush lied!), etc.
Like it or not, dKOS ranting and raving and Cindy Sheehan and all the rest … worked for them. It incited energy and activism that would not have been there if it was just the establishment leaders making calm, fair, reasoned points. And guess what else? It’s all right out of Rule for Radicals.
Heck, look at the criticism of Bush over Katrina. There was nothing there, and they managed to make a mountain out of it enough to tag Bush for the rest of his term.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/answering-couldbetrue-on-bush-legacy.html
“. . . when you’ve got a track record like Pat’s, I’ll take that into consideration.”
I appreciate that, Dan. I’ll fully admit that I’ve been sensitive to some of the personal criticism Jeff has hurled my way — and it’s mainly because of what you just said: that I thought he would take my track record into consideration. I expect strong opinions and strong disagreement, but you’d think someone with a 5 1/2 year track record of conservative blogging would merit some benefit of the doubt when it comes to his honesty, such that disagreement could be expressed without impugning my motives.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450290,00.html
Mmmm chipotle….
“I’ve got an idea: let’s all question each others’ motives and insult each other. Let’s all give each other unsolicited advice and consider how stupid people who disagree with us are. I bet we can get this thread over 1000.”
OK.
Dan: let’s not pretend that your argument is principled or honest. Rather, it is a self-righteous load of garbage, and you bug the shit out of me.
Oh, sorry, that’s not insults. That’s just arguing the issues.
Well, I tried.
Yeah, well I’ve been reading you for a long time, too, Pat. I forgot about psychologizing each other. We should do that, too.
I’m wrong. I know that for a fact because good people tell me that all the time.
The original argument had more of a we must look to appearances sort of flavor. It was kind of cloying but it’s dissipated now. Bainbridge was gonna suggest a wine.
“Dan: let’s not pretend that your argument is principled or honest. Rather, it is a self-righteous load of garbage, and you bug the shit out of me.”
Missing In Action: Obama, Broun, and Cap’t Ed.
Oh and Jake Tapper
We should all remember that whoever’s speaking at any particular time is certain that he’s got a privileged perspective. Because the intarwebs? All about humility.
Dan makes a good point about Patterico’s track record. I think he’s off here but so be it. He’s always been good for the team.
Patterico, I’m willing to bet, would say the same thing about Jeff.
As far as acrimony goes, no one has punched a baby yet, so I think we’ll all be okay.
Is that another comment by Dan Collins? Christ.
Nope, still not insulting enough. Still just maintaining a courageous and honest tone.
Sorry, I can’t do this insults thing, Dan.
What wine does Prof Bain. suggest?
Sorry, Pat. I can’t get mad about it, either. I’m too busy being mad about other stuff, and I’ve only got so much madness to go around. I’m a very limited being that way.
“Though clearly some kind of reform is in order, in politics, I always thought reform meant “fuck shit up worseâ€Â.”
INDEED!
“Still there is some logic to be had that BDS worked exactly as intended. Bush is universally disliked so the whole damn “brand†stinks, but I think three-quarters of the problem is the dipshit wouldn’t take his own side in a fight.”
NAILED IT!
“Patterico, I’m willing to bet, would say the same thing about Jeff.”
Already have, many times. He’s always had one of the most insightful blogs around. I’ve been disappointed by his insistence on insulting me and questioning my motives, but it doesn’t take anything away from my respect for him as a writer.
“Sorry, I can’t do this insults thing, Dan.”
O! will ease your pain. HAL might do it too.
“Sorry, Pat. I can’t get mad about it, either. I’m too busy being mad about other stuff, and I’ve only got so much madness to go around. I’m a very limited being that way.”
So much for that idea, then.
“What wine does Prof Bain. suggest?”
I don’t know what he suggests, but I’m going to hit some two-buck Chuck.
Here is the way I see it.
As a conservative, I will not go out and build an anti-Obama art car. I will not make public references to my sweaty nether regions as O!stank, I will not hide my face and throw flaming bags of shit at the police. It is, in general, a definition of what makes me, well, conservative.
As a conservative I would not fall back on some anti-O! excuse for all my problems. I would not use hyperbole or lies etc, in a discucssion about O!. Again, it is what generally makes me conservative.
But I will not allow my self description or view ever handicap me in defending my opinion or rights (I hesitate to use a blanket term such as that… there are a lot of new “Rights” being created recently) That is, I will not restrict myself to using only a knife in a gun fight.
You know that kid…. the one everyone picks on because he never fought back? You knew you could say or do anything to him because he either wouldn’t tell, or put up such a weak defense? Or he might try, and you made him feel bad because you would tell on HIM. So teacher punished him. So he learned not to do that again.
So, we don’t want to be that kid showing up in a black trench-coat, but we don’t want to continue to play by the rules that the left has established… rules that favor themselves. And while being conservative means not being little shits (it is what separates us from the animals) we don’t have to hamstring ourselves either because we are afraid we might hurt THEIR feelings. What would happen? It is win/win. Call a spade a spade (heh) and be the little fucker that hit back sometimes if they push too hard.
Besides. The teacher is already sucking off the 8th graders. We never had a chance.
I’ve been wrong about so many things that I lost count before I could count. Remember, though, when Pat did the illustrated fisking of Greenwald? That’s immortal, as internet goes.
And what did we think of him, then?
Remember that time I publicized the troubles of an ex-gf?
That was hilarious, I thought, anyway.
Remember Amada blowing an ovary over your ex?
Feh. I’m not going to piss and moan. There are people and things that deserve denunciation. Patterico’s none of them. And although I sometimes disagree with Ed, he’s none of them, either. And neither is Insty, though I like to take the piss out of him sometimes.
There are a lot of legitimate douchebags out there. I’d rather we focused on them.
The only “nice” they’re likely to get outta me is a nice left hook to the jaw.
Yeah, I remember that, thor. But I wasn’t disturbed by Amanda the way that I was by Berube. Telling the truth gets one into more trouble here than telling big fucking lies.
I’m OK, You’re OK.
I’m centered. The fringes on both sides slay me. I can’t take either of the wingereds.
“Be friends, you English fools; be friends.”
Not that it matters a whit what I think…
I think Obama as a cropped snapshot is probably a decent man. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that way.
Politically, he’s a cog in a machine. The cog itself has no purpose but to turn with the energy given to it, and pass that energy on the next cog. He’s a neutral figure if you just look at the cog. If you widen your vision, you see that the machine makes omelettes, and we are all eggs.
Whether or not he is evil for being part of an evil machine is an argument of semantics, and either way, I want to stop the machine before Barney Frank gets his order in.
This comment at Hot Air is such a flat-out good one, that I’m just going to steal it. I think the commenter would forgive me.
Patterico, Jeff G., Dan Collins, and especially Ed Morrissey should study it:
In criticising Obama’s plan I think there are some key points to bear in mind. First- this was the first and only time he mentioned a $500 billion dollar plan for his Presidency. Odd, no?
Second, he specifically calls it a “national security†force. Nothing about peace, helping old ladies to cross the road or anything of the sort. He also frames the concept in relation to the military- arguing that he wants this in addition to the military.
Third, and from my point of view, the most important one. He says that it must be as STRONG and as POWERFUL as the military. Surely that directly contradicts Ed’s assertion “he fairly clearly meant to at least include a volunteer force in outreach within and outside the US as some sort of Department of Peace-like indirect boost to national security.â€Â
A dept of peace-style group which is not only funded to the same tune as the military but is as STRONG and POWERFUL as them? All, Obama says very clearly, to be used for national security- not for general peaceful purposes.
ODS is one thing- examining what Obama actually said in relation to this proposed force is not being deranged or paranoid. It’s discussing something he himself proposed on the campaign trail.
Furthermore, when this originally broke some months ago, Ed Morrissey had this to say-
The phrasing of it  a “civilian national security force† sounds much more like a quasi-military organization operating within the US under the control of the federal government.
Obama needs to clarify what he means by “civilian national security forceâ€Â, and how it would be funded. After all, we have a panoply of federal security agencies already: FBI, BATF, DEA, and more, plus the National Guard on the state level. Where would Obama get the money to fund it at the same level as the Pentagon? What would its mission be, and where would it get its authority? What would be the lines of jurisdiction?
Now, excuse me, but these are precisely the same questions being asked by people that Ed and others on the Right are now calling ODS-sufferers.
Back then it was okay to question a controversial statement (vanished from his speeches now like the disappeared controversial statements on his Change.org website) but now if you worry about what a man actually elected is going to do about it- you’re labelled a fringe kook with no credibility and insulted with being just like those with BDS.
So tell me, Ed- why was it okay for you to ask about this statement during the summer but if you worry about it now- and ask essentially the same questions about it- you throw out the label of ODS?
Jay Mac on November 11, 2008 at 9:27 PM
OK Pat You are tripping over your own feet in your willingness to bend reality to fit your premise.
Your premise; there are enough ODS sufferers out there to warrant words of recrimination.You give links to prove your point that; “my commenters call Obama slimy, corrupt, communist, evil, Stalin, and Lenin, and say that the people who voted for Obama are ignorant, idiots, and stupid.”
Your first link is a guy saying Obama did cheat, and lie, and gave examples. You may argue with his examples, but his thinking, that what Obama did in specific examples constituted cheating, is not the same as calling him slimy. Is calling a lie a lie the same as BDS?
Next you say “they” have been comparing Obama to Hitler”, so I clicked the link and the guy says specifically he isn’t;
“And, no all you lefty loons out there, I’m not saying that Obama = Hitler. I’m saying that just because a person has one desirable feature it doesn’t follow that the person is entirely desirable” [emphasis mine]
I quit reading after that.
For me, it goes back to the reason I disliked McCain, and still do.
The games theory people have worked out the solution to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. They call it “tit for tat” — always cooperate on the first round; after that, do what your opponent did on the previous round. Every other strategy gives a lower payoff. If you always cooperate, you lose; in fact, you lose bigger than if you had always “defected”.
McCain was always willing to cooperate, and his opponents were always willing to defect. The result is exactly as games theory predicts — the defectors get a constant stream of small payoffs, and the cooperator gets nothing.
Patterico and Morrissey want to continue that strategy. A soft answer turneth away wrath, they say. You have to be calm. You have to be reasonable. You have to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. You have to be civil. You have to be understanding.
You have to cooperate.
Which is the same thing as saying you have to keep losing.
Charlie Brown is, ultimately, not an admirable character at all. Lucy will always yank the football away — that is, she will always defect, in Prisoner’s Dilemma terms. So Charlie Brown will always not just lose, but will reinforce Lucy’s determination to pursue her strategy of “always defect”. He supports Lucy. Just as Patrick’s strategy supports and enables Obama and the Democrats.
Regards,
Ric
Mom and Dad..please don’t fight…
tony
south haven,mi
That was interesting, Christoph. Did Cap’n Ed reply? I think he should. The AP is gonna be keeping him really busy with this sort of thing though I think so maybe he’s pacing himself.
You’re completely right. I have had commenters making the comparison in the same way, but this guy explicitly disclaimed the comparison and said he was making a different point, and I owe him an apology.
Ric reminds me of that cell phone salesman guy what comes out on stage and sings glorious opera.
nessun dorma, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VATmgtmR5o4
Pavs, though.
Yo losers. We be a minority baby. The revolution FOREVER. Hasta la vista BABY.
Patterico, Ric Locke at #297 states my reservations perfectly. I think Jeff is making a related point.
There is a valid issue there, right?
I don’t know the answer because I’m not an ogre and I didn’t grow up under a bridge. Yet, I keep seeing ogres win. It seems to me that Jeff just wants to acknowledge that ogres exist. That’s a few levels below, “Burn the witch!”
I read the first 200 or so comments earlier, so I’m not caught up, but it occurs to me that what I object to about Ed’s post is that he seems to be holding himself up as arbiter of what is acceptable and what constitutes, “ODS.”
What I have seen hurt the McCain campaign in particular and the Repubs in general in this disastrous election cycle has been the reluctance to point out the truth about Obama, for fear of being called unfair…blah blah blah.
I have no problem with taking the gloves off and telling the truth. It seems to me that Ed thinks that the truth can be given with the kid-glove treatment. I don’t believe it can.
My two cents.
Mad props to Hadlowe at #294. Let’s just not be batshit crazy is the bottom line, I think. There’s plenty of ammo without having to imagine any. And let’s realize that opposition to The One is batshit crazy in and of itself. Blasphemy, even. That story is being written while we dither. So that metric needs to go out the window. The perception, that is, not the reality.
Now let’s get out there and win this one. For the Gipper or something.
No, it was just posted. Ed will be in bed now, but it’s such a well reasoned and coherent comment, you are right: Ed Morrissey should address it head on, both on his blog and more importantly, privately.
Sadly, I believe I know why the difference in Ed Morrissey’s position now and his position then and it isn’t flattering. I wish I could say otherwise than what I will write, but I feel compelled to say it like I see it.
It’s subconscious, but if I may throw out a Hitler analogy for the sake of an example, an imperfect example, but a telling one…
Do you think, perhaps, reporters who were very critical of Adolf Hitler as a danger to Germany became more circumspect in their criticism when Hitler was appointed to the Chancellery in 1932 (a position with quite limited power) and yet again in 1934 when Hitler combined the offices of the Chancellory and Presidency (which included being the Commander-in-Chief of the military, which was unquestionably loyal to Hindenburg until his death) in 1934?
Obviously the United States isn’t anything like Nazi Germany. But the psychology of people repeats itself over and over again in new circumstances, does it not?
Somehow, Dan always comes out best in all this — be it with Doc Weasel or Patterico or SEK. Lots of “remember those private emails we had>”-type cryptic stuff.
Anyway, to this:
Normally, I’d explain to you that my interpretation was based on a number of factors, and that — as I said several times now in various places — my reading had to do with your motives in that particular post, not in general.
But, having already said that, and having this suggestion that I’ve assailed your honor like a Barbary pirate might assail the dewy peachfish of a young traveling duchess repeated back at me for the hundredth time, I’ll just say this: fuck off.
“Outrageous” stuff? Like what, exactly? Come on, counselor. Give me some idea of this “outrageous stuff” I save for my drooling sycophants?
Okay. But why would you want that? And what has that to do with courage?
The reason I posted here is because you posted here, and I was answering. I wasn’t even aware you had a post up. As the thread makes clear at one point.
Once I was aware, I went over and posted links to precisely what I’d written to you. Hardly hiding, am I?
As for the “courageous” thing — is that the tack you’re going with, that I said I’m somehow courageous and you aren’t? I didn’t. I said your strategy is a bad one, and I have not backed down from that. I said what I believed your intent to be when you wrote the “good man” post, and I backed up my thinking with textual and intertextual clues, plus bits from your personal biography. In fact, I said it was BECAUSE you’ve earned such credit in my mind that I interpreted your post the way I did. I didn’t think something so baldly and showily certain as “Obama is a good man” — particularly given all the instances of his not being one — could come from anything other than a desire to set a certain tone.
And the reason for that was to buy some grace with people who will extend their hand to you until it’s time to eat, at which point they’ll return a stump.
You see into my soul, eh? I wonder, has Obama ever apologized? Know his type?
Funny thing is, in this very thread I noted that you took offense to some things that weren’t meant in the spirit you seem to have taken them. And I believe the word “sorry” appeared.
But you seem energized by your new found ability to unleash! So, like, GO WITH IT, BROTHER!
Just make sure you aim it at the truly bad men like me. Aiming it at Obama would be premature, and you have to willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
In medicine one case does not define a syndrome.
One politician’s over the top rant does not define a political syndrome either.
Ed got defensive because he was poised to be defensive. i suspect that is at least part of what drew the lightning. Go around expecting to get hit and don’t be surprised when you get hit.
I will need to see substantial evidence of a syndrome before I begin to lend any credence to the concept. Currently I, as others in this thread, reject the concept as unsubstantiated, at least in so far as we are concerned with speakers from the right. Simply put, it is not in our nature to plumb those depths of personal hatred. At it’s core BDS was the belief that Bush, no matter what the motive or the act, was fundamentally illegitimate and could do no right.
The right will never go that route. I defy anyone to disagree, and if you do I want to hear names of who you think will take that path.
Obama will either prove us wrong and govern moderately, leaving many of us stunned into silence. Or he will prove to be what we suspect, in which case we will have all the ‘facts’ Morrissey says we need. The only possible ODS would occur should Obama actually reach out to the right in any substantial way, but then the hatred would be coming from Obama’s left.
“I know why the difference in Ed Morrissey’s position now and his position then and it isn’t flattering.”
The Cap’t and Tenille doesn’t want to rock the Republican position he has obtained. Cap’t Ed a PLAYER now.
Good call Patterico.
I think the tension is all about you not recognizing we have to be outlaws now. The establishment is a slithering mass of the dirty socialist, and Obama is the standard bearer. We don’t need to personally go after Obama, but we need to make the filthy socialism personal. That’s the only way we are going to come back from it.
Oh, the good call thing was to #300.
Yes, I’m a conciliatory kind of fuck, and I also go behind everyone’s back.
I’m a conflict avoider.
Cap’t Ed tells you that he is on “conference calls” and all sort of RNC shit. Man the dude is a poseur. F him. Let’s get back to whether the Democrat Party is a socialistic/communistic PARTY dudes. One PARTY State now.
The more I think about it, yeah, let’s punch some babies.
Calling Jeff thin-skinned or anything of the sort is just dumb. I know it first hand. I was an ass to him a few times in the early blogging world and he always responded with a hail fellow well met sort of reaction. I’m sorry, the guy isn’t thin-skinned and he isn’t an asshole.
He’s been nice when it hasn’t been required any number of times.
I don’t drool! Okay, maybe a little.
You’re Iago, Dan.
But I see you, lurking there like a twisted mite.
I would say Enobarbus.
FUCK! MISSED THE END OF MY EBAY AUCTION ARGUING THIS SHIT!
two words:
NEVER AGAIN!
I must disagree with you there, Jeff G. I think Patterico is so conflicted that he really sees Obama as a good man. Patterico attacks me as a ranter for saying those who support partial-birth abortion are evil, which I admit, I believe, but at the same time just before the election Patterico urges all of his readers not to vote Obama because he’ll reintroduce the “horror” of stabbing fetuses (he showed a picture of a healthy fetus too) in the head and sucking their brains out. This is his description and “horror” is his word.
Yet it’s an irrational rant to say someone is evil for supporting this horror, and infanticide to boot.
My point? Regardless of whether my characterization of partial-birth supporters as evil is true or not, Patterico can passionately denounce Obama’s first priority upon getting elected as a horror, but then call him a good man a couple days later.
It’s bizarre. So I don’t think Patterico necessarily wrote his post primarily out of a desire to set a certain tone, at least not consciously. I believe Patterico sees some — but clearly not all: to with his irrational and intellectually dishonest attack against Representative Broun — indicators Barack is one dangerous dude and concludes “decent man”.
I have no understanding of how Patterico reaches this conclusion, but I believe he does.
I agree more than I disagree, Christoph. And this is a very good thread. At what price comity? Me I’d much rather Jeff be wrong wrong wrong about Baracky and Mr. Patterico be all vindicated and stuff.
That’s not what’s gonna happen though.
*to wit his…
oh. crap. I meant the agree more than I disagree part for your #307 about Cap’n Ed.
Yeah, me too.
I used to think it was only the left you couldn’t debate with.
Now I know that it’s simply bad form to “impugn the motives of conservatives,” who aren’t given to opportunism or lapses into “pragmatism” that may or may not be strategically smart. Because of the purity of heart.
Bottom line is, I’ve been making these same arguments for years. Now, I’ve directed them at people on my own side of the aisle, and suddenly the arguments mark me as an unapologetic asshole.
I don’t even rate the courtesy given to Barack Obama — and I haven’t even once tried to mau mau the flakcatchers into making some dubious loans, nor have I received any sweetheart real estate deals.
Tough crowd.
Maybe it applies to Patterico as well, but I think Patterico just has a different view of good and evil than a lot of people. One that seems to me to conflict with himself.
PUMA.
Which argument:
Broun, ObamaAP, ObamaABC, ObamaCap’tEd, JG-on-Cap’tEd-vs-Pat or
O! is a commie/stupidleftists.
Ask Joe the sewage guy elite losers.
Oh, three or four.
Patterico: “I’ve watched my commenters call Obama slimy, corrupt, communist, evil, Stalin, and Lenin, and say that the people who voted for Obama are ignorant, idiots, and stupid. Compare him to Hitler. Call him a “lying crook†and “devious bastard†and say that he doesn’t have the nation’s best interests at heart. This is just a short random sampling. The fact that isolated parts of it may be true (he has told lies, for example) doesn’t make the whole picture any less troubling to me.”
The troubling thing is that a man this dangerous to American freedom, security and prosperity, has been elected President.
The renting of garments and the venting of spleen from those fearful and opposed to it enough to engage in a bit of hyperbole seems to be small beer.
And btw, I have enough anecdotes of people votes for Obama and other Democrats on the basis of incredibly stupid reasons that I have to say that “ignorant” is fair comment.
That’s from the same comment.
And?
That was in response to your litany of attacks — and in particular, one that I’ve answered numerous times now.
Got something preceding that? Something that wasn’t directly responsive?
Such hamfisted gotchas don’t work on me. Being that I’m an OUTLAW and whatnot.
A brief commercial endorsement – Use Esnipe, and never again will the outlaw fight against the twin evils of complacency and Dan Collins get in the way of last-second Ebay win.
“I used to think it was only the left you couldn’t debate with.”
Yeah, I used to think that a long time ago. But you’re not the first conservative who has called my writing dishonest or told me to fuck off. You probably won’t be the last.
Is that because I’m not conservative? No, it’s because sometimes I disagree with conservatives, and there are people of every ideological stripe who like to tell people to fuck off on the Internet.
Let me know how it all works out, hf. G’night.
Oh, and thanks for the Esnipe tip, Sarah. Let me know if they come up with Esnark and I’ll be able to farm some of this out.
Jeff G. was following the “let the punishment fit the crime” theory. I realize you think he has been attacking you outrageously, and maybe he has. Maybe everything he’s said about you has been wrong, just fodder for his drooling sycophants like yours truly who disagreed with him a moment ago.
However that may be, he’s clearly saying something a lot of people agree with and find perfectly reasonable. I’ve tried to show and you haven’t responded to where I think your reasoning and in some cases intellectual honesty has gone completely off the rails.
“That was in response to your litany of attacks  and in particular, one that I’ve answered numerous times now.”
My litany of attacks was in response to yours. Of course, you always *start* the personal attacks, and you always choose to escalate if I respond — because anything else would show WEAKNESS. Hence, telling me to fuck off.
We might as well be on USENET.
Patterico seems to be very conscience of every conceivable slight. Kind of a big, throbbing, raw nerve, like.
I’m beginning to worry if the pussification of America has really advanced to the state where debate between two men is de-railed because one of them was too gruff.
Full context:
Patterico: “Every single time our exchanges have gotten personal, it has started with you. You seem oddly proud of it  as if insulting fellow conservatives cements your view of yourself as an OUTLAW.”
Me: “Normally, I’d explain to you that my interpretation was based on a number of factors, and that  as I said several times now in various places  my reading had to do with your motives in that particular post, not in general.
“But, having already said that, and having this suggestion that I’ve assailed your honor like a Barbary pirate might assail the dewy peachfish of a young traveling duchess repeated back at me for the hundredth time, I’ll just say this: fuck off.”
Translation: You are now ascribing to me motives for attacking “fellow conservatives” that I don’t share. I’ve told you on several occasions why I reached the conclusion I did, and what it means that I reached that conclusion. You continue to ignore that I’ve done so.
Now, you’ve moved on to suggesting that I’m attacking fellow conservatives not because I disagree with them, but rather because I get some sort of thrill out of it. I’d like to see you put together an analysis that backs that up.
As it stands, it was just a cheap shot meant to lash out. And it was met with an appropriate — rather than an “outrageous” — response.
You’ve uttered those words on the internet, and you have a blog category for “scum” for God’s sakes.
Prissy much? Your self-righteousness reminds me of John McCain.
This is really a very good thread.
I think it’s true that Cap’n was borrowing trouble. I’ll thank him but I don’t bubble over and I don’t need a lid, though i agree with him that mockery will be one of the left’s umbrellas for deflecting sunlight from O, lest it burn and scorch his beauty.
The point is, be civil, be direct, be wiley, be conniving, and catch him in every lapse and be most uncharitable about the bad ones.
I suppose I should have capitalized that last “Him.”
G’night, Dan. Just do your best, do everything you can and don’t you worry what their bitter hearts are gonna say I think. Baracky is doing precious little to allay fears, Travis. Who is being organized? psycho asked once and it’s been a useful question every day since. I think Jeff is right that Cap’n Ed dancing to the AP organ grinder is sort of not something we need to put in the maybe-clue pile.
Now I know that it’s simply bad form to “impugn the motives of conservatives,†who aren’t given to opportunism or lapses into “pragmatism†that may or may not be strategically smart. Because of the purity of heart.
Actual conservatives are rather big on conformity.
And hierarchy.
Authority too.
So Jeff, I really wouldn’t take this too badly.
King George was a conservative too, and look what he missed out on.
Perhaps I’m being confusing because people aren’t familiar with the idea.
There are two prisoners; call them A and B. They aren’t allowed to communicate with one another.
If they both keep their mouths shut (“cooperate”, meaning with one another), the jailer has no evidence, and they both go free. Big payoff, in other words.
If they both inform on one another, they remain prisoners; the jailer has the evidence needed. Zero payoff, for both.
But if A keeps his mouth shut, and B informs on A, B gets an extra helping in his dinner and A goes into solitary confinement. Small payoff for the “defector”, penalty for the “cooperator”.
The question is, what is the proper strategy to maximize the payoff for each player, separately?
The answer is, for a single round there is no answer — the problem is not solvable.
But in the extended version — multiple rounds (the researchers used a computer to simulate many, many tries) — there is an answer. It depends on the fact that the two prisoners communicate through the jailer — for example, if A keeps his mouth shut and lands in solitary, he knows B defected. Each of them knows what the other did on the previous round. In that situation, it is now firmly established that the correct strategy is “tit for tat”.
Now there is a strategy with a dependable small payoff: always defect. If the other guy ever cooperates, you get meat with your dinner occasionally; if he doesn’t, you lose nothing. In particular, you never get slammed into sol. This is the basis of Alinsky’s recommendations — Rules for Radicals defines a whole list of ways to “defect” and get the small payoff. This is the strategy the Left and Democrats have been using since the Seventies. But if B is playing “always defect”, A must also play that strategy, else he loses big.
Patterico, in games-theory terms your “good man” post is a defection. You are expecting an extra haunch of rat in your mess-tin, and in this case are willing to provide it yourself — you wish to bask in satisfied appreciation of your own righteousness, in being a nice guy. In terms of the extended game it doesn’t matter in the least whether your assertion is true or not — you get a small payoff, and the other guys get ripped.
Morrissey is doing the same thing. Once again, it doesn’t matter whether his assertions are true or not, in the extended game — what matters is that it’s a defection; it’s telling the jailer A is a bad guy.
The other commenters are working around to all that, but as usual they’re focused on the details of what constitutes a defection. It doesn’t matter. You defected, and the jailer smiles.
Regards,
Ric
“Translation: You are now ascribing to me motives for attacking “fellow conservatives†that I don’t share. I’ve told you on several occasions why I reached the conclusion I did, and what it means that I reached that conclusion. You continue to ignore that I’ve done so.”
My interpretation was based on a number of factors and have to do with your motives. Sure, you’ve specifically denied having those motives. But I’ll blithely ignore your denial and continue to assert it regardless of your protestations.
Sound familiar?
And, per Lee, if you should take offense at that, that just means you’re a pussy. Note that I’m not saying that. It follows from Lee’s logic.
I think Patterico would have been a blast.
Routine argument. “Fuck off, Patterico!”
“You, sir, have insulted my honor. Quick! Post a blog on the internet so I can respond in the comment section, and point out how uncouth you are. Just like those meanies are being to our Commander-in-Chief elect.”
I meant to say Patterico would have been a blast in basic military training.
Ric,
You’re overthinking things. Maybe I just think Barack Obama isn’t Hitler or Stalin. That simple.
Wasn’t there at least a little bit of truth about hoping for the best because it looks so much better? A grain of it. Not the whole tablet, mind. Also enough human desire to take the choice that left the most…options . There is a case to be made, however that those pragmatic reasons may, per Ric, NOT be the best strategy out of the gate at all.
Distrust and resistance has never been more deserved by a candidate in my lifetime, I don’t think.
The lesson about Hitler and Stalin was you’re not supposed to think people what prove rather opportunistic about seizing power are different. If you don’t err on the side of Hitler now, then it was an a lot empty lesson I think. We should have just watched filmstrips that day.
Patterico, that really isn’t addressing Ric’s point, is it?
268 Comment by dre on 11/11 @ 8:55 pm.
dre,
please,pretty please tell me,is it confirmed?
oh i hope it is..
Who the fuck thinks that Barack Obama, President elect of the United States is Hitler or Stalin? JesusMaryandJoseph.
The question has been and still is, if there are twenty such idiots running about, must we suggest that ODS exists on the right such that it is comparable to the evident BDS so many have complained of these last six years?
Well, clearly Obama isn’t Hitler nor Stalin nor does he need to be to do enormous damage to liberties within the United States.
But what is your rationale for mischaracterizing Representative Broun’s words and maligning him when Ed Morrissey himself making the same basic point a couple months back?
Until you’ve read and responded to Jay Mac’s reasoned comment and responded to it in depth, since it is potentially bloody important, I don’t think anyone here should take you seriously.
Hear, hear.
To begin- Christoph, glad you liked my Hot Air comment.
It’s strange to see conservatives so divided now after the election. I have the greatest respect for Ed Morrissey but his ODS-claims on a legitimate line of questioning are bizarre.
It seems to me that there are two camps. The first is continuing in their opposition to Obama in exactly the same way they did pre-election. The second has decided that being “gracious” is the way to go. The polar opposite of BDS. In the process though, they are seeing ODS where none exists- it is simply the same anti-Obama stance that they themselves had before the election.
Taking the “higher ground” seems to involve absolving Obama of his sins-the racist church, his long association with anti-American terrorist Ayers, terrorist-spokesman Khalidi and his PLO-employed wife, his lies to the American people (his votes on babies who survived abortions to name but one), and his cheating (his security-disabled campaign donations). For some though- and I number myself among them- simply changing job from Senator to President does not magically re-make a man.
Obama has spent his entire adult life in the company of radicals- including a long relationship (again, one he lied to the American people about) with a terrorist who declared war on America, plotted to blow up US servicemen and their dates at Fort Dix, and who discussed the genocide of 25 millions Americans. Besides anything else, Obama’s friendship with Ayers marks him as a man of low character. To work alongside such a man, to go to his home to help launch his career- how could he bear to be in the same room as Ayers?
And let’s not forget one question thus far unanswered- Obama “may” have been using Ayers to advance himself (and that’s an incredibly charitable conclusion based on the other radicals Obama has associated with), but what did Ayers see in Obama that he chose to help him?
This conservative division is one that, I fear, will cause the conservative movement a great deal of harm in the next four years. These “higher ground” types need to stop accusing their compatriots of being deranged for asking perfectly legitimate questions. It only provides ammo to the Left- you can imagine them quoting a conservative source who called you an ODS sufferer when arguing about something else entirely. “Yeah, that blogger’s crazy. All these other conservative bloggers say so.”
Maybe I just think Barack Obama isn’t Hitler or Stalin. That simple.
Simple is always best. Perhaps if Ed had stuck to the same approach this thread wouldn’t have occurred.
No, it doesn’t. In one case, the case of my assertion, I stated the factors that gave me the clues to what I believe your motives were (beginning with the timing of the post; it’s tone of addressing the masses; your previous depiction of Obama as “pond scum”; the numerous examples of his having joined purposes with anti-semites, domestic terrorists, Enlightenment assassins, and New Left Machiavelles that spoke directly against his being a good man; and your being too smart, or so I believed, not to see such).
In short, I made the case, for good or ill. You, on the other hand, have merely asserted. You’ve offered no supporting detail for your reading. And the assertion was merely meant to take us to this point of “see, I can do it too!” — when in fact you haven’t.
I invite you to make the case, though. Thesis: “Jeff gets off on attacking other conservatives because it makes him feel all Outlawy and Tough.”
Begin.
Once you’ve finished, then it might sound familiar to me — though only if it makes a decent case. I may have been wrong in my reading (I don’t think I was), but at least I explained how I came to it.
Let’s restate the issue. The reason we shake hands. Or use friendly salutations. Or extend good faith, has to do with reciprocity. If they don’t follow in kind, there is nothing intrinsic we’re losing. The only basic aspect of civil behavior is its return in kind.
“Wasn’t there at least a little bit of truth about hoping for the best because it looks so much better? A grain of it.”
SarahW,
I have already explained at length where my own feelings about all this came from. By the way, in that post, and at Rick Moran’s place, I made it clear that this wasn’t some premeditated decision. But Jeff Goldstein continued, including in this post, ascribing to me motives for saying what I said about Obama. I’ve told him on several occasions why I reached the conclusion I did, and what it means that I reached that conclusion. He continues to ignore that I’ve done so.
Anyway, this thread isn’t about my feelings about Obama, which is something I’m sick of talking about. It’s about why Ed Morrissey has also been put on the shit list for daring to say we shouldn’t act like the Kos Kids.
“Politically, he’s a cog in a machine. The cog itself has no purpose but to turn with the energy given to it, and pass that energy on the next cog. He’s a neutral figure if you just look at the cog. If you widen your vision, you see that the machine makes omelettes, and we are all eggs.”
ANOTHER HAMMER MEETS NAIL COMMENT. Let’s be clear. the BORG that is the left-liberal-media-Democrat-DC-establishment-Government complex would be doing 85% of the same machinations were it Hillary or John Edwards being coronated. Obama is the riskiest because he is the only one with an unabashed left/socialist pedigree.
The “system” is designed to take money from the economically productive, give it to the politically connected, and in the process feed a monstrosity of socialist engineering that desires to reshape America away from its model of success for most of its history.
The duty of conservative patriots is not to marvel at the machine, or even worse to ‘wish it success’ as if its success would be in any way shape or form
a good thing. … the duty we have is to throw SAND IN THE GEARS TO GET IT TO STOP.
I don’t quite know the right way to do that, but I hope we can stop pissing on eachothers blog-campfires and start getting creative on how we break the Machine.
I know what will solve this; RON PAUL!
(sorry, interjecting a little humor while the world goes batshit crazy!)
Are you wilfully blind or what is your deal? Did you read comment 295, and if so, what is your response? Why do you think Ed Morrissey asked those questions pre-election, and lampoons Rep. Broun and his commenters for making the same basic point post-election?
PATTERICO, YOUR DUMBFUCK, TO COIN DAN COLLINS’ TERM… WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK OBAMA MEANT BY A STRONG AND POWERFUL $500 BILLION/YEAR YEAR CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY “FORCE”?
Were Broun — or Ed Morrissey prior to Obama’s certain ascension to power — loons for wondering, or are you “inexplicably” timid for not?
“Distrust and resistance has never been more deserved by a candidate in my lifetime, I don’t think.â€Â
Except since the last time a Democrat was in office. Remember when Clinton was the Most Dangerous Threat to Democracy Ever!!!!!ZOMGHEWENTOOSLOTOPROTESTTHEVIETNAMWARCOMMIECOMMIECOMMIE!!!!!
This thread isn’t about putting Ed Morrissey on any shitlist. I was about taking exception to a single post of his.
And the problem was that Ed Morrissey felt the need to tell us not to act like the Kos Kidz.
At some point that’ll sink in.
Jeff doesn’t need defending, and neither do you. Grow a pair, say what you have to say, and try not to repeat yourself too much.
I tend to want to mull these things over a bit before I say much, but at this point I can say that as much as I don’t want Conservatives to behave as the loony left has, I think that even thinking we might is tantamount to the cliff diver repeating, subvocally: “Don’t fuck up. Don’t fuck up. Don’t fuck up.” when it’s his time to jump.
That said, there is no we. There is a whole lot of Is. I’d be a little disappointed if some of the Is that I pal around with painted their testicles purple and went ahead and glued that poster, but I can’t say that I’d take it personally as an invalidation of what I hold to be true.
Lisa —
Some of us here were one-time Clinton supporters. Just so you know.
Mommy Daddy..are you getting an devorce..
PATTERICO, YOUR DUMBFUCK, TO COIN DAN COLLINS’ TERM… WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK OBAMA MEANT BY A STRONG AND POWERFUL $500 BILLION/YEAR YEAR CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY “FORCEâ€Â
Clearly, he means to take your guns, freedom, Walmarts, and white wimminfolk. Also, this huge domestic security force will go to all the houses and cheap hotels and replace the bibles with Koh-rans! Koh-fuckin-rans, people!!! Wake up!
Mommy Daddy..are you getting an devorce..
LOL.
I bet Lisa is growing her hair out like Pam Grier in Foxy Brown. Just to be on the safe side ;-)
Lisa, You’re not helping. :)
I don’t want to be on any shit lists.
Can’t we just go back to blackballing?
racist
Lisa, this is what Obama said.
Listen. And explain it to us.
Yeah, I’ll try again for the third time.
I think about Morrissey’s suggestion much as I think about the old joke about expensive yachts, where the punchline goes  If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.  So it will be with the personal behavior of political followers  if you have to ask, they don’t have it. So flip it about  if they have it in them, you don’t have to ask.
Some of us here were one-time Clinton supporters. Just so you know.
I find that one as hard to believe as Aravosis saying he was a Reagan supporter.
No, Patrick, that is not the “simple” version. That’s the handwaving obfuscated one, and if you aren’t conscious of that it’s as much of a flaw as if you were doing it on purpose.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma game is important because it isn’t necessary to “think”, let alone “overthink”. We don’t have to think about the law of gravity unless we’re in the satellite business; it’s a basic enough principle to simply take for granted and go with the implications. Similarly, reducing the situation to something so simple it isn’t necessary to think about it reveals what’s going on.
Of course it’s more complex than that, but not a lot — basically there are two games of Prisoner’s Dilemma being played simultaneously. One of them is “us” — “conservatives”, “classical liberals”, “Republican sympathizers” — against “them” — “progressives”, “socialists”, “Democrats”. In that game, the Democrats have been playing “always defect” for forty years or more, and exactly as the theory predicts, have been getting a constant stream of small payoffs and no severe penalties. Small payoffs add up, in the long run.
You and Morrissey, and several others, are starting a new game, in which the various divisions of “us” — you, Jeff, me — are the prisoners, and the Democrats are the jailers. In that game, you’re a defector, and so is Cap’n Ed; and the result is that the whole “us” becomes a cooperator in the us-vs-them game. You get a tasty morsel out of the local game, but our whole side ends up on the rack in the global one.
Jeff is focused on details, which is right and proper. It takes a humorless asshole like me to get to the bottom of it.
Regards,
Ric
I am blackballing you for using the term blackballing.
Is this Pam Grier Foxy hair?
Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure: the line “Describing Obama’s attempts to move the country far to the left should be undertaken in the measured and refined tones of a Bill Buckley fart” was added shortly after I published the post just because I thought it was a good line.
It was not intended to draw any connection between Ed Morrissey and conservative flatulence.
“It’s about why Ed Morrissey has also been put on the shit list for daring to say we shouldn’t act like the Kos Kids.”
And right there is why there’s a disagreement- Ed accused people of acting like Kos Kids for asking precisely the same questions he himself was asking back in July. He’s accusing perfectly reasonable conservatives of acting like nuts for no good reason. I wouldn’t mind quite so much if he hadn’t brought up the same issues himself but it just smacks of hypocrisy. And I hate to even suggest that about him- I have the greatest respect for his work.
Obama said the words, we have video of him doing it- and words have meanings. It’s not deranged to examine why he thinks the US needs a group “as strong, as powerful and as well funded” as the US military. Is it crazy to ask what he means by “as strong” or by “as powerful”? Is he talking about numbers and armaments? And that is not unreasonable since he’s couching this in terms of national security- a group to aid the military.
To dismiss these questions as insane rantings is what’s unreasonable here. More so when Ed did it himself.
If Ed had made a post like that about people discussing a secret Obama plan to dissolve Congress or to do away with term limits, he would have a point about ODS.
As it is, the ODS-claims are flying at people who don’t deserve the label. Or do you disagree that there’s something hypocritical about calling a person deranged for asking the same questions you yourself once did?
Say that again.
Please.
Ok. Pretty please.
“It’s about why Ed Morrissey has also been put on the shit list for daring to say we shouldn’t act like the Kos Kids”
I think I resent the imlications made by that comparison. That vulgar displays of FEELING and rude art pieces and collapsing into our 7 year-old daughter arms, with all that sobbing is somehow afoot.
I mean, get real. While there is nothing on the surface wrong with an argument to be “normal”, or non-hyperbolic ,to maintain credibility, it seemed pretty clear to me Ed was acting if proper resistance was hysteria.
I see some movement to chill justified suspicion, criticism, even alarm, based on a faulty sort of denialism and an underestimation of the real threat O poses.
There are good reasons to impute a socialist/communist agenda to O. His own career, such as it is. His words and those of his close associates.
Oh 386, that was directed at Lisa. In case anyone wondered…
I’m one of the 300. I still like George W Bush. He did what was needed in a very bad time, and was reviled for it.
I think playing nice with the leftists, apart from what morality dictates, is enormously stupid. If you offer your hand in compromise, they will tear it off and use it to beat you with, all the while decrying how you “made them do it”. If you complain about it, they will howl about what an evil fuck you are. The MSM will provide them cover for this behavior, and so they will never stop doing it.
That said, I’ve stopped considering myself a member of the GOP, I don’t know what they stand for anymore. Perhaps they will one day, but when I hear supposed rational people stating that if we could just separate from those wacky fundamentalists, those bring-me-down evangelicals, I wonder if that day is likely to occur anytime soon.
I should make clear once and for all why I’m ignoring Christoph, because it’s relevant to all this.
Christoph is a smart guy who I enjoyed as a commenter on my site for a good long time. But he’s banned now. It was a long time coming, but the final straw was when he insulted for the nth time my guest blogger, who is one of the most consistently civil people I have ever run across. I guarantee you that she is far closer to Jeff’s view of Obama than I am, although we’re none of us as far apart as this discussion suggests. To suggest that my guest blogger is somehow showing weakness because she is civil to people would be an outrageous statement. I have never admired anyone I met on the Internet more, and she gains immense respect and credibility on my site because of her consistently measured tone.
Christoph, after being banned, continued to leave comments in moderation. These followed the pattern he had set before he was banned: they were intelligent, often polite, and sometimes unbelievably harsh. He gave me an excellent suggestion for how to keep my site from going down; because I am a technological ignoramus, I was unable to implement it myself, and I spent weeks trying to get other to. Meanwhile, he assumed I was ignoring him and starting calling me a “stupid fuck” in comments for allegedly ignoring his advice.
At times he would beg to be reinstated as a commenter and promise to be civil.
When I posted about Obama being a basically decent and good man, he made the same argument he has made here under a phony name, and again called me a “stupid f*ck” and an “ass—-” (he censored himself). It reminded me why I didn’t want him around. He is big on self-righteousness, which I consider to be the world’s most dangerous emotion. And when drunk on self-righteousness, civility can go to hell.
And when people are uncivil to my civil guest blogger, I get really upset.
Jeff, in a comment above, you say:
Let me surprise you, then. I am uncomfortable having people like Christoph on my side. I don’t wish to be lumped in with him. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him shooting up an abortion clinic one day. And while I think partial-birth abortion is a horror, I think it’s unhinged to see it as so evil that you’d be willing to kill adult human beings to stop it. Maybe Christoph agrees and maybe he doesn’t, but I don’t see any evidence in his past rhetoric that suggests he wouldn’t be willing to go to those lengths.
Even if I’m wrong about that, he was a right S.O.B. to my favorite guest blogger and I won’t forgive him for it.
I think I have a fundamental difference with people here. Oh, I can be uncivil — and I typically save that for people who are uncivil to me. But I also believe that giving way to our baser instincts in Internet communication at all times is far too easy, and results in far too much unnecessary hostility.
In short, I think many of you see civility as weakness. I definitely don’t.
I have a stable of left-leaning commenters who respect me because when they are civil to me, I am civil to them — and I enforce civility from others towards them. Somehow, this has never meant that people don’t get to disagree robustly; they do. But I honestly don’t believe that being civil makes you a pussy or weak. It depends on the circumstances.
Civility is not weakness. It can actually show strength.
You can believe whatever you want, but for many here, 911 was their political awakening.
Watching the left talk about chickens coming home to roost, etc., was a wake up call to many of us who had been, like me, rather de facto Dems. After all, I was teaching lit at a private university. Being a Dem was just something you had thrust upon you. Like tweed.
Lisa, this is what Obama said.
Listen. And explain it to us.
Oh. My. God!!!
Everyone concedes, here, at your place, over at the AoS, that Christoph sucks.
In short, I think many of you see civility as weakness. I definitely don’t.
There is no point in disagreeing with that, even if I did.
I’d just suggest there is a world of difference between being polite and playing miss manners.
Exactly, SarahW. Not half an hour ago, I put two comments on the Hot Air thread disagreeing with the Obama isn’t an American nonsense.
He is. From Hawai’i.
But asking about this Civilian National Security Force, pointing out Obama’s Marxist and/or terrorist mentors, his racist 20 year church, his support partial birth abortion, his unprecedented fundraising and almost certain foreign contributions after his campaign turned off the security features, his creating a cult of personality with symbols of power including a fake Presidential Seal (which he had again in his first press conference as President-elect), his speech in Berlin, his “spread the wealth around” and bankrupt coal plants, his supporters’ crazy use of children to sing regimented songs of praise to Obama (no, Obama isn’t responsible for that exactly, but he did intentionally create the personality cult that made it possible), and his supporters’ thuggish behaviour to reporters investigating him, not to mention Joe the plumber?
These are legitimate concerns and call into question Barack Obama’s basic goodness and Ed Morrissey’s hypocritical attack on Representative Broun and his commenters who raise the same sorts of questions Morrissey raised prior to the election.
“Everyone concedes, here, at your place, over at the AoS, that Christoph sucks.”
OK. That’s just to explain why I’m going to go back to completely ignoring him.
But I do think the whole episode has relevance to the larger discussion.
You can believe whatever you want, but for many here, 911 was their political awakening.
So abandoning your core principles because one is piss-your-pants terrified is a “political awakening”? Very interesting. I, for one, was even more proud to be a liberal in a free country after 9/11. I didn’t go running around in circles trying to prove I was a “real” American by being faux conservative when that is just not me. Yes, there were people on the right and the left saying we deserved to get bombed either because we were capitalist assholes or because we showed too much tit on tv and had too many queers. Fuck them. Still not abandoning what I believe in.
What will happen after the next terrorist attack? Will they switch to the Green Party? Peace and Freedom? Libertarian? Is the party switching directly related to the size of the bomb? The terrifying terroryness of the terror attack?
While DRJ is usually smarter than you on political issues, her writing is sometimes vexing as heck and her legal analysis is… not as good as her political analysis.
But I could have sworn you banned me for calling Beldar a moron. No matter.
In short, I think many of you see civility as weakness. I definitely don’t.
On the one hand, you are correct. On the other, you can misidentify civility fairly easily. It would be civil to let your new cell mate ram you in the ass every night, but I’d rather bloody his face if he tries. Politics isn’t chess, and you and Ed are deluding yourself if you think the Dem establishment is going to suddenly change their ways because they suddenly have all the power. You should be thinking up guerrilla tactics to fight them, but you seem resigned to make them watercress sandwiches sans crust. Nice for you perhaps, but not for everyone.
I voted for Clinton more times than I voted for Bush, Lisa.
Lisa,
9/11 was a political awakening for many people because they realized that a lot of liberals, like you, just don’t take terrorism seriously. Your comment is an excellent illustration of the mindset that they were reacting to. Do please keep it up.
Sorry, not acting like a purist or anything. I was somewhat comforted by the of steadiness and assuredness of our Glorious Chimperial Galactic Leader after 9/11. I was not running around happy that we were under attack. But I have never found being a liberal a shameful thing. Not even after 9/11. Shame on anyone who did just because of 9/11.
So why don’t you start by explaining exactly how they would spend their $500 billion/year budget. What equipment they would buy with it, how it would be used, how many people, where these people would go and what they would do, etc.
Remember $500 billion dollars per year. It’s gotta be spent.
“Politics isn’t chess, and you and Ed are deluding yourself if you think the Dem establishment is going to suddenly change their ways because they suddenly have all the power.”
When the fuck did we say that?
“You should be thinking up guerrilla tactics to fight them, but you seem resigned to make them watercress sandwiches sans crust. Nice for you perhaps, but not for everyone.”
DOWN goes the strawman for the count!!!!!
where’s pdbuttons? we need some haiku’s
I just changed my mind. I realized that there are only two options.
1) Understand that Barack Obama is Satan and wants to enslave us all.
2) Roll over and let Barack Obama do anything he wants.
Makewi, thank you for helping me see the light.
Patterico person, whoever the fuck you are, if the travails of my side of the aisle are any guide I can tell you that the first to be “purged” are the voices of moderation. Not just moderates (of course they have to go to, the fuckers) but anyone who is not breathing fire. This kind of shit will continue until one person is left gnawing furiously at their ankle. Then everyone regroups, starts thinking clearly and strategizing on how to win – for real. This bullshit will be forgotten in 6 months.
“where’s pdbuttons? we need some haiku’s”
We must understand
Barack Obama is bad
I’m right, you pussy
“I was somewhat comforted by the of steadiness and assuredness of our Glorious Chimperial Galactic Leader after 9/11.”
Lisa, can you be nice to the guy for one second and give him at least one iota of respect for the fact that we HAVEN’T had another attack on our soil since 9/11? Or does BDS keep you from that? (ironic that we’re debating the onset of ODS in the right-o-sphere and Lisa is proudly displaying her lefty creds with the “chimp” slur. Guh.)
Did you read what I wrote?
I didn’t abandon any core principles. I discovered what they were, in fact. Before 911 I was a Dem out of habit; I was not politically active. Being a “liberal” is just how one in my situation self identified.
But then I began to understand that the party calling itself “liberals” weren’t really liberals at all. It took the fresh eyes of political novice to match the4 core principles of liberalism to the correct contemporary resting place for classical liberal ideas.
I came close to calling myself libertarian (small “l,”) but on a number of issues we broke. I was often called a “conservative,” but I had nothing much in common with social cons, who seemed to be the reference point for the label. In the end, I match up with classical liberalism.
The bombing didn’t scare me in the sense you mean. What it did was wake me up to political realities — and it just so happened that my work on intentionalism set the stage for me to be able to see things clearly once I began investigating the various political factions.
Shortly after 911, I subscribed to everything from Harpers and The Nation to NR, the Weekly Standard, and Reason.
I am where I am today because I believe it is this way that freedom lies.
Lisa person, whoever the fuck you are, thanks for those words of encouragement.
Good choices, Pat. Just make sure you’re being civil in which ever choice you make. He isn’t a good man, and civility is earned. Fight or admit you are a pussy.
And Patterico brings TEH PAIN!
9/11 was a political awakening for many people because they realized that a lot of liberals, like you, just don’t take terrorism seriously. Your comment is an excellent illustration of the mindset that they were reacting to. Do please keep it up.
Most of us liberals live in one or the other of the big godless cities that got attacked (or in the case of Los Angeles – has been in the crosshairs of many a plotting and swarthy group). Of course we take it fucking seriously. But Talking Very Seriously About Terrorism while supporting a ridiculous, incoherent foreign policy is not exactly taking it very seriously either. The last eight years is a prime example. Thanks for that.
Why don’t you answer the question Lisa’s ignoring, Patterico, explain what Barack Obama would do with this national security force with the budget — all $500 billion of it — strength, and power equal to the Pentagon, but made up of civilians… and then explain why you attacked Representative Broun again.
Of course we take it fucking seriously.
Sure you do, which is why you applaud when Billy Boy bombs a couple camels, shout with glee when the Dem establishment says it is more of an issue for law enforcement, and scream like you are being disemboweled when Bush makes war on terrorists. I’m sure the foreign policy will get much, much better under “cut the military by up to 25%” Obama. My advice? Move out of those big godless cities.
Fight or admit you are a pussy.
The 101st Chairborne rides high!!!
Fight!!! Fight!!!!
Okay I am trying to have a serious conversation while also trolling. This is very odd.
“Of course we take it fucking seriously.”
Yeah.
With phrases like “piss-your-pants terrified” and “The terrifying terroryness of the terror attack” who could possibly doubt your intense seriousness on the subject? There’s nothing flippant about those phrases AT ALL!
Why, I’m beginning to suspect you had loved ones die in the attack. That’s how compellingly serious you seem on the topic.
Personally, I don’t know why a few fuck yous change anything. Give and take. Free speech. No biggie.
Why don’t you answer the question Lisa’s ignoring, Patterico, explain what Barack Obama would do with this national security force with the budget  all $500 billion of it  strength, and power equal to the Pentagon, but made up of civilians… and then explain why you attacked Representative Broun again.
Do I look like the head of the Department of Homeland Security, motherfucker? I don’t know what the fuck he would do. I am just making fun of you because you are barking.
I didn’t see the comments directly before this.
I mean to say, who cares if Jeff and Pat tear it up a bit. It’s all good. Allies aren’t always friends.
Which, I never wrote to Cap’n Ed and asked him how to place my forks. I’m also not really going to be asking Bernadine Dohrn’s friends.
Patterico, seriously, I’ve read you for many years, and admire you for all the usual qualities people talk about, among them your civility and levelheaded criticisms and essays.
Still I think you were overly generous with Obama, and will probably disagree with attempts to squelch apt comparisons of O’s policies (Policehs?) to any light in history so long as it is …apt, just because it might be painted as over-the-top. Actually, that’s not true. I would attempt to use the most persuasive language at hand, Alinsky-style.
Even in Canada, I had at least a friend who was touched by 9/11 and I learned to be a little more serious about it than our friend Lisa.
I remember one of the more poignant moments on your site was when you talked about your reaction to it, and I as well. A terrible day. An awakening day. A day that reminds me we can’t afford naive fools with limited imagination.
To Lisa, we on the right side of the aisle are all caricatures to be mocked via The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. We “retarded cowboys” (in the vein of Dubya) ordering men into the battlefield to kill civilians. Terrorists just need a big hug and some Benjamin’s in the bank and all will be cool. Jon Stewart told me so!!!
Apropos of political mapping, here’s the World’s Smallest Political Quiz by Marshall Fritz, who died a few days ago, h/t Don Boudreaux. Take it, it’s only ten questions and it’s fun.
The foreign policy wasn’t incoherent. There are free people what weren’t. More than coherence, there’s good in that. Incoherent is saying oops well ohnoes sometimes genocides happen. Incoherence is voting against a trade deal with Colombia while whining about not working with allies and working to promote trade with Cuba.
“Patterico, seriously, I’ve read you for many years, and admire you for all the usual qualities people talk about, among them your civility and levelheaded criticisms and essays.”
Nice of you to say, but in the eyes of some here, you’re calling me a pussy.
I agree with SarahW, I’ve been a fan of Patterico and Ed for years, but I intend to rhetorically bloody some noses. I will not stand by while the country is dragged farther to the left without fighting, and as I have said, apart from what morality dictates, I don’t expect to be civil about it.
On one hand, these Weather Underground folks were crazy. On the other hand, they’re crazy.
Scary as Hell.
Patterico-person: I take 9/11 seriously. But I don’t take the people who think they take it seriously, seriously.
Nice of you to say, but in the eyes of some here, you’re calling me a pussy.
Yes, but only because you are acting like one.
“Apropos of political mapping, here’s the World’s Smallest Political Quiz by Marshall Fritz, who died a few days ago, h/t Don Boudreaux. Take it, it’s only ten questions and it’s fun.”
I think I’ve taken this before, haven’t I? The red dot for me is very much in the libertarian section, towards the top, a little to the right.
Lisa, I think it’s more important whether the terrorist people take it seriously that we take it seriously. They don’t seem to feel that way about Baracky.
Being a dickhead is not really “fighting” that is just being a dickhead. Ask Markos. But feel free to be a dickhead. It is fun. What the hell else is there to do when you are out in the political wilderness? You will get bored with the peanut gallery after a while and seriously start applying yourself to getting on message and trying to reach voters with a coherent alternative to “Teh Evil Progressives”.
“Yes, but only because you are acting like one.”
I suppose I left myself open for that, but the point is that some people (maybe you’re included) act like being civil is equivalent to being weak. Again, I don’t agree.
Early on in the blogosphere those types of quizzes were legion. Back then, this place was filled with folks who now abhor anything and everything on the right with fiery hatred.
Blowhard was here. He remembers Andrew Northrup, who used to talk me up long before he found claps on the back for calling me a failed academic; Yglesias, Atrios, Ted Barlow, John Cole, and on and on and on.
Times have changed. Those people — to a man — turned on me. Many of them subsequently attacked me in very personal ways, all because I was “on the right”.
Civility? That’s a two way street.
Yeah Pat you probably have taken it, on account of it’s not new, pretty old actually I think, like 26 years or so?
No Pat, and I’m being overly uncivil in delivering this message, but being civil is situational. It isn’t always called for.
This quiz is broken. I’m not a centrist I swear I’m not.
434 addresses something I’ve wondered about. Democrats have been the opposition party for basically the blogosphere’s existence. I wonder whether the whole “organizing to achieve a political goal” thing that they did during that period of time, which we saw as a function of them being on the left, was really a function of their being on the outs. I wonder whether it will happen for us as well.
Lisa, you’re flippant and a bitch. If you don’t take other people’s serious emotional reaction to that day seriously, if only because it was damn traumatic (I talked to a girlfriend in Switzerland on the phone and she was balling her eyes out), then you’re really just not a very nice person… and I’m so not suprised you vote the way you do.
And Patterico?
Good and evil are the struggles of all people and across all hearts. It isn’t the case that almost everyone is good just because it’s socially acceptable to pretend so.
Those in Nazi Germany supporting the regime knowing what it stood for, those in the American slave states supporting the regimes knowing what they stood for, and those supporting partial-birth abortion knowing what it is, the horror your referred to, are evil to the degree they do these things, regardless of what their numbers are within a society.
But enough. I have a couple noirs I tivoed to watch.
No, Patrick, throwing up your hands and sneering is not the solution, and you know it as well as I or anyone else.
Barack Obama is our opponent. At that level of analysis, details don’t matter. We are opposed to his policies and proposals. It remains to decide what our tactics and strategy are to be in that opposition.
It is a historical fact that Obama’s supporters and fellow-thinkers employ the “always defect” strategy. Some people are more colorful — “If you extend a hand, they cut it off and beat you with it” — but that’s what it amounts to. (Curiously, or not, “always defect” is a profoundly conservative strategy, in the non-political, cover-your-ass meaning — “always defect” never gets a big payoff, but it never gets a big penalty either, so it’s safe, and if the other guy cooperates it gets a little prize.)
But if the other guy is playing “always defect”, you have to play it that way also, or you lose big every time you cooperate. That’s not an opinion. That’s the “things fall down” version of the law of gravity.
In slightly more complex terms — it is not civil to always hand over your wallet to the mugger. Behavior that is rewarded will be repeated; you are not encouraging the mugger to be “civil”, you are rewarding him for uncivil behavior, and thereby reducing the total amount of “civility” in the society. In terms of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, you and your fellow-citizens are the prisoners and the mugger is the jailer, and handing over your wallet without argument is a defection. You get a little payoff (not being coshed) and your fellow citizens lose big by losing the ability to walk the streets safely.
Now, you could have made the “good man” post without defecting. You might have pointed out, for instance, that Pol Pot was the very essence of a good man, a man who repeatedly declared that he had only the best interests of his citizens and indeed of all the world at heart. You might have mentioned that Napoleone Buonaparte was a good man and French patriot who set out to end the Reign of Terror and restore stability, and accomplished that. It would probably be over the top (though it’s absolutely true) to point out that Adolf Hitler was a good man who ended the instability, and the monstrous inflation, of the Weimar era and restore self-respect to the German people.
You did none of those things. You declared Barack Obama a good man, full stop — contradicting yourself, and cutting the rug out from under others who care to oppose him. Morrissey has now done something exactly similar. Jeff doesn’t care for it, and neither do I.
Regards,
Ric
“while supporting a ridiculous, incoherent foreign policy”
That phrase is loaded with a lot of freight relevant to this conversation. One of the big failures of the Bush administration was failure to fight back against propaganda wars – it allowed “conversion” of huge swathes of ordinary people into taking your little phrase up there as some sort of conventional wisdom.
You will get bored with the peanut gallery after a while and seriously start applying yourself to getting on message and trying to reach voters with a coherent alternative to “Teh Evil Progressivesâ€Â.
I am not a leftist, I have no mechanism for getting my message to the voters. Attempts to do so are filtered to paint my message as “teh suck”. So I think I will just be bad (but not immoral) for a while.
It put me as a Centrist Libertarian – W.T.F.? Libertarian, yeah, Centrist? umm okay…
Lisa is not none of that Christoph. I don’t like you anymore.
I don’t know Happy. They don’t give a shit who is in office. Conveniently, there is always some bullshit story about how the terrorists love John Kerry. Or how they love Hillary Clinton. Now they love Obama. Its all bullshit. They bomb each other over the smallest sectarian differences. They sure as hell aren’t going to stop itching to bomb us because some guy gets in the whitehouse with a funny assed name.
“No Pat, and I’m being overly uncivil in delivering this message, but being civil is situational. It isn’t always called for.”
You don’t know as much about me as you think you do. I’ve told plenty of people to fuck off in my time, and I’ve called a few people pussies — usually leftists who post on the Internet under fake names who question the bravery of conservatives for not fighting in wars. (“Retardo Montalban” comes to mind.)
As someone whose real name is widely known, I find it hard to take seriously someone who calls me a “pussy” on the Internet, while using a fake name. No offense to you, Makewi — if that is your real name . . .
And, per Lee, if you should take offense at that, that just means you’re a pussy
Well, I guess you can draw my statement in to a cover-all exercise in logic, but actually, I was being specific to comments like this:
My litany of attacks was in response to yours. Of course, you always *start* the personal attacks, and you always choose to escalate if I respond  because anything else would show WEAKNESS. Hence, telling me to fuck off.
Sorry dude, but you sound like a girl
next you will be saying; “it’s not what you said, it’s how you said it.”
Oh, wait, that IS your point…
Never mind, Alice.
Conveniently, the terrorists come out and say so.
Helps us a bunch in making the case, that.
:-) Happy.
Hey, it is 12:40am here. What? You people. I can’t quit you, you delightful wingnuts.
Night.
oh. I was going for more of an Ayers thing. My bad. I shouldn’t try to comment and floss at the same time.
Though I very much doubt they would have liked Hillary. As I’m on record as saying.
Lemme guess baxtrice, you weaseled on two questions with M’s, uh, national ID card and legalize drugs, maybe? Or maybe three, with an M for Social security?
I have never called anyone a “pussy” in my life, and if I were to start, it wouldn’t be wtih you, Patterico.
I thought you were gone to watch bad Karate movies, Perf. Get movin.
Okay for real this time,
G’night
As I say, “lee the knife,” the amazing courage and manliness of manly men like you who post under fake names never ceases to amaze.
Noirs, Lisa.
Which means darkies.
RACIST!!!
Never been through military basic training, I see.
I weaseled on welfare. I think I may have overthought it, but it may be that it’s a dated formulation I think.
“Blowhard was here. He remembers Andrew Northrup, who used to talk me up long before he found claps on the back for calling me a failed academic; Yglesias, Atrios, Ted Barlow, John Cole, and on and on and on.
Times have changed. Those people  to a man  turned on me. Many of them subsequently attacked me in very personal ways, all because I was “on the rightâ€Â.”
It’s true. It is. He’s not even mentioning Jim Henley or about two dozen others.
To a man? Yeah, pretty much.
I think you meant bawling. Or at least, I hope so.
Which welfare though hf, corporate or government (implying “personal”)?
oh – the private charity vs. welfare one.
Sdferr — You’re right about the Social Security, I put an M. in Social Security because it is majorly effed up in this country and it will probably be bankrupt in 10 years. Erego, no more Social Security. Other question I hit maybe was legalizing drugs. So yeah, what are you doing, spying on me?
DAMN BUSH and his FISA!!! /moonbat rant
also, major OT derailment in this comment. Shall I denounce myself?
Ninja kitten, maybe.
Patterico, this is an often foolish, but very decent man. Obama is the opposite.
good night
irene
good night
love you patterico!
love you jef….
oh shit
my teddy kennedy brain cancer bear wants to.speak…
awww
he wants u to ALL be health[help?]
healthful!
but if a little more of you “nasty” bears could be a little more “healthful”
i wouldn’t have to take u on a ride!
“leave the republicans,
take the gun”
Linked to my comment by mistake. Scroll up to see what I’m talking about. And, yes, my comment was tongue in cheek, but barely.
Yikes Sarah, that’s too close to that plushy weirdo sheepguy what’his’name.
Goodnight.
Called self-righteous by Patterico. Man I’ve truly seen it all. Time to settle down soon.
camelot
i mean..lot’s of camels
“Though I very much doubt they would have liked Hillary. As I’m on record as saying.”
Hey, me too, at the breakfast table. Several times, stridently, even. Psychics can’t come over, It echoes out of the walls. I remember the halcyon days of thinking the Dems were eating each other alive. Then it dawned on me they had better pick her. I started praying for it at one point.
That’s saying something. “Hillary booster” was not ever something I’d find on my breakfast table resume.
“As I say, “lee the knife,†the amazing courage and manliness of manly men like you who post under fake names never ceases to amaze.”
I know what you mean, I’ve often thought that the biggest hindrance to civility–if you’re looking for such–on the web are these stupid ass names, handles, what have you, that so many need to hide behind, Patterico.
Your wounded honor deal is wearing a bit thin, too. I can’t and wouldn’t try to speak for Jeff Goldstein, Patterico, but his point seems perfectly clear to me.
As I say, “lee the knife,†the amazing courage and manliness of manly men like you who post under fake names never ceases to amaze.
Oh shit. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make you cry.
Actually, lee is part of my real name, I’ll send you an email and tell you my name and address if you like. I don’t think you are my enemy, and if it would dry those tears…
“Actually, lee is part of my real name, I’ll send you an email and tell you my name and address if you like.”
I don’t like, or care. But consider the irony of your continuing to beat your chest over your amazing courage, as you hide behind a fake name, where nobody can hold you accountable in real life for your opinions.
“Your wounded honor deal is wearing a bit thin, too.”
I’m all about making sure that Craig McLaughlin thinks highly of me.
Fact is, when you have a job that people are aware of, and a real name attached to your opinions, as I do, you have to take people on when they call you dishonest in any sense.
Ric – I sounds to me like you did not read Patterico’s post from the way you are interpreting his words, but what do I know.
I see my position on this argument consistent to another popular stance here, the one about not being deterred from telling the truth by fear of being labeled a racist.
“Don’t delve too deeply into the whole Rev Wright thing, you’re not black and don’t understand the plight of the AA, and you’re objection just shows the racism that caused this kind of common mindset in the first place”.
Or some such horseshit. The object being, put you on the defensive, and motivate you to question just how big of racist you are.
Now we get the; “don’t overreact, you will look like a deranged BDS’er!”
That is a losers game, and I don’t accept the premise that worrying about a new, expensive, National Civilian Force, and pointing out it is in keeping with my whole “dirty socialist” case, is the same as the last 8 years of BDS.
I get towards the libertarian top and to the left slightly. I do think it needs some questions about the constitutional roles of government and what they are.
I used to be (40 years ago) on the radical left. Changed to libertarian after Carter was elected and I read Solzhenitsyn and finally saw where what I supported led. I still considered myself libertarian until that Party left me by becoming unhinged over Iraq.
Afghanistan was a necessary revenge for 9/11, like the Doolittle raid in WWII, but not a strategic move. Iraq was the strategic one, a trap for al Queda and a central base for the long term war. That the libertarians couldn’t see that and seemed upset about freeing 50 million people pushed me away and into somewhat the same place Jeff G. is at.
On the internet this is (to me) a meme war. Goldberg’s book has opened a door to enlightening everyone about what, precisely, fascism is, just as Solzhenitsyn and others like Suvorov turned a light onto the USSR and Communism so that they could be seen for what they were and are.
I don’t wish to hide from those “labels” when they are appropriate. I wish to bring the light to others so they to can see the world as it is and then freely act upon that knowledge.
And now it is 1:35am and I’m beat after a long night shift. This has been a very good thread. I’ll check it again. Good night.
I’m going to post something at the pw pub about Jeff.
“I can’t and wouldn’t try to speak for Jeff Goldstein, Patterico, but his point seems perfectly clear to me.”
Craig – It seems clear ro me as well, but it is not the point that Jeff has been making. Jeff is all about intentionalism. He’s done great work explaining how the left has appropriated the meaning of certain words and how it has screwed up ordinary discourse.
I believe Jeff misappropriated the intent of Patterico’s original blog post on Obama because he was pissed off at the election results. Jeff explained his reasoning in detail. Patterico objected to Jeff’s interpretation, but what the fuck does Patterico know about the intent right, he was only the author. The Jeff refuses to consider what the author explains is the original intent is point of contention along with the personal attacks that were gratuitous and unnecessary add ons to Jeff’s post. Most of the commenters here don’t seem to have taken the time to have read Patterico’s original post and follow-ups to see his position on Obama and instead are relying on the strawmen constructed by Jeff. Just sayin’.
Oh, and Christoph, you’re still an asshole. Go fuck yourself sideways with the barbed cock of Satan.
“Fact is, when you have a job that people are aware of, and a real name attached to your opinions, as I do, you have to take people on when they call you dishonest in any sense.”
So because you’ve been outed, and because you’re what– a blog celebrity–you’re somehow more, what, brave. Bullshit. Seems to me lee the knife called your bluff on that. And just so we’re clear I don’t care what you think of me nor I expect do you to care what I think of you. Not relevant. When you phrase it as you did though it sounds kinda whiny. I didn’t question your honesty, I’ll only note that I’ve read the pertinent posts and I think Jeff gets the better of the arguments. If you chose to see this as a stain on your honor then so be it, pistols at ten paces.
daleyrocks,
I have read the posts and I stand by what I’ve written.
“So because you’ve been outed, and because you’re what– a blog celebrity–you’re somehow more, what, brave. Bullshit.”
Dumbass, I “outed” myself. I’m hardly some big “blog celebrity” but some people at my job read my blog.
“Seems to me lee the knife called your bluff on that.”
What, by offering to e-mail me his full name? That’s laughable. Who is going to call up his job and threaten to have him fired because of something “lee the knife” said?
“I didn’t question your honesty, I’ll only note that I’ve read the pertinent posts and I think Jeff gets the better of the arguments.”
You didn’t question it; Jeff did. I’m explaining to you, someone who didn’t know that I put my name out there and that my job is known, why it is that a) I bite back when accused of dishonesty and b) I have contempt for people who call me cowardly as they cower behind fake names.
upstream Christoph said:
“Called self-righteous by Patterico. Man I’ve truly seen it all.”
LOL
Patterico, where did I claim courage?
My whole point is, quit acting like a delicate flower, be bigger than the personal, and make your case.
Going on, and on, and on about who hurt who’s feelings first is just silly. You got so hung up on being dishonored over your motives, you lost sight of the real substance of the debate.
The irony is, your very argument about how courageous you are, because you use your real name(incidentally, I am well aware Jeff could hunt me down in an afternoon if he wanted) reinforces Jeffs conclusion, was part of his consideration no doubt, that you arrived at your position by being pragmatic.
It’s not that big of a deal. Except now we have you and Ed saying those of us with less of your pragmatism are borderline ODS, and we better watch ourselves. And I’m a bloghawk. And Jeff is a poopyhead because he said you were posturing disingenuously.
I think you are Chamberlain to Jeffs Churchill.
You want to throw in with Christoph, craig, be my guest. I think daleyrocks has his number.
“. . . your very argument about how courageous you are . . .”
I’m claiming no special courage, “lee the knife.” I’m claiming that it’s laughable to watch people like you accuse people of being “pussies” when you don’t even have the extremely minimal courage needed to use a real name to spout opinions on the Internet.
I don’t have a problem with people using fake names — but when they go around calling people with real names “pussies” it’s just a little laughable. That’s all.
Chickenhawk! Chickenhawk! Chickenhawk!
Patterico,
I’m a dumbass? Fuck you, Mr. Frey. This kinda thin skinned buillshit is why many people can’t stand you. You talk about your job being put in jeopardy by blogging, then don’t do it. Don’t bitch to me about your trials and tribulations. I don’t give a shit.
Sincerely,
Craig McLaughlin
“I’ll only note that I’ve read the pertinent posts and I think Jeff gets the better of the arguments.”
Craig – I don’t know. Essentially calling Patterico a liar over the motivations for writing his post doesn’t seem like much of an argument to me. Your mileage obviously differs, but stand by what you’ve written and all.
Craig – You haven’t been around this blog very long have you?
Actually Patterico, I’ve commented at your place too, most recently on the Ballon Juice thread. I used ‘lee’ because I was just using my outlaw name for fun today. Anyway, you, I am sure, could easily find out who I am.
What, you think I believe since I’m on the internet I’m anonymous? It is to laugh.
Bad faith is emotionally satisfying, especially if you’ve been legitimately wronged. But no argument has ever been won in bad faith. And what we need to do is win the argument. So we can move forward.
THAT would be awesome.
My, someone is very sensitive to criticism. I guess being a gruff truth-teller doesn’t go over so well with delicate wallflowers like craig mclaughlin.
Craig, you don’t know anything about me. You thought I was outed. You just now had to go look up my name (wasn’t hard, right?). You come on here and spout about whether my wounded honor thing is wearing thin and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Then you flip out and scream fuck you! at the slightest Goldstein-Approved-style Gruff Talk. I think we’ve seen who the thin-skinned guy is. But at least you’re tight with Christoph.
Lee, you buds with Retardo, are you?
Well, this has been fun. But I’m going to sleep.
Has Christoph been lecturing folks here on the superiority of the Canadian military? That used to be one of his favorite topics.
daleyrocks, I’m seeing it differently. Intentionalism, who knows, is that a word? doesn’t imply ecumenical results, it implies a forthright reading of text.
If it matters, lets all take a silent moment to make fun of Christoph, patron saint of hitting enter while drunk.
“But at least you’re tight with Christoph.”
Craig – I hope that doesn’t meant tight like a Viking or something, NTTAWWT. I mean those long winters in Canada do some strange things to people, but last I heard Christoph was living in the tropics contracting strange social diseases. Use protection if you do the Viking thing with him.
Lee, you buds with Retardo, are you?
You lost me.
Is that like comparing Obama to Hitler, ‘Cuz I hear that’s unclassy.
“I’ll only note that I’ve read the pertinent posts and I think Jeff gets the better of the arguments.â€Â
‘Craig – I don’t know. Essentially calling Patterico a liar over the motivations for writing his post doesn’t seem like much of an argument to me. Your mileage obviously differs, but stand by what you’ve written and all.’
Ya know Daleyrocks I have read them and I guess ‘my mileage does vary’ to repeat an extremely lame phrase and I not only stand by what I’ve written but I think Patterico should chill out, get the hair outta his ass and go away. But maybe that’s just me. Your mileage may vary.
blowhard – Yes, yes intentionalism is indeed a word. Jeff has written extensively about it. You must be unfamiliar with the site. Give it a perusal.
Congratulations on seeing things differently. Vive la difference. Yes, the AUTHOR’s intention is important.
Craig – Good for you. I like a man with the courage of his own convictions. What are you doing after your squash game tomorrow?
Uhhh, daleyrocks, your sarcasm is a bit off. What would the odds be that I’d mistake a word so that you might correct me?
Ever hear of irony? I doubt that’s a word as well.
Patterico,
I’ve known your name for years, hell I used to read your blog. I said Fuck you, which I meant, because you called me a dumbass. You come here and get in a flame war which is beneath such an august person. The wounded honor thing I got fronm direct observation watching over the last three days as you’ve obsessed over Goldstien calling you out. And if it weren’t so you wouldn’t be on this website in the wee hours, now would you, dumbass. I don’t know Christoph.
Sincerely
Craig McLaughlin
blowhard – I don’t know you. Tell me the odds.
I don’t know, in this instance, 1 in 1.
blowhard – So in 499, you were trying to be funny or something and I missed it. Is that what you’re saying?
If so, you’re humor is a little bit off.
‘Craig – Good for you. I like a man with the courage of his own convictions. What are you doing after your squash game tomorrow?’
I live in Arkansas, I don’t play squash. But I do shoot pistols. You’re welcome to join me. Shoot me an adress and I’ll shoot you back.`
Sorry – your
What, I’m going to go to Jeff G’s site, talk about intentionalism and ask if it’s a word by accident? Just to be rewarded by someone telling me, at Protein Wisdom, written by Jeff G., that yes, we must consider the intention of the speaker?
Yeah. I don’t know the odds.
It’s either a sure thing or it’s impossible.
You’re the one who responded to an obviously rhetorical question.
You tell me.
blowhard – Like I said, I don’t know you. I’ve been hanging around this site for three years or more and don’t recognize your name. How do I know what you know or don’t know? Are you going to impugn my motives now like Jeff did to Patterico? Seriously, how the fuck was someone supposed to tell 499 was supposed to be a rhetorical question?
I think you need to work on your delivery.
I gotta say, I have a real problem taking “blowhard” seriously.
Are you in love with that name? I know you were going for self-depreciating humor or something, but I think you may have gone to far. Just my two cents.
Please don’t cry, being helpful, I can’t stand anymore crying…
blowhard – I’ll practice up on my mindreading until next time.
KTHXBY
Ehhh, daleyrocks, forget my little joke. It wasn’t all that funny to start with and didn’t get any funnier from there.
Do I need a resume, though? To comment at a blog?
I’ve been around for a bit. Probably longer than you. Not sure how that matters.
Patterico,
IMO, you’re a pussy. You’re also full of shit. Trollhammered.
daleyrocks (reading for 3 years), lee the knife, you need proof?
I don’t know, did Jeff ever invite you to post on his blog when he was out, back in ’04. When you fucked with Andrew Sullivan when he was considered on our team?
I did.
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=3155
Ask Jeff if I posted that, I dare you. After all. You’re both very knowledgeable.
Related to that, Jeff encouraged me.
Kinda disagrees with the narrative that only a couple editors/writers okayed the early Sullivan bashing.
Jeff did, when he was on vacation, on his own blog.
Has Christoph been lecturing folks here on the superiority of the Canadian military? That used to be one of his favorite topics.
Actually, he hasn’t. My Canadian father opines along the same theme, though he tells of the (very arguably) superior WWII Canadian military, and how now it is barely a shadow of it’s former greatness.
There is a lesson there.
Obama is Trudeau!
… when it was still considered scary.
He let a guest blogger go to town as an atheist.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Fuck, y’all. I’ve always been to the left of Jeff and he’s always let me bring the shit to fucked up leftists.
What’s that say about him?
What’s that say about you?
Sorry blowhard, I was just trying to dig Patty a little, toughen the poor thing up by riffing on blog names.
Sometimes I just amuse myself without regard for others understanding. It’s a fault, I know.
Don’t mean I’m no Retardo (whomever that is) though!!!
Lee the knife, it doesn’t actually bug me personally. Frankly, it bugs me on Jeff’s behalf though.
What “bugs you on Jeffs behalf” Blowhard?
What bugs me? I’m not speaking to you here.
Jeff takes shit from the left and the right. From the left, Jeff is a crazy person, he’s reactionary, he thinks he’s covered in bugs. From the left, Jeff is intemperate, he’s overly enthusiastic, he thinks they’re marxists.
Both things can’t be true. I consider him to be an entertaining realist.
When people extend it past there, I question them.
You don’t understand how it was considered to be crazy to question Sullivan a few years ago. Well, it wasn’t that crazy. Jeff was a year ahead of me and he allowed it on his own blog, probably cost him a few hits back then.
Hey, I know all about being considered crazy. I still admire George Bush.
Yup, I’m one of the last 300.
I’ve been a fan of Jeffs for years now, but probably not as long as you.
Jeff is Paul Revere.
I hope I’m not the only one aware of my theme.
“I think we’ve seen who the thin-skinned guy is.”
Says the man who is banning people willy nilly on his own site.
“Irony” is just another word patterico doesn’t know the meaning of.
Uh-oh. I said I was an admirer of W, but after this, I just want him to go away already.
Putting politics above homeland security, the Bush administration ordered immigration authorities across the country to halt all deportation enforcement actions until the campaign season was over.
Yup, sitting on ICE.
And I’m sure you can guess why.
According to my sources, the Bush administration issued a 72-hour cease-and-desist order to all fugitive apprehension teams to spare Obama embarrassment over his Kenyan half-aunt, Zeituni Onyango
This is the second most depressing thing this week!
OK, the third. Palin getting fucked with after the election was pretty depressing too.
But still, what kind of castle do they think they have over there in DC?
Oh damn…link!
I bet Patterico would approve.
The graciousness you see…
Hello!
Is this thing on?!!
OK, I’m shamelessly stealing from Hot Air, but I had to share. Please tell me if I’m being socially awkward. Apparently there are limits for we gutless anonymous people. Don’t want to take advantage with less than classy tactics , like Obama tying McCain to Bush, or Representative Broun tying Obama to Stalin.
The mayor of an oil-producing city in southeastern Turkey, which has the same name as the Caped Crusader, is suing helmer Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. for royalties from mega-grosser “The Dark Knight.”
GET’ER DONE!!
That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
Perf, I was thinking about what you said about how you evolved from agnostic Democrat to classical liberal. I developed a half-assed theory while blowdrying my hair (my brains – like security paper – work well under warm air). Do you see a difference in intensity of people who develop an ideology in opposition to something versus people who develop an ideology in support of something. Not saying that either type of person doesn’t have things they are against or for…but that the way they came to their ideals plays a significant roll in how they manifest as a citizen and an activist…
I don’t know. I have to suss it out a little bit more after a cup of tea. Or maybe, since I have the attention span of a fruit fly, I won’t.
Oh shit, still no one here? Oh well, here is some more early morning fodder. Thomas Sowell on intellectuals.
During the 1930s, some of the leading intellectuals in America condemned our economic system and pointed to the centrally planned Soviet economy as a model all this at a time when literally millions of people were starving to death in the Soviet Union, from a famine in a country with some of the richest farmland in Europe and historically a large exporter of food.
Course that weren’t enough for your basic progg.
New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.
After British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine on the massive deaths from starvation there, he was ostracized after returning to England and unable to find a job.
Muggeridge was no relation to Joe the plumber, I want to make that perfectly clear.
But don’t worry. All that farmland going to ethanol is a good thing, really.
UNITY
Playing nice with the other side is logical only if they do the same. This would mean a presentation of differing ideas that allow the voters to decide which path and we both accept the outcome shake hands and be the loyal opposition. We all know that did not happen with the left after 2000. So the winning side played rough and tumble, slandering Bush and the Right at every chance they could, but now some in the ConServBlogosphere are chiding and berating those of us who declare war on Obama and his administration and make comparisons, which don’t go as far as the Kos Kiddies, but have much more truth to them than what we saw over the last 8 years.
These folks, like Mirengoff at Powerline, Patterico, Ed Morrisey, David Brooks and Frum-py have become the “Mats”. As in Door Mats, willing to stand on principle while espousing us to turn the other cheek when taking the upcoming kick in the groin or posterior or both from the Dimmycrats. Well I say the Fraudulent President is fair game for any criticism as is anyone on the left. We need to return to power and destroy the Democratic Party as it is today, by any means necessary. This is war, and those on the right who want to play nice, well they can get one of these….
http://www.coolstuffcheap.com/hiimmat.html
Cheers!
Make no mistake, Patterico is no Walter Duranty…but he is no muggeridge either.
See what I did there?
This comparison thing is awesome. I wonder why no one has done it before?
Well, except for those crazy BDS people of course…
Lisa Said,”Conveniently, there is always some bullshit story about how the terrorists love John Kerry. Or how they love Hillary Clinton. Now they love Obama.”
There are two he seems to like a lot. Reason enough to suspect his motives.
Unless you’re among those that believe that 9/11 was something that just happened to ,uh, white people, then , of course, I can see where you’re coming from.
Can you hear me now?
I refuse to go along with Obama Dirty Socialism (ODS).
Dhimms want to roshambo you for power, go first, and never give you a turn to kick. Play by their rules, and you’ll end up lying on the ground with a bruised nutsack!
Lee, I’m be straightforward with you, because that’s the kind of decent fellow I am. Thomas Sowell isn’t actually all that smart. He hasn’t reached any new conclusions that I’m aware of. What he did was read some books. Books that are dated. Words from persons long ago dead.
Today Sowell peddles his second-hand opinions to a crusty-eyed non-reading public who seem taken aback by his quick summaries. I don’t know what to think of it other than I need in on the racket.
My gut feeling is to save time I should digitize Edmund Burke, Sinclair Lewis, Murray Kempton, maybe even a little John O’Hara in case I need some zippy dialogue. I could use a software based translator to translate their works into Spanish, then from Spanish to French, then from French to Russian, then from Russian back into English. All I’ll have to do after that is smooth out the jumbled machined syntax of the greats, update the topics, and slap my Goddamned name on their kernel thoughts.
I’ll cash their thoughts into currency, just like Thomas Sowell, and be heralded far and wide as a man of thoughtful historical analysis. It’s something to consider in this economy.
I choose to believe that W had more sympathy for Obama’s aunt than Obama did.
Ask Bono about W.
God damnit, there are so many intellectually dishonest liars here.
There’s another reason to fight to keep abortion legal. I hadn’t thought of that one, thanks.
Morning Alp, drinking yourself a cup of the Kenyan morning blend? Black and strong, like I like my Presidents.
Morning thor,
No I’m having Columbian Free Trade Supremo. It tastes better and the cups don’t leak like they do when there’s Kenyans a-brewin’.
Organically grown swill from un-named sources!
No I’m having Columbian Free Trade Supremo. It tastes better and the cups don’t leak like they do when there’s Kenyans a-brewin’.
LOL. You are a crazy fucker.
Kenyans a-brewin’. LOL.
Thomas Sowell isn’t actually all that smart
Ha ha ha… that’s ’cause he’s black! Bell curve and all that.
I’m sure that magna cum laude he got from Harvard was just one of those affirmative action degrees. Like Baracky.
Yeah but Comrade Thorsky, brilliant analysis can be its own form of genius. Thomas Sowell is indeed a very bright feller – though he is a devoted wingnut and has written more batty columns than not lately, he is still a pretty fucking great economist.
Ack. Please imagine I closed italics after the stupid thor quote.
Sowell also wrote some fascinating shit about early childhood development.
Lisa, he prolly stole those ideas from someone else. Ask thor.
I was banned by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air for asking him to answer Jay Mac’s comment and question, the one that pointed out Morrissey was asking the same sorts of questions pre-election he’s now calling Rep. Broun and his commenters deranged for bringing up post-election.
Ed Morrissey is a coward, as I suspected.
What could Sowell know, he wasn’t a subscriber to the Alinsky newsletter? Maybe he can sign up for Ayers’!
This is still going on?
Lisa – Good morning Komrade Sugartits.
That Al is a good, and fucking hysterical guy. Thor, not so much.
I’m a Sowell man.
Christoph no offense but I could understand banning you. If you could maybe try to figure out how to write a post that doesn’t include abortion that would be a nice first step in your rehab. It is a free country though so whatever floats your boat.
Ed Morrissey didn’t ban me for that reason, nor even stridency. He banned me because I brought to everyone’s attention his own hypocrisy and cowardice.
My comment #307 is bang on.
I believe Ed is a decent fellow for the most part, and a coward.
Lisa wouldn’t have to ask. She reads. She’s black! Prolly you should be black too!
I can’t help it. I try. I try. I do.
Ed ran a customer service call center for many years.
Next, though, you’ll be saying Malkin’s a coward.
Baracky deserves a Nobel Peace Prize as much as I do for his autobiographies. BTW, Walter Duranty is my favorite historical truth stylist.
And I thought my comments brought very little to the table here Christoph. Keep it up your making me look better by comparison.
Anyone who can take customer service questions and complaints from the American public day after day has my highest respect.
Do you know how many loose brained complaining r-wingers there are out there? My bad, dumb question.
Neener neener chicken weiners.
Thomas Sowell isn’t actually all that smart
See that? The same Left narrative that anyone not of the cult is “stupid”… especially the off-Left-reservation blacks and women. Sowell has a lifetime of achievement and academic creds, but he is stupid, while we have an articulate Obama whose achievements are paper thin and his academic creds are unknown but he is “brilliant”. Only because of the political stance each has taken.
THAT is the narrative the has to be stopped.
That’s funny, thor. When I worked customer service in college, I always found the whiniest people to be from NYC, Los Angeles, Connecticut and Schamburg, IL.
Is there any point to responding to thor?
Sigh. We’ve fallen to quarreling.
By the way to reflect back to the point of this post, did playing nice get President Bush anywhere? Did it help him when he sat there and just took it in the rear for 8 years?
Rise up fallen fighters. Rise up and take your stance. Defeated ignorance warriors unite!
Jeez, Darleen, I do not deny Thomas Sowell is smart. I even agree with him sometimes. I’m pointing out that his reflections are commonly held and today too many people inflate authors of the day.
Put the dumb-gun down.
This is still going on?
It’s like the morning after scene from Big Night.
I was thinking Fight Club.
O!
I bet Dan agrees with me.
He reads old books written by dead Russian poets, when he’s not sparring with Micks in the street!
Ric Locke,
I’d like to thank you for your posts on the Prisoners Dilemma. They are a context that helps my thoughts about the way each political side acts toward the other. One thing I would add to it is “Stockholm Syndrome”.
It seems to me more like the day after Night of the Living Dead. You know when you look around and realize you are still alive but most probably still f@cked.
Capt. Ed just has Obama Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome
I’m a Sowell man.
LOL.
Sorry Comrade Thorsky, but I disagree with ya on this one. I know Sowell is a very conservative libertarian, but that does not make him Teh Stupid. He is very well respected and brilliant. I met him way back in the day and he was very kind and gracious after giving a great lecture. He was invited to speak by a flaming liberal who once worked for the Carter administration. His work transcends his politics.
keep making the circle smaller! Yes, 63 million people voted for Bush in 2004, while 56 million voted for McCain. By 2012, if we can continue to purge all the “too moderates” from our ranks, maybe we can get 40 million! Still, I’d rather a rump of a Party of true believers than be saddled with actual governing the country. We didn’t do so well at that.
“Moderate” is not at issue, genius.
When did I say he was stupid?
I’m not as big a fan of Sowell as others. I find too many annoying repeated reflective references in his op/eds. Too much deja vu whenever I read him. For different reasons I’m not flattered by Maureen Dowd. Call me a tough customer, or something worse.
Agree to disagree! Shake of the hands! Resist urge to attempt wedgie!
CHoward — sod off, moby.
Probably the most intelligent thing ever to come out of thor’s pie-hole.
Coward @ 581 is a fucking tool. And a Moby. We? BS.
See, stupid replies like that might chase me away, losing Republicans yet one more vote. Although I’m not sure the English guy can vote (“sod off,” what is this a Merchant ivory production?), but he does seem hostile. So, maybe you’d just half the McCain voter in this <> conversation.
Maybe Palin can hold the 2012 convention in a phone booth and the head blogger here, Pablo Abu Jamal, and Todd will be the only attendees? At least we’d know that we always attacked Obama and eliminated anyone who was remotely reasonable.
PURITY 2012!!!!!!!!!!!
CHoward = tool
get lost
Coward – You are an abject liar. One can not be chased away when you were never there.
Coward @ 581 is a fucking tool. And a Moby. We? BS.
CHowder is likely an emo as well! I’m bettin his new ex-girlfriend leaves voicemail messages telling him she’ll be at the gym an extra hour…again!
Perhaps Coward could tell us how he really feels about Obama and why he’s so set on seeing him defeated in four years.
CHowder’s a cutter, who’ll eventually hit a vein.
How can we even coin the term ODS yet? We are not blaming him for bad weather, our own mental health, and killing 3000 people.
CHoward = tool
Thomas … you’re treading on thin ice there comparing my beloved Tool to chowder.
Pink, you don’t like my redefining the acronym to Obama’s Dirty Socialism (ODS)? I’m crushed. ::hangs head::
Sorry Mossberg this is a thread of over 500 comments I musta missed that one. By the way anyone else noticing that not as many people are commenting on here anymore? (smacking myself on the forehead)
Watch yer Schaumburg, IL cracks, Collins… heh.
Lisa, you make me sad about how 9/11 had an effect on people. And your cracks about terrorism. Maybe I am just tired from my OEF and just completed OIF deployments. I rather think they were worth it – and to have such flippancy directed toward the freeing of 50 million people is unfun. I have been ftf with AQ, Talib, HIG and JAM. They do have strong preferences in who should lead us. As Jeff said, they are quite open about it. If that happens to be someone you support – refute them, don’t try to laugh off the fact that they do have such a preferrence as some sort of “wingnut” fantasy.
As for Mr. Frey, I do think he is being just a bit thin skinned. Ed’s premature finger wagging at all of us/we is what turns me off. As Ric argues, it makes him look like he is capitulating before O! even swears in…
But, as I said before, I am tired right now. Maybe this will be a bit clearer in a few days.
Carin, I’m a fan also. please not that Coward is a tool, not Tool.
See, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that both Patterico and Ed Morrissey are significantly more “conservative” than either myself or the proprietor.
STUPIDITY 2008!!!!!
Capital letter or not … I’m just not comfortable.
Just wanted to quickly correct daleyrock upthread:
The idea of intentionalism is not dependent on what the author tells you his meaning was. It is that the author had an intended meaning, and that meaning is fixed at the moment of signification.
The reason we have the authorial fallacy is that authors can be less than forthcoming about what they meant, or they can, in an attempt to rephrase that meaning, change its valence.
None of which means we don’t appeal to what the author intended — just that the intent is reflected in the signs, and it is only part of the job of discovering that intent to consider the (historical, real-life) author, as opposed to the implied author available in the text itself.
Patterico says he was not looking for a clap on the back; that I’m willing to believe, and it was not generous of me to suggest as much (though if anyone were concerned enough to look into my intent, they’d see that, like Captain Ed and his Congressman, I meant only to use “Patterico” as an occasional, and that the pat on the back thing was directed more broadly. At least, that’s how I intended it).
However, for the reasons I’ve outlined, I believe that Patterico does not believe Obama a good man, and everything he’s said in defense has only solidified that reading: He said so because he wanted to teach his daughter a particular lesson; he said so because he wanted to give O the benefit of the doubt based on his words; he did it because we should respect the office, etc.
In my own post I talked about graciousness, differentiating it from praise. Nowhere did I say, as some of tried to imply, that Patterico should have been out calling Obama evil. That’s not at all what I said. What I objected to was his calling Obama a “good man.” I still object to that, and I still think it is impossible for someone who has been watching his ascent unfold — and who has researched his past, his associates, and his thinking — to believe such.
I’d like to change my opinion, but the irony is, I don’t believe Patterico dumb. And so I can’t for the life of me fathom how he could conclude that Obama is a good man.
Period.
And that about wraps it up from the angle of intentionalism.
My final thoughts viz a viz the Prisoner’s dilemma.
The cycle can be broken, but only through some act of atonement. The responsibility for that act falls upon Obama himself. He is now the leader of their party, and all those BDS victims now fall squarely under his banner – whether he wanted them or not, they are his. Frey and Morrissey seem to not want to be associated with such types of behavior, surely they would agree that Obama shouldn’t either.
Many will remember the audio tape of Obama speaking of the Warren court and how they did not go far enough. He was speaking very particularly of the need for the Government to make an atonement for slavery. Some have argued events like this were atonement enough, but Obama clearly thinks otherwise. And no I am not comparing BDS to Slavery (to all the tools out there) I am merely pointing out that Obama agues that atonement is sometimes necessary even when one is not directly responsible for the offense.
It is beholden upon Obama to end this cycle, if he reaches out substantially to the right and speaks forcefully about the excesses of the left I’ll be inclined to give him some breathing room. Obama may argue instead that he is no no way responsible for BDS, that is his choice but it will not absolve him of accepting the perpetuation of the cycle.
He has the pulpit, let’s see him use it.
Cap’n Ed is more deserving of a lot of what was said about Mr. Patterico than Mr. Patterico is I think. I say that cause of what that guy said earlier about hiding behind stupid ass names and handles. You can figure out my point of view from there and if you know that for real I would be out of my dead-end job really fast if I used the name I use there. Either that or I would have to preface myself a lot and I bet I would sound a lot Patterico if I did that. Cap’n Ed signed up for an important job with a profile but he fondles himself lovingly over there way too much. Ick. No really, ick. But reflect I think is what you should do that maybe what we’re talking around is Baracky and his crew will fuck you up and care must be taken not to give them a reason and on some level everybody knows it.
Well, ThomasD, I was unaware I had to present a curriculum vitae, but I’m a bit socially libertarian, but I don’t like confiscatory taxation. Also, I work at an insurance company and we do a lot of health insurance. I am particularly annoyed at Obama’s attempt to nationalize the industry which bread on my table.
The post itself was a bit of a warning as to sorts of people who inhabit this blog, I suppose, and, although I would like to win in 2010, I really don’t think making the conservative movement smaller is the way to go.
But, I get it, that’s not a welcome interpretation and sarcasm is not the way to make friends, unless you are in agreement with the community at large (which, I suppose, is par for the course of most blogs!). So, I won’t overstay the welcome and will return to perusing Memeorandum and Hot Air.
I’d say thanks for the kind words, but there weren’t any.
You may now proceed to insult me some more (although I’m doubting you were waiting for my permission).
PS Oh, and “JD”, you must be the other half of “Moby,” you know, a dick.
The post itself was a bit of a warning as to sorts of people who inhabit this blog, I suppose, and, although I would like to win in 2010, I really don’t think making the conservative movement smaller is the way to go.
Chowder, I don’t think you have any idea was sorts of people inhabit this blog.
I hear what you’re saying happy. But there comes a time when you either shit or get off the pot. Adding a third option — “may I wipe that for you, sir?” — is NEVER the way to go.
Unless you’re one of them fetishists, I mean.
Jeff – Thanks for the explanation and response.
Christoph – You’re still an asshole.
Coward, where did I ask for a CV? Spare me the strawmen, I just wanted to hear where the hell you were purporting to come from. I’m glad to hear that you voted against Obama. I hope you’ll continue to do so, and continue to speak out against his policies – big tents being what they are and all that.
But if you honestly think McCain lost because he’s too conservative you really do need to go back to memeorandum.
And, from the standpoint of games theory —
DEMOCRAT: In order to solve problem Y, we must have procedure X.
REPUBLICAN: Procedure X will not solve the problem, and I’m not sure Y is a problem anyway.
DEMOCRAT chorus: WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! YOU DISAGREED WITH ME! IT HURTS MY FEELINGS! THAT’S JUST HATEFUL AND CRUEL AND WINGNUTTY! YOU’RE NOT BEING CO-OPERATIVE!!! (Note: Lisa is very, very good at that. Thor imagines he is, but just manages to be laughable.)
MCCAIN, MORRISSEY, CHoward, et. al.: Be calm and reasonable, Republican. We’re all in this together, and we have to co-operate. We can do part of X, and see how it goes.
(Most of procedure X is adopted.)
DEMOCRAT: BUUUUUUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA!111!!! WE WIN AGAIN!
(Time passes)
DEMOCRAT: We still have problem Y, and it is time to implement the rest of X
REPUBLICAN: The part of X we’ve adopted doesn’t solve the problem and may make it worse.
DEMOCRAT: WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! YOU DISAGREED WITH ME! IT HURTS MY FEELINGS! THAT’S JUST HATEFUL AND CRUEL AND WINGNUTTY…
Classic games theory: the Democrat is playing “always defect”, and the Republican is playing “co-operate”. It means the Republican never wins and sometimes loses big.
Regards,
Ric
Ric, I agree. That’s why I suggest our mantra needs to be a unified “I’ll be happy to cooperate, but Obama really needs to reach out to us first.”
I may just take up the handle Character Defect.
If you think it will help go for it.
Actually, no. There are some policies that the Democrats have put forward that I consider absolute abominations, and I will oppose them as much as I can. There is no reach out or around that will get me to cooperate with “card check”, the “fairness doctrine” or mandatory community service. I am opposed to higher taxes, higher spending, more regulations, to any attempt to institutionalize the Green religion under the guise of “combating climate change”, and to the usurpation of legislative and executive powers by the judicial.
I will not invent crimes or confuse natural events with purposeful acts in order to demonize Obama. I will not assume he’s an ignoramus because his preferred policies disagree with mine.
To the extent he distances himself from them, I will not assume he endorses the tactics of his followers.
Unless he actually commits a crime, I will not call for Obama’s impeachment.
But I will not cooperate with policies I oppose.
But Rob, such loyal opposition is but a hair’s breadth away from ODS. So if you’re going to oppose, make sure you use the proper tone.
Somebody will need to write a style guide, I think.
I nominate Patterico and Captain Ed.
Let’s add Jazz Shaw to Pattyco and Cap’n Ed as the Final Censorial Tribunal for Approved Mild Civil Dissent Regarding The Messiah And His Works, Amen. Just listening to them on Ed’s HotAir show, tut-tutting those misguided souls who break Godwin’s Law. After all, it only applies to conservatives, apparently. Oddly enough, the dainty pair had a hard time coming up with a better adjective for Obastard’s compulsory national service concept than “Hitlerian.” And they even said so. But just remember, be polite and never disagree too strongly. Maybe you can criticize something like Messiah’s necktie, or something more decorous.
By the way, I’m loving Ric Locke’s Prisoner’s Dilemma analogy. Perfect.
Wait — is that Jazz person from the Moderate Voice now a spokesperson for “our” side? I mean, I know that the rebel media at PJM has embraced him, but I had no idea he had joined the new online pundit aristocracy.
Best Thread Ever.
A. Lurker
DEMOCRAT: In order to solve problem Y, we must have procedure X.
REPUBLICAN: Procedure X will not solve the problem, and I’m not sure Y is a problem anyway.
DEMOCRAT chorus: WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! YOU DISAGREED WITH ME! IT HURTS MY FEELINGS! THAT’S JUST HATEFUL AND CRUEL AND WINGNUTTY! YOU’RE NOT BEING CO-OPERATIVE!!! (Note: Lisa is very, very good at that. Thor imagines he is, but just manages to be laughable.)
MCCAIN, MORRISSEY, CHoward, et. al.: Be calm and reasonable, Republican. We’re all in this together, and we have to co-operate. We can do part of X, and see how it goes.
(Most of procedure X is adopted.)
DEMOCRAT: BUUUUUUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA!111!!! WE WIN AGAIN!
(Time passes)
DEMOCRAT: We still have problem Y, and it is time to implement the rest of X
REPUBLICAN: The part of X we’ve adopted doesn’t solve the problem and may make it worse.
DEMOCRAT: WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! YOU DISAGREED WITH ME! IT HURTS MY FEELINGS! THAT’S JUST HATEFUL AND CRUEL AND WINGNUTTY…
Awesome. For the last 8 years, I have felt the same way about you guys. Except replace what comes after WAAAAAAAAAAAA! with YOU DISAGREED WITH ME! WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM AND LOVE THE TERRORISTS!?!?!?! ISLAMOFASCIST!!
Lisa: Decaf.
Too much ALL CAPS, sugartits. Step away from the mounds of empty AMP and Mountain Dew bottles.
Chowder, I don’t think you have any idea was sorts of people inhabit this blog.
Precisely. Yet, these drive-by asshats feel comfortable enough to drop in and lecture people on positions that they do not hold.
Chowderhead – Why do you think we lost the election?
Moderate Voice – An oxyMoron if there ever was one.
#621
She’s still high from the election. Wait until her income taxes go through the roof, she’ll be just a grumpy as the rest of us.
I’ll just take a moment to remind Patterico and Captain Ed of 1968 and Trudeaumania. Cap’n Ed’s complacency surprises me, frankly. Look where it got us.
trudeaumania
yeah- but that’s when she [marg] was f*king the biggest rock star in the world-when they were at their height
wait’ll she finds out that she woke up
after a drunken nite of revelrto the keef richards guy from the local
stones cover band!
here’s a clue
that ugly bastard ain’t taking u to some off shore tax
damn/ revelry to the keef…
and- some off shore tax haven
btw- i think that keef impostor really owns an island
it’s called ‘cardboard box island’ and it’s located in the middle of the dump
Some call it Turtle Island.
All I know is that if some 18 year old pizza face, wearing an “Obama-birds Are Go” T-shirt and smells like a skidmark says to me “Sir, I’m going to need to see your I.D.”, I will pound him into bong-water.
LOL BJTexas. I probably shouldn’t have quoted all of Ric Locke’s post. It was all caps overkill.
don’t you people understand that obama is a racist marxist and will fuck us up if he can. watch for him to try to nullify the first and second amendments after that look out you had better be prepared to take care of you and your family.i am a veteran and former paratrooper we are never easy.
For sure, Romes. That’s the reason exactly. They don’t get treated like the rest of the criminals. They’re, for some inexplicable reason, special.
[…] all far too much for OUTLAW Jeff Goldstein, who mocks Morrissey in a post titled Ed Morrissey: Calm Down and Play Nice, ODS sufferers: Don’t act like Democrats did. Republicans, why, they have more […]