March 16, 2012

Good Democrat Bitches [Darleen Click]

Posted by Darleen @ 11:18am
307 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (307)

  1. This one just begs for incorrect comments.

  2. Why? Because she can.

  3. like Sandra cleaning herself. heh

  4. Golf claps for the bling. And a hearty guffaw for the pointy stick!

  5. Debby’s got a muppet face even in cartoon form. Well done. Devastatingly true. WOMEN MUST SPEAK IN LOCKSTEP AT ALL TIMES TO BE VIEWED AS LIBERATED. OTHERWISE THEY ARE FALSE WOMEN.

  6. sdferr

    thanks, I riffed on the “Good Christian Bitches” tv program promotion.

    holding them to their own standards and all … ;-)

  7. Please Dar, forward this sucker to Rush. He’ll get a kick out of it.

  8. I am in awe, Darlene.

  9. In which I just misspelled Darleen. Presence of genius does that to me.

  10. I see protein wisdom is now part of the War On Women.

    © 2012 DNC, all rights reserved.

  11. Well the war happened because “the women(TM)” were invading our WALLETS.

  12. palaeomerus, listen to Michael Barone talk about Romney’s advantage with affluent women [10:30 on] for a simple and plausible alternative account of the motive source of the “war” (supposing the Obama campaign machine notices the same phenomenon and moves to act on it).

  13. Ah, LGM notices but refuses to understand.

    Big surprise.

  14. SEKs is a cowardly liar, Darleen.

    Racists

  15. Why are you accusing a black man of rape, Darleen?

  16. Who gives a flying fuck what LGM “thinks” or “argues”? You mean the mostly anonymous, sneering jackals who hang there during office hours have taken time out of their expressions of glee over Breitbart’s death to comment on your hate?

    I just delete any reference from their site to this one. I called SEK a liar sometime back. That’s what he is, though he likes being a sophist more so, because he likes the power he thinks it grants him to shape discussions based not on fact but rather on how he can help bring about the “correct” outcome. For our own good. The people, left to their own devices, you see, might choose incorrectly, and, well, we can’t wait! Besides, why risk it, when we already know he’s so much smarter than the masses he has deigned to watch over.

    He’s an activist who poses as an intellectual, very much like the other turd there whose name I’m forgetting. Though in fairness to the second turd, he’s more open about his cynically turdness than is SEK, who still tries to pretend he’s measured and reasoned.

    That ship sailed a long time ago.

  17. Pingback: Darleen Click Hasn’t Lost Her Touch : The Other McCain

  18. Wow. Just. Wow. Hateful, gratuitous, and insulting “humor.” This really adds nothing to the debate about health insurance, birth control, or religious liberty except another data point for people who think that conservatives say the things they do because they hate women.

    What a sad and self-loathing person Ms. Click must be.

    And what an enormous lack of self-awareness. I especially like “Jeff G.” who refers to LGM folks as “anonymous, sneering jackals who hang there during office hours” while sneering at “what LGM ‘thinks’ or ‘argues’” at 1:52 in the afternoon — office hours where I come from.

    Wow. Just. Wow.

  19. Nice Darleen. Expect some fake lefty outrage at 3, 2, 1…

  20. link, but I do like the cartoon too.

  21. So that comment would be an admission that R. Stanton Scott steals from his employer, wouldn’t it?

  22. This really adds nothing to the debate about health insurance, birth control, or religious liberty

    BWHAHA. As if Fluke, channeling the KKK’s anti-Catholism, does!

    But then Good Christian Bitches is the height of art.

    :::snort:::guffaw:::

  23. R. Stanton Scott,

    I’d highly suggest you take a look around here. There’s a lot of nuance around, if you don’t miss the forest for the trees.

  24. It’s funny how people like R. Stanton Twat all sound exactly alike, yet they actually believe that they’re unique, precious, independent-thinking individuals.

  25. I do have a criticism. You made Debbie Wasserman Schultz too attractive.

  26. I especially like “Jeff G.” who refers to LGM folks as “anonymous, sneering jackals who hang there during office hours” while sneering at “what LGM ‘thinks’ or ‘argues’” at 1:52 in the afternoon — office hours where I come from.

    “Jeff G.” would be Jeff Goldstein, the proprietor of this website, whose use of his real name has led to occasions of real-life stalking and real-life legal nightmares on his part, as he’s tried to protect his family from the tender mercies of leftist crazies. Also, Jeff’s self-employed, so office hours have little meaning to him.

    But hey, don’t let your complete lack of background knowledge or self-awareness slow you down from making a really good first impression on the community!

  27. “And what an enormous lack of self-awareness. I especially like “Jeff G.” who refers to LGM folks as “anonymous, sneering jackals who hang there during office hours” while sneering at “what LGM ‘thinks’ or ‘argues’” at 1:52 in the afternoon — office hours where I come from.”

    Umm, this is Jeff G’s blog genius, and if you don’t want him to be anonymous, click the “about” link on the sidebar way up there at the top.

  28. Wow. Just. Wow.

    That’s Bow-Wow. Scott bitch can’t even bark….

  29. What a sad and self-loathing person Ms. Click must be.

    You are sad and self-loathing, Darleen.

    Show your independence and pride by letting Obama and the progressives toss their identity politics leash around your neck and take you out for a walk on the beach when they feel the need to try to pick up chicks.

  30. office hours where I come from.

    Shouldn’t you be working, then?

    I am. This being my office and all.

  31. This will be like the Statue of Liberty.

  32. Well placed volley, Darleen.

    Keep Firing!!!

  33. That’s what I was thinking, JD.

    Could be another record breaker – comments wise.

  34. there’s some fine histrionics being lobbed against the cartoon on twitter under the #waronwomen hashtag.

    heh … bring it on!

  35. Wow. Just. Wow.

    Caninist.

  36. Not fair, Darleen. That pic is genuine troll bait.
    Can’t wait to watch, verily, and perchance to comment.

  37. jesus christ, is this supposed to be funny? and the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff? is that it? pretty complex stuff. and these moron commentors are acting like this dreck is oscar wilde. now that’s funny.

  38. Thanks for stopping by, southpaw. Kthxby

  39. Yeah, lots of nuance in this ridiculous cartoon. And Mr. Goldstein could spell out his last name, or link to the about page when posting comments to make things easier for newcomers, but point taken.

    In any event, his criticism of LGM folks takes no account of the possibility that many of them might be in his situation — that is one where office hours make no difference to them.

  40. JD, is that your A game? scathing.

  41. Yeah, lots of nuance in this ridiculous cartoon.

    Because Maher’s “Palin is a cunt” or TN Dem Rep. Janis Baird Sontany’s “You have to lift their [Republican women] skirts to find out if they are women.” are SO nuanced …

    To be allowed to authentically possess a vagina, one must be a leftist – else one is supporting The Patriarchy(tm)

    Just showing what kind of projection that kind of nuanced mindset is …

  42. and these moron commentors are acting like this dreck is oscar wilde. now that’s funny.

    I’m sure they find the fact that you signed up just to comment on a single post you find not-funny or particularly trenchant rather funny their own selves.

    I know I do.

  43. Quick question, since the “bitches” are the ones getting everything from Obama in exchange for votes and support, shouldn’t they be the ones in charge?

    I mean Obama’s numbers aren’t exactly going through the roof, and even with a dipshit like Romney running he needed stir up some support from somewhere at some point before November. It really seems to me like the concept of this cartoon is flipped from reality, as it would seem the women would be the one’s in control.

    And it really is such a shame too.

    Its obvious that you were going for shock value here, since the concept wasn’t really thought out clearly. But had you thought it out clearly, you would have come up with a much more shocking image of four white women leading around Barack Obama.

    I gotta say Darleen, not impressed with your work. This cartoon is a complete and utter failure.

  44. Darleen, I really wish that you could somehow imply that Obama is using the flag to pick up their walky turds with and that they are out walking on the constitution pushing a broken the first ammendment out of their way. But then I always did spoil my work with too much because I never knew when to quit.

  45. And now you are outraged at liberals making sexist remarks after drawing that trash?

    Oh Darleen, stick to your principles and leave the critical thinking to the men.

  46. Yeah, lots of nuance in this ridiculous cartoon. And Mr. Goldstein could spell out his last name, or link to the about page when posting comments to make things easier for newcomers, but point taken.

    See, that’s how we know you’re a lefty: it’s not your fault you didn’t do any research at all before popping off, the fault lies with me for not making your life easier by doing things that would enable your laziness.

    In any event, his criticism of LGM folks takes no account of the possibility that many of them might be in his situation — that is one where office hours make no difference to them.

    That’s because, unlike you, he spoke generally and in the aggregate. Whereas you singled him out specifically without knowing his particular situation.

    He remains confident most commenters at LGM are precisely who he described them as.

  47. as it would seem the women would be the one’s in control.

    Really? How much in “control” are these dem females who are barking up a storm against other women who don’t agree with them?

  48. And now you are outraged at liberals making sexist remarks after drawing that trash?

    I don’t think anyone’s “outraged.” Rather, I think we all find it rather humorous watching people who a few weeks ago were braying with glee over the death of an actual human being, pretending to be outraged by the “trashy” nature of a cartoon.

    Or, put in other words, your comments are complete and utter failures.

  49. And now you are outraged at liberals making sexist remarks after drawing that trash?

    Whoosh!

  50. It really seems to me like the concept of this cartoon is flipped from reality, as it would seem the women would be the one’s in control.

    go look up the definition of an “attack dog” and get back to us

  51. BTW the only thing Oscar Wilde wrote that I really enjoyed was the Caterville Ghost. The Portrait of Dorian Grey, Importance of Being Ernest, and Lady Windermere’s Fan range from over rated to simply not worth reading. And don’t get me started on his poetry. Oscar Wilde’s main claim to fame was being a snobby traveling put-down artist who hit the right parties. He was sort of a shinier more boring Mark Twain who wasn’t quite as angry. It’s a shame he buggered a youth above his class and got in serious trouble for it. He really beats the shit out more modern celebrity chasing, ‘common but educated’ iconoclasts like Studs Terkel , Jack Kerouac, and Truman Capote though.

  52. “Really? How much in “control” are these dem females who are barking up a storm against other women who don’t agree with them?”

    You really do live in an insulated world, don’t you?

    Anyways, I’ve put my two cents in, and really who would I be to argue about art with an artist?!

  53. This is gonna be EPIC!!! This thread seriously could go PIATOR or Balloon Fence level and very soon.

  54. Does anyone here give a shit who bradP thinks lives in an insulated world or why? A show of hands please! My hand is down at the moment.

  55. And now you are outraged at liberals making sexist remarks after drawing that trash?

    No, sweetcheeks, I’m pointing out that Left-pearl-clutching at my cartoon or Limbaugh’s “slut-shaming” makes claims of “sexism!” and “GOP WarOnWomen” little more than snort-worthy.

  56. Forget it, Darleen. He’s trying some perfunctory, cookie-cutter ENG 301-level deconstruction on the cartoon, and it comes off as strained and needy as his entire political philosophy — even as he thinks he’s dazzled us all with his erudition.

    When you’ve studied this stuff the way I have, you learn how quickly to spot the parlor tricks. And the more subtle ones, too — not just the kind of simplistic, hamfisted attempt witnessed here. Which is why I’d suggest Mr Potts polish up his skills a bit before trying to pass off his bullshit in these parts.

  57. Hmmm…perhaps I rightfully assumed that Jeff G. is not in fact Mr. Goldstein, since he now refers to the blogger in the third person. “He spoke generally?” Or I? Because it’s not a matter of “enabling [my] laziness” but one of clearly stating who you are when you say something, which you apparently have no desire to do. I wouldn’t either if I were gratuitously insulting people I don’t even know.

    No matter. I notice that no response to my comment attempts to defend the cartoon or its message, and instead simply goes straight to ad hominem attacks. And that’s how I know a right-winger when I see one.

  58. Anyways, I’ve put my two cents in, and really who would I be to argue about art with an artist?!

    I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

  59. R. Stanton Scott is an entertainingly bad writer. Can we keep him?

  60. I’m glad brad and southpaw and R. Whatever Whatever came over and “mansplained” things to you, Darleen.

    You don’t know much about authentic women, it seems. The whole of which is that they live on college campuses or else teach at them, and though they use a shitload of birth control, they’re too stupid or snobbish to hit the Wal-Mart where it’s about $4 a month.

  61. Now that you’ve had the feminist cockslapping, Darleen, I hope you’ll get back on the plantation.

  62. I notice that no response to my comment attempts to defend the cartoon or its message

    There’s that fabled left-liberal reading ability again!

    If responses aren’t agreeable THEY DON’T EXIST.

    Must be nice to either ignore or just dismiss The Other … makes life simpler to live in a veritable room of mirrors.

  63. “instead simply goes straight to ad hominem attacks.”

    Says the guy who starts out with “Hateful, gratuitous . . .” ad hominem. Hilarity is his forte.

  64. “Quick question, since the “bitches” are the ones getting everything from Obama in exchange for votes and support, shouldn’t they be the ones in charge?”

    No. Is your dog in control because you feed it?

    “leave the critical thinking to the men.”

    Back at you Alice.

  65. Hmmm…perhaps I rightfully assumed that Jeff G. is not in fact Mr. Goldstein, since he now refers to the blogger in the third person. “He spoke generally?”

    No, he decided to take it that way in tribute to Mr Easton Ellis in American Psycho. It’s what he sometimes does to amuse himself.

    Because it’s not a matter of “enabling [my] laziness” but one of clearly stating who you are when you say something, which you apparently have no desire to do. I wouldn’t either if I were gratuitously insulting people I don’t even know.

    I see. So because my every comment isn’t followed with “Jeff Goldstein / owner & proprietor, protein wisdom, the blog you are now reading and may soon comment upon,” I’m actively and intentionally attempting to avoid “clearly stating” who I am? Is that your thesis?

    No matter. I notice that no response to my comment attempts to defend the cartoon or its message, and instead simply goes straight to ad hominem attacks. And that’s how I know a right-winger when I see one.

    “Defend” the cartoon? On what grounds? First Amendment, an academic discussion of ‘taste’?

    Does it occur to you that the fact that someone would even consider it necessary to “defend” the cartoon to people crowing about Andrew Breitbart’s death is risible on its face, and something we’re not interested in doing?

    I wouldn’t take that as a sign of victory. More like a sign of disgust. And a little bit of sorrow.

  66. You can’t draw worth a damn.

  67. You can’t draw worth a damn.

    I bet she could capture you in 5 lines and a circle.

  68. If I could draw I’d draw this. It’s shrill and angry as anything Ted Rall would do, so it must be okay. Speaking truth to power is always the right thing to do and cannot be restrained by taste or worries about audience feelings.

    I think I’d draw Uncle Sam is walking away from his discarded old stars and stripes clothes, a razors, and some white whiskers. He has shaved his beard into a douche-bag style soul patch and mutton chops, and is dressing up in a white cloth gold-trimmed Olympian toga (no, not a chiton, the Romans had a concept of Olympus too) with gold laurels and the toga is held together with an Obama button. He’s wearing skinny ray-ban style shades with rose tinted lenses.

    He’s walking away from the Statue of Public Security and the Statue of Social Justice who have beaten and are in the process drowning the Statue of liberty in the harbor behind him and he’s got a golden hammer and a green sickle, a red union-manual, and Saul Alinsky’s rules for radical’s all in a battered, bullet hole ridden, tool box with that says “Che’s Used Tools” on the side. As he walks he is saying “Yeah, consider this a divorce bitch. “

  69. You can’t draw worth a damn.

    You actually went through the registration process and chose a witless, cheesy pun as your nom de blog so you could say that?

  70. Lots of people signing up, just to let loose with some pretty lame shit, I must say.

    But then, consider the source.

  71. You can’t draw worth a damn.

    I’m SO wounded!! ::whimper::whimper:: Maybe Obama will call me out of concern.

  72. “leave the critical thinking to the men.”

    I live how the tolerant leftists always reveal themselves to be actually sexist/hohophobic/racist while projecting that onto others.

  73. Jeff G., please tell me what is funny about signing up to comment on this post? I’m sure your explanation will be as hilarious as the cartoon.

  74. What you’re leaving out, JD, is that manly progressive has been an oxymoron since Norman Mailer threw his last punch in a bar.

  75. You can’t draw worth a damn

    the photoshop is pretty good though

  76. There’s no pun intended, Abe.

  77. ” No matter. I notice that no response to my comment attempts to defend the cartoon or its message, and instead simply goes straight to ad hominem attacksAnd that’s how I know a right-winger when I see one.”

    Oh, okay. Bill Mahr, Ted Rall, Alan Grayson, Janeane Garofalo, Bob Beckel, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Alan Colmes, James Carville, Joe Biden, Michael Moore, and Barack Obama himself must all be right wingers then.

    Either that, or you are obviously wrong and the brutal tactics you claim to deplore are so common on the left as to be considered their standard operating procedure.

    Whichever.

    Too bad you don’t like it when the other side does it.

  78. “please tell me what is funny about signing up to comment on this post?”

    that your comment is so lame maybe

  79. There’s no pun intended, Abe.

    That came about 19 minutes later than I predicted.

  80. JeffG

    They don’t even try anymore to at least a few sane comments.

    This is one conversation on twitter I had earlier:

    me: @WilliamsTrudy @tigerkirkland Can u explain when pro-Liberty & self-responsibility became ‘supporting the patriarchy’? #waronwomen #tcot

    godspell sister ?
    @darleenclick Excellent question, what do u mean by liberty & self responsibility? Let’s talk, I am respectful & want to dialogue, your move

    darleenclick
    @WilliamsTrudy both are qualities of being an adult. Non-Left women don’t look to Big Gov as our life-partner/daddy taking care of all needs

    godspell sister
    @darleenclick Interesting. So women ‘on the left’ not sure what that means but prob those who vote dem want government to take of them?

    darleenclick
    @WilliamsTrudy Dont be coy – Leftism insists on ‘cradle to grave’ & Left-feminism sees opposition to its dogma as ‘support the patriarchy’

    godspell sister ?
    @darleenclick That may be true. So u don’t want gov in your life at all, not in anyway at all? No police etc?

    darleenclick ?
    @WilliamsTrudy How does that straw taste? That Gov has legit functions doesn’t make statism legit. Consult the Constitution. #tcot #teaparty

    godspell sister
    @darleenclick I do not do angry & snarky. Have a nice evening.
    ***********
    They are incapable of good faith dialogue.

  81. i didn’t try to mansplain anything. i was just pointing out that that cartoon contains exactly zero funny.

  82. In fairness, JD, the really educated women even capable of the kinds of “critical thinking” defined by the patriarchy are like men, having adapted to male-dominated societal norms in order to pantomime the kind of critical thinking that comes to count as such. That is, they’ve been able to combat their own intrinsic vertical cosmopoetical way of female-centric thinking in order to appear intelligent in the world of men.

    It’s quite an accomplishment, though it does simultaneously make them gender traitors and the like.

    It all gets very confusing without a checklist.

  83. These Leftists are both funny, and predictable.

  84. Patriarchy? Last time I checked the president had a dick.

  85. Southpaw argues like a chick.

  86. I, for one, am not a leftist. I was just noting Ms. Click’s shortcomings as a cartoonist.

  87. Why do you have so much hate in your heart

  88. Jeff G., please tell me what is funny about signing up to comment on this post? I’m sure your explanation will be as hilarious as the cartoon.

    The humor comes from your having spent the time and energy to sign up to comment here, only to tell us how irrelevant and unfunny the cartoon is. Which you might have done simply by not responding at all.

    That makes me smile.

    Andy Kaufman knows what I’m talkin’ about. Or he would, were he not dead.

  89. “i was just pointing out that that cartoon contains exactly zero funny.”

    try some ted rall

  90. Steve hates question marks.

  91. ” i didn’t try to mansplain anything. i was just pointing out that that cartoon contains exactly zero funny.”

    Because you get to decide that kind of shit for everybody else. It’s why we keep you around and pay your high fees.

  92. i didn’t try to mansplain anything. i was just pointing out that that cartoon contains exactly zero funny.

    Are you a woman? Because if not, you have no say in how women feel about reproductive rights. I know, because the leftists told me this all last week.

    I’ve met Darleen in person. She’s a woman. What she says or draws must therefore be freakin’ gospel!

  93. Why do you have so much hate in your heart

    Assuming facts not in evidence. Demonstrate, please.

  94. Why do you have so much hate in your heart

    I know, right? What a cunting twat bitch.

  95. ” Andy Kaufman knows what I’m talkin’ about. Or he would, were he not dead.”

    According to quantum theory Andy Kaufman is also not dead. We just live in a universe where the waveform collapsed the dead way. But he’s in the universe next door having a soda and laughing his ass off. And over there Carrot Top is dead. Or maybe not. But it makes a good story.

  96. i didn’t try to mansplain anything. i was just pointing out that that cartoon contains exactly zero funny.

    Well, PHEW. You’re done then? Or do you have more to say?

  97. ” steve says March 16, 2012 at 5:10 pm
    Why do you have so much hate in your heart”

    Why does Bill Mahr have so much hate in his heart?

  98. Why do you have so much hate in your heart

    why do you have so much nonsense in your brain?

  99. You haven’t answered the question about all your hate yet, teabagger. Chop chop!

  100. Seriously, push the fake-ass “shame” button even harder. I want to see what happens. It’s bound to work right?

    I mean EVERYONE takes the leftist pose of being better people (no matter what they say or do themselves) seriously right? How could they not?

  101. Why do you have so much hate in your heart

    Because it is bitter, and because it is my heart.

  102. Why do I have so much disinterest and ennui clogging my ‘shame’ gland? Why do I have so little capitulation in my tone? Why do I have so little regard for the hectoring of people who demand a respectful tone after failing to ever adopt one themselves? I dunno. Maybe I reject the silly premise that displeasing a leftist is any real cause for shame.

  103. “Are you a woman? Because if not, you have no say in how women feel about reproductive rights. ”

    deliberately obtuse? cute. i didn’t mention anything about reproductive rights.

  104. ” southpaw says March 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm
    “Are you a woman? Because if not, you have no say in how women feel about reproductive rights. ”
    deliberately obtuse? cute. i didn’t mention anything about reproductive rights.”

    So you admit that you do not actually understand the message of the “hateful” cartoon you are complaining about?

  105. Well, you could just link your name to the “About” page, to let newbies know that the commenter is in fact the proprietor of the blog. No way for first timers to know the convention, but that’s a lick on me — next time I show up at this kind of party I’ll nose around a bit first so I know who I’m talking to.

    I would ask that you defend the cartoon on the grounds that the message — that female Democratic politicians resemble dogs on President Obama’s leash — is an inflammatory lie that insults women even as you argue that no conservative war on women exists. You can’t, so you shame and call names.

    Don’t blame you…in the end it’s all you got.

  106. Good times.

    I personally loved the earlier suggestion that, no, it’s the opposite, feminist women are keeping the black man on a chain.

    Racist!

  107. deliberately obtuse? cute. i didn’t mention anything about reproductive rights.

    You didn’t have to. That’s what the issue is about.

    Sandra Fluke told me so. “Before Congress,” even.

    So let me ask you again: are you a woman? If not, why do you presume to speak for them?

  108. War on women!

    Sweet Jeebus, this is great.

  109. “in the end it’s all you got”

    Oh, I don’t know. We’ve still got the love of and for our wives and girlfriends. Moron.

  110. I’d link it but the site appears to be under construction. This is from Julian Sanchez, who is a libertarian.

    Conor Friedersdorf pokes some holes in Matt Continetti’s desperate attempt to paint substantive criticism of Sarah Palin’s published arguments as some kind of mob persecution. He’s got a fine case on the specifics, but I think misses the mark when he dubs the modern right’s obsession with its own supposed victimization an instance of the “politics of schadenfreude.” If you’re going to import hoity-toity foreign terms into your political analysis, you may as well play fully to type and pick a French one, which happens to be more accurate in the instance anyway. Schadenfreude is as ubiquitous in politics as in any other competitive game; you can bet Democrats in the ’20s were laughing their asses off over Teapot Dome. The word he wants is ressentiment:

    Ressentiment is a sense of resentment and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration, an assignation of blame for one’s frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the “cause” generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one’s frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

    Conservatism is a political philosophy; the farce currently performing under that marquee is an inferiority complex in political philosophy drag. Sure, there’s an element of “schadenfreude” in the sense of “we like what annoys our enemies.” But the pathology of the current conservative movement is more specific and convoluted. Palin irritates the left, but so would lots of vocal conservatives if they were equally prominent—and some of them are probably even competent to hold office. Palin gets to play sand in the clam precisely because she so obviously isn’t. She doesn’t just irritate liberals in some generic way: she evokes their contempt. Forget “Christian conservative”; she’s a Christ conservative, strung up on the media cross on behalf of all God’s right-wing children.

    Think back to the 2004 RNC—which I happened to be up in New York covering. After witnessing three days of inchoate, spittle-flecked rage from the people who had the run of all three branches of government, some wag (probably Jon Stewart) puzzled over the “anger of the enfranchised.” And it would be puzzling if the driving force here were a public policy agenda, rather than a set of cultural grievances. Jay Gatsby learned too late that wealth alone wouldn’t confer the status he had truly craved all along. What we saw in ‘04 was fury at the realization that ascendancy to political power had not (post-9/11 Lee Greenwood renaissance notwithstanding) brought parallel cultural power. The secret shame of the conservative base is that they’ve internalized the enemy’s secular cosmopolitan value set and status hierarchy—hence this obsession with the idea that somewhere, someone who went to Harvard might be snickering at them.

    The pretext for converting this status grievance into a political one is the line that the real issue is the myopic policy bred by all this condescension and arrogance—but the policy problems often feel distinctly secondary. Check out the RNC’s new ad on health reform, taking up the Tea Party slogan “Listen to Me!” There’s almost nothing on the substantive objections to the bill; it’s fundamentally about people’s sense of powerlessness in a debate that seems driven by wonks. To the extent that Obama enjoyed some initial cross-partisan appeal, I think it owed a lot to his recognition that most people care less about actual policy outcomes than they do about feeling that they’re being heard and respected.

    Or consider the study Ryan Sager highlighted a while back, showing that many SUV owners don’t merely think their choice of vehicles is harmless or morally neutral, but positively virtuous. Apparently the “moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals.” Note two things here. First, this is classic ressentiment: It’s not just that SUVs are great in themselves because they somehow “embody” some set of ideals. They’re good just because they symbolize an inversion of the “anti-American” values of critics. Second, think what it reveals that people feel the need to construct these kinds of absurd rationalizations—to make their cars heroic rather than simply denying that they do much harm. It betrays an incredible sensitivity, not to excessive taxes or regulations on the vehicles, but to the feeling of being judged.

    Since everyone’s favorite way to excuse indefensible political behavior is to point out that they staaaaaarted it, let me point out that the ’70s mantra that the “personal is political” and some of the the ’90s obsession with policing language and attitudes probably exacerbated the blurring of lines between questions of public justice and matters of personal virtue. Hell, we can translate the the basic beef of the Tea Partiers into faddish 90s jargon easily enough: They’re reacting against a hegemonic discourse in the centers of power that constructs them simultaneously as a bearers of class privilege and as a bestial Other. The elevation of figures like Palin represents an attempt to reappropriate an oppressive stereotype, akin to the way some hip-hop embraces a caricaturish racist vision of violent black masculinity. To be sure, most of what gets cast as “oppression” here is just the decline of privilege, but the perception is what matters for the social dynamic.

    Ultimately, this is a doomed project: Even if conservatives retook power, they wouldn’t be able to provide a political solution to a psychological problem, assuming they’re not willing to go the Pol Pot route. At the same time, it signals a resignation to impotence on the cultural front where the real conflict lies. It effectively says: We cede to the bogeyman cultural elites the power of stereotypical definition, so becoming the stereotype more fully and grotesquely is our only means of empowerment.

    To see how the difference between ressentiment and simple schadenfreude matters, consider Palin one more time. If the goal is just to antagonize liberals, making her the Republican standard-bearer seems tactically bizarre, since ideally you want someone who isn’t so repugnant to independents as to be unelectable. If the animating force is ressentiment, the leader has to be a loser to really deserve the role. Which is to say, expect the craziness to get worse before it gets better.

  111. Julian Sanchez?

    Please say epistemic closure next. Please.

  112. “The humor comes from your having spent the time and energy to sign up to comment here, only to tell us how irrelevant and unfunny the cartoon is. Which you might have done simply by not responding at all.”

    really is that how it works? i could point out that the cartoon makes no sense by not commenting? so again the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary clinton and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff?

  113. that female Democratic politicians resemble dogs on President Obama’s leash — is an inflammatory lie that insults women even as you argue that no conservative war on women exists.

    go look up the definition of an “attack dog” and get back to us

  114. steve says

    baffle them with academic bullshit

  115. Well, you could just link your name to the “About” page, to let newbies know that the commenter is in fact the proprietor of the blog. No way for first timers to know the convention, but that’s a lick on me — next time I show up at this kind of party I’ll nose around a bit first so I know who I’m talking to.

    I could do a lot of things I choose not to do.

    would ask that you defend the cartoon on the grounds that the message — that female Democratic politicians resemble dogs on President Obama’s leash — is an inflammatory lie that insults women even as you argue that no conservative war on women exists. You can’t, so you shame and call names.

    Don’t blame you…in the end it’s all you got.

    Names like “hateful” and “misogynistic,” you mean? Because those were yours, taken from your very first comment.

    To the rest, let me say this: first, you’ve mis-characterized the facts of the cartoon: neither O’Dowd or Fluke is a politician. Secondly, you either deliberately or ignorantly chose to ignore the referent (I was nice enough to put up a whole post pointing you toward it) that gives the cartoon its cultural frame. And third, depicting as leashed dogs female Democrats who on one hand consistently scream that they want conservative lawmakers to keep away from their bedrooms and uteri, but who now demand the government get all up into their reproductive business because the put certain political allegiances ahead of even their most supposedly cherished ideological beliefs, is a perfectly apt metaphor for the point Darleen is making.

    Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But the cartoon doesn’t need “defending,” because really, who the fuck are you, anyway?

  116. so again the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary clinton and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff?

    look up the definition of an “attack dog” and get back to us

  117. This is from Julian Sanchez, who is a libertarian.

    Isn’t that sweet, it comes with a business card.

  118. “look up the definition of an “attack dog” and get back to us”

    nice non answer. waiting….

  119. really is that how it works? i could point out that the cartoon makes no sense by not commenting?

    Oh, you slippery little eel you! Here’s what you said:

    jesus christ, is this supposed to be funny? and the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff? is that it? pretty complex stuff. and these moron commentors are acting like this dreck is oscar wilde. now that’s funny.

    See, you actually signed up — and waited on a confirmation email after setting up an account — to tell us the cartoon wasn’t funny. Took time out of your day. And continue even now to spend time here, repeatedly trying to convince us that the cartoon is unfunny and illogical while you intentionally pretend you can’t find the point as a way to diminish it.

    Now let me ask you, do you really think we believe that you actually think that’s the premise of the cartoon?

  120. “I gotta say Darleen, not impressed with your work. This cartoon is a complete and utter failure.”

    Apparently bradP missed the Commander’s strategic objectives briefing. ( also, see this:)

  121. ” is an inflammatory lie that insults women even as you argue that no conservative war on women exists. You can’t, so you shame and call names.”

    Is it a lie? I hear that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the GOP. Isn’t that a lie? Are we going to get into the whole Obi Wan Kenoibi “from a certain point of view” thing here?

    Is it insulting that two democrat politician women, a democrat woman pundit, and a 38 year old “reproductive rights advocate” pretending to be a young law school student ( who claims that birth control is unavailable because she can’t afford $1000 a year in birth control running interference for the president’s regulatory HHS policy due to ideological alignment) really insulting to WOMEN, or just leftist women?

    Is GCB itself insulting to women? Christians?

    Who are you claim insult on behalf of all women? The cartoon was created by a woman. Might women be of split opinion about it depending on their politics and perception of the situation it satirizes? Who put YOU in control of universal assertions about taste and fair play?

    Your complaints about the cartoon are bullshit.

    Your pose of righteousness is bullshit as well.

    Your insistence that ad hominem attacks and rough “inflammatory” humor is an identifying right wing trait and somehow not a left wing trait is worse. It is a ridiculous lie with NO foundation in reality whatsoever. It’s not even something that you could honestly believe.

    It is a big, fat, dishonest, whopper devoid of any trace of credibility.

    Goose and Gander must both continue to endure the sauce.

  122. southpaw says March 16, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    “look up the definition of an “attack dog” and get back to us”

    nice non answer. waiting….

    now it is known that the “southpaw” doesn’t understand a metaphor

  123. “Trains” is pretty hilarious, though. I laughed at that.

  124. “so again the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary clinton and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff?”

    How did these women get wealthy? Exactly what great idea or product did they produce? And what about the fourth dog? Is she next in line?

    Man, these trolls bring up so many questions. Do they intend this response?

  125. By the way, palaeomerus, I like your line of rebuttal here. Nicely done, and I daresay it sums up a lot of our collective bemusement / disgust.

    BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!

  126. “Now let me ask you, do you really think we believe that you actually think that’s the premise of the cartoon?”

    if it is not the premise then what are those three women doing in the cartoon? what “free treats” are these three well off women getting from obama? did maureen dowd get a train from the government that i didn’t hear about? the cartoon doesn’t make sense.

  127. i could point out that the cartoon makes no sense by not commenting?

    Not only that, you could have increased our opinion of your intelligence.

    By saying nothing.

    I’m prepared to explain that to you if you need it.

  128. Ironically, if these garden-variety trolls thought this was a place where they could come in and assert the usual Unearned Leftist Superiority…

    …they are woefully underinformed. Though we guessed that already, no?

  129. “now it is known that the “southpaw” doesn’t understand a metaphor”

    and the metaphor is?

  130. if it is not the premise then what are those three women doing in the cartoon? what “free treats” are these three well off women getting from obama? did maureen dowd get a train from the government that i didn’t hear about? the cartoon doesn’t make sense.

    to think i got banned from volokh for calling these folks proggtards

  131. Darleen,

    It was great, and don’t let any of those mother fuckers tell you any different. :)

    and… Hi Jeff.

    -Patrick

  132. Southpaw seems to think these three wealthy women got that way by some means other than carrying water for powerful Democrats like Obama.

  133. go away you southpaw proggtard

  134. if it is not the premise then what are those three women doing in the cartoon? what “free treats” are these three well off women getting from obama? did maureen dowd get a train from the government that i didn’t hear about? the cartoon doesn’t make sense.

    I’m so confused and confounded by your genius rhetorical move to map on the cartoon a kind of strict literalism I don’t know what to say!

    You’ve sunk my battleship!

    Good lord. Does this work for you on other “wingnut” blogs, or have you just chosen the wrong one on which to run these things out?

  135. “Not only that, you could have increased our opinion of your intelligence.

    By saying nothing.

    I’m prepared to explain that to you if you need it.”

    wow, some half assed version of “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”. how original. too bad you didn’t take your own advice.

  136. I’ll wager that those who can’t find any humor or point in Darleen’s cartoon roll in the aisles at Bill Maher’s hilarious “jokes.” Not their fault. It’s just how common minds operate…

  137. ot

    In the ANPRM, the administration said it is seeking input and comments on the so-called “accommodation” that the president announced on February 10. But the ANPRM also makes it clear that this process of getting input and issuing new rules will be very long and drawn out — so much so that the administration doesn’t expect to issue final regulations until August 1, 2013. Thus, with the issuance of the ANPRM, the administration is basically saying it won’t be making any further policy in this regard prior to this November’s election. That’s telling in and of itself.

    link

  138. “what “free treats” are these three well off women getting from obama?”

    Undeserved prestige, which they somehow leverage into wealth.

  139. Aaaaand the trolls keep trying to dig their way out of the hole.

  140. wow, some half assed version of “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”. how original. too bad you didn’t take your own advice.

    Again, in fairness, he’s been commenting here a long time. Whereas you signed up and continue to waste your Friday evening pretending that you can’t make heads nor tails out of the cartoon, it’s just so nonsensical!

    And better yet, you think we believe you aren’t pretending! It’s comedy gold, frankly!

  141. “and the metaphor is?”

    Jeff,

    You should have a button that sends the reading impaired back to the beginning of the thread.

  142. I can summarize the ressentiment piece up for you if you’d like, given the only two responses to it were something about epistemic closure and another thing about “academic bullshit”

  143. Oh, hey, OT and all but if you want some music to accompany this thread in a different tab, YouTube is streaming SXSW live here.

    The Shins are on now.

  144. It seems southpaw understood McGehee’s reference. I’m starting to think he’s being intentionally obtuse

  145. I could probably be clearer that I really do want to understand where this attitude comes from rather than troll you guys.

  146. Okay, off to dinner. Enjoy the chew toys, folks.

  147. Uh, it doesn’t really require summing up, steve. It’s written in English and all.

  148. It’s like trying to explain algebra to someone and they are making fun of you for trying to do math with letters.

  149. Pingback: Darleen Click does it again! | Thoughts and Rantings

  150. Thanks, bh. And the Shins are playing great stuff from “Chutes Too Narrow” (Saint Simeon) instead of the latest one.

  151. “Uh, it doesn’t really require summing up, steve. It’s written in English and all.”

    That’s what I thought too but newrouter: “baffle them with academic bullshit”

  152. “academic bullshit”

    Or consider the study Ryan Sager highlighted a while back, showing that many SUV owners don’t merely think their choice of vehicles is harmless or morally neutral, but positively virtuous. Apparently the “moralistic critique of their consumption choices readily inspired Hummer owners to adopt the role of the moral protagonist who defends American national ideals.” Note two things here. First, this is classic ressentiment: It’s not just that SUVs are great in themselves because they somehow “embody” some set of ideals. They’re good just because they symbolize an inversion of the “anti-American” values of critics. Second, think what it reveals that people feel the need to construct these kinds of absurd rationalizations—to make their cars heroic rather than simply denying that they do much harm. It betrays an incredible sensitivity, not to excessive taxes or regulations on the vehicles, but to the feeling of being judged.

    pure proggtard/academic bullshit

  153. Heh. Yeah, Bang, the worst phrase in music has always been “And now, from our new album…”

  154. so again the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary clinton and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff?

    That would depend upon who or what pays their insurance premiums for a policy that covers contraceptives with zero copay, as per the regulations being discussed.

  155. Steve, the internet phrases TLDR (too long, didn’t read) and FYCAP (fuck you, cut-and-paster) should not be strangers to you. So yes, a summary was probably the way to go there to get the most impact. Then, if people are interested in your point/questions, post a link rather than gumming up the thread with text, as some people are reading on phones and tablets. It’s comments common courtesy.

  156. the steve does the “appeal to authority” schtick by citing “ryan sager” who just might be an effing idiot from the bronx

  157. steve

    I suspect that Julian’s earnest-but-less-than-honest piece isn’t getting more response because yawn we’ve been hearing this over and over and over again …

    Sanchez doesn’t “get” Palin or those that marched in the first public protests of their lives on April 15, 2009.

    No one is upset someone from Harvard is snickering at them. Go ahead and snicker, but don’t also be positioning yourself to steal from our purses and wallets while you are snickering.

    Get off my lawn

  158. “Again, in fairness, he’s been commenting here a long time. Whereas you signed up and continue to waste your Friday evening pretending that you can’t make heads nor tails out of the cartoon, it’s just so nonsensical!”

    in fairness to what?

    oh i get what the cartoonist was trying to do. i get the “humor”. but for it to be funny it needs to be true. what is obama giving to these women for their obedience? please someone answer it. because if obama isn’t giving these women anything then it doesn’t make sense. get it?

  159. I really do want to understand where this attitude comes from

    We’re like some strange noble savages and steve is a patient anthropologist here to study us. We should give him the gift of barbecued Guinea pig or some such. And let him fuck our daughters.

  160. “No one is upset someone from Harvard is snickering at them. Go ahead and snicker, but don’t also be positioning yourself to steal from our purses and wallets while you are snickering.”

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

  161. but for it to be funny it needs to be true

    I can see Russia from my house!

  162. in fairness to what?

    In fairness to someone everyone here already knows.

    oh i get what the cartoonist was trying to do. i get the “humor”. but for it to be funny it needs to be true. what is obama giving to these women for their obedience? please someone answer it. because if obama isn’t giving these women anything then it doesn’t make sense. get it?

    Well, you see Obama is just the leader of a movement. But it would be hard to draw the entirety of the movement, so he stands in. It’s how it’s done sometimes.

    As to what Obama and the movement he represents gives to these women, well, I’ll going to let you see if you can’t figure that out yourself. Start with a sham congressional hearing and then a publicized phone call.

  163. thanks steve but data from 2005 is kinda meaningless in 2012

  164. so again the premise is that obama is giving debbie wasserman schultz, hillary clinton and maureen dowd, three wealthy women, free stuff?

    He’s fulfilling their activist wish-list, rather than giving them the free stuff. Maybe it’s that I just ate, and can’t bear the thought of those women getting free contraceptives (though I’m vehemently against their procreating). In return, the bitches in question yap about the GOP’s War On Women and such nonsense, and turn a blind eye to the Democrats’ hateful speech/acts toward women.

  165. “We’re like some strange noble savages and steve is a patient anthropologist here to study us. ”
    Yeah I’d probably agree with this. The rest of the post is little bizarre, but this line is pretty fair.

    “Sanchez doesn’t “get” Palin or those that marched in the first public protests of their lives on April 15, 2009.”
    In what respect, Charlie?

  166. Come on, Abe. You know she was thinking it. And that’s close enough.

  167. Uh-oh, bh, Mercer just said “This is the first song from our new record.” In other words, “This would be a good time to get beer.” Since it’s the first song, I’d probably stay. If it was the seventh song, I’m in the beerline.

  168. Jeff,
    Dot connecting doesn’t seem to be one of his strengths. Maybe color coordinating will help.

  169. . because if obama isn’t giving these women anything then it doesn’t make sense. get it?

    baracky named dws head of the dnc. baracky gave hilarity sec. of state. baracky gave fluke a well publicized phone call. modo gave baracky a literary bj

  170. gets to play sand in the clam

    Sexist

  171. what is obama giving to these women for their obedience?

    You can’t seriously be that obtuse.

  172. but for it to be funny it needs to be true.

    That’s just a weird thing to say. You’re weird, Mr. Weird Person.

  173. That’s surely the source of mirth regarding stupid Democrats’ brain [and other] farts, right? Truth!

    Well, y’know, more or less.

  174. After reading all the new troll comments, I suddenly have a hankering for some boxed wine and awesome paella.

  175. “Well, you see Obama is just the leader of a movement. But it would be hard to draw the entirety of the movement, so he stands in. It’s how it’s done sometimes.

    As to what Obama and the movement he represents gives to these women, well, I’ll going to let you see if you can’t figure that out yourself. Start with a sham congressional hearing and then a publicized phone call.”

    at least you tried. good on you.
    issa’s hearing? ya that was a sham. but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.
    dinner’s getting cold. enjoy!

  176. Is that your victory declared then, southpaw?

    We should probably stop laughing then. Probably ruins the moment for you.

    but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.

    That’s fucking gold, right there. Don’t let anyone every tell you different. Hey, comedy equals truth, amirite?

  177. Remember, southiepaw is no Leftist. It us apparently an independent that just happens to be dummerer than a sack of Yelvertons.

    Steve is just a run of the mill douchenozzle. .

  178. every=ever

  179. “but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.”

    Oooh, look! Truth!

    Funny.

    Hey, who cut the cheese?

  180. Hey, this version of New Slang is pretty good, Bang.

  181. ot rinos hurt most

    Ten days before the 2008 presidential election, as blame was beginning to be laid out for John McCain’s “likely defeat,” a top communications adviser to the campaign wrote a detailed strategy memo focused on how to preserve the reputation of another key adviser, Steve Schmidt, POLITICO has learned.

    The memo, written by senior McCain adviser Brian Jones, was sent to two top officials at his firm, Mercury Public Affairs, in an attempt to address emerging leaks criticizing Schmidt for the failing campaign. A firm partner and former George W. Bush campaign hand, Schmidt’s role in advising the McCain campaign and helping to select an unprepared Sarah Palin as running mate is at the center of the HBO movie “Game Change.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74094.html#ixzz1pKZqom78

  182. In fairness to someone everyone here already knows.

    Well, there goes that air of mystery I’ve been cultivating.

  183. Hey, who cut the cheese?

    <sniffs>

    That air of mystery? I’ve been doing it wrong.

  184. Douchenozzle?

  185. Your slightly tilted hat holds enough mystery for 12 mortal men already, McG. Plenty to spare.

    Why’s it tilted like that? Is he missing parts of his forehead? Is his right eye one of those red Terminator eyes and he’s about to kill us?

    The mustache brings up even more unfathomable questions.

    Is it related to Regis? Is it on the verge of going all Fu Manchu regardless of the consequences?

    Your mysterious air is safe as far as I’m concerned.

  186. A douchenozzle is the nozzle of a douche.

    While it is not true, you are not the nozzle of a douche — and therefor can not be funny — it’s a thing that somehow still works in our primitive minds after you accepted the enlightened anthropologist joke without the slightest, self-depreciating wink.

  187. therefor=therefore. Technology is not my friend tonight.

  188. Remember all the leftist outrage when Condoleeza Rice was portrayed as a parrot on Bush’s shoulder by a lefty cartoonist?

    Good times.

  189. Wait, southpaw was here? No. Can’t be. Forget I said anything.

    OK, that’s not a Youjean IP, is it? Nope. Not crazy enough.

  190. Remember all the leftist outrage when Condoleeza Rice was portrayed as a parrot on Bush’s shoulder by a lefty cartoonist?

    I remember that along with their outrage when Condi was portrayed as a black slave from Gone with the Wind

  191. Steve and southiepaw are too stupid to insult.

  192. OK, I’m about a third through the thread and I regret not having been here earlier. My loss, I suppose.

  193. Let me explain it quite simply, lefty newbies. The left is all about shutting up the opposition, and they make no bones about it. So, we’ve come to expect a truckload of manufactured outrage whenever an non-leftist-approved opinion is expressed. Quite often, the outrage is expressed with respect to words and tactics that the left has no problem using to express their opinions.

    If one can read, the message of the cartoon is very clear. If it isn’t, then here’s a clue to a portion of the message (though I am not speaking to the entire message): we don’t believe in paying for other people’s voluntary behavior, be it directly through transfer payments or indirectly through increases in our insurance rates or other mandatory (or soon to be mandatory) fees we must pay to live a decent life. Obama and his ilk, on the other hand, are all about taking money from the productive and handing it out.

  194. Thanks, Darleen. I knew there was another incident that was much worse, but I couldn’t remember what it was.

  195. Mizzou, really? Aw shucks, said the KU fan. Can Duke be next?

  196. steve @ March 16, 2012 at 5:27 pm, just so you know, I stopped reading at “Conor Friersdorf.”

  197. Wait a minute? You mean that Tony Blair is not LITERALLY George. W. Bush’s tiny dog ? How can my proper highly trained left wing mind ever hope to meaningfully interpret such a bizarre, obscure, and mysteriously unprecedented symbol? Oh well. That Palin sure is dumb right guys? Right? HA HA. Wingnuts are so dumb and mean.

  198. Do these nitwits really not recognize that Darleen created this to mock THEM?

    It’s about YOU, fools. And we’re just getting started. #war

  199. ” but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.”

    You mean pedophiles like liberal wunderkind, and long time expatriot to France, Roman Polanski*?

    *(determined to not be RAPE rape by noted professional rape expert Whoopi Goldberg)

  200. I can’t believe my alma mater just beat Duke. Holy crap.

  201. boink! Hey Abe, congrats.

  202. Wait… you went to Lehigh, Abe?

  203. Mizzoops, Duke, and Michigan. Wow. Please Allah, let Kansas be next.

  204. This is the exact opposite of how I feel about Duke going out early.

  205. I can’t believe my alma mater just beat Duke. Holy crap.

    Well, there goes my bracket…

  206. Faugh, you wish.

  207. Darleen,

    If all you can do is ridicule, then your ideas are bankrupt.

  208. Can Duke be next?

    Yup. The carnage continues.

  209. Could Long Island take out Michigan State?

  210. If all you can do is ridicule, then your ideas are bankrupt.

    Did a left-winger actually just write that?

  211. Yeah! Shut up Aristophanes, you miserable comic, ya got nuttin’!

  212. Zaftig – your faux outrage is bankrupt, as is your ideology. Bugger off.

    Go Detroit !!

  213. If all you can do is ridicule, then your ideas are bankrupt.

    Somebody tell Bill Maher.

  214. Why’s it tilted like that? Is he missing parts of his forehead?

    STOP SPYING ON ME!

  215. *cathholic university fist-bump* Abe

    Duquesne, here.

  216. Totally had you pegged as a Columbia guy, Abe. My apologies.

    (I’m winking.)

  217. ZaftigAmazon says March 16, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    If all you can do is tell people their ideas are bankrupt, you belong on one of those sites where Bill Maher is the pinnacle of comedy.

  218. If only Texas Tech’s basketball team didn’t completely suck…

  219. Dammit. I was thinking LaSalle. Disregard that, Abe.

    I’ve been to a lot of lectures at Lehigh, though.

  220. BEHOLD THE AWESOME POWER OF A CLEVER SUPERIOR LIBERAL MIND THAT NEED NOT STOOP TO INSULTS TO WIN A LIBERAL DEBATING POINT you um….er….pedophiles… Yes! Pedophiles!

    THAT’s a bad scary intimidating word! That will be a powerful blow for the forces of social justice! Why it’s not stupid depsrate hyperbole at all! Nor is it a stupid cliche such as would be in easy reach of a mediocre mind! Nay! It is a wickedly sharp and irresistible blade forged in the same metal and temper as Durandel, Joyeuse, and Courtaine is it not? Hie ye varlot! Take that!

    And you also….um…you hate birth control! Like those cartoon dogs say! Because someone told me that! Clearly the only reason someone wouldn’t want health insurance providers to be mandated to pay for expensive birth control (that will raise premiums) is a HATRED of birth control itself. Which is legally and cheaply already available in Walmarts, Costcos Sams, Targets and other stores and pharmacies everywhere. Yep.

    Ol’ Oz would certainly be an impressive wizard if it weren’t for that scrawny midwestern asshole behind that fiddling around and cringing behind the curtain.

    Yessh! It really is an amazing sight to see people complain about a tactic, use it, and then try to exceed it, all in the same comment section. Or an appalling one. One of those. I keep getting those two words mixed up.

  221. issa’s hearing? ya that was a sham. but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.

    Well, that’s deep, thoughtful and incisive! Two problems: Fluke didn’t speak at Issa’s hearing and you’re a nitwit.

  222. If all you can do is ridicule, then your ideas are bankrupt.

    Well, not really the only thing she can do. But, okay, let’s list this as another rule we’ve learned. Satire equals empty. Also, things must be exactly literal and materially true or they can’t be funny.

    This is a strange list. You’re weird, people. Weird.

  223. but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.

    Gerry Studds was at the hearing?

  224. I’m starting to understand why Margaret Cho, Janeane Garofalo, and Bill Maher struggle so with the funny.

    Sure, they’re talentless hacks. But they might be talentless hacks operating under completely unknown rules of comedy that we never even knew about.

  225. I go to dinner and two trolls get rolled. That wasn’t even a light work-out, guys and gals. I got nothin’ to add that ain’t been said. But it was fun watching.

  226. Bh has a great point there. Who knew something had to be literally true to be funny?

    Also, who knew sycophants from SEKs site would be dummerer than a sack of used free rubbers?

  227. You could recommend the trolls a good salad dressing RI Red, since they’re so intent on performing auto-rim jobs along with Ms Fluke.

  228. Here are some select paraphrased Bill Mahr jokes from his comedy special that he put on to donate $ 1,000,000 to Obama’s superPAC. (and remember how Obama was AGAINST SuperPACS originally? )

    Here we go. Comedy gold? Crass shit? Lame? You decide!

    ——-

    ” Boy I sure learned one thing during that healthcare debate. Stupidity is a preexisting condition! The democrats just want you to be well. They just want you to be well.

    Hick voice: Huh-ey!Won’t that cut into mah FREE-dumb ?

    I tell you, the democrats could not sell a cub scout to a pedophile. ”

    ——–

    ” I had cybersex ONCE. What a mistake THAT was. I WOUND UP in the emergency room with a MOUSE up MY ASS! ”

    ——–

    ” Another thing that drives me crazy, you hear people saying that we needs centrist party. No we don’t. We have that. It’s called the democrats. We need a left party. ”

    ——–

    “The one thing they hate is being called racist. The other thing is black people. That’s the PPPTHT the fly in the ointment. ”

    ——–

    ” President Nosferatu ”

    ——–

    “John Boehner seems…female. ”

    ——–

    ” No, No, I am not a sexist. You know who is a sexist? America. ”

    ——–

    ” People call me sexist because I make fun of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. I don’t make fun of them because they are women. I make jokes about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann because they have frosted flakes in their heads. Sarah Palin eats the yellow snow on the off chance that it’s Mountain Dew. ”

    ——–

    ” She served half of a term as a governor of a state with no people and she quit and she has a Facebook page. ”

    ——–

    “The Republicans want to keep the economy in the shitter until November and then blame it Blacky McBlackman. Ha Ha. That’s not patriotic. ”

    ——-

    “Phil Specter has killed more people than the F-22.”

    ——–

    ” Gas prices are HIGH. They really are. In Lindsey Lohan’s latest sex tape she’s sucking on a gas syphon! I’m kidding it’s a dick. Then she pulls it out of her mouth and says, ‘Hey! That’s not vodka!’ ”

    ——-

    No offense but I’ll take a Darleen Glick cartoon over that drek just about any day of the week. Of course internet cartoons don’t come with live-event laugh/clap tracks to sell the idea that they are hilarious.

  229. Great cartoon, Darleen. Getting the LGM ‘proggs worked up to a slobbering frenzy of dumbth is priceless. Little Timb is right in the thick of things over there, still loudly bewailing for his unrequited long lost jg love.

    Heh. Love it how Sandra Fluke is licking her own balls.

  230. ” She served half of a term as a governor of a state with no people and she quit and she has a Facebook page. ”

    At least Bill Maher won’t have to worry about Rick Santorum banning his favorite jerk-off site.

  231. Hmmmm. Sdferr, does vaseline count as a salad dressing?

  232. Darleen,

    If all you can do is ridicule, then your ideas are bankrupt.

    You’ve not been here before, have you?

    That cartoon nails the portrayed women of the Left as being necessary accessories to the Chief Progg, who uses them as advance-carriers of his far-Left ideology. To a woman, they’ve misrepresented what Republicans believe (that birth control should not be given away as just another entitlement, another ‘must-have’ that Americans cannot do without and that must now must be given away like welfare checks); they’ve spun and polished the knob of Lefty talking points that are only sound to the sycophants and the weak-minded who care less about self-reliance and only care about getting a free ride on the long Government donkey. TANSTAAFL, bitches; you’re losing your freedom every time you pop a ‘free’ one.

    Yipping terriers on the leash of the Community Organizer in Chief.

  233. You know, having to explain a joke is counter-productive. Face it – we aren’t going to change them or convince them. Just like a rabid dog, sometimes there’s only one cure.
    Damn. Extremist, eliminationist rhetoric just burst forth.

  234. issa’s hearing? ya that was a sham. but i guess it’s good to find out what pedophiles think about birth control.

    Issa’s was the actual hearing. The rest was a pretend hearing dressed up to look like an official hearing. That’s where Fluke “testified.”

    Kind of the “women’s reproductive rights” version of Styrofoam columns, reverb, and carefully placed teleprompters.

    You did know that, right? Please tell me you did.

  235. We don’t have to explain the joke. The demands to have the joke explained are a silly time/energy wasting pose that was supposed to discredit the joke and pretend that it doesn’t work. They see perfectly what Darleen did here.

    Otherwise they are too dumb to be using search engines and following web links.

    They just don’t like it.

    So how to counter it? The smug outrage approach utterly failed to draw any remorse or timidity so plan B is to construct a new more favorable reality where the cartoon is a empty and false. They goal is to try to pretend that its inscrutable and confusing to a self described rational and well organized mind like theirs. We are supposed to believe that a proper mind would see it as a soulless hodge podge. It is akin to a cargo cult’s model runway. It’s a mere nonfunctional imitation of a real cartoon or satire meant to call down primitive spirits who will transform it into a working cartoon for a primitive mind that cannot deal with “reality” . The resemblance to a real cartoon is only superficial. Real proper cartoons are a sort of leftist superpower that right wingers lack the wetware and complexity of civilization to duplicate fully. We are so atavistic and stunted that we can only poorly imitate but never match our superior leftist cousins in such endeavors as humor.

    Capiche?

  236. Also we are not in the clique and we may not have any pie nor are we invited to the big party for the cool kids next week and that;s too bad for us, because there will be a clown and cake and balloons AND a cowboy who will give pony rides. So there.

  237. Fordham!

    (sucks at sports)

  238. The most dangerous vagina hater, it stands to reason, is someone who has one.

  239. The most dangerous vagina hater, it stands to reason, is someone who has one.

    Let’s use our imagination then and combine vagina dentata and cock fighting. That would be the most dangerous animal of them all.

    War on scary-toothed vaginas fighting one another in a ring for male’s entertainment and gambling! And, also, war on other women as well so they didn’t feel left out!

    Too far? It sorta felt like that was maybe too far.

  240. The most dangerous vagina hater, it stands to reason, is someone who has one.

    A possible exception that proves the rule.

  241. What if the fanged vaginas were aliens who wanted to buy the black folks in the US?

    Give me tenure. Now.

    What if the fanged vaginas were aliens who wanted to buy the black folks in the US and they had pedo-beards like SEK.

    [Waves.]

  242. “Issa’s was the actual hearing. The rest was a pretend hearing dressed up to look like an official hearing. That’s where Fluke “testified.”

    Kind of the “women’s reproductive rights” version of Styrofoam columns, reverb, and carefully placed teleprompters.

    You did know that, right? Please tell me you did.”

    that is what you come up with after a nice dinner? what, did all the blood go to your stomach for digestion? i guess i should have written, “ya that WAS a sham”, so everyone could understand. anyways, do you want to now argue that people who buy expensive health insurance should not be able to lobby for coverage for things they think are important? you know what i’m sick of? people who ask their hmo’s to cover cancer screenings. pussies!

  243. what, did all the blood go to your stomach for digestion?

    You said this.

  244. A critic is someone who insults those who succeed where he has always failed.

  245. What if you swam right after eating, y’all? Wouldn’t that be crazy?

    Crazy like airline food, bitches.

    Yo, he’s coming hard, fools. Keep your heads down.

  246. “What if you swam right after eating, y’all?”

    Why, that would be tantamount to a Democrat attempting to think right after he’d been farting, wouldn’t it?

  247. do you want to now argue that people who buy expensive health insurance should not be able to lobby for coverage for things they think are important?

    See, this is what you get for arguing with someone who has no idea what is happening and simply makes up some straw to fling around.

  248. “that is what you come up with after a nice dinner? what, did all the blood go to your stomach for digestion? i guess i should have written, “ya that WAS a sham”, so everyone could understand. anyways, do you want to now argue that people who buy expensive health insurance should not be able to lobby for coverage for things they think are important? you know what i’m sick of? people who ask their hmo’s to cover cancer screenings. pussies!”

    Shouldn’t you make a reasonable point or something before you try to pull rank as the real adult in the argument? I mean your taunts are weak shit, and all you ever get around to doing is complaining when people dare to reject your silly premises for being lame fluffy nonsense.

  249. Mandates raise costs for everybody. The people who don’t need it subsidize the people who want it. They have no choice. The pricing spreads the costs. The costs increase when extra services are mandated. Birth control is NOT a health requirement. Those costs are ultimately born by he consumers. Mandates are just a form of tax. The state coerces compliance in the form of distribution of resources that cost money and so come out of consumers pockets and the non consumer of those services pays the same as a consumer.

  250. Obama does a late Friday can kick to attempt to push this entire issue off the table till after the election. Guess it wasn’t as “helpful” as they wished for Nov.

  251. anyways, do you want to now argue that people who buy expensive health insurance should not be able to lobby for coverage for things they think are important?

  252. That was me performing a “the fuck?”

  253. Seriously? “Who the fuck are you, anyway?” Did you learn this rhetorical technique at Towson or Johns Hopkins?

    Let’s quote my original comment:

    Wow. Just. Wow. Hateful, gratuitous, and insulting “humor.” This really adds nothing to the debate about health insurance, birth control, or religious liberty except another data point for people who think that conservatives say the things they do because they hate women.

    What a sad and self-loathing person Ms. Click must be.

    And what an enormous lack of self-awareness. I especially like “Jeff G.” who refers to LGM folks as “anonymous, sneering jackals who hang there during office hours” while sneering at “what LGM ‘thinks’ or ‘argues’” at 1:52 in the afternoon — office hours where I come from.

    Wow. Just. Wow.

    Note that the word “misogynistic” appears nowhere in the comment, and I use the word “hateful” to describe the humor of the cartoon, not an individual. Your mileage may vary with respect to whether this accurately describes the cartoon, but it is not an ad hominem attack.

    Note also that I characterized the cartoon as depicting ” female Democratic politicians” as “dogs on President Obama’s leash,” an accurate description whether or not the cartoon also portrays an opinion columnist and an activist the same way. In any event, none of the women in the cartoon have demanded that government “get all up into their reproductive business.” They’re asking government to regulate health care insurance so that it covers the unique health care needs of women, and Ms. Fluke’s example had nothing to do with sex or reproduction and everything to do with using hormonal medications to treat conditions only women have. And none of them want anything free from the government or President Obama — they’re asking for changes to a product they purchase or receive as part of their compensation.

    This nuance of course escapes the proprietor and denizens of this website, which resembles nothing so much as a middle school playground where one clique tries to make themselves feel important by asserting the superiority of their group while belittling the others with gratuitous insults. I mean, really, “R. Stanton Twat?” Folks here may think this is quite the zinger, but I’ve heard it before, and no human being over twelve speaks that way to others if they want to be taken seriously.

    Nothing to see here folks but an educated man who should be able to participate in a reasoned discussion of public policy but finds it necessary or desirable to respond to an intellectual challenge with “Who the fuck are you, anyway.” Nothing to take seriously at all.

  254. See, this is what you get for arguing with someone who has no idea what is happening and simply makes up some straw to fling around.

    Um, that ain’t straw. Duck and cover.

  255. You’re not offering a reasoned discussion of public policy. You’re the guy who responded to a cartoon with “What a sad and self-loathing person Ms. Click must be.”.

    No one is looking to be taken seriously by you. We’ve a fair idea of who you are, after that fine introduction you made, and it turns out that no one gives a damn what you think. You’ve been here a million times before and they were just as as tired and trite as this faux outraged instance of you.

    No one cares, Twat. Feel free to bugger off.

  256. Ms. Fluke’s example had nothing to do with sex or reproduction

    Birth control has nothing to co with sex or reproduction. Because I said so, you ignorant fools!

    Uighur, please.

  257. Knowing that many of you didn’t read through that BS up there Steve posted, I thought I’d bring this out:

    Check out the RNC’s new ad on health reform, taking up the Tea Party slogan “Listen to Me!” There’s almost nothing on the substantive objections to the bill; it’s fundamentally about people’s sense of powerlessness in a debate that seems driven by wonks. To the extent that Obama enjoyed some initial cross-partisan appeal, I think it owed a lot to his recognition that most people care less about actual policy outcomes than they do about feeling that they’re being heard and respected.

    Read that and weep. This is what the opposition a libertarian believes is our fundamental opposition to Obamacare. We don’t care about policy, we just want to be heard.

    Yea, whatever steve.

  258. ” They’re asking government to regulate health care insurance so that it covers the unique health care needs of women, and Ms. Fluke’s example had nothing to do with sex or reproduction and everything to do with using hormonal medications to treat conditions only women have.

    See, now this is a lie. Because Ms. Fluke’s example was a lie. The University policy DID cover “hormonal medications” to treat special conditions.

    The university just didn’t cover “the pill” for the “pre-existing condition” of wanting to have sex.

  259. And none of them want anything free from the government or President Obama — they’re asking for changes to a product they purchase or receive as part of their compensation.

    Lefties have a really hard time with this concept, don’t they?

  260. Honestly, the argument that “THIS ISN’T FUNNY”, etc … just has me scratching my head.

    That Doonesbury guy has made an entire career over not being funny. He’s still in my funny papers every Sunday.

  261. See, now this is a lie. Because Ms. Fluke’s example was a lie. The University policy DID cover “hormonal medications” to treat special conditions.

    They like that lie. The War On Women doesn’t (theoretically) work without it. Thus, that lie is the TRVTH, wingnut.

  262. Aren’t Steve and RSS going a bit deep for something they found not to be funny?
    It begs questions, I’ll grant you.

    How angry did they get at the last 12 Woody Allen movies? Did they threaten boycott’s at the American Pie movies? How about Rosie O’Donnell’s career? Oliphant? Benny Hill?

    They don’t like Darleen’s cartoon because its caustic and kicks you in the nuts and demand’s a response because it attacks a core theorteical supposition–that the Left is where women NEED to be. Like “Piss Christ” but only for our side. In other words, Darleen took the Left’s longtime weapon of aggressive confrontive expression and used it on the Left.

    That’s going to require some outrage when all is said and done.

    (For the record, it’s not my thing.)

  263. No, it’s not like “PC.”

  264. Dot connecting doesn’t seem to be one of his strengths. Maybe color coordinating will help.

    I thought that’s what “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” was for?

  265. R. Stanton Scott says March 17, 2012 at 6:12 am

    This may come as complete surprise to you, but the opinion you’re pushing in your comments here has only one basis: your opinion. Which we’ll all here concede you’re entitled to.

    But trying to win an argument with it — especially here — is like bringing a tickle-feather to a nuclear war.

  266. I just have to repeat myself from a couple weeks ago.

    For all of my lifetime there has been a very successful legislative tactic used by the Democrats to effect what is in bills passed by Congress. It is to bring as witnesses ordinary people to speak on their personal woes and experiences. This testimony would miraculously align perfectly with whatever was wanted by the Democrats in the legislation under consideration.

    With the success of this tactic the left has come to use it in other forums but always with an eye to getting the witness before Congress to testify in person and on camera for the larger public and the media who would regurgitate the storyline. As has been noted these stories came to be completely scripted.

    With the rise of talk radio and then the internet there came to be people who were inclined to dig into these storied to check their veracity. This had not much effect until the blog-o-sphere became larger with a large audience. For about the last 10 years the left has had a problem using this tactic and they want free reign to use it once more. To do that they must discredit or destroy those two main forces that have made it impossible to use these scripted witnesses. Talk radio and bloggers.

    In all cases the witnesses before Congress would be telling of their own travails. Witnesses in testimony can only offer either their own personal experiences or speak of studies they have done, professional work that they do that related to the question before Congress. So bloggers would dig into the story that the witness gave and/or their credentials and the studies offered if that is what they testified to. Crowd-sourcing has ruined the scripted stories, fake credentials, and false studies.The left was not about to let this situation stand.

    Sandra Fluke is simply the latest attempt to wreck those entities who have made this tactic unusable. She was never intended to testify before Congress. Her story was not a personal account but a series on hearsay anecdotes concerning unnamed others along with numbers which had no supporting evidence on which to base them. It was as trolls online have done so many times, argument by assertion. As such would have been taken apart under questioning before a committee that was not all her supporters.

    She had/has a background which contains her working on issues which, at least, sound noble, family violence, human trafficking, child slavery and nothing indicating that she is some wild wanton woman. She was bait. A tarbaby if you will for those enemies that have ruined the emotional, scripted, witness tactic. Her “testimony” was eminently attack-able, as dicentra has shown, in and of itself. What the left desired was for her to be attacked personally as they personally attack women on the right so often.

    By doing so we used Alinsky tactics and doing that can be a trap for those on the right. It only works well when used against a side that is guilt culture oriented. The left is not that way. They are a shame culture and so react differently. There are some ways this can be workable is if it is used to illustrate the differences between the two sides and how they treat this kind of attack, or if the ridicule is pushed hard enough to that the other side goes berserk in public.

    It would have been best in my estimation to simply attack the message and not the messenger, though what Limbaugh actually did was make a small joke, one much less offensive to women than so many more crudely done ones from the left. At the same time it is not productive to attack ones own messengers over their own messages. Whatever path some allies take that does not mean you have to join in with your enemies in criticizing them for their choices. Simply make the case you think is best against the left and let others do as they think best. The winning way will rise to the top by itself it does not and should not be pushed to the top by some elite consensus of how we should be doing things.

    Top down orders of how things are to be done is for the left. Open competition is the way of the right, or should be.

  267. All these new progressives and not a single original thought or argument. Same tired insults, though.

  268. Totally had you pegged as a Columbia guy, Abe. My apologies.

    (I’m winking.)

    I may or may not have gone there for grad school. I’ll let everyone know when they win a game in the NCAA basketball tourney.

  269. Did you learn this rhetorical technique at Towson or Johns Hopkins?

    You forgot Cornell or U of Denver.

    Listen: you seem quite convinced that I should care what you have to say. I don’t. Whether it was you who used “misogynistic” or one of the slew of suddenly concerned new site visitors, it doesn’t really matter. You are all the same to me — and that’s because you are part of a hive mind. You’re indistinguishable, as far as I can tell, and that’s the price you’re going to have to learn to pay for being part of political ideology that operates almost entirely on manufactured consent and brand loyalty.

    Note also that I characterized the cartoon as depicting ” female Democratic politicians” as “dogs on President Obama’s leash,” an accurate description whether or not the cartoon also portrays an opinion columnist and an activist the same way.

    Except that you left out that others beside politicians were depicted and then proceeded to pretend you were giving an accurate overview of the cartoon, despite this curious omission.

    In any event, none of the women in the cartoon have demanded that government “get all up into their reproductive business.” They’re asking government to regulate health care insurance so that it covers the unique health care needs of women, and Ms. Fluke’s example had nothing to do with sex or reproduction and everything to do with using hormonal medications to treat conditions only women have. And none of them want anything free from the government or President Obama — they’re asking for changes to a product they purchase or receive as part of their compensation.

    Look, I don’t pretend that the message I’ve interpreted was ever presented in the words I’ve used to paraphrase it. But let’s not be coy: women aren’t asking the government to “regulate health care insurance so that it covers the unique health care needs of women”: many health insurance plans already did just that. These women — not “women” in the aggregate — are asking the government to mandate that private companies and those that elect to enter into contracts with them provide certain products and services that they don’t wish to provide, and that oftentimes their customers don’t want or need — products and services available elsewhere in a competitive marketplace.

    Jobs pay salaries and offer compensation packages, in many instances including health insurance plans. If you don’t like that birth control isn’t covered completely as part of your plan, you can take a different job, buy supplemental insurance, etc. The same goes for dental coverage, or eye glass coverage. The idea that “Ms. Fluke’s example had nothing to do with sex or reproduction and everything to do with using hormonal medications to treat conditions only women have” is a bald-faced lie: the Catholic Church already made exceptions for hormonal treatment therapy, and Ms Fluke’s stated goal was to go to Georgetown and challenge the Jesuits birth control policy.

    This nuance of course escapes the proprietor and denizens of this website, which resembles nothing so much as a middle school playground where one clique tries to make themselves feel important by asserting the superiority of their group while belittling the others with gratuitous insults.

    This “nuance” doesn’t escape anyone here. In fact, we’ve heard the sophistry and dissembling so often we’re simply bored by it — and we’re especially bored when self-important, preening blowhards like you show up to discuss our hate or the relative slightness of our intellects.

    We are on to you. You can’t shame us. Your lies don’t work here. And your cheap rhetorical attempts to literalize everything said, and then battle strawmen of your own stuffing, likewise won’t fly. We know who Sandra Fluke is and what her aims were. We know who Obama and the progressives are and what their ultimate endgame is. We don’t believe government to be the final moral arbiter of society, and we don’t accept their attempts to mandate what we purchase.

    You’re right that this has nothing to do with birth control. Everyone here knows that. But as birth control is the emblem the Left has chosen embroider on their flag, we’ve played along with the extended metaphor. We see you. We know you. And we can operate on a turf you think belongs wholly to you. For instance, see palaeomerus, below:

    Mandates raise costs for everybody. The people who don’t need it subsidize the people who want it. They have no choice. The pricing spreads the costs. The costs increase when extra services are mandated. Birth control is NOT a health requirement. Those costs are ultimately born by he consumers. Mandates are just a form of tax. The state coerces compliance in the form of distribution of resources that cost money and so come out of consumers pockets and the non consumer of those services pays the same as a consumer.

    That’s a direct answer. Not a word wasted. What is presented as “free” isn’t. We know that. And we know that you know that.

    Nothing to see here folks but an educated man who should be able to participate in a reasoned discussion of public policy but finds it necessary or desirable to respond to an intellectual challenge with “Who the fuck are you, anyway.” Nothing to take seriously at all.

    Who are the “folks” you are directing this to? For whom are you performing here? There’s not a regular reader here who doesn’t think I can participate in a reasoned discussion of public policy — nor one who hasn’t seen me do so. Since you started posting here you’ve presented yourself as entitled — to determine how I write my name in comments, to respect for your “arguments,” to an engagement “on substance” you haven’t earned, so easily do you prevaricate and/or rely on intentional errors of omission to set up your subsequent rhetorical thrusts. Hence the “who the fuck are you, anyway?”

    And I’ll happily repeat that. I don’t owe you my time or attention. I’ve given it to you here only to point out to others who do read me just who you are and just how you operate.

    Frankly, though, they didn’t need me to do that. The readers here are some of the smartest folks you’ll find in the blogosphere. And you haven’t managed to engage them in any way they haven’t already heard a millions time before, and answered a million times before.

    Because you are part of a hive mind. Which is great when you wish to bully by creating an impression of numbers; but it is less successful as a rhetorical stance once the single argument you all use has been so thoroughly unraveled and exposed. After which all that remains is the loud repetition of those who haven’t yet gotten the memo.

  270. I wonder how quickly Barack Obama would lose his “authentic Black” cred with progressives if he did a political 180 and decided that government giveaways aren’t constitutional? And how quickly would the attack dogs turn on Barack?

  271. Pingback: It’s Official: I’m In Love With Darleen Click « The Camp Of The Saints

  272. part of their compensation.

    This one is too dumb, and dishonest, to insult. Who is Sandra’s employer? Where do you get off placing mandates on benefits.packages? Why do you hate the 1st Amendment? When Sandra demanded free. Infra spruce coverage, and when your Hesus Barcky issued the mandate, did you not u d’état and the free component?

    The more they write, the dummerer they get.

  273. I hate iPhone spellcheck.

  274. Infra spruce coverage sounds great for the garden, JD.

  275. Jeff, have you ever done a Top Ten for Most-Commented-Upon-Blogpost? This one has been pretty good, but I don’t know if it’s Guiness-Worthy ( the book, not the beer. It’s been worth several beverages since inception).

  276. Threads here used to run routinely into the 500 hundred comments on controversial issues. But that was back pre-registration, and back when I was linked by people who now like to pretend I don’t exist.

  277. I seem to recall that Darleen’s done much bigger numbers, though her “Obama rapes Lady Liberty” ‘toon hasn’t yet made it back from the hacker scum abyss. That was a big one, tho.

    But yeah, a couple three hundred comments was typical back in the day.

  278. FWIW, PW gets linked on Memeorandum quite frequently since the hack attack.

    So there’s that.

  279. I remember that the “Obama rapes Lady Liberty” thread maxed out at about 1,792 before the server could no longer handle it.

  280. “The President’s policy respects religious liberty and makes free preventive services available to women,”

    Lies. On multiple levels. And it shows that they are trying to give away free hit, which is something theses leftist clown trolls were trying to deny/lie about.

  281. Yawn.

  282. What a fucking twatwaffle.

  283. We’ll see about all that , Stan, in a couple of weeks when the SCOTUS makes a determination.

  284. R Stanton – Where do you get the authority to mandate to the Church, what benefits packages they must offer? Where do you get off mandating that the Church violate it’s teachings for your power grab? Why do you hate the 1st Amendment? Why are you such a verbose douchenozzle?

  285. R. Stanton hates liberty, JD.

  286. Verbose haters like Stanton bugger underaged non-consensual goats.

  287. Praise God from whom all efficiently allocated Federal Tax Dollars flow, JD.

  288. If there is a cost benefit, it can be mandated?!?!

  289. The BS assumptions that form the basis of the Stanton leftist position on this are too numerous to count.

  290. I wouldn’t bother. He’ll just come back to call you a lying liar who lies.

    But use many more words to say it.

  291. If there is a construction benefit, you should not complain when we force you to violate your Church’s doctrine, while taking a shit on the 1st Amendment.

  292. Construction benefit ?! Cost benefit. Regardless, Stanton is a lying liar what lies.

  293. Just curious, if the faux-outrage set ever figured out the allusion here?

  294. “What a fucking twatwaffle.”

    “Why are you such a verbose douchenozzle?”

    “Verbose haters like Stanton bugger underaged non-consensual goats.”

    More genius from the “smartest folks you’ll find in the blogosphere.” My characterization of you people as resembling a middle school playground insults sixth graders, many of whom could come up with far more creative taunts. I apologize to twelve year olds everywhere.

  295. Dear Mr R. Stanton Scott –

    We do not care what you think.

    Yours,
    The people who really really don’t care what you think, no matter how often you strain to try to “debate” with us

    cc: virtually no one else. Because I’m sure most of them don’t care what you think, either.

  296. R Stanton – Where do you get the authority to mandate to the Church, what benefits packages they must offer? Where do you get off mandating that the Church violate it’s teachings for your power grab? Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

    Coward. When did it become worse to callnadouchenozzle a douchenozzle than it is to advocate trampling on the 1st Amendment, or being a lying liatris what tells lies, or feigning getting the vapors over salty language to try to claim some unearned faux moral high ground?

  297. What a Beta.

  298. My characterization of you people as resembling a middle school playground insults sixth graders, many of whom could come up with far more creative taunts. I apologize to twelve year olds everywhere.

    can an 11 y/o apologize for a 12 y/o?

  299. Stanton is just pissed off that no one is recognizing his sooper jeenyus and awesome arguments about the reasons we need to throw away our First Amendment rights—for the Greater Good™.

    (Right on, Ernst. Heh.)

  300. My characterization of you people as resembling a middle school playground insults sixth graders, many of whom could come up with far more creative taunts. I apologize to twelve year olds everywhere.

    Delivering an insult about creativity using a cliché joke?

    This thread is fucking wild.

  301. Shit. Stanton is fading fast. This one clearly won’t make into the annals of history. Maybe the anals, though.

  302. He’s slunk away to use his tickle-feather on himself.

  303. Does anyone care when a functional second grader starts unilaterally grading the burn sauce of a sixth grade playground? Where does the tiresome dullard find any standing to clamor for novelty, dynamism,and verve in the dueling style of his opponent? How far can the usual stale old spit balls launched from the comfy confines of a cultural bubble really take someone trying to shame people in their own home turf for defending an ideological cartoon? Your web-press bumper sticker argument dollars are no good here sir.

Leave a Reply