Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Wasn’t there a different post here moments ago?

Yes. Your point?

OUTLAW!

****
update: By the way — my sincere thanks to Michelle Malkin for allowing me the opportunity to post my piece on Hot Air today. And thanks, too, to Mark Levin for the front page link and for the kind words on his show.

If anybody knows how to capture that mention on Levin’s show, I’d appreciate it. I want to sample it and mix it into my theme song. I’ve already lined up Donald Fagen and a couple guys from Survivor to do the studio work. Which, that ain’t too shabby, if I do say so myself.

****
Brief snippet (thanks to Geoff): here

168 Replies to “Wasn’t there a different post here moments ago?”

  1. Cepik says:

    Dude,

    I am on Lortabs for pain and reading comment number . . . like 60 and then pfft. WTF?!

  2. Cepik says:

    Oh yeah,,
    OUTLAW!!

  3. blowhard says:

    Completely unrelated to same, I’m sure: some people toss out a great deal of invective, then act surprised about its inevitable return.

    OUTLAW.

  4. Jeff G. says:

    I think the post was based on a misunderstanding. I was off eating cereal and missed the thrust.

    I don’t really know this Twitter thing, but I’m beginning to think it’s out to get me.

  5. serr8d says:

    Oh. Forget the lortabs. Try one of these.

    (I was going to pass ’em out like candy anyways… )

  6. Joe says:

    Jeff, you are just being perfectly reasonable.

  7. but… but.. my comments! my beautiful, beautiful comments!

  8. Cepik says:

    serr8d,

    ok we’ll add them to the cobbler

  9. apotheosis says:

    What the hell just happened?

  10. Sdferr says:

    Good things apotheosis, good things.

  11. serr8d says:

    Let’s see…twitter happened.

  12. Cepik says:

    maggie,

    I can vouch for your comments. Something about being a caver with the twitter or something . .. maybe I can’t vouch.

  13. blowhard says:

    Jeff, you’re a reasonable man. And smarter than me.

    As a simpleton like Dan, I enjoy tweaking the passive aggressive though.

  14. it’s okay, Cepik. I’m just all about the drama lately. we’ll just agree that they were my best comments EVAR! yeah, that’s it. ;D

  15. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    What post?

  16. Cepik says:

    You got it, maggie. Best EVAH!

  17. Jeff G. says:

    Oh, I do too, blowhard. But things have gotten very testy lately, and I’m worried about my karma ledger.

  18. Patterico says:

    I was at work during the Breitbart.tv bit. Are they going to make it into a linkable/watchable standalone video?

  19. serr8d says:

    Yep. It’s there, that unwanted post, on my g00gle reader, staring back at me.

    Just like that input slot with the great googly eyes on my Twitter homepage is staring at me.

    Staring at me. Daring me to type something in there.

    One day. Mayhap.

  20. B Moe says:

    I do wish you could have saved dicentra telling them to man up, that was priceless.

  21. liberrocky says:

    Jeff,

    Testify!

    I am so happy you responded to patterico’s “when you know people will distort your meaning, you have to be extra careful to express yourself clearly.” Which is tantamount to letting the terrorist win.

  22. Sdferr says:

    Pat, link to Breitbart.

  23. serr8d says:

    Here’s the B-Cast. The lovely and gracious Liz Stephans, and that guy she insists on letting vlog with her.

  24. blowhard says:

    By the way, I seriously got a kick out of all the people saying that reading is hard.

    Hmmm, maybe we shouldn’t pick you first on the intellectual kickball team then?

  25. bains says:

    I’m thinking why don’t you keep laying out the snide oblique references…

    then I realize you shined in the real contest.

    OUTLAW,

    or just honest man…

  26. Patrick says:

    marklevinshow.com has the podcasts all mp3’d up for you, Jeff.

  27. Patterico says:

    Listening to Jeff. Sounds good. Which .mp3s are the ones where Levin mentioned him? Can we get a link?

    I can’t listen to too much Levin, sorry. I used to love watching him on Hannity and Colmes and I bought his book. But when I listen to him on the radio I find him grating. Sorry, Mark. I GOTTA SPEAK THE TRUTH!

    I do a good Mark Levin impression. Wish I could figure out how to podcast just to show it off. YA LIBS!

  28. mossberg500 says:

    Jeff, have you looked into copywriting “OUTLAW”, yet? It could be a good revenue stream, especially if you tie it in with the catch wrestling/martial arts thing. Just think…everlast, wilson,…OUTLAW! Fuck yeah!

  29. Jeff G. says:

    I can’t even figure out how to edit out and post a bit of audio. Copyright? That sounds like paperwork.

  30. Sdferr says:

    Jeez, 755 comments on that Now it’s Rush vs Newt thread at Aos and lemme tell ya, that’s some hard slogin’ right there. It was disheartening to me for the first third or so on account of the bellowing of Allah and Ace over Rush’s criticism of Newt (which I happened to hear in real time this afternoon and pretty much made perfect sense at to me) and the bellowing back of the morons and visitors who take Ace and Allah for “sell outs” or worse. The feel of the comment section was generally awful, in other words. But then an awesome thing began to happen. Many people, very many people started to show up who had obviously read Jeff’s piece today and had taken it onboard, had gotten it entire and were bringing the lumber to Ace (Allah dropped out fairly early on) and later DrewM, who both stood their ground, saying Rush is the problem, not Newt’s acquiescence to the MSM meme of Rush’s statement, etc. But the morons wouldn’t (by and large) have it. Revolt was in the air. By the time I finished reading I felt astounded by the numbers, shocked that the argument seems to have taken so firm a hold on people. Bravo, good people, well done. Keep it up.

  31. Patterico says:

    Jeff’s extemporaneous comments explain the distortion of Rush’s comments more effectively than any writing I have seen anywhere. I’ll go back and quote them in a post when I get time, but the essence of it is that it has been framed as an “ugly argument.” BOOM. That makes it clearer than anything I’ve read.

    No matter which of the various interpretations people offered in my “poll” post, we always gave Rush the benefit of the doubt to this extent: it clearly was not an “ugly argument.” Even given the most provocative reasonable interpretation possible, it’s not an “ugly argument.”

    That’s the simple point I think most of you have been trying to argue for days — and it’s one I would never contest. Yeah, maybe he’s wishing for America’s failure (in the short term) and not just Obama’s. Yes, he might want Americans out of work; one could fairly read his comment that way (as Ace did).

    But it’s not an “ugly argument.” It’s still a patriotic, pro-America argument . . . any way you slice it.

    I wish we could have identified this common ground earlier.

  32. B Moe says:

    Revolt was in the air. By the time I finished reading I felt astounded by the numbers, shocked that the argument seems to have taken so firm a hold on people.

    Just remember us little people when you are the new Mr. Snerdley, JG.

  33. blowhard says:

    Jeff, an appropriate email with noticeable subject line might get full replay without any legal issues.

    Levin loves it, give a plug, give the thanks, get the audio.

  34. B Moe says:

    Obama has gotten everything he has wanted so far. He is succeeding. And for every success, the Stock Market drops another couple hundred points. How the hell could you not want him to fail?

  35. mossberg500 says:

    Comment by Jeff G. on 3/9 @ 11:29 pm #

    I can’t even figure out how to edit out and post a bit of audio. Copyright? That sounds like paperwork.

    Alright, I’ll look into it for you. You’ll need a logo(unfortunately graphic art is not something I’m good at). I can see it now, the Goldstein Ground and Pound Sportswear line.

  36. On Watch says:

    Bullseye OUTLAW!(grins)

    Marvelous article over at HA, thanks for your input, and informative tete-a-tete with those conservative rapscallions, and oddball Republicans! Also enjoyed your articulate interview and interpretation of the issues on the B-Cast…

    -On Watch

    “Let’s Roll”

  37. blowhard says:

    You know what, I’m always giving Jeff a hard time. Telling him he’s too talented a writer to slog through this bullshit.

    But, if Levin and Malkin are catching on, fuck that noise.

    Smallprint: if someone could go ahead and pay him for this independent thinktank work, that’d be great, thanks.

  38. blowhard says:

    Cato, Heritage, c’mon. Pick up Jeff as an independent voice already. You’ve tossed money towards many less promising.

  39. Jeff G. says:

    755 comments on that? I gave up at 150 or so.

  40. Jeff G. says:

    Stop flattering me, blowhard. It makes me blush.

  41. bains says:

    Jeff, just listened to the podcast (thanks serr8d). You speak much differently than you write. Different medium, I understand. Bit of constructive criticism though. In spoken word you are as un-loquacious as your written tomes are verbose. Not that it matters here (in fact I like all the ancillary parenthetical references), but for the “low information” readers on other sites, pairing down your written word may be more productive.

    And getting a blow job just before you go on air helps in that environment – well, it helped me… the few times… ok, two times I actually got one.

  42. Sdferr says:

    They’re up to 780 now. People are engaged.

  43. well, Sdferr, you keep us updated on that… my sleepy drugs are hiting and I don’t have enough time to catch up.

  44. mossberg500 says:

    That’s a pretty good idea, blowhard. Have the “O” in “OUTLAW!” be a bullseye. And maybe the rest of the letters look as though they have bullet holes in them. It’s 2 AM here, and I’ve got to get some sleep. Great article and interview Jeff. Have a good evening all.

  45. blowhard says:

    Ehhh, there’s flattery and then there’s the hope that we’ll develop better leadership and commentary.

    That’s the rub, huh? All these various pundits talking about how to attract non strict conservatives but never delivering. Yet, wacky atheist Reason magazine reading assholes like me actually find your message attractive. Funny how honesty over posturing could be more effective.

  46. bains says:

    Jeff’s extemporaneous comments explain the distortion of Rush’s comments more effectively than any writing I have seen anywhere. I’ll go back and quote them in a post when I get time, but the essence of it is that it has been framed as an “ugly argument.” BOOM. That makes it clearer than anything I’ve read.

    A weak olive branch to offer, Patterico, but the gesture is acknowledged.

  47. Patterico says:

    “A weak olive branch to offer, Patterico, but the gesture is acknowledged.”

    It’s not an olive branch, it’s an observation. We exchanged olive branches somewhere else.

  48. Sdferr says:

    Just back from an ongoing scan of the comments at HA on the Newt v Rush. Allah too seems to be quarreling with his readers over his take on the matter vs. their take on the matter (though I recognize that Allah’s quarrels with the HA denizens do go back quite a bit further in time over a broad number of issues, so this could easily be a continuation of some of those spats for all I know), nevertheless, the in-ones-face dissent being mounted is nothing to sneeze at. Something is up, I think.

  49. George Orwell says:

    Wow. I got into a shouting match with Ace last night over defending our only weapon, language. I made my last comment on the matter as far from confrontation as I could, but Ace believes, as is his right, that no one can fairly question his judgment about the inappropriateness of the “fail” comment, period. I decided to avoid AOSHQ today, and I’m working anyway (one of the few in Obastard’s new economy). But now I read that a thread on this subject topped 700+ comments today at AOSHQ? I wonder if Ace, Gaia bless him, will ever consider that this matter is something less than non-trivial. It addresses the very core of our ability to communicate. But perhaps Ace would prefer to sit at the feet of Gingrich, a real example of someone immune to smears from the Left. Don’t even get me started.

    It’s rich that Gingrich has the temerity to lecture anyone on “rational” or appropriate varieties of political firebrands.

    I don’t know if I can help Jeff with anything graphic, but I’m pretty good with my ‘shop chops and other things. It’s sort of my day job. If you see this, Jeff, I’ll drop a line by e-mail to make myself known.

  50. Sdferr says:

    George, take a look at this comment and the sequel further down I dropped on the Pragmatism thread. I think it’s a reasonably fair summation of Ace’s running position in the Newt v Rush thread.

  51. George Orwell says:

    Hey, Sdferr…

    I DON’T GIVE A SHIT WHAT HE SAID OR WHAT HE MEANT. [Ace ‘o Spades]

    That is some plutonium-powered stupid there, that is. Holy centrifugal crap.

  52. Sdferr says:

    While startling, though, George, there is a sense in which that has been precisely the problem all along, whether Ace can figure it out or not.

  53. Joe says:

    Democrat Jim Cramer complains he was taken out of context:

    Take Frank Rich and Jon Stewart. Both seize on the urban legend that I recommended Bear Stearns the week before it collapsed, even though I was saying that I thought it could be worthless as soon as the following week. I did tell an emailer that his deposit in his account at Bear Stearns was safe, but through a clever sound bite, Stewart, and subsequently Rich — neither of whom have bothered to listen to the context of the pulled quote — pass off the notion of account safety as an out-and-out buy recommendation. The absurdity astounds me. If you called Mad Money and asked me about Citigroup, I would tell you that the common stock might be worthless, but I would never tell you to pull your money out of the bank because I was worried about its solvency. Your money is safe in Citi as I said it was in Bear. The fact that I was right rankles me even more. I never said the same thing about Lehman, where your accounts weren’t safe. I expect a skewering from the comedian Stewart. I was shocked, however, that the rigorous Rich wouldn’t investigate further and relied on the show’s truncation of the truth. After all, how many times were the pull quotes from reviews by Rich used against him when he may have been panning a play in his former role as entertainment critic?

    http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart?page=4

    Don’t question Obama and the pain will end.

  54. George Orwell says:

    Sdferr,

    Yeah, there has been a rant brewing in my mind about this, because it skirts with admirable congruency along the edges of the sensibility that says “Palin was a disaster, a gap-toothed chillbilly, we just can’t be seen with her.”

    I don’t carry a torch for Palin in particular, but much of this misdirected melodrama, which should be about our language and defending our right to use it, has instead been diverted to scratch some weird kind of itch, one that cries out “ooh, Rush is icky and I have pollsters to prove it!”

    I’m just watching liberty in its death throes, I fear. It has been terminal since the sixties.

  55. George Orwell says:

    I’ve got a whole 2 cubic centimeters of crocodile tears for Cramer. He’ll be back bootlicking before long.

  56. The Obvious says:

    George,

    No you’re watching liberty reassert itself. That’s going to make for a lot of drama. Things are just starting I think.

  57. dicentra says:

    but Ace believes, as is his right, that no one can fairly question his judgment about the inappropriateness of the “fail” comment, period.

    Ace? Ace of Spades? Head moron and foulest-mouth on the starboard side o’ the blogosphere?

    Judging something inappropriate???

    Quick, everybody, ask Ace which Star Trek character has a goatee. If he unhesitatingly says “Spock,” we know there’s been a transporter accident somewhere and we need to make an exchange.

  58. bains says:

    If that be the case, is is a stupid, and self-serving observation.

    Accepting the olive branch interpretation would have better you served.

  59. dicentra says:

    I do wish you could have saved dicentra telling them to man up, that was priceless.

    OK, I’ll just reproduce it here.

    Duudz, cowboy up ‘cuz the Internet smashes your mouth and that’s just how it is.

    Hmm.

    I think it’s lost something but oh well.

  60. Sdferr says:

    Does anybody know in which segment Levin addresses Jeff’s article?

  61. George Orwell says:

    #57
    I pray you are right. Please, please be right.
    #58
    The fact that Ace, with a blog as wonderfully scatological and rude as his, can find hectares of space to criticize someone else for being crude, unhelpful or inartful in others’ eyes, approaches an extreme I can only describe as dadaist. For a blog that prides itself on the sheer quantitative use of the word “fuck,” I don’t understand how Ace can find himself dressing the piano legs of others’ rhetoric in post-Victorian linguistic lace.

    Fuckity-fuck-fuck! As a real AOSHQ moron would say.

  62. George Orwell says:

    I heard Levin today, and perhaps I missed when he said anything about Jeff. I was working so I may have missed it. But he definitely has a link to Jeff’s piece at HotAir, at http://www.marklevinshow.com/section/notes-of-interest/

  63. Sdferr says:

    Saw that G.O., but (listening now) wanted to avoid listening to the whole thing in favor of eventual sleeping. I think I’ll just pull the slider and skip around until I find it.

  64. geoffb says:

    “I’m just watching liberty in its death throes, I fear. It has been terminal since the sixties.”

    I’ve been watching and more since then also. This is the Left, The New Left, finally thinking they have it all and so they are letting that mask of the “moderate”, the “liberal”, the kindly and gentle seeming senior politico, drop away.

    They just got a huge hit from their only true drug, power, the rush is heady. Everything seems possible and within their grasp. When the OD hits they will mistake it for nirvana, and die with a twisted smile on their face.

  65. geoffb says:

    1 hr 8 min in Sdferr.

  66. Sdferr says:

    Thanks geoffb.

  67. geoffb says:

    I haven’t seen the B-cast yet. Downloading it now, a 212 meg flv file. Watch it tomorrow. 3:36am and time for bed. Long day.

  68. George Orwell says:

    Hey geoffb, you can just listen to it, there wasn’t much to see. It was great, but audio captures it all. Just so you can get your other things done simultaneously if you like.

    This subject is like a sore tooth, you keep exploring it with your tongue, metaphorically speaking. I hope.

    It occurs to me that the position where one argues that the “fail” comment is detrimental on account of possibly putting other hearers off, rests upon proving that this in fact will happen. How can anyone prove what an unknown person in an unknown setting will make of the “fail” comment? Can one only point to “pollsters” who say that a large majority of morons support Obastard? Why should we trust those polls? Have they always been accurate? Have our opponents accepted polling as ironclad evidence when the polling ran against them? What about the poll evident on Wall Street, which these days is pretty closely linked with Main Street?

    On the other hand, the argument for the “fail” comment can be concretely affixed to the actual words in context of the person who uttered them. The intention can be strongly argued, and shown to be univocal, clear, and pointed.

    The “Ace” side of the argument has guesswork about others’ feelings as ammunition. The intentionalist side has the actual recorded text to use as ammunition.

    Something smells. Like a faltering monarchy between Sweden and Holland.

  69. Sdferr says:

    Does Rush’s intent get to play the part of the ghost, lurking about, urging the kid on? Revenge, my son, revenge.

  70. MC says:

    Mark Laaaaaa-VIN! Good news Jeff.

  71. Baghdad Dewclaw says:

    Jeff, I would love to whip you up an “OUTLAW” logo… alas, I am in Baghdad without Photoshop. I will be in Colorado for two weeks on R&R on the 18th. If you wish, I can do it then (free of charge).

    I was thinking along the lines mentioned above… with the “OUTLAW” in an old western script looking like it was made out of wood (the old Clint Eastwood movie feel to it). The idea of the “O” being a bullseye with bullet holes in the rest of lettering is AWESOME.

    Let me know what you think… greyravyn666666 at hotmail dot com.

  72. Rusty says:

    No. Just the word ‘outlaw’.Times Roman. Big O, white on black with a deep crimson target in the ‘o’. Subtle, elegant.

    I’ll work on something in AutoCad tonight and see if I can find a vinyl cutting place tomorrow.

  73. Stealth Gay Academic Conservative says:

    To elaborate on a comment I left over at Ace’s place (#13,472, I believe):

    What a commenter says:

    We shouldn’t leave unchallenged the media’s distortion of conservatives’ words.

    What Ace reads:

    Rush is god! Bow down before him, ye infidels, or face my wrath!

    ****

    But you can’t get Ace to acknowledge how far he’s strayed from the commenter’s claims, any more than you can get [insert media whore] to acknowledge how far he’s strayed from Mr Limbaugh’s.

  74. B Moe says:

    OUTLAW spray painted on the side of a building would be cool, too.

  75. B Moe says:

    Like a brick or marble wall. Something old and establishment.

  76. Pablo says:

    I don’t really know this Twitter thing, but I’m beginning to think it’s out to get me.

    Twitter is one of the Four Horsemen.

  77. Pablo says:

    Don’t question Obama and the pain will end.

    And there you have it. Fuck that.

    OUTLAW!

  78. Once again, all the good stuff happens while I’m away.

  79. Joe says:

    Pabalo: Well that is Democrat Jim Cramer, crying like a little girl yet still not getting it.

  80. LTC John says:

    “Smallprint: if someone could go ahead and pay him for this independent thinktank work, that’d be great, thanks.”

    Quite so.

    Oh, bains? Lighten up a bit, please? If Jeff and Patrick have shaken hands and forgiven all, then perhaps we could do so as well.

  81. DJ says:

    …great post on HA, Mr. Jeffy. You’re a dinosaur (I’ll leave it to you as decoder to decide whether brontosaurus or tyrannosaurus) pretty much like everyone who reads PW. Reading this site is like sitting in a tavern with Samuel Johnson, eating the fine food, drinking the fine wine (or stout) but without those nettlesome symptoms of gout. And who, I ask, still sits down with Sammy J.? Answer: Very few.

    Keep it up. Language does matters.

  82. Hawkins says:

    I’m sure Donald Fagan will throw in a few references nobody gets

  83. Sdferr says:

    Frakin John McCain’s got himself a headline in the Politico** today, “McCain: I don’t want him to fail.” Schweet!

  84. Joe says:

    Sdferr, it was actually yesterday. It is stuff like that that makes me want to slap McCain across the face and yell “Mao!”

  85. N. O'Brain says:

    “It’s not an olive branch, it’s an observation. We exchanged olive branches somewhere else.”

    So…we got pictures?

  86. Slartibartfast says:

    I liked the comment “Do you actually expect anyone to read a blog post this long? It’s a blog, not a dissertation.”

    there are simply too many notes, that’s all

  87. BJTexs says:

    #

    Comment by N. O’Brain on 3/10 @ 9:28 am #

    “It’s not an olive branch, it’s an observation. We exchanged olive branches somewhere else.”

    So…we got pictures?

    Nah! Now if they had exchanged olive oil…

    I denounce myself.

  88. Silver Whistle says:

    Sdferr, from your link, the quote is “I don’t want him to fail in his mission of restoring our economy.” The useless old putz actually thinks Obamao’s mission is restoring the economy. It’s getting harder to tell if we dodged a bullet there in Nov.

  89. RTO Trainer says:

    Jeff, I just downloaded Levin’s audio from yesterday. I’ll isolate the pertinent parts tonight.

  90. Sdferr says:

    And here, Silver Whistle, is Robert Gibbs’ portrayal of Limbaugh’s speech, from a White House press briefing, March 4, 2009 [emphasis added]:

    You know, I mean, I think he — I mean, I think it would be charitable [!] to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country. I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our endeavors overseas. You know, I’d like to think, and I think most people would like to think, that we can put aside our differences and get things done for the American people.

  91. Silver Whistle says:

    Between Republican members of the Senate, talking heads like Frum and ex-presidential candidates, there seems to be enough idiocy without Robert Gibbs adding to it.

  92. Clouseau says:

    I’ve already lined up … a couple guys from Survivor to do the studio work.

    The band, or the reality show?

    “It’s the eye of the outlaw/It’s the linguistic fight….”

  93. Matt says:

    Interesting difference when considering the “We want Obama to fail” as opposed to the “We want the Iraq war to fail”.

    If the economy made a miraculous recovery, due to something Obama did, I would be ecstatic. He can take all the credit for it he wants. But ultimately, we think Obama’s policies are misguided and will result in failure.

    In contrast, democrats specifically wanted the entire Iraq venture to fail. I naively believed that once the debate about sending the troops was had and over and the troops were sent, the country would rally behind them. After all, their our troops and they are already there. But instead, democrats wished the entire venture would fail, so Bush couldn’t take credit for a victory. Democrats did everything they possibly could to undermine the war on terror, including the Iraq war and if we left Iraq with our tail between our legs, liberals would be ecstatic, no matter how many troops we lost and how downhill Iraq went.

  94. Sdferr says:

    I’m not entirely certain SW, but I believe that Gibbs glib (and false) assertion here was the catalyst for the latest round of this controversy. That is to say, Gibbs’ assertions were intended to kick it off. And they did. Now I’d grant that in Limbaugh’s speech the preceding Sat. at CPAC (I think the press brief was a Monday) he reiterated the “I hope he fails” quote but once again made it perfectly clear that didn’t and doesn’t mean “I hope the economy fails”. But we see what Gibbs’ makes of that. And it is Gibbs’ interpretation that everyone should address, not Newt’s, not Frum’s, not Patterico’s, not Ace’s, not Allah’s, none of these. Gibbs’, the Presidential Press Secretary in a formal briefing of the press, interprets Limbaugh to say “[he’s] wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country”.

  95. Ted 360 says:

    Yeah, damn them for voting for all those spending bill and the AUMF! They did everything they could do, except withhold their votes…crafty democrats.

  96. Sdferr says:

    Oh, and that’s a “charitable” reading, according to Gibbs. Charitable too has been wrenched from any possible ordinary use, it would seem to me. But then to Gibbs, I guess, charity is akin to sticking a knife in someone’s back. For their own good, of course.

  97. George Orwell says:

    Holy crap, Joe. That must have been the Obastard Breakfast Austerity Program, set to music.

  98. Clouseau says:

    Man, that Survivor thing reminded me of this old Weird Al Yankovic parody:

    Fat and weak, what a disgrace
    Guess the champ got too lazy
    Ain’t gonna fly now, he’s just takin’ up space
    Sold his gloves, threw his eggs down the drain

    But he’s no bum, he works down the street
    He bought the neighborhood deli
    Back on his feet, now he’s choppin’ up meat
    Come inside, maybe you’ll hear him say

    Try the rye or the kaiser
    They’re our special tonight
    If you want, you can have an appetizer
    You might like our salami and the liver’s alright
    And they’d really go well with the rye or the kaiser

    Never eats while on the job
    He heard it’s good to stay hungry
    But he makes a pretty mean shish kebab
    Have a taste, they were made fresh today

    Try the rye or the kaiser
    Or the wheat or the white
    Maybe I can suggest an appetizer
    Stay away from the tuna, it smells funny tonight
    But you just can’t go wrong with the rye or the kaiser

    So today, his deli comes first
    Still he dreams of his past days of glory
    Goes in the back and beats up on the liverwurst
    All the while you can still hear him say

    It’s the rye or the kaiser
    It’s the thrill of one bite
    Let me please be your catering advisor
    If you want substitutions
    I won’t put up a fight
    You can have your roast beef on the rye or the kaiser

    The rye or the kaiser… (repeat)

    (video)

    Suggested mash-ups/musical-fusions for Msrs. Fagan and Survivor when they get together in the studio:

    “Rocky don’t lose that number”
    “Cousin Rocky”
    “Hey Rocky”

    Sorry, did Survivor have more than that one hit? I stopped listening to top-40 after high school….

  99. Silver Whistle says:

    Yes, Sdferr, that was poorly phrased by me. It wasn’t Gibb’s stupidity, it was his duplicity.

  100. Silver Whistle says:

    Clean up on aisle 100!

  101. Sdferr says:

    yowie, they’re still going at it over at AoS, up to 880 in that one thread alone. I still wonder whether something is up.

  102. George Orwell says:

    #107
    Well, it must be as Ace says. It’s just a bunch of cultists obsessing over a triviality. Let’s get back to bear attacks, chimps and lesbian pr0n!

  103. section9 says:

    Folks, if the Rush thing were working for them, they’d have continued it. They haven’t. Remember Alinsky’s rule about continuing a tactic that works? Now they are dropping it because it is distracting them and not working out: it’s congealing the Right.

    A cohesive Right is a threat to Obama’s plan.

  104. BJTexs says:

    Can someone translate Ted’s remark at #102 into coherent?

  105. Sdferr says:

    I’d like to see what would happen if that Gibbs quote happened to drop into that moshpit right about now. I suspect that most folks have no idea how twisted Gibbs’ take on Rush’s thought actually is, having now been exposed to days of mitigation in the analysis of their various favorite blogpundits.

  106. Log Cabin says:

    Sdferr,

    Yeah, I’d say something is up. Conservatives are tired of being told to watch ourselves, tread lightly, don’t give the libs ammo, etc.

    We are watching the American Dream being dismantled by a junta of America hating assholes, and we are the ones that have to watch our words? Fuck that!

    Rush has been the loudest, most consistent voice of opposition to the Obama plague from day one. Rush and his words are not the problem.

    That’s what’s up.

  107. Sdferr says:

    Your lips to God’s ears LogC, may it be so.

  108. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Ted’s back? Ted, seriously, you’re too fucking stupid to troll here. BTW, I didn’t know that Rush was a congressman? Bah, go away.

  109. George Orwell says:

    #109
    Are they dropping it? You could be right, I just hadn’t noticed. If so, will the “play nice, drop Rush” folks concede that we blunted the Left’s tactic on this small patch of ground?

    Silly me. What was I thinking?

  110. SarahW says:

    #42 Bains, A natural. And more pleasant on camera than some.

  111. Sdferr says:

    …will the “play nice, drop Rush” folks concede that we blunted the Left’s tactic on this small patch of ground?

    Not a chance I think, George. Human nature being what it is, most people just don’t care to reconsider things they “think” they’ve settled for themselves and then spent oodles of energy supporting and arguing (and calling other people names over). Nope, the same “pragmatists” who began the thread are still there maintaining their strategic vision.

  112. Sdferr says:

    Patterico on the other hand, is in the early stages of reconsidering, which, I say, more power to him. And in that, I tend to agree with LTC upthread, he doesn’t need carpers while he does it.

  113. Joe says:

    Too bad Jeff did not think of this first. Those guys at Ace’s place are soooo smart:

    Well, how you respond to bear attacks is a guide on how you should respond to criticism from the mainstream media.

    If you’re a conservative, then you can be 99.7% sure that the media is made up of Polar bears. You’re nothing more than meat to them, and they’ll keep coming until one of you is dead.

    If you’re a moderate Republican who thinks that bipartisanship is the best thing since sliced bread, then the media is a Brown bear. They’ll mess you up bad, and they might even eat you if they need a meal, but they won’t actively stalk you unless you do something to provoke them…..like running for President or voting against the Porkulus package.

    If you’re a Democrat or a liberal Republican, then the media is a Black bear. Attacks will be rare, but when they DO happen they’ll be fatal. Gov. Blago knows what a Black bear attack feels like.

    discuss amongst yourselves

    Russ schools us all.

  114. Joe says:

    I actually like Russ’ analogy, but it has a certain Biden quality to it.

  115. McGehee says:

    Can someone translate Ted’s remark at #102 into coherent?

    Here’s my best effort:

    102. (TrollHammered)

  116. Joe says:

    Ted’s comment was at #100. Time for Breakfast is at #102. No more bacon for you.

  117. George Orwell says:

    Sdferr,

    You know, I think all of us appreciate pragmatism as a tactic. It just isn’t a strategy. No one thinks the best person to, say, lead the GOP chairmanship would be a hypothetical dyed-in-the-wool Hayekian conservative, who also happened to have a conviction as a child molester and three hits for DUI. After all, diddling Junior and driving with five Johnnie Walkers under one’s belt have nothing to do with political philosophy. But Sweet Maple Sugar Jeebus on Pancakes, we had better get used to personal smears and deliberate distortion coming from the enemy, no matter whom we pick. Even if he is as squeaky clean, personally, as a Romney.

    This is why the attacks of a Frum upon Rush, about his personal life, are so pernicious. Where does David The Frump want to set the bar? I guess you cannot have a divorce, a drink, a smoke, or a nice house if you want to lead conservatives. Otherwise you’re a “poster boy of self-indulgence.” Frum, meet mirror.

  118. Ted 360 says:

    Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 3/10 @ 10:57 am #
    Ted’s back? Ted, seriously, you’re too fucking stupid to troll here. BTW, I didn’t know that Rush was a congressman? Bah, go away.

    It was for Matt at 98. As for you, infidel, I seriously doubt the “intelligence” bar set for “trolls” is higher than the one you set by writing incoherently in defense of morons.

    PW: Come for the 100 page rants about nothing, stay for the folks who call themselves funny names to avoid calling themselves libertarians or conservatives.

  119. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Imo, when Gibbs, among many, intends to be distortional, often what he is actually acknowledging is that there is something undistortional and therefore possibly very threatening, even true, about what he trying to distort.

  120. Sdferr says:

    And worse George. I awoke this morning to a story that had Frum on Hardball last night insinuating along with Matthews that RL has a race problem. Here.

  121. happyfeet says:

    Where’s Dan? He was gonna go to sleep but that was awhile ago. There are no new posts, which reminds me I’m hungry. But I brought mexican foozle with tamales mas grande what I got in the hood and it’s really authentic meaning it has many many fat grams I would imagine so I will have to be hungry for awhile yet.

    We talked about bear attacks recently. I think if I remember right you do a play dead thing just like with ostriches but it depends on the bear and the time of day and all sorts of things. Probably what cologne you’re wearing even. brb. Here was one of the ones I looked at about how not to get eatened by bears.

  122. Sdferr says:

    Looks like the bear rally is starting. I wonder how far it’ll go before folks are satisfied with a bit of profit, realize it ain’t the real thing and take ‘er back down.

  123. George Orwell says:

    Political arithmetic.

    (david frum+b. hussein obama)/political correctness=david brock

  124. BJTexs says:

    McGehee: Thank you!

  125. happyfeet says:

    Here is how not to get killed by an ostrich. This one, she clearly did not read the helpful advice. Neither did he, which is really frustrating for him I bet cause he lived 90 freaking years and then got taken out by a goddamn ostrich. Ok so you read the helpful advice so this does not happen to you.

    I guess another good tip would be if you are being attacked by an ostrich to find a bear nearby and helpfully point the bear to the tasty ostrich. Good luck.

  126. BJTexs says:

    Ted: “…all of those spending bill and AUMP…”

    Ugh, ted good write well ugh!

  127. Sdferr says:

    I’ve always been frightened of Cassowaries. Very scary claws, rip your belly open they will. Dinosaurs.

  128. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Conclusion to #125 above:

    Therefore, it is not reasonable to try to please Gibbs, et al, or the vaguely conceived “Public”, who Gibbs is also talking to, by modifying our language. QED concerning what Jeff G. said initially about this issue.

  129. Matt says:

    *Yeah, damn them for voting for all those spending bill and the AUMF! They did everything they could do, except withhold their votes…crafty democrats.*

    I’d respond but I’m not really sure what your point is. My point, which I thought was clear, was democrats wanted the Iraq war to fail and only by it failing could their agenda succeed. Conservatives do not want the economy to fail and if it comes down to Obama getting credit for fixing it or the economy tanking completely, we’ll take Obama getting the credit for it.

  130. Jeff G. says:

    Or in Ted’s case, don’t stay at all.

    Bye, Ted!

  131. BJTexs says:

    Matt don’t bother with Ted, he’s apparently forgotten to take his meds again.

    And as a postscript: not only were some prominent Democrat politicians calling for the war to failure, they were already declaring it failed!!

    Does Harry “Wow, I’m a Twathead” Reid ring a bell?

  132. Sdferr says:

    BJTexs, I think I remember Mrs Pelosi wanting a part of that “failed” action as well. Oh, and could the so called surge work, Democrats? “OH, HELLS NO IT CAN’T!!”

  133. happyfeet says:

    I had to google. Here is a video of a cassowary attack I can’t watch cause youtoobs are NOT ALLOWED.

    Here is a lady what is either stupid or frozen in terror. Cause they are terrifying might could be why. They’re really kinda beautiful though. That one is a male with his babies I think. Here is a video of cassowary babies. What I can’t watch.

    I’m hungry.

  134. mojo says:

    “Perhaps your Majesty might be so kind as to suggest which notes ought to be removed?”
    — Amadeus

  135. Sdferr says:

    Cute dinosaur chicks.

  136. happyfeet says:

    Definitely what you should know is if a cassowary attacks you, it’s not the same as like how an ostrich does it where you’re supposed to lie face down and cover your head while the ostrich does a little ostrich dance on you and then goes away. Ostriches have trouble kicking things what are on the ground is why. Cassowaries will mess you up bad if they catch you on the ground though.

    Attacking cassowaries charge and kick, sometimes jumping on top of the victim. Unlike emus, which reputedly kick backwards, cassowaries can kick in a forward and downward direction. They may also peck, barge or head-butt. The commonest injuries they cause in humans are puncture wounds, lacerations and bone fractures. Serious injuries resulting from cassowary attacks are most likely to occur if the person is crouching or is lying or has fallen on the ground. When confronted with a charging cassowary it is clearly unwise to crouch or turn one’s back on the bird.*

  137. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Yummm, Bear attacks: could depend upon “Probably what cologne you’re wearing even.”

    I was in Glacier once, and everyone on the trail was very worried about Grizzley attacks, including me. But the gift shops were chock full of Huckleberry this and Huckleberry that, soap, jam, cookies, candles, other sents, etc.. Well, what do they think Bears like to eat? Of course, they did sell the all-protective Bear Bells, which were supposed to tell the Bears to leave immediately if they heard them coming.

    Old helpful hint when in Bear country, always go with someone who can’t run as fast as you can.

  138. Silver Whistle says:

    Bears, cassawaries, ostriches, transgendered trolls or mendoucheous White House mouthpieces – all you need is one of these.

  139. BJTexs says:

    Yes and who could forget Harry “Inane Blathering” Reid declaring the surge a failure before the troops had even been deployed!

    But hey! Dems voted for the AUMF’s so everything was just peachy! Rush Limbaugh? RACIST, PILL POPPING HO-MONGER WHO WANTS AMERICANS TO STARVE!!11ELEVENTY11!!1

  140. Slartibartfast says:

    Cryptonomicon featured a cassowary attack on a Japanese soldier, IIRC. The soldier did not fare well. Actually, the soldier did a farewell.

  141. Slartibartfast says:

    Re: the scienceblog article, I wanted to comment something like Yes, but how do they taste?

  142. Did someone say Photoshop? Where are the parameters for this Outlaw logo? I’ve got just the thing for that in mind and I want to take a stab at it.

    Outlaw!

  143. happyfeet says:

    Should I read Cryptonomicon? His stuff has gotten to be sort of a slog.

  144. N. O'Brain says:

    “I’m hungry”

    Order a cassowary drumstick meal at KFC.

  145. N. O'Brain says:

    “When you find yourself in the company of a halfling and an ill-tempered Dragon, remember, you do not have to outrun the Dragon, you just have to outrun the halfling.”

    -thinkgeek.com

  146. George Orwell says:

    #148
    Go, geek, go. I already sent a few ideas to Jeff.

  147. McGehee says:

    Of course, they did sell the all-protective Bear Bells

    See also, “How to tell if a pile of bear dung was left by a black bear or a grizzly.”

  148. geoffb says:

    “Should I read Cryptonomicon? “

    Yes. It is a fairly hefty book but, like Jeff’s writings, it contains the words it needs and tells a ripping good story too.

  149. B Moe says:

    Ostriches are pretty big goomers, but I believe if a feller got a hold of one of them cassowaries by the neck the fight might not turn out so good for the bird. Bears I try to avoid.

  150. Joe says:

    https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14495 Post 119, 11:05. I call you a Biden at Post 120 Russ, 11:07.

  151. Slartibartfast says:

    “I believe if a feller got a hold of one of them cassowaries by the neck the fight might not turn out so good for the bird”

    Sure, if you broke their neck before they got a kick in. Otherwise, you’ve just given them something a bit more solid to kick against.

  152. David Palmer says:

    It’s Donald Fagen, dumbass, not Fagan.

    You’d think a genius like you would know that.

  153. B Moe says:

    Wow, David. You really know how to hurt a guy, huh?

  154. Dan Collins says:

    Who is this David Palmar?

  155. ThomasD says:

    Who is this David Palmar?

    He’s the metallic dildo that Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote about.

  156. JJ says:

    Jeff! So good at Hotair. Just got to it. Boooyah.

  157. Jeff G. says:

    Cryptonomicon is a fantastic novel. Do read it. I’m reading Against the Day now. So far, so Pynchon.

  158. Slartibartfast says:

    Cryptonomicon is a fantastic novel.

    All of a sudden, I’m feeling validated. I’ve been telling people that Cryptonomicon is teh bomb for years.

  159. Dan Collins says:

    ThomasD, I say keep that thing away from the Tarzone.

  160. Spiny Norman says:

    So which one of the banned rodents is leaving troll spoor at HA, thor the drunked idiot or Snippy the Pinhead?

  161. Spiny Norman says:

    Nevermind. I scrolled up. Nishit.

  162. Demosophist says:

    Well, he could learn from failure, change his ideology, and then win. Others have done it, like Nixon and TR. I agreed with every word of the post except for that business about pragmatic Idealism. Thats sort of like having one drink for your health and expecting to get high. One makes you healthy, but it’s not enough to have any fun. Which is the problem with a lot of cool things that are good for you in moderation. So what’s the incentive to imbibe moderately, as opposed to a couple of healthy snorts of Cayenne in the morning?

Comments are closed.