Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

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

Archives

“Fred Thompson tells CNN he wants Obama’s policies to fail”

Now that’s just, well … not very helpful, Fred.

Shame on you.

*

****
(h/t Mary Louise, who has her own thoughts)

****
update: If this doesn’t stop soon, part of the right wing blogosphere is going to stroke out… THE MIDDLE! AIM FOR THE FUCKING MIDDLE!

****
update 2: Really, dude. Cut your losses. You’re embarrassing yourself.*

****
update 3: From Dan, in the comments:

[Obama] wants to take my money and leave my children in debt and make them do mandatory voluntary service, and socialize the health care system, and weaken the military, and grow the size of government, and make it more intrusive, and take away our guns, and ghettoize religion, and force physicians and pharmacists to either do things they believe to be unethical or give up practicing as part of the socialization of medicine, and make injured military pay for their treatments, and make our children wards of the state, and destroy our economy with his cap and trade schemes, and lots of other pernicious shit, but I really wish him all success apart from all that stuff.

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Though a bit wordy. Precision, Dan. That’s all we’re really asking.

288 Replies to ““Fred Thompson tells CNN he wants Obama’s policies to fail””

  1. Big D says:

    Too early to draft Fred? Maybe he could rest up and be ready to campaign.

  2. Jeff G. says:

    How long before Patrick Frey claims Fred’s issued a death threat?

    Because he has no honor, Patrick Frey doesn’t. In my opinion.

  3. dicentra says:

    Yes, well, maybe if we could get the other worthless repubs to say it all in unison, it would lose its shock value and start making sense.

  4. router says:

    andrew breightbart decrying the use of language on hannity. jeff your message is getting through.

  5. Two Dogs says:

    I am not actually certain, because we don’t have a ruling yet, but Jeff’s comment of “no honor” might be misinterpreted as a threat of violence or quite possibly of death.

  6. Ella says:

    I think Fred was talking about a lynching. He’s a racist and a death threat maker.

    That’s my interpretation.

  7. cranky-d says:

    Fred said he wants Obama to fail, just like Rush. That means Fred is a horrible person. Perhaps he’ll end up being the Worst Person in the World at some point.

    Is Fred the head of the Republican party this week? We need to ask a Journalist. They know everything.

  8. Jeff G. says:

    Yes, Fred mentioned Obama’s policies in the context of his remarks, and he explained what he meant, but the Tennesean went with the “Fred Thompson tells CNN he wants Obama’s policies to fail”.

    Maybe if he’d have been clearer, and said something like “I hope Obama DOESN’T fail,” he wouldn’t sound so very unhelpful.

    I know, let’s take a poll!

  9. Big D says:

    Is Fred the head of the Republican party this week?

    We could do worse.

  10. JournoList says:

    Have you forgotten? He tires easily and his wife is large-chested.

  11. David R. Block says:

    #10. That last point is a plus.

  12. cranky-d says:

    All that matters for a Republican is that you never, ever, say anything that looks bad when taken out of context. That way, you won’t make other Republicans look bad. Of course, if you say much more than, “Hello” you’re screwed, and even then they will find a way to make you look bad.

    If you’re a Democrat, you can say whatever you damn well please. That’s the way it is, and we had better get used to it.

    That’s what my betters are telling me, anyway. I’m just another idiot in flyover country, so what to I know?

  13. JournoList says:

    Sorry, I meant to say, “Large-chested like an illiterate German peasant girl. Possibly a Nazi.”

  14. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Of course, if you say much more than, “Hello” you’re screwed

    Nice codewords, Xtian racist.

    Hell + O = expressing a desire for Obama to go to Hell.

  15. The Monster says:

    That way, you won’t make other Republicans look bad. Of course, if you say much more than, “Hello” you’re screwed, and even then they will find a way to make you look bad.

    By saying “Hello”, you’re typical of those godbothering Christers telling people they’re going to Hell if they don’t believe in Jesus. You’re just like Ann Coulter wanting to perfect Jews, which of course is cultural genocide. HATER!!!!

    How’d I do?

  16. Jeff G. says:

    Hello spelled backwards is olleh, who is a demon. And if he isn’t he should be, and anyway, we knew what you meant by it.

  17. blowhard. says:

    Hello is plainly sexist. I go with s/hello.

  18. Big D says:

    Hell + O = expressing a desire for Obama to go to Hell.

    Golden!

    BTW Spies, could you toss me the link for trollhammer? I have a new laptop and need to install. Haven’t needed it in the last couple of weeks, but do now. Thanks.

  19. cranky-d says:

    You guys are awesome.

  20. dicentra says:

    Jeff, it looks like you might need to straighten out one Big Green Lizard.

    The bizarre GOP talking point of the day is that there’s nothing wrong with wanting Barack Obama to fail.

    This is so wrong-headed I don’t even know where to start.

    Criticize him, show where he’s wrong, point out the flaws in his policies, even mock the guy for his reliance on a teleprompter. I’m no fan of Barack Obama, as a look through our archives will clearly demonstrate.

    But when you say you want him to FAIL, even if you try to qualify it by saying “if his policies hurt America I want him to fail,” you are alienating and losing the support of the vast middle, who do NOT want any American president to fail.

    The FAIL here is on the GOP side, and they’re doubling down on it. Creationist governor Bobby Jindal came out last night defending this crap, and now Fred Thompson is doing it too.

    I didn’t spend the last eight years denouncing the Democrats for wanting President Bush to fail, just to turn around and do the same thing to Barack Obama.

    The Republican Party is in reactionary denial mode, refusing to look at the real problems that cost them the last two major elections.

    The post is new, the thread is young. I just might jump in.

  21. Seth says:

    I said it before and I’ll say it again: I believe this president, if he remains intent on persuing a radical reshaping of the nation in line with far-left values not shared by even many of the people who voted for him, will turn out to be perhaps the most divisive figure in American politics for at least the last 100 years…if not longer.

  22. cranky-d says:

    LGF is a cesspool these days, or so I’ve heard. Good luck.

  23. Patrick Frey's Honor says:

    Hey Jeff, been awhile.

    I see you haven’t mentioned me like you promised in the last few posts.

    Don’t worry, I’ll be around.

  24. cranky-d says:

    Obama is doing great things for the firearms and ammunition industries, so there’s that.

  25. cranky-d says:

    PFH can’t read too well.

  26. Ira says:

    I cannot imagine that Fred Thompson would have run as crappy a campaign as pro-wrestling-good-guy-who-loses-but-without-his-bad-guy-opponent-who-cheats-accusing-him-of-cheating McCain did. And a long look at the comments on the CNN page once again shows that lefties cannot get a quote straight if getting it wrong goes to prove what they think. And Jeff, stop fighting with other right-wingers, unless you want another four years of House Squeeker Nancy Pelosi and Senate idiot-in-chief Reid. That goes for you, too, Deb S.

  27. Patrick Frey's Honor says:

    Hey, have you guys seen Patrick Frey around? We got split up awhile ago and I can’t seem to find him again.

  28. BumperStickerist says:

    Somebody tell Charles at LGF to toss some specifics into the whole “Want him to succeed …” bit.

    e.g. I want Obama to succeed in his plan to ______________

    1 – promote bicycle safety by requiring registrations and inspection fees, mandatory helmets, wrist and elbow guards, and strict enforcement of all traffic codes relating to bicycles.

    et cetera.

  29. Patrick Frey's Honor says:

    Who the fuck are you? I’m the real Patrick Frey’s honor.

    You are a fucking imposter.

    Don’t make me “bring the tree” (IYYKWIMAITYD)

    Now, off to watch the circle jerk that is my comment section carefully debate only about things that I can understand.

  30. Abe Froman says:

    LGF gives me the creeps. I’m almost embarrassed that I ever registered there even though I’ve never posted.

  31. router says:

    The FAIL here is on the GOP side, and they’re doubling down on it. Creationist governor Bobby Jindal came out last night defending this crap, and now Fred Thompson is doing it too.

    oh good the creationist gay marriage blogger

  32. Patrick Frey's Honor says:

    I can read just fine, cranky.

    It’s hypocrisy I have a problem with.

  33. Mary Louise says:

    Until recently, I hadn’t listened to Rush for over a decade.

    But when Colin Powell called Rush out, my sense of loyalty towards him became aroused. I think of him as family, and I resented how he was being maligned. It was so cheap.

    It’s good to seem him win like this, especially following the circling vultures.

    I really don’t give a whit about polls. Like Fred said, both sides are afraid to level with the American people, and polls are a huge impediment here.

    That said, Republicans are now tied in the congressional ballot w/democrats, with independents favoring them by 14%. So, whether they want to or not, or mean to or not, they’re not longing for Obama to succeed either.

    It’s so very nice.

  34. Joe says:

    Hey Fred, you aren’t being very helpful. You better get a lesson in civility from Patterico or David Frum.

  35. Abe Froman says:

    [i]oh good the creationist gay marriage [b]Euro-fascist rooter outer[/b] blogger[/i]

    FTFY

  36. Joe says:

    Funny how Fred used to play a D.A. on TV. Does that give him a professional courtesy pass?

  37. cranky-d says:

    PFH, you were mentioned at #2, above. So don’t feel too bad, you have not been forgotten, at least here.

  38. fwiw – I have a liberal friend who has three dogs. I mentioned that I had a fool-proof way to “fix” the problem of hungry children in the United States: a 20-50% tax on all luxury pet care and all pet health services that aren’t 1) spaying or neutering and 2) preventive health care.

    All dog food that’s more than $2 a can gets whacked with a 50 cent a can tax. Cat food, the same.

    Pet hotels? 50% luxury tax.
    Pet chiropractic? 50% luxury tax
    Neuticles? 50% luxury tax

    I think the tax on Paris Hilton’s rat-dog alone would pay for half of the children’s lunches in Barstow. Add up all the revenue from people who can’t stop feeding their precious/schmecious only the best cat food and *BAM* problem solved.

    My friend hated the idea – because 1) he couldn’t find anything wrong with it, other than the fact that he would have to pay for it and I wouldn’t and 2) because it would likely work.

    At which point I called him an idiot because the market should decide all this … but, eh, nevermind.

    .

  39. Abe Froman says:

    Oops, I give up on trying to bold/italicize shit.

  40. router says:

    please don’t abuse the frumpy. he bowls better than O!

  41. Jeff G. says:

    And Jeff, stop fighting with other right-wingers, unless you want another four years of House Squeeker Nancy Pelosi and Senate idiot-in-chief Reid. That goes for you, too, Deb S.

    Sorry, Ira. But I “fought” with right wingers over precisely this kind of thing.

    I like that we’re starting to get into fight back mode. The idea that we can’t criticize Obama at the same time we criticize a GOP establishment that is afraid to fight the progressives forcefully is silly: godbotherers are excellent at multitasking. I mean, having all them children and still finding time for prayer and keeping a tidy house…?

    And it’s like Charles missed this debate completely the first time around.

    Just go link my Rush posts in his comments. He hasn’t answered my emails since he became a PJM bigshot, so I don’t have much of a desire to talk to the guy, nor he me.

    Still, we’re watching the rightosphere stake out positions here. And it’s clarifying.

  42. Patrick Frey's Honor says:

    (looks up) Sorry Jeff. I must have missed the shout out you gave me up there.

    I’ve had a loooonngg day of defending myself.

    BTW, has anyone seen SEK? my balls don’t suck themselves, you know.

  43. Rusty says:

    Comment by cranky-d on 3/25 @ 8:07 pm #

    You guys are awesome.

    Was that a death threat? Yes. Definately a death threat.

  44. Joe says:

    My Fred for President sticker is still on my SUV. And no daleycocks, I was not a Paulistinian, although compared to Obama, Paul would not be half bad.

  45. easyliving1 says:

    #5

    Very slick, you almost got away with it, and and some sites you just mit have.

  46. Meghan McCain says:

    Conservatism is so, like, mean. The only person I ever wanted to fail was that mean girl on American Idol.

    Btw, read my twitter page!

  47. Sdferr says:

    You did ok Abe, just replace your [ with <.

  48. router says:

    will O! tax the methane emissions from Andy nd Chuck?

  49. Joe says:

    Nuance

    See Rush was bad but Fred is good. You all just do not have enough of that sublime nuance to get the difference. Perhaps Patterico should listen to Mark Levin tonight. He explains in no uncertain terms why the battle for language is critical in this fight.

    Really, as commentators go, Patterico generally is middling. But his character over this issue shows a dark twisted side that is rather frightening.

  50. router says:

    you go fat grrl

  51. Sdferr says:

    So Meghan, who sent you?

  52. Meghan McCain says:

    Who sent me? I have this site bookmarked. This is the People magazine website, right?

  53. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Sure, Big D. It’s here.

  54. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    “Still, we’re watching the rightosphere stake out positions here. And it’s clarifying.”

    Yes, it is. LGF is a freakshow, to be sure. Charles hates him the godbotherers, hence the “creationist governor” bit. And besides, have you seen that guy? Jeez, get me a double mocha frappa latte chino with whipped cream and stfu, charles.

  55. Hypothetically, if Fred calls his dog by shouting “come here, bitch…”

  56. Big D says:

    Thanks, Spies. I don’t use it too often, but there is one particular commenter that recently resurfaced.

  57. pdbuttons says:

    never speak dissent
    when u can nod dissent
    never nod dissent
    when u can wink dissent

  58. Andy says:

    Creationist governor Bobby Jindal

    Charles just can’t shake that obsession, can he?

    But on the other hand, if that whole blogging thing craters, he does appear well qualified to work for the AP. He has the style down pat.

    And, yes, this comment contains a death threat against someone or something somehow at some time. Maybe.

  59. happyfeet says:

    If Baracky fails can I have his teleprompter thingy? Just until I can nail down a promotion at work and then someone else can borrow it.

  60. Jeff G. says:

    WOW!

    Gabriel Malor, commenting on DPUD:

    See, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Jeff cries about being banned and his followers repeat it endlessly, even though it turned out he hadn’t been banned at all.

    It’s simply impossible to have a conversation with him because he persists in making bad faith accusations.

    And what bad faith accusations would those be, Gabe?

    I’m beginning to think classical liberalism would be best served by taking all the lawyers out to the woodshed and giving them a nice spanking.

    Without oil.

    THREATOFVIOLENCEOHNOESOUTLAW!

  61. cranky-d says:

    Hating the godbotherers is not a good overall strategy for Republicans.

    I’m sure there was a death threat in that sentence, you just have to suss it out. Or maybe that last sentence. Or that other sentence.

    Look, just rearrange the letters however you want to.

  62. router says:

    if teleprompter jesus fails in the next 4 months we are f@@ked

  63. router says:

    taking all the lawyers out to the woodshed and giving them a nice spanking.

    ain’t they the clowns destroying language?

  64. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Of course, all of you who support Jindal and Thompson are members of a hateful and wretched cult whose only purpose is the stoning of heretics. And we should know all about cults seeking heretics, shouldn’t we?

  65. JHoward says:

    Funny, Charles has the same problem Frey does: Neither know why they’re conservatives, making claims as to their conservatism suspect.

    Sorry boys. Monkeys and trials are no way to go through life.

  66. Big D says:

    Looks like you are coming out on top on that one, Jeff. Maybe you should do a poll?

  67. mcgruder says:

    I would think that Charles, who is a legitimately important blogger, would focus some of his pro-reason, pro-science stuff on basic cable tv, since mine is stuffed with things like ghost hunters and UFO hunters and things that fox mulder would think is a useful application of time and resources.

    Instead, he seems on putting all of the religious right against a wall. Im no fan of the religious right, not at all, but they shot their bolt around ’92, maybe ’96 the latest and now exist as an electoral force on reruns of the West Wing and in the imaginations of Democratic pollsters and bloggers.

    Charles doesnt seem to get that the GOP loses elections because they dont act like the Goldwater-Reagan GOP. Reagan was 2/3 mile farther to the right than GWB and he ran the table. Also, we launched two wars that are/were, to varying degrees, disasters. We got semi-serious about one and maybe might start doing the same on the other, but then, with Obama as POTUS, maybe not.

  68. Andy says:

    Gabe’s latest post at AoS is “Flipping “the Bird” is Constitutionally Protected Speech.” Fitting and timely.

  69. JHoward says:

    And Malor is as wrong on a lot of stuff as daleyrocks — get either going on about money and watch the acres of denial.

    Let it go, these lawyers. Everything’s going to be just fine, can’t we all get along, can I bill for that, etc.

  70. blowhard says:

    Well, if Gabe is against you, it’s now logically impossible for you to be wrong.

    So, you got that going for you. Just like the Pope, infallible.

  71. Sdferr says:

    Is there dishonesty in the world? Is there a lawyer still breathing?

  72. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    And we are especially sensitive to the idea that all those who might agree with Thompson or Jindal or Limbaugh are cult members since none of us have written an original sentence in our lives, or had an original thought.

  73. Andy says:

    Hey, take it easy on Malor. You just never know when you might need a 14,000-word treatise on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

  74. Joe says:

    Jeff this is the doubleplusundead quote that matters:

    As you follow the argument, you’ll notice that Patterico has offered up all kinds of different scenarios and arguments in an effort to try to make a dent in Jeff’s arguments regarding language, to no avail. Jeff hasn’t had to make any adjustments in his argument, just simply applying his argument to the various scenarios laid out by Patterico (until it became an exercise in futility). That isn’t to say we don’t need good tacticians, we need both, but the overall strategy has to take precedent.

    As for Gabe, get your head out of Pattterico’s ass. Patterico confirmed he banned Jeff. He banned him for what he perceived as a deathtreat and the next day he admitted it might not be a death threat but the ban stays. Whatever. That is how the Daily Kos operates.

  75. blowhard says:

    LMAO, Andy.

  76. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Just saw Jeff’s latest link to Patterico. I would call that an unconditional surrender. So, all you cult members are all right by us now! Please don’t embarrass us any more.

  77. TmjUtah says:

    I don’t want Barak Obama to turn my country into a workers’ paradise.

    Is that too much to ask?

    Oh, and if you say “no honor” so fast it becomes “nohonor” the phrase becomes a subliminal bastardization of the first half of the taunt “neener neener”. Such a taunts is devastating to self esteem, so watch yourselves.

    I understand that the New Improved Campaign Finance Reform Reform Bill or the Executive Order or Obscure FEMA Rule Change will address such abuse at length.

    Just watch it. Because you will be watched.

  78. Spiny Norman says:

    #68 mcgruder,

    Charles doesnt seem to get that the GOP loses elections because they dont act like the Goldwater-Reagan GOP. Reagan was 2/3 mile farther to the right than GWB and he ran the table.

    Without having to pander to the Religious Right either, to be honest. Reagan didn’t need to because he was clearly a leader and they hitched their boat to him. The GOP since Reagan (and especially since 1996) seems dead set on pandering – as in “Democrat-Lite”.

    Running on “Compassionate Conservatism” aka “We’re like the Democrats, but we’ll do it cheaper” is a recipe for failure. Bush only squeeked by in 2000 because Gore was as inspiring as a telephone poll, and in 2004 because Senator Lurch was obviously a disaster waiting to happen.

  79. Jeff G. says:

    Patrick’s post on Thompson is embarrassing. “You see? THIS is what I’ve been saying! So, like, I’m an OUTLAW TOO! Only, you know, the better, more carefuller kind! CHARGE!”

    I suppose a “reasonable” person can’t take wishing the failure of the policies that define Obama’s agenda as wishing Obama fails.

    These “moderates” we need to appeal to seem to move from very dumb to very capable of intricate distinctions — depending on how Patrick Frey needs them to act as cutouts in his arguments.

    Not very real world, that.

  80. You just never know when you might need a 14,000-word treatise on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

    Heh, he took so much friggin’ abuse for that. I think he had only recently started when he started posting that.

    In any case, Gabe may be thinking of the comment that was deleted or whatever earlier, he may be out of loop on the whole banning thing, but obviously I can’t speak for him, so I could be wrong.

  81. Spiny Norman says:

    re: #79

    Boat = wagon, actually (damned mixed metaphors)

    poll = pole (geez)

    I think I need another Scotch…

  82. blowhard says:

    Did I just read that PP post correctly. He just referred to manning the barricades. Like in the French Revolution. Like in a direct call for a Robespierrian Reign of Terror.

    Robespierrian Reign of Terror Threat!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  83. geoffb says:

    What the heck is Malor talking about. Did Patrick F. do a “double secret unbanning”?

  84. RIP Ford says:

    “Patrick’s post on Thompson is embarrassing. “You see? THIS is what I’ve been saying!””

    And when the left absolutely lays into Thompson for these well chosen words anyway what will become of Patterico’s point?

  85. Jeff G. says:

    In any case, Gabe may be thinking of the comment that was deleted or whatever earlier, he may be out of loop on the whole banning thing, but obviously I can’t speak for him, so I could be wrong.

    Maybe he should get his shit straight before he goes off saying I acted in bad faith.

    I apologized for claiming my comment was removed on purpose. But it was removed, and given that it had links that militated against the argument of the post itself — and given that it called Patterico insane — I thought it likely he took it down.

    When he said he didn’t, I accepted that. And I apologized twice for it.

    Whole lot of good that did me.

  86. Spiny Norman says:

    #84 geoffb

    What the heck is Malor talking about. Did Patrick F. do a “double secret unbanning”?

    Who knows, maybe he did.

    See? Goldstein is NOT banned. So there!

  87. blowhard says:

    You can all go to hell, I thought my “Robespierrian Reign of Terror” crack was hilarious.

    Which I will now note in my diary. In pen.

  88. Zimriel says:

    I think I posted too many links, and my post got eaten. (Or, “eated”, as Charles might snark.)

    But that post pointed out that Infowars / Alex Jones are featured from Gateway Pundit to FOX, that Steve Sailer is posting about the zionist Lobby, that Derb and Razib and RS McCain all have articles on Taki’s mag, that Ron Paul supporters and Birth-Certificate truthers are demonstrating at Tea Parties, that RS McCain is downplaying Senator McCarthy, that a whole slew of bloggers are taking the side of European far-right groups with heavy ties to old-school fascism, that Ben Stein made a whole “documentary” lying about oppression of creationists, that Rush Limbaugh plugged Stein’s movie and slandered biologists as bigots (“not big tent people”).

    In short, Charles believes that the right wing in this country has gone insane, and that it has to stop before (1) we become a one-party state, like Mexico under the PRI at best or (2) we have armed attacks by reactionary lunatics in the mountains (you really want to see “wolverines!” graffiti near you?) or (3) both.

    You want to fight. That’s fine. But the allies you pick are important too. You’re better off with Charles in your corner, than with McCain or Gellar. Or Alex Jones.

  89. cranky-d says:

    @89 I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  90. Jeff G. says:

    And when the left absolutely lays into Thompson for these well chosen words anyway what will become of Patterico’s point?

    That because Fred added policies in between the four words — and Rush only made that clear if one widens the context out a few more sentences — he articulated the thought better than Rush did, and for that, Patterico will defend him UNTO DEATH!

    Because we shouldn’t demand the media portray meaning accurately. That’s asking a bit too much. But asking Fred to add the extra modifier, having had the luxury of seeing how Limbaugh’s meaning was twisted? That’s how you DO IT, baby!

  91. Maybe he should get his shit straight before he goes off saying I acted in bad faith.

    I apologized for claiming my comment was removed on purpose. But it was removed, and given that it had links that militated against the argument of the post itself — and given that it called Patterico insane — I thought it likely he took it down.

    Well, maybe if Gabe sees he was thinking of the wrong thing he’ll apologize.

  92. router says:

    You’re better off with Charles in your corner

    for what bicycle commentary?

  93. geoffb says:

    Ditto, if that’s not too rushed.

  94. geoffb says:

    94 for 90

  95. Spiny Norman says:

    Because we shouldn’t demand the media portray meaning accurately. That’s asking a bit too much. But asking Fred to add the extra modifier, having had the luxury of seeing how Limbaugh’s meaning was twisted? That’s how you DO IT, baby!

    Money for nothing’ and chicks for free…

  96. Spiny Norman says:

    I even managed to screw that one up…

  97. Patrick Frey's Honor says:

    “I apologized for claiming my comment was removed on purpose. But it was removed, and given that it had links that militated against the argument of the post itself — and given that it called Patterico insane — I thought it likely he took it down.

    When he said he didn’t, I accepted that. And I apologized twice for it.

    Whole lot of good that did me.”

    If I was still around, none of this shit would have happened.

    Oh well, bygones and such….

  98. Zimriel says:

    @90, thanks for the snark. Now, get me that juicebox.

    And make sure that box comes from the BOTTOM of the fridge this time; because cool air sinks, and I want it extra cool, so that it gets damp along the sides.

  99. dicentra says:

    *whew*

    I think my work is done there. Took on Charles himself. Stopped when he returned a brilliant riposte. And then started up again. Foolish me.

    Prolly didn’t change any minds but I linked Jeff’s Hot Air post for good measure.

    MAN, those threads hit 500+ fast, don’t they?

  100. Jeff G. says:

    I agree you need to pick your allies carefully. But Charles is so busy insulting the religious that he’s losing many of the non-religious who don’t particularly care for the arrogance that comes with tearing into those whose faith is not being foisted upon us by way of legislation.

    I have no problem with him going after folks like Sailer — I debated him myself a long time back (under race, on my greatest hits) — or some of the others you mention.

    It’s a fact of life that the fringe will often connect itself to an idea or policy for reasons that the majority of those who support the policy don’t believe in. Doesn’t mean, for instance, the we shouldn’t enforce our own immigration laws just because Neo Nazis agree.

  101. Darleen says:

    Hey dicentra, this is what I just posted at LGF (

    Jaysus H. Keerist, people, stop conceding language to the Left.

    As the late William F Buckley pointed out, someone can proclaim “Pushing grandma is evil and wrong” until you point out there is a world of difference between Pushing Grandma into the path of a bus and out of the path of a bus.

    The Left wanted Bush to fail in WINNING a war. They wanted American troops humiliated, killed, wounded, on trial in a World Court for War Crimes. The Left wanted (wants) American to fail — the essense of America, the values of America.

    Limbaugh, Jindal, Thompson recognize that Obama’s radical agenda will cause America to cease AS America. Unless Obama is forced to change, NOT wanting him to fail is the same as allowing grandma to remain standing in the path of an on rushing bus.

    Find your balls, conservatives.

  102. happyfeet says:

    This would be more fun if our little country wasn’t being gutted like a trout I think. You really have to wonder what the narwhal thinks about all this.

  103. blowhard says:

    dicentra, I hope you used falo ambulante at least once.

  104. router says:

    But Charles is so busy insulting the religious that he’s losing many of

    f88K charles and the bike he rode. andysullivanlite.

  105. Spiny Norman says:

    Oh, that was excellent, Darleen.

  106. dicentra says:

    dicentra, I hope you used falo ambulante at least once.

    LOL! Sorry, there wasn’t a call for one.

    Look, I really dig Charles, even though I think he’s dead wrong on this and on his crusade against creationism (even though I don’t support teaching creationism or ID in the schools). He’s introduced me to some really great guitarists through his music posts (Tommy Emmanuel, Doug Ross, some french-sounding guy) and his latest Metheney reminded me that I didn’t have Still Life Talking on MP3.

    So I’m not interested in bashing him personally. He’s a stand-up guy but not a conservative (by his own admission). So we shouldn’t expect him to tout conservative ideals all the time.

  107. Sdferr says:

    disguised regular has Pat right earlier today when he notes that Pat is stuck with a dullish and plodding brain, not given to easy passage through image and metaphor. It gets him in trouble sometimes. It prevents him from seeing plain things before his eyes at others. A great deal of his problem, if problem it is (and the root of problem is “fence/barrier”) isn’t really of his doing in the sense that he just lacks that capacity. On the other hand, he ought to be aware of it by now.

  108. dicentra says:

    Oh, and thanks Darleen for the support.

    Don’t know how many converts you/we made, but hey, the discussion is always worth it.

  109. RTO Trainer says:

    Also, we launched two wars that are/were, to varying degrees, disasters.

    Not even remotely true. And you can start with the idea that there are, somehow, two wars.

  110. Big D says:

    Wonder what Pat would think of this. I’m fairly certain that Mark isn’t really concerned with hurt feelings.

  111. Sincerely, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the WSJ Editorial Board says:

    Doesn’t mean, for instance, the we shouldn’t enforce our own immigration laws just because Neo Nazis agree.

    Hater!

  112. blowhard says:

    You’re right, dicentra. I just have to use vocabulary words regularly at first or I’ll forget them and then be unprepared when I come across a Freudian.

    Yeah, I totally agree, I’m agnostic, and I’m still strongly against religion bashing. For one, if it wasn’t for the Jesuits I still wouldn’t be able to tie my shoes.

  113. Wonder what Pat would think of this. I’m fairly certain that Mark isn’t really concerned with hurt feelings.

    darn it, will you people shut up about that book? It showed up today, but I won’t have time to read it for a while cause I’m damned sure not going to read it at rehearsal. There’s enough crazy there already.

  114. lee says:

    Patterico:

    Beautiful. What a difference those extra words make.

    As if Rush started his show, said “good morning, I hope Obama fails”, then said “good bye”, and his show ended.

    Besides, didn’t Patterico admit he was wrong about Rush?

    Never mind, he has no honor and truth us not his friend.

  115. Jim Ryan says:

    Shrill, creationist-hating atheists make my teeth itch. Weirdest obsession ever. Were Dennett and Dawkins fondling themselves when penning some of their most vitriolic passages? I didn’t just say that, because I love The Selfish Gene and Consciousness Explained. My bad, Dan and Dick.

    Sure, why not toss creationism around in a high school biology class? It’s a fascinating topic, rehearsed in many philosophy classes in college (Paley, Hume) to the great benefit of the students’ critical thinking skills. What’s the matter, scared of open inquiry? In fact, creationism has now been pretty robustly refuted. It’s gonna dumb the kids down – BOO!! What’s there to be scared of? The apoplexia remains a mystery.

    And now Jindal is swinging the “fail” bat? Jindal ’12. Or Sarah Palin. Can you run for VP twice or is that bad form?

  116. Jeff G. says:

    From the comments over at LGF:

    Wanting Obama to “fail” has been a losing proposition.

    The problem is this is a 30 second sound bite world, with the MFMSM doing the editing. So how we use language is very important, especially not using language that can be spun into a distraction.

    I want the United States of American to succeed.
    Part of that success is that President of the United States also succeeds.

    It is apparent that the Current President of the United States shows no sign he wants the United States to Succeed. What he wants is to remake this country in his image.

    That said I want Obama’s agenda to fail. There isn’t another word. His agenda will remake this country into an Oligarchy.

    The success of this country, and the success of Obama’s agenda are not compatible.

    Spot on.

    Looks like I have more work to do.

  117. happyfeet says:

    That was a good point, lee. It may be all there is to say really.

  118. SarahW says:

    Jesus. It’s the end of liberty and self-government if O succeeds. I guess some people are ready for the American experiment to fail.

  119. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    JeffG,

    Yeah, but you’re up to it. You beat the living hell out of us, after all.

  120. happyfeet says:

    I mean about how Fred is given the courtesy of context.

  121. Jeff G. says:

    Another:

    What is wrong with these idiots. Jindal I understand, but Thompson has been around long enough he should know better.

    Don’t give the Dems talking points. Don’t they get it.

    I think the most efficient method to prevent Dems from taking our words and using them as they please is to cut out our tongues. Some feminists did that in Garp, I think.

    We should cut off our typing fingers, too. Glad I hunt and peck.

    All much easier than calling them liars and refusing to let them steal our meaning.

  122. Zimriel says:

    Darleen, I read your post there, and “dinged it up” as we say. Charles didn’t like it as much. I paused from commenting there in other to show up here and to deliver (what I hope is) the approved talking point. To squeeze a soundbite out of the talking point, it would be “don’t feed the wingnuts”. Whether Jeff’s arguments amount to feeding the wingnuts is another topic (I happen to side with you, and Jeff, on this one).

    Jeff: first, thank you for your swift, considered, and respectful response.

    I’m not a regular here any more, but that’s more me self-banning. Your posts are always insightful. (I may have mentioned that in a comment once. Bears repeating.) Has Charles ever really attacked the religious for being religious, as opposed to attacking a sect of religious people for supporting crappy standards in class? I’m Catholic (since January 2008) and I haven’t noticed any antiCatholic or antiJewish backtalk from Charles or any other lizard (trolls aside).

    On a less serious nitpick, I haven’t noticed Charles taking note of Sailer; I went after Sailer. But he does go after “folks like” Sailer. Which was your exact phrase, admittedly. So I’ll just shut up now.

    Did someone say narwhals?

  123. Sdferr says:

    Too many people never knew it existed SarahW, so they wouldn’t, couldn’t miss it.

  124. cranky-d says:

    “I want Obama’s agenda to fail.”

    Hey, look, he said he wants Obama to fail. Stone him!!!

  125. ThomasD says:

    Funny, Charles has the same problem Frey does: Neither know why they’re conservatives, making claims as to their conservatism suspect.

    Honestly, I’m beginning to question the affiliations of many. Allahpundit also comes to mind over some of his latest issues (student loans among others)

    More and more this alliance seems to be a remnant of the GWOT. As that fades the cracks begin to grow.

  126. Big D says:

    darn it, will you people shut up about that book? It showed up today, but I won’t have time to read it for a while cause I’m damned sure not going to read it at rehearsal. There’s enough crazy there already.

    Well, pardon me all to hell, Maggie! Decaf?

    Seriously though, I heard a radio interview today and Levin was talking about the same things Jeff has been promoting. My point is that there is an audience for it, some bloggers notwithstanding.

  127. happyfeet says:

    What I really think is that the wages of hubris are determined quite apart from what me or you want. Read it in a book, I did.

  128. Jim Ryan says:

    I’m really, really sorry lefty-type persons. I’m sorry I didn’t cry on election night, because it was the most wonderful thing ever that O got elected. (Just not his policies, but…) He’s great and I hope he succeeds. It’s really great having him in there. Not his policies, but, anyway, the point is I’m very sorry if I ever expressed or harbored any misgivings about O, hope he succeeds, really great, etc., but have some concerns about his policies. In any event, very sorry.

  129. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Gosh, it’s almost like some people don’t realize that to oppose someone you must you know, oppose him.

  130. cranky-d says:

    @129 HATER!!! RACIST!!!

  131. Jim Ryan says:

    Sorry!! (Really sorry!) Have some concerns about…it’s nothing really…sorry!

  132. Andy says:

    Don’t give the Dems talking points. Don’t they get it.

    This shit makes me want to scream*. When did we become such pussies?

    * Obviously a veiled death threat

  133. Spiny Norman says:

    ThomasD,

    More and more this alliance seems to be a remnant of the GWOT. As that fades the cracks begin to grow.

    Sadly, that’s looking all too true.

  134. Big D says:

    Comment by Jim Ryan on 3/25 @ 10:03 pm #

    I’m really, really sorry…that O got elected. It’s really great…express(ing) or harbor(ing) any misgivings about O…

    I may have taken some of that out of context, but you are still a filthy racist!

  135. Sdferr says:

    They’ll have plenty of opportunity to get their “uh-oh, we’ve done it again haven’t we?” on, soon enough Spiny Norman.

  136. Topsecretk9 says:

    So Pats was just waiting for someone to say they want Obama to fail the way Pats likes it to be said? I did NOT understand that to be what Pat wanted at all from what he’s written. Weird.

  137. Jeff G. says:

    I’d debate Charles, but I’m afraid he’d ban me.

  138. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Jeff’s comment of “no honor” might be misinterpreted as a threat of violence or quite possibly of death.

    Any “reasonable” person can see that it’s at least a challenge to a duel, right? Never mess with a grappler.

  139. Abe Froman says:

    I do understand the impulse to be squishy among certain conservatives. I live in NYC and as a simple matter of social survival I soften my edges and place distance between myself and certain Republican personages (if I discuss politics at all). But I never lose sight of the fact that it is an act of sorts and too many putative blue state conservatives seem to internalize this behavior instead, and try to mold the Republican party in their image. And it is utter horseshit. There’s no point in being a politically engaged conservative if you don’t accept that you are at war with liberal assumptions rather than merely trying to win in spite of them.

  140. I’d debate Charles, but I’m afraid he’d ban me.

    Dude, go for it, start a collection, see how many’ll ban you.

  141. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    JeffG,
    You may not have to debate him. There’s an awful lot of people over there right now who are pretty unimpressed with his reasoning on this. And the number will grow, I suspect…

  142. happyfeet says:

    Charles and his footballs what are little and green need to bring the game what they so energetically bring against the terrorists. This isn’t the pretend soft-focus puddle of kitties socialism we’re dealing with here. This is the redistributey scimitar held at the throat of your little country kind.

  143. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Topsecretk9,

    Pat was just looking for some one to surrender to other than Jeff. Everyone on his side of this debate will be headed in that direction, very soon. And if Jindal and Thompson have entered the fight on this note you can pretty much bet that the polling data shows it is a good idea. Us Pragmatic Republicans have had our ass handed to us, I think.

  144. blowhard says:

    What is so surprising about this shit is that Jeff is uncouth with the OUTLAW! and the Billy Jack stuff, yet, look at the comments. I went through an Ace thread where there were 1,000 comments about this stuff. Breaking roughly 9 to 1 towards the OUTLAW! stance.

    Some bloggers write for a half dozen other bloggers. Jeff writes for a slightly larger audience.

  145. happyfeet says:

    Zimriel! I love that.

  146. Darleen says:

    Jaysus H keerist!!! I don’t know what more to say – Charles hates Jindal so much he writes crap like this:
    ———————————
    #878 Charles
    3/25/09 9:17:15 pm reply quote 3downupfavoritereport

    re: #862 iLikeCandy

    I’ve conceded that it’s a lousy idea to say anything that can be truncated or twisted into a sound bite that sounds unpatriotic and 100% negative — which means we darn near have to keep silent.

    Absolutely, 100% wrong. You can criticize him as harshly as you want, and I will. But when you cross the line to wishing for him to FAIL, you’re cutting your own throat, and defining your OWN viewpoint in negative terms
    ——————-

  147. Dan Collins says:

    He wants to take my money and leave my children in debt and make them do mandatory voluntary service, and socialize the health care system, and weaken the military, and grow the size of government, and make it more intrusive, and take away our guns, and ghettoize religion, and force physicians and pharmacists to either do things they believe to be unethical or give up practicing as part of the socialization of medicine, and make injured military pay for their treatments, and make our children wards of the state, and destroy our economy with his cap and trade schemes, and lots of other pernicious shit, but I really wish him all success apart from all that stuff.

  148. Andy says:

    The GWOT’s a pretty good metaphor. For years al Qaeda was at war with us, but we didn’t take the threat seriously enough until disaster happened on 9/11/01.

    For years the left has been at war with us, but we didn’t take the threat seriously enough until disaster happened on 11/4/08.

    Rush hit on this a little in his interview with Levin (sorry Maggie) when he said that he just naturally assumed that everyone loved America like he does.

    It’s hard to accept that there are people living among us who hate everything this country stands for. I hope they fail.

  149. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    blowhard,

    There is a difference in commenting on events and trying to control them, brother. The control freaks never have a chance when times get interesting.

  150. happyfeet says:

    Here’s the Charles LGF link thing again. It’s kind of hard to find up there.

  151. Topsecretk9 says:

    I think the most efficient method to prevent Dems from taking our words and using them as they please is to cut out our tongues. Some feminists did that in Garp, I think.

    We should cut off our typing fingers, too. Glad I hunt and peck.

    I seriously haven’t LOL’d in a long time.

  152. Jeff, Jeff. Sigh. If you hadn’t made the attempt to sick your Weaponized Ents on nk (or whoever), this never would have happened.

    That’s right. I see through your “tree” code word. I’m clever like that.

    (And seriously, you people owe it to yourselves to click that link. The picture makes me giggle in this context.)

  153. blowhard says:

    “The control freaks never have a chance when times get interesting.”

    Yeah, I think we’re seeing that. From the MSM trying not to cover the Tea Parties to the GOP dandies pretending they know anything about presenting ideas.

  154. Charles doesn’t do reasoning. He does coding, photography, bicycling, and OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE.

    I mean, kudos on the Dan Rather thing and all, but seriously man. I started reading him in like … 2002, and then stopped in the last year or so when it became clear that he can’t grasp the concept that someone with ideas he views irrational can also hold other, largely rational ideas. Dude has a stupid litmus test for general intelligence, and he WON’T get over it.

  155. Zimriel says:

    You cannot debate a sitemaster on his own blog; any more than a peasant can out-argue King Henry VII. At best you can comment and see how others react. Comment moderators are sovereign, to borrow from Hobbes or from his disciple Mencius Moldbug.

    You can, however, debate him from the shelter of your own blog.

    Here’s something that has been troubling me: are we more loyal to a pan-European / observant-Jewish, wealth-creating social class, or to the people currently enclosed within the US’s borders?

    Try this on : “I trust my class more than I trust my countrymen. Obama hurts my class. Even if America becomes stronger under Obama, it will be in the form of a fascist empire set against me. Therefore I want America to fail as long as Obama runs it.”

    If you oppose Obama because he will make the country weaker, that’s patriotic. If you oppose Obama because he will make your family and your culture weaker, that’s not patriotic. I suspect that for those arguing the most forcefully that Obama should fail, the second argument is foremost.

  156. Close your italics tag, Jeff!

  157. Heh, I feel like I’m at Ace’s.

  158. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Damn everything has gone all wavy. Flashback! Flashback! Play it Jimi! Dance naked hippie girls!

  159. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    How many liberty loving people really want a Commie in a Candy Shop to succeed, huh?

  160. Zimriel says:

    the damned italics will stop NOW

  161. Zimriel says:

    heh. I was a bit too late with the

  162. happyfeet says:

    I actually just read that LGF thing. He’s sort of a graceless fuck, this charles and his footballs what are little and green. Tell me again why he’s relevant? Oh. He started Pajamas Media.

  163. Zimriel says:

    The bendy-line slash ay backward-bendy-line, that is.

  164. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Okay, back to normal now. I can put my pants back on.

  165. Jeff G. says:

    Well, Zimriel, I already made my case at Hot Air. Charles didn’t allude to it in any way or try to answer its points, but it’s out there.

    Maybe Ed Driscoll can rewrite it. Then maybe Charles will give it a quick going over.

  166. RTO Trainer says:

    They want us to sound like them I guess:

    “I support the troops just not the war.”
    “I support the Predisnet, just not his agenda.”

  167. psycho... says:

    Sure, why not toss creationism around in a high school biology class?

    Because it’s not biology. It’s not religion, either. It’s…a badness.

    Charles is a bit off on the subject, and the Nazi shit, tonally, but he’s onto something, whether he can make his own case or not.

    Any non-totalitarian political philosophy that softens to absorb racism, or tries to co-opt religion, however little and to whatever end, gets wormed in the same way that “pragmatic conservatism” does by the linguistic rot Jeff points to (and religion, too, can’t survive the joining, but Charles can’t see that).

    He’s just less intellectual and more cranky about his pet cause(s), because he’s…less intellectual and more cranky. He lets others make a case, points to it and says, “What he said, dummies. Get it this time?” It’s tiring.

    And he’s tired.

    He’s also right about Jindal embodying a GOP death-wish — three of them, I’d say — but not in the way he thinks (or, often, tiredly doesn’t). It’s…

    Another time.

  168. Darleen says:

    Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek on 3/25 @ 10:37 pm #

    It wasn’t long after 9/11 I found LGF and became a regular there. Never met Charles but went to a few LGF meetups in Santa Monica.

    But I haven’t read him regular over the past couple of years for exactly the reason you cite. He has this “creationist” tic … anyone that dare breathes that maybe the Universe might have a designer becomes his total enemy.

    The contempt he has for Jindal oozes from the blog. His reponses on the thread bear that out.

  169. happyfeet says:

    I hate creationism but I hate Meghan McCain more.

  170. Jeff G. says:

    But I do thank those of you who linked it over there. Not that anyone appears interested in reading it.

    Here’ the thing: I’ll trade the people who call themselves conservatives but who accept that the current media landscape is a force of nature that we need to just learn to deal with for those who are now Dems who refuse to have their meaning stolen, and dislike the way the media is manipulating narratives.

    Those are the people I want to win over, because they, at their ideological core, back the idea of individual freedom. Structurally. As part of their thinking.

    McCain, I noted at the time, is a statist who backs many conservative issues. I didnt’ trust him.

    If we’re worried about reforming the GOP, it should be around our ideals — and we should be actively courting those who might come to believe in them.

    Nuke the whole Dems/Repubs labeling system from orbit and restart it with progressives and classical liberals. Sell it that way, based on ideals and principles.

    That’s what I meant by using our ideals pragmatically.

  171. Patrick Frey's Reading Comprehension says:

    How come no one ever makes fun of me?

  172. Topsecretk9 says:

    #

    Close your italics tag, Jeff!
    #

    Comment by doubleplusundead on 3/25 @ 10:40 pm #

    Heh, I feel like I’m at Ace’s.

    Another LOL. Ya’ll are making my sprained ankle feel better already.

  173. Meghan says:

    but I hate Meghan McCain more

    That’s like totally mean. You should chill out with me and Russell Brand. He is frickin’ hilarious.

  174. Jeff G. says:

    Because it’s not biology. It’s not religion, either. It’s…a badness.

    I have a different take on this, or rather a similar take that proffers a different strategy. If you search Intelligent Design you can find it.

  175. thor says:


    Comment by Jeff G. on 3/25 @ 10:17 pm #

    I’d debate Charles, but I’m afraid he’d ban me.

    To post on a message board that doesn’t ban you, what’s the point?

    Ban yourself, Jeff, and be the ball.

  176. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

    — Tommy J.

  177. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    PFRC,

    You do it to yourself. We don’t have to.

  178. Zimriel says:

    “anyone that dare breathes that maybe the Universe might have a designer becomes his total enemy.”

    You mean “anyone who passive-aggressively misrepresents Charles’s position has revealed herself as his total enemy already”, I’m sure…

  179. Darleen says:

    I’m a conservative but damn it I’m an old-fashioned, hick (by way of growing up California in the 50’s/60’s) public school, heteronormative, breeder, SAHM, non-religious but God believing INDIVIDUAL that will stand toe to toe with any knee-jerk “can’t we all get along” kumby-ah – either right or left statist who wants collectivism FOR THE SECURITY then growing up, accepting adulthood and realizing life ain’t always fair but it is what it is.

    Funny, I sang “kumbya” around the campfire when I was a Girl Scout, but it didn’t mean then what it seems to mean now.

  180. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    JeffG,

    Well, as everyone has probably noticed I’m in favor of nuking the Republican part of the Republican Democrat divide….

  181. Meghan says:

    Here’ the thing: I’ll trade the people who call themselves conservatives but who accept that the current media landscape is a force of nature that we need to just learn to deal with for those who are now Dems who refuse to have their meaning stolen, and dislike the way the media is manipulating narratives.

    Well said. For the life of me, I just don’t understand the thought process that says ceding the battlefield to the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself) without a fight is a good strategy.

    Going back to McCain, how many times did you see him get served up an easily hittable pitch during the campaign (Fannie & Freddie come to mind) only to watch strike 3 cross the plate. Remember the convention – “fight with me” – all I could think was: when you start fighting, fucker, I will.

  182. Andy says:

    Gah – damned Meghan sockpuppet bitch

  183. Darleen says:

    BTW JeffG?

    IMHO Obama’s analogy of the US economy to an oceanliner is a “poker tell”…. because our economy is definitely NOT a single ship that must be commanded by a captain at the bridge… the US economy is a flotilla of all manner of sizes, shapes of boats and ships under their own captains and the Fed Government is the defensive escort.

  184. Topsecretk9 says:

    accepting adulthood and realizing life ain’t always fair but it is what it is.

    Your SoCal Soccerr coach didn’t yell at you

    “Who ever told you life was fair LIED!! Now get with the fucking program sweetheart”

    Mine did. I’m glad he did and he was right.

  185. ccoffer says:

    My administration is gonna reset the Russian deal by inviting them into NATO. I’m also gonna administer an abortion right there on the altar in a Catholic Church.

    Nuance, niggaz! No likey? Fuck you! I won!

  186. Darleen says:

    TopsecretK9

    No soccer when I was a kid. Just pick up games of whatever we wanted to do on the block, no adults around.

    I’m an optimist, sometimes Life has happy wonderful surprises.

    I am a realist, too… being the daughter of a man that had been an Army DI does that. ;-)

  187. I don’t think it hurts to do a few “good cop, bad cop” maneuvers, but like everyone else I’m a bit fed up with “red-on-red” arguing (that second one is Ace of Spades’s phrase).

    It’s healthy to have debates, but not so great to simply squabble. I actually agree with the thread in Patterico’s argument to the effect that Diplomacy is a Good Thing when one wants to win hearts and minds and whatnot. I just thought he never understood the thrust of what YOU were saying, Jeff.

    And I’m afraid Megan M. is losing me; I haven’t really heard anything substantive from her, and I feel that, like her father, she’s just trying to triangulate. I’m afraid that I see this as “putting herself into a position such that, when the free-market, civil-liberties people lose, she can sweep in and offer some kind of bullshit bipartisan solution.” Either that, or maybe she’s testing the waters for a book deal.

    As far as Steele went, I think he just blew it and tried for a moment to get the cool kids to like him–and then thought better of it later on.

    Jindal and Palin seem to be playing it smart: NOT knocking the free-market people, and not getting excited about truly inconsequential matters, but taking their shots. (One can argue Sarah’s “Special Olympics” remark either way, but I had no problem with her statement in the context of Obama’s frequent gaffes. Also, she concluded her statement with something about hoping that his weird remark about Special Olympics didn’t reflect Big O’s “true” feelings–which I saw as a nod to intentionalism, FWIW.)

    I guess what I’m driving at is that I don’t have a problem with people who are setting themselves up to be the “good cops,” but I think that some of our “centrist” brethren are simply out for themselves, rather than attempting to advance debate, ideas, and facilitate communication.

    (And, just to pick the scab again, I don’t think that’s what Patterico was doing; I just think he has a blind spot about the Goldsteinian approach to linguistics. So I’m not pissed at him, but I am annoyed at most of the “Bad, Bad Rush” people. Steele . . . well, he did apologize. And I think he might have been thinking of playing ‘Good Cop’ to Rush’s ‘Bad Cop.’ The problem is, that usually backfires. When in doubt in the political sphere, tell the truth.)

  188. blowhard says:

    Gabe admits error in ++undead thread.

  189. Topsecretk9 says:

    Darleen

    Just pick up games of whatever we wanted to do on the block, no adults around.

    Those were the days. Kids don’t do that anymore.

    I’m an optimist too, but coach Kyle’s HARSH yet true words worked and sunk in. I imagine this nicey nice republican talk we’re all supposed to abide by being spoken by a coach of anything…that team is in the bottom, right? Or giving trophy’s to losers, right?

  190. geoffb says:

    It has always been to me a Leftist thing to have the equation, Leader = Country, Leader fails = Country fails.

    The President is not the Country. He is the head of the Executive branch (1/3) of the National Government. And just one guy. He can be Alfred E. Neuman and the USA will go on.

    With Obama, the USA can only fail if he succeeds. Obama wants the USA to fail. That’s why I want him to fail. What is so damn hard about that?

  191. Jeff G. says:

    Sure, Little Miss Atilla. Why be pissed at a guy maintaining since DAY 1 of my argument that I was out to destroy his reputation? Why be pissed at a guy who has accused me, publicly, of making death threats than closed me out of the threads in which I might defend myself against such a ludicrous charge?

    I don’t think I’m a bad cop. I can talk sweet and alter my rhetorical style based on audience (which, who is Limbaugh speaking to?), and I never said there was anything wrong with that.

    But yes, Patrick never understood what I was saying. Taking that failure out on me is wrong and dishonorable.

  192. lee says:

    I hate the big bang theory. I just don’t get it. How does a massive explosion result in life?

    Anyway, I don’t care if anyone thinks I’m stupid for believing the universe and life were created by a higher power. I don’t let others opinions define me.

  193. Topsecretk9 says:

    Why be pissed at a guy maintaining since DAY 1 of my argument that I was out to destroy his reputation?

    This I don’t get. He squabbles with likes of Saddly No!

  194. lurking observer says:

    LittlemissAtilla, I like you, I’ve have read you for quite awhile.

    This isn’t a pox on both their houses scenario.

    Yes, we should shoot towards the enemy, agreed. So, why give Patterico a pass for trumping up a death threat against one of our own?

  195. Jeff G. says:

    Gabe apologizes. I appreciate the apology. I don’t quite like the thinking that allowed him to make the initial accusation.

    Still, I accept. And I’m glad he made the correction.

  196. blowhard says:

    “Anyway, I don’t care if anyone thinks I’m stupid for believing the universe and life were created by a higher power. I don’t let others opinions define me.”

    lee, I’m agnostic and aspects of math make me consider a higher power. You’re right to think for yourself.

  197. Jeff G. says:

    Oh. I see this has been mentioned already. Now I apologize. For the redundancy.

  198. ccoffer says:

    Patterifey understands what is allowed and what isn’t.

    Why? Because; that’s why.

  199. Charles (numerous times) has equivocated Creationist Christians with the Islamofascists terrorists, which is far more than just not wanting any mention of Intelligent Design in schools.

    He constantly harps that the reason the GOP lost the last few election cycles is because of Social Conservatives which is his code word for Creationist Christians, although most Christians are SoCons who are pro-life so I don’t see why he makes a distinction there.

    And when Charles began calling Robert Spencer a neo-nazi supporter, he convinced me that he, Charles, had gone batshit insane (okay, actually before that, but one does note a pattern here).

    So while Charles is so fearful of Creationists destroying America and our public schools (which were co-opted long ago by the Left), the Left continues it’s assault on our liberties. Perhaps Charles can point out all the liberties we have lost to the eeevil creationists and the massive debt they have incurred. Any minute now…

    While I don’t agree with most of what young earth Christians believe in, religiously speaking, we do share a love for liberty and many of the same values and principles.

    The Left on the other hand, is a clear and present danger.

  200. Topsecretk9 says:

    But yes, Patrick never understood what I was saying.

    I think he did, that’s why he went to such pains to HotAir it and rephrase it and spice it up with niceness. And he thought all the sugar would win the day and make Jeff go away.

  201. geoffb says:

    Maybe the higher power created the Big Bang. What,you thought all those constants just happened to be perfect? Right.

    My God also set up evolution as the perfect way to let life find it’s way in the universe. I have no difficulty being religious and scientific. Two sides of a coin to me.

  202. dicentra says:

    More and more this alliance seems to be a remnant of the GWOT. As that fades the cracks begin to grow.

    Which was to be predicted. Lots of people switched to the starboard side precisely because they were so disgusted with how the Left reacted to 9/11.

    But they’re not traditional conservatives or Republicans by any means or stretch of the imagination. The GWOT united us while it was in our faces. And Obama will unite us again, but don’t fret over the red-on-red squabbling. It’s cathartic. We’ve had to spend eight years defending a “compassionate conservative” and then voting for a squish on the lesser of two evils principle.

    I’d debate Charles, but I’m afraid he’d ban me.

    Wuss. I did it, and you could slam me to the ground with a withering stare.

  203. Jeff G. says:

    Shit. I can’t find the correct workout DVD. Looks like I’m gonna have to go beat a tire again. Fuck me. It’s cold outside.

  204. Chris L. says:

    But when you say you want him to FAIL, even if you try to qualify it by saying “if his policies hurt America I want him to fail,” you are alienating and losing the support of the vast middle, who do NOT want any American president to fail.

    Huh. Has anyone at LGF reminded him of the 2006 poll where 51% of Democrats said they did not want Bush to succeed?

    The poll prompted this New York Post article warning Democratic candidates not to feed the views of the angry left, because “the independent and moderate voters the Democrats must win over to regain a majority are repelled by candidates who pander to rageful supporters with tunnel vision.” That was written 2 months before the 2006 election. So much for alienating the delicate sensibilities of the vasty middle.

  205. Joe says:

    The Patterico Way:

    “If someone tries to distort that, I will be the first one to man the barricades and defend him. And I’m grateful to him for making that job easy for me.”

    Or, if you disagree with me, I might accuse you a death threat and ban you.

    That is just the way I run, baby. Get used to it.

  206. Jeff G. says:

    Just to repeat, because it answers some of Charles’ objections:

    To which I reply, pragmatism is fine. But why not use our idealism pragmatically — which is to say, why not make it our strategy to use idealism as our cudgel against the media and the left in such a way that their tactic of misrepresentation and outrage no longer pays dividends? Why not make it our strategy to destroy their tactics — and in so doing, reaffirm the very principles at the heart of classical liberalism?

    The fact of the matter is, for all of Limbaugh’s provocation, his statement, having been carefully and purposely misrepresented by the media as a way to demonize him and drive a divide between conservatives and more moderates within the party, has had the rather happy effect of getting us talking and arguing about what we as a movement should do next. And it was precisely his choice of language that baited the press and the left (and, more frightening even, the White House) to engage him, and to force the ideas of conservatism center stage.

    That we are having this debate about how to proceed as a movement is a step in the right direction, I think — and it is a debate I don’t think we’d be having were it not for Rush’s choice of language. And so arguments that more clarity and less provocation are the proper way for conservatives to communicate in the current media culture must be tempered by the realization that sometimes the best defense is a good offense — and that what Rush has done is perhaps fire us up and get us angry enough finally to push back against a dishonest media. And a vital tool for doing so is language — more specifically, by refusing to spend any more time on the defensive, withering prey to a tactic the left has used so successfully to provide the very parameters for acceptable conservative speech.

  207. God says:

    Maybe the higher power created the Big Bang.

    No, I created the burrito first. Big bang came after that.

  208. lee says:

    So while Charles is so fearful of Creationists destroying America

    Wow, this joker really believes that?

    Funny, I always thought the guys that came up with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were the ones who, ahem, created America.

  209. RTO Trainer says:

    How does a massive explosion result in life?

    It doesn’t. It just results in the creation of the universe from an unknown and unknowable previous condition of “non-existance.”

    You have to go through a lot more theories first before you get to a result of life.

  210. dicentra says:

    See, this is pretty much what we’re dealing with.

  211. happyfeet says:

    I like the big bang theory cause it a lot diminishes the chance we’ll run into anything.

  212. dicentra says:

    And then there’s this.

  213. geoffb says:

    So,
    We are god fart.
    Nose be holding.
    We are lost in the smelly odors.
    And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the bathroom.

    Good Burrito.

  214. lee says:

    geoffb , I don’t have a problem with your #202. I am not a young earther either, and have long believed evolution is likely a tool of creation. Now that I think about it, perhaps He did start with the big bang(the first step being dividing the light from the darkness, as it were), but if so, it is still creation, and not just some random cosmic cataclysm.

  215. happyfeet says:

    narwhals didn’t just happen

  216. happyfeet says:

    ok maybe they did but still

  217. SarahW says:

    Speaking of big bangs ( in Allahpundits dreams), here’s Mehgan McCain’s new twitterblog. There are some edgy-cutey-soft-but-hard-chick flag skulls. She may well pull the Bratz generation into the party.

  218. lee says:

    RTO, That’s a distinction without a difference. You are still arriving at life from the beginning explosion.

  219. Topsecretk9 says:

    How does a massive explosion result in life?

    Hitting the point where concrete sidewalk meets pavement? They seem to be same thing but they aren’t cause accidents to pedestrians.

  220. happyfeet says:

    @britneycrosson why thank you so much! Yes, all the Progressive Republicans are banning together right now, I can feel it!!

    Anything I said would just spoil it.

  221. lee says:

    By the way, I miss Big Bang Hunter, whatever happened to him?

  222. geoffb says:

    It is also a matter for faith, since it is completely beyond any means to determine scientifically what happened before the Big Bang. Fundamentally unknowable. God’s cosmic reset button.

    So that leaves faith. Mine is in God starting all of creation. Others believe it was random chance. Still a matter of faith.

  223. Topsecretk9 says:

    By the way, I miss Big Bang Hunter, whatever happened to him?

    Me too. Pumping you UP!

  224. ThomasD says:

    No, it was beer first, then burrito. Burrito alone just doesn’t have that explosive quality.

  225. happyfeet says:

    I agree about BBH. I hope he’s well.

  226. lee says:

    So that leaves faith. Mine is in God starting all of creation. Others believe it was random chance. Still a matter of faith.

    Yup.

  227. Chris L. says:

    Not all Progressive Republicans are banning together! Some of us are forming a splinter party, the Democratic Non-Bush Republican Bipartisan Party. I dare anyone not to agree with something we might or might not imply but will definitely apologize for later anyway.

  228. Portnoy says:

    “Comment by happyfeet on 3/25 @ 11:57 pm”

    Paris McCain

  229. RTO Trainer says:

    In order to beleive in the Big Bang you have to beleive that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was momentarily repealed.

  230. happyfeet says:

    maybe I should have said something

  231. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Chris L.
    I’m in!

  232. happyfeet says:

    oh. #231 was at #228…

    Paris McCain except I was for real charmed by that video Paris did during the campaign.

  233. blowhard says:

    Quick pitch for the agnostics: we don’t have faith, we just have no idea what’s going on.

  234. Topsecretk9 says:

    Can someone explain to me what a progressive republican is?

  235. geoffb says:

    I think the way it goes is there were no such things as the Second Law of Thermodynamics until the Big Bang created the conditions under which they can be. No before, before. At least in any meaningful way to science.

    Question: What was before the Big Bang? Answer: MU

    Which is also the answer to those “when did you stop beating your wife” questions the left throws about. MU

  236. RTO Trainer says:

    You are still arriving at life from the beginning explosion.

    Not at all. Let us borrow the greatest formulation of the lazy Cosmologists, the Anthropic Principle. (Strong or Weak–doesn’t matter here)

    The Universe we live in is ordered such as it allows for our form of life to exist. What if that random explosion had resulted in a Universe that is not so ordered? Would a different form of life have, inevitably, arisen? Would it have been barren of life? (My favorite: If barren of life, would it even actualy, objectively exist wihtout some agency capable of perceiving that it did, objectively exist?)

    If a different form of life was inevitable, what would be the evidence to support that contention?

  237. The Pragamtic Republicans says:

    Sort of like a me except even more useless.

  238. RTO Trainer says:

    I think the way it goes is there were no such things as the Second Law of Thermodynamics until the Big Bang created the conditions under which they can be. No before, before. At least in any meaningful way to science.

    Question: What was before the Big Bang? Answer: MU

    Which is also the answer to those “when did you stop beating your wife” questions the left throws about. MU

    Just so, but at what point after the bang does the 2LoTD kick in such that we avoid a condition where the Universe is moving from a higher to a lower entropy state?

  239. Topsecretk9 says:

    Comment by The Pragamtic Republicans on 3/26 @ 12:18 am #

    Sort of like a me except even more useless.

    thanks! thought so.

  240. geoffb says:

    RTO Trainer,

    I have to apologize. I’d like to continue but I am being forcibly requested by my lovely wife to “get to bed”. 2:30 am here.

    Off the top of my head I’d say when the universe became transparent to electromagnetic radiation.

    Goodnight now.

  241. lee says:

    Quick pitch for the agnostics: we don’t have faith, we just have no idea what’s going on.

    Heh, I admire your candor!

    And to match it, RTO just left me in his dust.

    No wonder I don’t get the big bang, I am stupid…

  242. cranky-d says:

    I almost took a better shot at the entropy question, but I realized I may not fully understand it, though I know entropy from an engineering standpoint. Since I believe in G-d, perhaps the big bang was caused by G-d changing the physical laws of the universe. Maybe entropy didn’t work that way before. Or maybe G-d is an entropy source and sink, depending on his mood. Or maybe we really don’t understand the universe as well as we think we do.

    Not scientific, I know, but the brain, she is long done for the day. Maybe tomorrow it will be fresher.

  243. blowhard says:

    “Heh, I admire your candor!”

    I’ll go one better. I have no idea what Joyce was saying in Ulysses. Not in the least.

  244. dicentra says:

    Jindal needs to be silenced. He’s calling the Dems on their linguistic tyranny:

    Jindal described the premise of the question — “Do you want the president to fail?” — as the “latest gotcha game” being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans.

    “Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, ‘Why no sir, I don’t want the president to fail,’ is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism,” Jindal said at a political fundraiser attended by 1,200 people. “This is political correctness run amok.”

    Bad, bad Republican. He’ll sink us yet.

  245. Molon Labe says:

    Re: Progressive Republican

    My fundamental rule: All collective action is ultimately corrupted.

    Proof: Labor unions, MADD, Greenpeace, ACLU, any effort organized on the basis of collective action.

    Treachery always trumps Dedication. Progressive Republicans are just authoritarians who wish to use Leftist tactics of denouncement, derision, etc. to gain power.

  246. moviegique says:

    You guys probably covered this already, but how is it possible that a guy who has devoted his blogging life to taking down the L.A. Times and seeing the extent they’ll go to to shape the narrative–I swear he called them out last summer for just making shit up!–how does this guy NOT get this?

    How is it possible?

  247. dicentra says:

    By the way, pragmatists: that quote is on a CNN web page. Right there for people to read for themselves. Untwisted, unadulterated, unmistakable.

    So don’t tell me that calling the Dems on their linguistic tyranny won’t play in Peoria.

    It just did.

  248. dicentra says:

    Can someone explain to me what a progressive republican is?

    Someone who wants to serve God without offending the Devil.

    As it were.

  249. dicentra says:

    how does this guy NOT get this?

    One answer: hubris. He had an initial visceral reaction and once he blogged it (more than once) he couldn’t back down.

    Another answer: He’s a lawyer. The strongest supporters of Patt’s position on the ‘sphere are lawyers.

    Another answer: Beats me.

  250. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Can someone explain to me what a progressive republican is?

    Ever heard of Marshal Pétain?

  251. #981 Charles :: Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:54:36 pm
    I see Darleen is now trashing me at Protein Wisdom. Typical.

    So when someone reports the truth about what Charles said he considers that “trashing.”
    Not that he doesn’t deserve a good trashing, but I didn’t see where Darleen trashed him.

    Perhaps I should trash him so he can see the difference. On second thought, Queeg is too stupid to see the difference, so it would be a waste of time.
    I mean, when someone goes full-retard like that, what more can you really say?

  252. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    Speaking of full retard….

    Remind me again why this guy was the only reasonable choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

  253. Comment by dicentra on 3/26 @ 12:59 am #

    Can someone explain to me what a progressive republican is?

    Someone who wants to serve God without offending the Devil.

    As it were.”

    LOL! Snort! But in the case of Charles: As long as God didn’t create anything.

  254. lee says:

    I have no idea what Joyce was saying in Ulysses. Not in the least.

    Blowhard, I watched Ulysses on TV once, but I forget who Joyce was. One of the Mermaids?

    Kidding…

  255. blowhard says:

    Progressive Republican = Teddy Roosevelt?

    dicentra, SBP and others have been schooling me lately. Maybe they’d continue. Me, I don’t know exactly why I’m supposed to like the guy.

  256. blowhard says:

    Because trusts need busting?

    National parks?

    Looking plump on a horse?

  257. blowhard says:

    Because his very name kills threads?

  258. lee says:

    Well, I think Teddy founded the NRA, so there’s that.

  259. davis,br says:

    Is it okay to want O’s “hair” to fail, than?

    A must read: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-obama-chiamar24,0,6150429.story

  260. dicentra says:

    I don’t know much about Teddy R. I’ve never been very good at history or presidents. But he’s not on the conservative Epic Fail list, I do know that.

  261. dicentra says:

    Wait. How come Charles is calling out Darleen but not me?

    I’m hurt. Maybe I should have slagged on him for not wanting bad creationism taught in the schools.

  262. Jeff G. says:

    “Trashing”?

    Yeah. I’d be banned in an instant.

  263. SDN says:

    I’m beginning to think classical liberalism would be best served by taking all the lawyers out to the woodshed and giving them a nice spanking.

  264. SDN says:

    I’m beginning to think classical liberalism would be best served by taking all the lawyers out to the woodshed and giving them a nice spanking running them through a woodchipper. Alive. Feet first.

    .

    FTFY. And that’s not a threat. That’s what we call a statement of fact, sort of along the lines of observing that water’s wet.

  265. alppuccino says:

    Part of the problem is that guy whose big fat face looks like it’s being squeezed in a vise made of sideburns………oh yeah Frank Luntz is his name.

    He wires up volunteer idiots and monitors how certain words and phrases make them feel. He uses different colored lines for Democrats and Republicans. And the best words and phrases are the ones that make both the D and R feel really good. Words Matter is the name of his book.

    I would love to be with Frank when he says, “this feely-line-phrase-plexor is great for finding just the right words to use.”

    Then I’d work up a big slooge of my chewing tobacco and spit it on his lapel and say, “How is it on stains?”

    h/t Josey Wales

  266. Patrick Chester says:

    USS Ben wrote:

    #981 Charles :: Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:54:36 pm
    I see Darleen is now trashing me at Protein Wisdom. Typical.

    So when someone reports the truth about what Charles said he considers that “trashing.”
    Not that he doesn’t deserve a good trashing, but I didn’t see where Darleen trashed him.

    She dared to post something about him somewhere else is the “logic” Charles uses, IIRC.

  267. Rusty says:

    There’s no point in being a politically engaged conservative if you don’t accept that you are at war with liberal assumptions rather than merely trying to win in spite of them.

    Word,Abe.

  268. kasper says:

    MSM throws scraps out the back door and everybody scrambles to lap them up. We’ll never learn.

    I don’t like Obama — he is despicable. He should never have been given such power. The people he has chosen to be around and who have chosen to be around him are dangerous. They destroy liberty and innovation. I know this.

    Yessssss, I hope he fails. I hope his administration fails. I hope all the creepy dirty Democrat policies fail, fail, fail. No apologies.

  269. RTO Trainer says:

    Ever heard of Marshal Pétain?

    Vichy Republicans? I can use that.

    Careful with the lawyer craks folks. LTC John, as one example, is a lawyer. So is Fred!, for that matter.

  270. JHoward says:

    Maybe the higher power created the Big Bang. What, you thought all those constants just happened to be perfect? Right.

    The odds are less than one in the number of particles in the universe, actually.

    So oops. Look! A closeup of the sky over Malibu. Ever hear my Steely Dan? I coded some new buttons!

  271. Darleen says:

    Good lord, how the hell did I “trash” Charles? I posted his comment, I expressed frustration and pointed out his Jindal-phobia, which is evident in how he labels Jindal’s name everytime he writes about him.

    THAT is trashing???

    WTF is going on?

  272. Pablo says:

    Maybe we shouldn’t say we want Obama to fail. Maybe we should say we want him impeached.

    That made Bush toxic enough to screw any chance there might have been for an R to get elected. You’ll recall McBush, McSame, etc…

    I want Obama impeached for trying to cripple America. There, I said it. I feel so dissenty and patriotic.

  273. happyfeet says:

    impeached and wedgied

  274. B Moe says:

    WTF is going on?

    Sounds like a variation of Caric disease to me, only using “trash” instead of “smear”.

  275. takeshi kovacs says:

    On the point of attorneys, weren’t the sophists the first attorneys, in terms of self serving arguments. Jeff watch any cup they give you, it might have hemlock in it.

  276. Pablo says:

    And maybe a swirly.

  277. Carin says:

    Patt needs to explain the nuance to commenters such as this one :

    If Obama fails then the whole country fails. You sound like a traitor to me, Mr. Thompson.

    But, but, but … Fred did it “Right.” Oh, the heartache.

  278. cranky-d says:

    And an Indian burn.

    I denounce myself.

  279. McGehee says:

    If Obama fails then the whole country fails.

    Because he’s Teh Messiah! Only if he succeeds can the world be saved! Only if he succeeds will the Mayan calendar reset and time continue past 21 Dec 2012!

  280. dicentra says:

    WTF is going on?

    I’m giving Charles the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the pressures of running LGF 24/7 have made him punch-drunk.

    Auto-denouncement included.

  281. Comment by Darleen on 3/26 @ 7:21 am #

    —————————————–

    Dude thinks Christian Creationist are going to “destroy science” and that Robert Freakin’ Spencer is a Nazi symp. He’s simply not right in the head.

  282. ccoffer says:

    “I’d debate Charles, but I’m afraid he’d ban me.”

    Thats like being “afraid” you might hit the ground after jumping off the roof. Tiny Little Balls is a worthless exercise all the way around.

  283. Pablo says:

    I’m giving Charles the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the pressures of running LGF 24/7 have made him punch-drunk.

    Yeah. If there’s a guy who needs a well deserved vacation, Charles is it.

  284. Makewi says:

    It occurs to me that Carlin’s take on words and meaning might be an effective weapon in this struggle, from an unlikely source.

  285. Jeff G. says:

    Link it up, brother! I’ll bump it to a post.

  286. Big D says:

    Here you go, Jeff.

Comments are closed.