So says Politico. Yet I don’t see the evidence that Bachmann won’t accept an apology, just that she didn’t appreciate Wallace’s question, which played directly into the left’s — and make no mistake, the GOP establishment’s, as well — desire to see Bachmann, like Sarah Palin, ultimately marginalized as a candidate.
Of course, the mainstream press has been willing to build her up — doing so may keep Palin out of the race, and it’s not like they won’t attack her just as viciously as they did Palin once she gains traction, effectively killing two birds with one stone — so perhaps Wallace did her candidacy a favor by getting the ball rolling on her “vetting” early on.
****
update: Bachmann tells TEA Partiers she’s one of them.
Wallace’s question was disrespectful. Could you imagine him doing that to Barack Obama in 2008?
But hey, politics is unfair. Palin and Bachman will never be treated fairly, so they need to be ready for it all the time. Humor would be a good way to go, quickly escallating to mocking the questioner when appropriate.
Q: President Obama, more than half the nation’s voters now believe you are an abject moron. How do you respond to this?
sdferr, I would like to see you interview the President.
I’m confused how many legs the stool has exactly
Well, Bachmann’s done.
I mean, Biden’s “It’s a three letter word – J – O – B – S” didn’t really do him in, but then, he’s not a skeeery flaky cumslut hootchie with a twang.
happy, stand up! Let people see you! Oh, God love ya.
Have you visited all 57 of our states, hf, like our cool, neato super keen president (who, by the way, totally disagrees with you about gay marriage)?
Have you pressed the “overcharge” button?
Jesus, you’re a dumb, repetitive, boring, misogynistic, liberal douche, hf.
Well happyfeet,
I believe if you consider it a bit closer, you might get the nuance of her statement. Peace-through-strength, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism describe issues based areas of interest; which make up the three stool legs that we’ve often discussed here.
The tea-party movement, which originally was primarily concerned with fiscal issues, is made up of people for whom that is the prime focus, but who also may have other areas of focus for their self-described interests as well. In fact some of those areas may be “niche” interests outside the three broad categories Bachmann likened to the stool legs.
At least, that’s my grasp of that quote. But then again, I’m not always the brightest light in the room, if you know what I mean :)
Or, what Jeff said.
(And, yes, that will be the last time I address the pikachu.)
I have to admit that I lean closer to Althouse’s take on it; basically, that the question was floated as a cutesy shorthand for “a lot of people want to portray you as a flake; what’s your response to them?” Obviously, it was not received as either cutesy or fair, but I’m not one to privilege the hearer’s interpretation over the speaker’s intention.
To be honest, I’m surprised and a little disappointed that she wasn’t ready to hit that one out of the park. I know if I were on her staff, I’d have the response honed to a razor edge and well rehearsed by now.
Obama’s A: Ha! Very funny.
Well Chris, seeing as how the majority of that majority was so slow to catch on themselves, I don’t think we should put too much stock in their views, do you? I mean, that’s a racist pot calling the poor black guy black. So no. I don’t.
Is there a colon after “stool”, feets? Because I read that like the four attributes follow the analogy to expand it, not define it.
I’ve made a few of those in my time. In their simplest form, they have four components: three legs and a seat.
The question grated on me when he asked it, because it could have been asked better, but Bachmann needs to be ready for stuff like that. Wallace has proven that he is not interested in puff pieces.
However, I doubt she wouldn’t accept his apology.
There’s the lead, right up front. It’s all you need to evaluate the “story”. That’s what they do there, tell stories, for the progressive’s bedtime.
Don’t we just love this stuff?
Kinda scary, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right. WAWATF’ed! (Just save yourself the trouble of going to a Witness meeting. Please! OMG!)
The whole country needs a twelve step program, but “we” have become too lame to even understand THAT!
How stupid are these flash mobs? They live in the 7th century with the Islamists, but want what little money WE make to be stuffed deeply into their butts by the “LightGiver”. Wanna talk about political sodomy? Obama (and most politicians) could give a shit about life in the real world. Those shitheads are set for life, NO MATTER WHAT! I probably wouldn’t give a shit either if YOU were more than paying my shiftless freight. Fuck you! I’m all set!
Does the name Anthony Weiner bring any sort of hubris to mind? He actually SHAVED that stupid, useless, “fuck teenaged girls” piece of excess Joooooooish meat, sent out boner pictures, and then said “What? What? What is YOUR problem? I still deserve to be a Congressman!” Too bad “pork” is just a misnomer.
Excuse me, your excellency. What? What? In my butt?
Too stupid to live. we are now living the “Darwin Principle” (principal?)
I am, at this moment, attaching a jet engine to my Camaro to see if I can hit the cliff at above three hundred feet…
And, by the way, I am on my sixth try of watching “Battle Los Angeles” all the way through.
HOO HAH!!!!!
Wallace may not be the bleeding brain liberal all of the other MBM are, but he is still MBM. He does not ask questions to solicit information. He asks only gotcha questions, and always seems much more comfortable attacking Conservatives from the Establishment perspective than vice versa.
By a lot of people, he means the Establishment people who matter. FNS is such a wasted opportunity.
Well, yeah. It’s all well and good to note the exchange, but that we’re now parsing the extent to which Bachmann is or isn’t accepting Wallace’s apology seems like reaching for something. As we’ve noted previously, they’re not beyond making shit up.
In other news, remember the good old days? Now I’m getting all wistful.
Blagojevich convicted on 17 corruption counts
jeez Mr. scotch I just thought it was an interesting locution … me I have two (2) stools for my soda pop table but they have four legs each with red leatherette tops they’re very cheerful but they don’t have any particular symbolisms
Once more, it’s like deja vu all over again once more.
you’re so jaded
Pass the Prell, please.
You can sometimes judge a person my their
enemies.
zino, “This country needs an enema!”
I apologize for opening this particular can of worms on this thread, but I just thought of a good point:
What if two hetero women, failing to find husbands, decide to “marry” and then do artificial (or non) insemination to bear children, thereby starting a family. They don’t engage in sexual congress at all; they just want the bennies.
Women grok other women better than they grok men and vice-versa. So if a woman can get the bennies of marriage without having to deal with a man, then why shouldn’t she?
We’ll end up with a society in which an increasing number of households consist of “married” adult women, with the men providing stud service on occasion, but otherwise not really being involved in child rearing or home life.
These men, untethered from family and home, will concentrate their considerable energy in activities that do not benefit society but that provide the men with plenty of macho entertainment, as we can see in the inner cities and other lawless areas of the world.
Failure to socially encourage or even compel the sexes to bond and then to learn to live with and love each other will not result in anything good. When men don’t focus their sexual energy into family-building (and bonding with fidelity-demanding women), we will indeed reap the whirlwind.
Because NY does not have a residence requirement to get a marriage license, gays will get married there, return to their home states, and then demand that the Equal Protection clause be applied.
And they’ll be absolutely right.
We just lost the battle against SSM. Nothing more to be done but await the inevitable (and long-term) consequences and mourn the loss of the Republic.
All because we couldn’t bear to be called bigots by people who hate our guts anyway.
That’s from the tease on the National Soros Radio homepage.
The article is a nice catalog of recent gaffes and/or picayune criticisms of her.
ot but fun
link
We’ll end up with a society in which an increasing number of households consist of “married” adult women, with the men providing stud service on occasion, but otherwise not really being involved in child rearing or home life.
This is ripped straight from those tedious Orson Scott Card books. I forced myself to get through book 4 of 5 and then I just couldn’t do the whole rat people versus bird people thing.
Aristotle had something to say about what mostly happens most of the time and what mostly doesn’t happen almost all of the time, I think.
Wrong.
that’s exactly the living arrangements those wackadoodles had in the Orson Scott Card books before the computer broked – the hoochies lived in the nice city and the guys were exiled out to the perimeter and they could only sign up for year-long stud service contracts and if they didn’t have a contract they couldn’t hang out in the city except I think there was a market they could go to for to buy tasty noodles or something I can’t remember
But how are you on the moralizing State, feets, when it serves up a nice hot steaming side of conflict of interest?
what’s wrong with Lady Gaga it’s cool that America still produces global pop icons I think – it’s not something we should take for granted
doesn’t the gay thingy have a thread?
Perhaps that’s exactly the sort of thing we ought to take for granted.
Back up a sentence in dicentra’s astute comment, feets, to find what brings us to such a condition.
De facto family law Statism, my good feets, of the kind that makes it the husband. It’s in place and it’s happening as the federal policy that infiltrated family “court” years ago. Call it the welfare state because that’s where the fiscal incentives come.
I agree with dicentra in that I think that hetero couples consisting of two men or two women, leaning towards the latter, will be the largest users of SSM. It’s almost always easier for a man to get along with another man than with a woman, though men will not be large users at first because so many are afraid of looking gay. As that issue becomes less important, more men will “marry” other men for the financial benefits that go along with it, and get their sex on the side with women, who will likely be married to other women as well.
As always, these issues exist on the margins but expand to fill the entire space once a “solution” is proposed. Every time changes like this are made, a crapload of consequences are the result. The side effects of SSM will be interesting to behold.
This society, if it keeps going like it is, will crumble. There is historical precedent for it, and no precedent for such a society’s surviving.
Try not to fire into your own ranks, feets. What’s wrong with Lady Clinton?
family law sucks ass it’s not my fault
Clinton’s just bluffin’ with her muffin I think
But you’ll bust someone for pointing that out one generation removed.
Occam’s razor would make an abattoir of this poor little thread I think
Alternate feets: The inhabitants of this failshit little country under bumblefuck and boehnerfag are well equipped to stave off the welfare state socialisms and worse I think. It’s the most obvious answer I think.
I think I’m with you Cranky-d. There does seem to be something gone freakishly awry, and most people will agree to that, I think. But the problem before us is: what? What is it or are they, the thing or things gone wrong? And how to repair or replace the elements gone wrong, once we identify them correctly, of course? Or maybe the society ought not survive, or even the preceding one if it somehow always leads to another this one?
like
we will see – from the vantage point of California (knows how to party) my confidence in the staving is a lot dwindling Mr. Howard
but we’ll always have plucky individuals
we’re Americans!
Plucky shut-mouthed American individuals what can’t be speaking things like they are for fear I think.
ultraviolence lol
I heard that earlier, happyfeet, and I’m in 100% agreement with the decision.
me too
“There does seem to be something gone freakishly awry, and most people will agree to that, I think. But the problem before us is: what? What is it or are they, the thing or things gone wrong? ”
top down, bottom up, inside out – van jones
sdferr, you ask good questions, and I have no answers. I doubt there is anything we can do to turn it around, since the inertia is likely too great to overcome. I think we will simply continue on this path until we collapse, and some new society will arise. If we can hold onto the scientific advances we have made, it won’t have been a total loss, and it will make it easier to rise again, hopefully higher than we did this time around.
What is happening now may be the expected result from the societies we set up, but I don’t think that necessarily means we shouldn’t have done it. Perhaps societies wax and wain naturally.
The big problem is that a liberal (in the truest sense) society like ours (or like it used to be) is fairly rare in human history. I expect we’ll have more tyranny than we would like in the future, and that it will take a very long time to come out of that state. We’ll probably be relatively okay, though we will not enjoy the liberty we have now, but anyone who is young now will see some fairly bleak things in their old age.
That doesn’t mean I won’t try to fix it, I’m just not particularly optimistic about our chances. The next few years will give us a good idea about where we’re headed.
“limits as a violation of young people’s First Amendment rights ”
i know already that this decision was not about that
from volokh:
“(1) Video games are within the protection of the First Amendment, just as are other forms of entertainment (and entertainment has long been seen as constitutionally protected, partly because it can embody ideas, including political ones).”
link
so the “journolist” is an idiot.
Ockham’s razor is on my side, hf. People are very predictable, if you only know how to look at them. Once marriage has been further devalued to the point of being a purely financial relationship, and not one geared towards raising children, you will get many more marriages for that purpose among people who have no sexual interest in each other. Family law has done its part already, and SSM will finish the job.
Hallelujah, gays will be able to get married just in time to have marriage mean absolutely nothing except a purely financial arrangement. Family court will have a field day with them; there will be so many new laws to invent to cover all the issues.
You’ll get your wish, oh lord up cupcakes, and so much more.
Public Dick
patsyfoot
Someone run over to PJM and borrow me a fedora.
If you are going to commit a crime and you have a same sex criminal accomplice, marry him or her before the caper. That way, you can’t be forced to testify against one another in the event either of you is caught.
Plus, blowjob for the honeymoon!
that sounds like a Ridley Scott movie
Mr. cranky traditional marriage is oft oft oft a financial arrangement. We’re all quite practiced in looking the other way, especially us Lutherans.
Taking a stab at it Cranky-d — though none too confidently let me add — I suspect that the proximate cause was a failure to continue to teach the things necessary for us as a people to understand the arrangements we had made for our governance, such that the whole polity was unprepared to notice and object when minor alterations were made over time which in the aggregate would recreate a new organization of our government beneath our very feet. When finally, someone noticed, it was too late either to educate us or to cope with the necessary changes we’d have to bring about to reestablish the older order. Or, something like that.
Here’s what Montesquieu had to say about that:
So, you’re saying it’s time to start drinking?
Start? What’s taking you?
This virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country.
well so much for that
Not sure, sdferr. Normally I remember the NFL lock-out by this time of night and that prompts me.
American government is a cowardly mangy-assed dog what’s jumped on your table to eat your roast beefs but what scurries away hahaha just as you’re about to nail it with a swiffer or backpack or box of frozen perogies.
He also held forth on the question of the corruption of each and said this about ours:
Mostly aiming at “direct democracy” I think, as well as at the obvious purist egalitarianism.
he doesn’t mention anything about when a little country starts the rather dubious business of passing laws for to find out what’s in them
I would say, sdferr, that your suspicion about the cause of our downfall is definitely a contribution to the problem and is likely key. I believe that there has been a widespread failure to transmit the principles that allowed our country to be great to the newer generations. Once the chain is broken it is difficult to re-forge. We can certainly look at the current culture as embodying a widespread failure in civic-mindedness as well as other virtues in favor of immediate gratification, no matter the cost to anyone else.
I inattentively left out an important part, here:
:
fortunately America has a Department of Justice what roots out corruptions like them squealy squealy French piggies find the truffles
Not for nothing, I have a new favorite store in New York: Superdry.
Now you all know what to get me for Christmas and my birthday. And the fourth of July. Chest size is anywhere between 44-46, with 44 a bit on the tighter size.
And if you don’t want to muck up a clothing choice, this or this or this will work just fine, thanks.
I like some of their stuff but their polo shirts look supremely douchey
(I checked to make sure you didn’t link any before I hit submit)
This is ripped straight from those tedious Orson Scott Card books.
No it isn’t. I have read those books, and that’s not what the books portray: they have a City of Women who own all the property, who have year-by-year marriage contracts with men, and only men married to women have privileges inside the city.
But the women are not married to each other. The only commonality with what I said is that men are marginalized. But the in the OSC books, the marginalized men don’t prey on the women of the city because the women have all the resources, and it’s in the men’s best interests to ingratiate themselves to the women. So they tend to behave themselves, relatively.
My point of reference is the inner city where men are already untethered from home and family; the girls bear children because it’s in their economic interest to do so, and the boys form gangs and kill each other over petty insults.
I also saw the same kind of thing in the poorer areas of Colombia, where the men through their machismo and abuse wrecked the ties between men and women, leaving the world of child-care almost exclusively to the women, while the men indulged their vices at will, returning home only when they damn well felt like it. Assuming that they had only one home, of course: some men set up a second household (“we don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love”) and alternate between the two, telling each woman that his job took him out of town 3-4 nights a week.
Lovely situation, that. Despite its prevalance and long standing, the women hate the informal bigamy with their whole souls.
hetero couples consisting of two men or two women, leaning towards the latter, will be the largest users of SSM
Men won’t do it much, if at all. Women overwhelmingly have the nesting instinct whereas men have wanderlust. The devaluation of fatherhood started long ago, and continues down the generations, when those who grew up fatherless see no problem in perpetuating that absence.
Because it’s easier. If the sexes no longer have to cooperate to form households or raise children, people will take the path of least resistance. It’s what humans do.
We’ll then be more like tigers or bears, who meet up periodically to mate, but the males are dangerous to the cubs who aren’t theirs.
And the rage and lack of self-control that is engendered in the fatherless children will rip us to pieces if the food riots haven’t done it already.
I suspect that the proximate cause was a failure to continue to teach the things necessary for us as a people to understand the arrangements we had made for our governance.
That’s why the proggs knew that their slow march through the institutions would render us defenseless against their sophistries. They are as clever as they are evil.
dominos only all fall down lickety split quick like a bunny in a shimmering ribbon of fail if you’ve lined them up just so
I’ve spent most of a lifetime suggesting to people how to avoid the problem the progressives built-in to the sad education people receive in the schools. And you know what? Most everybody says either “boring” or shut-up (which latter hasn’t happened yet), though a couple of people have taken me up on the suggestion. They said later it was fun.
I disagree that men won’t do the SSM thing, but I’m probably looking at it differently. I would see it as something one does in their 60s or 70s, mostly to stabilize income and housing and to have someone to make health care decisions instead of letting the state do it. I agree that young men would likely not partake.
What is happening now may be the expected result from the societies we set up, but I don’t think that necessarily means we shouldn’t have done it. Perhaps societies wax and wane naturally.
They do. When a society achieves widespread prosperity, it goes soft, the same way you lose muscle and bone mass in null (or reduced) gravity. We got the boomers when the hard-scrabble Greatest Generation vowed that their kids would have everything they didn’t, instead of what they DID. I guess they figured that their kids would learn patriotism and gratitude through osmosis; they didn’t count on what relative ease does to the character, nor did they suspect that the education/entertainment complex was infested by the same monsters they’d just defeated in the war.
All the professors had to do was wield their credentials, and the parents of the students, knowing that something was wrong, nevertheless couldn’t fight back against the sophistry because they didn’t have those credentials themselves.
To an extent, you can’t prevent decline. You can only preach to the remnant and hope that something good can grow later.
The fail need not be domino-like to still be fail. Does anyone imagine that when the SCOTUS made abortion law that they envisioned the levels of magnitude increase in the number of abortions performed? Not likely. Instead, they most likely believed that they would simply make it legal and the small number of abortions performed would remain small, but legal.
Unintended consequences always seem to outweigh the original point. It’s arguable in this case if those consequences are unintended. I think they are.
I’m sure, electric hamster, that you think otherwise. We’ll see what actually happens, and my bet is on dicentra’s take. Saying “I told you so” will give me a tiny amount of satisfaction, but not much.
I meant, I think the consequences are intended, though they will get something they didn’t actually sign up for.
I like some of their stuff but their polo shirts look supremely douchey
The collar up look tends to give beta males the chills.
it’s more the huge branding thing plastered in front I think
Wouldn’t that more rightfully fall under the category of tacky rather than douchey?
Only the male ones.
yes. Tacky.
“The collar up look tends to give beta males the chills.”
collar up = self satisfied trust fund losers
speaking of for reals douchey here is a fun story about a firefighter what blew his head off after he was shit-canned and humiliated by a douchey geriatric piece of shit named Lloyd Ayers
I don’t really wear polo shirts. But I liked most everything in the store. Americana filtered through Japanese sensibilities as understood by Brits. First I’d heard of the brand, to be honest.
Forgive me for being particularly dense here. But I’m wondering cranky, what’s the specific historical precedent for how we’re going like we are, however it is we’re going? Other than generally and generically wrong-track, that is.
I heard for the first time today of an asian brand today what is startling and delighting American consumers … it’s called h-mart and it’s an Asian food superstore with frozen leek dumplings what I’m excited to try – there’s some in LA kinda but nowhere near me – a couple in the Chicago burbs too – very random – but they have tons and tons and tons of stuff for to try and my friend what went said they have lots of samples
plus lots of mysterious beverages!
From four posts below this one, titled “There are no Socialists,” Victor Davis Hanson:
collar up = self satisfied trust fund losers
Like I said.
Well, in a partial stab at #44, I think I’d have to say a major factor is the rise of moral relativism and the banishment of God from the public square. Each one is a different side of the same sword.
Moral realtivism, it’s all good as long as it satisfies my personal truth, allows people the intellectual and moral latitude to freely infringe on others, even steal from, or murder, them as long as the perpatrators are getting theirs. It is fundamentally incongurent with the Abrahamic religions, outside of radical jihadist Islam that is, which essentially say that it’s all good, as long as you’d be good with someone doing the same to you. One duty to others was stressed as well as one’s duty not to take advantage of that by being an endless “taker”; again, do unto others and all. And also, religion embodies the idea of transcendant truths, which is the antithesis of moral relativism.
It’s easy to see how one get’s from, “It’s all good and I’m gettin’ mines”, and the idea of personal truths-no matter how fallacious or ridiculous, being as equal as reality or codified, agreed upon, truths in the form of law or social compact, to the modern day exuses for what would once be rightly described as anti-social behavior, all under the guise of such behavior being the “culture” of that person’s identity group.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate sdferr’s posted quotes and the idea that people have forgotten the underpinnings of our government. But I think that although it manifests itself in our politics, it transcends politics and governance.
Just my two cents…
the idea of transcendant truths, which is the antithesis of moral relativism.
“We cannot [be] showing nipples in photographs of Philadelphia firefighters,” Ayers told the newspaper.*
H Mart is the bomb. We have them here in Atlanta.
One entire aisle devoted to flavors of vinegars and another devoted to flavors of chili sauces and 40 varieties of sesame oils. Walmart sized aisles, too. The whole store is like that. The only downside is most of the labels are in Japanese, Korean, or Chinese so unless you can read the label you may not get what you think you are getting. No english subtitles and the workers tend to not be real fluent in our language.
The lunch/dinner counter is a thing of beauty.
mmmm mmmm. And tons of varieties of those little flavors sticks (Poki??) dipped in chocolate…
OK, thanks. I am unusually dense tonight.
Of course the toddler twisting her ringlet curls around her finger with one hand while alternately sucking the thumb of her other hand and pulling up the hem of her dress to show off her polka-dotted bloomers is proving more distracting than usual in this thread. So it’s not entirely my fault.
yes I heard that too about the labels and that the employees do not sprechen – but it looks fun like you were plonked down in Seoul and your mission is to find tasty foozles
“outside of radical jihadist Islam that is,”
islam is what it is. please don’t 10 years after 9/11 and after 15,000 actions by the jihadists tell me about the “religion of peace”. it is a joke.
Yeah, if one can be said to have forgotten what they never knew in the first place.
Only the male ones.
I’m pretty sure they kill all cubs to stop the female from lactating and going back into estrus.
The problems also stem from allowing the fringe to infringe on the majority. All things are not equal.
The silent majority has much blame for being, well, silent. In it’s silence, their edges were nibbled off and their majority has been lost. They were lulled into inaction safe in their beliefs that they were and always would be the majority. The fringe were irritants providing bemusement and easily dismissed til they got a foothold on the edges. And the majority didn’t figure it was a big deal. It was. In a land built for Giants, the Lilliputians now control. Ponder that.
the majority should form a group for to advocate for their sense of what is moral
the could call themselves… the spice girls
I was referring to our newly animalized fellow homo sapiens, di. For the most part, they are only interested in getting rid of the male offspring that aren’t theirs.
*they* could call themselves I mean
“Yeah, if one can be said to have forgotten what they never knew in the first place.”
hey we be multiculti no:)
“In acquitting Geert Wilders the Dutch judge bucked a European trend. Despite years of intolerance towards any criticism of Islam, the Netherlands are honouring their tradition of ensuring a sanctuary for open debate. In western European countries over the past few years, things have been quite different: sworn opponents of Islam have been condemned for expressing their views.”
http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/743751-geert-wilders-voltaire-our-times
Touche, sdferr. One can’t forget what one never knew…
And maybe even build a country around those premises. Complete with a Constitution that protects minority citizens.
Or I suppose we could try a country where everyone’s morals hold equal sway and see where that gets us. In Europe, the result seems to be have been self-satisfaction followed by small worries followed by politically powerful factions demanding the majority bend to their will, using earlier rulings about their “rights” to deconstruct the status quo — until ultimately we’ll see some sort of reactionary backlash.
Nah. Best just to go with the former, I think.
happyfeet, I’m not getting what the fireman posing has to do with transcendant truths? Am I slow was that just quality snark?
I think you need the background from #88 Mr. Bob
politically powerful factions are usually up to no good
that was a flash of polka-dots and ruffles, Bob that was
Yeah. Like, the majority is always The Man, man. And The Man is never up to any good.
Bob, it wasn’t intended entirely as a snark: Plato had a whole long spiel on what souls remembered from before they arrive back on earth and so on, scattered throughout a bunch of the dialogues. Personally, I suspect most commentators make more of the story than is warranted, but still, it’s there to be dealt with.
At least, not usually.
We traded morals for values a long time ago.
Sarah Palin.
BOO!
The first rule of quality snark is that you don’t have to ask if it’s quality snark.
factions doesn’t necessarily mean the majority I don’t think and I think more often a politically powerful faction is a lot not the majority like the ethanol people and the ones what took away our lightbulbs
was that quality snark what you just said Mr. Abe?
to say nothing of the gay mafia
A faction could be one uppity pikachu what amplifies by repetition and rancor.
Heh.
That was good.
For the most part, they are only interested in getting rid of the male offspring that aren’t theirs.
Great. An imbalance favoring more girls than boys.
POLIGs!
Or maybe it could be the counterbalance to the boy-preference in Asia and India.
Mr. Montesquieu has a bunch of good stuff to say about polygamy and polyandry too. But he’s a climatist, olde style.
I saw that happyfeet, and am still not getting it. It’s a sad story, to be sure, and I’m surprised that the young firefighter took his own life; especially considering his Catholic background. I would have thought he would have put his faith and trust in God to fullfill his promise from Isaiah 54:17
I mean, he was a Marine as well. Or is there something I’m missing about Ayers?
Sad to say, I’ve had similar thoughts, Di.
I didn’t think your comment was snark sdferr, I thought it pithy. I must be slow on the uptake tonight.
it’s no fun to splain but you were talking about moral relativity so I adduced a moral absolute… “We cannot [be] showing nipples in photographs of Philadelphia firefighters”
seems reasonable enough
but what if you read a little and find out they were charity nipples?
belonging to a guy?
a guy what was a skilled elite highly-trained firefighter who was passionate about his firefightings?
a guy what was a skilled elite highly-trained firefighter who was passionate about his firefightings who blewed his head off after being humiliated for showing his nipples?
I think a dash of moral relativism starts to look pretty condign, no?
It was indirectly snark — aimed at our many generations of poorly educated fellow citizens where it comes to the principles of their own nation Bob, not aimed at yourself, to be clear.
OT: Obama decides he is the one he’s been waiting for.
I was clear on that sdferr. And being a jocular fellow, I generally don’t care if I’m the target anyway, as long as it’s funny :) Believe me, one doesn’t last long in the wardroom, or a large family, if you’re skin is thin.
You see what happens Bob? You question the idea that teh buttseks ought to be blessed wit’ state-sanctioned conjugality, and the next thing you know, some poor guy with problems we know nothing about blows his brains out on account of some old meany not liking his nipple pix and making him feel bad about himself! People should never be made to feel bad about themselves, you dirty bad-about-themselves-feeler maker you!
This is Chewbacca…
Don’t have to look very far back to see this little gem in action, only to last week’s announcement of course reversal on his own fucking already inadequately sourced Afghanistan strategy. So now it’s less than the too little it already was.
I keep trying to formulate something about how (the American culture = ‘America’ = the silent majority) and the laws of unintended consequences.
Can proggs really envision that ‘America’ the concept won’t be there in the morning? Or do they think they can enact their changes and that the results will be the same ‘America’ that we have now? I don’t believe that they can conceive of an ‘American’less world. Some days I really believe they are dumb enough to think that all their changes won’t kill ‘America’ as a concept.
I really expect them, when America crashes and burns to turn to “America” and expect it to fix it and make it better. They really are THAT stupid.
I’m sorry happyfeet, I’m not being obtuse; I’m really not getting it, or something.
I don’t understand why he should have been humiliated for having his picture taken for a charity calendar. I can see being pissed about the personnel dust-up with the commissioner, but he had to know that it would have worked out in his favor ultimately. Or he could have gone to a variety of nearby cities with large fire departments.
It’s a sad story, especially because the commissioner was being a jerk, but I’m not seeing a connection to moral relativism or religion.
Dude! face it, it seems I’m about as sharp as a bowling bar tonight :)
It’s the old my greatest weakness? I guess it’s I care too much/work to hard job interview ploy!
Um, all morality is relative.
Relative to the circumstances that you’re judging.
Feets is trying to show us that a one-size-fits-all generalization (at 30,000 feet, no less) is not adequate to the situation.
Doy.
What people condemn as moral relativism isn’t “morality” at all so much as it is license backed by sophistry and bullying via “who are you to judge you damned godbothering Christer!”
Turns out that determining What Is Moral in a given situation requires attention to detail, an understanding of the Hierarchy of Morality, wisdom to predict the consequences of going this way or that, and heap big compassion.
‘Feets doesn’t want to judge Teh Gays what want to marry because he knows they’re not bad people and it feels wrong to tell them NO Just Because.
Whereas I feel compelled to say that by being nice to 1-3% of the population, bye saying, “hey, we don’t want to be all exclusion-y and judgy and mean, so come sit at our table and be like us,” we’re going to cause something much worse to happen within a generation or two and that those who promoted SSM never meant for the bad thing to happen, but happen it did, and good luck fixing it.
Because those who objected to The Great Society were accused of Vile Racism, when they pointed out that all that welfare would destroy families and perpetuate more poverty and all kinds of social pathologies, but people just said, hey, they’re going to have those kids out of wedlock anyway: we should at least make sure they’re taken care of.
And now that the results of that vast experiment are plain for all to see, what now? Can we teach those inner-city kids and the trailer-park kids how to keep their knees together and their junk in their pants and to not drop out of school and to just up and heal from the parental absence that has cauterized their very souls without good examples for them to follow?
Can we even suggest that the social pathologies exist and that Whitey may be the cause but not the white racists on Team R but rather the myopic, white proggs what want to keep their political base poor so they can have their votes?
I doubt anyone can foresee the negative consequences of our tinkering with marriage. The fact that we’re doing it to be nice to nice people won’t stop the bad things from happening.
Stephanie, your faulty premise here is that proggs more or less share the same concept of America as the rest of us share (more or less).
yes what dicentra said
I also doubt anyone can foresee the negative consequences of our tinkering with marriage.
Some days I really believe they are dumb enough to think that all their changes won’t kill ‘America’ as a concept.
On the contrary, destroying America the concept and America the nation and America the identity is exactly what they’re shooting for. Read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United State to see what Dennis Prager calls “a proctologist’s view of American history.”
They’ll tell you that America deserves to be destroyed because it is the Ultimate Oppressor that commits horrible injustices against Brown People. They’ll rail about the income inequality in the U.S. and our outlandish energy consumption plus the consumption of resources and our materialism and it’s so bad you can’t even believe it.
Actually, they hate America because it’s wealthy but they’re not in charge of it. They being the genius proggs who are entitled to rule on account of their being genius proggs.
Advanced, see. Their foreheads don’t slope.
I doubt anyone can foresee the negative consequences of our tinkering with marriage.
Edit: I doubt anyone can foresee all of the negative consequences of our tinkering with marriage.
But I’m pretty sure that some bad negatives will head our way, and they’ll make us forget the positives.
There generally are necessary particulars involved in beneficent moral judgments. What’s strange about the queer’s marriage thing is the who does what to whom — in the sense of how the one cause leads to the untoward consequences posited. I mean, who and how bad conclusions are drawn from the example of queer’s getting married that lead to an utter breakdown of the family, of male-female relationships and so on, it’s just hard to see those people actually unaffected, the heteros (insofar as their own marriages can go right ahead as they’ve always done — not to say unaffected in the sense that either their religious precepts are injured or their customary definitional habits are altered) would choose for reasons I don’t fathom quite yet, to end their own practices and manners in ways which will only redound to their own detriment.
Observation: when you’re busy and don’t click the links, the comment threads get somewhat confusing and, quite possibly, funnier.
Nipples. Sloping foreheads. Upturned collars.
It’s like the part of the improv show when the audience shouts out suggestions.
Stephanie is right, dicentra. The percentage of what we broadly call the left which has these sorts of malicious designs is rather tiny compared to those who are essentially sleepwalking.
marriage can be separate but equal?
Charles Freeman perhaps, Ernst? Or the American Mind?
Vanguard advanced. Somebody has to take charge of the dictatorship of the proletariat and make that high speed train to Communism and The End of History run on schedule! Gaia knows it ain’t gonna be those proles clinging bitterly to their opiates.
Ernst, does bh gots your e-mail addy?
It’s Bloom’s American Mind. Unfortunately for me I conflated the titles.
And yes, both volumes are sitting on my desk as we speak.
Good catch bh.
Don’t think I do, sdferr.
You can count that as proof that I often find your excerpts compelling enough to occasionally expand my reading list, Ernst.
Ernst, e-mail me at sdferr at comcast dot nett and I’ll send you some transcripted stuff I think you’d find interesting.
Nobody’s got my email sdferr. It doesn’t fit my online persona of a slightly paranoid bitter clinging wingnut. Why do you think I make it a point to never mention where in the vasty expanse of the upper midwest (that’s not MN) that I live?
Ahhh, Strauss, sdferr. Strauss -> Bloom, I should have guessed.
okee- dokee sdferr.
But if you give out my email I weel hun’chu down an I weel keel chu an chu gonna di mon!
I’m gonna take these chronologically so bear with me.
“I apologize for opening this particular can of worms on this thread…”
I’m with ya sister, and please don’t take my attempts to redirect your considerable firepower to other targets as dismissive of your concerns or as minimizing of the stakes. Think of it as a strategic adjustment. In warfare it’s critical to find the enemy’s weakness, then use maneuver and speed to outflank him and crush him utilizing overwhelming force.
The enemy SSS (Socialized Spending Spenders;) weakness is described in the thread following this one. With every passing day the enemies intelligence is exposed as the propoganda it actually is. They have been trying desperately to utilize this so-called intelligence to justify and fund their operations. But they know their window of opportunity is small so they will use any measure available to distract and confuse us; hoping that if they take the high ground we will not have the will or forces to counterattack.
Try using the experience of Gen MacArthur on the Philippines as inspiration, Sometimes you have to retreat, reinforce then reattack with a better strategy.
DON’T FIGHT THE DEVIL ON HIS TERMS!!!
You trackin me Sister? ;)
That didn’t sound like an upper Midwest dialect, Ernst. In fact, I’m rather convinced that you’re a native Puerto Rican who has been living in Jamaica since childhood.
I think Danger misses blowing shit up.
Think me e-mail mummic, E. Mummic is the word. And don’t know nothin bout birthin babies neither.
What are you, some kind of punk?
That Berlin Wall reference seems kind of dated, no?
“That doesn’t mean I won’t try to fix it, I’m just not particularly optimistic about our chances.”
Crankster,
It only takes a mustard seed (correctly applied with a cudgel;) to move a mountain.
Ya know, a guy might want to think twice about giving out a fella’s email address. That’s the kind of thing could get a guy’s heart cut out and served to him inna hotdish! You bet.
Ernst, I’m considering ‘Amurica’ the experiment as a concept similar to a guardian angel reset that can swoop in and fix any troubles that arise.
I don’t doubt for a minute that some proggs truly believe that ‘Amurica is a bad, bad place what must atone for its sins’ on a meta level. I’m just considering that, as usual, the majority of their followers haven’t thought through the plans (they are wonderful parrots after all), and like adolescent children sneaking out for their third joy ride in 6 days cause Jamie down the street has done it 4 times this week!!!! haven’t considered that this time their parents ain’t gonna come bail em out of jail. It’s inconceivable! The majority of the followers can’t really conceive of life after America. Similar to the kids not being able to conceive of parents letting them stew in their own juices with gasp! the winos and the rapists. Only in the kids instance, the parents ARE literally out there to potentially ride to the rescue and well, once Amurica is gone, progs have no such guardian angel to swoop in and ‘make it all better.’ Have the majority of their followers thought through exactly what it means to literally kill Amurica?
There is no more ‘shining beacon on the hill’ able to jump in and fill the bulge in Ardennes. It.Isn’t.There. Kinda like Hillary’s reset button that we laugh at. Don’t they realize there isn’t an ability to ‘reset’ to before the endarkenment if it is lost? Personally, I find that many of the ‘believers’ are tilting at windmills just cause they can stick it to some vague sense of ‘the man.’ The aftereffects are vague and oh, well. We’re America. We’ll survive it. They still have the haze of a ghost of the old ‘Amurica’ as muddling by. Except it’s. not. there.
Good stuff.
Kinda like locker rooms.
My mistake in focusing too narrowly on Proggs, then. Thanks for the clarification Stephanie. The leftoid followers of the progressive leaders can’t concieve of anything. They only see what they’re shown.
That’s what makes them a mob.
Just want to add quick that I love the ‘Murica as guardian angel to the world analogy, Stephanie. This is a providential nation, and always has been.
Pray God we remain so.
Shuffle Off to Buhuhulu
“Jeff G. posted on6/27 @ 12:54 pm
Well, Bachmann’s done.
I mean, Biden’s “It’s a three letter word – J – O – B – S” didn’t really do him in, but then, he’s not a skeeery flaky cumslut hootchie with a twang.”
Thanks, Jeff. This has brightened my morning by a considerable margin.
I am somewhat confounded, however, that Joey Plugs didn’t have a starring role in “Be Cool”.
Stephanie –
You are my new favorite genius. You have a wonderful way with words…
sdferr –
Comcast?
You poor thing! Did you have to give up your firstborn to get into the program?
What a horror show monopolized cable has become. I hate it so much that I can barely fit into my own bedroom because of all the DVD’s and video tapes it takes to forget about how much I miss seeing Jon (notice: no “H”, kinda like “Staci” with a way cool “i”) Stewart.
Or men’s/women’s sports, from high school to pro
bh, 148–guess i should have tried looking at it that way.
for me it felt like a thread gone WAY off the rails.
silly me, i saw over 100 comments and thought there would be a great Bachmann discussion here.
ah, well. maybe next time…
OK On topic:
From “The Morning Jolt” email
Best go with Huntsman then. He’s too bland to say anything stupid
…or interesting.
The “gracious loser” is what the Dems are again working to get the GOP to select. Huntsman would fit the role even if he became President he would still graciously lose to the Left. I expect him to only be vicious to those to his right .
Well, if the McCain campaign proved anything, it was that if you set out to prove that there’s such a thing as losing gracefully, you’ll probably succeed.
Actually, I’d love to see Bachmann own the gaff.
Oh no. I meant John Wayne Gacy. And here’s why: The Left already thinks I’m a clown. So I fully intend to stalk their beloved man-child of a president from now until the November election, when I’ll murder him at the polls!
Probably too much to hope for.
I’m interested to see how Tim Pawlenty (because I don’t have much near sense of the man) reacts to being down in the polls in the early going, i.e., does he remain calm and stick closely to himself; does he double down in a concentration on what he finds the most rational course to pilot in order to free and save the US economy; does he focus on the nation, it’s various crises and the possible solutions to those difficulties; does he frankly and honestly criticize Obama and his policies, explaining carefully how and why Obama has led the nation to the brink of disaster and how the country can begin to undo that damage, hammering the man with truth, in other words — on the one hand — or, on the other hand — does he show signs of alarm or panic and begin to gin up attention catching minor outbursts focused on trivialities; does he reshape himself in ways that may be more appealing to low information voters; does he speak less about the country and it’s troubles than he does about conflicts and contradictions in the speeches or policy recommendations of the other Republican candidates; does he curry favor with independents at the expense of an honest presentation of the difficulties to come?
Or to put it another way, does he act as though the important question — the primary question — is how to help the commonweal or does he act as though the important question is how he gains an office? Is it the office that’s the thing, or is it the nation? Which?
Of course, none of this is binary in any simple way, but I do think it will tend to leave a discernible impression of the more weight on the one side of the balance than on the other.
By the way, it isn’t a good thing that I haven’t already been overcome by a solid impression of the man as on the side of the nation. While I’ve seen enough of him around-and-about that the possibility he could have conveyed the idea already, is clear, what isn’t clear is whether I’ve paid enough attention.
Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. That’s the story and the MBM are sticking to it.
This is an encouraging note:
sdferr, my guess is that Pawlenty concentrates on fundraising so he can last long enough to emerge as the natural choice of the anybody but Romney vote.
Thanks Zino, I think ;)
Ernst: Pray God we remain so.
From your fingers to the universe’s ear.