In case you’re up early this morning wondering how the blogosphere is reacting to Jeff’s tete-a-tete with Amanda Marcotte yesterday, I’ll summarize the bit that I’ve found and let you enjoy your coffee. From Impolitic, we have this:
Marcotte moves into the mainstream
Congrats to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon who has joined the John Edwards campaign as the new blogmaster on his website. She’s off to a great start with a strong post and a huge welcome from the regulars.
I have to admit I don’t know that much about Amanda. I don’t follow the feminist blogs much because I don’t blog the issues since they already cover that ground so well. But I do read her often enough to know Edwards is lucky to get her on board and to also be creeped out by the way Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom is stalking her. Jeff’s long time obsession with her has always struck me as bizarre, but his comments in her welcome thread today verged on deranged. I think he needs to change his meds.
For the record, here is what Jeff said:
Fair and rational? Good luck, Mr Edwards. (2.33 / 3)
Here’s Amanda a few days ago on the Duke rape case:
“For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will–not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Wonder how that’ll play in Raleigh. My guess? Most people find it repulsive—after all, if you are going to convict people in advance of a trial, you probably shouldn’t compound the error by continuing to slime them in the face of overwhelming evidence of their innocence with respect to the charges—though it’s possible the faculty of Arts and Sciences might offer her a teaching post.
Secondly, here she is a couple weeks back on the posture we should take with respect to Iran:
“In addition, this attempt to make war with Iran inevitable demonstrates what true believers the Bushies are. When it turned out that we weren’t being greeted in Iraq with parades and flowers as predicted, the finger-pointing and excuse-seeking began. And one favorite excuse as for why the Iraqi people aren’t behaving as predicted is that the Iranians are a bad influence, pouring impure “terrorist” elements over the border. So, from their perspective, if this is true, the key to getting the parades and flowers from the Iraqis is to stomp out the bad influence of Iran. So, in a weird, simple, sick way, the insistence that we attack Iran that persists in the face of all sane indications that we couldn’t and, more importantly, we shouldn’t, is persisting because it’s the last thread of hope that BushCo has of being right about Iraq.”
I invite you to compare Ms Marcotte’s positions with those of her new employer. From today:
“ At a time when most Democrats in the United States are calling for less military involvement abroad, Edwards, of South Carolina, told the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference on Monday that his country must do everything that it can to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons.
“All the options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,” said Edwards, who is running for president for the second time.
He added that his country had abdicated its responsibility and had not done enough to stop Iran.
Edwards also spoke of the threat Hamas posed to Israel and promised to work to help ensure that Israel’s security needs were met.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?p agename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid =1167467790614
Oh. And be sure to get her take on people of faith. I know Edwards likes to break out the religious-speak when he can. Any of you supporters think it might hurt his credibility that his blogmaster tends to view Christianity with considerable scorn—and to routinely mock people of faith as godbothering, backward-ass hicks?
Again. Might play well at Duke, but I ain’t sure it’ll help ol’ JE pluck off any of them red states.
Enjoy!
I knew Amanda when she was still calling people of faith godbags!
by proteinwisdom (https://www.proteinwisdom.com)
on 1/31/2007 at 5:50 EST
Someone calling himself liberalrob comes to her defense in the thread:
Mr. Goldstein, I presume (none / 2)
In Re: the Duke rape case, she had her position and presented it in her terms. I’m not aware that this case is at all germane to John Edwards running for President, nor do I expect that it should be. As far as it potentially affecting her job as blogmistress, which you intend to insinuate, I think you’re wrong.
On John Edwards’ position on Iran and Amanda’s perceived difference of opinion with the candidate, I will repeat what I said on Pandagon when it was brought up there: I don’t think John Edwards’ position on Iran is what you think it is. Your own quotes from Edwards and Amanda are not at all inconsistent. It is quite appropriate that, as Edwards suggests, “all the options” should be “on the table;” Amanda did not say that they shouldn’t be, only that some options were obviously impractical or immoral (and these were the options favored by the Bush administration).
It is also demonstrably true that the Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to inhibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The continued saber-rattling, hamfisted “diplomacy” and refusal to even talk to the Iranian government has practically forced them to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons in the name of their own self-defense. Amanda’s quote above said nothing in contradiction to this. Similarly, Amanda said nothing about Hamas not being a threat to Israel nor did she suggest that Israel be left to shift for itself, so again there seems to be no contradiction between her statements and John Edwards’.
I myself view Organized Christianity with considerable scorn, so that’s a non-starter with me. I also know that the basic tenets of Christianity, loving thy neighbor, doing unto others, rendering unto Caesar, and all that Jesus taught in life according to the Gospels, are perfectly compatible with my beliefs of what the Good Society should stand for. It’s people who say Christianity must be the official religion of the country and all non-believers should be hounded and ostracized that I have a problem with. It appears to me that you may be one of those. John Edwards is not.
Finally, John Edwards probably doesn’t need to “pluck off any of them red states.” Just all the blue ones and enough of the purple ones to get to 270 electoral votes. Of course it would be nice to get them all, but that’s unlikely.
Your attempt to gin up a phony controversy over Amanda being hired as webmistress falls completely flat. All you have are useless ad-hominem name-calling, which is all I have come to expect from most right-wing bloggers.
by liberalrob (Liberalism)
on 1/31/2007 at 6:30 EST
Leaving aside the thorny issue of whether anything said against Amanda can be ad hominem, what Jeff says about her seems to be a matter of easily accessible record. I must say that, until I read this, it hadn’t occurred to me that Jeff was Christian, but there you have it. Amanda’s recent comments on the Duke “rape case” certainly are germane to the issue of her judgment, and also the judgment of, not a candidate himself, but his staff, that would assign her to represent them in any capacity.
That Amanda’s boyfriend (as it turns out), punkass mark came by to defend her from the slanderous characterization of English muffinhood on this blog is both touching and droll. Silly English k-nig-ht. Chivalry is not dead, yet! But it did provide some exceptional laughs. I had no idea that Amanda was so pussy-whipped! Still, if you don’t want to turn an incident into a ginned up phony controversy, it’s probably best to leave it alone, rather than rush over to someone’s site to accuse him of stalking, being obsessed with you, & cetera.
More responses to Amanda’s new subject position can be found here.
Further word comes that:
It’s like a big Edwards 2008 locomotive is going through the bloggrrlsphere, and it has now picked up Melissa McEwan, well-known to most of you as Shakespeare’s Sister.
Go bloggrrrl!She’s on board as Netroots Coordinator, so she’ll be working with Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte (my earlier post here).
You can’t say that they aren’t a savvy crew over there at Team Edwards, because they are scooping up the big guns on the almost-A list. Both Melissa and Amanda bring large, politically engaged and active readers that will be receptive with the Edwards message. A lot of that is due to Elizabeth Edwards, who is well-versed and ever-present in the blogosphere.
Sometimes a locomotive is just a locomotive. Ever when it’s going through the blogrrlsphere, picking up blogrrls. Anyway, if you are in need of a savvy crew that can scoop up big guns on the almost-A list, I think that Edwards is for you, in part because Elizabeth is both well-versed and ever-present.
Superb. And Jeff is worried that he isn’t being taken seriously enough by the “right wing”.
He has scared the “left wing” so shitless on day one that they are reduced to calling him a stalker, accusing him of resorting to ad hominem attacks and twisting “Amanda’s” documented positions in such an absurd way in order to bring them in line with J Edwards’ supposed positions as to bring about some of the most tortured dishonesty it has been my pleasure to read since Tony Blair declared his priorities as “Education! Education! and Education!”
Considerable entertainment is guaranteed for the next 2 years or so. And people say that the run-in to an American election is too lomg.
It isn’t possible to have too much of this stuff.
Thanks, furriskey. You have a very sick sense of humor. It’s one of the things I like best about you.
I tried to post a salient remark on Impolitic but it wouldn’t let me. Probably because I am incompetent. Or has michelle got there before me and poisoned their minds?
We shall never know.
Borken formatting.
I have to take a moment to point out this bit of pretzal logic from liberalrob:
So when Edwards said, with regards to Iran, that all options are on the table it should be apparent to anyone with working brain cells that he is in full agreement with Amanda that “all options” doesn’t include the “impractical and immoral” ones that are perceived to come from the Bush administration.
Trying to translate … so all options that are flopping like gasping fish “on the table” include those that are DOA because they are obviously immoral because they were obviously proposed by the Bush Administration even though no one in the administration has publically called for an invasion of Iran but it’s obviously what they are wanting in their blackest heart of hearts?
Huh?
I really, really need to get my Liberalspeak Decoder Ring maintenanced.
I think you translated that impeccably. And the World will be grateful. But not in any material way.
fwiw, Jeff’s ability to recall Amanda’s (and TBogg’s, and the 100
u;de, and tas, and … and … and …) positions and points has a certain Rainman quality to it.
You get the feeling that Jeff might, at any moment, start quoting Pi to 453 places or calculate the number of hairs on an armadillo at a glance.
…. or cock-slap you without provocation
…. or force you to share his paste
none of which is ‘stalkerish’. Just an odd manifestation of ability.
In a good, healthy way.
Yeesh, furriskey, I’m not even grateful at myself!
must go lie down…
Your missing the <!– </blockquote> –>
I just had my first look at Pandagon. I think there were only two dissenting voices, Darleen and someone called Robert. They were routinely abused by such intellectual luminaries as Jack “Fat Boy” Goff and even Amanda herself descended to planet earth to question whether Iraq actually existed. “I mean, has anyone here ever seen it?, she trilled wittily.
Amazing. Like finding a whole new section of primates at the Zoo whose existence you had never previously suspected. Howler monkeys were what came to my mind, but I expect different people have different reactions, as with asparagus or cubism.
BJTexas
You don’t need a ring. You just need to know that like many creatures in the animal kingdom, some leftists have obtained the ability to smell their own, those with good pure hearts. In addition they can smell the black fetid rotting souls that exist in those that tend to lean rightwards.
Everything else is instinct, and thinking actually becomes counter productive to feeling good about oneself. Which is of course the goal of existence.
For your own safety remember that they can smell you by your “facts” and the mysterious magic you use known as “logic”.
But who is tending the rails?
But who is tending the rails?
Yo.
Jeff, I demand to know when you said this!!!! LOL…These people better never run while carrying sharp objects. Or better yet, maybe they should.
And of course, Bush hasn’t said anything different, adhering steadfastly to the language of diplomacy.
But he’s planning on nuking then, goddammit! I JUST KNOW IT!!!
JeffG only points up a few of Mandy’s “intellectual” musings and it’s Jeff that’s stalking St. Amanda of Fornicatus?
Good lord, he didn’t even get into some of her really good stuff… like her borderline anti-Semitism.
Ah, the all-important large readers. Gotta have those. Helps counteract the fact that the candidate is a light-weight, I guess.
Darleen: LOL, great post.
I wonder how St. Mandy of the Perpetual Mydol would feel about the sort of debate crushing response to, lets say, the Islamic immigration problem in European countries. I’ve been to several leftie sites who instantly jump on any concern comment regarding this issue and call them racists!!
Beyond the obvious cultural question (um, what race are we talking about, exactly?) one can reach no other conclusion other than their desire to end the debate by labeling intimidation. Substitute “homophobe,” “sexist,” “Islamophobe,” or any number of other divinely acquired insights and any reasonable argument can weighted with vitriol and drowned in the nearest cesspool. Just please, oh, please, don’t apply the same formula to those of us from the “truthiness” brigade.
Do as I say, do as I do and shut up!
Where do you start? Jeff a Christian? Welcome to the flock, brother! (just kidding w/ ya…)
What does one say to such people? What CAN be said? Was it supposed to be funny, to say ‘I don’t know if Iraq even exists, I haven’t seen it…’? How is that funny? Could someone tell me?
The options on the table thing doesn’t make any sense. It is clearly a way to redefine words until you agree with the people you worship.
Bow down, suckers, and enjoy your Asherah poles while they last…
(BTW, good one, ‘Locomotive Breath’
)
You know, RC, I love it when you use obscure Biblical references.
Next thing you know I’ll be speaking in tongues…
Hey, maybe that’s what liberalrob was doing! Explains a lot…
I suppose it would be out of line to suggest A) before she started working for him, she didn’t have to agree with him on every issue? She wasn’t his sock puppet. Now that she is his sock puppet, one would expect her views will gibe better with his, i.e. she will say what she is told to say.
And B) while stalking is certainly an over-the-top characterization, going to the Edwards site and posting a classic three point essay designed to put a stick in her eye is….looking for word….a bit confrontational. I mean really, what else is the point except to annoy her. It’s not like Edwards is reading the comment section of her blog.
That’s not to say Jeff shouldn’t have done it, just that the intent pretty clearly was to say “nice new job, you’re still a bitch.”
My follow-up post at the Edwards blog:
Rosebud.
Not to mention the incredible irony of demented left-wingers accusing Jeff of being a blog-stalker, given She Who Will Not Be Named.
tw:son28. Uncanny.
So, timmy, are you suggesting that it was impolite? I see your point and it certainly was confrontational but no more so that Amanda’s own work.
Truman’s “heat” and “kitchen” proverb would seem to be appropriate. amanda has made it her life’s work to be controversial, profane and radical. The Edward’s campaign making her a public face of their message allows one to question the motives and the views of the designated messenger. Certainly, while Jeff’s post was couched in his own inimicable style, it raised a few valid issues as to exactly what positions Amanda plans to take, something that was not exactly explained in her puff piece of an introduction.
Ultimately we all reap what we sow and Marcotte shouldn’t have a reasonable expectation that no one will question her connection to Edwards based upon both the content and style of her previous posts.
Based upon the juvenile, name calling defenses posted here by tas and punkass I simply can’t dredge up any sympathy for a free pass.
Jeff: Outstanding response. thanks for the inclusion.
Failed to get Roster.txt.
…with those pesky facts you wingnuts keep throwing around. While completely disregarding the notion that the purpose was to expose her to the uninitiated. A “That is who she is and that is what she does.” sort of deal. And given that’s she’s in the employ of a man who hopes to be president, there’s nothing inappropriate about it. Pretty obvious to anyone with functional synapses, or who has heard the name Karl Rove.
Don’t you have some toilets to clean, Timmah?
Oh! In coming to her defense, TimmyB delivers a near lethal slapdown snark!
Well, we need to come up with a betting pool of some sort.
A version of this Disclaimer:
“The views expressed on the main page of John Edwards Official Campaign Blog do not necessarily represent the views of John Edwards”<i>
Over/Under is November 1, 2007.
Am I the only one who thinks “blogmistress” sounds kinda kinky?
By the way, regarding Edwards and Iraq, there is a fine essay regarding Kennth Pollock, Iraq, and our policy on Slate this morning. I am aware it’s just a liberal rag, but it presents a fine example of an alternative to war.
http://www.slate.com/id/2158733/
The thought of John Edwards running for president made me giggle in 1999.
It made me laugh out loud in 2003.
It makes me shake my head and change channels in 2007.
From the lovely alternative to war proposal in your link, Timmah!
Iran has repeatedly stated that it refuses to suspend enrichment. Or in other words “Fuck you, Mr. ElBaradei”.
So how is that gonna work again? And did you like it when the Bush Administration proposed it?
We really need a better class of troll around here.
Holy cow! That is the biggest pile of crap I’ve ever read. Somebody owes me the ninety seconds of my life I wasted reading that.
I’m unsure that President Carter is on the right track with this particular negot….
Oops! My bad!
If we couldn’t manage to “redeploy” our troops from Iraq just next door to Iran, how on earth will we ever get them back home?
TimmyB
That article is not good. It is wishful thinking coupled with acute BDS. Almost every assertion it makes is provably, or at least arguably, wrong.
Take the claim that we don’t have the strength to do the job of taking out their nuclear designs. Do you really think this is true? I mean, our air force is capable of handling this task mostly on it’s own. The navy could do much of it without ever setting infantry on the ground. So how does being “bogged down” in Iraq affect this? It doesn’t. In fact it gives us air bases that are very, very close to our targets.
Yeah. Right.
If they mean literally bogged down, like in a swamp or something? I take it the author of that lovely graf never heard of the US Navy, US Air Force, or knows what SOCOM, a MEU or SETAF is…
OOOO, OOOOO!
I know what an MEU is!!!!
My son, Matt the Marine, is supposed to be deploying with one in July!
What do I win, Major?
I’m extremely curious—indeed, anxious to learn—precisely what sort of qualifications a political operative should have, if agreement with at least most the boss’ important positions isn’t one of them.
I mean, essentially, you just called her a total sellout. You are, in apparently all matters, a thoughtless dolt.
No more so than “HarpyGoddess”.
ALL ABOAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRDDD!!!
Great to have you back, MJ. After checking out the above, I’d like to know more about Task Force 145
Argh, slippy fingers.
I’d like to know mare about Task Force 145
Those guys sound like death incarnate.
Defense Guy, there was a fine James Fallows in the Atlantic back in 2005 on the very subject of what we are capable of doing presently in Iran. He interviewed several generals and some other defense experts from a broad spectrum of political viewpoints. The consensus was we are incapable of fighting an effective shooting war with Iran and occupying Iraq. Leaving aside purely economic considerations about what happens to the price of oil and the global economy, a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would fail for lack of soldiers. Surely, the posters at PW are not unaware that the US Army and Marine Corps is stretched thin? My brother-in-law who just returned from Iraq is in the Navy and was assigned to an Army CA unit because there aren’t Army dudes to do the all the work. That is not a put down of our Armed Forces, it is a fact.
Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities by air alone would not do us much good, in that a) we don’t know where all of them are, and b) the ones we do know about are far enough underground to defeat the bombs we drop.
I will link to the article and you guys can all Michael Ledeen on it all you want. Point is Iran is three times larger than Iraq, has three times the population, and did not suffer through an earlier war and sanctions which destroyed its conventional military. If we cannot control Iraq, how can a smaller force disarm Iran? That’s an important question and one no amount “that’s just not true” can vitiate.
We are the most powerful nation on the planet and we can do a helluva a lot without bombing people. Immediately after 9/11 Colin Powell had a press conference where people asked him how we were going to get at the Taliban. He said we would go through Pakistan. The reporters noted that we couldn’t MAKE Pakistan let us through, because we already had sanctions on them (for the military coup). Powell responded in the easiest common sense way that they would let us through and cooperate, because we could lift the sanctions in exchange. He was right.
The same applies here. The Iranians want things; we want things. Instead of punching them in the face, maybe we should offer something.
Lastly, Pablo, the United States has NEVER negotiated at a high level with Iran. The article you linked to said we said we join the Euros to sit down across from the Iranians. Hardly inspiring if you were Iran. “Hold on, the US is offering to sit down at a table with us and all we have to give is our only negotiating chit.” A little underwhelming, I think. Nonetheless, a good point: they are serious and will only respond to serious offers.
Here’s the link (it’s a pretty long article) and thanks for indulging me http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows
BJTexas, here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_145
Interesting, they also have Brit SAS integrated into the structure.
The Iranians nutbag dictators want us converted, dhimmified or dead.
A punch in the face seems quite appropriate for our self-proclaimed enemies.
TW: east39. Jeff, cut it out!
Timmah, you dolt, what I linked to was the Bush administrations offer to talk to Iran if they halted uranium enrichment, the exact same thing suggested in what you called “a fine example of an alternative to war”. Don’t think anyone missed that, or that you’re putting one over on me or anyone else.
Why is it different when Bush suggests it versus ElBaradei saying it, aside from the fact that Bush is in a position to hold up an end of such a deal and ElBaradei isn’t? Why is it glorious when you read it said in Slate, but not when it comes from the fucking White House?
Secondly, what part of “We don’t need ground troops to take out Iran’s nuke facilities” are you incapable of grasping? How many people need to explain to you that the Air Force or Navy could do it, and sleep warm in their beds that very night before that obvious fact settles down in your cavernous skull?
Really, Timmah, are you this obtuse, or are you just putting us on?
Yet another thread hijacked by Timmy.
Getting tiresome.
No, it’s a false dichotomy. Another pathetic attempt, Timmah!
TimmyB
Thanks for the link, I will read it all, but for now let me just state that it is hard to take the analysis of a person who writes “and suspected of encouraging Islamic terrorists,” in no apparent attempt at irony, seriously.
Merely suspected of it are they?
Also, since you don’t seem to agree with me that we could do what is required with very little “boots on the ground” support, how do you reconcile that with the fact that we did exactly that in Bosnia? Only after they cried uncle did we send in our troops.
Death to hijackers.
Just a thought.
Yea, like Israel.
Who do you propose we “negotiate” with in Iran, timmy? And why do you think it would turn out any better than negotiations with Saddam or Kim?
Uh….. Like Israel?
What if the people say they want you dead just want you dead?
Y’know, just ‘cuz liberal don’t mean anything they say doesn’t mean that nobody means what they say.
Well, DUUHHHHH, ‘cuz that was under Bill Clinton and he had lots and lots of competencyness right up until he apppointed that retarded Okie from Midland (which makes him dumb like that other asshole who grew up in Midland) Tommy Franks, as CENTCOM, which was a great idea actually until Bush fingerfucked it by letting the 9/11 hijackers into the country before he was inaugurated, and I’m not saying he did it on purpose but it is, per Howard Dean, and interesting theory. And it was a great idea to greatly diminish the size of the military ‘cuz we didn’t need them anymore, okay, all you reichwingers did say that it was a bad idea but that’s why the ‘90s were so good economically. It wasn’t because of the tech sector expanding dramatically in preparation for Y2K, not even in part, but it is Bush’s fault that when Y2K came and went that there wasn’t any further need for that size workforce with that payroll. He shoulda created government jobs for them.</lefty moron>
Christ that is difficult.
C’mon! That’s just the way they talk! It’s all part of their colorful heritage! You can’t take what “little brown people” (to use a favorite liberal phrase) say literally!
RC:
They are mentally unbalanced by our Economic Imperialismâ„¢ and simply not responsible for their actions.
Please be sure to apologize for this when they behead you.
infidel
Political dialogue is all about confrontation.
If confrontation = stalking, then we have been truly emasculated. Cockslap ‘em, Jeff!
—
BJ: Not just our Economic Imps, but our Language, with its ‘Army’ and ‘Navy’!
Give it up, brown people, soon you shall be ice cream sandwiches!
Bwhahahahahahahahaha! The Dark Lord is pleased.
Or banana splits, because the Dark Lord loves his potassium…
I suggest you look up the definition of the word “appeasement”
then learn a little history
sheesh
Timmy, fixed it for you:
You can thank me later.
It cracks me up that Jeff’s exposure of Marcotte’s inconsistencies and lack of intellectual heft is presented as “stalking.” If she were a man, would the term still be “stalking”? It seems to me that the Third (or whatever we’re on) Wave of Feminism has abandoned the proud and appropriate demands of its foremothers for true equality under the law and in civil society, for a revisited Victorian sensibility in which women are again acknowledged – by everybody – as too “delicate” to cross even rhetorical swords with men in the public sphere unless the men have to use their off-hand. Or no hands at all. And any woman who dares to get as good as she gives without that etiquette shield is some kind of hero(ine) instead of just a person who wants to be listened to and believed to be serious.
Sigh. Oh, my sisters. Well… cousins. Even Miss Manners doesn’t think women in business, politics, or generally public life should be treated with any special deference simply because their chromosomes match.
Blogatrix (not original, but I can atribute it to anyone)
Or did I mean “can’t”?
Amazing how timmy disappears everytime he’s asked a tough question…
But I’m sure he’ll find his way back to the next thread, once he recharges his non-sequitur-matic.
Whereas timmy boy coming to PW is…? What, exactly?
I am still waiting, timmy, for you to show the world where I accused your legislature of treachery, and as far as I am concerned, until you do that thing, nothing you say or post hs any more validity than that clear falsehood did.
Unlike you, little one, this problem is not simply going to fade away.
Moving back, I was particularly taken by the reference to “large readers”. This is a clear slur on Jack “Fat Boy” Goff, who is one of the largest readers to inhabit the femosphere.
Oh I see. Jeff followed Amanda to the Edwards blog because he’s such a big Edwards supporter…
And you are here because?
What hypocrites these lefties be…
I’m not committed to any candidate yet, but if I saw an Edwards supporter about to step in a big pile of dog crap, I would probably warn him or her.
I’m guessing similar sentiments moved Jeff to post at the Edwards blog.
Jeff followed Amanda to the Edwards blog because he’s such a big Edwards supporter
Weirdly, I thought political blogs were open to everyone… you know, to facilitate ideas, communication, support, criticism…
OH… I get it. The Left’s idea of “legitimate discourse” is complete agreement with their dogma…
Good golly Ms Molly, no wonder you guys have a special place in your hearts for the Islamists! You may disagree with some of their ideas, but their methods of enforcing orthodoxy make you all damp in the private places.
The Impolitic / Libby (the name it used last time it commented here) seems to think my clicking on a link that one of my guestbloggers posted is like following an actual person home and digging through her garbage so that I can sniff her empty oatmeal packets.
STOP STALKING ME, THE IMPOLITIC!
If you visit The Impolitic, you will see the strapline is ‘Blogging to the Highest Common Denominator’.
Excuse me, Dan, can I borrow this just for a moment?
BwaaHaaaHaaaaHaaaaaHaaaaa!
Thank you.
I consider being warm and, if not too often, openly warm to be personality positives. Hereunto I shall refrain from referring to Amanda Marcotte as a cunt.
Accuracy, my friends, and thoughtful word selection are worth bonus points says my Lit. class professor.
If you, too, yearn to collect bonus points like butterflies, join me in a pledge of self-restraint. Inasmuch, I’m not ruling out bonus point eligible alternatives to the favored, knee-jerk, four-letter term. I’m of the opinion the cliché “I don’t know but I’ve been told Eskimo pussy is mighty cold” is widely accepted proverbial wisdom. If one were tempering Amanda’s temperament, choosing Eskimo pussy as a comparative reference garnishes her dish nicely.
I consider being warm and, if not too often, openly warm to be personality positives. Hereunto I shall refrain from referring to Amanda Marcotte as a cunt.
Accuracy, my friends, and thoughtful word selection are worth bonus points says my Lit. class professor.
If you, too, yearn to collect bonus points like butterflies, join me in a pledge of self-restraint. Inasmuch, I’m not ruling out bonus point eligible alternatives to the favored, knee-jerk, four-letter term. If you accept the cliché “I don’t know but I’ve been told Eskimo pussy is mighty cold” as widely accepted proverbial wisdom then tempering Amanda’s temperament as “flocculently Eskimo pussyesque” scores well point-wise as sound comparative reference.
Let me try. Amanda, in general I believe you to be a titless man-hater, furthermore, speaking specifically of your screaming bitch within, I find your dispostion flocculently Eskimo pussyesque.
Allow me time to develop better compression, I’m new.
I consider being warm and, if not too often, openly warm to be personality positives. Hereunto I shall refrain from referring to Amanda Marcotte as a Cunt.
Accuracy, my friends, and thoughtful word selection are worth bonus points says my Lit. class professor.
If you, too, yearn to collect bonus points like butterflies, join me in a pledge of self-restraint. Inasmuch, I’m not ruling out bonus point eligible alternatives to the favored, knee-jerk, four-letter term. Let’s say you accept the cliché “I don’t know but I’ve been told Eskimo pussy is mighty cold” as widely accepted proverbial wisdom, then tempering Amanda’s temperament as “frostier than an Inuit’s dangling prick” scores well point-wise for sound comparative reference.
Let me try. Amanda, in general I believe you to be a cold, titless man-hater, furthermore your screaming bitch within seems emboldened by its very display, much like an Inuit’s prick dangling in the Alaskan wind.
I’ll work on it.
…I posted a link to it on the front page of his website. You got a problem with that, Mr. Impolitic?
As a self-describe “ardent feminist,” what must Mr. Goldstein think of the 3 above posts from the commenter, thor.
Amanda Marcotte is already erasing posts on both Pandang and Edwards blog to cover her tracks in regard to the Duke lacrosse matter. Isn’t changing your own posts and deleting dissenting opionion considered bad form in the blog world.
As a self-describe “ardent feminist,†what must Mr. Goldstein think of the 3 above posts from the commenter, thor.
Posted by blondie | perma
What? You want him to lie! Give back smack, but don’t go running to daddy just because a boy used bad language.