[Posted by The Angry Clam]
Remember that article about people “needing to know their place” that Ted Kennedy kept quoting and trying to make CAP look like a worse version of the Nazi Party?
Nothing like taking satire as serious.
– Posted by The Angry Clam
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
“Taking satire as serious:” that could be the definition of Ted Kennedy.
Dana (3e4784) — 1/13/2006 @ 11:40 amThe last refuge of the wingnut. “oh now, I was just kidding, I didn’t mean that we ought to imagine a world without liberals.”
actus (85218a) — 1/13/2006 @ 11:45 amIf you were always kidding, how is it the last refuge?
You need to know your place, actus.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 1/13/2006 @ 11:52 amThere’s a caption contest over at
that uses a photo of Teddy during the hearings. Take a shot, it’s fun and you don’t need a JD to do it.
Is Teddy’s JD real or from a diploma mill?
PCD (46ddaa) — 1/13/2006 @ 12:31 pm“If you were always kidding, how is it the last refuge?”
Its the last excuse we hear.
“You need to know your place, actus.”
I told you I’m basking in my place in the hiearchy.
actus (85218a) — 1/13/2006 @ 2:16 pmI suspect that after reading Swift’s A Modest Proposal actus was so distraught as to seek therapy.
..and still uses the meds…
Darleen (f20213) — 1/13/2006 @ 5:27 pmActus, here’s something you might think about for a while.
When a conservative wants to bash some lefty for saying something dumb, the conservative quotes the lefty at length and gives a link to the whole enchilada. Or if it’s radio, the conservative plays the entire interview or speech or whatever it is. People can decide for themselves if they agree that this lefty was wacko or what.
When some lefty wants to bash a conservative, on the other hand, the lefty carefully selects the incriminating sentence and presents ONLY that. You don’t get a link to the whole thing; you don’t get to decide for yourself if the selection was fair. You get just the little tiny piece that the lefty wants you to hear or see. You do not have the option of trying to evaluate the context for yourself.
If you don’t believe me, take a good look around.
Bostonian (115293) — 1/13/2006 @ 6:04 pmactus,
You might try reading the article before you speak further. You wouldn’t want to sink any lower in the heirarchy….
Here is the link.
Specter (466680) — 1/13/2006 @ 6:56 pmSo if the introduction is supposed to be satire, then we’re supposed to believe that H.W. Crocker III really did think that the physically handicapped SHOULD be granted equal representation in professional sports and that the government should vouchsafe homosexuals the right to bear children? That H.W. Crocker III really does believe that blacks and hispanics SHOULD be demanding jobs simply because they are black and hispanic?
Uh-huh.
I know that rightwingers write laughable things. It’s just unfortunate that they’re seriously meant.
m.croche (8e3bfc) — 1/13/2006 @ 7:57 pmSpecter (and the rest of you):
Mikekoshi (f85090) — 1/13/2006 @ 8:09 pmI’ve read it, and calling it “satire” is a dodge. It’s an attack on egalitarianism that uses sarcasm (lamely) to make its point. It’s not satire, it’s rubbish.
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
rls (0516f0) — 1/14/2006 @ 6:08 amSo, when Alec Baldwin got on tv and said that we all should rise up and stone Henry Hyde to death (along with his family), he was serious, right?
Steverino (0a4303) — 1/14/2006 @ 7:18 am“You might try reading the article before you speak further. You wouldn’t want to sink any lower in the heirarchy….”
Seems pretty lame. So he is actually against elitism? He doesn’t believe people should know their place? he does believe the woman’s suit has merit? Whats’ the satire? He’s using the term ‘princeton man’ as ridiculous anachronism?
actus (85218a) — 1/14/2006 @ 7:36 amSam Alito refused to worship at the alter of a false god, and the Democrat faithful can’t stand it that a mere man refuses to bow down to their heresy. Tired and dispirited ancient Dem inquisitors from the dark corners of the past proved impotent against the strength of a single mild and descent man.
The Senate’s old and disgraced Dems huffed and puffed, made fools of themselves on national TV, and even had their allies in MSM look away in shame. But self-inflicted carnage once unleashed, can’t so easily be stopped, so it goes on, and on.
Gods are gods and aren’t easily satisfied, and false gods are especially jealous gods, and so the bloodletting must continue. Senate Dems now have little choice but to recite the entire catechism verbatim, no matter the high cost to themselves and their Party.
The piper demands full payment, and there is none among them to say enough of this nonsense. The ancient rites must be completed, and ancient gods will have their due. So it is written, and so it will be, time out of mind.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 1/14/2006 @ 10:14 amQuote from Howie over the disappointing ploy by Demoncratic Senators to smear Alito:
“AAAIIIIYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeee…….”
Specter (466680) — 1/14/2006 @ 11:02 amI am really quite amazed that the Democrats brought up something more than 25 years old to try to tarnish this man when he’s been on the federal bench for 15 years. I’m a woman and even I find the comments attributed to this organization as paling to attacks I’ve heard much more recently. Are Democrats simply so desperate to try to keep conservatives off the bench that they are willing to look so ignorant, particularly when they have Ted Kennedy doing the accusing?
sharon (a02134) — 1/14/2006 @ 11:47 amTo suggest that the referenced article, whether satire or simply mockery of “the Princeton man” or even of elitism, in some way casts doubt on judge Alito’s ability to judge fairly and impartially is, at the very least, a pathetic attempt to smear this man’s reputation for no other reason than that his judicial philosophy might differ from that of senators Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, et al.
It seems to me that his substantial experience as an appeals court judge (arguably the most well qualified appointment in at least recent history) presents more than an adequate record from which to determine his fitness for appointment to the SC. That the “advise and consent” process has devolved to the level that it has says very little about judge Alito and a whole lot about the members of the judiciary committee.
The question to senators Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, et al, to losely quote Edward R Murrow, should have been: “Senators, have you no shame?”
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/14/2006 @ 6:28 pm“The question to senators Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, et al, to losely quote Edward R Murrow, should have been: “Senators, have you no shame?””
Sure nuff, cuz the army secretary put on his job application his membership in the communist party
actus (85218a) — 1/14/2006 @ 6:32 pm?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/14/2006 @ 9:20 pm