Because I Enjoy Waving Red Flags in Front of Bullshit
I just tonight saw this article by my new hero Andy Levy. He says what I’ve been thinking, so well, on so many levels, that I will quote generously:
Don’t question the motives – question the policy. When you disagree with President Obama’s policies, say so, and make it clear why. But remember that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President George W. Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.
Don’t make it personal. We don’t need another “derangement syndrome.” We don’t need people doing things like emphasizing Obama’s middle name in a derogatory fashion. How anyone would think that’s beneficial to their cause or to the country as a whole is beyond me.
Also, it’s not even clever. Neither are “smushwords” like BusHitler, or “sillywords” like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.
And this:
Don’t automatically think people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. Some of them are, of course (as are some of the people who agree with you). But most of them aren’t, and you might actually learn something if you listen to them.
Finally, don’t use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the last eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.
If there is ever a third party, I nominate Andy Levy as president. And I think he could win. Not that this is the only consideration. He’s also right.
But remember that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President George W. Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.
Yeah, I sort of agree but with one caveat: Obama and his followers don’t necessarily love America as it is, they want America to be a fundamentally different nation. One closer in spirit to Canada, or France, or Sweden, or (for far too many of them) Cuba. I said this a while ago in a comment to a different post: a huge chunk of the left loves America only when people they support are running the show. The rest of the time, they display mostly contempt for it. I think most conservatives continue to love America, even when we have to endure a Carter, Clinton, or Obama. Sorry to disagree with you and Mr. Levy, but that’s how I see it.
JVW (bff0a4) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:30 amI see your point, JVW, and I’m not going to strenuously argue it. Michelle O. has certainly made comments that are consistent with your view.
However, I think the larger point holds true.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:34 amPlus, it’s more fodder for the demagogues. So everyone wins!
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:35 amAnd it is interesting to see how the Left is silent when Obama’s people do things…that if GW Bush’s people had done, there would be incredible uproar. Poor syntax, but you know what I mean.
What they don’t get, is that eventually “the other guys” will be in power. And then those guys will use the laws that are okay now.
That is why I think the litmus test of law should be: would you be okay if your bitterest political enemy was using that law?
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:45 amI will gladly agree with you and Mr. Levy with respect to the need to tone down the vitriol and quit accusing all our opponents of bad faith at the outset. Proven fools like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, on the other hand, deserve mostly contempt at least for their public personae.
JVW (bff0a4) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:46 amSorry, but I must disagree. I don’t know that Obama is doing what he feels is best for the country, as opposed to what is best for Barack Obama. I think a good number of his positions are not sincere – they are held for poll purposes only. This is not limited to him or democrats – I was INCENSED over the Republicans defending Burris and even Blago in hopes of improving their election prospects. I reserve the right to think any politician is a crook out for himself, and I don’t think that is deranged.
The appeal for open-mindedness is flawed. When dealing with fanatics, having an open mind simply gives them a polite audience for propaganda. Also, reading morons with opposing political viewpoints is a great way to increase your stress level. I don’t need to hear the Gospel of Obama from some lefty who would have Obama’s children in a heartbeat.
OmegaPaladin (3468f5) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:48 amOmegaPaladin, I definitely thought that Bill Clinton was ever so willing to put his political calculations ahead of the nation’s interests, but I am not so sure I think the same about Obama. Unlike Clinton, who was a world class opportunist, Obama seems to be a liberal true believer. I can see him sticking to strongly left-wing positions even if his popularity eventually diminishes. I think he would do so for two reasons:
(1) He has surrounded himself his entire life with like-minded individuals, first at the Ivy League, then as a community organizer, then as a law student, then as a law professor, and finally as a legislator. Ergo, he has really only been exposed to one side of the intellectual spectrum. Clinton at least lived in a state that was culturally conservative, so he understood the counterpoint to his instinctive beliefs.
(2) Even though Obama is obviously intelligent, he is intellectually incurious and completely uninterested in considering viewpoints alien from his own. Note his inability to articulate the reasoning behind his stem cell order — it was nothing more than recitation of left-wing talking points, and I doubt if he gave one moment’s thought to the other side of the argument.
JVW (bff0a4) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:03 amOf course, what do any of us really know about him after only 60 days?
JVW (bff0a4) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:04 amI’m not convinced he wants what’s best for the country. I think he doesn’t like this country and wants to change it into something different, and he will say or do anything to get there. Even if it completely contradicts something he said 5 minutes ago. After the campaign, and especially after the last two months, I no longer assume good faith on his part. He has fully earned my skepticism.
Jim Treacher (796deb) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:06 amEven smarter would be to ignore Obama as much as humanly possible and focus, instead, on the party’s policies and on less-popular Democrats in Congress and the Senate.
One of the most cliched complaints of Obama’s critics is that he’s too popular — that he’s got people bamboozled.
If there’s any truth to that, it makes perfect sense, then, to attack the policies, not the man.
Karl Rove was quite the master of channeling identity politics in a way that complimented the Republican party’s politics. Or maybe he was just lucky. Maybe 9/11 gave him a huge unearned boost that, in the end, prompted him to push it over the cliff, or maybe he just sat in his canoe, helpless to paddle against the current, as it drifted over the falls.
Now, the wingnut brigade is clearly a problem for the GOP as it continuously drags the party away from the very compelling, principled critique it could be making of the Democrat’s policies and into a Rovian kind of resentment-driven personalized paranoia that turns swing voters off bigtime.
As a liberal, it’s so much fun to watch wingnuts termite their own political party into sawdust. But I’m first an American and that part of me hopes the more sensible elements of the conservative movement will prevail.
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:31 amDon’t apologize to foreigners and say things to them like, “I didn’t vote for Obama” or “He’s not MY president.”
Nope, a better response is: “He may be a bastard, but he’s OUR bastard.”
Dr. K (d288e5) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:33 amBut remember that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President George W. Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.
I, too, do not think Obama does what he thinks best for the country. On the contrary, I think he does what is first and foremost good for Obama and if that is also best for the country then good, but if not, I doubt he cares. Also, I don’t think he understands this country. His early upbringing was anti-American, his college years were anti-American, his mentors were communists and socialists and I think his entire view of America is processed through that indoctrination. I think he has a dictatorial mindset born out of both the early indoctrination and his own narcissism as evidenced by him thinking that as President he can change the entire government structure with a swirl of his pen in the form of executive orders.
He has spent his entire life with those of the radical far left. To him that is the center. Also, from them he had the mistaken and rather naive idea that the President is all powerful. We saw how the left was convinced that Bush controlled every facet of life. He still thinks that and he wants that mythical power. I think he is surprised at the resistance he is getting and is really at a loss how to proceed since he truly thought that everyone felt/feels about Bush as he and his cohorts do/have.
I find him immature and self-centered, and dangerous.
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:53 amAlso, it’s not even clever. Neither are “smushwords” like BusHitler, or “sillywords” like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.
Agree. Nor are similar words like (off the top of my head) “wingnuts,” for example. Thought Hax was going to put “by HV” on top of his posts again. Oh well, another day, more empty words (or word games) I guess. Whatever. Am going to start reading the bottom of posts for the names from now on and suggest everyone do the same. Let’s give him his repeatedly expressed wish and ignore him.
Patterico,
I really liked this article by Andrew Levy and was particularly pleased to see it in the New York Post where a lot of conservatives will see it. I found it completely disgusting that many liberals simply didn’t seem to remember how badly they’d trashed President Bush as soon as President Obama was inaugurated I got a bunch of earnest and (what I’m sure was extremely) well intentioned rhetoric about how we should all come together now even if we disagreed strongly on policies, because we have one president now. Because I’m polite and try hard to be respectful I never once said to their face, “sooo…why didn’t liberals follow your advice for the last eight years?” and “what if his policies are going to drive us into the ground, or slaughter unborn children?”
I think it’s perfectly possible to extend proper respect to the office and the man (though I am free to point it out when something stupid and embarrassing to America happens like the Wrong-Region-Costco-DVDs-For-Diplomats debacle) while still strenuously opposing policies like his partial birth abortion commitment or socialist plans to redistribute wealth and tax us to death.
IOW Fred Thompson in your last post had it precisely, exactly right.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:53 amPatterico:
I dunno; I find your faith in the basic decency and good-heartedness of Barack H. Obama charming… in a Dennis Ross, can’t-we-all-just-get-along sense.
Being determined to find a kind, just, and honorable motive behind every policy, no matter how despicable its consequences, is as naive, I think, as trying to find a despicable motive behind every policy, no matter how facially just, honorable, or sympathetic.
At some point, mustn’t we begin drawing at least tentative conclusions from the president’s habitual attacks on liberty and the American experiment? Or are we forever awaiting really definitive data before dubbing a man who implements wholesale radical upturnings — a “radical?”
Is the jury still out on Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, as well?
Dafydd
Dafydd the Cynical Syndic (db2ea4) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:34 amLevy’s article should be ignored, he is obviously a leftist who thinks conservatives should never hold power again.
Why do I say this? Because the things he says not to do are the tactics that work. The Democrats didn’t win because they engaged the American people by presenting their ideas in a thoughtful and coherent manner, and contrasting their ideas to that of their opponents. They won because they demonized Bush and the GOP (admittedly with a lot of help from self-inflicted gunshot wounds on the part of the GOP). Negative ads work. Demonizing your opponent works.
It’s all nice to want a world in which everyone is nice to one another and policies are enacted only after a thorough debate… but the world ain’t like that, the public isn’t interested in spending hours listening to candidates, reading position papers and considering rebuttals. The public wants to be reassured and made to feel better in 10 second soundbites (whether the positives about one candidate or the negatives of others). And when you only have 10 seconds to get someone’s attention, you better not waste the opportunity by droning on about something the public just isn’t going to listen to, or understand, even if they wanted to listen.
And having seen their tactics work, the Democrats aren’t going to change their stripes, they’re going to keep doing what works. And just as we blasted liberals as being woefully naive for their idealistic willingness to unilaterally disarm our nukes, so too should we blast anyone who proposes we not use the tactics that work, especially when the opponents we’re facing are so dangerous. This ain’t some kid’s soccer game, where, contrary to the views of some of the parents, winning just isn’t that important.
Like my daddy told me a long, long time ago, when you’re in a fight, you have two choices: you can decide you’re going to fight ‘fair’ or you can decide you’re going to fight to win. As much as I would like to win fighting fair, winning is the more critical element. Levy proposes we fight fair and all that is going to do is ensure we end up losing.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:21 amMy fear is that Obama is a lightweight, a front-man for political junta, which has members with a variety of goals, from socializing our economy to strenghtening the Democratic machine to lessening America’s influence in the world. They will manipulate him and agree among themselves for their respective pieces of the Obama pie. He is not a leader, he is a banner.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:27 amI think that’s a good point, NK.
Obama isn’t really a person at all. He’s a group of people who believe in taking freedom away for personal security in their lives, which regard to economic equality, health care, environmentalism, etc.
These people who have voted Obama into office are generally not evil… they are just misguided. And the only way forward is to befriend a few million of them.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:53 amThat’s it precisely, I think. Nice summary, nk.
Eric Blair (870a39) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:58 amThanks, guys. I always think more clearly when Patterico remembers to mix some bran and an egg into the raw hamburger he throws in my cage.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:02 amBetter than a live chicken. Although the audience may like that better.
Again, good analysis.
Eric Blair (870a39) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:21 amBut not Ferdinand. When he got to the middle of the ring he saw the flowers in all the lovely ladies’ hair and he just sat down quietly and smelled.
He wouldn’t fight and be fierce no matter what they did. He just sat and smelled. And the Banderilleros were mad and the Picadores were madder and the Matador was so mad he cried because he couldn’t show off with his cape and sword.
So they had to take Ferdinand home.
And for all I know he is sitting there still, under his favorite cork tree, smelling the flowers just quietly.
He is very happy.
happyfeet (ba8a9d) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:24 amI love it when concern trolls act like they’re giving knowledgeable advice.
Techie (9c008e) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:30 amI still am not sure if Obama is the engine or merely the packaging of the fundamental change in American society his administration is pushing.
If he’s the engine, then as the driving force both publicly and behind the scenes, he’s doing a great job of hiding the nastiness that people supporting change like that, such as Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi, usually can’t avoid spouting off about, and which is what makes them such dubious national figures (i.e. — the more they’re exposed to the public outside their own liberal districts, the worse it is for their cause). If he is at the front of the ideological parade, it’s a lot harder to make the case that he benignly thinks he’s doing what’s best for the country, and falls more into the category that he thinks more Americans are either stupid and/or evil themselves and have to be forced to change their ways.
On the other hand, if he’s just the packaging — A personable face who has grown up in liberal districts and supports that type of government because that’s all he knows, but is more a go-along-to-get-along type of guy fronting for the real ideologues who used him to gain power — then you could agree with Levy’s statement that Obama really does think he’s doing what’s best for the country. It also makes him a very weak leader and one whose affable personality helped him get elected, but now prevents him from saying “no” to any liberal special interest group unless it’s patently obvious going along would be a disaster for the administration (i.e. — bugging out of Iraq and Afghanistan like the Code Pink types demand).
If Obama merely is the national version of in-over-his-head former NYC mayor David Dinkins — elected so white liberals and moderates could feel good about themselves electing the city’s first African-American mayor without caring on whit if he could govern or not — then it will be easier a few years down the line to take pity on the guy. But that doesn’t mean that, like Dinkins with his six murders a day crime rate, the national implications of having a president who can be rolled like a log on a river aren’t going to be painful, and potentially far more dangerous.
John (692c5c) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:49 amYeah, it’s like taking investment advice from television and radio personalities—useless.
mossberg500 (392f23) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:00 amYeah, we were trying to tell you guys that when you were claiming that the executive could lock up anyone indefinitely without charge, but conservatives didn’t seem to care too much then, so it’s hard to take this kind of thing seriously now.
Festivus (1f2658) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:04 amOh, but you’re straying off the reservation! You must demonize the opposition, banish the RINO, then engage in self-criticism sessions to make certain there’s nothing but pure, certifiable conservative in there! Obama is EVIL! Democrats are EVIL! RINOS are EVIL!
Damn. It took much energy just to type that. How do those people do it?
Aron (916ebb) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:09 amHmmm…
So many inaccuracies in just one sentence.
Let’s just move on.
Isn’t dissent patriotic?
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:16 amIf you had such a good argument to make, you would not be forced to lie to make it.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:33 am“when you were claiming that the executive could lock up anyone indefinitely without charge”
Festivus – Is Mr. Anyone still locked up or has Obama released him into the U.S.? What ARE you talking about?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:52 amFestivus – if the Bush administration picked you up, I’m sure they had a damn good reason.
And you wouldn’t be around to lie about it.
Dr. K (f196bc) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:55 amSo, Andy Levy thinks that Obama is a good man.
Fascinating.
Bubba Maximus (456175) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:55 amAwwww! I was looking forward to some colorful namecalling, too!
“Emperor JugEars Arugula O’ChimpHitler”! “Duh1”! “The Obamateur”.
A host of childish, meanspirited, playground-class harassment designed to annoy the more rabid liberals.
Darn.
Anon 1:50 (922c4b) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:00 amWhy does it matter whether Obama is a “good” man or not? He has aligned himself with a governing philosophy that expands the scope and intrusive power of the state, that reduces the incentive to personal devlopment and increases the incentive to remain useless. Whether or not he loves puppies doesn’t really matter when he’s at the helm of the state. His actions bring bad results.
The analogy I originally used when this matter was discussed immediately after the inauguration was that obama was a cog in a machine that made omelettes, and that we were all eggs. That was unfair to Obama. He is an individual and bears responsibility for the results of his actions. He is the man at the levers of the machine, and as such, is fully responsible to the bad results.
Is he a good man? I can’t think of a more irrelevant matter.
Hadlowe (561752) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:07 amPrecisely, Hadlowe. Obama could have the purity of Mother Teresa, and his policies would be just as ruinous.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:12 am“Duh1”, I like that.
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:12 amI would believe that if you can reference or post a link quoting Obama saying this explicitely. Otherwise, it is pure, unsubstantiated conjecture.
Ed from PA (c313be) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:19 amAs I’ve told my friends ad nauseum since the election was held, I’ll always respect the office of the Presidency, no matter who the current occupant may be at the moment – however, I will continue to object to and oppose ideas and actions I deem harmful to the nation in total. I do fear that this particular POTUS may demean the office in ways we cannot foretell, and the early results are not encouraging.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:23 amFlatulence outbreak, aisle #35!
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:23 amGiven that person’s previous posts, AD, yeah, it was amusing.
I am waiting to hear a nice apology from that person for his behavior yesterday, when he and Hax were dogpiling on Stash.
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:25 amThe calls here for adopting a “liberals are evil” pose ignore that times have changed.
What worked beautifully in the Rove era might not work now.
Liberals had a similar problem with Clinton triangulation. Gore won the popular vote using Clinton’s “Republican-lite” pose on some issues, but he lacked the persona to make the Clinton approach well enough to win the electoral college.
Still, the Dems refused to give up on the DLC/Clinton strategy of co-opting conservatives whenever possible.
That strategy worked beautifully for Bill Clinton because the Cold War had collapsed and the Republicans were suddenly left with no fear button to push. It failed, however, for Kerry — who just couldn’t bring himself to clearly oppose the war in Iraq. Times had changed, but he failed to recognize that, so lost by trying to mimic Clinton’s triangulation.
At the moment, the country is reeling from twin disasters: the wrath of unregulated, excess financial leverage and the failure to achieve a anything close to a reasonable cost-benefit balance on the war in Iraq.
It is not the time to rally the right-wing base, because the base has shrunk to the point of near total ineffectiveness.
Conservatives need to do real politicking, which means they have to win voters over to their side. The “liberals are evil” works for maintaining power when things are going relatively well, but it’s disastrous for trying t win it back when they aren’t.
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:26 amEddy complains about a lack of sourcing – hilarious, coming from the master of unsubstantiated ranting and character assassination:
Here’s one for you, Eddy, from my favorite episode of The Simpsons:
Trial Judge: “Mr. Hutz, do you have any actual evidence to present to this court?”
Lionel Hutz: “Nothing your honor, except heresay and conjecture – those are kinds of evidence.”
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:27 amHacky’s still smarting from his b-tch slapping from our host last evening – Eddy’s clamoring for next in line.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:28 amAnd for the record, nobody loves America more than I do.
Nobody…
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:29 amWhy won’t the coward admit that he ran away from Stash’s challenge last night?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:32 amThe problem IMO: “Sure the other side cheats, but we’re better than that, we should always play by the rules”
No we’re not. If you consider “the rules” more important than survival, be my guest. Just stay out of my face because I’m not one of your good guys.
boris (ecab60) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:39 am“…Karl Rove was quite the master of channeling identity politics…”
A convenient bogeyman for the Left (found in virtually every comment thread from our Latin-named pestilence); but, do they actually read what he says (he does write a weekly column in the WSJ – available online), or just repeat the TP from Kos/DU/HP?
And, just how do Hackoff and WeirdEddie wave a red-flag in front of themselves?
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:40 amHacks, what day of the week is it? I can’t remember if we’re in “the New Depression that is the utmost immediate emergency” or “the fundamentals of this nation’s economy are strong, and GDP will be back up by year’s end”.
Nope, absolutely no fearmongering on the Left, why just the other day I zOMG BUSH IS GOING TO STAGE ANOTHER ATTACK AND CANCEL ELECTIONS! DIEBOLD! 16 WORDS! LISTENING IN ON YOUR SUNDAY CALLS TO AUNT MABEL. CHILL WIND CHILL WIND!
Techie (9c008e) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:50 amFuck off, Hackey Sack. You too, EfP.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:53 amOK Ed from PA (8:19 am), let’s put this to a very simple test: Take every initiative proposed by the Obama administration and ask yourself, “Would implementing this measure make us more or less like Europe?” Universal health care run by the state, high levels of taxation, smaller military, obeisance to the U.N. and other world government bodies, heavy regulation of business and the economy. I think the answers will speak for themselves.
JVW (bff0a4) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:58 amYou know that argument was leaky back when Andy made it two months ago, and it’s threadbare now. The whole confluence of policies makes us consider motives. Why would you try to regulate farms out of existence, (HR 875), why would you make volunteerism compulsory,(GIVE act) and make it harder for charities to raise funds. Why would you signal to the enemy in Afghanistan, that we want to negotiate with you, and undermine the legitimate democratic regime regime, leaving us with the distinct possibility of 1841 type retreat and the repeat of what happened to Sha Shuja. Why would you cut defense, in the middle of at least two if not three sizable theatre conflicts, in you include the Horn of Africa. Why
narciso (4e0dda) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:58 amwould you demand massive powers to intervene in the economy, when the authority you do have, hasn’t worked, or hasn’t even been applied. No it’s way past time to give him or the Democrats
the benefit of the doubt. And equally, it’s time
that you acknowledge Jeff’s point about the subversion of language, that actually makes this
whole discussion, doubleplusungood.
Why wouldn’t he? Don’t the trolls tell us that Sweden and the like are basically Paradise?
Don’t you want to live in Paradise?
Techie (9c008e) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:59 am“And equally, it’s time
that you acknowledge Jeff’s point about the subversion of language, that actually makes this
whole discussion, doubleplusungood.”
narciso – Patterico has listed a bunch of points of agreement with Jeff on subversion of language. Did you miss that post?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:06 amBetter to reign in hell, Techie?
Hadlowe (561752) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:09 amIt’s the difference between preaching to the choir and persuading the persuadable.
It’s the difference between being popular with a minority and caring about the majority.
Amphipolis (e6b868) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:27 amEveryone raise their hand if they know what on gods green earth caused someone to say “Sha Shuja” on a blog?
EricPWJohnson (6c6058) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:28 amEveryone raise their hand if they know what on gods green earth caused someone to say “Sha Shuja” on a blog?
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 3/26/2009 @ 9:28 am
One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian, Eric.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:35 amNow that is why this is a good blog to read, both from the posts and the comments! Well played, nk!
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:43 amI’m going to take the middle road.
This statement is clearly untrue and can be made true only by adding qualifications to “love” and “America”.
Nevertheless, to promote civil discourse, we should act as though it is true and keep our arguments to provable facts and logic. It is better to win without calling your opponent a poopyhead no matter how poop-filled his head may be. In fact, it may contribute to you losing since name calling is singing to the choir and those we wish to convince by definition are not in the choir.
tim maguire (4a98f0) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:44 amIt is a flawed paradigm being advanced by the Cocktail Conservatives that somehow “Don’t question the motives – question the policy” or “Don’t make it personal” is the right strategy if you want to win elections.
Again, 2006 and 2008 disprove this hypothesis and willfully ignoring is not a sign of intellect.
Not only this, have we not established that while the American Public is interested in hearing “a plan exists” they rarely care about the all important details. One small example …”My plan will cut taxes for 95% of the Public.” That went out the door and nary a peep of public outrage.
There are only field soldiers here and no generals. A General understands you use all tools necessary and that “a one approach strategy” will fail.
You discuss policy forcefully, you present concepts simply, you humiliate and slander your enemy as much as possible while having surrogates do the dirty work.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:48 amNow that is why this is a good blog to read, both from the posts and the comments! Well played, nk!
Comment by Eric Blair — 3/26/2009 @ 9:43 am
Yup.
Our host’s posts are great
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:52 amBut his comment policy
Is the sauce to the steak.
In fact, it may contribute to you losing since name calling is singing to the choir and those we wish to convince by definition are not in the choir.
I would observe that the Democrats never really learned this lesson, and that their current political dominance would be much stronger if they had.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:56 amThe first two bits are just fine with just about everyone. The last three smell of counterproductive approaches. Calling people stupid for not agreeing is another sign of “Purity of Essence.” Read more about the Stalinist purges; that was the approach they had, along with bullets to the brainpan.
I’m not calling you stupid for not agreeing with me. The approach you support quickly moves away from truth to self-perceived righteousness; the ends justify the means. From history, we know where that hike ends up.
I would rather tell the truth about my opponents. “Slander” is based upon untruths. And the humiliation I would like to see is humiliation at the ballot box.
You can use your approach if you like. And you are very very sure of yourself.
But I don’t think it will wash with the people who actually decide elections.
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 9:57 amP:
It’s not noble to think the best of someone when you have every reason to suspect that person’s motives. It’s also not noble to fail to recognize that some people are interested only in power, in controlling other people, and that good and evil don’t enter into their calculations.
Obama is a textbook example of someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissists do not weigh their actions by whether they are right or wrong in an abstract sense but whether they will provide the NPD with “narcissistic supply.”
They are psychologically incapable of doing otherwise. I should know: I was raised by a narcissist, so I know the tells.
Obama’s supply is obviously adulation (as is frequent with NPDs), and he’ll do anything to get it. He is determined to be a Savior figure–because who doesn’t worship a Savior?–but whether his actions are good or bad, helpful or hurtful, that is not part of his calculus.
That’s not to say that Obama is a BAD person, only that he is motivated by his compulsive search for more and more “supply” rather than what’s best for the country. NPDs are incapable of empathy, and they will NEVER do something for you that doesn’t glorify them.
NPDs result from deep psychological trauma in childhood. Obama was abandoned by both birth parents and a step-father before he was ten. That’s pretty heavy rejection. The poor kid could only conclude that he was worthless, because otherwise, why would his MOM, of all people, not want to be with him.
To protect against this unbearable pain, he would have built up a psychological protective mechanism wherein he’s not the lowest of the low, not the most worthless being on the planet, but rather the most important, the most desirable, the most loved.
He depends on this over-inflated belief of himself the way that you and I rely on oxygen: there’s little hope that he’ll ever change. NPDs rarely do.
That’s not to say that we ought to reject his policies on the basis that he’s a narcissist, only that we need to keep in mind what drives him–and what drives many around him, which is often the raw will to power–and stop giving these despicable people in Washington the benefit of the doubt when they don’t remotely deserve it.
Narcissism is tragic, but it’s also dangerous. Don’t be sucked in by the narcissist’s aura.
dicentra (5fbaa0) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:00 amFrom history, EB? Hell, from recent events right here.
It got me out of lurking at least.
Aron (fd12bd) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:03 amWe all would do well to listen to Justice Scalia:
“I don’t attack people, I attack ideas. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you got to get another day job.”
Let’s stop trying to impute motive to Obama, and stop trying to divine whether his is good or evil. Let’s fight the policies.
Steverino (69d941) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:08 amOh, please, don’t start with Axis II diagnoses based on your own biases and what you’ve seen on TV! That’s the kind of nonsense thrown by the left at George W. Bush for eight years: his “daddy issues,” his “dry drunkness,” and so on. It’s as foolish now as it was then.
Aron (916ebb) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:12 amThe people who actually decide elections are 1) the mobilized base, and 2) the apathetic idiots who get dragged to the ballot box by 1).
I think name calling works pretty well to get 1) to do his job. Money works better, as shown by ACORN and the astroturfing by the sorosphere, but name calling has its place.
Not everyone responds to good argument. Some people need to be shamed into doing the right thing. Some people respond to flattery. Some people respond to fart jokes.
It seems that you assume that the mushy middle coincides with those who can be persuadable. The mushy middle has a three-second attention span and no convictions beyond not wanting their thursday night television lineup interrupted by PAC commercials. These people aren’t persuadable. At best you can catch their attention for the brief moment when they cast their ballot, and then let them sink back into inactivity until next election cycle.
Namecalling works wonders for that. Think about what happened to Sarah Palin. What substantive arguments were put up against Sarah Palin? However, everyone remembers that her daughter was preggers and that Tina Fey portrayed her as a beauty queen ditz and isn’t Tina’s show on on Thursday nights? Where’s my TiVo?
Hadlowe (561752) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:12 amMark Steyn:
Sara (Pal2Pal) (84fd4f) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:14 amfor clarification, 65 was addressed to Eric Blair at 60.
Hadlowe (561752) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:18 amSpeaking of bullshit and the meaning of words. I do not understand why the ordinary man on the street is so dense when it comes to liberal buzz words. Fairness doctrine I assume intends to level the playing field between liberal talk radio and conservative talk radio. Apaprently people tend to support advertisers on shows that are conservative and not buy so much from those paying for liberal talk radio. So the marketplace isn’t suppose to decide the winners and losers. Of course our tax dollars are fine for supporting National Endowment for arts and subsidizing things like a crucifix in a jar or urine or the Virgin Mary smeared with fecal matter. And naturally we all pay to fatten non-partisan jokes like Bill Moyers on PBS or the non-biased NPR.
Most people I talk to get their knowledge from whatever the networks spew, so it is little wonder they consider Bush II an ignorant and crooked asshole of the first order.
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:18 amI don’t subscribe to the New Yorker magazine but today received a large white envelope marked do not bend. It contained a cover photo of O’Dumbo dressed as Washington and date 1-26-2009. Nothing else at all. What is the point of this BS? Will my tax dollars go to assclowns who burn money without any accountability (talk of stimlus for paper media)? Whatever Limbaugh is, he is not government subsidized. AirAmerica was drowning in red ink while ripping off the public and some non-profit org. and all the while paying “talent” Stuart Smiley big bucks. Speaking of which, with his own tax cheating ways, why has not Obama offered Franken a high profile job???
the scary part is that heretofore well-understood concepts of common sense and civility are the exception instead of the rule anymore.
I blame that evil warmongering Rethuglican fascist oil guzzling jesus cowboy Bush and that Islamic Manchurian commie 5th columnist un-American freak Hussein Obamessiah.
mike d (b28b9d) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:22 amHadlowe, I mean you no disrespect, but can you not see that the people whom you (I believe) think are antithetical to American ideals speak in much the same fashion as you just did? “Stupid” voters, canny manipulation, propaganda over truth?
Ah, but you have to use that approach, right?
What’s next? A strong leader who knows what is best for us all? After all, people who don’t think as you do are either mindless and ignorant, or apparently evil.
Again, look at the Stalinist purges. This is more “Purity of Essence.”
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:24 amThe people who actually decide elections are 1) the mobilized base, and 2) the apathetic idiots who get dragged to the ballot box by 1).
I think the truth of that statement is one of the things under dispute.
I don’t think it is true; I think the mobilized base gets you a large chunk of people, but that neither the mobilized base of the right nor the mobilized base of the left are actually enough to win most elections, outside of areas like San Francisco which are de facto one-party states.
What wins elections is the combination of a motivated base and temporary allies. The base is always going to be there. The allies won’t.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:29 amnk
Now I have to look up what the hell you meant
I’m going to bed
EricPWJohnson (6c6058) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:32 amEric,
Think of my rant less as an endorsement and more as a nihilistic mourning. Thus the self-deprecation at the end.
Hadlowe (561752) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:33 amnk
Now I have to look up what the hell you meant
I’m going to bed
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 3/26/2009 @ 10:32 am
Google is your friend. Just Google “Sha Shuja”.
And, if you need to, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”.
Am I Shah? Sultanly.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:37 amIt just seems like after the last presidential campaign, the pragmatic/libertarian/capitalist “base” is being burned at the stake for heresy by the idealogue/authoritarian/religious “base” — while the writerly types among the old conservative media are pointing fingers at the idealogues as unsophisticated, uncurious, Palin-worshiping hicks. Hell, CREATIONISM is making a reappearance as a political issue, under another name.
Aron (08ab06) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:37 amIt worked for Reagan. Reagan had a clear vision of the direction he wanted to take the country, an optimistic outlook, and a presentation free of name-calling.
It takes confidence to put forth a message that way.
Steverino (69d941) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:40 amReagan also had a huge subsection of grassroots activity via the Moral Majority that was unafraid to resort to demonizing political opponents. He also had the existential and galvanizing threat of Soviet expansion.
We’ve had 8 years without an additional terror attack on american soil. Absence makes the heart forget what the hell it was thinking back then.
Hadlowe (561752) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:44 amThank you, Aron, for calling me a heretical authoritarian. I feel so much better now.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 10:48 amIn this great controversy between Red-Meat Conservatives and Cocktail Conservatives, here’s a wish from a Tequila Libertarian for less acrimony and more agreeing to disagree.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (a935b6) — 3/26/2009 @ 11:35 am“But I’m first an American and that part of me hopes the more sensible elements of the conservative movement will prevail.”
Do you define a “sensible element” as a conservative or Republican who said “Thank you sir, may I have another?” enough times after you’ve beaten them down enough that they’ll put up a “97.5% of Dem position” plan?
If so, this Republican who is smart enough to see how personal, cultural, and social politics truly is would rather be called a crazy wingnut. At least I’ll know your true feelings.
Brad S (9f6740) — 3/26/2009 @ 11:36 amI think Obama is a weak and probably narcissistic person who has been elevated by a chance set of circumstances to an office he is unqualified to hold. I guess you could call it a Black Swan event. His principle talent is speaking, mostly from a teleprompter, and he has no management experience, a factor that has tended to work against Senators in past years. This time several factors combined for the Black Swan. He is black, personable, and it was time we elected a minority president. It’s only 49 years since it was a big deal to elect a Catholic. Secondly, Bush’s terms were controversial because of the close election and then the war which dragged on and caused a great deal of animus among the people, similar to Vietnam. Third, we had the financial meltdown, another Black Swan, during the campaign. Had this occurred earlier, it would have favored Romney and he might have done a better job as candidate.
Our task now is to survive, to present alternatives and point out the fallacies in Obama’s policies. Personal attacks on him are probably counterproductive because of his race. I just hope that Michael Steele can recruit good Congressional candidates for next year. If the Republicans can take back the House and narrow the margin in the Senate, the Republic may yet be saved.
Mike K (8df289) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:11 pm“A General understands you use all tools necessary and that “a one approach strategy” will fail.”
Jimminy – Who is your current General?
Also, please define Cocktail Conservative since you seem abnormally fond of the term.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:24 pmWhat a great post and wonderful comments! Turns out that Patterico’s timing is perfect. Posting about and linking to Andy Levy’s article two months after Levy’s article first appeared gave us the chance to compare Levy’s gracious and hopeful ideas with the despairing but revealing facts which have developed subsequent to his article’s being published.
By the way, Levy’s contributions to “Red Eye With Greg Gutfeld” on Fox News Channel are funny and insightful. I’d like to see Levy’s comments regarding this thread.
Ira (28a423) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:29 pmJimminy – Why did you shange your screen name from Obama Uber Alles? Just askin’.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:54 pmAlso, please define Cocktail Conservative since you seem abnormally fond of the term.
He also claimed that “the data” proved his thesis, and I asked him for some sourcing to prove his point. So far, none have been posted.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 12:55 pmDmac – The style was distinctive and the hyperaggressiveness when questioned. There’s something wrong with that lad.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:18 pmThe next time a right-winger tries to tell me demonization is a liberal’s game, I’ll send them here, where the wingnuts unabashedly embrace demonization as a political tool.
Talk about useful idiots.
And hadlowe asks: “What substantive arguments were put up against Sarah Palin?”
1. She lacked long enough, broad enough political experience to be president.
That one’s a deal-killer for voters, it turns out. And it didn’t help that Palin magnified those concerns by, for example, spending all that GOP money on clothes. Taken on it’s own, it’s not that big of a deal. But when you’re presenting yourself as an “aw shucks” no-nonsense, g-droppin’ “sold the plane on e-bay” hockey mom, it makes you look like an inept hypocrit who’s just not ready to be president. And that, in turn, raises troubling questions about your running mate’s judgment.
The key with almost all the criticisms of Palin is that they fed into, not away from, her campaigning style. That’s why they stuck.
Hax Vobiscum (4012df) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:20 pmContrast that with most of the more fevered criticisms of Obama, e.g. he’s a terrorist sympathizer who hates America and a thief in the employ of a Chicago corruption ring.
Obama’s “cool” rhetorical style, legal background and record as a state senator and U.S. senator offered nothing to hang those claims on. So they just didn’t stick.
McCain, for the most part, tried to keep his campaign focused away from the nutty stuff and on Obama’s policies, but the wingnutosphere did him no favors in that regard. That’s a lesson the GOP might do well to learn.
#35 Comment by Ed from PA — 3/26/2009 @ 8:19 am
I would believe that if you can reference or post a link quoting Obama saying this explicitely.
(I think you meant explicitly)
From Supporters:
Rev Wright: “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
From wife Michelle Obama: ” People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
From President Obama:
Private fund raiser:” And, it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Campaign trail, NH: ” We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Inaugural Address: ” Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere you look, there is work to be done.”
Pons Asinorum (4ce17e) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:25 pm1. She lacked long enough, broad enough political experience to be president.
Hax – Except that she had more than Obama and see how that’s turning out so far with the Obamateur Hour Administration. Nice Try Fuckstick. FAIL.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:31 pmThe key with almost all the criticisms of Palin is that they fed into, not away from, her campaigning style.
I have to wonder how many examples-in-specific would be necessary to defeat that lame qualifier.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:34 pmHmmm…
Um. At each level, we are describing the personification of how Gertrude Stein described Oakland: there is no “there” there. The malapropisms, the lack of publishing as President of the Harvard Law Review, the voting record in the State senate, and the voting record in the US Senate…
Well, the angels doth not sing on those subjects, despite what some commentators might state: they want to believe that the facts match the image.
But that’s okay. The MSM told us repeatedly that running for office was great experience for being President.
Perceptions are important. But now we are dealing with the facts. Perceptions are about feelings.
We’ll see how the man does. I particularly like how many on the Left are insistent that the Right “give him a chance” for the first hundred days or so. Quite a change from the previous situation.
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:36 pm“The key with almost all the criticisms of Palin is that they fed into, not away from, her campaigning style. That’s why they stuck.”
Hax – The dishonest media gave Obama at least 10 points in the election by not investigating or covering his background, not explaining his positions and flip flops and conversely demonizing his opponents.
Face it Hax. That’s the only reason the least experienced and least qualified man to be President is sitting in the Oval Office today.
END OF STORY
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:37 pmIt seems to me that Obama’s experience was a lot like Sarah’s but without running profitable companies for years, and being Governor for two years and Mayor for eight years.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:39 pmI suggest we let Hax talk to himself on this one.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:39 pmSarah’s youngest child is actually Bristol’s?
Sarah can’t take care of her kids and be veep at the same time?
Bristol’s teen pregnancy means Sarah’s hypocritical in her family values?
The wardrobe expenses the GOP required for Sarah and her family was what, again?
Just because it was cold outside in Alaska, Sarah committed ethic violations by wearing cold-weather gear that happened to have “Arctic Cat” on it?
Sarah was holding her baby while in front of cameras as a ploy?
Are those enough examples-in-specific to defeat the lame “almost all” qualifier?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:41 pmEric Blair, looking at the last two months it seems running a campaign WAS good preparation for this presidency. What else has he done?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:45 pmNicely said, Machinist. And here we thought the man would govern instead of continue to campaign.
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:58 pmYup.
Our host’s posts are great
But his comment policy
Is the sauce to the steak.
Comment by nk — 3/26/2009 @ 9:52 am
Ahhhhhhhhh yes, but a truley great steak, needs no sauce.
JW (774f62) — 3/26/2009 @ 1:59 pmJW, as the unofficial, unpaid, unknown (by even the company) spokesman of A-1 Steak Sauce, I will revel when you eat your words. A-1, it’s how steak is done.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:05 pm“Also, please define Cocktail Conservative since you seem abnormally fond of the term.”
daleyrocks, I’ll give you MY definition of Cocktail Conservative: A conservative who will throw anyone and everyone off a cliff, and who will suck up to anyone and everyone, in order to prove they matter to their own social class.
It should be no surprise that both David Brooks and Maureen Down look down upon knaves like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Brad S (b875f6) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:11 pmBrad S. – Thanks. Jimminy is a former commenter here coming back under a new name. I was mostly just trying to get him to fess up about it.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:13 pmBrad S. – Iowahawk did some nice stuff on them if I recall.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:15 pmJW, as the unofficial, unpaid, unknown (by even the company) spokesman of A-1 Steak Sauce, I will revel when you eat your words. A-1, it’s how steak is done.
Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/26/2009 @ 2:05 pm
Bwaaaaaaaaahahaha!
As an unofficial, unpaid, unknown (by even the beef industry) spokesman of the GREAT beef industry, I shall hand you a bottle of Catsup and say “if you insist…have at it my good man.”
GOOD beef needs no acroutiments, IMNSO! 😉
JW (774f62) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:28 pmwell, that should have been IMNSHO.
But, me thinks ya got the drift. 🙂
JW (774f62) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:32 pmPlain, A-1, Ketchup… it’s all good when you have good steak.
Good to know I’m not a Cocktail Conservative. I think the post is saying that courtesy and rational thinking does not equal political correctness. The people who confuse the two while railing against civil discussion because “you have to fight fire with fire” hold little interest for me. It’s not throwing someone off a cliff or sucking up, it’s acting like an adult. The answer to rabid demagoguery is not more of the same, not in the long term.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:50 pmThe real question, Stash, is if a martini can ever be made with vodka?
I agree with you on your post. Somewhere along the line, people began confusing tactlessness with honesty, and equating civility with weakness.
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:54 pmAnd it didn’t help that Palin magnified those concerns by, for example, spending all that GOP money on clothes.
Seriously? This is what you’ve got?
Refresher on the media push/pull in this, from the LAT (same article), the first sneer:
“What do you think about Palin’s fashion statement? Is it hypocritical that the “average hockey mom” candidate and her entire family got free fancy clothes from places like Saks Fifth Avenue and Barney’s?
I don’t think many average American Joe Six Pack families are sitting around the dinner table wondering how they’re gonna pay the gosh darn bills wearing free designer clothing, do you?
That sounds more like something a celebrity might do!
…and then this reverse-critical sneer later in the very same article as her everyday governor-wear is analyzed,
“Thank heavens Sarah Palin has moved on from the suburban hockey mom get-up. That pink floral print braided jacket looks like dollhouse drapes. Thankfully, her brassy highlights have since been toned down too. This definitely is not a White House-worthy outfit.”
Polka dots are perceived as way too clownish for a potential VP. So we’re betting Sarah Palin won’t be wearing this dotty blouse again anytime soon.
This is called a no-win. Let’s attack the superficial and insignificant while ignoring the experience of governing, managing, and making enormous decisions that actually have a direct impact on the populous.
But then of course you already knew this.
Dana (137151) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:55 pmThe irony in this is rich. Like a triple German chocolate cake smothered in whipped cream and Hershey’s syrup rich.
Don’t get me started on dead cow, and proper preparation. A good piece of dead cow should be seared, cooked to medium rare, and if it is truly a good cut of meat, no sauce is needed, or should be added.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:57 pmDana – Has the media started asking Michelle about the drapes and sofas she wears?
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:59 pmJD, didn’t you have dead cow on the Flaming Sword of Doom with Dmac and company a while back?
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 2:59 pmJD, that’s different. Sexist.
And did I mention racist?
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:00 pmAgreed, but then finish cooking it to get rid of that pink in the middle.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:01 pmNo, JD, not yet. They still aren’t done swooning over those arms.
From the NYT,
“Her [Mrs. Obama] arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it. “
Just say it, MoDo: Those very arms could have lifted Jesus down from the Cross!
Meh.
Dana (137151) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:03 pmNot that there’s anything wrong with pink, if you roll that way, but civilized folks cook their meat.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:03 pmBlame the media all you want, but unless and until conservatives accept responsibility for the results their own movement brings, I can’t see they expect a different outcome.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, but that strategy hasn’t worked for the GOP since 2004. Maybe it should consider trying something different.
Conservative Palin critic David Brooks’ plea is that the American right stop running against newspapers and higher education. He’s begging the wingnuts to narrow down their enemies list so that it doesn’t cover such a wide swath of America.
Too many Americans see the anti-intellectualism and absurd media victimhood complex as motivated by a sense of cultural and intellectual entitlement.
I would add to that that the movement has to dial down the vitriol about Obama voters. Does it make any sense at all to pretend that everyone who voted for him is a gullible nincompoop? How is that going to persuade those same voters to switch to a conservative candidate?
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:15 pmthat Obama’s experience was a lot like Sarah’s but without running profitable companies for years, and being Governor for two years and Mayor for eight years.
But, but – Alaska doesn’t count, it’s barely even a state, man! Now let’s talk about a real state, a state like Rhode Island, which is much, um…bigger?
“It should be no surprise that both David Brooks…”
Eh, you gave up the ghost on that one – Brooks is neither conservative nor liberal, he’s just a prime example of the Upper East Side Salon Poncey – Boy. Or else you could call him a hybrid of some sort, something like what Spector has become, kind of a neutered Centaur.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:18 pmSee? When Hacking Cough makes the same assertion regarding Brooks, you know the correct answer.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:19 pmNot that there’s anything wrong with pink, if you roll that way, but civilized folks cook their meat.
Philistine….:D
Good beef should be shown the flames, no more.
I can’t say that I have ever seen any thing quite like these first months of the new administration. It’s the Cylons meet the Keystone Kops.
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:20 pmDead cow, pig, fish, shrimp, lamb, pheasant … All from the flaming swords of death.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:20 pmIn complete agreement. Now, if you want exceptional flavor, try cooking your steak over a mahogany wood flame.
Steverino (69d941) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:21 pmMachinist – I am not civilized. I like it when my dead cow has just quit bleeding.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:23 pmFools! And idiots! Sear marks are burns! Any honest-to-goodness steak lover knows if you get rid of the red, you have shoe leather. Rare if you’re in a place that knows half a thing about steak. Extra rare if you’re in a place that does chicken-fried anything along with their sub-grade steaks.
If it ain’t red inside, it’s shoe leather.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:25 pmRead #112 again folks, and revel in the apparently unobserved self-irony.
To coin a word: Hilarious!
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:27 pmFine. I’ll wave the red flag in front of bullshit – again:
Blame the media all you want
There wasn’t a blaming of the media, there was a pointing out of the no-win Palin was in. The fashion kerfuffle was but a microcosm.
Conservative Palin critic David Brooks’
(Oxy)moron.
until conservatives accept responsibility for the results their own movement brings, I can’t see they expect a different outcome.
Of course this works both ways. We shall see as the next 4 years unfolds, how well the Dems accept responsibility for the results of their administration. I know who my money is on.
Dana (137151) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:29 pm“Philistine”
Is that Latin for “doesn’t eat raw meat”?
That’s me!!
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:31 pmIs there going to be any math on this thread?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:32 pmI read #112 the first time and thought about Malone College (university now), Grace College, Cedarville College, Mount Vernon Nazarene College (university now), Lindsey Wilson College (where my bro got a double bachelors). Not persactly anti-smarts skools like, oh, I don’t know, UC-Berkeley.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:32 pmSeems like “Fighting against newspapers” is a winnable battle, seeing as most of them are circling the toilet.
Yes, the MSM did their vaunted duty as the Fourth Estate by mocking the only non-multimillionare in the campaign getting a wardrobe worthy of months in the harsh glare of the national spotlight. Bang-up job of elevating the discourse.
Techie (9c008e) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:33 pmMachinist: Shave it, slap it, throw it on a plate. Good eatin’.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:34 pmMust I accept this premise? Is this a new requirement? Some kind of litmus test?
RTO Trainer (b0723e) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:35 pmTequila and sea urchin!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (badb95) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:36 pm“Must I accept this premise? Is this a new requirement? Some kind of litmus test?”
RTO – You must answer three hypotheticals and participate in five polls before you advance to the next stage. Are you ready?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:38 pmTequila is ick unless it’s in a frozen drink. And I love a good mahi-mahi lemon-dill steak, with a couple hunks of lemon to juice it up more in front of me.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:39 pmI have to wonder if those same folks saw the “absurd media victimhood complex ” when Hillary talked about the vast right wing conspiracy.
Isn’t this talk about needing the fairness doctrine kind of like that as well?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:39 pmBut remember that Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President George W. Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her.
This is a benefit of the doubt I am unwilling to give. If one loves America, then one would not be inclined to remake America into the image of Europe. One would not be seeing the curtailing of American freedoms, liberties and individualism in favor of the collective good.
Of course the devil is in the details and one must first be very clear on the distinctions of Obama’s definition of best …for America.
Dana (137151) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:41 pm“Tequila and sea urchin!”
Tequila and Hawt Babes!
Much mo better!
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:42 pmSeems like “Fighting against newspapers” is a winnable battle, seeing as most of them are circling the toilet.
Yep. 100 layoffs and a 5% across the board paycut at the NYT today.
Dana (137151) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:42 pmI have to agree Obama does not love this country, or did not love it until he became what he thought was the supreme ruler. Obama does not have the best interests of this country in mind, and never has had the best interests of this country in mind.
He has, however, had the socialist agenda in mind since the beginnings of his political endeavors, and likely long before. His whole intent is to make this nation a new socialist nation, Constitution and history bedarned.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:42 pmEven heathen cannibals cook their “guests”. Can’t you just cook the meat and serve a glass of blood on the side?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:42 pmGiven the extensive record of failure of socialism throughout history it is hard to attribute someone’s advocacy of it to something other than ignorance or bad intent.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:48 pmTequila is ick unless it’s in a frozen drink.
Not with the good stuff.
If you’re ever in San Diego, let me know and I’ll buy you a shot.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (badb95) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:49 pmSan Diego is in fly-over country, or it will be, again, if I ever get another job. I have flown over CA 10 different times. 5 times flying from Ohio to Hawaii and 5 times flying from Hawaii to Ohio.
CA taxes are too high, and while HI taxes are too high, the people are friendlier, in general.
Malama Hawai’i. 😉
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:55 pmWhen I eat out and the waiter asks “How do you want your steak cooked?”, I say “The way the chef thinks it should be cooked”. At home, it depends on the meat. A good piece of more less lean New York Strip will be brown to about 1/8″ in and the rest pink to red to the center. Otherwise it will be tough and metally-tasting.
But I can cook you a nice marbled ribeye, extra well done, that will melt on the fork, Machinist. With several kinds of pepper, garlic and oregano, that you won’t need a sauce.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:56 pm#70, Fair enough to disagree but you seem as “very very sure” of your beliefs as I am of mine.
Cheers
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 3/26/2009 @ 3:57 pmOuA – How are you doing? Why the name switch?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:01 pmnk,
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:04 pmI never put sauce on steak. As I like it well done I don’t mind a bit dry but as you say, it can be tender and flavorful if done right. My wife is from Mexico and grew up without refrigeration so she’s even pickier about no red than I am. I’m really not hard to please when it comes to steak.
Oh the humanity…
The thing about beef in general and steak in particular is that each cut has its own best method of cooking. A lovely couple of tri-tips marinated in soy sauce, garlic and orange juice is heaven. Add a margarita on the rocks, happiness….
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:08 pmSan Diego is in fly-over country . . .
First time I’ve heard San Diego mentioned in that context!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (badb95) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:09 pmYour wife’s from Mexico? I just might come visit. So long as I don’t have to eat beans or rice, I wouldn’t mind some good enchiladas with the ability to strip paint.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:09 pmThere’s no steak like Porterhouse steak. 1-1/2 to 2 inches thick, 1/8 inch of soft brown on each side, the rest dark red. And, of course, no sear marks. Put it on a bed of white rice, smother it in sauteed shrooms, and … (spokesman).
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:14 pmShe will sometimes open a bowl of salsa from her mother that makes my eyes water across the room. The welcome mat is out.
After driving through San Diego I would much rather fly over it.
Chivas, neat, if you please. Warmed a bit is better.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:14 pmMy grandfather was a rancher and once said that if your steak needed sauce, you’d ruined it.
I respect that, but I do make a mean Steak Au Poivre.
Rib-eye is my favorite cut, hands down.
Techie (9c008e) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:18 pmAnd the Italians were onto something with Gremolata…….
Techie (9c008e) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:19 pmChimichuri…
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:21 pmIf I’m gonna drink something hard, I’d rather it be fire-and-ice, rocks or neat, doesn’t matter. But I prefer to stick to beer (red-white-and-blue was my favorite) or frozen drinks.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:26 pmI buy beer for company. My wife likes wine. Good 12 year old scotch doesn’t need to be hidden or watered down.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:29 pmHeh, I haven’t found any scotch that didn’t taste like an oak tree. Guess I’ve tried the wrong stuff.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:36 pmNow which cut of dead cow is a fascinating conversation. Ribeye with good marbling is always a stellar choice, preferably bone-in. A filet is nice when it is extra-thick – you know it is good restaurant and steak when they serve it without a knife. I am not a fan of NY or KC strips, they are a bit dense for me, but I would never say no to a free one 😉 Porterhouse and T-bone are excellent hybrids, and any steak cooked on the bone is a pleasure.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:38 pmWell, they do say Sarah Palin delivers the red meat:
Just before going on for the debate with Biden: “So I’m looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra,” she said. “And the McCain campaign, love ’em, you know, they’re a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray.” — Sarah Palin, speaking at a GOP dinner in Alaska last week.
Gotta love that.
Cocktail conservatives?
Not even good enough to pray with.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:39 pmI are a peasant. I like NY steaks. I do like them not so thick because of not liking rare.
John Hitchcock, that sounds like me with Bourbon.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:42 pmI might suggest Irish if you don’t like the peat in scotch.
I wonder who would consider the McCain campaign folks conservatives. I rather thought that was why Sarah was so welcome by Republicans. The McCain campaign treated her like dirt.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:46 pmI am no expert on prayer though.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:47 pmMac, why even assume that was accurate? No source, no link, nothing. Ignore the “journalist”.
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:51 pmI did not vote for McCain in the general elections. I voted for Palin. Had McCain selected another just like him, I would’ve voted 3rd party.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:53 pmMachinist – Assuming that the lying mendoucheous dishonorable crapweasel is telling the truth, it is hardly surprising given that McCain is not the Godbotherer that the Left attempted to make him out to be.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:54 pmSo how did McCain win the nomination?
Let me guess….
The Liberal Media Wizards waved their magic wand and made Republicans want to nominate a non-conservative….
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:58 pmQuestion the motives AND the policy. Don’t assume a person is evil solely because he advocates bad policies, but advocating bad policies is hardly a reason to assume he’s good, either.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/26/2009 @ 4:58 pmHe most certainly did not win it from the ooga booga religious voters, you pathetic cowardly asshat. Now, sod off.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:00 pmYou promised to leave. You are a liar. You gave a disingenuous apology for prior vile smears, and have done nothing since that suggests that you did so for any reason other than to not be banned. You are an oozing rectal fistula on the chocolate starfish of humanity.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:03 pmThanks JD. I can always count on you to slobber when I ring the bell.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:03 pmF*ck off you lying ass. Mock and scorn is too good for you.
JD (e54d51) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:06 pmPlease don’t tell me the “honest, informationally-connected journalist” is trying to claim liberals did not cross-vote in the early primaries.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:07 pmJD, this is all good old HV lives for. Now, we can’t prove that he doesn’t have a large loving family who cherishes him. And a rewarding profession. His own television show. A golden EIB microphone.
And unicorns pooting pixie dust by his side.
The guy just posts to be a jackass. That’s it.
Just remember this: Patterico knows who he actually is. So all his posturing and sneering may be protected from us…but not from Mr. Frey.
The truth is out there….
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:14 pmYeah, his attack on Stashiu proves he does not want to discuss ideas, liberal or conservative. It’s the personal conflict he craves.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:17 pmYou are right, Eric, but I simply refuse to not call that dishonest vile cretin a dishonest vile cretin when it is being a dishonest vile cretin.
JD (48e0d5) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:22 pmYeah the Whine Club HATES personal conflict…
ROTFL….
You guys are a riot. So flagrantly hypocritical.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:25 pmThe more I consider Levy’s first statement, the more I back away from it.
Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.
Again, without defining the terms of “love” and “best”, it’s almost impossible to say. Painting with the broad brush and generalizing, I’d say sure, they both love America and want what’s best for her. But new policies and their direct impact on citizens is not a generalized result but rather can change our lives culture forever while simultaneously destroying our core foundation.
Only judging by what I’ve seen in less than a 100 days and judging from his rhetoric on the campaign trail and his associations that have influenced his thinking, I would not be inclined toward giving him the benefit of the doubt in this either.
Dana (137151) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:31 pmTo the Left, being a hypocrite is worse than being a dishonest fuckin’ lying ass.
JD (48e0d5) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:33 pmYou guys are a riot. So flagrantly hypocritical.
Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/26/2009 @ 5:25 pm
Well, could you try to be entertaining, at least? Basically, all you have shown is that you are a mental midget who cannot formulate an articulate argument and resorts to spitting and throwing rocks.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:38 pmWho exactly is in this “Whine Club” you’ve invented in your mind? What qualifies as whining?
Contrary to your characterizations… objections to smears, unsourced declarations, fabricated talking points, ducking/deflecting/or outright ignoring rebuttals to your inane statements, etc… is not whining. Disagreeing with you is not whining. Heaping scorn on you for dishonest commenting is not whining. Refusing to accept your word on anything because you’ve shown it to be worthless is not whining. Discussing conservative values is not whining. Disagreeing with President Obama’s plans and the administration’s inept implementation of their own policies is not whining. Calling you out on your lies is not whining. Which reminds me:
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:38 pmWill be interesting to see if the “only people who agree with my ideology love their country” meme can pull out of the intensive care unit.
It’s been on life-support since about 2006, when it became horrifyingly clear that almost everything the self-regarding neo-con “real Americans” had said about Iraq proved to be wrong and almost everything the liberal “traitors” had said came to pass.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:43 pmWell, he just added more lies at #183 and yet he’s still here.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:46 pmFabricated talking points – check.
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:47 pmnk,
I believe I must disagree with you. The man is clever and educated. He shows this in his ability to twist the truth and squirm out of the corners he paints himself into. This is why I tried to debate with him at first and this is what is so sad. It is his character that is stunted. He would be less annoying if he just chirped his “BUSH LIED!!” type talking points like Ed does, but he has the intellect to earn the respect he so envies better men getting and has traded that respect for the barking approval of the elite liberal echo chamber and now even he feels how empty and unsatisfying it is because it is meaningless. “Bush is Hitler!!” YA!! (clap, clap)
How empty and sad for a man with talent. He sees men of accomplishment getting the respect of their peers and there is no way he can puff up his chest in that company so he pees on the better man’s leg and laughs that he doesn’t smell so good now, by gosh!
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:51 pmLet’s keep Hax around, I think. He will be our canary in the coal mine for the disinformation propagated by the Sorosphere.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:52 pmWhy else would he infest a site where he is despised and unwelcome.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 5:55 pmBecause he’s been banned already in other places? Because he was given a second chance here under a new name and went right back to dishonest commenting?
I agree that Hax is not stupid. That’s why I thought he could contribute something here. I was wrong. He has no interest in contributing, just disrupting threads and disseminating lies.
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:00 pmJumping in late with an answer to #45 by boris –
Actually, I’d argue very strongly for “don’t act like the liberals did for the past 8 years” on pragmatic grounds, as well as the moral grounds.
Think about it for a second: when you heard “Oh, Bushitler is going to lock up everyone in Gitmo, he’s cr*pping all over the Constitution, we’re all screwed” — did it make you respect the intelligence of the person saying that? Did you have any inclination to listen to their points?
Now let’s consider your average, middle-of-the-road voter. Not the hardcore liberals, they wouldn’t ever be persuaded by your arguments anyway. No, the person you need to convince to vote against Obama in 2012 is the guy who doesn’t pay much attention to politics until September or October of election year, then he starts watching the news to figure out who he’ll vote for.
If he hears you saying “Obama hates America, he’s a secret communist / Islamofascist / whatever,” and so on, he’s going to write you off as another right-wing nutjob and he won’t listen to anything you say. What you need to be saying is “Obama’s policies are going to hurt our economy; taxing the owners of productive businesses into the ground is no way to create jobs.” Now you sound like a rational person with a point to make, rather than a crazed loon to be ignored.
See the difference? It’s about the same difference in tone between a commenter who’s just trolling (e.g., Mr. “Hax Vobiscum” above), and a commenter who’s actually making a serious argument against your position.
Robin Munn (c5a7e9) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:02 pmThe next rant that’s supported by an objective link from him would be the first – from day one, he’s never behaved any differently. I never gave him respect because he clearly didn’t deserve any, and his Tourette’s Syndrome – like responses has only reinforced that view.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:06 pmI believe a reasonable person would agree that in my initial conversations with him I extended every courtesy and respect and extended to him the benefit of a doubt. He chose another path. I still think it was the right thing to do.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:24 pmNothing wrong with that approach – but his intial posts here were exactly the same as you see today. Most of us weren’t fooled by his later “apology,” either; it was typical of his performance art – craven, gutless and bereft of any sincerity.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:27 pmBaby, I love you… but you should lose some weight, dress different, get a new job, cook better, buy better beer, and learn how to give me better @#$%…. plus, you need a new attitude. I just said I love you aminute ago, what more do you need? Read my teleprompter: “I. Love. You. Why aren’t you on your knees yet?”
SteveG (a87dae) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:27 pmThird name, Stashiu. At least. I don’t know about you, but operating under multiple aliases isn’t exactly a badge of honor for me.
carlitos (efdd90) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:41 pmHey, If it wasn’t for me, you guys would still be trading boasts about your barbecue recipes…
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:42 pmhax, I suspect that smarter liberals wouldn’t be scared off if they came here and didn’t see a ridiculous troll and the understandably irritated reaction.
Not that you care.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:45 pmMmmm…. barbecue…. now, who is in your “Whine Club” and why? You’ve included me in there at least once. Please find a specific instance of clear whining (not one of your tortured “interpretations”) on my part and provide a link. Who else are you including? Why? I’m just asking questions. Surely you can answer these simple questions since you’re still here. Which reminds me again:
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:52 pmThe thing is, Hax, that in real life Stashiu would have you as a nosh with his beer. One cashew, one peanut, one Hax Vobiscum.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 6:57 pmnk, I like cashews, peanuts, and beer. 😉
IRL Hax would never say this stuff to my (or anyone else’s) face. I’m sure he can be very charming in person. It’s only online that he feels safe enough to let his vile personality shine through. That’s the real Hax.
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:06 pmHey, Stash…didn’t the dig about BBQ recipes make you wonder how often sneering types get invited over to have dinner with genuine people?
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:17 pmWhat a vile little fock. It would not have the stones to say this crap in person. Never. It mocks those that have served, it denigrates honorable service, and it slanders real people that served honorably. I would not piss on it were it on fire.
EfP and timmah too.
JD (48e0d5) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:30 pmEB, they just invite each other. No need to lower themselves and dine with riff-raff.
JD, when in writing, it’s libel. Just sayin’ 😉
Hax, keep your word… begone.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:38 pmStashiu3,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:42 pmHow do you say that in Latin?
It’s the little ones that are hard. Online translator says:
That = ut, ille, illa, illud, qui, iste, quatenus, istud, ista, is, ea, quatinus, id, illum, illiam, qui quae que quod, eum, eo, eius, ei, eam, quo. 😉
(Couldn’t resist. Which were you actually talking about Brother Brad?)
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:50 pmWell, I hate to break this sad news, but reading another thread revealed that the Hax is banned.
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:53 pmI am so sad.
Do you mean, “Hax, keep your word… begone.”?
Again, had to translate online (I blame the site if it’s wrong 😉 ).
Hax , servo vestri vox. genitus
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:53 pmYes. Very Cato-esque.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:55 pmA lot of good action over at “The Punch-drunk Presidency”.
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:56 pmThanks for the info AD… good riddance to bad rubbish I say.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:58 pmNow, the question is, will Weird Eddy spring the trap-door on himself?
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 7:59 pmYawn, the thread was just warming up too.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:01 pmJust like the coming dawn, there will always be another troll to enjoy/annoy.
AD - RtR/OS (f1de20) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:03 pmWell, since we’re talking Latin, is Obamum the genitive of Obama? As in Ad Majorem Obamum Gloriam.
nk (c90ef8) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:10 pmI still say Thunderdome is the way to deal with this.
Eric Blair (55f2d9) — 3/26/2009 @ 8:18 pmI hate being a codepentet.
Biscuiteater (9cbc67) — 3/28/2009 @ 2:00 amcodependent
Biscuiteater (9cbc67) — 3/28/2009 @ 2:02 amThis is a premise I do not subscribe to. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that Obama, or leftist politicians in general (many, but not all), love the USA, because their policies, their ideas, and their agenda are wholly un-American.
It is not a personal attack on Obama to state plainly that he is not doing what is best for this country, and to state plainly that he does not want to do what is best for this country, up to the point where he actually does something that’s good for this country.
Those on the right must pound this message home. It cannot be said enough. Obama and the Democrats and the left want to destroy the USA, they are (and have been for a long while now) actively working to destroy the USA, and if they love the USA then they must stop trying to destroy it.
Anyone who is for statism, socialism, communism, and/or collectivism is absolutely against the foundations of this country and are either very ignorant or very unpatriotic. You absolutely are not going to convince leftists that they are wrong by calling them ignorant or unpatriotic, but it’s been almost 100 years and I don’t see any other method succeeding in changing their mind, but that’s not the point. Just get the message out there: only ignorant or un-American people believe in statism, socialism, communism, and collectivism.
Eric in Atlanta (c595ee) — 3/29/2009 @ 2:30 pmEric in Atlanta, you might be interested in my post on my blog about Davey Crockett, and the imbedded links. It is very clear to those who read that stuff that this great country has traveled a very long way toward statism and socialism and a very long way away from the intent of the Founders.
(Yes, shameless plug for my “unknown” blog.)
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/29/2009 @ 2:51 pm[…] knew I had seen something like Andy Levy’s sentiments somewhere. From The Federalist Papers #1 (Hamilton): It is not, however, my design to dwell upon […]
The Jury Talks Back » Converts by Loudness and Bitterness (e4ab32) — 7/21/2009 @ 6:54 pm