Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don't Drone Me, Bro!
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(201)
-
▼
January
(21)
- Pushed To The Edge In Boston
- BCS
- Tim Tebow: The New Black
- Grinding It Out At Starbucks
- How LBJ and W Became Presidents...
- Hmmm
- Air America: What Went Wrong
- It's Official: I'm An 'Old Guy'
- Serious Question
- Immigrant Pride
- This would have never happened if she'd had cats, ...
- This Is Our Business
- Another View From The Apocalypse
- Sorry Brian, no more sex in the park for you.
- Now you know why.If only we can get the whole nati...
- *
- Because All The Foxes Are On Fox
- Michelle Malkin would be a lot cuter if she'd shut...
- The Heads Talk Too Much
- This Year's Football Movie
- I Guess It's A New Year
-
▼
January
(21)
The List
!
My Little Friend
45 comments:
Not a chance, Gino.
Is it true that some men don't find intelligent women attractive? ;^)
Jesse (her husband) can have her cute side(not that she ranks up with Mrs. Bubba anyways). I'm just glad she shares the "sharp as a whip" mental side.
You're my favorite sexist, Gino!
Michele, just another blogger who happened to have a gimmick, is further proof you don't have to actually have a brain to have a platform in this country. I'm glad we're weeding this bullshit out of the national picture little by little. We've got enough people with the brain of a gnat bloviating all over the media. And she's about has dumb as they come.
RW, Mrs. Malkin was a nationally syndicated columnist long before she ever got a blog, and if being on national TV and selling millions of books constitutes being "weeded out" in your mind, I'm going to suggest it's not Mrs. Malkin who has the brain of a gnat...
...put differently, mature people can disagree without being disagreeable, don't you think?
Bub, once upon a time I tried very hard to play *nice* with people who considered themselves "conservatives." You can ask Gino all about it. I'd try to be sensible and laugh, I tried to agree to disagree and be mature. I got a handful of shit in my face every time I tried that. Shit being thrown by people who - years after the fact - were still convinced there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq even though - when we couldn't find them - they were saying that's not why we were there. I tried. I did my best. I was treated like a sick, twisted little fuck. I'm not making that mistake again. The double-talking bullshit that comes from Malkin and the bloviating assholes who follow her line of thinking is being weeded out, and it started with Greenspan's admission that all his years of following Ayn Rand and everything he believed in was wrong. They still can't see that, when it comes to national health care for example, what they are really saying is "if you can't afford health care for yourself I guess you'll just have to roll over and die."
No. For eight years I had a lot of fucked up know-it-alls push me and my ideas around as if I was insane, cracked, stupid, evil or just plain dumb. And I am happily watching their beloved Republican Party become a group of angry white guys eating themselves up about how much they want loopy fuckheads like Pat Robertson to influence their policy.
...put differently, I've learned from y'all how to say fuck you and everybody you know and enjoy my anger. I do thank you for that. maybe when/if you nutjobs can elect another dickbrain from Texas who can't even speak English I'll take the make-believe high road. Until then, piss off.
...yeah, but she would still be cuter if she kept her mouth shut once in a while.
Hmm, my handy-dandy comment translator renders RW's comment:
"Nope."
lol!
I'm starting to wonder whether Gino's just transparently sexist or whether he's subversively penetrating the concept of "cute" in American culture by using Michelle Malkin as a mere metaphor for cuteness-as-social-construction. Gino may really be talking about cuteness, and not Michelle Malkin, saying that what we really expect out of women from the time they are cute little girls to the time they are cute little old ladies, is that they maintain their cuteness by keeping quiet--by maintaining a playfully serene air of capricious mystery that we call essentially feminine, but this ultimately means we expect women to "shut up"!
No, he's just a sexist mo-fo. As for me, if she was doing Nietzschean or Platonic philosophy with the same confident zeal with which she talks politics, I would find her beyond cute... and essentially feminine, though there is no such thing!
i was channel surfing, her face poped up, and a thought came to me.
that is all.
Thanks, RW, for the spot-on example of unsubstantiated blather; you could make a gnat proud!
Good luck overcoming your BDS.
What K-Rod says.
Or, perhaps better; ya know, RW, if all you've got is unsubstantiated and often demonstrably false accusations (e.g. Malkin is just a blogger with a schtick), maybe, just maybe, the response you've gotten says a little bit more about you than it does about those you're vilifying.
RW,
I'm curious -- what ideas of yours were characterized as "insane, cracked, stupid, evil or just plain dumb?" That covers a lot of ground.
And I wouldn't worry too much about Pat Robertson -- he's pretty much out of the loop from what I can tell.
K-Rod - that is not an argument. I voted for Bush, and I'm not paranoid. Good luck with your next guess.
Bubba - Malkin wasn't known beyond a handful until her blogging helped get her front and center. Maybe if you weren't such a sycophant of hers - or loosen the fuckin do-rag a little maybe? - you wouldn't be so defensive.
Mr D - I made the mistake of pointing out that when we couldn't find Saddam Hussein's WMD program the administration changed tunes to "bringing democracy to the Middle East" which, if he would have asked the Congress for money to do that in the first place he wouldn't have gotten it. So it was kind of like a lie. More than just one conservative think tank - in fact even William F Buckley before he passed - questioned the idea of "nation building", which would be more like a Wilsonian idea. Admittedly every President since Wilson has been, to a degree, "Wilsonian", but our effort in Iraq seemed to some (certainly people more legitimate than Malkin and her pointless mongrels - see above) as taking it a step beyond the pale.
I was told by a fairly substantial amount of people on a similar venue that President Bush never said we were going into Iraq to end the weapons program, that that's what I said it was, and that it had ALWAYS been about "bringing democracy to the Middle east."
When I persisted, after wading through the same kind of condescending bullshit I am getting from a small number of other commenters above for a while, I was simply banned. This sort of proved a couple of things I'd been suspicious of... 1. whenever you string more than two paragraphs together there's a certain kind of person who just shuts it off and calls it blather, and 2.the intellectual underpinnings for conservatism which were established by Buckley and to some degree Rothbard and Stromberg, had been kicked to the side of the road in favor of sound bite jingoism.
The result is people like K-Rod and Bubba - who can't formulate an argument without derision and can't take it when it's pissed back into their blank faces.
RW, Malkin has been a nationally syndicated columnist since 1999, following years with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other employers. Her blog only started in 2004. She's been on the upswing for years.
Never mind you were arguing earlier that she was being marginalized. Which will it be? Marginalized, or getting big because of a blog schtick?
And regarding the personal attacks; grow up. Personal attacks like yours only prove you're unwilling or unable to make a real argument.
Bub I never argued she was being marginalized, I was arguing that a viewpoint was receding in the public mind and I was thankful for it.. That's quite big difference.
And typical of my complaint, I find it interesting that your personal attacks (which was the first one in the thread btw) are okay and mine are out of line.
That's exactly the kind of thing that is so endearing about all the Bush apologists who just can't let go of the all fail.
Next we tediously go over the chronological order of posts to see who insulted who first. I said nothing about anyone here until someone started in on me. I was talking about Malkin. You'll just have to deal with it.
Come on, Gino! Let me be licentious with your opinions! PLEEEASE?
ok, tully.
go ahead.
as for the rest: i've known RW a very long time. just slightly less time than its been since i got online (cause i had to first log in, before i could have found him)
it was like, during the clinton years, ya know?
he's seen every cheap debating point that exists. and has received every insult.
and he dosent engage in things he has not studied up on.
tread carefully.
and trust me: he would rather play nice.
RW,
Thanks, that was helpful. And I get your point -- I certainly wouldn't dispute your assertion that Bush's foreign policy was Wilsonian. And I can understand why you might argue that Iraq was a bridge too far. If I'm reading your argument correctly, you don't support adventurism regardless of which party is pushing it at the moment.
I might disagree, and actually I do disagree, but I appreciate intellectual consistency, especially when it is flows from logical premises.
All I would say is this -- what I think bothers many conservatives is the notion that the Bush adminstration was lying from the get-go about WMD. If I remember correctly, pretty much everyone thought that Saddam had them, which is why the troops went in with gas masks and such. In fact, one of the major arguments against going into Iraq at the time was the widespread fear that Saddam would unleash chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Based on what we know now, the Bushies were wrong. Being wrong doesn't necessarily make you a liar.
One last thing -- you mentioned Rothbard and that's interesting. Buckley and Rothbard were pretty contentious and did not agree about too many things. Both were conservatives, but of a very different sort. And the tension between Buckley and Rothbard mirrors the disagreement you would have with Bubba and K-Rod. At the end of his life, Buckley seemed like he was headed back in Rothbard's direction on certain issues, Iraq being one of them.
Well, for once I actually disagree with RW about something: Rothbard was an anarchist. The good kind. ;P
RW didnt say say rothbard was a conservative. he credited him somewhat with part of the intellectualism of the conservative movement.
i'd have to say that observation is accurate.
rothbard made some points that are still relevent today,points not made by the buckley's, in regards to how the right has been hijacked.
would love to see rothbard in the ring with irving crystal. i'd pay for that. guess i'll have to wait til i get to the pearly gates.
Gino,
I've seen Rothbard variously characterized as a libertarian, a conservative, a paleoconservative, a visionary (to his supporters) a crackpot (to his detractors), etc., etc., etc. He called himself an anarcho-capitalist. We get too hung up labels and I don't know that any label really fits him well -- he was pretty much one of a kind.
I guess what I'd say is this -- Buckley is gone. Rothbard is gone. Irving Kristol is gone. Russell Kirk is long gone. Milton Friedman is gone. Mises is gone. Those of us who are not on the Left have plenty of source material to follow and we all have to find our own way. Buckley tried to bridge some of these gaps but it was never really possible to do it. I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
RW and people who think like he does are useful to have around, because they don't hesitate to call bullshit when it's needed. Even if I don't agree with him, I welcome his voice.
Yeah guys, that's all well and good, but is she cuter when she shuts her mouth, or what? Personally I'd go further and say, if she was in a grass skirt with a coconut bra and an orchid blossom in her hair (even though I think she's Filipino, not Polynesian) I could really go for that. This presumes, I think, that she would be doing an exotic volcano dance, and not pontificating about Conservative strategy... So it turns out, when I appeal to the sexist within, that Gino is quite right.
I know, you've never seen this side of me--this is what happens on Saturday Night. HOWL!!
you go, tully!
Tully,
What you're looking for is a sarong. See Lamour, Dorothy, in any number of the Hope/Crosby "Road" movies back in the day.
And also thanks for getting us back on topic. My apologies for the digression.
Dorothy Lamour is stunning! I've only seen Morocco and Alaska, to be honest, but I like what I see! Which others would you recommend as being on the upper end of writing quality? It varies, of course, between those two. It occurs to me, looking at those movies, that people today have no idea how hip comedy was in those days. Our writers have a lot to learn!
"who can't formulate an argument without derision" - RW
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
RW, go back and actually read your first comment in this thread and see if you can try to substantiate any of it.
The fact of the matter is Bubba took you to task with the facts, not blustery off base opinion.
I am sure you wish Malkin was "just another blogger who happened to have a gimmick,", but the facts tell a quite different story.
"Bub I never argued..."
That was exactly my point, you got nuthin.
.... .... ....
Now, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with everything she writes, but we can discuss specifics if you like.
As for how cute she is, well, I think Tully nailed it!!! Bravo!
You see, K-Rod, I think we can all learn a thing or two from Tully about how to stay on topic!
Nice job Gino. 30 comments on a one line post. Let's go for 100----Ann Coulter: MILF Pundit or Dogfaced Nutcase.
Can't she be both? I mean, if you're into dogs and nuts...
Coulter has spawn? I did not know that. She really does make the libs foam at the mouth. Or men over those loooong legs. While she is smiling all the way to the bank.
.... in other news ....
Palin signed whit teh faux newz.
Get ready for more liberal foaming at the mouth.
http://stark-raving-sane-dont-go-in.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-makes-libs-foam-at-mouth.html
i've got a 'sarah-fox' post in my head.
i may blurt.
and whatever you think ann is, i know what she really needs: a bacon double cheeseburger w/fries and shake.
twice a day.
"what she really needs: a bacon double cheeseburger..."
Is that supposed to be a euphemism? If so, what for?
Or maybe my mind is just in the gutter.
yer in the gutter.
and a fun place to be, if i may so.
Mr D, sorry, been away, just to finish: I was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq. I believed it was the right thing to do at the time, given the evidence we thought we had. I have always felt that America was at it's best when standing against tyrants, and said as much when the invasion began.
The betrayal I felt was with folks in the administration (I'll point to Rumsfeld and Cheney if no one else) who persisted in the call against WMD even when it was sort of obvious to most that this was not the deal any more. But you are right about the difference between a lie and a mistake. I check myself, because - looking back - that is precisely the argument I made against critics of President Bush at the time. I can't deny it. So I accept the touche on that subject, humbly.
I am speaking of the evolution of American conservatism when bringing up Rothbard and Buckley. They are two sections of the same basic tradition. But, in all honesty, I have to say I'm starting to have doubts about libertarianism insofar as it seems to always evolve into a base kind of social-Darwinism. The Haiti experience comes to mind. Some pundits seem to take the ideals of libertarianism and make it an excuse for their own personal meanness, just to make points against the current administration. That's not how I read it, in days of old.
The sadness is that I've have watched conservatism move to the low ground. We hold up people like Malkin as if it's the best we can do, and regard internet losers like K-whatshisname (with three readers) as having an argument simply because they belch louder than anyone else. That's why we ended up with my man President Bush, who WAS an intellectual curiosity instead of someone who had one.
RW- Try as you may to get off topic, I don't believe you've answered with enough concision: Is she cuter when she talks, or when she shuts up and smiles at the camera. Or perhaps, to take Gino's suggestion literally: Is she cuter (all auditory output aside) when her mouth is closed, or when it's open?
tully displays why i love him so much.
personally, i think duck tape would do nicely.
seeing her smile just makes me want to shove a carrot up inside those bunny teeth.
"...about libertarianism ... a base kind of social-Darwinism. The Haiti experience comes to mind."
Wow, off topic and way out in left field. Sure, RW, Haiti is less than 3rd world because of libertarianism. Are you serious? Get a clue and compare the west half of that island to the east half.
.... .... ....
And then, in a fit of desperation, RW resorts to name-calling:
"...and regard internet losers like K-whatshisname ...readers ...argument ... belch..."
Don't cry RW. Take my advice and start substantiating your accusations for once. And please seek help for your BDS. That kind of bitterness and anger can't be healthy.
In your heart you know I am right.
If this were any other blog, I might suggest that more civility is in order between K-Rod and RW.
But this "In your heart you know I'm right," thing has to stop. That's just annoying. Only the blog administrator has the right to use catchphrases on his or her blog. Those are the rules that I just made up.
Tully, thanks for letting us know who makes up the rules around here.
My Karma just ran over your Dogma
Okay, now that's kind of clever!
as poster-author emeritus, tully gets the right to make a few rules around here.
Post a Comment