NRO's The Corner 2: Ghost Protocol

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1197 of them)

The athletic cup?

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:20 (2 years ago) Permalink

“Don’t just read the stuff you agree with, read the stuff you disagree with, too. Don’t just interest yourself in what is going on at the moment. It is crucially important, especially for conservatives. Conservatives believe that the past matters, and we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

“Be happy warriors. This is a good fight to be in. We are on the side of freedom and prosperity and of all the things that have made western civilization successful and America in particular great, and defending those things shouldn’t feel like a chore. It should feel like a duty but also like a vocation.”

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

Twirling his mustache!

Liberal Dream to Liberal Nightmare?
By Deroy Murdock
February 15, 2012 2:19 P.M. Comments0

Jonah Goldberg is right. He makes an excellent point in his piece this morning on President Obama’s abortion-pill mandate. Conservatives, libertarians, and others who believe in medical freedom should make this argument much more often when engaging liberals: What happens if “the bad guys,” namely we right-wingers, win the next election, and now we get to run Obamacare? (Be sure to twirl your handlebar mustache as you pose this question.)

Imagine, as Jonah does, that Rick Santorum is elected president and becomes the reincarnation of Cotton Mather, just as Nancy Pelosi probably fears as she lays her coiffed head on her high-thread-count pillows every night. Imagine further that, instead of repealing ObamaCare, the former GOP senator from Pennsylvania decided to keep this law in place and modify it along much more traditionalist, even puritanical, lines.

Santorumcare could involve, say, a federally mandated, five-day waiting period before women could have abortions. This parallels the original five-day interlude that potential firearms buyers faced under the Brady Law. How could the Left object to that?

How about a requirement that every American who receives free condoms from any federally subsidized health center first must receive 30 minutes of mandatory abstinence counseling?

And why not a rule that those who visit Gay Men’s Health Crisis cannot accept any services until after completing a two-day course on gay conversion, so that they can be “cured” of their homosexuality? (“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)

I seriously doubt that President Santorum (or President Brownback or President Palin) would do such things, but then I never envisioned President Obama ordering free birth control for any and every adult female who wanted it — regardless of income — and paid for under federal orders by health insurers, over the objections of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

"as she lays her coiffed head on her high-thread-count pillows"

I love these feints at populism, as if any one of these assholes pays less than $50 for a haircut. (Maybe Derbyshire.)

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)
(“Look out, ladies at T.G.I. Friday’s happy hour, here we come!”)

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:37 (2 years ago) Permalink

I seriously don't understand any of these people

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:38 (2 years ago) Permalink

I never envisioned President Obama ordering free birth control for any and every adult female who [/b]wanted[/b] it

dude's word choice is straining JUSSSST a bit too hard. Look out! Tyrannical government to shove this optional choice down your throat should you, like, want it or something.

also, "adult female?" Really?

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

adult female is what dudes who live in their mother's baement call the ladies

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 19:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

Santorumcare could involve, say, a federally mandated, five-day waiting period before women could have abortions. This parallels the original five-day interlude that potential firearms buyers faced under the Brady Law. How could the Left object to that?

how, indeed?

max, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

Santorumcare

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:47 (2 years ago) Permalink

I like the casual use of "Santorumcare," as if demonizing legislation that got ripped up and re-pieced together by congress as "Obamacare" is a thing and you can just tack some other dude's name on to "care" and it's fine

Also, hilarious because now it's assumed the government has a role worth addressing in healthcare, even among republicans. It's not "repeal the entire Obamacare bill," it is "we need Santorumcare"

valleys of your mind (mh), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:50 (2 years ago) Permalink

eh, not really; the argument is "this tool shouldn't exist and we are going to use it to punish you to underscore what a terrible idea it was"

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

Man, these guys are thinking of nothing else but this.

This is indeed something new, although it resembles something very old. The radical Left, in every country in which it has gained power or influence, ever since the French Revolution, has wanted to dismantle, destroy, marginalize, or make impotent the Roman Catholic Church, which, at its best, has always stood athwart Progress (not “progress”) shouting “Stop!” Unlike many of my friends, I have never believed Obama is a Socialist or a radical or even a left-winger. He is, instead, a classic political adventurer, a true believer only in the Imperial Self, unhindered by doctrine or dogma, willing to channel the myths of whatever ideological fantasy allows him to gain power and then hold it. He chose the statist myths that appeal to the Left because they are now, as they have always been, no matter what rhetoric is chosen to disguise the fact, about the will to political power through control of or influence over the coercive power of the state. All in a good cause, all for progress and, er, progress, y’know, but still, one can’t do good unless one has, er, state power.

But Obama has been until now careful to disguise his contempt for those who disagree with him. His frequent calls for “civility” have always smacked of the disdain the Left feels for the great unwashed: One is polite, one tries to be civil, but, really, who are these people?

But now, in a moment of breathtaking, brazen over-reach, he finds himself in a fight he never believed would take place. Who, after all, would have believed the Catholic bishops, old, celibate men, their authority weakened by the manner in which they dealt with the homosexual sex scandal, scorned by the major media, not listened to by the vast majority of Catholics concerning the church teaching on contraception — who could imagine that these . . . these . . . people . . . would say “No!,” not once, but twice, to the Imperial Self? The White House, the New York Times, the entertainment industry, the mainstream media, radical feminists, and esteemed Catholic lay theologians like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Mikulski all said “Yes!,” as did the liberal Wall Street fat cats whose big bucks made New York state safe for same-sex marriage. This was a slam dunk for Obama. Obama shoots . . . he scores. Game over. As it is written, so it shall be done.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

One is polite, one tries to be civil, but, really, who are these people?

Ha ha, to be honest this is my attitude towards all Corner writers.

Nicole, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:58 (2 years ago) Permalink

And then the mask comes off: it's LIBERAL WALL STREET FAT CATS, see, responsible for gays getting married.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

the homosexual sex scandal

fucking die

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

does that mean gay marriage or raping children?

bnw, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:16 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'm realizing their gay marriage stance is probably the less vague of the two.

bnw, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

these guys really love quoting auden

the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 22:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

Unlike many of my friends, I have never believed Obama is a Socialist or a radical or even a left-winger. He is, instead, a classic political adventurer, a true believer only in the Imperial Self, unhindered by doctrine or dogma, willing to channel the myths of whatever ideological fantasy allows him to gain power and then hold it.

Man, Morbs's writing is a lot better at NRO than it is here.

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:43 (2 years ago) Permalink

these guys really love quoting auden

British, Catholic, rumpled, gay, c'mon

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:45 (2 years ago) Permalink

Dude's deliberate and defiant ignorance of history is soaking into his aesthetic tastes like bar-top vomit thru a thin rag. Apparently, this guy's fave character in the Three Musketeers wasn't Basil Exposition or Oliver Reed, it was fucking Richelieu.

The radical Left, in every country in which it has gained power or influence, ever since the French Revolution, has wanted to dismantle, destroy, marginalize, or make impotent the Roman Catholic Church,

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 23:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

Apparently, this guy's fave character in the Three Musketeers wasn't Basil Exposition or Oliver Reed, it was fucking Richelieu.

he was mine too!

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

The guy was the first Suave Supervillain I came across as a child.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

a-ha! CAUGHT!

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

and he didn't die like the Conte de Rochefort.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 00:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

Kathryn Jean Lopez @kathrynlopez

the catholic girls' guide for the single years ow.ly/962Oz

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 02:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

LOPEZ: Didn’t The 40-Year-Old Virgin prove the way you’re living can’t possibly be healthy?

I lol'd

Clay, Thursday, 16 February 2012 03:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/16/what-are-women-for/

^^the way this man uses the english language is breathtaking

⚓ (gr8080), Friday, 17 February 2012 03:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

do you suppose he's deep deep deep inside the thomistic game and totally blind to how his words sound or did he decide to adopt the phrase 'what women are for' specifically for its crepey connotations?

j., Friday, 17 February 2012 03:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

wow that thing's insane from the first sentence

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

If the conservative movement’s nominal unity is actually belied by a stunning range of right-wing views on the status and purpose of women (and believe me, it is), the left’s alleged philosophical uniformity on the woman question is a complete fabrication — despite the fanatical discipline and norm-enforcement of much of the liberal cultural establishment.

you should have just stopped at the comma broseph

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

Tags: Contraception, James Poulos, Women

pretty sure all three of these things are found together, or none of them are

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

"the woman question"

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

ik,r

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, Roy Edroso had that for breakfast this morning.

Seriously. I'm not very well educated, and half drunk most of the time, but I do know how to read, and I swear to God I have no idea what he's saying. I don't know how "a civilization of men, for men, and by men" relates to anything else he said. I don't know what he means by women's "privileged relationship with the natural world," unless my browser has failed to show me the picture of a lady sniffing a purty flower that was supposed to explain it. And as to "imitation by quasi-feminized males of quasi-masculinized females," it sounds like Archie Bunker had one of those Flowers for Algernon operations.

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:56 (2 years ago) Permalink

real-life lol at this:

Continued on Page 2 >>

Oh shit.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 17 February 2012 16:00 (2 years ago) Permalink

The purpose of lifting the left’s Potemkin skirts is not to score tits for tats.

I mean

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Friday, 17 February 2012 16:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

"ok, we might hate women, but they can't even agree on what a woman is!"

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 16:04 (2 years ago) Permalink

i think that's what he's on about anyway

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 16:04 (2 years ago) Permalink

'they treat women like MEN! at least we treat women like OBJECTS'

j., Friday, 17 February 2012 17:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

the status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of womenthe status and purpose of women

horseshoe, Friday, 17 February 2012 17:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

for some reason makes me think of the mom of the dude esther greenwood is dating in the bell jar, who tells esther, "what a man is is an arrow into the future and what a woman is is a place to shoot that arrow off from" or something to that effect.

horseshoe, Friday, 17 February 2012 17:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

http://takimag.com/article/facing_down_the_thugs

max, Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

thug life

⚓ (gr8080), Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

Pi day is coming up again. Perhaps I should say hello to him once more.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:33 (2 years ago) Permalink

http://takimag.com/article/facing_down_the_thugs

― max, Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:05 PM (43 minutes ago) Bookmark

At this point in the USA’s evolution toward complete ethnic disaggregation, arguing about who is or is not “white nationalist” is less to the point than wondering why anyone thinks there’s anything wrong with such a position.

took me by surprise

the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:49 (2 years ago) Permalink

poor derb, can't even pull off concern trolling without letting his gay-bashing show.

bnw, Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

Mr. Pareene starts right off with an error: I didn’t host the panel, I was a guest. Proceeding from sloppy journalism to personal vituperation, he then calls me a pervert, on what grounds I do not know. (I don’t, come to think of it, even know what a pervert is anymore in the age of NAMBLA, gay marriage, and Madonna in bondage gear on prime-time network TV. My dad, along with well-nigh every other person of his generation, would have said that Barney Frank is a pervert, but I’m guessing this is not Mr. Pareene’s point of view.)

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:57 (2 years ago) Permalink


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.