NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

if they're attempting to rebrand the war on women as just ye olde war on feminism that's probably the smartest response they've had yet (/= actual smart respone ftr). there's still alot of women, esp among independent voters, that reject the feminist label cuz they 'don't hate men' or some other taylor swift reason.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/370957/print

Geographically, trans in Latin is a preposition that meant “on the other side” (Caesar refers to the Germans, who dwell “trans Rhenum,” on the other side of the Rhine) and cis meant “on the same side” (Livy describes how in early Rome a certain banished ethnic group, if caught “cis Tiberim,” on this side of the Tiber, had the price of their liberty set at a thousand units of bronze, which sounds like a good deal more than the Gang of Eight would ask for).

Where we now like to apply these to galling (for some) concepts about gender and sex, the Romans used them as prefixes to refer to the province of Gaul that was on the same side of the Alps as the city of Rome — Cisalpine Gaul — and the part that was on just the other side — Transalpine Gaul.

haha

sorry I guess this isn't from The Corner, just NRO.

what we claim is lawless unconstitutional kenyan muslimism under soetero we'd be cool with under the mormon

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370854/democrats-media-slam-president-romney-over-health-care-law-changes-charles-c-w-cooke

thohan
• 3 hours ago

Excellent piece. It's nice to have guys like Cooke on my side.

Check Your Privilege, Facebook! Social Media Giant Slights Members of 51st Gender
By Alec Torres
February 13, 2014 4:34 PM
Comments0

As Patrick Brennan recently discussed on the Corner, it’s getting harder to know how to refer to another person’s gender(s). Now, Facebook is making it even harder.

The Associated Press recently broke the news that Facebook now offers users a customizable gender option with about 50 different gender-identifying terms people can use to describe themselves along with three separate pronoun choices: him, her, or them.

The grammatical debate over the application of the plural pronoun “them” to a single subject aside, it’s a sad sign of the times that Facebook excluded whatever the 51st gender descriptor is, thus committing a hate crime against the dozens of people who probably describe themselves with said descriptor.

How dejected — nay depressed — must flexual people feel knowing that Facebook now accepts cisgender females, Trans*Men, and Trans*Males (don’t worry, the distinctions elude me, too) but not them and their girlfag peers.

Or what of all the trigender people who find out that Facebook will let one choose up to “bigender” but not beyond. They must be at least a third as offended as the flexuals.

it gives me pleasure to think how bad these assholes are gonna hate the future

guys, we're over here: NRO's The Corner: Obamacare ‘like a house on fire’ with more flammable parts yet to come

MODS?

xpost amen
fuck y'all str8 men

jesus christ, that Charles C. W. Cooke 'satire' piece has its head so far up its ass, it could probably discover three or four new genders just by opening its eyes

I used to be way into subjecting myself to the internet conservative cesspool; nice to see that the quality of the prose hasn't slipped:

Among her most enthusiastic boosters is Cecile Richards, daughter of the late Texas governor, who is paid nearly a half-million dollars a year for her work defending the surgical dismemberment of unborn children in the furtherance of sexual convenience.

... And You Will Know Her by the Surgical Dismemberment of Unborn Children in the Furtherance of Sexual Convenience

also, I mean, just, huge roffles at these guys scratching their heads all "The ideology of feminists is incoherent—some of them want one thing, but others want this different thing!! Whatta buncha flighty dames!!!!" (You don't need to keep capitalizing 'feminist' — ED.)

"why is it okay for Hillary to call other women in politics 'whiny', but not for me, a white man at a computer, to continue dragging Anita Hill's name through the mud??" *tears flow into bib*

hahahaha

It’s one thing to be tolerant of what once were known as “alternative lifestyles.” It’s another thing to be asked to celebrate them, as the exuberant mythologizers of Michael Sam and Johnny Weir ask us to do. And it is way beyond the pale to hold forth on any sort of sex life — perhaps apart from self-restraint — as if it’s a form of heroism.

Yet the culture of the professional Left, enthusiastically aided by the establishment media, is going bonkers in pushing active homosexuality (or any one of several exotic variants thereof) as an absolute virtue. One can hardly turn around these days without facing, in fiction or in real life, what amounts to homosexual chic. From the amount of primetime air time afforded to gay Americans, one would think they constitute at least a large minority of the population, rather than the 3 to 5 percent they actually do.

“Not that there’s anything wrong with that,” as Seinfeld wisdom had it. Most Americans assuredly don’t much care what other people do as long, as the saying goes, as they “don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.” And if the Bible tells us it’s a sin, well, we can leave that issue between the putative sinner and a God famous for both judgment and mercy. Our job, speaking spiritually rather than physically, is to love our neighbor, not from some misguided impulse to charity but instead genuinely, as equals — and to worry about not committing our own particular brands of transgression.

active homosexuality (or any one of several exotic variants thereof)

ooh do tell!

*fans self*

Steve_Seattle • 33 minutes ago

For liberals, it is an easy step to go from support of fornication, abortion, pornography, and prostitution to support of homosexuality. It costs them nothing, while giving them an opportunity to bash conservatives as bigoted and unenlightened. For that reason alone, the MSM will not soon drop this issue.
But I sometimes wonder how sincere is this liberal celebration of homosexuality. In less-guarded forms of liberalism, such as blue-collar liberalism, you still hear gay jokes and gay epithets, and these typically go unchallenged even if the participants don't care much about gay marriage. And in unguarded moments, liberals such as Alec Baldwin resort to gay epithets when they are angry, or will refer to some conservative as a "closet homosexual."

I am looking forward to crowds of conservatives, milling about, holding crude signs and fervently chanting, "Down with fornication!"

For liberals, it is an easy step to go from support of fornication, abortion, pornography, and prostitution to support of homosexuality.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kYBdM44_J58/Sa3OeSHaArI/AAAAAAAABbU/k2MeHt1WpXE/s400/PornInUtah.JPG

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2013/8/27/Screen_Shot_2013-08-27_at_10.00.11_AM.png

anita queen?

OK, here you go!

http://news.tangatawhenua.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Queen-7.jpg

heelllooo loyal subjects!

Quin Hillyer

In which it is shown that Jay Nordlinger has lost his mind.

Decline Is a Choice. A Bad One. But People Still Choose It. I Don't Understand It. Decline Is Bad. Hello. Is This On.

http://i.imgur.com/vrib3xM.png

The best comment I've seen in forever, on Roy Edroso's alicublog about Rich Lowry and this whole Arizona thing:

Also, if you go back to Quin Hillyer on the fainting couch about Johnny Weir gaying up figure skating, this week brings us National Review writers protecting the following from gays: 1) figure skating 2) bakers 3) florists 4) photographers. They can't even figure out which end of the slippery slope is which.

Charles Pierce had fun with LOLry: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Brewer_Veto

nutrition information labels about to become "a whole lot more intrusive":

These reforms are not minor. The most important change is that they are increasing the size of a serving, so all foods and beverages will immediately appear to be more calorie-laden than before. Anyone watching their calories could be easily caught out by this, and eat less, for instance. But that is irrelevant to the main point at issue here — the role of the First Lady.

Today's nutrition labels state the size of a serving and the number of calories in a serving of that size. Under the immanent doomsday scenario, nutrition labels will *gasp* state the size of a serving and the number of calories in a serving of that size.

dlh you dropped the best line:

But that is irrelevant to the main point at issue here — the role of the First Lady. As one food-industry insider told Politico, “I don’t think anyone is going to be foolish enough to attack the first lady — that’s just stupid.”

how wrong you are, food-industry insider

Henry Burlingame • 42 minutes ago
How about a regulation requiring Michelle Obama to put a warning label on her fat ass?

With all that exercise and healthy eating? I think not.

yeah. i have a crush on FLOTUS, and i'm pretty sure that's the first time in my lifetime i could say that.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/nancy_reagan_mr_t_2.jpg

did nothing for me.

what about Nancy?

I hear she gave Too $hort a blowjob

yeah 'michelle obama is disgustingly hypocritically fat' is one of those rightwing memes that's so mystifying i don't know if it's misogyny or racism or what kind of insanity.

"or"

they also think her clothing style is "trashy"

racogyny

or assholism, that trips off the tongue a little better

they also think her clothing style is "trashy"

Michelle Obama is exquisitely well-dressed.

misogyny, racism, and closeted homosexuality :)

obama dentata

classic headline and byline:

How We Can Make Putin Pay, and Why We Must
By Elliott Abrams
March 3, 2014 2:44 PM

I would expect classic NRO to be losing their shit about the criticism of Alito and Thomas.

Let's check in:

Throw these two items on the growing pile of utterly unconvincing attempts to craft a rationale for Harris’s price-fixing scheme — one that Harris herself has not provided. It’s not that Harris has failed to communicate her proposal effectively. The problem is us and our thick-headed failure to intuit her meaning in ways that reflect favorably on Harris. We’ve really blown this one.

But let’s be charitable. Let’s say that Harris’s well-meaning proposals have been “misconstrued” and “taken out of context.” If only there was some way that Harris could clear up the confusion. Would that she had some way to communicate directly with us from beyond the veil with which her campaign has shrouded her. In the absence of an Ouija board, we’re forced to collect clues and assemble into something resembling a cogent defense of Harris’s discredited policy instincts. But that hasn’t stopped Harris’s defenders in the press from completing her sentence for her. Maybe they are holding a séance without us.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/according-to-the-press-america-has-already-let-kamala-harris-down/

Charles W. Cooke:

So it is with vacuous campaigns of affinity. Politicians who are known for concrete ideas or achievements are often able to weather storms. Politicians whose reputations are built atop fluff and adorned with baubles are not. I think that Kamala Harris may well win the election in November. But, even if she does, she is going to come unstuck before long, because, pace all the press-installed scaffolding that is holding her up at present, she remains a shallow, mediocre, off-putting, unlikeable fool. That ghastly cackle that has temporarily been transmuted into a virtue? It won’t appear that way when things get serious. Her total inability to construct sentences that don’t read like a drunk non-English speaker wrote a fortune cookie using Google Translate? When the stakes are high, it’ll be a liability. The preposterous flip-flopping, which is being sold as healthy pragmatism? It’ll bite when applied to a salient issue on which voters do not want to be dismissed.

Talk about an audience talking to itself.

*cackles ghastily*

It's all normal ad feminam stuff but it's especially funny when deployed on behalf of Trump.

oh they INSIST they've published more anti-Trump garbage than Politico.

wow the comments are hilarious

Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review says the N-Word https://t.co/yOSjCtwLSl pic.twitter.com/pwtYNse7GI

— greg (@mistergeezy) September 16, 2024

after seeing "we need a return to respectable conservatives like Buckley, et al" bubble through social media, Lowry didn't get the memo that the second part included "who only used racial slurs in private"

Maybe this episode is a one-off — a mere curiosity that deserves none of the attention it has generated from both sides of the fracas over Trump’s intervention in Washington, D.C. That is likely. If there is a deeper meaning here, however, it seems less reflective of the simmering hostility toward federal law enforcement officers in D.C. and more a warning of what political radicalization can lead those with impaired judgment to do. Today, the weapon was a sandwich. It may be something worse tomorrow.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-search-for-meaning-in-throwing-sandwiches-at-law-enforcement/

You laugh, but it could be hot soup.

Or a whole plate of spaghetti! Mama mia.

the same stupid 'slippery slope' argument that conservatives have used for decades. it starts with throwing sandwiches and ends with god only knows what violence and lawlessness!

'the search for meaning in throwing sandwiches'

my parents had a paperback of this in the 70s

There are no ‘civilians,’ in the Western sense, in Iran, and the IRGC uses the infrastructure for its war aims.

https://archive.ph/nPpaw

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency.

ah, the kind of intellectually rigorous conservatism you can only find at the National Review. wiki has more, including a final sentence that will shock you:

During the presidency of Barack Obama, McCarthy characterized Obama as a radical and a socialist, and authored a book alleging that Obama was advancing a "Sharia Agenda". He authored another book calling for Obama's impeachment. He defended claims that the Affordable Care Act would lead to "death panels", and promoted a conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father. He is a Republican.[6][7]

NR must be so happy they can write about killing Muslims again.

just drooling at having 90 million people to righteously kill

For the first time ever today I realized that the publication National Review used to call its website "National Review Online," and that's why this thread, which I've seen a billion times, has this strange title that never made sense to me. Always learning!