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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

cuz Jonah said so.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 February 2014 20:20 (three years ago) Permalink

sounds like an impending disaster! can we buy reverse credit-default-swaps on obamacare's house?

Daniel, Esq 2, Thursday, 6 February 2014 21:18 (three years ago) Permalink

our friend:

In the latest Need to Know, Mona Charen starts off by talking about music. Then she gets into the tawdry subject of Bill Ayers, that “old, washed-up terrorist,” as John McCain described him during the 2008 campaign. We also talk about IRS harassment, Barack Obama, and the press. Mona gives a social-science tour de force on the matter of family breakdown. We wax lyrical, and truthful, about the ability of free enterprise, under the rule of law, to uplift the poor.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 8 February 2014 13:18 (three years ago) Permalink

please add truthful to the thread title somehow

mustread guy (schlump), Saturday, 8 February 2014 14:57 (three years ago) Permalink

The Value of Putin
Putin ends up existing to warn us in the West of what we are not.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:33 (three years ago) Permalink

All that said, there is a value for us in Putin. I don’t mean the strange Pat Buchanan–style admiration for Putin’s creepy reactionary social agenda and his tirades about Western social decadence. Rather, I refer to Putin’s confidence in his unabashedly thuggish means, the brutal fashion in which a modern state so unapologetically embraces the premodern mind to go after its critics, be they journalists or academics, or stifles free debate without worry over Western censure. Putin is a mirror showing more than just what we should not be.

We in the West get into fiery debates over civil union versus gay marriage as the appropriate legal means of recognizing homosexual unions, with all the accompanying charges of insensitivity — without much notice of how the vast majority of gays are treated elsewhere in the world. In contrast, Putin, mostly to global silence, does nothing as his thugs with impunity terrorize gay activists (who mostly demonstrate for basic freedom of speech, not marriage). Miley Cyrus insults our sensibilities and becomes fabulously rich; the Pussy Rioters go to jail.

We in California divert life-saving water to save a baitfish; Putin’s $50 billion Olympics may prove to be an ecological disaster.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:34 (three years ago) Permalink

that goddamn miley always insulting my sensibilities, maybe she should go to jail, makes you think

Corpsepaint Counterpaint (jjjusten), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:42 (three years ago) Permalink

on first glance I thought VDH had written Miley was an ecological disaster.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:43 (three years ago) Permalink

lol @ the idea that the star of Hannah Montana had to insult our sensibilities in order to become fabulously rich

Fight the Powers that Be with this Powerful Les Paul! (DJP), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:45 (three years ago) Permalink

the Pussy Rioters insult our sensibilities and go to jail

bet VDH smacked his lips over that one

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:46 (three years ago) Permalink

the life we save might be a baitfish

miserable pissy riot (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 16:48 (three years ago) Permalink

We in California divert life-saving water to save a baitfish

i hate him so much

there's no water to divert or not divert. that's the problem. that's the fact.

goole, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:12 (three years ago) Permalink

yup. we should be building new reservoirs, not debating this non-issue

How dare you tarnish the reputation of Turturro's yodel (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:13 (three years ago) Permalink

In contrast, Putin, mostly to global silence, does nothing as his thugs with impunity terrorize gay activists (who mostly demonstrate for basic freedom of speech, not marriage).

this isn't true you lying sack of shit

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:15 (three years ago) Permalink

also "Well, we in the liberal West don't care about gays unless they demonstrate for marriage" fuck you

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:16 (three years ago) Permalink

You know he can't hear you, right?

waterbabies (waterface), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:23 (three years ago) Permalink

oh shit how do I retract

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:50 (three years ago) Permalink

lol at right-wing putin envy. here's the best part:

Putin is almost Milton’s Satan — as if, in his seductive evil, he yearns for clarity, perhaps even a smackdown, if not just for himself, for us as well. He is not the better man than Obama but, again like Milton’s Satan, the more interesting, if only because he reminds of us of our own limitations.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 17:55 (three years ago) Permalink

this is a whole other kettle of right-wing zaniness but TAC's rod dreher -- who normally writes as the magazine's token 'thoughtful christian' voice -- wrote some really disgusting, hateful, misogynistic stuff about pussy riot, pretty much applauding their arrest. finally got me to quit reading that site altogether, except for larison.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 18:05 (three years ago) Permalink

did they just compare obama to god? or is it just any american president who's god.

i want to say one word to you, just one word:buzzfeed (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 18:07 (three years ago) Permalink

"there are some people to whom health-insurance ought to remain an aspirational luxury"

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/arkansas-private-option-medicaid-021114

reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 18:22 (three years ago) Permalink

goole! Your boy has some thoughts on feminism.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 20:02 (three years ago) Permalink

always behind his own stable, that guy

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370451/feminist-mystique-kevin-d-williamson

goole, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 20:06 (three years ago) Permalink

Feminism began as a simple grievance, mutated into a kind of conspiracy theory (with “patriarchy” filling in for the Jews/Freemasons/Illuminati/Bohemian Grove/reptilian shape-shifters/the fiendish plot of Dr. Fu Manchu/etc.), spent the 1980s in grad school congealing into a ridiculous jargon, and with the booming economy of the 1990s was once again reinvented, this time as a career path.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 February 2014 20:14 (three years ago) Permalink

^^ NRO knows its audience.

Aimless, Tuesday, 11 February 2014 20:28 (three years ago) Permalink

a challenger appears

http://thefederalist.com/

goole, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 14:56 (three years ago) Permalink

Celebrate Love, Not War: Don’t Use Valentine’s Day to Attack Men

Yes, men and women are different. But the answer is not a feminist Promised Land that is exhausting, devoid of love, and not much fun at all.

goole, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 14:57 (three years ago) Permalink

Bill De Blasio’s Law Enforcement Racket

Is Bill de Blasio about to take New York City’s public safety back to the bad old days of rampant street crime and murder – or is it just a charade?

goole, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 14:58 (three years ago) Permalink

Most of these contra-feminist pieces rely on the technique of first defining feminism in exactly the terms they prefer to apply to it, then attacking that version. The inevitable conclusion: feminism is horrible and ought to be rejecting by all right-thinking people. What is rarely clear is what they endorse, which is usually a misty, nebulous, sentimental warm-fuzziness that they are certain would arise spontaneously if only feminism weren't impeding its arrival.

Aimless, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 18:10 (three years ago) Permalink

I'd say that's the least of their problems, but you are not wrong.

Orson Wellies (in orbit), Wednesday, 12 February 2014 18:15 (three years ago) Permalink

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.

balls, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 19:36 (three years ago) Permalink

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

polyphonic, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 19:46 (three years ago) Permalink

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

polyphonic, Wednesday, 12 February 2014 19:48 (three years ago) Permalink

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

reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 12 February 2014 22:43 (three years ago) Permalink

thohan
• 3 hours ago

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

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 12 February 2014 22:45 (three years ago) Permalink

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.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 February 2014 21:43 (three years ago) Permalink

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

joe perry has been dead for years (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 13 February 2014 21:45 (three years ago) Permalink

xpost amen
fuck y'all str8 men

my collages, let me show you them (bernard snowy), Saturday, 15 February 2014 03:18 (three years ago) Permalink

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

my collages, let me show you them (bernard snowy), Saturday, 15 February 2014 03:22 (three years ago) Permalink

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.

my collages, let me show you them (bernard snowy), Saturday, 15 February 2014 03:33 (three years ago) Permalink

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

my collages, let me show you them (bernard snowy), Saturday, 15 February 2014 03:34 (three years ago) Permalink

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.)

my collages, let me show you them (bernard snowy), Saturday, 15 February 2014 03:39 (three years ago) Permalink

"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*

my collages, let me show you them (bernard snowy), Saturday, 15 February 2014 03:44 (three years ago) Permalink

hahahaha

WilliamC, Saturday, 15 February 2014 04:04 (three years ago) Permalink

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.

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 24 February 2014 18:24 (three years ago) Permalink

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

ooh do tell!

*fans self*

How dare you tarnish the reputation of Turturro's yodel (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 24 February 2014 18:25 (three years ago) Permalink

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."

Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 24 February 2014 18:29 (three years ago) Permalink

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

Aimless, Monday, 24 February 2014 19:01 (three years ago) Permalink

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

bi-polar uncle (its OK-he's dead) (Phil D.), Monday, 24 February 2014 19:39 (three years ago) Permalink

Later that year, Stanford’s conservative publication, the Stanford Review, considered hosting an appearance by Yiannopoulos. A lone graduate student had invited him, but needed to find a student group to sponsor the event. I, an editor at the time, was present in the meetings. “Someone should sponsor his lecture — it’s a matter of free speech,” argued a confused fellow editor. But soon other editors made different arguments: “This will create a huge stir,” said one. “It will drive the social-justice warriors crazy,” offered another.

This was certainly true, and a point worth considering. Campus leftists would definitely have protested the event, and might even have tried to shut it down. As one influential editor put it: “Best-case scenario is that the SJWs freak out and we get another Berkeley.” We all knew what he meant: Inviting Yiannopoulos could bait the Left to do something silly and destructive, drawing media coverage that would allow us to act as martyrs for free speech on campus. That is, the left-wing riots were not the price or downside of inviting Yiannopoulos — they were the attraction.

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 August 2017 15:24 (three months ago) Permalink

I rather enjoyed the bit about him confessing that campus conservative organizations have no money and that everyone ignores them anyway.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 15 August 2017 15:40 (three months ago) Permalink

That is, the left-wing riots were not the price or downside of inviting Yiannopoulos — they were the attraction.

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Wizard-of-Oz-Scarecrow.jpeg

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 August 2017 16:31 (three months ago) Permalink

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHhZ4tpXkAEQVps.jpg:small

mookieproof, Friday, 18 August 2017 15:30 (three months ago) Permalink

fighting nazis is a good thing, but

nope, not gonna read any further

licking the yellow Toad next to the teleporter (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 18 August 2017 15:33 (three months ago) Permalink

Ladies and gents, Armond White.

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 19 August 2017 20:05 (three months ago) Permalink

Refute the Obama revolution that “transformed” America into an elitist state of empowered celebrities.

Huh.

committee on mindset metastructure (Hunt3r), Saturday, 19 August 2017 20:52 (three months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

spot the difference

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJIn5z9W0AAhHJb.jpg:small

mookieproof, Thursday, 7 September 2017 19:55 (two months ago) Permalink

he sure can amuse himself, this one:

In 1989, there was a movie title: “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.” Some people noted that this codified, or at least illustrated, a slip in language: It was not “I Shrank the Kids” but “I Shrunk.” I thought of this when looking at our homepage, which tells us “How ‘Fake but Accurate’ Stories Sunk Liberal Journalism.”

English is a funny language (in addition to a great one). We have “sing,” “sang,” and “sung” — I sing it, I sang it, I’ve sung it (or I’d sung it). We have “shrink,” “shrank,” and “shrunk” (still). We have “sink,” “sank,” and “sunk” (still). We have “drink,” “drank,” and “drunk.” (“Drunken” throws a curveball.) But only “swing” and “swung.” Have you noticed that little kids say “I swang at it”? Why shouldn’t they?

I’ve often said, I have no idea how foreigners learn English. So much is so random, or random-seeming.

P.S. People thought that something important occurred in 1975, when ABC launched a show called “Good Morning America.” Where was the comma? It wasn’t there. A lot of people thought that that stank. Or stunk?

P.P.S. Reagan, talking once about something on his nose, said, “I squoze it.” I loved that. Sounded like Mark Twain, and Reagan’s native Illinois. P.P.P.S. How do you feel about “sneaked” and “snuck”? Can you say that you snuck into the theater? Sure. One could go on …

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 September 2017 13:55 (two months ago) Permalink

Everyone always thinks their own language is so fucking strange and unique.

Daniel_Rf, Friday, 8 September 2017 15:52 (two months ago) Permalink

Steven Pinker has written like umpteen million books about this and I'm sure they have each other's phone numbers.

Old Lynch's Sex Paragraph (Phil D.), Friday, 8 September 2017 16:12 (two months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Charles C.W. Cooke gets his civil rights history wrong:

And what of the protestors who have raised the president’s ire? Irrespective of the merits of their cause — and, for what it’s worth, I think they’re confusing some genuinely terrible incidents for a “structure” or a “trend” — it strikes me that they, too, are going about this in precisely the wrong way. The most successful movements in American history have elected to laud America and its ideals, and then to complain about exclusion or hypocrisy or a failure to consummate vows. This, eventually, was the course Frederick Douglass took. It was the course that MLK took, with his soaring talk of a defaulted-upon “promissory note.” It was the course taken by the suffragettes. To appeal to America at the outset of an indictment is to ensure that skeptical listener hears the subsequent criticism as “we want in” rather than “we want out.” In taking the opposite path, Kapaernick and co. have made a serious tactical mistake — a mistake that will stunt any growth they hope to enjoy. Before the details of their charge were ever known, they were seen disparaging the core symbols of the nation — symbols for which many have died and bled, and which are often taken as proxies for the Constitution, the family, and even for God — and, in some cases, they were seen praising the dictator of a perennial American foe.

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 25 September 2017 14:44 (one month ago) Permalink

Related to this NYT op-ed from Sept 1st:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/civil-rights-protest-resistance.html

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
Waiting for a Perfect Protest?

By MICHAEL MCBRIDE, TRACI BLACKMON, FRANK REID and BARBARA WILLIAMS SKINNER

SEPTEMBER 1, 2017

Hit to Death in the "Galactic Head" (kingfish), Monday, 25 September 2017 17:22 (one month ago) Permalink

is Rich Lowry in bad health? He looked cadaverous on Meet The Press yesterday w/one eye severely bloodshot. of course he spewed flag-wrapped "patriotic" nonsense about the NFL protests

Amazing Random (m coleman), Monday, 25 September 2017 17:29 (one month ago) Permalink

and, in some cases, they were seen praising the dictator of a perennial American foe

Like, say, V. Poutine?

stop the mandolinsanity (Ye Mad Puffin), Monday, 25 September 2017 17:32 (one month ago) Permalink

is Rich Lowry in bad health? He looked cadaverous on Meet The Press yesterday w/one eye severely bloodshot. of course he spewed flag-wrapped "patriotic" nonsense about the NFL protests

― Amazing Random (m coleman), Monday, September 25, 2017 1:29 PM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

double bourbons at Peggy Noonan's brunch

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 25 September 2017 18:21 (one month ago) Permalink

man if that's what it was he looked like the hitch on his absolute worst morning-after

Amazing Random (m coleman), Monday, 25 September 2017 18:27 (one month ago) Permalink

VDH, excited about writing purple prose again:

Outside the NFL bubble today, most of America, to the extent it still watches, now sees Sunday afternoon pop demonstrations as increasingly a farce, played out among players who appear neither exploited nor as exemplary model sportsmen, but rather as overpaid and pampered. Given the NFL’s enormous overhead, even a 10–20 percent reduction in attendance and viewing could send financial tsunamis throughout the league.

Nor do the protesting players come across as informed, brave social-justice warriors on the barricades of dissent, but as mostly unable to explain to their fans precisely why and how they are mistreated or why America is a flawed society that does not deserve momentary iconic respect each week. If players were concerned about violence and injustice, why not collect a voluntary 10 percent contribution from the league’s multimillionaire players and use it to fund programs that address systematic and lethal violence in inner-city communities such as Baltimore or Chicago? And if ethics and values are the players’ issues, why over the last decade has there been an increase in player off-field violence and arrests, often marked by well-publicized violence against women?

The owners, again fairly or not, are not viewed any longer so much as maverick tycoons and eccentric entrepreneurs or philanthropic regional family dynasties of the past, but rather as billionaire corporate magnates who invest their riches in glitzy cultural trophies and expect the state to subsidize their excesses. They are going down the Google/Apple/Facebook grandee path of losing their cultural appeal and, with it, their brand.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/451695/trump-nfls-problems-house-cards

the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 25 September 2017 18:28 (one month ago) Permalink

in other national review related news, i never heard about this "affair" until this morning's newspaper. kinda like bill buckley's jack henry abbott!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/nyregion/edgar-smith-killer-who-duped-william-f-buckley-dies-at-83.html?action=click&contentCollection=obituaries®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Amazing Random (m coleman), Monday, 25 September 2017 18:30 (one month ago) Permalink

that whole story is *insane*

Οὖτις, Monday, 25 September 2017 20:36 (one month ago) Permalink

surely Vidal had some pithy comments about it

Οὖτις, Monday, 25 September 2017 20:37 (one month ago) Permalink

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLYec6vXoAAX4b3.jpg:small

lol this kid

mookieproof, Thursday, 5 October 2017 14:59 (one month ago) Permalink

Dennis Prager has a message for y'all.

Here is a list of eight truths about males and sexual objectification for those who have a degree in any of the “social sciences.”

1. It is completely normal for heterosexual men to see women to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects.

2. That such sexual objectification is normal and has nothing to do with misogyny is proved by, among other things, the fact that homosexual men see men to whom they are sexually attracted as sex objects. If heterosexual men are misogynists, homosexual men are man-haters.

3. One reason for this is the almost unique power of the visual to sexually arouse men. Men are aroused just by glancing at a female arm, ankle, calf, thigh, stomach — even without ever seeing the woman’s face. Those legs, calves, arms, etc. are sexual objects. That’s why there are innumerable websites featuring them. There is nothing analogous for women. Of course, a woman can be aroused seeing a particularly handsome and masculine man. But there are no websites for women to stare at men’s legs or other male body parts.

4. Every normal heterosexual man who sees a woman as a sexual object can also completely respect her mind, her character, and everything else non-sexual about her. Men do this all the time.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 13:30 (one month ago) Permalink

It is a sign of the times that these eight points need to be spelled out. The question is, Why? Why are any of these points — known to just about every woman and man who ever lived prior to the 1960s — controversial to so many well-educated people today?

The answer is leftism and its offshoot, feminism.

makes u think

ATTACK MY RUSTY TOOLBOX (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 13:31 (one month ago) Permalink

That is a taut and satisfying answer which neatly addresses any follow-up questions I might have otherwise had.

You don't know how bad I hate terrible grammer. (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 13:36 (one month ago) Permalink

It's electrifying to be alive during such a renaissance of thought. It's like sitting at the feet of Play-Doh.

You don't know how bad I hate terrible grammer. (Old Lunch), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 13:38 (one month ago) Permalink

i'm sure this has been discussed on this thread before and/or others, but are there ANY "conservative intellectuals" who aren't just actually idiots with thesauruses? As much as I dig the Crooked Media gang, they often make passing reference to the existence of some kind of serious conservatism that argues intelligently and in good faith, but for the life of me I cannot think of one single actual example of such a person. Do they really still mean, like, George Will? Jesus...

evol j, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 13:59 (one month ago) Permalink

there ANY "conservative intellectuals" who aren't just actually idiots with thesauruses?

no

midas / medusa cage match (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 14:00 (one month ago) Permalink

My takeaway is that we need to start a website that features the body parts of men (not their faces), the first of its kind, so that women can fantasize about them. I’m no entrepreneur, but I believe demand vastly outweighs supply, and it’s time to capitalize

Karl Malone, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:17 (one month ago) Permalink

I get the impression that the "center conservative intellectuals" are actually among the dumbest figures on the right. I'm sure that Bannon and the more radical "alt-right" thinkers are smarter than anyone who writes for National Review or the Federalist.

IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:19 (one month ago) Permalink

valerie solanas to thread xp

midas / medusa cage match (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:20 (one month ago) Permalink

I'm sure that Bannon and the more radical "alt-right" thinkers are smarter than anyone who writes for National Review or the Federalist.

not if the contents of those leaked milo emails are anything to go by

midas / medusa cage match (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:22 (one month ago) Permalink

Weekly Standard, The American Conservative, Reason and Commentary are all better than National Review.

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:22 (one month ago) Permalink

better as in they actually know what they're talking about or better as in they don't just drool onto their keyboards and then press SEND?

evol j, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:36 (one month ago) Permalink

well look we're talking about the media there's plenty of drooling going on everywhere but those institutions publish thought provoking articles on occasion. nb that i don't "read" any of them as magazines - i just get sent articles a lot and i notice that most of them come from those places.

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:39 (one month ago) Permalink

(not most of all articles i get sent in total obv - most of the interesting right-wing articles i read)

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:40 (one month ago) Permalink

the only conservative intellectuals I think are being honest with themselves are paleo-Catholics who advocate a retreat from the secular world

.oO (silby), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:42 (one month ago) Permalink

rod dreher writes for american conservative fwiw

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:44 (one month ago) Permalink

boy does he ever

midas / medusa cage match (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:45 (one month ago) Permalink

I read Larison at American Conservative regularly.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:45 (one month ago) Permalink

Dreher at least practices a little self-scrutiny.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:46 (one month ago) Permalink

that's a euphemism for guilty masturbation right

midas / medusa cage match (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 15:48 (one month ago) Permalink

As much as I dig the Crooked Media gang, they often make passing reference to the existence of some kind of serious conservatism that argues intelligently and in good faith....

I always attributed that to them being in DC too long and having the received establishment thinking soak in too deep.

It’s the same kinda thinking and cognitive obsession with balance/centering/moderation/bipartisanship that feeds this delusions, isn’t it? That doesn’t account for changes in the GOP that removed all the Rockefeller/northeastern republicans after the 70s.

Hit to Death in the "Galactic Head" (kingfish), Tuesday, 17 October 2017 22:14 (one month ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOmsoptW0AAUwsF.jpg

mookieproof, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 15:58 (five days ago) Permalink

"Ladies and gentlemen" always sounded absurd in the context of subway announcements.

Laaadies aaaaaaand Gentlemen! Due to police activity at 14th Street Union Square all uptown 4 and 5 trains are currently delayed.

chinavision!, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 17:49 (five days ago) Permalink

first they came for 'pocketbooks' and i said nothing

mookieproof, Tuesday, 14 November 2017 18:56 (five days ago) Permalink


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