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

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

Putin pays $50 at least

During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel tasked with investigating the case, prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him.[24] Instead, Abrams cooperated with Walsh and entered into a plea agreement wherein he pled guilty to two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress.[25] He was sentenced to a $50 fine, probation for two years, and 100 hours of community service.

I constantly see Right Wing relatives comparing her to Marie Antoinette and seem to think that the Obamas are living like monarchy while the rest of the US starves which is a little odd to me because nothing they do seems flashy and I think they take fewer vacations than other families in the White House.

They hate success.

Anyway, last week, I felt a surge of bitterness. Why? I am disliking the current occupant of the White House more than ever. And, on seeing this house, I winced. And then I caught myself: "Come on, Jay. It's still the White House. Presidents come and go. This is a great and glorious country, with a constitution, separation of powers, regular elections . . . Don't have an ‘our planes' attitude." Like others, I suppose, I have to remind myself of this from time to time. I think I'll need ever more frequent reminders in coming years.

it's just... sometimes it's so hard to be a jingoistic fuckhead, you know?

well, yeah

It's so extra funny when these types complain about unemployed people being lazy and liberals not wanting to work and stuff. This guy's job is basically transcribing a toddler-age hissy fit into a string of multisyllabic words.

lol AOC missed vote 3 and I think I heard her holler "Jeffries!" a few seconds later.

whoops def wrong thread

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-often-do-men-think-about-the-roman-empire/

Apparently, men think about the Roman Empire frequently. This is news to most women, who I’d venture rarely obsess over Marcus Aurelius.

A TikTok video of a woman asking her husband how often he considers the Roman Empire went viral this week. He responded without pause that it was an “everyday thought.” More women are adding to the trend, asking their spouses and boyfriends how much brain space Rome occupies.

So, men: Is this serious? How often do you think about the Roman Empire? There are many reasons to think about Rome — reasons one of my dude-brained colleagues will probably flesh out in the future — but women . . . don’t. Or, at least, we think about it less frequently. Although I’m reminded of Rome often, it doesn’t pop into my head randomly, except in the cases of a few Catholic or architectural queries.

That men and women are different is, it seems for many online, still shocking. To destroy, conquer, and build empires has historically been the stuff of men. While there’s room for sexes to blend their interests, women tend to care more about the social aspects of history and probably identify better with aesthetic traditions (Jane Austen’s romanticism, Renaissance art, qualities of various royal reigns) instead of specific eras.

There’s no cause for social uproar every time we notice another distinction between men and women — isn’t it enough to just admit that we’re different? This week’s viral trend will probably manifest into think pieces over how the Roman Empire came to be a male-exclusive interest, or how more women need history degrees.

The Rome discourse mirrors an office discussion we had the other week, about our favorite films. The men couldn’t narrow down their lists unless they devised categories, and even then, there was painful debate on the merits of each movie’s script, score, and technical quality. Meanwhile, I’ve had the same favorite movie for the past decade, and my girlfriends agree that we choose our favorite films based more on emotional appeal than anything else.

Thousands of years have passed, and hundreds of empires have burned, only for men and women to remain fundamentally different. Some things never change.

how many ages hence
shall this our lofty scene be acted over
in states unborn, by dudes as yet unknown

been too long

Still got it

Conservative media is the most robust affirmative action program in the world pic.twitter.com/RHtPQhV00r

— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) December 6, 2023

singing "imagine there's no country" at the funeral of a country singer smh

https://i.imgur.com/HEtfLKO.png

Now I can't unsee it

missed u boo

Entirely reasonable description of January 6 as an event in which 'many of the...protesters broke the law in what may have started as a protest but turned into a riot.' Especially so in light of absence of DOJ insurrection charges against anyone involved. https://t.co/FfQfKTjYet

— Byron York (@ByronYork) April 5, 2024

probably need a new thread but that site is full of tired cranks griping about woke

Are you familiar with that old joke from the Eric Andre Show, where the host asks a guest, “Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?” It’s become ironically memetic shorthand for moments when someone expresses an entirely banal or inoffensive opinion. And yet, strangely enough, Fetterman’s position on the Gaza war fits this frame to an almost shockingly perfect degree: It’s both popular among his constituents, and certainly among Americans at large, while also authentically controversial and brave, certainly when compared to where his Democratic peers in the Senate are. I hesitate to speculate about the origins of the seeming change that has come over him, other than guessing that the discipline and strength of character required to recover from a life-altering stroke also suggests a certain willfulness. (To be fair, I do also like my other theory, which is that Chuck Schumer unwittingly leveled him up by stuffing him back into a suit.) Fetterman has clearly demonstrated he is now his own man and also a savvy hand at public relations; I doubt he’s unaware of the political armor his medical situation gives him, and good for him — he’s wearing it straight into battle.

Ah yes that old joke