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

I see your point.

Even if she did, god was probably just like “you’re welcome, I guess. That place seems like a shithole tho lol”

God was all "yr welcome, just be sure to let everybody know in a 5,000+ word Medium blog post k thx bye"

With an editor that could have been good, without one it was...sort of stunning tbb

And hey kid - post it on some telephone poles

xp

*tbh, new phone problems

I wonder how many times she re-read and edited that before posting.

Fewer than two times. Probably none.

Their favorite bully impressed Bill Maher's audience:

Kevin made a case against majoritarianism that caught Maher off guard: “Like me, you don’t trust big masses of people because they tend to be stupid and easy to scare. All of the best things about our Constitution are the anti-democratic stuff like the Bill of Rights, which is America’s great big list of stuff you idiots don’t get to vote on. If we had put slavery up to a vote in 1860, it’d have won, it’d have won 70 to 30. If we put free speech up to a vote today it’d probably lose.”

Maher derided the idea that free speech equals money, and Kevin calmly shot him down. “I actually don’t think so. . . . That’s like saying, well you have freedom of the press but if you want to have a press, it’s $100 million, well you can’t do that because that’s big money in journalism.” Maher and the crowd seemed a bit stunned by the cogency of that, and Maher moved on to “tribal politics and political correctness.”

more like "audience stupefied by Williamson's stupidity"

wow if only there were some kind of historical record to examine we could determine if ppl voted on things like slavery and if it was good small r republicanism that ended slavery huh well I guess we’ll never know

certainly there's no acclaimed hollywood films about the 13th amendment

is bill maher's show actually that popular? idgi

a few libs I know still love'em

that makes me sad, the things that entertain others make me sad

Don't be religulous.

wow if only there were some kind of historical record to examine we could determine if ppl voted on things like slavery and if it was good small r republicanism that ended slavery huh well I guess we’ll never know

OTFM Maher is such a goddamned idiot

I suspect Williamson's point was that it took a war to end slavery because -- eh why bother

hat’s like saying, well you have freedom of the press but if you want to have a press, it’s $100 million, well you can’t do that because that’s big money in journalism.” Maher and the crowd seemed a bit stunned by the cogency of that

does someone wanna bother explaining this argument to me cuz it seems completely incoherent afaict. He's equating the price of presses (which are set by the market) as equivalent to the price of running in an election (which is set by a market only because we don't have publicly financed elections)?

also since when does free speech = owning a free printing press? that is not what the amendment is about...

He appears to be equating "freedom of the press" with owning a daily newspaper or magazines with a mass circulation in the hundreds of thousands, which is such a restrictive definition that the First Amendment would not have applied to anything at all when it was written in 1789.

Then, as now, it merely referred to the printed word, which was (and still is) important because it is a durable form that can be circulated widely. Samizdat publishing in the USSR is an excellent recent example of an influential and wide circulated 'press' that cost one hell of a lot less than $100 million.

It sounded like he was saying that a right isn’t really a right if the government can put a big restriction on it

I'm a bit stunned by your cogency.

the government puts big restrictions on all kinds of rights! I mean, name me a right the government *doesn't* put any restrictions on. It's okay, I can wait.

Lol “any”

What a take from the National Review. Calling Brett Kavanaugh a "bro" is the same as racial or ethnic stereotyping, apparently. pic.twitter.com/OmM3Kj7CrJ

— Timothy Johnson (@timothywjohnson) September 20, 2019

The morning after the Taylor testimony about Ukraine, there's not a peep about it on The Corner. Instead, the lead headline is "The Academic Left Can Be Very Nasty."

it's called keeping your eye on the ball

The Venerable Kevin:

I am no great believer in the wisdom of “We the People,” but the people still must be consulted from time to time. This is one of those times. The impeachment of Donald Trump would represent the effective nullification of the 2016 presidential election; that the Democrats have been laying the groundwork for impeaching Trump since before he was sworn in rather than in response to some particular episode or disclosure forces us to think of it that way. Which is why, as I argue today, Nancy Pelosi must bring these hearings out of the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal makes a similar case here.

The lack of serious leadership in Congress is the great political problem of our time. It has contributed mightily to the mutation of the presidency into its current caesaropapist form. But even when Congress rouses itself to take on the president, it apparently cannot manage to do so in a credible and liberal fashion. So far, Nancy Pelosi has made as strong an argument against her own leadership as she has that of Donald Trump. And that’s saying something.

caesaropapist!

I'm always confused when people talk about impeachment nullifying an election. We would have Pence as President, a guy chosen by Donald Trump as the person who would replace him in the event of death or removal.

Someone remind me—was Kevvy baby a never trumper or was he one of NRO’s wait and see guys?

He hates Trump, hates his wife, hates your life,

The Bible Is Our National Book | https://t.co/YPvORp1niF via @RichLowry pic.twitter.com/t8HU78c5Tk

— National Review (@NRO) November 5, 2019

wow bold pick. even with that hacky ending?

I’m waiting til it gets the Oprah’s book club seal of approval. It’s like, yeah I could read other books, but why bother when you know the level of quality that the book club guarantees?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIt5KnIXYAIvQ5a?format=jpg&name=large

lol

i thought scorcese's marvel burn was spot on. never have i identified so strongly with a curmudgeonly old man who thinks the old days were better

yeah i'm honestly surprised it's generated so much controversy, it's like saying the earth is round imo

This is painful. These guys have suddenly discovered BothSidesism.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ_rAhuXYAAyI22.png:small

news flash

quelle surprise

an oldie but a goodie

Unpatriotic Conservatives
By DAVID FRUM
March 25, 2003 2:00 PM

From the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves “conservatives.”

These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, “Can you assure American viewers . . . that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?” Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it....

it goes on. and on, and on, and on. wow. i didn't understand how low he got, until reading that. now i understand the depths of hatred that some people have for him, a little more.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2003/03/unpatriotic-conservatives-david-frum/

I will not inflict my debate thoughts on my Twitter followers. I will inflict them on National Review readers later. But I want to say this here: When Bernie said he'd raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, I heard Bill Buckley in my head: "Why not $16?"

— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) January 15, 2020

Oh, hell, y'all, I think I'm finna tweet. Here comes a barrage. Please mute, if unwanted!

— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) January 15, 2020

disgusting

Michelle Malkin claims “questioning the numbers of the Holocaust” isn’t antisemitic and neither is questioning the ״dual loyalties״ of “foreign agents”🧐

You read that right...pic.twitter.com/kHmIMQsZ0T

— Adam Milstein (@AdamMilstein) March 2, 2020

I wish I didn’t have to see that disastrously hateful fun fact in multiple threads

NRO isn't as delightful as it once was.

we should start another thread focused on making fun of tradcaths specifically