I don’t know how you can do it. Couldn’t cramming so much of their shit into so small a space give you septic shock or something?

I surely want to know what Kathleen Parker said to bring up black magic. But in order to find out, I’d have to read Kathleen Parker on Townhall.

I’m not going to do it. Nope. Not gonna do that.

I think I’ve never directly said “thank you” for these digests. Thank you. Now if I can just keep from clicking on the linkies….

I thought you guys might like to get a look at the huge crowd that assembled to “celebrate ‘Liberal Fascism.'” Also, sounds like Pantload Jr.’s already developed a drinking problem. That didn’t take long; what is she, 2 years old?

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/books/conservatives_celebrate_liberal_fascism_80241.asp

In an attempt to improve my mastery of the US idiom, I’m repeating a question from an earlier thread:

Obama… threw his white grandmother under the bus
Mr Cole at Balloon Juice has thoughtfully summarised the responses, and it seems that the words “grandmother” and “under the bus” are now entwined, so that no-one can say one without the other rolling automatically off the tongue.
Why was she not “kicked to the curb”, like everything else? Is this some form of residual chivalry?

Wow, that is some impressive crowd at the DoughBob opus circlejerk. I didn’t have to use all 4 limbs to count them all, so that’s a plus.

Shalom gentlemen.

Ahh, Sowell.

Did Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright?

That wasn’t really the point, dummy.

The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it?

Number of Sowell columns about John Hagee: 0

Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said

See, if it were most any other writer whipping this stuff out, I’d be shocked, shocked about how they didn’t comprehend nuance or how they didn’t even read/listen to the thing they were chiding.

But it’s Sowell, so I’m not surprised at all.

Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.

I swear…there are times when I think every single writer on The Corner and ClownHall residents like Sowell are exactly the same person. They write exactly the same way. Always concerned about the appearance of being smart.

To which that could lead. Nice. This is the height of K-Load hackery.

Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?

He didn’t say that/never said that, dummy.

Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.

buh-duh-CHING!

Got any Teddy K. jokes in there, Sowell?

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.

Aaaaaand there you have it. Obama gives a solid speech about race relations that challenges Americans, and what does Sowell do? Calls it an appeal to fellow-travelers.

Sowell is an American disgrace.

And I’m sure never a harsh word is spoken at wherever Brent Bozo chooses to worship.

Yo, wingnuts: Know that whole speck in your brother’s eye thing? That would apply to you.

The bottom line is, in addition to losing the Presidency, democrats are also going to lose their Senate seat in Louisiana. Democrats are not very popular in that Conservative State, especially after their atrocious handling of the Katrina disastor. Many more seats in the House and Senate will be up for grabs and the GOP will gain them back I am confidant of it.

Why was she not “kicked to the curb”, like everything else? Is this some form of residual chivalry?

As far as I know, “thrown under the bus” is an equal-opportunity cliché. There was a while there at Firedoglake, I think during the Scooter Libby trial, when some unwritten rule required every poster and commenter to use it when speculating about who the trial might involve.

The bottom line is, the Democrats are going to lose big.

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2008.html

I finally had the chance to watch the speech in its entirety. What an absolutely excellent piece of work that speech is.

Uh, Saul…

Nagin and Blanco HAD HELP three years ago in that debacle. The name Mike Brown ring a bell? How about Chertoff?

I am confident that your memory might be considered a disaster by others. And the last time the GOP (read Rove) thought the Repubs would gain seats, how’d that go?

Just sayin’

Everything’s about projection for saul.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_QPUSVZNU_NU/R-GEHa-HzbI/AAAAAAAAAeE/aWzEZ9Ky1VI/s1600-h/lynching.jpg

Mmmm. Mr. Greenburg, “shock and offend” like the above.

As far as I know, “thrown under the bus” is an equal-opportunity cliché.
In that case, it is high time to revive “thrown to the wolves” as the apposite cliché. Buses do not convey the same sense of a ravening threat which must be appeased by sacrificing someone expendable — unless bus-drivers are far more predatory in your part of the world.

He had kicked her to the kerb curb long ago. Tossed her cracker ass out on the street, he did. Because he’s mean. And, he resents that having white blood is such a hindrance to a career in politics.

Out of an abundance of curiosity, I clicked over and read the Maggie Gallagher piece.

Sure. I can sort of see the “shorter” in there.

But mostly it’s just utterly incoherent. It’s like she writes with a couple of chipmunks and a big bag of refrigerator magnets…

mikey

Ah ha, what’s that fuss
Throw your grandma under the back of the bus

I hate to be pedantic here but the term should be thrown in front of a bus not under. A bus often has enough clearance to pass over Granny’s prone figure leaving her in a state of shock but very much alive. And they are typically thrown in front of buses because they’re so old. They’re muscles have atrophied quite a bit but they’re sort of stringy and tough. Unless you want to do a half arsed job, tenderizing them with a mallet takes forever and all the shrieking and beseeching of Jesus’ mercy is liable to put one off one’s meat.

Buses tend to move somewhat ponderously, Herr Clyde, making it significantly easier to throw grammaw under them. Wolves have a tendency, even when running in packs, to veer hither and yon, making it a chancy proposition at best to place the old lady directly in their path.

And sure, you could kick her to the curb. But some of these old dames are tougher than nails, and even if you do she very well might be home before you. Then what are you gonna do?

Drink her milkshake?

mikey

That you, PeeJ. Now I have a better idea of the sequence of events. First Obama kicks his grandmother to the kerb, leaves her parked out there on the footpath in her wheelchair… he goes back inside, shuts the door, heads upstairs… but then an after-thought strikes him, and he dashes back downstairs in order to pick her up and throw her under the bus!
I say the man deserves credit for his willingness to use public transport.

The key lesson to be learned here is that lawnguylander should seek professional help immediately.

When someone’s thought processes tend to run parallel to mine, it’s considered a serious symptom of advanced dysfunction…

mikey

Note to self; take Mikey’s advice and seek professional help and also if you’re going to be Pete the Pedantic Panther remember to use “they’re” and “their” properly.

They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.

Because someone’s pastor saying things that upset me is the equivalent of an unlawful political coup.

Oh Smut you so naive!

His use of public transportation is a cynical exploitation of affirmative action. True, being black (enough so, anyway) he lives where there aint nuttin but buses and pimped-out DeVilles. But using the bus for political gain is just beyond the pale.

Strike that. It would be within the pale, and the pale would be the ebon or something. Politics hurts my head.

Pete the Pedantic Panther

The IPOC is pleased to announce the Games now have a mascot.

His use of public transportation is a cynical exploitation of affirmative action.
I heard that Obama was going to use 10cc’s “I wanna Rule the World” as his election anthem:

I wanna be a bus
I wanna be a big bus
I wanna bus the world around
I wanna be the biggest bus
that ever bussed the world around

The Große und Berühmte Führerherstellers at the SadlyNaughts:

Making their eyes blead by reading right wing claptrap so we don’t have to.

Yes but Blanco got voted out of office thanks both to Louisiana’s Republican lean and her incompetance and outright criminality in handling Hurricane Katrina. Louisiana now has the Conservative Republican Bobby Jindal as Governor.

Thanks for speaking for me so eloquently, Saul.

Now I don’t have to be spoon fed my opinions of the day by Rush and O’Reilly, leaving me more free time to hunt and kill small animals to prove my manhood.

Here, kitty, kitty, kitty.

tontocal: “blead”? Whazzat, Olde Anglishe or somesuch?

It’s strange. Conservatives spend more time talking about our candidates than their own. We don’t generally do the same.

It’s a quandary, it is.

Why do you make these links so appetizing?

MzNicky said,
March 19, 2008 at 22:57

I thought you guys might like to get a look at the huge crowd that assembled to “celebrate ‘Liberal Fascism.’” Also, sounds like Pantload Jr.’s already developed a drinking problem. That didn’t take long; what is she, 2 years old?

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/books/conservatives_celebrate_liberal_fascism_80241.asp

Thanks for the guffaw MzNicky, though you can’t blame more of the WS and NR peoples for not herding themselves in there……there’s trrrrrrrist attacks lurking everywhere, don’t ya know!….ahem……(I called one in to the Mayflower actually)

Louisiana now has the Conservative Republican Bobby Jindal as Governor.

Yes, and you know what, Saul? Bobby Jindal has brown skin! And he’s an Anchor Baby son of immigrants! Who weren’t Christians!

MzNicky said,
March 20, 2008 at 0:24

tontocal: “blead”? Whazzat, Olde Anglishe or somesuch?

MzNick:

sprechen Sie mit mir?

Smut Clyde said,
March 19, 2008 at 23:02

In an attempt to improve my mastery of the US idiom, I’m repeating a question from an earlier thread:

Obama… threw his white grandmother under the bus
Mr Cole at Balloon Juice has thoughtfully summarised the responses, and it seems that the words “grandmother” and “under the bus” are now entwined, so that no-one can say one without the other rolling automatically off the tongue.
Why was she not “kicked to the curb”, like everything else? Is this some form of residual chivalry?

Actually, I have it on very good authority that he shot her in the head then threw her under the bus.

Actually, I have it on very good authority that he shot her in the head then threw her under the bus.

I could believe that. Part of the black magic ritual, one would presume.

Well, okay….first he bitchslapped her then shot her in the head then threw her under the bus

The bottom line is, the Democrats are going to lose big.

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2008.html

Psst. Saul. Next time, choose a link that supports your claim. Or if you can’t find such a link, then maybe just make something up. But providing evidence that disproves your premise is just bad form.

Part of the black magic ritual
Good point. W shouldn’t neglect the whole Santeria angle.

Teh Numbers:

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2008.html

The “I haz a dreme” election projection site

Hey, Saul; you can’t get voted out of office if you DON’T RUN. Blanco didn’t run. Thanks to the lack of help that Louisiana received during Katrina, the black diaspora ensured she never had a chance in the gubenatorial election.

And Jindal’s already up to tricks – witness his ethics “reform” that isn’t really reform.

Does Saul even read the things he posts before he posts them?

Does Saul even read the things he posts before he posts them?

Why should Saul – or any Republican – ever read anything? All literacy is controlled by the liberal media, liberal academia and the minority-controlled federal government. That is why we all thank the Almighty for political geniuses like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg and Thomas Sowell to explain the issues in language we can understand and to tell us what to think.

Remember: You can’t spell “literacy” without “lie.” Just like “liberal.”

Think about it. It’s not an accident.

Liberals. Hmf.

I heard that Obama shot a bus in Reno once, just to watch it die.

Remember: You can’t spell “literacy” without “lie.”.

Fixed for most wingnuts.

Oops. I forgot to run that post through the program that puts in a few misspellings and grammatical errors. I believe I am now exposed as a parody troll.

I believe I am now exposed as a parody troll.

Not at all! The late William F. Buckley could spell and gram and vocabularitize with the best of them. Exception that proves the rule, perhaps, but I think plenty of conservatives can spell.

It’s the thoughts that count.

Thanks, SamFromUtah!

I’ll just keep at it as if this little incident never happened.

I mean, hapenned.

Louisiana now has the Conservative Republican Bobby Jindal as Governor.

Did you know that his real first name is Piyush? Piyush Jindal. He adopted “Bobby” from watching an episode of The Brady Bunch.

I’ve about lost all patience with most of this site’s bloggers, who are funnier than fuck, but who have an irrational, hateful tic where actual (not Glenn Reynolds-type) libertarians are concerned. Did you fucking READ the John Stossel column? Have you ever endured the terror of your 17-year-old son being at risk of prosecution — or actually turned into a convicted sex felon — for statutory rape because he had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend?

Stossel’s column is nothing but the sheerest common sense and decency, and why a “progressive” would do anything but laud it is, to say the least, mystifying. His fine column does not merit inclusion on a list of inanities from the usual TH freaks.

You know, it ain’t just the wingnuts who have their unreasonable and stoopid blindspots.

I agree.

When John Stossel says someting that is brutally obvious to sane people, he should get credit for it.

Criminalizing teen sex might be going too far.

Is this an inaccurate or unfair précis of Stossel’s column?

Mona said,

I’ve about lost all patience with most of this site’s bloggers, who are funnier than fuck, but who have an irrational, hateful tic where actual (not Glenn Reynolds-type) libertarians are concerned.

Tell it to the Marines, Mona. I’ve had it with libertarians adjusting deck chairs on the Titanic. Embrace your inner Dick Cheney, or step up and figure out who is opposing him and his ilk. Right now, I don’t see libertarians doing fuck all.

Is this an inaccurate or unfair précis of Stossel’s column?

Like many libertarians, myself included, John Stossel is declaring unmitigated opposition to the nation-wide phenomenon of using statutory rape laws to make convicted sex felons of teenagers who have consensual sex. I sincerely doubt Stosssel advocates that any post-pubescent, and certainly adult, sex should be criminalized, much less that it is merely “going too far” to send 17-year-olds to prison for having consensual sex. (Tho like some of us, he may feel that there should be for 13-16-year-olds, a cut-off of whereby, say, anyone who is more than 7 years older than they are can be prosecuted.) But peers having consensual sex?! It is insane and unjust.

His argument sorely needs to be heard, and does NOT merit inclusion on a list of the usual deranged blatherings of 95% of Creators Syndicate columnists. He and Jacob Sullum are outliers in that crowd. For Christ’s sake, Sullum has been harping constantly on the warrantless wiretapping and FISA violations. But both Sullum and Stossel have been with CS since long before there was a TH online, and so that site has a contractual right to publish them.

So, in sum: it is inaccurate to imply Stossel would criminalize some sex, but not among teens (that is going “too far”). And it is unfair to include him with the wingnut columnists that this site holds up (well and properly) to ridicule.

He’s still kind of a prick though.

Mona. I’ve had it with libertarians adjusting deck chairs on the Titanic. Embrace your inner Dick Cheney, or step up and figure out who is opposing him and his ilk. Right now, I don’t see libertarians doing fuck all.

Then you are not paying attention. I have my issues with Ron Paul, but you cannot say he and his supporters do not oppose Cheney and his ilk. Nor can you say that about almost everyone at Reason, or the Cato Institute, the latter of which is currently having a love affair with Glenn Greenwald, inviting him to hawk his books at events and to otherwise address them. Or libertarian bloggers such as Jim Henley, Julian Sanchez, Dave Weigel, Art Silber, or Kevin Carson. (And in my view, Greenwald ain’t too far from falling within the label, tho he eschews any ideological descriptor.)

I wouldn’t “pimp” the new blog venture I’m involved with that brings sane libertarians and liberals together, except you asked the question you did. Just click my signature, read our About page, and see who we have on the blogroll. (We are not officially launched yet, but I’ve already had one approving Crooks and Liars link — and I fucking AM a libertarian.)

Your understanding of libertarianism is quite limited, it would seem.

Ultimately, I honestly don’t get it.

Why should any of us buy into some subset of belief systems that allow us to self identify as some sort of -ist.

I’m not a leftist. I’m not a communist. I’m not a liberal, or a conservative, or a democrat, or a republican, or a libertarian-ist or anything else.

I believe what I believe. Some of it matches here, some matches there.

The key is to remember it’s not a zero-sum game. You do not have to trash somebody else to support what you believe.

Think. Decide.

When you know what your belief structure is, what your worldview encompasses, great. Tell us about it. Make your case. Explain why you have it wrapped up in pretty paper and can define all political speech as either “for” or “against”.

I dunno. I’m pretty sure it’s fuzzier than that. I do KNOW what I believe. I do know how to determine what I’ll support and what I’ll walk away from.

Whether it’s seventeen year old sex, kosovo or korea.

And ultimately? That’s what matters.

Who cares how consistent you are or are not. Pay attention, make a difference, do something, fer crissakes………..

mikey

Pity the poor, persecuted libbies, folks. We’re not respecting their highly principled stands enough. It’s important that we recognize that since libertarians share a certain subset of our opinions, we owe them our fealty and respect.

All right, folks, I’m going to go start my new blog, “Whangs Rubbing” where I gratefully and respectfully debate the issues with a Stalinist (because I agree with him about state regulation of utilities) and a Nazi (because we have a shared belief in the importance of a good train system).

You do not have to trash somebody else to support what you believe.

Damn straight.

Pity the poor, persecuted libbies, folks. We’re not respecting their highly principled stands enough. It’s important that we recognize that since libertarians share a certain subset of our opinions, we owe them our fealty and respect.

You are no better than Limbaugh or Coulter on the subject of “all liberals.” Some things about libertarianism you don’t like? Then demonize all its adherents; include their SANE columns (about a morally important issue) on lists holding deranged wingnuts up to justified ridicule.

And now click my signature again — that’s Jim Henley’s blog, where I also have long been blogging, and still do. He’s a libertarian, too. And if there is anyone on the planet who hates Dick Cheney more than the three of us who post there, well, I have yet to meet such a person.

But hey, don’t let that stop you. There is more than enough Coulterism to go around.

Truth to tell, Mona, I’m confused.

Why is your worldview so deeply tied up in making other people agree with you.

You do recognize your views are, well, outside “teh mainstream”, right?

I mean, sure, so are mine.

You are entitled to believe what you believe. So are we. Where is the problem?

mikey

Ah mikey, if you don’t have a tribal identity you just don’t belong. To anyone, anything, ever. Lucky us, who do not.

Your real problem though, is saying thibgs like ‘zero sum game.’ I mean, who the fuck do you think you are, John Von Neumann?

Djur: Your new blog sounds interesting, but come back when you have an approving Crooks and Liars link. Then we’ll talk serious.

Mona: Tell us about the wonders of Salma Hayek again.

Mona, we have a choice between three people for Preznit this November.

As long as you’re spreading the Reasonable faith here, could you supply Reason’s reasons for making a choice?

I remember Reason had a column about how the swift-boating of John Kerry was OK and perfectly justified because Kerry mentioned that he was a Vietnam veteran at the Democratic convention.

And I’m supposed to respect such a magazine because they occasionally figure out something that’s painfully obvious?

Isn’t today the anniversary of something? I was in Montreal, watching the Islanders and the Habs play on the ice. And my nation’s national anthem was booed by these seemingly casual and calm Quebecois. Now what day was that?

I remember Reason had a column about how the swift-boating of John Kerry was OK and perfectly justified because Kerry mentioned that he was a Vietnam veteran at the Democratic convention.

Well, since most Reason staffers who announced their voting preference went for Kerry, I can’t imagine what that might have been. They may have noted Kerry erred in making his Vietnam vet status the central theme of his campaign, which as a purely pragmatic matter I think is true — given the unresolved national wounds over that era, and Kerry’s polarizing role in particular.

Reason is a good microcosm for what has been happening in libertarianland. In ’06, even Ron Bailey — the science writer there who is hated for having come late to accepting global warming — voted a straight Democratic ticket in VA; he endorsed Webb over Allen. Bailey had not voted Dem since 1972.

As a general rule, libertarians are never going to affiliate totally with either the GOP or the Democratic party. But at this juncture in history, they have been leaving the GOP in very significant numbers, all because neocon, authoritarian, warmongering insane people have taken over the Republicans.

In fact, I’d say that what the GOP has inarguably become with the advent of Bush 43 is separating real libertarians from Republicans who think it gives them a hip edge to say, “but actually, I’m a libertarian.” (I’m too old to care about being hip, btw.)

And if there is anyone on the planet who hates Dick Cheney more than the three of us who post there, well, I have yet to meet such a person.

Libertarians are so rationally noble.

The Stossel column seems unobjectionable to me except that it’s by an utter fucking asswipe. Fight on Mona! May you receive all the attention that’s due to libertarians!

Ah mikey, if you don’t have a tribal identity you just don’t belong. To anyone, anything, ever. Lucky us, who do not.

Last time I objected to including either one of Stossel or Sullum’s columns (don’t recall which, but it was a reasonable piece of writing as some commenters also agreed after I called attention to it) in a “Two Minute Twonhall” post, HTML Mencken advised me I should recognize that he and most folks here are “social democrats.”

What, “tribalism” for thee but not for me?

He said “we are socialists here.” He was wrong to make such a sweeping claim.

The Stossel column seems unobjectionable to me

Oh.

I see.

Stossel calls much-needed attention to a national disgrace that ruins many young lives — and puts teenagers forever on national “sex offender” registries — and you deign to declare it “unobjectionable.”

That’s mighty white of you, Mr. R. Bubba. Overlooking Stossel’s “asswipe-ishness” ‘n all.

Some things about libertarianism you don’t like? Then demonize all its adherents…

Mona does have a point that libertarians shouldn’t all be lumped together into a single homogenous mass. As a rule, I disapprove of lumping people into masses – unless they belong to some sort of group that insists people should be lumped into masses, and libertarians are anything but that.

In fact, the only thing I know for sure any two libertarians will agree on is that they pay too much in taxes.

And even then their reasons for believing that may well be different.

I must admit that it’s nice to see more and more libertarians admitting, finally, that the Republicans have been wrong about a thing or two.

And for “wrong,” read disastrous.

That’s mighty white of you, Mr. R. Bubba. Overlooking Stossel’s “asswipe-ishness” ‘n all.

I do what I can for the little people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ

Makes me laugh every time.

Mona does have a point that libertarians shouldn’t all be lumped together into a single homogenous mass.

Sure they should. They all call themselves libertarians, which as far as anyone knows is idiotic except for the crack and hookers, which are tempting.

J writes: He said “we are socialists here.” He was wrong to make such a sweeping claim.

I dunno, it is late, and my memory could be failing me, but I’m 80% sure I had another exchange with HTML in the context of a libertarian TH columnist. Could be wrong, but I really think it was a different thread I originally alluded to.

But in any event, people tend to gravitate toward descriptors and to abide with the like-minded. I do, but am aware that this can be limiting so I make it a point to read those who disagree with me.

I’m 80% sure I had another exchange with HTML in the context of a libertarian TH columnist. Could be wrong, but I really think it was a different thread I originally alluded to.

This one?

This one?

Well, I admit I forgot about the Steve Chapman thing — Chapman is also something of a libertarian, but the point was he just did not make anything like the caricatured, unreasonable argument attributed to him.

If I’m wrong, however, that HTML said he and most here were “socialists,” as opposed to “social democrats” as I claimed, I sit corrected, but I really did recall it that way.

Righteous Bubba said,

Rock on RB. For the win!

Reminds me of a certain match in Florida, circa 2000.

Go libertarians, Go!

Chapman is also something of a libertarian, but the point was he just did not make anything like the caricatured, unreasonable argument attributed to him.

Wait, wait, wait.

So you’re saying Kathleen Parker suspecting Obama may be practicing black magic *might* be a caricature? As in, she didn’t really say something that psychotic and utterly lunatic?

Mona, you’re making my worldview spin here.

When John Stossel says someting that is brutally obvious to sane people, he should get credit for it.

So the Shorter John Stossel should’ve read “Blind pig: ‘Holy cow, an acorn!'”

He didn’t even give me a 30 second head start.

And I don’t want to hear any more grief from those “blind” pigs!

Wait, wait, wait.

So you’re saying Kathleen Parker suspecting Obama may be practicing black magic *might* be a caricature? As in, she didn’t really say something that psychotic and utterly lunatic?

Ms. Parker rarely, if ever, has anything to say that is not moronic and/or offensive to decent-minded people. I assume that is why she and most other TH columnists here are caricatured, and I enjoy the ridicule.

But Stossel’s column not only fails to merit caricature, his point is one with which all sane people of good will should agree.

… it is high time to revive “thrown to the wolves” as the apposite cliché. Buses do not convey the same sense of a ravening threat which must be appeased by sacrificing someone expendable — unless bus-drivers are far more predatory in your part of the world.

As Brad & Gavin can attest, Boston’s bus drivers are quite that predatory. They delight in cutting off passenger cars in traffic and attempting to run down pedestrians, along with the global bus-driver Olympic sport of slamming the doors & pulling away juuuuust as the frantic commuter finishes the half-block sprint.

Also, the Repubs tried a *literal* “Dems will throw your innocent children to the wolves”, with real wolves, commercial in 2004. It did not test well — in fact, it was one of the few examples of Repub chicanery that year which was met with the universal scorn it so richly deserved.

I gave a rating of 1 to some incoherent article at townhall and the average dropped from 4 to 3 check marks. Just sayin’

Of course, it is possible that the rating is for the level of incoherence (it deserved a 4 on that scale), and I got it backwards. It’s Townhall, and I really can’t tell.

I just assume that John Stossel is just up there for completeness.

Poor Mona.

To gain power, she and her Libertarian friends had to join forces with the religious nuts who criminalize as much human sexuality as they can. And now–shocker!–they wake up to find that acts which shouldn’t be criminalized, have been criminalized! No one could have predicted!

what Brandi said….

and I like pie, just so the record is complete….

Anne Laurie – It’s not so much that Boston bus drivers are predatory as it is that they are engaged in an extreme game of chicken. The bus cuts off the car to prevent the car from passing the bus on the left to make a right turn immediately in front of it. Sometimes this means taking off from the bus stop with a would-be passenger already stretching a foot toward the suddenly slamming-shut door. As for running down pedestrians, well, traffic is a blood sport here.

Des Moines bus drivers have run down two pedestrians in the last year, and rear-ended a fellow student’s car as she sat peacefully at a stoplight. I’m thinking it’s a national thing.

Bus drivers in Seattle tend to be fairly calm (although the taxi drivers in Seatlle all drive like graduates from a demolition derby course). In Seattle, it’s the passengers you have to watch out for.

Mona voted for Bush in 2000. Mona voted for Bush in 2004. I think that’s all anybody needs to know about (or hear from) Mona.

Mona, you might not have noticed, but Jacob Sullum is often in “Shorter Townhall,” invariably summarized by a sentence beginning with “As a libertarian,…”. Though such summaries are often spoofy, they also tend to correctly sum up something from the actual column, and lack the tone of the summaries of columns by deranged people. Note the above summary: that’s not really much of a criticism about a column decrying the FCC’s nonsensical “indecency” shenanigans. It’s all part of the shtick. And in the libertarian leagues, John Stossel isn’t fit to lick Jacob Sullum’s shoes. Note that the summary fairly accurately represents the underlying column, but at the same time uses “might be going too far” to pinpoint Stossel’s other identity as an intellectual lightweight of squealing self-righteousness. I’m glad that “libertarian” occasionally means something other than “no taxes or business regulations, g*sh d*rn it” to him, but until he puts more daylight between himself and his usual allies, who have been slavering to criminalize all sexual behavior they disapprove of since the Year One, he doesn’t get to wear the Sullum cap. No kudos for helping madden the horses, then crying “Whoa!” when the stagecoach goes somewhere he doesn’t like.

Though as someone who has been identified by online political quizzes as being a left-libertarian socialist, whatever the fuck that means, I do wish that more commenters here would stop tarring all self-identified libertarians with the same brush. Sure, there’s Perfesser Schmibertarian and Stossel in his normal mode, but some of the people at Reason are actually okay, and Jim Henley is way cool. Look again at the post above, and tell me there’s not so much more to mock from the (unread) Bible-thumping authoritarian fuckwits.

Mona voted for Bush in 2004.

Yeah, and that took a heaping helping of willful blindness, but willful blindness that was widely spread through the electorate. If no one who voted for Bush in 2004 is permitted to have a change of heart and e.g., back Obama this time around, then say hello to President McCain. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of gathering moss, or whatever.

mds, that’s all well and good for 2000 — but 2004?!?!? Voting to re-elect the criminal, incompetent chimp after all we’d already learned? No, Mona is heavily into denial and self-justification and in my humble opinion is not to be taken seriously.

Yeah, and that took a heaping helping of willful blindness, but willful blindness that was widely spread through the electorate.

One of the premises of Mona’s Monaism is that she’s a smarty-pants, unlike some other folks who are not smarty-pantses. Putting her in the same boat with the other dummies is fine by me.

One of the premises of Mona’s Monaism is that she’s a smarty-pants, unlike some other folks who are not smarty-pantses. Putting her in the same boat with the other dummies is fine by me.

I was gonna blather about Mona’s concern-trollish ways but what RB says is really all I wanted to say.

I personally welcome someone like Mona here; I think she provided some very thoughtful commentary (that said, if she voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, she certainly has some ‘splainin’ to do) I read the Stossel piece; commendable. Mona said in a previous post…his point is one with which all sane people of good will should agree. Agreed….of course one good and sensible piece by him doesn’t erase all of the truly abominable body of reportage he’s assembled over the years. Defend the substance of the article? Fine. Defend Stossel? oh please. Stossel might have stuck a licked finger in the air and determined that the political winds are a changin’ and decided to temper his views but like him, Karl Rove, Frank Lutz etc. who seems to be trying to make similar amends? Color them unforgiven and unforgivable; I’m not willing to give them any quarter whatsoever.

And Bubba? I watched that clip about a year ago. Laughed hysterically, wiped the tears from my eyes and sighed, “yes, there is some justice in the world after all!”

Voting to re-elect the criminal, incompetent chimp after all we’d already learned?

Yup. And she had plenty of company. And she has plenty of company now, amongst those who opened their eyes too late to save us from decades of Samuel Alito, but soon enough to (possibly) save us from President McCain. Speaking of which:

Putting her in the same boat with [ 62 million other Americans ] is fine by me.

Fixed that for you, RB, lest Patrick Nielsen Hayden appear in a cloud of wrath.

Mona seems smarty-pants enough not to let a comment thread at S, N! derail her support for Obama and the notion of sending the Republican Party into the wilderness for a spell. So I think this has been a kneejerk libertarian defensive crouch, rather than “concern trolling,” which would have a more-sorrow-than-in-anger tone as she washed her hands of the Democratic Party because she generalized an entire political movement based on some of its members on the Internets.

(Damn, she does make it hard to be her / Glenn Greenwald’s sockpuppet though, when she leaps angrily to the defense of John Stossel. What’s next, rushing to protect ab Hugh from ridicule when he writes a column, “Now that I’ve locked all of us in the freezer, it’s sure getting cold in here”? I’m not getting paid enough for this. By, uh, myself.)

mds said,
So I think this has been a kneejerk libertarian defensive crouch, rather than “concern trolling,” which would have a more-sorrow-than-in-anger tone as she washed her hands of the Democratic Party because she generalized an entire political movement based on some of its members on the Internets.

What makes you think that’s not coming up next on The Mona Show?

Wait until you’ve seen her proudly declare herself an agnostic ex-Catholic and then suddenly morph into Pope Benedict before your eyes, arguing the finer points of Roman dogma until she sheds tears of blood.

[…] Sadly, No! » Two-Minute Townhall::Mostly Obama. Remember, they wouldn’t have voted for him anyway… (tags: politics obama conservatives) […]

Wait, Mona is a libertarian? I thought she was a left wing goalie. (Marita, if you’re reading this I’m kidding, I’m kidding)

Putting her in the same boat with [ 62 million other Americans ] is fine by me.

I can fix it better:

Putting her in the same boat with [ 62 million other Americans, some dupes, some self interested bastards, some gullible self interested bastards tricked into thinking their interests would be best served by voting for the least qualified candidate ever and then worst incumbent ever] is fine by me.

People who like Nickelback also have a lot of company but that doesn’t make their taste in music any better and I don’t want them DJing at my party. I’m not too impressed that a guy like Ron Bailey didn’t notice a mess was on the way until it was here. Once the bed was well and truly shat.

arguing the finer points of Roman dogma until she sheds tears of blood.

Um, well, I’m a partly-Jewish atheist ex-Christian fundamentalist (be sure to buy my confusing autobiography). Yet I still hold forth on the subtleties of premillenial dispensationalism to those who, for instance, conflate the massive US-provoked pre-Rapture attack on Israel that God will magically thwart, with the post-Rapture extermination of the majority of the world’s Jews with God’s approval. (Unfortunately, the ADL don’t listen when I try to tell them that one of these is more dangerous to Israel than the other.) I also bring up the Sermon on the Mount, and use the Epistle of James as a rhetorical bludgeon. But just because I still get down into the theological weeds doesn’t mean I’m James Dobson’s personal lawn goat.

Still, you know your own tête-à-têtes best; I myself have run afoul of her Stalinism reflex on occasion.

Wait, Mona is a libertarian? I thought she was a left wing goalie.

Why can’t she be both, like the late Earl Warren?

So I think this has been a kneejerk libertarian defensive crouch, rather than “concern trolling,” which would have a more-sorrow-than-in-anger tone as she washed her hands of the Democratic Party because she generalized an entire political movement based on some of its members on the Internets.

What she has done on more than one occasion is show up in the comments when one of the Sadly, No! posters makes fun of someone she thinks deserves more respectful treatment. She has then insisted the individual in question should be lumped with the others the site ridicules and therefore should not be subject to further derision. In other words, she tells the site what its job is and how to do it.

should not be lumped

Mona completely missed the point on Stossel.

He is (usually) so odious and childish that when he does end up on the sane side of an issue, no one here wants to just come out and admit that they agree with that idiot.

So it’s much easier (and fun) to make fun of him and the way he must have accidentally come to the right conclusion for a change.

Mona seems to be trying to act like we disagree with him on the ridiculous criminalization of teenage sexual behavior. I’m not sure which is stupider: that she really believes we feel this way, or that she believes she can get away with pretending to be so dumb without being ridiculed.

That said, we love you, Mona. Don’t ever change. You remind me of my mother, bless her heart.

A broken clock is right twice a day, but it’s fucking wrong all the rest of the time.

Mona voted for Bush in 2000. Mona voted for Bush in 2004. I think that’s all anybody needs to know about (or hear from) Mona.

No, Mona did not. To read about Mona’s voting (and non-voting), one may go here.

Mona seems to be trying to act like we disagree with him on the ridiculous criminalization of teenage sexual behavior. I’m not sure which is stupider: that she really believes we feel this way, or that she believes she can get away with pretending to be so dumb without being ridiculed.

Bullshit. That Stossel column was spot on about an important issue that affects many lives. But the “Two-Minute Townhall” blogger didn’t read enough of it, or seriously consider the issue enough, to forfeit including said column in a list of inanities. That’s happened before here.

And discussing my political sins — both the real and falsely imputed — are an ad hominem response to a failure of discrimination among a great and needed column that happens to be published Creators Syndicate, and the vast majority of others there. TH has the contractual right to publish Stossel. But he is right in every word he wrote, about a matter that decent people ought not ridicule or invidiously include with the positions of morons.

Mds, I greatly respexct your POV and so when you write: Sure, there’s Perfesser Schmibertarian and Stossel in his normal mode,

What makes you think Stossel “normally” is in the same league as Glenn Reynolds? Stossel, btw, is a pretty humble guy who admits he does not write that well. Fox tried to lure him from ABC, and he gave them a loud “no.” He doesn’t want to be set aside in the insane right-wing cesspool.

No, Mona did not.

Oh. Well, yes indeed it was idiotic to vote for Bush in 2004. Very very much so. Tremendously so. Continue paying for that one.

He doesn’t want to be set aside in the insane right-wing cesspool.

He’s just constantly in Town Hall because of his public obligations then? Maybe he should consider where his words are getting airplay before we get all weepy and forgiving for him being so unjustly maligned for being a prick.

Oh. Well, yes indeed it was idiotic to vote for Bush in 2004. Very very much so. Tremendously so. Continue paying for that one.

Yeah, and I said/owned/conceded that. Have never hidden it or failed to accept responsibility for it. But I did not vote for Bush in ’00, which was claimed (I was then still totally into issues advocacy where both Dems and Repubs were making me have fits). But after 9/11, I simply did not come out of the national confusion and get my political compass straight until sometime in ’05 (nor was I blogging then, I was — and don’t accept it as excuse if you prefer — quite preoccupied with a cascade of family crises including the death of a child and subsequent rippling effects in my most intimate circles, and just not paying attention as much as usual to politics). For me, the change strongly began with the Schiavo derangement, and added to my serious discomfort with the Padilla matter, so I began a very sharp turn. Then the wholly illegal warrantless wiretapping story hit, and that was it for me re: the GOP.

Accuse me for that of which I am guilty, but not for that which I am not.

Maybe he should consider where his words are getting airplay before we get all weepy and forgiving for him being so unjustly maligned for being a prick.

He isn’t a “prick” by virtue of who publishes him. His columns stand on their own merit or lack of same.

TH is a website that, due to Salem Communication’s ownership of Creators Syndicate (which bought out TH some two years ago), may publish CS columnists. I don’t know what Stossel, Sullum’s etc. contractual terms are with CS, or when they expire, and perhaps they should think twice about being included with the likes of Doug Giles and the rest of the TH idiots. But this buy-out happened recently.

Accuse me for that of which I am guilty, but not for that which I am not.

Okay, you voted for Bush in 2004 after not voting for him in 2000. Remarkable.

One of the things that libertarians like to do is get all hoity-toity about reason. Heck, there’s even a magazine called that! It’s consequently funnier when libertarians do stupid things. It’s like Professor Irwin Corey getting smacked in the face with a shovel. And it happens over and over again.

I’m sad about whatever it was that made you dumb, but a lot of people – hey, some people here even! – go through brain-melting crises and don’t adopt a philosophy that entails that their fellow countrymen get thrown onto the highway with the presumption that the strong will avoid the oncoming traffic.

He’s a prick by virtue of his personal philosophy: No taxes for social programs, no government regulation of factories or corporate hell holes, people should be happy to have you exercise your god-given right to blow carcinogenic lung-spooge all over them in restaurants and bars, unions should negotiate benefits for asshole scabs and not get any recompense for it, insurance companies can let people die based on their bottom lines, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

He’s right about this one issue. He’s wrong about almost everything else. And if you agree with him on any of those points, well, I’m gonna go ahead and say you’re wrong too. Go figure. What do you expect? Because Stossel is right about this one issue, we’re supposed to cut him some slack on all the rest?

I’m not very patient with libertarians these days, small “L” or otherwise. You lay down with right-wing dogs, you get up with fleas.

He’s right about this one issue. He’s wrong about almost everything else.

So if he is right on that issue, why include that column on a list of those held up for ridicule?

But you misrepresent his other positions. It’s the left’s Limbaugh/Coulter caricature of a measured, reasonable libertarian.

It’s the left’s Limbaugh/Coulter caricature of a measured, reasonable libertarian.

And there’s the problem: he’s a fucking idiot and you can’t figure it out.

Thank god for that four-parter with Ron Paul though, huh?

Whatever. I’m not misrepresenting him. I’ve actually read his columns. He sickens me. And when you come over here and accuse people of being oh so mean to the poor widdle libertarians, I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish.

Oh, well, it’s late. I don’t know why I drifted down five threads to look at this one anyway, or why I bothered commenting. You were having a fine time talking to yourself, and Righteous Bubba had already taken care of anything that needed saying. I yield the floor. ‘nite.

I’m not misrepresenting him. I’ve actually read his columns. He sickens me.

And that would be because…? Let’s see. We’ve gone from admitting that the particular Stossel column in question is morally correct, after it was held up for ridicule among a host if idiots. Now I am told that Stossel should “sicken” people, but nobody (including your vaunted Righteous Bubba) can link to actually revolting words from him. And btw, merely disagreeing with “socialists/progessives” at this site does not constitute “revolting.”

Now I am told that Stossel should “sicken” people, but nobody (including your vaunted Righteous Bubba) can link to actually revolting words from him.

I recommend starting here.

So if he is right on that issue, why include that column on a list of those held up for ridicule?

Because it’s the Two-Minute Townhall? Meaning everyone in the Townhall gets swung at? If Stossel, Sullum or other assorted libertarian pricks wish to not be in the Two-Minute Townhall, I would suggest they bring it up with their publishers so their articles don’t get PLACED IN FUCKING TOWNHALL.

We’ve come to the conclusion the blanket derision is better than blanket oppression. Your other political playmates may not be so kind.

Somewhat on a tangent can you believe I had to find a link to click in this bullshit?

http://bp1.blogger.com/_DJgVg1XpB64/R-M-QEtITxI/AAAAAAAAAiA/_FwWt6pcOSM/s1600-h/Picture+29.png

mds said,
March 20, 2008 at 18:51:

“Stossel’s other identity as an intellectual lightweight of squealing self-righteousness”

Absolutely gorgeous.

I don’t know why I drifted down five threads to look at this one anyway

Why, to revisit this graphic, of course.

including your vaunted Righteous Bubba
Righteous Bubba could do with a good vaunting.