Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
""For Republicans, there's only one candidate of hope: Hillary Rodham Clinton.""Pretty much sums up the exploitativeness, ruthlessness, and moral bankruptcy that has consumed both parties and their media organs (print, blogs, tv, radio, etc).
Her political persona ranges from grim to charmless.Somebody slipped a pea under her mattress.
Be careful what you wish for.
It makes for a nice article.The Democratic primary campaign is not about issues because both Hillary and Barack pretty much agree on everything. When the campaign becomes about issues, both will be in new territory.The general election will be about issues and the choice between continuing reaganism and the prosperity we have had for 25 years or change - changing back to pre-reaganism.
sloanasarus...stop with the reagan crap would you. no one followed that course after mr. voodoo and no one ever will.he steered a ship that ran aground and you should know that. if you don't then reason can't help you.those candidates who long for the "good old days" are going to get swamped in november and your cries in the night for Ronnie are lost in the evening breeze.
For Republicans, as they enter the voting booth this November:Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
he steered a ship that ran aground and you should know that. if you don't then reason can't help you.Actually he pretty much steered the ship off the sandbar that Carter drove it into. I doubt you'll find many takers who would prefer to go back to the Jimmy Carter days versus Reagan.
I don't understsand the antipathy people seem to have for Ronald Reagan; it rather reminds me of the opinion 1050s era republicans had for FDR: Mindless, visceral and unthinking hatred totally divorced from reality. Simply stated Ronald Reagan's major legacy is ending the cold war when the conventional wisdom was it couldnt be done--a war that had gone on for 40 years; and in so doing he effectively liberated Eastern European and other satellite nations, and eliminated in large part, the dangers of a mindless strategy of MAD. Pretty good stuff, IMO.I am more than willing to let historians reach a judgment in 50 years.
Theo: I think it's "voi ch'entrate." As it happens, I've been reading Hollander's translation recently. Do you have a preference?While I might share your taste in poetry, your skills as political prognosticator leave something to be desired. As today will show, all's well that end's well.
Read what Gorbechov says about Reagan sometime and you'll understand his greatness in diplomacy and foreign policy. Look at the GDP growth for the 27 years prior to 1981 and after 1981 and you will see the results of his economic revolution. Look at the election results for 1984 and you'll see what America really thought of him
I don't understsand the antipathy people seem to have for Ronald Reagan; it rather reminds me of the opinion 1050s era republicans had for FDR: Mindless, visceral and unthinking hatred totally divorced from reality. I agree Roger although considering he won two elections, the second being an unprecedented landslide over Fritz, I think there is a small but vocal minority that hates him. As for ending the Cold War, keep in mind that many who pooh pooh that accomlishment never viewed the Soviet Union as a threat to begin with if not outright sympathy.IMO, Carter was the embodiment of the liberal mindset and after 4 years of visionless leadership, feckless foreign policy and the overall 'malaise' that was over the country, Reagan showed that simply doesn't work and I think they resent him for it.
Well republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Even though democrats have failed to do much, if anything, to improve things after sweeping into control last January (e.g. earmarks), the desire for something new will give whomever is the Dem nominee a huge advantage. This will be in spite of the unreality of anything they propose and with the near certainty that the republicans will continue the path to self destruction (e.g. earmarks).I could be wrong but I doubt it.
Hoosier Daddy said..."I doubt you'll find many takers who would prefer to go back to the Jimmy Carter days versus Reagan."It's interesting that every candidate seems to want to go back and have a do-over from the point where it started to go wrong from their perspective. Obama and Clinton both want to go back to 1967, which is where they think it all went wrong (the failed Fortas nomination, Vietnam, Nixon, gradually losing uncontested control of the Supreme Court, etc.). McCain and Romney are both running in the 1988 GOP primary to succeed Reagan and carry forward his legacy. And Ron Paul, of course, wants to go back to the antebellum south.
Fred Thompson just wanted to go back to sleep.
"The general election will be about issues and the choice between continuing reaganism"If the Republicans run on "continuing reaganism" they are screwed because that presumes what we have had for the last 8 years even resembles Reaganism. It doesn't. And if you think people are going to want to continue down the economic path of the last 8 years you are deluded.The fact of the matter is that G.W. Bush is worse on fiscal matters (at a minimum) than Carter ever was.Also, saying we are going back to a "pre-reagan" approach is really ridiculous. Do you know what the highest marginal income tax rates were in 1980? Do you know what they will be even assuming the tax cuts expire?
I suspect one of the things that some conservatives forget is the tax rates that Reagan reduced--going from 70 percent on the highest brackets to 35 percent is a major adjustment--from there, marginal reductions probably wont have too much overall effect. That part of the "Reagan Revolution" cant be repeated, I don't think. I do agree with Simon, that we always want to go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear. its that 20/20 hindsight thing.
I don't remember great Presidents running on the idea of going backwards to a 'better time'Reagan didn't look backwards. Instead he had a pretty clear and focused agenda for the future.Vision. It's a wonderful thing.Oh, and please don't tell me that this bunch has vision. They don't.
Look at the election results for 1984 and you'll see what America really thought of [Reagan]My vote for Reagan in 1984 had nothing to do with RWR and everything to do with my revulsion at the Democratic choice that year. Geraldine really turned my stomach and I could not vote for her. I'm not a big fan of New York politicians.
please don't tell me that this bunch has vision...All four of the likely candidates seem to have their sights set on my wallet.So it's a choice between socialism with a strong military and conservative justices, or socialism with a weak military and liberal justices.Yet none seem to realize that socialism precludes anything but advancing governmental control over all aspects of life, as is currently occuring in England. This begets literally liberal fascism, or, until the bombs go off, liberal isolationsim.
Hillary is your only hope, too, Annie. What will you do with your Clinton Derangement Syndrome if you can't keep blathering on about Hillary?!
I have to agree with Simon. There is no presidential legacy to go back to. Each man was a man of his point in time and dealt- rightly or wrongly- with the overriding issues of that time. The hard core ideologues of both parties are living in the past and refuse to acknowledge that time moves on, change is a constant, and they have to flow with that change whether it is economic, domestic, or foreign affairs.The Reagan legacy died when Reagan left office. The Clinton legacy died when Clinton left office. New person, new issues, new problems, new legacy, for good or ill.
PogoSo it's a choice between socialism with a strong military and conservative justices, or socialism with a weak military and liberal justicesAgree.I want to go back to Jefferson.
I do agree with Simon, that we always want to go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear. its that 20/20 hindsight thing.I don't think its so much a matter of going back to days of Reagan as much as yearning for the kind of optimism that emanated from the man. I grew up in the Glorious Reaagan 80s and the only thing I would want to go back for was the music. Say what you want but its better than the whiny and angst ridden garbage they play today. Plus we dressed better too. If your underwear stuck out of your pants, people made fun of you and beat you up. Although I do like the current trend of tight t-shirts and thongs on hot chicks so I can take the good with the bad.
While you can't 'live in the past' past lessons, good or bad, shouldn't be forgotten.
Roger said... Simply stated Ronald Reagan's major legacy is ending the cold war Oh good grief. Let's let somebody much smarter than me lay out the real Reagan legacy.Let's get past all the maudlin bullshit and discuss what Reagan really did.First, Reagan rode to power on a wave of reaction to the Civil Rights struggle. California, a state with a deep well of racial resentment, supported Reagan, who would protect the establishment and call for students to be murdered on their campuses. Reagan was regarded as a crank by many on the left, but his appeal to middle America was strong. It wasn't that Reagan was a racist, as fas as is known, he wasn't. But he sure could pander to them, as he did in 1984 1980 at Philadelphia, MS. For those of you unaware, that is the place three civil rights workers were murdered by the Klan. It would be like a British Prime Ministerial candidate going to Amritsar to talk about the glory of the British Army (the site of a 1921 massacre of peaceful Indian protesters). Reagan pandered to the racist right with ease, even as Barry Goldwater, the man he supported in 1964 with a convention speech, slowly backed away from many of his reactionary views. Instead, Reagan depicted blacks as "welfare queens" leeching off the society, when in reality, white women are the largest recipients of AFDC. Reagan used race like a club to hammer minorities and pander to the racist right.We need to ask what hath Reagan wrought. His economic policies crippled this country, preventing the kind of long term structural changes which are still needed. How long will American businesses have to foot the bill for health insurance? How long will unequal funding for schools exist? How long will the right of women to control their bodies be subject to restrictions? This is the real, domestic legacy of Ronald Reagan. His breaking of the PATCO strike began the road to anti-Union policies across business. Once, businesses wanted labor peace, after Reagan, strike breaking was permitted, hell encouraged.Reagan began the road of crippling America's ability to care for Americans. Now we have this failed trickle down economic policy pushed by yet another President. One that leaves Americans in record debt and record bankruptcies. Instead of tax rates which fairly distribute the burden of funding America, the rich have been encouraged to avoid their fair share. Ronald Reagan began the bankrupting of America and the creation of a super wealthy CEO class, one where their great grandchildren will never have to work, an aristocracy of trustifarians. Under Reagan hypocracy and selfishness became the rule of the road. Not just in public life, where his staff routinely lied, eventually leading to Iran-Contra.But if Reagan started to ruin America, his foreign policy left the dead around like fallen leaves. His foreign policy was a disaster by any standard. Dead nuns in El Salvador, murdered school teachers in Nicaragua, the tortured in Argentina, the seizure of Grenade, the failed intervention in Lebanon, the aerial assassination attempt on Khaddafi, which led to the bombing of Pam Am flight 103. Reagan's policies left a trail of failure and disaster at every turn.How to explain funding the deeply corrupt Contras? Former Somocista generals who funded their war by the drug trade? Who murdered the innoncent. Or the war in Guatemala and the genocide of the indian population. Or the war in El Salvador, where American nuns, among many others, were raped and murdered. A government so callous that it murdered an archbishop in his church.Reagan's foreign policy left a trail of death and fear wherever it touched.Silent complicity was the hallmark of Reagan's policy towards dictatorships. From Indonesia to El Salvador, the innocent died and the US said nothing, did nothing, except make their lives worse.We backed the guerrilla groups in Afghanistan, funding the most radical ones and then leaving the country in disarray.Reagan's legacy is a dark one, one of backing murderers and robbing America of a fairer future. It wasn't that he was an evil man, or a bad one. It is what he believed and what he supported caused so much pain and misery for so many people, who had to live with the results of his policies.Ending the Cold War my ass....
Fstop (My favorite truther): first of all, I have no idea who you are citing--it does like a bit like an expose from The Nation or perhaps was ghosted by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Whle that is certainly one interpretation of some of President Reagan's legacy, no where does it mention the cold war--so that article is hardly informative about the cold war, is it?
Too many jims said..."The fact of the matter is that G.W. Bush is worse on fiscal matters (at a minimum) than Carter ever was."He's as bad on spending, sure. But neither of the GOP candidates are running to continue Bush's policies, they're running to get back to more Reaganite policies which both of them have argued were abandoned in the last six years. It'd be pretty difficult to credibly paint McCain in particular as being someone who's supported the Bush fiscal policy."Also, saying we are going back to a "pre-reagan" approach is really ridiculous. Do you know what the highest marginal income tax rates were in 1980? Do you know what they will be even assuming the tax cuts expire?"In reverse order: yes, yes, and no it isn't unless you assume that neither of the Democratic candidates believe in wealth transfer programs. To my knowledge, they've both signed on to that platform. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the extent of their ambition is to let Bush's tax cuts expire. That's just the starter. Open your menu and look at the main course.Pogo said..."All four of the likely candidates seem to have their sights set on my wallet. So it's a choice between socialism with a strong military and conservative justices, or socialism with a weak military and liberal justices."Unpalatable though it may be, that's not a difficult choice. Bad is clearly better than worse if those are your options. To go back to Theo's comment, if Minos offers you a choice between the 6th circle of Hell or the 8th, you should make do with the 6th!
John and Ken identify Obama-mania as an estrogen disorder.
But neither of the GOP candidates are running to continue Bush's policies, they're running to get back to more Reaganite policiesSeeing as Reagan's policy was to run up a huge deficit, and that's also GWBush's policy, I'm not sure your first phrase can be considered correct :)
roger wrote:Simply stated Ronald Reagan's major legacy is ending the cold war when the conventional wisdom was it couldnt be done--a war that had gone on for 40 years; and in so doing he effectively liberated Eastern European and other satellite nations, and eliminated in large part, the dangers of a mindless strategy of MAD. Pretty good stuff, IMO.Roger, the problem with your analysis is that this is the same thing that some Brits say about Thatcher. The truth is that Reagan and Thatcher played small roles in "the end of the cold war." More critically, I don't see any evidence that either Thatcher or Reagan had any clear vision or intelligent and practical plan for shaping a post-cold war world. In fairness, if you insist on giving Reagan credit for "ending the cold war," you should also hold him responsible for the serious problems that have followed. IMO, it's more sensible to understand the forces that led to the collapse of the USSR and acknowledge Reagan's small contribution. In truth, the great Reagan legacy is surely the idiotic and irresponsible fiscal policies that the GOP continues to push. I eagerly await Sloan's explanation of the wisdom of Bush's fiscal policies (including the latest budget!) and his analysis of our current economic "good times." I always enjoy a good joke.
Roger said... that article is hardly informative about the cold war, is it?Anybody who claims that Reagan ended the Cold War -- or that it was actually won by anybody -- is, how shall I say, selling something.And Reagan's enduring legacy is making bigotry fashionable again.End of story.
I think Fstop is channeling Sonny from Dog Day Afternoon:Sonny: [Addresses other officers moving toward him] What's he doing? Go back there man! He wants to kill me so bad he can taste it! Huh? ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! Same level of logic and nuance.
To fstopfitzgerald I think that my tax contribution which is greater than some entire neighborhoods is more than sufficient for me to pay my fair share. The use of "fair" by you lefties is sickening. Why should I pay one dime more than someone else for a road, a school, or a bomb? My kids get the same education, the same road and the same protection as everyone else's. Why should I have the responsibility to provide the contribution for my family and 20 others? I get no deduction for tuition I pay, no aid for my kids, my itemized deductions are phased out, etc. There are about 10% of the population who are incapable of properly helping themselves for no fault of their own. We should help these folks through life without question. Everyone else has an equal responsibility to our general welfare. That is why the constitution had no income tax. Earning more or less money does not in any way alter your respnsibility to the society at large.As for the cold war, read what Gorby said about Reagan and how he led him to understand that the Soviets were on a road to nowhere.
"I want to go back to Jefferson."Sounds good to me. Unprotected wild sex with teenage mulatto servants. What could be wrong with that?
Elliott A said... There are about 10% of the population who are incapable of properly helping themselves for no fault of their own. We should help these folks through life without question. That's big of you to say.Most of your ideological pals think we should eat them.
The use of "fair" by you lefties is sickening. Why should I pay one dime more than someone else for a road, a school, or a bomb? My kids get the same education, the same road and the same protection as everyone else's. Why should I have the responsibility to provide the contribution for my family and 20 others? I can help you answer your own question by letting you ponder one of my own: I have no kids. Why should I have the responsibility to pay to educate other people's kids?
The truth is that Reagan and Thatcher played small roles in "the end of the cold war." Well there are some people who hold a different opinion. No offense but thier opinion tends to hold more weight than yours.
stop with the reagan crap would you. no one followed that course after mr. voodoo and no one ever will.Reagan stood for the general principle of market economics as opposed to statist control of the economy. Reagan along with Thatcher began this revolution in 1981. The principles of market economics has lead to a revolution around the world and a drastic increase in the standard of living for those who have adopted it.Bill Clinton (and the Republican Congress) continued the Reagan revolution even though Clinton may have rasied taxes a little here and there.GWB, for the most part has continued these same market economic principles.In contrast Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both want more state control of the economy. They want more taxes, universal government health care, etc... Hillary Clinton wants to freeze interest rates. This is the the change that Obama/Clinton are talking about, they are talking about changing back to something that does not work. If McCain is elected (even though he has is liberal moments, he is not a statist) the Reagan Revolution will continue.
One could argue that a good school system increases the value of your home and just because you don't have children now doesn't mean you won't later. Of course, it is in everyone's best interest to educate people so that they can be productive members of society one day, so it is not a stretch for the community as a whole to support the schools. What is a stretch is that some people support them more than others. Since school funding is a mostly local process, there is substantial opportunity for personal input.
Uh oh (Drudge) HILLARY IN HEALTH SCARE: Coughing Fits Cut Short Election Day Media Interviews... Developing... Yesterday she lost her voice, a smooth move eliminating a campaign negative.
"Most of your ideological pals think we should eat them."That's a flat out lie. We think they should eat each other. Or cake. We will stick with the champagne and caviar.
In contrast Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both want more state control of the economy.As opposed to the whole deregulation thing, which as we've seen time and time again, most recently in the housing debacle, has worked out so well.Funny, in the rest of the world, the word for deregulation is corruption.
elliot a wrote:Look at the GDP growth for the 27 years prior to 1981 and after 1981 and you will see the results of his economic revolution.Pure rubbish. This is the kind of nonsense spouted by partisan hacks.Let's aim for some honesty in assessing economic performance. To begin with, in analyzing economic performance, economists (as opposed to partisan hacks) use a measure called "potential growth" rather than GDP. A comparison of "potential growth" under Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush shows that potential growth remained virtually the same (2.5%) under all four administrations.Now, for those who insist on using a less meaningful measure (in this case, GDP) to compare economic performance, at least be honest in applying the measure. Here's a table of the annualized GDP growth rate for presidential administrations since Ford:Ford 2.75%Carter 3.42%Reagan 3.37%GHW Bush 1.90%Clinton 3.58%(Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis)For those who prefer reality-based economic analysis, it's clear that the Reagan economic legacy was massive budget deficits, not increased economic growth rates. We see the same result now with Bush's version of Reaganomics. If you aren't convinced, check the economic data. And if you're a partisan hack, just keep repeating the phrase "deficits don't matter."
I can help you answer your own question by letting you ponder one of my own: I have no kids. Why should I have the responsibility to pay to educate other people's kids?Tax money going to public education really pissing you off? It seems your only option at this point is Somalia.
Funny, in the rest of the world, the word for deregulation is corruption.Except in the third world, where government regulation is corruption.
Of course, it is in everyone's best interest to educate people so that they can be productive members of society one day, so it is not a stretch for the community as a whole to support the schoolsAnd there in lies the conservative mindset. Conservatives will invest money in something that provides a return on investment. Liberals have a tendency to invest money in things that just make them feel good. Case in point, see if any liberals would support this spending initiative:Universal state university education for everyone who 1) Has the academic qualifications to get in; 2) Must carry a minimum of 15 credit hours; 3) must maintain a GPA of 3.0 each semesterFailure to maintain criteria 2 or 3and you're on probation (double secret no less) for one semester after which if hours and GPA don;t meet standards you're out and you can pay for it yourself.The conservative mindset is pay for it but demand results.
I have no kids. Why should I have the responsibility to pay to educate other people's kids?God, I love libertarians. Republicans who like hookers and smoke pot. Woo hoo!!!You know -- courageous souls who steadfastly resist any encroachment on personal liberty by the government on the theory that the private sector can oppress you more efficiently.
"If the Republicans run on "continuing reaganism" they are screwed because that presumes what we have had for the last 8 years even resembles Reaganism. It doesn't."I don't believe that the Repbs are running on "continuing" reganism. You are quite correct what we have had with GWB is basically "Democrat lite" disguised as conservatism. This is the same crappola that McCain wants to bring to us.Reagan type conservatives want smaller government, less intrusive government, less taxes, less regulation, more National Security, more effective economic policies dealing with other nations. Not so much concerned with social issues like gay marriage, abortion etc, which Reagan conservatives view as State's Rights issues.So you are quite correct. If we run on 8 more years of the same B.S. we will lose. Which is why if McCain is the candidate for the Republican party I will gnaw off my hand before I vote for him.
"The conservative mindset is pay for it but demand results.""Republicans who like hookers and smoke pot. Woo hoo!!!"Both these sentences belong together. See, we have commom ground. Kumbaya my friend, Kumbaya.
hoosier daddy wrote:Well there are some people who hold a different opinion. No offense but thier opinion tends to hold more weight than yours.No offense Hoosier, but you missed my point. As you can understand, it's hard to erect a statue to the critical economic, military and political circumstances and miscalculations that played a more significant role in the collapse of the USSR than Reagan. Although I generally respect your opinion and your courtesy as a commenter, Hoosier, the decision by a group of Poles to erect a statue to honor Reagan's contribution to ending the Cold War does not in any way counter my argument.
Cyrus: You rather tiptoed all around my assertion re Reagan and the cold war. It makes not a bit of difference to Reagan and the cold war if Brits want to attribute anything to Dame Thatcher; As to your suggestion that somehow Reagan is responsible for the aftermath following the collapse of the USSR--I think that is a stretch. How could Reagan have done anything as a private citizen. Moreover given Reagan's faith in democracy and markets, I suspect he would have said it was something East Europeans would have to manage--some have done better than others, and Mr. Reagan, by then was incapacitated. Finally, I note you use the word "Truth" a lot, as "In Truth...." but you are only substituting your opinion for "truth." Historians will ultimately be the judge of Reagan's legacy. I offered only my opinion.I would recommend Matlock's recent book on Reagan, Gorbachev, and how he (Matlock) saw the demise of the Cold War. It is at considerable variance to your view--and it actually gives Bush 41 high foreign policy marks for cushioning the collapse of the Soviet Union. (it's reviewed at the Brookings web site--wouldnt want you to think it was that nasty old heritage foundation or AEI)
Ohhhh!!!!! Politeness has broken out all around. Diplomatic utterances and striving to give others the right to their own opinion without strident insults and name calling. Can comity survive at Althouse? Stay tuned.
, which as we've seen time and time again, most recently in the housing debacle, has worked out so well.Actually, the Governmental mandate of stopping "Redlining" and forcing Banks to lend to obviously un-credit worthy applicants in geographic areas that were marginal at best, was one of the biggest contributors to much of the sub-prime mess. That and the artifical depression of the Fed Funds and Prime Rates. Left to their own judgement and not coerced by well intentioned liberal lawmakers (God spare us from the do gooders), Banks would not have made these bad loans. I was a bank lending officer for over 10 years. I know wereof I speak.Were there unscrupulous mortgage brokers out there? Of course. But they were also regulated.Unfortunately you can't regulate away stupidity and greed.
No offense Hoosier, but you missed my point. As you can understand, it's hard to erect a statue to the critical economic, military and political circumstances and miscalculations that played a more significant role in the collapse of the USSR than Reagan. And what exactly were those? I assume the critical economic, military and political circumstances and miscalculations you refer to are on the part of the Soviet Union. If so, what exactly were those which you seem to imply would have happened notwithstanding Reagan's policies?
Dust Bunny Queen said... Actually, the Governmental mandate... was one of the biggest contributors to much of the sub-prime mess... Left to their own judgement and not coerced by well intentioned liberal lawmakers (God spare us from the do gooders), Banks would not have made these bad loans.The housing debacle was caused by too much (liberal) government regulation?Screamingly funny, and proof positive that certain folks here are residents in good standing of the Bizarro World. Black is white, up is down, liberals are fascists.Incidentally, it continually amazes me that conservatives never seem to realize that the so-called free market isn't smart -- it's amoral.
Howdy Sherrif,I missed this comity stuff. What's so funny about fstop blathering like Lucky?As for me, I am interested in continuing the pogrom begun in 2006 in which the Republicans (big R) are rebuked in the eventual hope that room will be made for the republicans (little r). If it takes Obama, or (wretching here) Hillary to make that happen, let it. You can't rebuild your house with a rotted-out foundation.
Hey, who's blathering?fstop's doing that for everybody.Now if he would just tell us ALL about the morality he would like in economics instead of free markets, why that would be interesting blather, no?
Well John I was speaking of the courtesies that the various posters are exhibiting. Discussing a topic without reverting to mindless insults and senseless invective. Don’t be a dick.Hee hee.
The housing debacle was caused by too much (liberal) government regulation?Actually it was caused by people who bought more house than they could afford. Although I suppose you could argue that we need additional government regulation to save the idioten from themselves but that would be fascist I think.Incidentally, it continually amazes me that conservatives never seem to realize that the so-called free market isn't smart -- it's amoral.Actually I am quite aware of that. See the free market allows for that most cherished of liberal virtures choice. Choice isn't just about aborting an unborn child, its the God given right to purchase goods and services without the interference of the State. So if I want to risk it all on a sub-prime mortgage isn't that my choice? I think the reason liberals don't like the free market is that does make you accountable for your actions.
"Discussing a topic without reverting to mindless insults and senseless invective."Well I'm all for that.
Regarding Hillary's coughing spells:She has what I had in November! It's one of those wicked viruses where you are coughing like a Banshee.You can't swallow that stuff either. I carried around a sterling silver Lalique spittoon, and with extended pinkie....you just go for it. It's like shooting a basketball. There's a way of coughing up and spitting quite elegantly, actually.Never, never, never swallow suptum or mucous; it will just bubble back up and you'll cough even more.I'm serious. I actually think she'd score a lot more points if we saw her spit, in a classy way.I think people would love it. There is a way to spit ladylike, and the public would go wild !
fstopfitzgerald said:You know -- courageous souls who steadfastly resist any encroachment on personal liberty by the government on the theory that the private sector can oppress you more efficiently.Um, fstop, ah, I really hate to tell you, but this country was founded upon the principles of personal liberty without government encroachment. I guess you are like many others of your ilk; the Constitution only consists of the First Amendment. The rest is just meaningless words to be trampled on.
I've covered this issue on my Blog:http://maxinesplace.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-spit-with-confidence.htmlThere's a certain way of spitting with elan and full of style !Hillary should try it, and it would help with that hacking cough of hers.
Well now we know why Maxine has so much time to blog and why she doesn't go out on many dates. She doesn't swallow.
Maxine,Garry Moore would have loved to have her on "I've Got a Secret(ion)"
hillary is a great spitter. she had all that practice spitting on the soldiers at the airport when they came home from Vietnam.
she had all that practice spitting on the soldiers at the airport when they came home from Vietnam.Yet the person who is spitting most on vets these days is Rush Limbaugh, aiming at Bob Dole. Funny what happens during campaigns.
The left, who have collectively brought us PC, do not believe in the first amendment either.
Has Althouse ever coughed?I might pay to see that. I can't remember Althouse ever coughing in a Vlog.Althouse always wants to effect a very robust, vigorous, and healthy demeanor. She never wants to come across as frail, delicate, or sickly.But there is an art to coughing and spitting, if you know how to do it correctly.I want to see Althouse cough.You can get a lot of mileage out of being delicate and frail.
Despite McCain's foibles, he is the best person to continue the Reagan revolution. I believe that most conservatives will come around when McCain's proposals are compared to Clinton/Obama.So far all we know is that Obama is for change.... what change is he for? He is for changing back to statist economics, i.e., government run health care, high taxes, cradle to grave care, and central social policy. These polices have been proven failures both in the U.S. and across the world. Obama is obviously too young to remember that his proposals have been tried before.
Ronald Reagan was a disaster who ushered in the end of the middle class and the creation of the super rich and the super poor. Don't even get me started (as others before me here have done a good job at pointing out) on his horrific foreign policy. The Cold War "ended" because the Soviet Union was doomed by its own hand. Speaking of Hillary's problems today...I'd like to spit on Ronald Reagan's grave!
I bet that Althouse doesn't cough or spit. She swallows.
The housing debacle was caused by too much (liberal) government regulation?Screamingly funny, and proof positive that certain folks here are residents in good standing of the Bizarro World. Black is white, up is down, liberals are fascists.The housing market debacle was a result of the fed pushing down interest rates for too long. This created too much cheap credit which then allowed people to more easily defraud the system.In some ways it was the first test of the modern derivative and pre-packaged securities, which already have and will continue to revolutionize the financial system - meaning more people than ever before will have access to credit, and risk will be more widely shared.
Middle Class Guy said... fstopfitzgerald said: You know -- courageous souls who steadfastly resist any encroachment on personal liberty by the government on the theory that the private sector can oppress you more efficiently. Um, fstop, ah, I really hate to tell you, but this country was founded upon the principles of personal liberty without government encroachment.Thanks for missing my point, which is that libertarians like you think that if only the government would wither away, we'd all somehow magically be free. As if the church, the military, or the institutions of commerce, just to name a few, wouldn't somehow be around to encroach on your liberty without government putting the brakes on them.Like I said, libertarians resist government encroachment on their personal freedom because they believe the private sector can oppress them more efficiently.Libertarians are the silliest people on earth. They're anarchists without the courage of their convictions....
So when Reagan came in there was a deficit of 74 billion, he left it with a deficit of 141 billion. Spending increased from 591 billion, to 1.14 trillion. And he happened to be President during a collapse of a government that his own government was completely unaware was happening. We supported Iraq in its war with Iran, although we sold Iran weapons to secretly fund a terrorist war in Nicaragua, while denouncing terrorism. And now we're told we've actually been at war with Iran for 30 yrs, and we need to get to that Reaganism. Except for the amnesty part, of course. Oy.
Ronald Reagan was a disaster who ushered in the end of the middle class Really? I must not have gotten the memo that I had been 'ended.' I do hate it when I get left out of these historical events.I think he also was known to run over puppies, pull the wings off of flies and would stick out his tongue at Tip O'Neil and call him a drunk.
Althouse, show us your cough.I can tell a person's whole life story, by the way she coughs.Really.
Ronald Reagan created the super poor?AND the super-rich?They didn't predate Reagan?Dude. You need to get out more.
hoosier daddy wrote:And what exactly were those? I assume the critical economic, military and political circumstances and miscalculations you refer to are on the part of the Soviet Union. If so, what exactly were those which you seem to imply would have happened notwithstanding Reagan's policies?Hoosier, I don't intend to write an essay on the subject, nor will I provide a comprehensive list. There are many sources of information readily available to anyone who is curious about the economic, military and political circumstances and missteps that brought about the collapse of the USSR. However, I am willing to provide a half dozen examples of Soviet policy decisions and circumstances that contributed significantly to the collapse:1. The Soviet war in Afghanistan2. Soviet subsidies to client states that were out of proportion to the Soviet economy.3. A substantial decrease in oil revenues during the 1980s oil glut.4. Inflation and pervasive supply shortages.5. Accelerated government spending on consumer price subsidies.6. Unintended consequences of perestroika and glasnost.I hope this clarifies my position. While I'm convinced that the USSR's bankruptcy was a more significant factor than Reagan in ending the Cold War, I'm not surprised that the Poles are not erecting a statue to Soviet bankruptcy.
Catch up Hoosier Daddy...you are so over.
Middle Class Guy said... Um, fstop, ah, I really hate to tell you, but this country was founded upon the principles of personal liberty without government encroachment. Um, mcg, ah, I really hate to tell you, but the central message of the founding fathers wasn't every man for himself.Hoosier Daddy said... Ronald Reagan was a disaster who ushered in the end of the middle class Really? I must not have gotten the memo that I had been 'ended.' Are you one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin?Because that's the definition of middle class these days....
Reagan actually created the super cool when he was an actor in his Hollywood. He hung out with Errol Flynn and John Barrymore and Clarke Gable. They were the cool kids that everyone wanted be like back in the day. Nancy was the original Olsen twin. A tiny, skinny sex machine. That’s hot.
FStop: There are certain things that Government needs to do that individuals and States can't do for themselves. National Defense: raise an army, build a navy and airforce. Build dams, highways and other infrastructure. Provide for public safety in the form of fire protection and police and have a consistant coherent system of justice for criminals. Other than thise things, the Federal Government needs to sit in the corner and keep out of the business of the States, the Counties and of Individuals. Almost every economic debacle that we have exprienced in the 20th and 21st centuries are due to governmental interference. The free market place of business AND of ideas is always better than the socialist state form of government.
I enjoy reading the revisionist histories presetned here by cyrus pinkerton and fstop. Hilarious.It's all there: the anti-West mindset, the willful obscurantism, the Chomsky-Zinn hate festival, the black-is-white reading of events, the endless logical fallacies.They all say: Don't believe your stinkin' eyes, believe me. Not even worth responding to. Cyrus cannot answer a straight question anyway, so forget that, and fstop's rendition of the 80s reads like he's teaching anti-Western Civ MultiCulti PC LGBT 101 at Pissandmoan Commmunity College, just before he hands out the class project this year, chaining themselves to an ROTC recruiting office.What a joke.
Almost every economic debacle that we have exprienced in the 20th and 21st centuries are due to governmental interference.Yup, those pesky socialists definitely were responsible for the Great Depression.The free market place of business AND of ideas is always better than the socialist state form of government. 1:31 PMRegulated capitalism is what created the middle class, thank you very much FDR.What you are advocating -- what is laughably referred to as the free market, which of course is nothing of the sort -- is merely socialism for the rich.Which, come to think of it, should be the slogan the Democrats run on:THE REPUBLICAN PARTY -- SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH!!!!I like the sound of that...
Huckabee wins W.V.!McCainiacs shifted and brought Huck over 50%.
those pesky socialists definitely were responsible for the Great Depression.They were, in fact.Read Amity Shlaes The Forgotten Man.Milton Friedman argued thus, too.
Yup, those pesky socialists definitely were responsible for the Great Depression.I suggest you stop shooting off your mouth without any knowledge and repeating the progressives talking points and read "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.Yes. Actually they were responsible. The liberal progressive (socialist) policies exacerbated, prolonged and deepened what would have been a recession. The "depression" didn't start in 1929 with the market crash.....it was years in the making thanks to so called progressive policies, restrictive trade and protectionist policies. Government intervention.
Pogo said... those pesky socialists definitely were responsible for the Great Depression. They were, in fact. Read Amity Shlaes The Forgotten Man. Milton Friedman argued thus, too.Oh dear lord, that's hilarious. Just for the record, both Amity Shlaes and Milton Friedman are very large idiots.Friedman, BTW, is currently in hell, where he's having a three way with Satan and Ayn Rand.
I thought this thread was about Hillary. Can't we prove that she caused the Great Depression.I mean I know she get's Bill depressed all the time, so why do we have to buy into that. Let's go for that Sidney Poitier dude or the guy from "Cranky Old Men."
Dust Bunny Queen said... The "depression" didn't start in 1929 with the market crash.....it was years in the making thanks to so called progressive policies, restrictive trade and protectionist policies. Government intervention.Ah yes, the socialists who dominated the Gilded Age actually caused the Great Depression.You guys are hilarious.
Ok.. that's it.. I refuse to further engage in any kind of conversation with mental midgets who refuse to become educated. It's like arguing with a 3 three year old.If FStop is so determined to be an ignorant sack of s*ht, he can do it without any encouragement from me.
Are you one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin? Because that's the definition of middle class these days....Are you one fatal illness away from death? Because that's the definition of human life these days...Oh to hell with it. Fstop isn't even worth mocking.
elliot a wrote:The left, who have collectively brought us PC, do not believe in the first amendment either.Yet another commenter on the Rush Limbaugh drug plan...
Wow...now they're trotting out Milton Friedman. Must be getting desperate. FDR ended the Cold War with the New Deal, Hillary caused the Great Depression by spitting too much, and Ronald Reagan thinks that the Free Market is where you go when you don't want to pay for your monkey's bananas.
Pogo, Don't even bother. You're not at all interested in intelligent discourse so don't pretend otherwise.
...and Bush thinks the Invisible Hand is a super cool magic trick he learned during one of his coke binges in the late 80's. P.S. DBQ, ever consider that you're the one with the bad education? History isn't exactly subjective (unless we're talking about Reagan for some of you), and debating who or what caused the Depression is futile. Open a book and figure it out. You're wrong.
You know that was what her first student at Brooklyn Law said to Althouse when she asked if there were any questions:"Yo, teach, is I intelligent enough for dis course."She spit at him.
Romney's comment on Dole was appropriate because Dole was taking sides. And it was also a good reminder that Dole was the one that was called so electable with all his name recognition, and so senior in the Senate, and damn, he was a war hero too who SERVED!! unlike any of his challengers in either Party- then he ran a low energy, lackluster campaign and was thrashed.What isn't excusable is McCain and his new Military-worshippers. Now swaggering around with a monstrous sense of entitlement that no ex-military person may be criticized by a "lesser citizen" who "never served". Which puts, as some in the media and certainly McCain wishes - the professional, intergenerational Southern professional military caste on the highest pedestal - with lesser tiers for volunteers, wounded, draftees. Then "hero" government employees like cops and firemen and DEA.And still lower still tiers for enlisted and non-line command officers who "never saw combat" - but SERVED!!!Then various strata of mere civilians in order of their patriotism...McCain then retaliates by wrapping himself via Bob Dole in the Flag: McCain said he was "saddened and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who is an American war hero, who built our party, who served our party so well for so longSame tactic McCain has gone back to whenever he is in a scandal or wishes to promote his interests and intimidate critics. The scoundrel in his usual "Pay Homage to This Heroic POW" refuge.McCain, taking lessons from Al Sharpton, goes on:Bob Dole has served his country in war and in peace in a way that all of us admire, and to disparage that, or criticize him in such a way, is just not appropriate, I think, in the minds of most Americans." Then McCain demanded an apology on Dole's behalf from RomneyNotice what the scumbag does in his political tactics: He takes criticism of either his or Doles bad politics and reframes it as unpatriotic disparaging a war hero, not paying proper homage to their service, and worth apologizing for - like an officer upbraiding a lower-ranked officer or an elisted for failing to salute them.Nothing new, McCain has been on this "I was captured by the enemy, that makes me special" sanctimonious high horse for decades.I much prefer the attitude of George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Eisenhower, Bush I, Gerald Ford, JFK, Truman, Bob Kerrey - who faced equal or greater risks than McCain - and never dealt with people with an attitude that they were morally superior to civilians who never did military time. Who only rarely and with some embarassment used their military service to promote themselves, and never used Present-Day militaristic themes hammering other people with symbols that They Served! ("While you're saying my Immigration Plan is wrong, remember I was being tortured as a POW while you were on a deferment in Law School, you Fuck!""I know everything about winning wars. I served and therefore am ready to be Commander in Chief from Day 1""I was just a mere footsoldier at the start of the Reagan Revolution.""I didn't come back from Vietnam with an arm that had to be rebroken twice and look at that wonderful Flag to later tolerate that Flag being tarnished by those who are voting against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform")As an ex-officer, a combat Vet, and a conservative Republican, I am sick of that guy and think he would be a dangerous Commander in Chief. I will never vote for him. Go Obama! Go Hillary!
But how does he feel about the Jews?
Are you one catastrophic illness away from financial ruin?ummm, raising my hand quietly in the corner. Yes, so what. Like I could get a job after 24 years of baking cookies.
I bet you never spit out a cookie. Even a burned cookie. Nobody spits out a cookie. Even commies love cookies. You know Mao had a bag of ginger snaps every day. And Fidel loves his Nutter Butters. He has them smuggled in from Miami.
Ahh! The Althouse blog is back to normal.Idiots spouting nonsense.I was afraid that it was becoming too intelligent and amusing. That won't do, will it?And, really, who needs Luckyoldson when you've got fstop?Who needs Cedarford when you've got, well...Cedarford?Carry on, gentlemen.
Cyruspinkerton...I do not like Rush Limaugh and I do not take drugs.I also do not like what happens to people these days when they say something that doesn't fit the progressive agenda. Or when universities attempt to brainwash students into believing they are racist because they were born the way they are. (University of Delaware) Or universities creating an atmosphere of suffocation by requiring students to rat on other students who dare speak their minds. (See previous blogs here for that one) I was brought up (in a very liberal household) to believe that as Americans we have a right to speak our minds without fear of retribution for our ideas. Other people have the right to tell me how wrong I am. They don't have a right to force me from my job, elected or appointed position, or publicly brand me with the evil label du jour. I am able to like a person and know they are a good person even if their views are diametrically opposed to mine. They are just wrong. (My sister fits in that category) Many of us out here in the world reached our positions independent of any coercion, rather with thought, study and discussion and life's lessons. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "A man who at 20 is not a liberal has no heart, and a man who at 40 is not a conservative has no brains." He didn't say anything about 53...
Are you one coughing fit away from losing a national primary?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VszMdi6Iyo
And, really, who needs Luckyoldson when you've got fstop?You mean it's not the same person?
I should have never stayed home and baked cookies. Never.Now I got to pay another couple thousand for the dang tooth repair,too.
Criminey, Cyrus, you do this little dance at Althouse every once in awhile, but it's really a bore. You will, on all matters, refuse to render an opinion or state a fact, but weasel around with vague rebuttals ad nauseum.As for fstop, the fact that he dismisses Friedman out of hand is evidence enough of his mental diminutiveness to warrant ignoring his every post.
roger wrote:I would recommend Matlock's recent book on Reagan, Gorbachev, and how he (Matlock) saw the demise of the Cold War. It is at considerable variance to your view--and it actually gives Bush 41 high foreign policy marks for cushioning the collapse of the Soviet Union. (it's reviewed at the Brookings web site--wouldnt want you to think it was that nasty old heritage foundation or AEI)Roger, this is an interesting response. I read Matlock's "recent" book in 2004 and my strong recollection is that his view about the collapse of the USSR is very similar to mine. However, considering that over three years have passed since my reading, I referred to the review at the Brookings website that you mention. Here are a few relevant excerpts:Ronald Reagan was widely eulogized for having won the cold war, liberated Eastern Europe and pulled the plug on the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer and other notables offered variations of The Economist's cover headline: "The Man Who Beat Communism."Actually, Jack F. Matlock Jr. writes in Reagan and Gorbachev, it was "not so simple." He should know...Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. "Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan's graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock's book bears out his former boss's judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader...While Matlock could have been more charitable to Reagan's predecessors and to his immediate successor, his account of Reagan's achievement as the nation's diplomat in chief is a public service as well as a contribution to the historical record. It is simultaneously admiring, authoritative and conscientious. It is also corrective, since it debunks much of the hype and spin with which we were blitzed earlier this summer. The truth is a better tribute to Reagan than the myth.These excerpts are consistent with my memory of Matlock's thesis and they support my position that the claim that "Reagan ended the Cold War" is simplistic and inaccurate.If I've forgotten an essential point from the book that disagrees with my argument, please let me know.
...and the people who tunneled under the wall that made it weak.Swimmers with Big Shoulders come from other places than Chicago.
"Mr. Gorbachev," he said, "deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country."Reagan was being very, very kind. Not descriptive. Paul Johnson, the elegant historian, believes otherwise, and wrote that Reagan was indeed responsible for beginning the end of the USSR. I just love how this whole thing eats at the leftists, though. It's absolutely delicious.By the way, cyrus, why was ending the USSR a good thing anyway, such that someone should take credit for it?
Pogo,Apparently you need to find someone to explain to you what "don't bother" means.
Pogo said... As for fstop, the fact that he dismisses Friedman out of hand is evidence enough of his mental diminutiveness to warrant ignoring his every post.Hey Pogo (and by the way, Walt Kelly would have hated your guts):Here's why Milton Friedman is in Hell:Milton Friedman dignified a simplistic vision of economics, a vision so simplistic it could not but appeal to the likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He and what would become the neo-conservatives wanted just enough government to protect corporations from the rabble, and none to protect the rabble from the corporations. And again, Milton Friedman and his "Chicago School" surrealists gave an intellectual imprimatur to these semantic antics.Government - whether of, by, for, or against the people - has always favored the very wealthy and their endeavors, adventures and investments. But since Milton harnessed Reagan and Thatcher, and vice versa, the very wealthy have faced dwindling popular resistance. They and their media lackeys in the hate industry proudly display their resentment of any control over the economy that doesn't originate with or profit them. Allowing high financial interests to dictate how clean the air should be, who should own the water, how much a corporation should compensate someone it injures, how much assistance a government should offer its poor, how much it should spend on teachers and doctors, whether workers can organize into unions, what kind of science can be done - putting all these decisions into the hands of the people with the most money is now second-nature to the voting public of the USA. And, yes, it's Milton Friedman's fault.
I don't think it's fair to say that cyrus doesn't offer opinions and support them. A person doesn't have to think he's right to admit that he at least puts ideas together coherently.Fitz, on the other hand, hasn't said anything other than, "har har, wow that's stooopid" from the moment he arrived with his brain in a bucket. And now he's proven his depth as a hater.
Can't explain anything without a non-attributed cut and paste, huh?
ZPS said Catch up Hoosier Daddy...you are so over.So what your saying is that I should believe you instead of my lying eyes.That 4 bedroom house of mine with finished basement and 2 car attached garage is in reality a cardboard box and as soon as Morpheus gives me a blue pill it will all be clear.
Synova, Thank you for your generosity.
And you can't even quote something that *says* anything!The religion of social oppression lives on faith alone.Because that's all there is to show corporate oppression or how terribly badly the middle class is... It's obscene. No less than that. To anyone who has actually *lived* in poverty or *seen* real poverty or has half a brain and spent time in a third world country the mewlings and sobs of Americans whining that they Just. Can't. Make. It. is nothing less than obscene.It's careless, feckless, self-centered baby tantrum *I want to feel ALIVE* made up fictional striving that utterly requires a steadfast belief that "Things are BAD."People who *are* poor spit on you. A**hat idiot with your brain in a bucket.Truther moron... life is more *exiting* when our evil government blows up our own people.So you'd be bored in the real world.Grow the h*ll up.
fstop wins the Luckyoldson Memorial Prize for Most Unoriginal Left-Wing Rant, Cut & Pasted by a Moron.The Fen Prize for Most Gullible Conservative has not been awarded yet! Now is the time for all you Tories to post more praises of Mrs. Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.So far, the comments have been just too wet and limp. We need some crisp, true-blue Conservatives to step up and claim the mantle!
You're welcome, Cyrus. I do at least try to be fair.
Well, that last Synova rant was pretty much the purest gibberish I've ever seen around here.Impressive....
elliot a,Thanks for your pleasant reply, but it makes no progress in establishing any evidence for your claim. As a reminder, this is the claim of yours that I challenged:The left, who have collectively brought us PC, do not believe in the first amendment either.Do you have any evidence to support your contention that "the left" does "not believe in the first amendment?" Or, as my first response suggested, is your statement simply an attempt to insult rather than enlighten, an effort to try to gain partisan advantage through distortion and fabrication, a la Rush Limbaugh?
Everyone has seen this today, Yes?http://reason.tv/video/show/61.html
Do you have any evidence to support your contention that "the left" does "not believe in the first amendment?"Cyrus, I think much of the effort to establish 'speech codes' on college campuses won't be found to have originated among conservatives. The whole concept of 'hate speech' IMHO is nothing more than an attempt to stifle discussion they don't like or have a valid counterargument. The entire concept of 'political correctness'is nothing more than an attempt to regulate speech.None of these are embraced by conservatives.
I saw that video and I wonder if there is a difference between transient middle class and middle class that never had to moved 30 miles from their hometown.Heck, even Michelle Obama is apprehensive about uprooting her children and she's guaranteed a home if her husband gets a new position.
Cyrus: please note this excerpt from the review: Reagan emerges not as a geopolitical visionary "but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader...." That suggests to me that assertions of many Reagan haters of Reagan as doctrinare, short sighted and reckless are at best misplaced; Reagan emerges as one who was able to change the Soviet Union by adjusting American policies to the Soviets internal problems.Where Matlock's analysis falls short comes out of his background: he comes out of the State Department which opposed Reagan's language with respect to the Soviet Union and deployment of TNF--Some of Matlock's history is at best self serving and suggests it was DOS policies rather than DOD that prevailed. It is easy to miss this point if you don't understand the antipathy that existed (and still exists) between DOS and DOD. But to buy Matlock's argument, then Reagan's role in changing Gorby's behaviour and thus the Soviet Union must be acknowledged. And if Matlock is correct, Reagan is clearly not the dunce as many suggested and was, in fact, a consummate diplomat (according to Matlock). I don't think Reagan critics can have it both ways on this one.
fstop, the founding fathers basically said everyman for himself. Read history, real history, not the revisionist stuff.The poor will always be here, the rich will always be here. All of us will try to get more or even become rich. Except for the religious or really lazy people who beleive government owes them just because, no one aspires to be poor.
Middle Class Guy said... fstop, the founding fathers basically said everyman for himself. Read history, real history, not the revisionist stuff. The poor will always be here, the rich will always be here. All of us will try to get more or even become rich. Except for the religious or really lazy people who beleive government owes them just because, no one aspires to be poor.You're bonkers."I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."Thomas Jefferson, 1812
HoosierDaddy, I'll accept that speech-squelchers are 'the left', and therefore part of my political philosophy, which is somewhat leftish, if you accept that David Duke and Ann Coulter and Bill Bennett are 'the right'.I think a better description of all of them, however, is political bully. You can add (R) or (L) as is appropriate.
fstop,Can you read? Do you need glasses?It was written in 1812- many years after the country was formally founded.One of the goals in the founding of America was prosperity free from government interference. People being able to pursue opportunity without interference.BTW, you are an insulting little squib who should not be allowed in decent, polite society. You are living proof that corporal punishment for children should never have been outlawed.
Nansealinks,I've moved far far too often and it's probably the life choice that sets a family back the most with the single exception of divorce. But if you have to move for work then that's what you have to do. On the other hand, my sister and her husband who stayed in a depressed area for 20 years (I'm told they have a sort of boom going on atm) and plugged away at mediocre jobs and kept the same mortgage... are now in really good shape financially. They still have the same unexciting jobs and if the house is a bit cramped with two teenagers it's going to be plenty roomy and practically paid for after the year or two it will take for the kids to leave home.If people want to claim it's so very bad these days... they should buy an old house. Old houses come in two sizes, generally. "Tiny" and "huge." They should buy the tiny one.And they should think about the fact that past generations often raised families (pre-birth control) in those little boxes with one toilet (at most) ONE TOILET and a kitchen that never heard the concept of efficiency or automation. With one car. ONE CAR. That father took to his hell-hole of a corporate job where he endured without any consideration to his creativity or well being, while mother stayed home and went quietly mad.
Synova, I speak from experience re: cyrus.Ask Rev, who figured cyrus' game out a long time ago.For example, he'll ask "Do you have any evidence to support"...., but then refuse to admit any of what you say might be true even in part. He will never accept your definitions or your proof, be unresponsive to your evidence, engage his passive-aggressive "I am unaware of X" strategy, and more.Fair warning.
MCG, the founders did object to usury, however. Though they didn't manage to get that into the constitution.
Middle Class Guy said... fstop, Can you read? Do you need glasses? It was written in 1812- many years after the country was formally founded.So because it was written in 1812, Jefferson wasn't one of the Founding Fathers?Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket -- you really are as stupid as I assumed. Unbelievable.
Freedom of speech, berlin walls...In 1980 as a non military American with a home in Berlin, I stood for six hours in the car to get across the border at the Berlin wall to drive over to the west for a weekend trip, a flitterwochenende. I was told to get out of my car and wait inline somewhere else. I would have to pay the usual five marks, but this time feel apprehensive as i could not say anything and perhaps be subject to body searches in whatever cavity.yes, stifled.In 2002, on a return flight to America from Frankfurt I stood in line for one hour to be subject to a bodily patdown before boarding the plane for Amerika. I felt nothing because I wanted to get home.Now the Frankfurt patdown just makes me feel disgraceful, not because of my body but my mind..
Oh, and considering the video... because of the piss poor economic area where my sister lives, they also have the opportunity to go to the lake every weekend if they chose with family and long time friends.Moving sort of ruins that, too.
I agree with you and him for much of what he said. But I don't like exactly how Drew painted the picture in that video. The full sprectrum was missing a bit.
fstop,I wouldn't point to Thomas Jefferson as a good example of anything when it comes to economics. He was a spendthrift, constantly in debt, and died broke. His family had to sell his famous book collection after he died. It took decades for collectors to buy it all back.He was a good guy, and smart, but knew neither business nor markets at all.
Lucky would never say "Jesus H Christ in a chicken basket." He would say "blow me", perhaps, but never that. No one would say something like that.
fstopfitzgerald said...…you really are as stupid as I assumed.Ah, I see now. When you cannot give a logical, historically accurate, or knowledgeable response, you descend to the abyss of insult. Are you trying to debate an issue or are you trying to demonstrate your low breeding and lack of social skills and rudimentary etiquette. You also have some real anger issues. These can be handled with intervention, professional help, and meds. Lots and lots of meds.
Middle Class Guy said... fstop, the founding fathers basically said everyman for himself.Seriously -- there's no way to read that without thinking it's a satire of wingnut cluelessness.Yup, that's the message at the heart of America -- screw you, I'm alright, Jack.
No one would say something like that.Florence King, conservative lesbian curmudgeon and cultural critic extraordinaire used to say Jesus Christ on roller skates.She's funny as hell, though, unlike our little fstop.
Middle Class Guy said... you descend to the abyss of insult.Wow. Now there's some scintillating prose stylings. I'll alert the judges at the Bulwer-Lytton contest.
I thought John was kidding when he said Huckabee won WVa. But now I see that the good Reverend did emerge victorious in the Mountaineer State -- thanks to a lot of McCain delegates switching votes. And Romney won the silver. Again.What an interesting primary season.
Fstop said,You're bonkers."I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyedcorporations, which dare already to challenge our government to atrial of strength and biddefiance to the laws of our country."Thomas Jefferson, 1812You're talking about the slave owner Jefferson right? The one who unfairly profited from the labor of others, the one who envisioned an agrarian nation of yeoman farmers. You're quoting him as an example of what the founding fathers thought about capitalism right? If not "every man for himself" as MCG posits, how did Jefferson see his farmer nation working?
Weren't folks like Jefferson and others of the founders trying to limit votes to property owners?Him being upset that corporations (? archaic usage?) and those with business interests were gaining enough power to challenge "the government" seems likely enough.
This has been a fairly depressing thread, straying very quickly away from the article that Ann cited.For those who have gotten lost too, the article by Rich Lowry essentially says that the Republicans are rooting for Hillary, because her high negatives, even before the general election campaign begins, make her much easier to beat than, in particular, Obama. And, I tend to agree. There isn't (yet) visceral hatred of any other candidate like you see with about half the electorate as to Hillary! Many Republicans don't like McCain, but they don't hate him with a passion. Indeed, the only two politicians with this level of hatred are HIllary! and George W. Bush.
hoosier daddy wrote:Cyrus, I think much of the effort to establish 'speech codes' on college campuses won't be found to have originated among conservatives. The whole concept of 'hate speech' IMHO is nothing more than an attempt to stifle discussion they don't like or have a valid counterargument. The entire concept of 'political correctness'is nothing more than an attempt to regulate speech.None of these are embraced by conservatives.Hoosier, there are several problems with your argument. The first mistake is your suggestion that those who favor "speech codes" on college campuses are representative of "the left." I have no evidence that this is true. They may often be from "the left" but is there any reason to believe that their views are representative of the left? (As an example, although it may be true that a large number of FLDS members support Romney, it is probably not true that the views of FLDS members represent those of all Romney supporters.)Second, you imply that the entirety of freedom of speech restrictions originate from college campus "speech codes." In fact, we know this is not true. For example, flag desecration cases clearly deal with First Amendment rights. And as I recall, in the last Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, it was "the left" who strongly defended the First Amendment. Third, consider the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case; do you believe it was "the left" who wanted to ban this instance of speech? And, given the breakdown of the USSC decision, how do you explain the fact that the justices who are generally regarded as from "the left" dissented from the majority opinion with this comment:... the Court does serious violence to the First AmendmentFourth, you are certainly well aware of rightwing antipathy toward the ACLU. However, from the ACLU mission statement, there's this:The mission of the ACLU is to preserve...your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.If "the left" does "not believe in the First Amendment" as Elliot claims, why do rightwingers insist on associating the ACLU with "the left?"Again, I see no evidence that "the left" does "not believe in the First Amendment." Anyone else want to try to support this claim?
fstop,If the Founding Fathers came back from the grave and saw what we did to their creation they would foment the Revolution all over again and use the Constitution they wrote to justify it.
Sin-laden Obama has skeletons in his closet that Hillary referred to in one of the debates, specifically the slum-lord he worked with for 18 years who has raised millions of dollars for his campaigns. The Chicago Sun Times writes about it here:http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.articleThose articles would get more and more play if he becomes the front-runner, I would think. At any rate, we'll know more tomorrow about whether he's still in the race, or whether he'll go back to working for the slum-lord (I wondered while reading the article whether the Sopranos had gotten the idea for the slick officials in Newark who were once for the poor and yet sold them housing they never intended to deliver from Obama himself, or whether it is a much wider archetype).I like the idea of Hillary vs. McCain. They will be much more out front about what they think. They are two peas in a pod. Romney and Obama are two peas in a pod, too -- very slick, and difficult to see who they really are underneath all that smoothness.
Pogo,I'm genuinely flattered that you spend so much time thinking about me, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone else here is particularly interested in your obsession. May I suggest you move on?
Madison:I would not agree to you lumping conservatives like Bill Bennett and Coulter with a KKK member like David Duke. Bennett is a well-respected scholar and pundit and Coulter is a highly-educated pundit who uses hyperbole to get her view across. If it were up to some on the left, Coulter would be gagged. I say let a person speak and add evidence to their outrageness. Including a racist like Duke. As to "political bully", generally one can't be bullied without some degree of acquiesence to the bully. Applying your usage of the term, may would say the Clintons have been political bullies.
bruce, it seems to me that McCain could quickly become hated -- but I agree not to the level of Hillary or GWB -- and I'm not sure if democrats will ever hate him as much as some republicans. He strikes me as someone who holds a grudge and who can be mean. He's his own worst enemy as far as campaigning goes and he has bad instincts for the national stage.
Roger wrote:Reagan is clearly not the dunce as many suggested and was, in fact, a consummate diplomat (according to Matlock). I don't think Reagan critics can have it both ways on this one.Roger, I think you've created a strawman here. I think if you review my original post, you'll see that I primarily criticized Reagan's economic policies. While I'm a Reagan critic, it's clearly not for the reasons you imagine, and certainly not for the reasons you are assigning to other Reagan critics.My main point in my first response to you was that forces (military, political, economic) were the primary drivers in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan played a part, as did Gorbachev, Thatcher and others. Of those key players, I agree with Matlock's and Reagan's assessment that Gorbachev was the most influential in ending the Cold War. Although we disagree on this point, I appreciate your civil and intelligent comments, as usual.
aj lynch, are we talking about the same Bill Bennett? I refer to the one who inveigles against vice when not at the betting tables.
AJ Lynch said... I would not agree to you lumping conservatives like Bill Bennett... with a KKK member like David Duke. Bennett is a well-respected scholar and pundit.Bennett is a world class hypocrite and liar -- a guy with a million dollar gambling jones who has the incredible gall to lecture other people on morality. Your garden variety conservative role model/icon, in other words...
world class hypocrite and liarDoes that also make Jefferson a world class hypocrite and liar? He was against slavery but he wouldn't release his slaves.Or are you just another garden variety name caller?
Lawgiver said... Does that also make Jefferson a world class hypocrite and liar? He was against slavery but he wouldn't release his slaves.Thomas Jefferson, like Bill Bennett, is pontificating on TV a lot?How did I miss that?
The first mistake is your suggestion that those who favor "speech codes" on college campuses are representative of "the left." I have no evidence that this is true. Geez, cyrus. same old nonresponsiveness. I see no evidence of" what you were just given evidence of.Gorbachev was the most influential in ending the Cold War.He, and the left, would like to grab that credit, to be sure. But's all self-serving bullshit. Gorby was a standard party hack, who grew up and succeeded under the Communist Party rules, which means he was Old Guard all the way; ruthless and selfish. There is no statement, decision, rule, legislation, or action one can point to that shows Gorby doing anything other than bowing under the unavoidable decay of the Soviet state. There is nothing that Gorby did or said that suggested he wanted the USSR to dissolve. Instead, the Soviets knew they were done as soon as Reagan beagn to outspend them on SDI. Nevertheless, they were as belligerent as always, and as a result they committed hara kiri with the Afghan knife ...copiously assisted by the USA.Gorby or the DOS or the USSR military as responsible? What horsehockey. Reagan foresaw that the USSR could and would topple and, despite State Department mewling, he gave it a most effective shove. Any other reading is nonsense.May I suggest you move on?As soon as you can stop your passive aggressive non-responsive superior schtick, sure.
fstopfitzgerald said... Bennett is a world class hypocrite and liar -- a guy with a million dollar gambling jones who has the incredible gall to lecture other people on morality. Your garden variety conservative role model/icon, in other words...Bill Clinton- world class hypocrite and liar, serial adulterer who calls others liars: Your garden variety liberal role model/icon.FDR- world class hypocrite and liar, serial violator of the US Constitution: Your garden variety liberal role model/iconJFK- world class hypocrite and liar serial adulterer, serial violator of Constitution: Your garden variety liberal role model/iconLBJ- world class hypocrite and liar, corrupt politician, serial violator of Constitution: Your garden variety liberal role model/icon. Jimmy Carter- world class hypocrite and liar, abject failure: Your garden variety liberal role model/icon.
Pogo said... Reagan foresaw that the USSR could and would topple...It's an open secret among reporters who covered him at the time that Reagan was already senile for pretty much the whole second term, and probably part of the first.The idea that he foresaw anything, let alone the fall of the Soviet Union, is really hilarious...
Thomas Jefferson, like Bill Bennett, is pontificating on TV a lot?How did I miss that?You missed it because no one here has has talked about Bennett pontificating on TV.
In his books on morality and virtue Bennett does not claim himself as a model of virtue. He did not condemn gambling as immoral. Hypocrisy, though not evident regarding Bennett, is far superior to its replacement in the modern era, relativistic amoralism, as pure behavior seems lacking amongst our fellow humans.
So what have we learned on this thread?Incredibly enough, that Middle Class Guy thinks Bill Bennett is a better person than Thomas Jefferson and FDR.Wow.
It's an open secret.....Oh great, another troofer.
fstop,You really are dyslexic. I never said Bill Bennet is better than anyone. I just pointed out that there are hypocrites among your revered icons.How anyone could take you seriously is a total mystery, as taking you seriously would be an affront to your intelligence.
Pogo said... In his books on morality and virtue Bennett...did not condemn gambling as immoral.Yeah, he had a million reasons not to.What a shocker -- he's a hypocrite and a self-serving SOB.
It's an open secret among reporters who covered him at the time that... ....that they pretty much hated Reagan.Was he already senile "for pretty much the whole second term and probably part of the first"? I call bullshit. He was cared for at Mayo Clinic and was not diagnosed with dementia until the 1990s. You have proof otherwise? Show it.The idea that he foresaw anything, let alone the fall of the Soviet Union, is really...painful to the left.But Paul Johnson documents it. If you have the courage to read it.From the NYTimes Paul Johnson, the historian and journalist, gives Mr. Reagan credit for more than symbolic accomplishment. "Reagan's rearmament program, accompanied as it was by a resurgence in the U.S. economy, had a demoralizing effect on the Soviet elite," Mr. Johnson wrote in Foreign Affairs. "Thus," he continued, "the concept of perestroika was born, not merely of internal shame and exasperation at empty shops and shabby conditions, but of an external recognition that their chief ideological competitor, under Reagan's leadership, was far more formidable and durable than they had supposed."And others:"Michael R. Beschloss, the presidential historian, said he believed that the cold war had ended more quickly under Mr. Reagan than it would have had his opponent, Mr. Carter, been re-elected in 1980. "With Reagan," Mr. Beschloss said, "the Soviets could no longer con themselves into thinking they would prevail in the cold war because the American people had lost their will and strength and lost their taste for confronting Soviet aggression. They were sufficiently convinced that Reagan meant business." The Soviet economy, he said, was beginning to flag and Mr. Gorbachev was selected and "charged with improving the economy and making the best deal he could with the West."
HoosierDaddy, I'll accept that speech-squelchers are 'the left', and therefore part of my political philosophy, which is somewhat leftish, if you accept that David Duke and Ann Coulter and Bill Bennett are 'the right'.The best parallels to college professors and administrators that you could think of were David Duke and Ann Coulter?Come on. The appropriate left-wing parallels to Duke, Coulter, and Bennett are people like Louis Farakkhan, Ted Rall, and Al Gore -- not the American university system. The university system is dominated by the left, is responsible for the education of essentially all of our political, religious, and business leaders, and is strongly pro-censorship. You can't excuse that by pointing to a couple of political commentators and has-been politicians on the right.You're right that "left-wing" doesn't necessarily imply "pro-censorship" -- but the list of left-wingers consistently on record as being against "hate speech" laws and speech codes is depressingly short. Would you consider it credible for someone to argue that opposition to gay marriage isn't "conservative" on the grounds that *some* conservatives aren't against it?
Pogo said... I call bullshit. He was cared for at Mayo Clinic and was not diagnosed with dementia until the 1990s. You have proof otherwise? Show it.From a review of Lesley Stahl's memoir:In her new book "Reporting Live," former CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl writes that she and other reporters suspected that Reagan was "sinking into senility" years before he left office. She writes that White House aides "covered up his condition"-- and journalists chose not to pursue it.Stahl describes a particularly unsettling encounter with Reagan in the summer of 1986: her "final meeting" with the President, typically a chance to ask a few parting questions for a "going-away story." But White House Press Secretary Larry Speakes made her promise not to ask anything.Although she'd covered Reagan for years, the glazed-eyed and fogged-up President "didn't seem to know who I was," writes Stahl. For several moments as she talked to him in the Oval Office, a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room. Meanwhile, Speakes was literally shouting instructions to the President, reminding him to give Stahl White House souvenirs. 2/20/87"The simple truth is, 'I don't remember - period'" - President Reagan writing to the Tower Commission to set the record straight about whether he authorized the arms shipment in advance.Unfortunately, neither Reagan's testimony to the Tower Commission -- in which he was so out of it that the members actually grew alarmed -- or his first post-Presidency interview (only a week or two after Bush took office) with Bernard Shaw of CNN -- in which he basically drooled for an hour -- are available on YouTube.
Funny you guys were writing about Bill Bennett. He was just on CNN getting his makeup done.
Wow, Barack just won Georgia-that was quick.
Madison :Think for a minute. Ginormous Gambling habit qualifies Benett to be lumped with a racist and KKK member? If hypocrisy is your criterion, then why not lump Bill Clinton in there always clutching a Bible while leaving some church on sunday morning? Get a grip my friend- you are usually a fair observer and moderate commenter.
Hey...Hoosier...lets take little Fstop to WSG and gank his noobie butt. I suspect he is about 18 to 22 yrs old and already knows everything there is to know. Come on.. it will be fun.Having just finished my daily stint in the eeeeeviiil corporate world, short selling and buying some bargains for my client's accounts, taking advantage of the market and shilling for all of the corrupt corporations so they can further oppress the proletariat.....bwaahaaaahahh (evil Republican laugh).... I'm ready.
ajlynch -- I was reacting to your description of Bill Bennett as respected. No one I converse with -- an admittedly left-leaning group, but it does include scads of moderates and some actual Republicans -- thinks of Bill Bennett that way. They all comment on his writings with snark related to gambling. It's tough to scold when you do things that can be scolded. Hoisted on one's own petard, so to speak.And if you can find anything I post that runs counter to my underlying position that all politicians -- regardless of stripe -- are self-serving hypocrites who say/do anything to get elected, I'll cheerfully retract it.Now, having typed this for the 2nd time (Curse you Blogger!!) I'm off to look at the weather down south. Very exciting night in Memphis. Stay safe all of you in Shelby County!
Cyrus, my friend--I always enjoy interacting with you. And I have to ask you: where have you been on the blog? I miss your commentary (misguided as it always is :) ) I hope things are going well in the old country for you and your endeavours! We in the colonies are engaged in one of our quadrennial orgies of politics--I look forward to your observations.
So...anything going on in here?
Bruce Hayden said... This has been a fairly depressing thread, straying very quickly away from the article that Ann cited.True enough. This quickly degenerated into the classic Althouse insult fest about the time the Left Coast troll(s) got to the computer in the morning, Out There time.You know, Grounhog Day is coming up. This is just like last year's Grounhog Day on the Althouse blog. Will it be Groundhog Day forever now that these threads are trolled again? Some new screen names, but otherwise same old same old.The tag team of fstop, cyrus, and a few others, not to mention Trollmutter "Maxine" serve to disrupt conversation among more-or-less straightforward people attracted to Althouse's content and style. But of course we must be made fools of by our political and intellectual betters, right?Gotcha goin', huh? Boy, you Wingnuts are stooopid! Man! Watch them fall for these tricks! What tools! That's sick!I frankly don't understand the psychology of trolling, at least on this level. Is it to drive visitors away from an independent venue where people of different opinions share ideas? What's wrong with that? It's rare enough in the blogosphere. You'd think people actually interested in ideas would approve. Is it that the trollers think they are possessed of the entire truth, and want to stifle others' conversations? Is it just tactical, so that voters on the margins won't get ideas? That seems like a lot of wasted effort.As a parent of middle-schoolers, I understand the psychology of teenage proto-trolls. We used to call them "Snerts" behind the scenes at AOL years ago. But what would lead college faculty and grown-up people with degrees in psychology to engage in these tactics? Are they THAT immature?Narcissistic certainty of their own superiority and possession of the truth is one rather depressing answer. These people are NOT interested in ideas. They KNOW. You, the poor Schleps who want to talk politics are Untermenschen who do not know. They insult and taunt and insult some more. No conversations here.There is no reasoning with the likes of fstop or cyrus, or, for that matter, "Maxine," any more that there was with Maxine's avatar, Lucky. They are the faces of hostile certitude, determined to toy with us.Until they disappear, the ONLY response and interaction with these chimeras should be to completely, rigidly, and absolutely ignore them.
On the last episode of Desperate Fishwife’s…..A topic for discussion was advanced by Susan, the klutzy diva who is the center of the story, but was immediately diverted by Bree who was interested in the flow of bodily fluids when a dispute broke about between Lynette, the overbearing business type with the bitch vibe and Gabby the slut. Everyone else joined in starting seven different conversations at once which made it seem like a Robert Altman movie on meth. It will take quite a while to sort it all out.
Theo,I'm sorry you don't like my comments. It's really a terrible shame. However, you're not making a valuable contribution to the Althouse blog when you whine at length about it.I wonder if Professor Althouse approves of your effort to ostracize the commenters YOU don't like. Frankly, I think it shows poor judgment and bad manners on your part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as you are a guest here, isn't it inappropriate for you to decide which guests are not welcome?
I will remember November '07 until the beginning of February '08 as something of a Golden Age on the Althouse blog.Now they're baaack!Here is a "discussion" with a troll.At least we have the option of ignoring them.What Gandolf says at the end.
Trooper,Belated congrats for your SB victory!My small consolation is the Cowboys beat them 2 out of 3. Just wait till next year, the Giants are going down baby!
Thanks Lawgiver. I am very happy with the young guys on our team. We might make a little bit of a run here. Just be happy that Tony dropped Jessica. I just hope and pray he doesn't take up with one of the Olsen twins. That could be deadly.
HoosierDaddy, I'll accept that speech-squelchers are 'the left', and therefore part of my political philosophy, which is somewhat leftish, if you accept that David Duke and Ann Coulter and Bill Bennett are 'the right'.Are Ann and Bill out there trying to establish speech codes or shouting down campus speakers? And isn't the only thing David Duke saying these days is paper or plastic?
fstopLesley Stahl being ignored or unrecognized by Pres. Reagan = so whatLesley Stahl being ignored by Pres. Reagan ≠ senileshe and other reporters suspected that Reagan was "sinking into senility" years before he left office.They were calling him a doddering old fool before he even took office. So what? 'Reporters not liking a Republican so he must be evil/senile/crazy' is like saying the sun shines. It's part of the liberal left media circus to call the Republicans idiots, just as Bush Sr and Jr have been called.Phffft.
you go losergrrl
theo boehm wrote:I will remember November '07 until the beginning of February '08 as something of a Golden Age on the Althouse blog.Now they're baaack!Theo, it's wonderful that you have such fond memories of past times. To the extent that my presence on the Althouse blog contributes to your current state of misery, I'm sorry. I can assure you that I have no desire to cause you to whine endlessly in your posts.What can be done to protect your sensitive nature? I have a proposal that may appeal to you. If you can find five more regular Althouse commenters who are willing to post a suggestion that I leave, I will do so without complaint. This is your opportunity, Theo, to be proactive and redirect the energy you currently put into moaning into something useful. I'll even help you get started. I suspect you can get some help from at least a few of the following: Pogo, Simon, Cedarford, Revenant, Methadras.Good luck with your censorship project, Theo.
Hey...Hoosier...lets take little Fstop to WSG and gank his noobie butt. I suspect he is about 18 to 22 yrs old and already knows everything there is to know. Come on.. it will be fun.Yes it would. Why do I have the sneaking feeling he'd be a Gnome to boot?
Good luck with your censorship project, Theo.The arrogance and pretentiousness is astounding, if pitiable.
But you have to admit it's kinda cute in a British accent. After all that's what those limey douches are known for after all.Think of the tiny bald headed guy that Benny Hill always bopped on the head.
trooper york babbled:But you have to admit it's kinda cute in a British accent.British accent? Are you really as stupid as you are pretending to be? Watch out Pogo, Trooper York looks like a serious contender for your title.
Theo: You are absolutely correct when you advise against engaging with trolls. And the clip from "Lord of the Rings" was not bad, either.However, I would advise you to not get so upset. Their whole raison d'être is to get a rise out of you. That is their purpose, and they are fed by it. The Althousetrollen are particularly adept at using language carefully chosen for the maximum emotional effect. The various characters each have a persona and affect well-crafted to stir up a strong emotional response. This points to a person or persons with good psychological training behind them.Sometimes bantering with trolls can turn the tables, as you might have seen in my little tête-à-tête with "Maxine" last night. Anyone may make their own interpretation, but I think I got to her just a bit. Plus, the appearance of "fstopfitzgerald"--a really stupid stunt as it happened--allowed me to prove to my satisfaction, at least, that "Maxine" and "fstop" have the same origin--an IP address at UCLA. Someone suggested it, and I now tend to agree that "Maxine" and the former "Luckyoldson" are probably the same, as well, but I can't prove that.Anyway, the point is that the Althouse blog, for all of its charms and interests, is easily and frequently trolled. It's a fact of life here, and if you want to comment--which I haven't done for a while--you have to live with it.The purpose and politics of trolls is another story. But I would say as a consolation that normal, straightforward people who want to have a conversation are much better off as people in this world than the warped souls who find the need to engage in these stunts.And I certainly have nothing to say now to any troll who would attempt a response. All the rest of you may see for yourselves what these people are doing, and how absurd it really is.
I'm not even in Trooper York's league; I'm AA at best, but more fat guy summer league, really.
That's all very well, Inspector, but, really, there are too many words.I have a British accent, if you want to call it that, and I say, "Fuck off, Cyrus."If you're taking a poll, you may count that as a vote.
Come on Cyrus; don't get your diapers in a bunch. In fact, I take it back; you are not the little bald guy in Benny Hill. No, that's not you at all. A talking baby bent on world domination and matricide. A condescending sniveling snot.Stewie Griffin.Yeah, that's the ticket.
Oooooooooh!!! losergrrl, I love a British accent on a loverly lady. Can you say:"Please governur, will you pull down my knickers and address my naughty bits. Eh wot."That's hot.
Trooper, whether or not you find it arousing, I will say to you, in my 'loverly' British way, fuck off.This site seems to attract British expats and some in the UK. You may recall relentlessly cheerful Victoria, with her barmy non sequiturs.Think of me as the antidote.
Isn't it pronounced "fook off" or is that in the Irish?
Trooper York wrote:Come on Cyrus; don't get your diapers in a bunch.This should read: "don't get your knickers in a twist."You're welcome; glad to be of help.
Post a Comment