Althouse: "I think it's Althouse's popularity among conservatives that really gets a lot of liberals."

April 9, 2009

"I think it's Althouse's popularity among conservatives that really gets a lot of liberals."

"They can’t fathom how such supposedly narrow-minded right-wingers could appreciate the work of a blogress who doesn’t share our political sentiments and often criticizes our party’s candidates. Her popularity on the right shows that we welcome and appreciate those who don’t toe the conservative line, who hold different points of view than our own."

205 comments:

1 – 200 of 205 Newer› Newest»

Unknown said...: GayPatriot is an anti-gay bigot.
--- downtownlad; 4/9/09, 9:39 AM
Big Mike said...: Or, maybe some of us right-of-center types just like your sense of humor and approach to life.; 4/9/09, 9:40 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: She’s basically an equal opportunity riffer.

The line that made the most sense.; 4/9/09, 9:41 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: GayPatriot is an anti-gay bigot.
--- downtownlad

Are you sure he would say that? I thought he would say something along the lines of Gay Patriot is a homophobe.; 4/9/09, 9:43 AM
ricpic said...: Althouse is popular because her site is small c catholic. Variety is the spice that keeps so many coming back for more, not politics. Plus good pitchers.; 4/9/09, 9:47 AM
rhhardin said...: Nobody has mentioned a sense of humor.; 4/9/09, 9:52 AM
rhhardin said...: Nobody has mentioned a sense of humor

Oh, somebody has.

I was thinking more of it selecting away the left, leaving what you see.; 4/9/09, 9:53 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "I thought he would say something along the lines of Gay Patriot is a homophobe."

No, dtl thinks Gay Patriot is a self-hating homosexual, if I recall correctly. In any event, I'm sure he'll be along soon to set the record straight (as it were).

On the other point, speaking as a dyed-in-the-wool, rock-ribbed Rethuglikkan, I enjoy the blistering takedowns a lot of the left-of-center posters here. But in fairness, they - or at least AlphaLiberal and Freder Frederson (who knew the Alt-House had a "Metropolis" fan?), to name two posters off the top of my head - come to the table with interesting viewpoints every now and again.

So, as Mr Bill Cosby would say, "stick around, you might learn something."; 4/9/09, 9:57 AM
John said...: It is interesting how people like Downtown Lad and Alpha liberal seem to beer so much animus towards anyone who disagrees with them about anything, but at the same time are convinced it is everyone else and not them who is bigoted and narrow-minded.

Ann is very much a centrist. Further her site is sometimes funny and almost always interesting. Who cares if she toes the right or left line as long as she is entertaining. That is the real difference between the left and right. The right can look at someone they disagree with and still appreciate them being a smart, intelligent and entertaining person. The left can never admit any unqualified virtues of anyone who disagrees with them. For the left it is all about emotion, good versus evil kind of stuff. I think for most leftist, politics rather than an intellectual endeavor is a personal, emotional endeavor about working out whatever issues they may have. For them, the personal really is the political.; 4/9/09, 9:57 AM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: This site is popular because of its very dysfunctionally functional family, that is us, the commenters, and the blogress (new term, but I like it, it has a whip crack sound to it...maybe just to me...) We sort of hate or love each other for 5 seconds, and move on, except the usual trolls.; 4/9/09, 9:58 AM
Ron said...: Me, I'm here for the breast blogging...and the Meade Lurve, of course!; 4/9/09, 10:07 AM
The Dude said...: Mmm, animated beer...; 4/9/09, 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: We will not tolerate the intolerant!; 4/9/09, 10:17 AM
Donna B. said...: I read Althouse because there is almost always something amusing and something thought-provoking. I love it best when she combines the two and lights a fire under the commenters.; 4/9/09, 10:20 AM
Anthony said...: It is interesting how people like Downtown Lad and Alpha liberal seem to beer so much animus towards anyone who disagrees with them about anything, but at the same time are convinced it is everyone else and not them who is bigoted and narrow-minded.

"Everyone is lost but me."
-- Indiana Jones; 4/9/09, 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: I come here for the adorable pony pics.

You can't find those on DailyKos.; 4/9/09, 10:23 AM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 10:31 AM
GayPatriot said...: Did we resolve the question. Am I an anti-gay bigot? A self-loathing gay? Or a homophobe?

It is so hard to keep track of the flying psychoanalyses.; 4/9/09, 10:35 AM
John said...: It is interesting how Althouse draws the ire of so many liberals. There is nothing about her that is particularly right wing. She is a bit of a den mother and calls out stupid young women on the left, such as calling out the one blogger for thrusting her tits out to Bill Clinton. But beyond that, I would like to hear just what liberals find so objectionable about Althouse other than she isn't 100% party line all the time. If Althouse isn't welcome at the liberal party, who is?; 4/9/09, 10:36 AM
Peter Hoh said...: I'm what passes for a liberal here, but if you put me in a room full of Alphaliberals, I'd look like a right-winger.

I'm here for the Salon. There are too few places where people of different political persuasions gather for (mostly) civil discourse. To pick up on an idea I put forth on Amba's blog, I think the commenters here are more separated by our political aversions than our political persuasions.

And it blows me away when someone like the Mariner can bring an insider's perspective to a thread, as happened with the piracy thread yesterday.; 4/9/09, 10:40 AM
Darcy said...: Woo! GayPatriot shows up.

And a hearty "Yes!" to what you wrote, sir.; 4/9/09, 10:40 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Gay Patriot,
You will find out when the children wake up. It won't be long.; 4/9/09, 10:41 AM
former law student said...: Her popularity on the right shows that we welcome and appreciate those who don’t toe the conservative line, who hold different points of view than our own.

Then left wing talk radio would be as popular as right wing talk radio, as listeners who get their day's talking points from Sean Hannity would welcome and appreciate the chance to listen to Randi Rhodes.

So I'm gonna say a big Nuh-uh to this explanation.

I'm going to say, Althouse's appeal is that, like a demanding parent, she is harder on her own than she is on the right-wing.

The Poplawski cop shooting was a perfect liberal blogger topic (Democrat-controlled government leads to fear of Draconian gun control measures, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck listeners prepare for Armageddon), yet the good professor ignored it.; 4/9/09, 10:41 AM
Unknown said...: You mean she's a liberal John McCain?; 4/9/09, 10:58 AM
Invisible Man said...: It is interesting how Althouse draws the ire of so many liberals. There is nothing about her that is particularly right wing. She is a bit of a den mother and calls out stupid young women on the left, such as calling out the one blogger for thrusting her tits out to Bill Clinton. But beyond that, I would like to hear just what liberals find so objectionable about Althouse other than she isn't 100% party line all the time. If Althouse isn't welcome at the liberal party, who is?

Lord knows that people are going to shriek when they read this, but you juxtapose Ann's treatment with Andrew Sullivan and she's got a much easier time. I don't mean to say that liberals don't go after Ann pretty harshly and even personally, but Sully gets a homophobic rant everytime his name comes up here or any other right of center blog. So, while the sentiment here is about and very sympathetic of Ann personally, turning this into a partisan thing is a very self-involved pursuit.; 4/9/09, 11:01 AM
Salamandyr said...: Well, Randi Rhodes wouldn't be my cup of tea, even if I were a liberal. And there seems to be a little projection there on the talking points thing, FLS.

Althouse appeals to those she appeals to because she has an interesting perspective on events, one that isn't entirely left or right, and doesn't spend her time making cheap shots at people just for having opinions that don't line up with hers.

And she's cute as all get out.; 4/9/09, 11:02 AM
DaLawGiver said...: Mr Patriot nailed it.; 4/9/09, 11:07 AM
Beth said...: Who are these "our party's candidates" that Althouse so often criticizes? Not so much.

I agree on the whole that left-wing bloggers tend to be afflicted with ADS - not entirely unjustified, but over the top, nonetheless.

Like Peter, I like the salon atmosphere here. But GayPatriot overstates Althouse's centrality, and underestimates her attention-seeking design. No one does "performance art" without seeking attention.; 4/9/09, 11:18 AM
Big Mike said...: @Trooper, you just made me realize. I haven't noticed a comment from Titus in several days. Does anybody know if he's okay?; 4/9/09, 11:22 AM
The Dude said...: Titus has not commented in a couple of weeks. Do I miss him? No.; 4/9/09, 11:28 AM
DaLawGiver said...: Then left wing talk radio would be as popular as right wing talk radio, as listeners who get their day's talking points from Sean Hannity would welcome and appreciate the chance to listen to Randi Rhodes.

Interesting choice to compare with Hannity. Randi Rhodes was fired from Air America, which itself had filed chapter 11, when she declared, "Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag ... What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a fucking whore! I wanna see her have to stand beside her husband at one of those mandatory 'I have sinned against you; I'm a whore' kind of a press conference. Mr. Ferraro should have to stand next to his whore of a wife ... Hillary is a big fucking whore, too. You know why she's a big fucking whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, asshole!'"

Arbitron ratings are interesting too. Fox news and it's commentators dominate CNN, MSNBC,etc. Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity own the AM talk radio audience. Why? I go with the theory, that on average conservatives are more inclusive and intelligent than liberals.

Beth is very intelligent and she gets bonus points for being from The Big Easy but she's an exception.; 4/9/09, 11:30 AM
John said...: "Lord knows that people are going to shriek when they read this, but you juxtapose Ann's treatment with Andrew Sullivan and she's got a much easier time. I don't mean to say that liberals don't go after Ann pretty harshly and even personally, but Sully gets a homophobic rant everytime his name comes up here or any other right of center blog. So, while the sentiment here is about and very sympathetic of Ann personally, turning this into a partisan thing is a very self-involved pursuit."

If Ann ever became obsessed with crackpot conspiracy theories and the OBGYN records of VP candidates like Sullivan did, I would expect her to be treated just as bad Sullivan has been. Ann is a funny sarcastic law professor. Sullivan is a derranged lunatic. You can't really compare the two.; 4/9/09, 11:32 AM
traditionalguy said...: My experience among many insecure but powerful and influential persons has been that they are conflicted by any person who is smart and competent: while they do want to have use of that person's skills, they do not feel comfortable around someone who is smart enough to be free from being under their domination. So the Professor always drives them nuts. End of story is that commenters here have to be secure people. Nuts maybe, but secure.; 4/9/09, 11:35 AM
Paul said...: Jeez by now it's only too obvious that the left is filled with ideological puritans, and like all puritans they are filled with murderous hate for all infidels, and particularly heretics.

Lockstep thinking and persecution of outsiders is the spiritual essence of fascism as opposed to the live and let live disposition of most conservative-libertarian types.

Of course there runs in the blood of us pro American conservatives a big healthy dose of "don't tread on me", so there will likely be bloodshed before this is all over.; 4/9/09, 11:40 AM
Joseph said...: I disagree with the sentiment. Although I believe Althouse is a liberal on most issues other than use of military force, rights of the accused and progressive taxation. I don't think its fair to label her schtick a moderate liberal who criticizes conservatives and liberals with equal force.

When she addresses politics, I think she takes on a (maybe subconscious) devil's advocate role, pointing out weaknesses in her (nominal) own side's presentation. And as a smart person and an experienced Socratic teacher of smart people, she does it well, and does it in a way that really annoys the people she does it to. People often find devils' advocates really annoying because on some level you know they don't really believe their own arguments. Its really just play for them, the payoff of which the pleasure they find in frustrating you. As Althouse has said, this is performance art for her. And performance artists also have a reputation for being annoying.

The criticisms she offers of conservatives are much more superficial, less acidic, and less frequent (e.g., "Oh, Rush, my hero, if only you would be more versatile in your hating on Obama"). Conservatives get less frustrated with her because her criticisms of conservatives and conservatism tend to be much more banal.; 4/9/09, 11:45 AM
Darcy said...: Big Mike: Titus has commented @ Trooper's in the last couple of days.; 4/9/09, 11:46 AM
Beth said...: so there will likely be bloodshed before this is all over.

Jesus, what is it with you guys? Lose an election and the next thing you know, you're talking bloodshed. Not real invested in the system unless you run it, I see.; 4/9/09, 11:46 AM
Beth said...: Conservatives get less frustrated with her because her criticisms of conservatives and conservatism tend to be much more banal.

Bingo! We have a winner.; 4/9/09, 11:48 AM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 11:52 AM
Chennaul said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 11:52 AM
John said...: "Conservatives get less frustrated with her because her criticisms of conservatives and conservatism tend to be much more banal."

Liberals just think Ann's attacks on them are worse because they are humorless, smug and thin skinned. Liberals can't take dissent and they especially hate it when someone else wins an arguement.; 4/9/09, 11:54 AM
Invisible Man said...: If Ann ever became obsessed with crackpot conspiracy theories and the OBGYN records of VP candidates like Sullivan did, I would expect her to be treated just as bad Sullivan has been. Ann is a funny sarcastic law professor. Sullivan is a derranged lunatic. You can't really compare the two.

Why can't you compare the two. You posed one example of crazy. Ann's done similar things like criticizing a blogger for having big breaasts, or calling people who think Jindal is kind of dork racists or seeing letters in commercials. I mean I never bought the Palin is the grandmother thing, but Palin was also telling us what a great young man her potential son-in-law was too. Not trusting that loon ain't what I'd call crazy.; 4/9/09, 11:57 AM
Sofa King said...: She criticized McCain and voted for Obama. Are you saying it was for entirely banal reasons?

Plus, let's get real. Liberals dominate the House, the Senate, the Presidency, much of the judiciary, almost all large cities, and a majority of states. At the moment, they are doing probably 80-90% of the actual governing. Doesn't it seem rational that this scenario would yield far more substantive criticism of liberals, even if a person was assiduously even-handed in their substantive criticism?

This demand for "equal outcome" of criticism is a blatant rejection of the reality that conservatives are doing little of consequence.; 4/9/09, 11:59 AM
Joseph said...: It does make me smile a little to appreciate the cognitive dissonance of commenters who write things like "Liberals are all intolerant of other people."; 4/9/09, 12:03 PM
John said...: "I mean I never bought the Palin is the grandmother thing, but Palin was also telling us what a great young man her potential son-in-law was too. Not trusting that loon ain't what I'd call crazy."

Sullivan's treatment of Palin and his obsession with her OBGYN records was disgracful and should have gotten him fired from the Atlantic. As far as Palin being a loon. Since when it is lunacy to try to give the benefit of the doubt to the father of your grandson?

As far as her daughter getting knocked up, if liberals are shocked by that and think that it somehow implicates Palin's integrity much less sanity, why are they not equally appalled by long time drug warrior Joe Biden's daughter on video snorting coke? Did Joe's un- relenting support of the drug war effect his daughter in negative ways? Doesn't her use of drugs say he was a bad father? Certainly, if it were Palin's daughter, those questions would be asked and debated to death by Sullivan and his ilk. But since it is Biden, it is a private family matter not to be discussed in polite company.; 4/9/09, 12:06 PM
Invisible Man said...: Jeez by now it's only too obvious that the right is filled with ideological puritans, and like all puritans they are filled with murderous hate for all infidels, and particularly heretics.

/David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Lincoln Chaffee, Michael Steele and Arlen Spector; 4/9/09, 12:06 PM
John said...: "It does make me smile a little to appreciate the cognitive dissonance of commenters who write things like "Liberals are all intolerant of other people."

In order for it to be cognitive dissonance, it would have to be literally true that liberals are incapable of intollerance such that the term liberal could never logically be associated with the term "intollerant". Are you really so smug as to believe that no self identified liberal anywhere could ever be intollerant? That it is a logical impossiblity? Hint, you can't solve a problem until you admit you have one and generally the harder someone denies that they have a problem, the more likly it is they have a big problem.; 4/9/09, 12:08 PM
Jeremy said...: John said..."It is interesting how people like Downtown Lad and Alpha liberal seem to beer so much animus towards anyone who disagrees with them about anything, but at the same time are convinced it is everyone else and not them who is bigoted and narrow-minded."

You think these two are the ones throwing out the "animus towards anyone who disagrees with them about anything?"

Now that's funny.; 4/9/09, 12:10 PM
John said...: "You think these two are the ones throwing out the "animus towards anyone who disagrees with them about anything?"

So disagreeing and making an argument is now animus? I don't hold any animus towards anyone. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.; 4/9/09, 12:13 PM
Henry said...: I think FLS is right:

The Poplawski cop shooting was a perfect liberal blogger topic ... yet the good professor ignored it.

Why would Althouse ignore a perfect liberal blogger topic?

Well maybe because Althouse doesn't think in reductive, causal, point-scoring boilerplate. If she did, I'd stop reading.

To put it positively -- it's the open-endedness, stupid.; 4/9/09, 12:15 PM
Ron said...: I tend to see McCain as a right-wing Althouse myself...; 4/9/09, 12:18 PM
Joseph said...: You misunderstand my point, John. "My group is tolerant and accepting, your group is all intolerant and unaccepting." That statement makes clear that the speaker is intolerant and willing to make overbroad and intolerant statments about people in other groups, the very thing he purports to object to in the other group.; 4/9/09, 12:20 PM
Invisible Man said...: As far as her daughter getting knocked up, if liberals are shocked by that and think that it somehow implicates Palin's integrity much less sanity, why are they not equally appalled by long time drug warrior Joe Biden's daughter on video snorting coke?

Nice strawman argument, but your missing the point. Sarah Palin is a serial liar, that's the point. And when Joe Biden trots his daughter as a show pony trying to convince us that his daughter's drug use is a good thing, hypocritically just for him, then you can make that argument.; 4/9/09, 12:20 PM
Jennifer said...: I don't know if I agree with GayPatriot's entire analysis, but the title headline certainly nails it.

In my experience, passionate politicos from both sides are often extremely intolerant of those on other side. It also seems that a higher percentage of liberals are passionate about their politics. I think that explains most of the perception of relative tolerance. Now, whether that is because we've begun to define anyone to the right of Al Gore as conservative or whether conservative ideals lend themselves to more moderate interpretation, I don't know...; 4/9/09, 12:20 PM
Joseph said...: John, the same point could be applied to your statements regarding liberals being smug and humorless.; 4/9/09, 12:22 PM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: From the Merriam-Webster:

tol·er·ance
Pronunciation: \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance , fortitude , stamina
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something : toleration
3: the allowable deviation from a standard ; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1): the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure [developed a tolerance to painkillers] ; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2): relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor b: the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food

Joseph Hovsep, would you care to explain your interpretation of tolerant/intolerant vis-a-vis its definition?; 4/9/09, 12:26 PM
John said...: You misunderstand my point, "John. "My group is tolerant and accepting, your group is all intolerant and unaccepting." That statement makes clear that the speaker is intolerant and willing to make overbroad and intolerant statments about people in other groups, the very thing he purports to object to in the other group."

Are there tolerant liberals? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there. But that fact does not excuse the liberal blogspheres attacks on Althouse. While there may be tolerant liberals, the ones who are going after Althouse aren't among them. To point out instances of intollerance by members of a group certainly is evidence that the group is in fact intollerant. If you don't think that is true, then give evidence otherwise. But, pointing out evidence of intollerance does not make the person doing the pointing intollerant. That is just sophistry on your part. More importantly, it is just an transparant attempt to avoid discussing the appalling behavior on your side by changing the subject.; 4/9/09, 12:27 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 12:30 PM
John Stodder said...: It does make me smile a little to appreciate the cognitive dissonance of commenters who write things like "Liberals are all intolerant of other people."

Liberals' tolerance is a mile wide and a centimeter thick. I think we've all known liberals who are palpably racist or sexist, but then bend over backwards to make sure everyone knows they are big supporters of affirmative action. One guy I knew, a guy who gave a fair amount of money to liberal causes, reflexively whispered whenever he said the word "black" in reference to a person.

So, no, there is no cognitive dissonance in saying this at all. Today's liberals think they are better people than everyone else. Ergo, they don't have to defend their ideas using logic, and it's why they've of late fallen into this comically pseudo macho routine of telling anyone who disagrees with them to "shut the fuck up," while demanding that liberal politicians who question the dogma "grow a pair."

Liberals are very, very threatened by changes in their environment and by anyone who challenges them intellectually or morally. Perpetually threatened people tend not to be very tolerant, even though they might claim otherwise.; 4/9/09, 12:32 PM
John said...: "Nice strawman argument, but your missing the point. Sarah Palin is a serial liar, that's the point. And when Joe Biden trots his daughter as a show pony trying to convince us that his daughter's drug use is a good thing, hypocritically just for him, then you can make that argument."

Joe Biden probably barely has a three digit IQ and is a national embarassment. Further, Palin never used her daughter as a show pony any more than any other politician does. The difference is that some people are so blinded with hatred of the other side, it doesn't bother them to go after families and or anything else that is useful to tear the other side down.

Further, Joe Biden's daughter's behavior is very relevent. Does Joe Biden want his daughter to go to jail? That is what would happen to her if she were a poor black person caught using crack. Shouldn't his daughter's drug use and apparent ability to get away with it contrasted with the millions of people who are rotting in jail today for drug crimes cause him to rethink his support for a failed, racist drug war?

The drug war is immoral and has ruined 1000s of lives. Granted both parties are responsible for it. But when a prominant drug warrior on either side's kid gets involved in drugs, they ought to be called out for it.; 4/9/09, 12:34 PM
Jennifer said...: John's response here is almost like a caricature. "You're all intolerant! Even if some of you are tolerant, you're all intolerant! You should not speak but to apologize for your intolerance! I will tolerate nothing else!"; 4/9/09, 12:34 PM
John Stodder said...: If Althouse really wanted to drive liberals up a wall, she ought to try to land some advertising from the Democratic Party.

The fearless, independent bloggers of the left are demanding to be paid a lot more money to spout the party line: http://tinyurl.com/c7cnmt. Apparently, they don't understand the concept that it's a waste of time to preach to the choir.; 4/9/09, 12:37 PM
Jennifer said...: That said, I generally accept the notion that conservatives - contrary to stereotype - are more tolerant of others' differences.

I come from a quite liberal, West Coast existence. I now work among an extremely conservative, rather backwoods group. I would almost guarantee that none of these gentlemen here would find a spot in my previous life where they were so roundly accepted and respected as I have been here.; 4/9/09, 12:39 PM
John said...: "Are there tolerant liberals? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there. But that fact does not excuse the liberal blogspheres attacks on Althouse."

Jennifer,

Why is that sentence so hard to understand? Which part of "I am sure there are tolerant liberals" is so complex and hard to get? I never said all liberals were intolerant. Only the ones that are attacking Althouse.

The bottom-line is that there are any number of examples of liberals being intolerant jerks. The proper response to that should be "yes, but what about all of these other examples where liberals are very tolerant". But that response isn't getting made. The response instead is "how dare you say a liberal is intolerant, that is cognitive dissonance. Liberals are by definition tolerant". That is a pretty weak response and speaks to some real defensiveness on the part of the people making it.; 4/9/09, 12:41 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Titus has flown the coop. He hasn't posted here since just about exactly the time I said I'm getting married. Is that a gay thing -- sort of adoring independent unattached women and rejecting them when they find love with a man?; 4/9/09, 12:44 PM
Jennifer said...: "how dare you say a liberal is intolerant, that is cognitive dissonance. Liberals are by definition tolerant"

I don't think that's anything even approaching what Joseph Hovsep said.

I agree that that attitude when it shows up is annoying. But, I don't see it here.; 4/9/09, 12:44 PM
Joseph said...: "Are there tolerant liberals? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there. But that fact does not excuse the liberal blogspheres attacks on Althouse."... Why is that sentence so hard to understand?

Try replacing "tolerant liberals" with another group and you might see how ridiculous and intolerant it sounds.

"Are there nice black people? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there."

"Are there nice Catholics? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there.

"Are there nice gay people? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there.; 4/9/09, 12:47 PM
Jeremy said...: John - "So disagreeing and making an argument is now animus?"

No.

YOU said the animus was coming from the two mentioned.

I think most of it comes in the other direction.

Maybe I misunderstood your point, but you did say: "It is interesting how people like Downtown Lad and Alpha liberal seem to beer so much animus towards anyone who disagrees with them about anything, but at the same time are convinced it is everyone else and not them who is bigoted and narrow-minded."; 4/9/09, 12:47 PM
Unknown said...: In my experience, passionate politicos from both sides are often extremely intolerant of those on other side. It also seems that a higher percentage of liberals are passionate about their politics. I think that explains most of the perception of relative tolerance.

I think Jennifer's analysis here is best. Anyone who reads a semi-political blog on a regular basis is more politically active than the majority of the populace. I'm not making an accusation of ignorance or apathy when I say that. It's just that most people don't let political conflict bleed into their day-to-day lives.

A characteristic of the hardcore, on either side, is they don't know when to shut up. On that score I do think the left has more than its share. I've got about 300 "friends" on Facebook. Most of them use it in a lighthearted, social fashion. The ones who insist on filling their status updates and news feeds with serious, unfunny political shouts are liberals. Without exception.; 4/9/09, 12:50 PM
John said...: Joseph Hovsep

Is it your position that you can never make any generalized statements about groups of people based upon particularlized examples of behavior? If so, then I expect you to never to do that with regard to conservatives. More importantly, I can play your game to. How about this

Are there tolerant communists? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there.

Are there tolerant Puritans? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there.

Are there tolerant KKK members? Sure somewhere. I don't seem to meet many but I am sure they are there.

Why do those statements not ring false? Because the particularlized behavior of those groups is such that they seem pretty intolerant. Now, liberals are not communists or nazis. But they aren't that different from Puritans. They just worship government rather than God. We have had 9 years of the liberal blogsphere screaming shut the fuck up and fascist at everyone who disagreed with them. I don't think it is going too far out on a limb to say that liberals are developing a nasty intolerant streak and that their dislike of Althouse is more evidence of it.; 4/9/09, 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Joseph, you stupid fuck, leftists aren't somehow branded at birth with their political beliefs. There's nothing wrong and everything right about talking about how intolerant they are.

The fact that you made such a robotically thoughtless analogy really does demonstrate how lamely orthodox and unthinking your views are. Must equate everything I don't like to racism and anti-gay senitment...Must equate everything I don't like to racism and anti-gay senitment...; 4/9/09, 12:56 PM
Joseph said...: I think making overbroad generalizations about people is lazy and sloppy and closeminded. Fill in whatever you like in that blank, I think it sounds ridiculous unless you are talking about an obviously hateful or evil group (KKK members, serial killers, child molesters) of which "liberals" are not one.

And Seven, I do think that most people develop baseline political philosophies early in life and spend more of their lives defending those beliefs than evaluating what they should believe. And I think political disposition is probably quite similar to religious or sexual behavior in this way--they involve willful action to identify with but they are often much more subconscious or semiconscious that we might admit.; 4/9/09, 1:05 PM
TMink said...: "They can’t fathom how such supposedly narrow-minded right-wingers . . ."

No, they can't. That is why conservatives avoid them. You cannot have a conversation or discussion with them, they lack the mental facility and/or emotional maturity to do so.

Althouse can think and feel in a healthy manner. She is a fine writer, picks more than her share of interesting topics, and the crowd she attracts and cultivates are great to hang with.

The people who hate Althouse are interested in strict obedience, not productive discussion and growth. As a Christian, it is amusing to me how absolutley religious they are!

Nobody expects the Liberal Inquisition.

Trey; 4/9/09, 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Joseph -- That's absolutely laughable.; 4/9/09, 1:08 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Beth,

Surely someone as intelligent as you knows there's a difference between a prediction and a hope.; 4/9/09, 1:10 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Oy, Trooper, just because Titus and his loaf are taking a very welcome vacation, you don't need to go filling in the TMI gap!!! :-); 4/9/09, 1:11 PM
TMink said...: John asked "Are there tolerant Puritans?"

An interesting question. A have a friend who grew up near the Amish here in Tennessee. He told me that they were fine folks who were dedicated to their way of life but could care less about other people's choices. His father was a Vet and would go into Etheridge for large animal problems. When my friend tagged along, he was amazed at how friendly and funny the Amish were.

I too thought of them as uptight and literally holier than thou, but he set me straight.

He said the funniest dirty joke he ever heard was told by an Amish man.

Trey; 4/9/09, 1:11 PM
John said...: Joseph,

Puritans were not evil, they were just intollerant. You can't seriously claim that it is impossible to generalize about self identified groups of people. Red Sox fans tend to be very intolerant of Yankee fans and vice versa. Is that a stupid and lazy generalization? I think not. Cuban exiles are intollerant of Cuban communists. Again, what is untrue or lazy about that statement?

At some point the particularlized behavior of a self identified group, as opposed to a racial group where people can't chose to leave the group, becomes representative of the whole. If liberal intollerance hasn't become representative of the whole, fine give some examples of liberals tolerating differing opinions.; 4/9/09, 1:13 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 1:13 PM
John said...: TMink,

I was thinking more of Puritans of the 17th Century variety rather than modern Amish.; 4/9/09, 1:14 PM
Kirk Parker said...: "He said the funniest dirty joke he ever heard was told by an Amish man."

Absolutely no one will believe you unless you post it here for review.; 4/9/09, 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, Amish and Puritan aren't related at all.

Furthermore, Puritans were certainly no less intolerant that modern leftists in adherence to their orthodoxies.; 4/9/09, 1:17 PM
Beth said...: Kirk, you should recognize the similarity between a prediction and a warning.; 4/9/09, 1:19 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - "Joseph, you stupid fuck, leftists aren't somehow branded at birth with their political beliefs."

See?

Tolerance personified.

Duh.; 4/9/09, 1:21 PM
Beth said...: Joseph, you stupid fuck

Another warm moment of welcome and appreciation, from the right.; 4/9/09, 1:21 PM
Joseph said...: "Joseph -- That's absolutely laughable."

I'm glad a stupid fuck like me can provide you with some laughs at least.; 4/9/09, 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Beth -- Surely you can see the comic and intellectual value in shock. Further, calling someone stupid or a fuck is not intolerant. Intolerance is advocating laws against hate speech, something the left is very prone to do.

And Michael, why the need to change your name when the song remains the same? You really are a stupid fuck.; 4/9/09, 1:25 PM
walter neff said...: Beth that is not the real Seven Machos posting. That is Luckyoldson/Michael/Jeremy up to his old tricks.

Sock puppetry, mobying and douchebaggery all in perfect harmony.; 4/9/09, 1:25 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Kirk, you should recognize the similarity between a prediction and a warning.

No one listened to Cassandra either and see where that got them.; 4/9/09, 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: No, it's me. I was trying to add some shock value to what I was saying.; 4/9/09, 1:26 PM
John said...: http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/

In California the liberals want to tell you what kind of TV you can buy. Where I live they go through my trash to make sure I have properly sorted it. Liberals have gone after smoking, drugs, drinking, high fat foods and any number of other things in an effort to limit my choices and control me as much as possible.

The very same people who are convinced Dick Cheney was listening to their phone calls, think it is A OK for the government to tell them what they can and cannot eat and look through the contents of their trash.

Lets run through the things liberals can't tolerate.

People who smoke
People who are over weight
People who live in the suburbs and have long commute
People who shop at Wall Mart
People who own guns
People who drive big cars
People who don't recycle
People who drink

If liberals are so tolerant, why is it that they have a problem with so many people's choices?; 4/9/09, 1:29 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."Beth -- Surely you can see the comic and intellectual value in shock. Further, calling someone stupid or a fuck is not intolerant."

Of course not.

Most debate forums recommend starting things off by calling your opponent a "stupid fuck."

Then, once they understand the rules of the game, you segue into attacking them physically; a groin shot being the most appropriate starting point...even with the women folk.

*Guns are sometimes allowed, but only handguns...and you're only allowed to reload five times.; 4/9/09, 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Joseph -- I was wrong to call you a stupid fuck. We have a long enough history of back and forth, I thought, that you'd get it. You are definitely not a stupid fuck.

Michael: you are a stupid fuck.; 4/9/09, 1:31 PM
Jeremy said...: John - "Lets run through the things liberals can't tolerate."
include reefer?

People who are over weight - Does that count husbands and wives?

eople who live in the suburbs and have long commute - Does that include having to pick them up or driving them?

People who shop at Wall Mart - Does that count if you shop their yourself?

People who own guns - Does that count the ones shooting at you or the ones shooting at someone else?

People who drive big cars - Does that count if you own two yourself?

People who don't recycle - Does that count tofu containers?

People who drink - YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING. Most of my "problem drinker" friends hate liberals.; 4/9/09, 1:33 PM
Bart DePalma said...: Ann appears to believe that she is a liberal, but has libertarian/conservative instincts that are apparent in her blog posts. This dichotomy is most apparent when Ann's posts freely observe that the emperor for which she voted has no clothes.

That is why Althouse irritates the left, but appeals to those who share her libertarian/conservative instincts, as does this commentator.

Keep up the good work.; 4/9/09, 1:34 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: People who smoke
People who are over weight
People who live in the suburbs and have long commute
People who shop at Wall Mart
People who own guns
People who drive big cars
People who don't recycle
People who drink

People who home school their children

People who discipline their children with a swat on the behind

People who listen to AM talk radio

People who listen to Fox News

People who live in the countrysides and don't care for the city environment

People who don't buy into the Global Warming scam

People who refuse to use CFL bulbs

People who eat at fast food restaurants

People who are very religious; 4/9/09, 1:34 PM
Paul said...: Beth sez,

"Jesus, what is it with you guys? Lose an election and the next thing you know, you're talking bloodshed. Not real invested in the system unless you run it, I see."

You are either dense or deliberately obtuse. There will be bloodshed when you people try to impose a totalitarian socialist nanny state on an unwilling freedom loving population. You WILL try to impose one because it's in your very bones to believe that you know best how society should be structured and that only the "progressive" elite is qualified to implement the necessary changes. All you have to do is look at the current administration's move to control privately owned business. That is most assuredly NOT what the framers had in mind and is the rumblings of the awakening leviathan.

No one I know wants bloodshed, but we find it preferable to slavery, which is the inevitable by product of a too powerful government. The framers knew it. Conservatives know it. Liberals in their foolish Utopian ignorance do not.; 4/9/09, 1:35 PM
Invisible Man said...: Joe Biden probably barely has a three digit IQ and is a national embarassment. Further, Palin never used her daughter as a show pony any more than any other politician does. The difference is that some people are so blinded with hatred of the other side, it doesn't bother them to go after families and or anything else that is useful to tear the other side down.

Further, Joe Biden's daughter's behavior is very relevent. Does Joe Biden want his daughter to go to jail? That is what would happen to her if she were a poor black person caught using crack. Shouldn't his daughter's drug use and apparent ability to get away with it contrasted with the millions of people who are rotting in jail today for drug crimes cause him to rethink his support for a failed, racist drug war?

I guess you've forgotten the shots of them landing on the tarmac as if Sarah had arrived in Iraq, and the standing ovations and signs for Bristol and Levi.

Anywaysss, your tangent on Joe Biden's daughter, who I'm guessing you've forgotten was never arrested or charged, is pretty amusing come from a party that championed mandatory miniumum's and tougher drug sentencing. And I'm not saying that Democrats are innocent lambs in this, but you have to look pretty far and wide to find more than handful of Republicans who weren't gung ho for the views your decrying.; 4/9/09, 1:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven feels bad now.

C'mon, everybody...forgive him.

He only calls people a stupid fuck if he's had a really "long enough history" so they understand he's just being tolerant.

You just can't make this stuff up.; 4/9/09, 1:36 PM
Jeremy said...: Paul - "You are either dense or deliberately obtuse. There will be bloodshed when you people try to impose a totalitarian socialist nanny state on an unwilling freedom loving population."

And this is happening right now?

Obama is imposing a "totalitarian socialist nanny state on an unwilling freedom loving population"??

What the hell are you smoking...and do you have any for sale??; 4/9/09, 1:38 PM
Jeremy said...: Paul - Oh, and I forgot to ask: What's with the "you people" comment?

Are you stealing lines from Tropic Thunder?; 4/9/09, 1:39 PM
Henry said...: I tend to agree with Joseph's 1:05 up to a point. People tend to inherit some baseline emotional attitudes. Others derive from life. When you encounter the world, you filter based on your existing emotional and psychological profile.

Why that personal profile becomes politicized, I don't know. It obviously does, for some people.

We spend a lot of words debating the left/right reaction to Althouse, but I think there is probably as significant difference between the politicized and the non-politicized.

Althouse seems more conducive to people that don't take politics seriously, than those that do.; 4/9/09, 1:40 PM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: Jeremy said...
[...]

What the hell are you smoking...and do you have any for sale??

1:38 PM

Aren't drug laws specially harsh when it involves the sale to minors and people with special needs?; 4/9/09, 1:41 PM
Invisible Man said...: People who home school their children

People who discipline their children with a swat on the behind

People who listen to AM talk radio

People who listen to Fox News

People who live in the countrysides and don't care for the city environment

People who don't buy into the Global Warming scam

People who refuse to use CFL bulbs

People who eat at fast food restaurants

People who are very religious

Or...

People who like to do well in school

People who think that science matters

People who read books

People who have different sounding names

People who have different beliefs

People who live in an urban center

People who work in a union

People who have children out of wedlock (except for Sarah Palin's spawn)

People who are down on their luck; 4/9/09, 1:43 PM
Bissage said...: A traffic cop pulls over a woman driving with a car full of penguins.

The cop says, “Lady, I’ll let you off with a warning if you take those penguins straight to the zoo.”

The next day, the cop pulls the lady over and she’s still got a car full of penguins.

The cop is furious. He says, “Lady, I told you to take those penguins TO THE ZOO!!!”

The lady says, “But I did, Officer, today we’re going to see a movie.”

Bah Dum Bump.; 4/9/09, 1:44 PM
John said...: Interesting that even Jeremy had to admit liberals hate smokers.

"People who are over weight - Does that count husbands and wives?"

If you are not intollerant of them, why are liberals imposing transfat bans, stopping fast food places from being built and generally telling people what they can and cannot eat? Or do you not support those measures?

"People who live in the suburbs and have long commute - Does that include having to pick them up or driving them?"

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Again, if liberals are so tolerant why are they constantly raving about "sprawl" and insisting that everyone should live in a high density community whether they like it or not?

"People who shop at Wall Mart - Does that count if you shop their yourself?"

That depends. Do you go out and try to get zoning boards to keep Wall Marts out of communities and deprive people of their choice of where to shop? If so, then you are intolerant.

"People who own guns - Does that count the ones shooting at you or the ones shooting at someone else?"

Yes because everyone who owns a gun will be shooting at someone eventually right? Thank you for proving my point.

"People who drive big cars - Does that count if you own two yourself?"

If you support CAFE standards and fuel taxes that will price other people out of making the same choice you did, yes it makes you intolerant.

"People who don't recycle - Does that count tofu containers?"

That response is meaningless

"People who drink - YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING. Most of my "problem drinker" friends hate liberals"

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Liberals support insane drunk driving laws that punish innocent people and deprive us of our 4th Amendment rights. They also support tort liability forpups that serve alchohol for the actions of drinkers. That stikes me as intolerant of drinkers.; 4/9/09, 1:44 PM
Bissage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 1:44 PM
John said...: "People who think that science matters"

That is funny. Liberals have such a commitment to science. No liberal has ever used junk science to support a crackpot cause. Did you miss the entire environmental movement over the last 40 years?; 4/9/09, 1:46 PM
Jeremy said...: Paranoia running wild today.

Dust Bunny's overview is so far out there it's hard to believe she's a real person or ventures out of the house.

Liberals are against beating your kids?

Home schooling? Who cares...it's your kid.

AM talk radio? No, only people who appear to be unhinged.

People who listen to Fox News - Okay, you got me on that one.

People who live in the countrysides and don't care for the city environment - I have absolutely NO idea what in the world this one means? Liberals hate the country because of the clean environment?

People who don't buy into the Global Warming scam - Well, that includes about 2,500 scientist type people, too...and if the you're right and you're wrong...

People who refuse to use CFL bulbs - I stay awake at night thinking about this.

People who eat at fast food restaurants - I was at Wendy's yesterday discussing this very thing.

People who are very religious - Nooooo, just a tad over the top...and wanting to kill those who do not agree. (As in some radical...Muslims); 4/9/09, 1:46 PM
John said...: "People who read books"

You pretty much just ended the thread and proved my point. Are you really such an intolerant bigot that you think conservatives not only don't read books but hate people who do? If you think that you are a smug bigoted fuck and pretty much the epitome of all of the worst things people say about liberals. Are liberals intolerent, smug jerks? I give you the above example and rest my case.; 4/9/09, 1:48 PM
Jeremy said...: John - I never said anything about liberals hating smokers.

I asked if it included pot.

I have many friends who smoke and it's their prerogative, but it does have a tendency to lead to health problems.

My dad died of lung cancer, a direct result of smoking, and it was not a pretty thing to experience for him or our family.

Oh, and cigarettes do lead to about 1,000 people dying in America alone...every-day-of-the-week.

So...what's there not to like?; 4/9/09, 1:49 PM
John said...: "So...what's there not to like?"

It is called freedom. It means people are free to chose things you wouldn't and don't really like. The fact that you even couch the issue that way shows how intolerant you are. Who cares whether you or I or anyone else likes what someone does? It is their body and their freedom.; 4/9/09, 1:51 PM
Jeremy said...: ElcubanitoKC said..."Aren't drug laws specially harsh when it involves the sale to minors and people with special needs?"

Only if it's not very good, has too many stems and now even seeds.

But I do know this: There are all kinds of silly beliefs and even laws pertaining to the rights of gays. (Sodomy/Marriage/Visitation, etc.)

Imagine that...Cubanito.; 4/9/09, 1:53 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Further, Joe Biden's daughter's behavior is very relevent. Does Joe Biden want his daughter to go to jail? That is what would happen to her if she were a poor black person caught using crack.

That is exactly what would happen to a poor Black person who fought with Chicago Police Officers too; felony charges and a prison sentence. Instead, strings were pulled and, heh, heh, heh, Biden’s tramp got out of it.; 4/9/09, 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Joke goes totally over Michael's head. Again.; 4/9/09, 1:55 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Sarah Palin is a serial liar, that's the point….

If Sarah Palin is a serial liar, what does one call Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore…

Mass liars?; 4/9/09, 1:55 PM
Jeremy said...: John said..."It is called freedom."

Smoke to your heart's desire, John. I could care less.

Now, if you're talking about doing it in an area where I have to ingest the smoke...you've got a problem.

Passive ingestion causing health problems for those who CHOOSE NOT TO SMOKE isn't new, John...and that's what the smoking laws pertain to. (You really want to be on an airplane while a percentage of the people are smoking cigarettes, cigars and pipes? Really?)

Read up on it.; 4/9/09, 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Leftist politicians lie for the greater good. They mean well. Conservative politicians lie as part of a great conspiracy of evil.; 4/9/09, 1:57 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven - You told a joke?; 4/9/09, 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Why did Michael change his name?; 4/9/09, 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Comment about joke goes over Michael's head.; 4/9/09, 1:58 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Machos said..."Leftist politicians lie for the greater good. They mean well. Conservative politicians lie as part of a great conspiracy of evil."

Have a stroke? Suddenly got religion? Somebody holding a gun to your head?

That's the first honest thing you've ever posted.; 4/9/09, 1:58 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven says he told a joke.

Somebody find it and run it again.

I bet it's funny.; 4/9/09, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Sad.; 4/9/09, 2:00 PM
Synova said...: "He said the funniest dirty joke he ever heard was told by an Amish man."

Absolutely no one will believe you unless you post it here for review.

I do.

Because it likely had more to do with funny, than dirty. Because farmers tend to be "earthy." And because "naughty" is always funnier from an unlikely source.; 4/9/09, 2:00 PM
Jeremy said...: Actually Seven's doing his best to back off of his intolerant and disgusting attack on his long time friend?

Nobody's buying, Seven.; 4/9/09, 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael -- You are a really, really, really stupid fuck. I back off of nothing.; 4/9/09, 2:02 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I think it's mainly not calling conservative idiots and/or evil. That's about it. That, and most of the posts aren't political, and most of those aren't attacking conservatives.; 4/9/09, 2:06 PM
Henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 2:06 PM
garage mahal said...: You are either dense or deliberately obtuse. There will be bloodshed when you people try to impose a totalitarian socialist nanny state on an unwilling freedom loving population.

John Stewart said it best. I think you're confusing tyranny with losing. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco. LOL.; 4/9/09, 2:06 PM
Paul said...: Jeremy sez,

"And this is happening right now?

Obama is imposing a "totalitarian socialist nanny state on an unwilling freedom loving population"??

What the hell are you smoking...and do you have any for sale??"

It's been happening slowly for a while now. Our freedoms are being eroded bit by bit. Obama is merely picking up the pace. At the point where privately owned businesses are controlled by government we will approach the fascist "event horizon", if you will. Add to that the administration's insane borrowing and spending and unheard of deficits, the impending huge tax increases and energy rationing coming down the pike to combat the imaginary global warming catastrophe, government rationed health care and the implicit intrusion into people lifestyles it will entail, attacks on the first and second amendments, etc.

The framers, and all others who believe in the constrained vision of human nature, were acutely aware that once government acquires too much control of the affairs of the people it devolves into tyranny as that control is leveraged to reach deeper and deeper into the population to feed the ruling elites insatiable appetite for power. A powerful state naturally selects for the most ruthless and power hungry individuals to command it. The only hope to avoid this sorry state of affairs (which is the default condition in history as societies where individuals have inalienable rights and liberties are the rare exception)is to limit the power of government. "Liberals", who are an outgrowth of the progressive movement, carry on the progressive viewpoint of a benevolent all powerful top down government run society. They are believers in the unconstrained vision of humanity, that man is perfectible under the guidance of an enlightened state apparatus. Thus their reflexive impulse to look for a government solution for every problem.

But they are wrong. Deadly wrong. There are no angels to run government. Only flawed men at best and and sociopathic monsters at worst.; 4/9/09, 2:08 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Thread killed. Michael/Jeremy is back.; 4/9/09, 2:09 PM
Unknown said...: In case you haven't figured it out, Paul is going by his last name here.; 4/9/09, 2:09 PM
Henry said...: If Sarah Palin is a serial liar, what does one call Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore…

Mass liars?

Parallel liars. Even when you cut off one lie, the lie circuit stays lit.

* * *

The serial lie smear against Palin is pretty silly, but does seem to be part of the boilerplate now. My impression is that the main evidence is the way that she spun the bridge to nowhere in her favor, and didn't qualify the story when challenged. Even I would agree that she manipulating the truth rather excessively there.

But when you write "serial liar" or "pathological liar" as one of our tolerants did the other day, that, to me, invokes a person who lies about everything. But such accusations aren't really about understanding.; 4/9/09, 2:10 PM
Unknown said...: John Stewart said it best. I think you're confusing tyranny with losing. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco. LOL.

I like it. If only he'd said that 8 years ago.; 4/9/09, 2:10 PM
Paul said...: mcg

"In case you haven't figured it out, Paul is going by his last name here."

???????; 4/9/09, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: When the left loses in an election, it's because the voters had a temper tantrum.

No shit taco necessary. The people who need a shit taco are the voters. And the evil conservative conspirators who fooled them.; 4/9/09, 2:14 PM
Synova said...: As for who is tolerant of whom and if tolerance equates to "hanging around" people who disagree...

I'm not at all interested in voluntarily listening to anything like that quoted but from Randi Rhodes. Was that supposed to be funny? The comments on the Think Progress site after the "black faced Turk" post were half remarks about Fox News, and I really don't know what possible response there is to that besides, "You're a moron." The few times I've posted a contrary opinion, without name calling and I thought reasonably well reasoned out, on liberal or feminist blogs, my comments have been removed. The "mow the lawn" video was only half as silly as the response to it on Feministing. And be it my own shortcoming... I really can't imagine what I'd *say* to people invested in viewing everything in terms of oppression.; 4/9/09, 2:15 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: When my friend tagged along, he was amazed at how friendly and funny the Amish were.

We have quite a few Amish and Mennonite communities in Indiana and they are probably the nicest people you can meet and true craftsmen.

When our house was being built nearly all the framers the builder used were from the 'undocumented American community'. My builder told me I lucked out because my house was assigned to one of the three Amish crews that they used.; 4/9/09, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Just hope it's not Rumspringa when they are putting up the load-bearing walls.; 4/9/09, 2:25 PM
Joseph said...: I don't think constemporary conservative politics are by any stretch of the imagination opposed to regulating private conduct. Liberals and conservatives disagree about what kind of private conduct should be regulated but they both are "intolerant" by John's bizarre definition of the word. Conservatives love to pass laws limiting personal freedoms and displaying "intolerance" against:
people who want to have kinky sex (sodomy laws),
people who want to marry someone of the same sex (anti-marriage laws),
people who use recreational drugs,
people who rely on public transportation,
people who want to organize to bargain collectively in the workplace,
people who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term,
people who want the choice to safely take their own lives when they are terminally ill,
people who are Christian and don't want religious activities funded with their taxes or promoted in their schools and public places,
people who criticize the government ("love it or leave it!")...; 4/9/09, 2:35 PM
Joseph said...: (should be AREN'T Christian although plenty of Christians object to that too); 4/9/09, 2:36 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Michael/Jeremy said Seven feels bad now.

C'mon, everybody...forgive him.

He only calls people a stupid fuck if he's had a really "long enough history" so they understand he's just being tolerant.

This is especially rich coming from a guy who always signed off his disagreement of someone with 'suck my dick.'

You're right Michael. You can't make this stuff up.; 4/9/09, 2:37 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Just hope it's not Rumspringa when they are putting up the load-bearing walls.

Heh. You know I was talking to the builder about that and he said that the interesting thing is that they still practice that and the boys still come back to the community rather than strike out on thier own. Probably know something we don't. ;-); 4/9/09, 2:39 PM
John said...: people who want to have kinky sex (sodomy laws)

Lots of Southern Dems voted for those laws and many conservatives oppose them.

people who want to marry someone of the same sex (anti-marriage laws),

You mean like the current President who has stated repeatedly that marriage is a holy union between man and woman? You mean the vast majority of the black and latino community? If only conservatives supported these laws instead of a braod based group of both liberals and conservatives you would have a point. Since that is not true, you don't. You consistently act on the falacy that liberals are incapable of supporting intolerent laws.

people who use recreational drugs

Like the Democratic Congress who passed minimum mandatory sentencing in 1986? You mean like Bill Clinton who locked up more people for drug offenses than any other President. You mean like Joe Biden who has been a consistent and vigorous drug warrior for 20 years. Do you just block it out when Liberals do bad things? Are you really that blind? Only an idiot could think that the drug war is anything but a bi-partisan fiasco.

people who rely on public transportation,

Why? Because conservatives don't want to pay extra taxes to support your superstious public transportation habit? Not wanting to subsidize a behavior with my money doesn't mean I am intolerent of it.

people who want to organize to bargain collectively in the workplace.

Who has a problem with that? Just because conservatives beleive in the secret ballot and don't think that union thugs ought to be free to bully people, doesn't mean we don't think unions should exist.

people who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term,

Conservatives operate under the assumption that life begins at conception. You don't. Who is right? I don't know. But if life begins at conception, not taking a pregnancy to term is called infantacide. Further, if life doesnt' begin at conception, why is a miscarraiage such a big deal and a tragedy?

people who want the choice to safely take their own lives when they are terminally ill

No, Conservatives object to doctors deciding when the terminally ill should die, which is exactly what assisted suicide laws have led to in Europe. You are being completely disengenious or ignorant or both if you think such a debate can be boiled down to such easy terms.

people who are Christian and don't want religious activities funded with their taxes or promoted in their schools and public places.

Freedom of expression is a real bitch to some people. If liberals didn't hate Christians so much and weren't so threatened by them, they wouldn't have a problem with public expression of religion. Of course the same people who faint at the thought of a prayer at a high school football game, have no problem with publicly funded single sex gyms to assage the sensibilities of religous Muslims. The objection to public religion is nothing but an objection to Christianity.

people who criticize the government ("love it or leave it!")...

Oh give me a break. Now that BO is in charge, liberals think nothing of calling conservatives obstructionists and un patriotic and racist for criticizing him. How can you write that shit with a straight face?; 4/9/09, 2:48 PM
Original Mike said...: Titus has flown the coop.

Maybe he fell in the bowl. Someone should check his apartment.; 4/9/09, 2:49 PM
The Dude said...: Jeremy/Michael/Lucky wrote " I could care less."

Nice, try that again when you learn English.; 4/9/09, 3:01 PM
hdhouse said...: I have no idea what "really gets a lot of liberals" means. Someone explain.; 4/9/09, 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Really gets a lot of liberals means that either the dude is a stud and he's able to bag a bunch of leftist women, or that the woman is totally smoking, and she is able to bag a lot of leftist men, or that the the dude is a stud and he's able to bag a bunch of leftist men, of that the or that the woman is totally smoking, and she is able to bag a lot of women.

There are bisexual, transsexual, and other transgender definitions as well, but we need not go into them here for you to get the basic idea.; 4/9/09, 3:12 PM
Joseph said...: I can go through your sillier examples but I don't even understand them. Liberals hate overweight people and suburbans? Huh? And conservatives support more freedom to drive drunk? Show me some evidence.

A few points on your last comment.

(1) Southern CONSERVATIVE democrats support sodomy laws and bans on sex toys and the like.

(2) Conservatives by much larger margins than liberals support anti-marriage laws.

(3) I agree the drug war is a bipartisan fiasco but its the conservatives that have pushed that and its a liberal minority that argues for liberalization of it.

(4) Riding the bus to work is a superstitious habit? Um, I don't even know how to address that.

(5) Many conservatives rail against unions... and their right to exist.

(6) Freedom of expression does not include the freedom to use tax dollars to promote religion. Objecting to public religion may frequently seem like objection to Christianity because Christianity is the only religion that people try to promote as a public religion in this country. Accommodating religious difference is not the same as promoting one public religion. And its conservatives that want to criminalize burning the flag, etc.

I never said that liberals don't like to regulate private activity too. They do. But conservatives do their fair share of it as well.; 4/9/09, 3:12 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Joseph, what's with the correction? I know plenty of Christians who don't want religious activities funded with their taxes or promoted in their schools and public places.; 4/9/09, 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Joseph -- Please show us the law that makes it illegal for homosexuals to marry.

The fact is that the argument about gay marriage exposes the fascist tendencies inherent in leftism. Leftists want more than anything to be recognized and coddled by the State because the State is the only thing that gives them metaphysical peace of mind. For the left, the State is God.; 4/9/09, 3:17 PM
Peter Hoh said...: By the way, this comment thread sucks. Boring and predictable. C'mon, we can do better than this. Yes we can!; 4/9/09, 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree, Peter. I am ashamed at some of the things I wrote. Must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today.; 4/9/09, 3:18 PM
John said...: Joseph,

Lots of conservatives object to the drug war. You just have to pay attention.

Further, as far as tax dollars going to support religous activities, if liberals did not insist on forcibly taxing people to pay for schools, Christians wouldn't be so upset about the ciriculum in them. The answer is school choice. Let people send their kids to the school of their choice. But liberals refuse to support that because they care more about teachers unions than they do freedom or academic achievement.; 4/9/09, 3:21 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 3:21 PM
Ernesto Ariel Suárez said...: The stupid fuck is off the meds today.; 4/9/09, 3:23 PM
Shanna said...: you have to look pretty far and wide to find more than handful of Republicans who weren't gung ho for the views your decrying.

Actually there are a ton of Republicans who weren’t gung ho for this stuff, it’s called the libertarian wing of the party. Biden's daughter is a perfect example of why this issue is important...she gets off because of his clout (or because she's a girl, or white) while somebody else would be stuck in jail for ages for doing something that hasn't hurt anybody but themselves. I don't like selective policing, that way leads to tyranny.

I think it's mainly not calling conservative idiots and/or evil. That's about it.

Ding, ding, ding! The thing is, I’m not going to read a liberal who habitually posts rants about how conservatives are evil, racist, etc.. because they are not at all interesting or well reasoned or funny (yes, I’m talking to you John Stewart! Once you start making chimp jokes there’s no going back).; 4/9/09, 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Please show us the conservatives are for the drug war.; 4/9/09, 3:26 PM
Joseph said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 3:27 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Further, as far as tax dollars going to support religous activities, if liberals did not insist on forcibly taxing people to pay for schools, Christians wouldn't be so upset about the ciriculum in them.

I think we all can agree that speling should be in the ciriculum.; 4/9/09, 3:28 PM
Joseph said...: Joseph, what's with the correction? I know plenty of Christians who don't want religious activities funded with their taxes or promoted in their schools and public places.

I think that's what I said in my correction. I corrected it because I meant to write non-Christians and, as written, it didn't make sense that Christians in particular would object to promotion of Christianity.

I also agree that the thread became predictable. Which is probably why I felt so ready with responses.

John--I'm sure people of all stripes support and object to all of the things we have listed (but scaling back the drug war is a bigger priority among liberals than conservatives). And that was really my point--generalizations like this don't work.; 4/9/09, 3:28 PM
hdhouse said...: Trooper York said...
You know I have an extraordinary amount of lint in my belly button this morning. It must be from the pollen. How about you guys?"

The putting aside the missing period aside in the first
sentence, if you didn't shake your head so much your navel wouldn't fill up as fast.; 4/9/09, 3:29 PM
Invisible Man said...: Lots of conservatives object to the drug war. You just have to pay attention.

John,

I think that your conflating conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives as a whole have been supporting increases in punishments for non-violent offenders, the gutting of drug rehab programs and the increase in policing of drug laws for 30+ years. I've heard a few stand up against this irrational behavior, but I definitely wouldn't categorize that as lots.; 4/9/09, 3:32 PM
Dark Eden said...: For a certain kind of liberal, the claims for liberal tolerance go something like this:

Tolerance means agreeing with everything I say, and if you agree with everything I say, you are tolerant.

If you disagree with anything I say, then you must be intolerant, and I won't listen to a thing you have to say. If you weren't intolerant, you wouldn't disagree with me.; 4/9/09, 3:35 PM
DADvocate said...: ...appreciate the chance to listen to Randi Rhodes.

I find it hard to believe anyone would "appreciate" listening to Randi Rhodes. Ed Schultz I could take and did listen to some. Rhodes tried a few times, never again.; 4/9/09, 3:37 PM
John said...: Is Jonah Goldburg a libertarian? What about pretty much the entire staff of National Review who object to the drug war? I think the folks over at Reason and Cato will be very surprised to hear that National Review is a "libertarian" publication. What about Barry Goldwater? He objected to the drug war as well, was he a libertarian?

Further no President in the last 40 years spent more on rehab than Dick Nixon. No kidding. I guess he counts as a Libertarian.

But being for the drug war is bad, so obviously it must just be conservatives who support it, right?; 4/9/09, 3:37 PM
Shanna said...: scaling back the drug war is a bigger priority among liberals than conservatives

I really don’t think that’s true. Libertarian’s are the most vocal about scaling back the drug war and they are far more likely to be on the conservative side of things.

You don’t hear a lot of mainstream politicians on either side talk about it because it’s not popular.; 4/9/09, 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Nothing is funnier to me that leftists who see something they don't like and immediately assign it to the evil conservatives. The drug war is a perfect example.

Or the flakes who see a Turkish guy in black face on Turkish cable TV and think Fox News.; 4/9/09, 3:41 PM
Dark Eden said...: Also, as to Libertarians vs Conservatives, well... the Republican party is far from the monolithic block of crazed evangelicals with rapidfire bible launchers the left imagines in their nightmares (or is it their fondest dreams? They need a good villain for their worldview to make sense)

I'm definitely part of the libertarian wing of the party, and there are plenty of others like me. You would be shocked at the diversity of opinion within the GOP.; 4/9/09, 3:43 PM
Synova said...: That's my impression of the current understanding of "tolerance."

I figure, if there is no disagreement there is nothing to be "tolerant" of.

How can a person be tolerant toward their own beliefs and opinions? What is there to tolerate?

But it certainly seems that "intolerance" is taken to mean disagreeing with the proper opinions. And "tolerance" means having the proper opinions.

Haven't we all actually heard someone or other explain that it's okay to hate intolerant people? What does this mean, other than that it's okay to hate people who disagree with the proper opinions?; 4/9/09, 3:45 PM
Synova said...: And didn't Althouse get criticized for her tolerance of the opinions of commenters just the other day?

I don't suppose the word "tolerance" was used, but that's actually what tolerance means... tolerating views of those you disagree with... and no assumption should be made that the fact a comment remains counts as an endorsement.; 4/9/09, 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: You can't just allow the hoi polloi to say whatever they want. There must be boundaries. We must help the people see what is best for them.; 4/9/09, 3:55 PM
John said...: I am a pro war conservative. I post on Reason Hit and Run all of the time. Almost no one on there agrees with me about the WOT or the war in Iraq. I certainly get called out a lot and have a lot of discussions where I am in the minority, sometimes a minority of one. But no one has ever asked me to leave the site or asked Reason to ban me even though I deviate from the libertarian orthadoxy in a lot of ways.

Contrast this with how I would be treated at a site like KOS or Atrios. I would be banned from the site and my posts would be removed. There is a lot of talk about what tolerance means. Whatever it means I think it certainly means at the very least letting people of different opinions post on your website and not be harrassed or banned.; 4/9/09, 4:00 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 4:00 PM
Paul said...: Milton Friedman on legalizing drugs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY&feature=related; 4/9/09, 4:13 PM
Beth said...: Seven, so you were going for an old SNL, Weekend Update thing? Why not?

This thread has turned predictable, as we've all noted. Not even the F word can save us now.

Conservatives are all some sort of thing and liberals are all some other sort of thing. Brilliant! Okay, back to grading papers.; 4/9/09, 4:51 PM
Allan said...: I come to this site because I cannot figure out
why such an intelligent person could have voted for Obama.

I keep waiting for the day
when she admits to having made a horrendous mistake.; 4/9/09, 5:17 PM
Michael McNeil said...: I like him better as Jeremy than polluting the good name of Michael — sorry, all you Jeremys out there. But this blithe change shows his real name almost certainly isn't Jeremy either. Whoever he is has revealed on occasion after occasion nothing but contempt for our hostess and her commentariat.; 4/9/09, 5:18 PM
DaLawGiver said...: HD,

I feel sorry for you man. It looks like you brought a knife to a gun fight.; 4/9/09, 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/9/09, 5:38 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Interesting that Gay Patriot didn't cite one fact or quote from the critics whose motives he speculates on. It's easy to find this.

A number of lib bloggers have been lucid enough in their critiques that he could just be all "fact-based" and look at what they SAID rather than speculate on motives.

I guess that would undermine his efforts to praise the right.

A few of my criticisms:
- Ann is a law professor who rejects the rule of law when it comes to torture.

- Ann buys into the conservative stereotypes and world view bigly.

- Ann is a repeating station for the conservative PR machine, routinely repeating their drivel.

- Ann can be quite gullible and miss obvious flaws in the conservative rhetoric she furthers.; 4/9/09, 6:01 PM
Synova said...: Those aren't facts or quotes, AL.

Those are your opinions.; 4/9/09, 6:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann buys into the conservative stereotypes and world view bigly.

You do realize that "bigly" is not a cromulent word, right?; 4/9/09, 6:18 PM
Jeremy said...: Michael McNeil said..."Whoever he is has revealed on occasion after occasion nothing but contempt for our hostess and her commentariat."

Yeah, I really wish I could agree with everybody about literally everything, but you know, that's the whole point of discussion and debate.

Why not just not read my comments and move on to the ones you agree with?

As for showing "contempt"...get real.; 4/9/09, 6:21 PM
Civilis said...: Take the following two politically neutral postulates:

1. Tolerance is possessed on average equally by conservatives and liberals as individuals. (I know, my fellow conservatives think that obviously they are the more tolerant, and that liberals think that obviously they are the more tolerant. Humor me with a hypothetical...)

2. People tend to take the best interpretation of themselves and the groups they identify with, and take the worst interpretations of groups they dislike.

Add the third postulate, which is political but almost certainly undeniable:

3. Conservatives stereotype as intolerant, while liberals stereotype as tolerant.

What would the results of these postulates be applied to politics and tolerance?

A liberal looks at the world and sees that he is obviously a tolerant individual, and liberals as a group are tolerant as any intolerant individuals are outliers. The liberal, if he sees conservatives being tolerant, he dismisses them as outliers, and he assumes conservatives as a group are intolerant.

A conservative looks at the world and sees that he is obviously a tolerant individual, and most of the conservatives he knows are tolerant, therefore the stereotype is wrong and conservatives are not intolerant as a group, despite some outliers. The conservative looks at liberals and sees some as intolerant even if he knows some outliers, so he ignores the stereotype and sees liberals as a group as not tolerant.; 4/9/09, 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Thanks for those facts, Alpha. Isn't it sad that so many on the right fail to provide facts, like all the facts you just provided?

If only we all dealt in facts, not opinions.; 4/9/09, 6:33 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Gee Alpha, we say the same about you.

By the way, you miserabe sub human fuck, you have a lot of nerve coming around after what you did the other day re the shooting incident.

You have no morals, no decency, no ethics, and no shame. Mighty fighting liberal my sister's black cats ass.; 4/9/09, 6:51 PM
Henry said...: Alpha, who is this Ann you refer to? I know of no such person.; 4/9/09, 7:13 PM
Unknown said...: Clearly I remember pickin on the boy
Seemed a harmless little fuck
Ooh, but we unleashed
a lion...
Gnashed his teeth and bit the recess ladys breast...
How can I forget?
And he hit me with a surprise left
My jaw left hurtin...ooh, dropped wide open
Just like the day...oh, like the day I heard; 4/9/09, 7:32 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Beth said This thread has turned predictable, as we've all noted. Not even the F word can save us now

Actually, the thread started out that way. Nothing turns out 200 comments like a post on lefties not liking Althouse.; 4/9/09, 9:11 PM
KCFleming said...: I'm just here for the food.; 4/9/09, 9:12 PM
former law student said...: Nothing turns out 200 comments like a post on lefties not liking Althouse.

Blogress is an unflattering word to use to refer to Althouse: It suggests a contraction of BLond OGRESS.; 4/9/09, 9:20 PM
TMink said...: "People who smoke
People who are over weight
People who live in the suburbs and have long commute
People who shop at Wall Mart
People who own guns
People who drive big cars
People who don't recycle
People who drink"

Hmm, if cigars count I only need to get a big car and stop recycling.

Trey; 4/9/09, 9:28 PM
The Dude said...: There's an open bar, right?; 4/9/09, 9:43 PM
Dale said...: It was busy day at the pearly gates.

Saint Peter had the unpleasant duty of telling each soul waiting in line to enter heaven that it was full up today: only those who died the most dramatic deaths could enter today. Everyone else would have to wait a bit longer.

The first man in line explained his situation to Peter:

“I came home to my 12th floor apartment suspecting that my wife was fooling around. When I burst into the bedroom, I found her in bed alone, but the balcony doors were wide open. Running to the balcony, I found the man hanging over the railing, just barely holding on. I kept trying to pull his fingers away, but his grasp was too tight. I ran to the kitchen, found my hammer, returned to the adulterous jerk and pounded his hands so hard he finally let go! But instead of hitting the ground, he landed in the soft bushes okay! I was so mad, I ran back to the kitchen, pulled the refrigerator to the balcony’s edge, pushed it over and watched it land on that sinful man! I was so overwhelmed, I had a heart attack and died right on the balcony.”

“Wow!” Saint Peter gasped. “Enter in!”

The next man in line began:

“I was doing my morning exercises on my 13th floor apartment balcony, when I bent too far backwards and fell over the side! Reaching for anything, I was able to grab a hold of the balcony on the floor below. But no sooner had I begun to pull myself up than a man comes out and tries to pry my hands loose! I tried with everything to hold on – he left, but came back with a hammer and began pounding my fingers. I couldn’t last – I had to let go. Luckily, some soft bushes broke my fall – Hallelujah! But just as I was getting out of the bushes, a refrigerator fell from the sky and killed me!”

“Boy!” said Peter. “Enter in”

The third man in line began:

“Imagine this. I’m naked inside a refrigerator . . . “; 4/10/09, 12:18 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Dale,
You really should issue a spew alert for tales like that. I am wiping wine off of my screed and the dog is not- well he may be happy- either.; 4/10/09, 12:58 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Peter Bella dishes up the bile:
Gee Alpha, we say the same about you.

Yeah, I know. And you are obviously, clearly wrong yet curiously immune to facts that show otherwise. All you do is insult and duck facts.

-----------------
7 Machos ignores a simple FACT I pointed out:
Isn't it sad that so many on the right fail to provide facts, like all the facts you just provided?

Uh, 7? Here is a factual assertions I made in that post, which you ducked:

Gay Patriot didn't cite one fact or quote from the critics whose motives he speculates on.

Can you show me the quote from an Althouse critic used by Gay Patriot in the post in question?

No. No such thing exists. It's all speculation about other peoples' motives (hint: a poor practice); 4/10/09, 1:45 PM
The Dude said...: Oh so close...; 4/10/09, 8:00 PM
The Dude said...: There we go - all better...; 4/10/09, 8:00 PM