Althouse: Steele...

March 2, 2009

Steele...

... grovels.

252 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 252 of 252

Roberto said...: JSF - "Oh, right! You didn't look for them because you were not civil to President Bush."

What the fuck are you talking about?

I don't know G.W. Bush.

I merely disagree with damn near everything he did as President...and my view is is shared by about 70% of the American public.

It's YOU who needs think about the damage the man did to our country, not me.; 3/3/09, 12:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Not really, JSF. It has to do with the inability to make a persuasive argument, or even an argument that follows the principles of persuasive argumentation. It's a kind of stupidity.

There are plenty of wonderful people on the left here. I love Beth, just for example. Really, I do. Even though I disagree with her strongly about a lot. She and many (most) others write well and thoughtfully.; 3/3/09, 12:09 AM
Roberto said...: JSF - I could care less about what this idiot (you maybe?) posts about ME.

I just find comments relating to sex with children to be beyond the pale.

If you don't...I think you're creepy too.; 3/3/09, 12:09 AM
Michael said...: JSF - "Oh, right! You didn't look for them because you were not civil to President Bush."

What the fuck are you talking about?

I don't know G.W. Bush.

I do know that I am rude and hateful to other commenters when I don't have to be.

But again - I get off on it.

Now where is that neighbor girl?; 3/3/09, 12:09 AM
JSF said...: Michael,

And you can't be civil to other Americans who hold different opinions then you?

Then why should you expect other Americans to support your president when you don't make any effort.

Sorry, respect is a two way street. To get it, you must give it.

For now, I enjoy the (other) Michael making you squirm -- that is, unless you learn how to be civil with people who disagree with you.; 3/3/09, 12:10 AM
Anonymous said...: I love the other Michael. Please stay.; 3/3/09, 12:11 AM
Michael said...: SF - I could care less about what this idiot (you maybe?) posts about ME.

I just find comments relating to sex with children to be beyond the pale.

(WINK WINK)

If you don't...I think you're creepy to

BECAUSE - I have never gone beyond what I define as the pale towards others here.

When I recommend that people that disagree with me go kill themselves (see my comment at 10:07 above) it's because I, Michael, cannot go beyond the pale.

Because I'm Michael

Michael.

MICHAEL, you wingnuts!; 3/3/09, 12:12 AM
Roberto said...: Seven You and I both know you're really just a racist and a bigot.

Your postings a few nights ago revealed as much.

I've posted plenty of relevant comments that could have elicited reasonable response, but almost everybody here says the same thing over and over again: Obama bad...anything right good.

And, as I've said on many previous occasions: If you don't like what I say, don't read it and don't bother responding.; 3/3/09, 12:14 AM
Michael said...: And, as I've said on many previous occasions: If you don't like what I say, don't read it and don't bother responding.

BUT PLEASE DO RESPOND!!!!!

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE!!!!!

I won't know what to do with myself if I can't have someone respond to one of my comments, and then call them a hateful name or tell them to go kill themselves.

So, Don't respond

(Please respond!); 3/3/09, 12:16 AM
Michael said...: Oh and Seven, you are a racist and a bigot and,uh, you know, whatever else

(Email me and I'll send you some pictures of black women in . . . )

(Wink Wink)

You bigot.; 3/3/09, 12:17 AM
Anonymous said...: All my racist comments here are part of the archives. Indeed. The bigoted ones, too.

That's not an argument, though. It's a rant against me and a lie.

Perhaps, in addition to being stupid, you cannot detect irony or sarcasm. It's highly likely. A strange dullness runs through your posts. Almost a tediousness. I am certain that you sense this as well, real Michael, which explains your need to hijack and murder thread after thread here, even though you know that no one likes you. Even though you know that everyone wishes that you would leave. Even though you know that you are a terrific bore.; 3/3/09, 12:17 AM
Michael said...: "Even though you know that you are a terrific bore."

Well, you're a poopy pants and a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . .; 3/3/09, 12:19 AM
Roberto said...: JSF - The fact that you apparently enjoy comments relating to sex with children tells me there's no sense in continuing. (Is there something we should know?)

And you really should consider s course in reading comprehension.; 3/3/09, 12:20 AM
Cousin Bob said...: How do I sign up to become "Michael" too?? That's pretty cool feature of Blogger.

Is it just "Michael," or could I become, say, "Michelle Malkin?"

Not that I want a sex change operation, but it might be fun to be a cute Asian chick for a while.; 3/3/09, 12:22 AM
JSF said...: Seven,

I love folks from the Left (I was from a Liberal Dem from NYC until 1992) who try hard to persuade me.

Whatever party I was in, I always had the same attitude: say nice things about my guy in office, and I will return the favor.

That is why I like Our Grande Blogress here. She is an Old School Dem who knows the value of listening and persuading and even telling her own side "Grow some balls,"

THAT takes balls. Which is why I respect Althouse over Michael. Michael is a syncophant, while Althouse is a truth teller.; 3/3/09, 12:22 AM
Anonymous said...: I was a cute Asian chick for awhile. It was only okay. I had a lot more fun as a seven-foot Lithuanian man.; 3/3/09, 12:23 AM
Roberto said...: JSF - You need to get together with the other local ass-kisser, TraditionalDolt.

Maybe the two of you can get Ann to rent you a room to share.

Funny girls.; 3/3/09, 12:25 AM
JSF said...: Michael,

Live with your Karma. You don't want that stuff? Stop wishing people dead.; 3/3/09, 12:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I would estimate that I disagree with Althouse somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of the time. I love her, though, for the exact reasons you state -- I would add a sense of fun and a refreshing open-mindedness -- and I find myself defending her all the time against the right and the left.

I stopped being a Democrat around 1992, too. Must have been something in the water that year.; 3/3/09, 12:26 AM
Roberto said...: Hmmmm...; 3/3/09, 12:27 AM
Cousin Bob said...: Or if I could become "Ann," could I make it Ann Coulter?

Just so "Michael" here starts running in circles banging his head against doors at the thought of wingnut babes.

And, hey, the "other" Michael: You've gotta get a cute black doggy avatar, too! Or better yet, a little black weasel.; 3/3/09, 12:27 AM
Roberto said...: "How do I sign up to become "Michael" too?? That's pretty cool feature of Blogger."

See how easy it is to hide...Bobby?; 3/3/09, 12:28 AM
JSF said...: Seven,

I disagree with her maybe 45 - 55%, but at least she knows there is two sides to an arguement instead of pedophile Michael who never has a good word about people of the oppisite side of the aisle.

We live in a two party system...any debater would do well to remember that.; 3/3/09, 12:29 AM
Cousin Bob said...: Wow! That was easy! I'm off to become Ann Althouse!; 3/3/09, 12:29 AM
Anonymous said...: May I suggest, Better Michael:

This photo; 3/3/09, 12:30 AM
Cousin Bob said...: On second thought, maybe I'll become...hmmm...help me out here...I know! I'm thinking of someone with a fabulous sex life. I think I'll become Titus!; 3/3/09, 12:33 AM
Roberto said...: JSF - "pedophile Michael"

You're not real bright are you?; 3/3/09, 12:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob -- That would only be a fabulous poop life.; 3/3/09, 12:35 AM
JSF said...: Michael,

You're the one posting about having sex with kids and wishing people dead.; 3/3/09, 12:36 AM
Cousin Bob said...: No, what I want is to become someone famous, powerful, sexy...

I know!

Gov. Schwarzenegger!

Er, well, at least he's got the famous part left.; 3/3/09, 12:43 AM
Beth said...: Beth, if you are for higher taxes, you are not for people spending their own money freely.

Higher than what? Or when? What level of taxes are you for? Just saying "higher" is meaningless. And what kinds of taxes? Sales? Income? Property?; 3/3/09, 12:46 AM
Beth said...: Seven,

I'm tired of scrolling through this clusterfuck of weird troll comments. I'm moving on. Later!; 3/3/09, 12:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Beth, it really doesn't matter. To the extent that you wish to appropriate more money for the government instead of less, and have government do more and not less, you are irrefutably for taking money and power away from individual citizens.

I don't know how you expect to debate this. It's a truism.; 3/3/09, 12:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Understood.; 3/3/09, 12:51 AM
Roberto said...: JSF - Are you daft?

When did post anything about "having sex with kids and wishing people dead"??; 3/3/09, 1:01 AM
dualdiagnosis said...: Ann, why do you tolerate commenters who turn these threads into embarrassing train wrecks?

Michael and Titus should go start their own little blog together somewhere, they could shit, piss and moan to their hearts content.; 3/3/09, 1:53 AM
Revenant said...: "Name a political position of Rush's that the Republican Party ought to condemn."

He's right about everything, obviously. That's why his listeners all [blah blah blah]

Look, Beth, it is very simple. You claim that Rush routinely says things conservatives SHOULD criticize him for but which they then do not.

Either you can name examples, or you're talking out of your ass. Those are the two possibilities. So name examples or buzz off; I'm ok with either option.

But you're trying to change the subject - which is the cringing obsequiousness of GOP public officials to Rush.

Asking for supporting evidence is not "changing the subject". You haven't established that any such obsequiousness exists.; 3/3/09, 1:55 AM
Eli Blake said...: I find it creepy when people post their intent to commit a felony here.; 3/3/09, 1:55 AM
Eli Blake said...: OK, it looks like Ann did her job and deleted all the disgusting stuff.

Now, regarding Limbaugh, my only comment is that the natural direction of anything is to fill a vacuum. If Limbaugh is now the effective (if not actual) leader of the GOP maybe the reason isn't because he has anything new to offer, but rather because there is such a vacuum of leadership in your party.

I remember when Democrats went through the same thing a few years ago. We were accused of following Michael Moore. In wasn't that in fact we were following Michael Moore, it was just that about five or six years ago there was no one else out there articulating any kind of a liberal message at all. Preaching one, yes. But articulating one, no.

Luckily we found new leadership (starting with Howard Dean and culminating in Barack Obama.)

What the GOP needs to do is quit looking back to the past (yeah, I know how much you love Ronald Reagan, but let's face it-- the young people registering to vote today never heard Ronald Reagan speak, and keeping going back to him is the same mistake Democrats made when we kept trying to tie everything back to Roosevelt or at least to JFK. It's a new century and you need to articulate a message about what we will do in the teens, not about what you think worked in the eighties.; 3/3/09, 2:06 AM
Revenant said...: keeping going back to him is the same mistake Democrats made when we kept trying to tie everything back to Roosevelt or at least to JFK.

You mean like Obama is doing right now?

The notion that appeals to FDR are something Democrats *used* to do but have since given up is downright silly. The Obama administration is enthusiastically painting itself as the second coming of Roosevelt, as well you know.; 3/3/09, 2:12 AM
Anonymous said...: I would add to what Rev said: Democrats telling Republicans to get leadership is a bit asinine. It is true that there is a vacuum. It's also true that this vacuum is the nature of things at this point in the election cycle.

Moreover, Eli, any leadership that does come, you will pillory. You know that's true.

And one more thing, in my considered view, your leadership, such as it is, is leading the country into a mortifying recession.; 3/3/09, 2:21 AM
Michael said...: Seven,

Thanks for the Picture Suggestion!

Because I'm Michael!

I am a dog's ass!; 3/3/09, 2:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Any time. It's perfect, really.; 3/3/09, 2:45 AM
John Clifford said...: It galls me that the very folks who yelled, "Bush is not my president!" are all up in arms because the almost-50% of the voting population who didn't vote for Obama aren't all bowing down in worship to the Messiah. Give Obama a chance? Puh-leeeze! Where the hell were you for the past 8 years?

Re Obama et al attacking Limbaugh, didn't they ever read any Br'er Rabbit stories? Every time the Obama Administration attacks Rush, they elevate Rush. This tells me that the internal polling data... and the Tea Party protests... and the thousands upon thousands of folks who are busy tearing their local Democrat Congressman/Senator a new one... must have them scared s***less, and therefore it's time to switch to attack mode. They're making a huge mistake; they'd be far better off to ignore Rush as if he were irrelevant... which he's not. He's gaining more relevance daily, and Obama is helping.

Re wanting Obama to fail, I'm with Rush on this one. I didn't vote for Obama, but I was cautiously optimistic when he won, and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. All that went away after the Spendulus bill followed by his budget. I hope Obama fails. Yes, fails, at what he is trying to do. What is that? Stampeding the rubes, talking down the economy, creating a panic so he can ram through his socialist agenda... an agenda that has been the wet dream of the Democrats since the '60s, and one that has very little to do with helping the economy recover.

You know why the stock market isn't getting better? It's because the president and his administration don't WANT it to get better. They're not done giving us our change.; 3/3/09, 3:57 AM
Fearsome Pirate said...: Rush is an entertainer and sees himself as an entertainer. When he refers to himself as the leader of the Republican Party, it's very obviously tongue in cheek. People who don't have a sarcastic bone in their bodies have a very difficult time understanding Rush, because they think everything has to be SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Anyway, I was listening yesterday, and he was going on about how the Republican Party needs leadership. Like I said, he doesn't see himself as the leader, and the fact that anyone thinks he is just shows how rudderless the GOP is.; 3/3/09, 4:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Very funny that E.R. annoints Rush "leader" and knows full well that the GOP will, as indicated here, fall over itself to puzzle it out, refute or affirm it...and the Dems are dumb?

If Rush is in fact your leader, then Olberman is leader of the Democratic party.; 3/3/09, 7:27 AM
Roux said...: Obama is weak and thin skinned. He's also a Chicago street thug. He can't help himself but to attack Limbaugh.

FWIW Although it makes the Nutroots happy it makes him look less and less Presidential. If that's even possible.; 3/3/09, 10:01 AM
Beth said...: You claim that Rush routinely says things conservatives SHOULD criticize him for but which they then do not.

No, I didn't make that claim, which is why I said you're changing the subject. I said that when conservatives DO criticize him, they're brought back in line quickly. They cannot say "Rush is wrong" about anything; it's not allowed.

I'm talking process, you're talking content. I don't care what the GOP positions are, nor what Rush says they ought to be. I'm amused by the spectacle. Everytime some conservative says something critical of Rush, he's in the news within a day saying "I'm sorry!" It's even funnier when the topic is lack of leadership. Apparently GOP leadership is contingent on paying obeisance to Rush.; 3/3/09, 10:15 AM
Parker Smith said...: Is there some way I can filter out the ad hominem attacks, both those made against the post's subject and those the commenters fling at each other?

There's some good stuff here, but you have to wade through a lot of stuff to see it, some times.

Can I just bozo filter some commenters, at least? (Sorry, TitusWhateverTheSelfInvolvedDisplayOfTheDayIs); 3/3/09, 10:29 AM
juandos said...: 1jpb whines: "The BHO folks are proved correct in the most effective way imaginable"...

Hmmm, a U of W graduate are you?...LOL!

chuck b blathers mindlessly: "Middle-aged fat men should not go around being photographed with an unbuttoned shirt like that. Ugh"...

Hmmm, is this one eyesore calling another eyesore ugly or is just more LIBTARD whining over nothing at all?

Just curious...

"I gave up Rush when he decided he was an intellectual instead of a clever showman"...

We gave up on you savetherustbelt at Carpe Diem when it was beyond painfully obvious you never, ever had a clue about what the topic was... Yet your lack of shame in posting abysmally stupid comments never stopped you...

I see you've carried your act over here...

michael no picture says: "Besides, the girl from downstairs is spending the night"...

What's she doing, watering the house plant and feeding the goldfish for your roommate?; 3/3/09, 12:15 PM
TRundgren said...: "Blogger Michael said...

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election.
"

So you're outraged at normal human behavior? Is that your point?; 3/3/09, 2:21 PM
Revenant said...: No, I didn't make that claim, which is why I said you're changing the subject. I said that when conservatives DO criticize him, they're brought back in line quickly.

Sigh.

Beth, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there have been many occasions on which conservatives have criticized Rush and then been attacked for doing so. You haven't been able to name any examples at all, but let's just suppose its true.

Well, in order for it to be wrong for those people who criticized Rush to be attacked for doing so, their criticisms have to have been justified. Attacking someone for making unjustified criticisms isn't obsequiousness, after all.

So we come back around to the question: what were the things Rush did that conservatives should have legitimately criticized him for?

Yes, you think he's mean and hateful and yadda yadda McYadda. This is unsurprising. He has built a career out of mocking humorless left-wingers. You ARE a humorless left-winger, ergo you feel offended. Duh. But that's no reason for conservatives to criticize him.

The reason Steele is getting ripped for calling Rush's show "ugly" is simple: so far as most right-of-center people are concerned, only a nitwit would consider Rush's show to be "ugly". Your opinion differs, but the you're not a conservative, now are you.; 3/3/09, 2:40 PM