८ ऑक्टोबर, २००९
I am defended over at Unzipped....
... in a post with a title that, if I quote it, I'll have Andrew Sullivan on my case all over again. So go into the very gay environment over there and read it.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Can't you do something like Hot Guy of the Day over here, Althouse? Except with women, or perhaps squirrels.
So Unzipped suggests Sullivan zip it?
They were defending you?!
And you, a lawyer!
I'm lfao...so much is funny right now. Funny ha ha, and the other way too. A happy convergence, imo.
Sullivan is in need of a zip intervention.
WV "bradis" What a topless dancer from Brooklyn says to her dresser.
i'm pretty sure andrew hears that ever day in p'town. from the gays.
It's true... Andres expects to be allowed to say whatever he wants. He is very upset when the Atlantic suggests he shouldn't question Trig being Sarah's son. It's such an ugly, pointless, and untrue thing, but Andrew expects an extreme level of free speech from that website.
Until someone bashes Sullivan in an ugly way. Then, it's proof you're horrible if you do not censor instantly that comment. Andrew didn't email Althouse and ask her to delete it... he just took it for granted that there is a meaning to this particular comment. Ann is eloquently proving to be an anti-gay bigot.
Either that, or andrew is, yet again, proving that he's very unreasonable.
Sully has some serious mental problems. That's why he likes to have sex all day and smoke weed. To make the voices quieter.
I'm sorry was that homophobic?
Sullivan stopped being interesing a long time ago, in terms of the content of his blog. But it is interesting that he stills gets attention.
I suppose he successfully generates it. But why do people bite?
Here is the "Money Quote" so to speak:
1. Ann Althouse is a lot of things, but she is not homophobic. She has consistently spoken out in favor of gay marriage and gay rights. (She also happens to have a hot gay son.)
2. Ann Althouse permitting free speech in her comments is no different than The Atlantic permitting Andrew Sullivan to repeatedly question Sarah Palin's baby bump and when/where/how her water broke.
3. Andrew Sullivan is apparently too stupid to realize that the less insane things he says, the less chance there would be of other people saying insane things about him. Then again, maybe he enjoys this.
4. Sarah Palin actually being the mother of Trig Palin does not make her any less of an idiot, or a liar.
5. Andrew Sullivan does not allow comments on his own blog.
Anyone is entitled not to like Sarah Palin. We live in America and that is what democracy and representational government is all about. Palin does have issues. Where Andrew has gone crazy is obsessing about an issue involving her child that is frankly nuts to keep bringing up. This is about Andrew never admitting he is wrong (well except for supporting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of course).
What I do not understand is why the Atlantic keeps that poltroon on. He cannot have that large a readership which translates into advertising revenue. I guess political correctness is more important than profit.
They still could not resist attacking Palin as "an idiot or a liar".
Why do people need to always water down their excursions into unbiased argument by including some morsel to their constituency. This is an unshakable relic of group think and identity politics. It kills any challenge to their readers to be similarly open minded.
Courage.
A rose is a rose, a spade is a spade, and a crazy fag is a crazy fag. So let's not mince words nor shrink from their accurate use.
"This is an unshakable relic of group think and identity politics. It kills any challenge to their readers to be similarly open minded."
So true.
He knows he'll be less popular if he doesn't prove his bona fides. Seemed irrelevant to the point of his post, and he didn't argue the point at all, but it served its purpose. No biggie...
They still could not resist attacking Palin as "an idiot or a liar".
Why do people need to always water down their excursions into unbiased argument by including some morsel to their constituency. This is an unshakable relic of group think and identity politics. It kills any challenge to their readers to be similarly open minded.
***
Good. Let's bookmark that comment for future reference when we're praising Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Here's another point. Andrew's main beef was with how insane and inane some of the comments are here at Althouse. Like most well-read blogs that allow comments, you get some crazy's that spew frantic vomitous invectives on any topic that touches a political nerve (my blog, being read by three people - myself included - would know nothing about this). But Andrew, in my mind, has little room to criticize. He does not allow comments on his blog. If he did, does anyone not think that he would have plenty of "wing-nuts" writing bizarre, racist, even homophobic stuff on his blog also?
That said, the pics that were the subject of Sullivans post? I clearly see a woman in the middle pick who is pregnant and is doing her best to make it less obvious. So yet, I think Andrew is kinda stuck on stupid as far as the Trig thing goes.
Fred4Pres said...
Here is the "Money Quote" so to speak:
...
4. Sarah Palin actually being the mother of Trig Palin does not make her any less of an idiot, or a liar.
Money quote, in your dreams. The only liar/idiot is you, Fred.
I have yet to hear of a lie she has told and she has yet to say anything nearly as stupid as some of the things we've heard from those intellects, Joe Biden, John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi.
"Can't you do something like Hot Guy of the Day over here, Althouse"
The ones at Unzipped were so-so. I much prefer the Man of the Day at RealJock.com.
Despite these little diversions I still find Sullivan's uterine obsessions hard to understand. Sullivan seems to be rational, if deeply mistaken, about most other issues, so certain commenters' insinuations about AIDS dementia can be dismissed as the homophobia they so clearly are.
But why Trig-o-mania? There's still no plausible expalanation.
tjl,
It might be anti-AIDS bias to claim Andrew has AIDS dementia... but since he does have AIDS, it's not homophobic at all.
It's not homophobic to say that a black man who happens to like fried chicken may have gotten those grease stains from fried chicken. Post-judice is the opposite of prejudice.
Also, your commenting that Andrew is sane when he's not talking about Trig is a severe minority position. He's flipped and been extreme about almost every topic he speaks about.
"But why Trig-o-mania? There's still no plausible expalanation."
If that is a head scratcher, then why on earth is Althouse continuing to scratch her head over Andrew Sullivan's quirks?
Once-removed and still talking about it is no less an obsessive.
lol, swap my latter 'homophobic' for racist, obviously.
Penny, no, it's not.
Good grief. People talk about kooks all the time. Ann's mocking of Andrew being a nut is based on reality and interesting. You're reading and commenting on it, after all.
Andrew's complaining about Palin's lack of medical record exposure is not based on reality... it's based on his pure white hot hatred. And lots of people like to talk about whatever Andrews angry about. It's not just the Trig thing... except Andrew's been horrible on that specific point for a while.
Anyone want to guess if there's some blatant heterophobia on that site?
I mean, using the standards laid out there and applying them to breeders?
edutcher--you misunderstand. I am not endorsing everything that gay magazine said, I like Sarah Palin. I voted for McCain-Palin (although I would have preferred Fred Thompson). There are clues to suggest that in my handle.
Nevertheless, I need not fight everyone who disagrees with me. Others can critcize her. That is their right. Sarah Palin has made mistakes. But to completely make up nonsense about her and her child like Andrew Sullivan does? It is disgusting. I have a serious problem with that.
edutcher--Kerry? That is just mean to imply I support Kerry. What did I ever do to you?
I misread, then, Fred. My bad.
On Kerry, I guess few really deserve that company. Again, my bad.
I get so tired of hearing the lefty delta males here go after a good woman whose faults don't deserve the vitriol she receives I suppose what I perceived you said was once too often. Sorry about that.
Kudos to Zach for doing that- I hope he doesn't lose and friends over it.
wv: "comist" Totally tantric!
Hm, I had no idea your son is gay.
So. Who cares? Frankly, he's interesting.
I like how Sullivan prefaces his complaint with "Now, I'm not complaining" and then launches into full scale whine mode. Why isn't Althouse sufficiently zealous in her censorship of her readers comments!
It is pretty funny that Sullivan isn't complaining.
Apparently he thinks homophobia is OK?
It's really lame that he pretends this is emblematic of the right wing. In today's right wing, thank God, it seems social issues are finally taking a back seat. Those comments were half moby, half sarcastic troll, and perhaps a bit of real disgust at Andrew's sexuality.
Andrew isn't just gay, though. he's milky-loads-gay. He's the kind of person that kills people with his sex, and posts disgusting and boastful advertisements about it. That's WRONG. Many also think homosexual sex in general is wrong, and there are good arguments on both sides of that. But bashing Sullivan doesn't always = bashing gay people.
In particular, consider the 'he fudges packed a lot and now his brain is damaged' comment. That seems to be an attack on Andrew being very irresponsible with sex, leading to a disease that some claim (without much evidence) led to mental problems. That's not homophobia. It's relevant to Andrew, not a gay person that only sleeps with serious relationship partners.
It's exactly like how calling Paris Hilton a slut is not an attack on straight people. Andrew can't hide being the homophobe card. He lives the stereotype many gays don't deserve.
Peter V. Bella, since you keep bringing it up, Sullivan is number 17 on technorati's list of top 100 blogs.
So yeah, I guess he doesn't have much readership.
Peter Hoh, you have to admit, Sullivan's blog just isn't that interesting when compared to what it was a few years ago. Even when he was critical of Bush, for a while there, it was a great blog. It's not that good anymore.
I don't doubt you're right, and it's one of the top 20 blogs. Perhaps that link on the Drudge Report or his notoriety has persisted, but I guess a lot of people really love that blog.
There's no accounting for taste! What an awesome country/world that this drugged up idiot, who legally ought to be deported for drugs, is able to speak to millions. I hope he's able to blog like that for a long time, even if he's pretty asinine.
Slow Joe, I'm not sure I can compare Sullivan's blog today with what it was a few years ago.
I certainly think that he made a critical error in saying anything about the Palin pregnancy rumors. I can't recall his airing anything remotely so far-fetched in the past.
You're right. Andrews often been a zealous and unfair critic, and I recall he was particularly bad towards people who didn't support the invasion of Iraq. But nothing compares with how he's treated Sarah Palin. It's almost as though he wants to create a smokescreen to hide all the legit criticisms.
He's really her best friend in that respect. It's hard not to be sympathetic to someone who goes through all that hell to have a son with Down's that she loves so much, only to be attacked as his 'fake' mother. That's just so mean... and of course totally illogical.
I think he's gotten more boring. It's a very good time to be a conservative blogger, after all. lots to whine about!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा