Via Instapundit, who notes that Carbonite stock "set a new, and much lower, 52-week low today."
It's so lame of these companies to drop Rush after all the money they invested in building their reputation with people who like Rush. They had ongoing momentum from the accumulated advertising, and now they've nullified it. Where do they get the new customers? They've given in to people who are trying to win a political victory. Those people are happy about it, but are they going to buy that Carbonite stuff? I doubt it.
ADDED: Sarah Palin in Facebook:
Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone's daughter, why doesn't his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?"Rabid misogynist" = Bill Maher (who called Sarah Palin a "cunt").
And, to show just how thick these interconnections really are: Instapundit is telling his readers that if they cancel their cable (to buy a Roku box), then "For added mischief, when you cancel cable, you can tell the company that it’s because of Bill Maher."
Posts
204 comments:
1 – 200 of 204 Newer› Newest»Ann, nobody wants to stand with those advertisers after what they stepped in... and apparently are too stupid to scrape off their shoes.
As noted eleswhere, HBO must be getting a boatload of cancellations. Even Maher knows where his bread is buttered. When it comes to money, there is solidarity. Hely Bill, time to appologize to Palin.
Accountability is a bitch.
Now the Lefties are shown for the hypocrites they are and who actually comes out the winner in this may not be the bad guys, after all.
Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone's daughter, why doesn't his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?
This is a non-issue, Glenn and Sarah. Ann Althouse told me so yesterday. Obama is powerless to refuse that money.
Of the 5 responses to Maher's tweet, 3 of them deny that Rush's apology was even an apology. Last I looked, "I'm Sorry" was an apology. Did something change?
Because Limbaugh was railroaded, railroad a lefty back! Nice principles there, again, Insta.
Maher is terrified. He knows he is next and he knows we are coming for him. Don’t stop. Be Breitbart. Take his job and his career. Put him in the gutter.
Limbaugh was absolutely clear that he was apologizing. The objection, if one wants to object, should be that he was limited and precise about what he was apologizing for, which is only for aiming the words "slut" and "prostitute" at Fluke.
He doesn't apologize for criticizing her for wanting reimbursement for birth control or for testifying at that "hearing" when she had no relevant expertise but was merely telling vague anecdotes about unnamed persons.
Jesus, nuance--God damn it.
Maher shouldn't call people a cunt and he should apologize for having done so.
Palin doesn't seem to understand the relationship between Obama and the PAC that Maher donated money to which is unsurprising because Sarah Palin is an idiot.
GM hunted-and-pecked: Limbaugh was railroaded
DIng-ding-ding!! Congratulations, you stumbled upon a fact, and a true one at that.
I've been keeping score, so that's...1.
So far.
It also makes Ms Fluck look small.
Another step on the road to Cindy.
Andy R. said...
Maher shouldn't call people a cunt and he should apologize for having done so.
Palin doesn't seem to understand the relationship between Obama and the PAC that Maher donated money to which is unsurprising because Sarah Palin is an idiot.
Thus spake the expert on not understanding anything.
Strictly speaking, Limbaugh could also apologize for the comment "[w]e want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch."
"The objection, if one wants to object..."
According to Meadehouse should he apologize for saying that Fluke was "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk", and asking her "Who bought your condoms in sixth grade?"
Rush Limbaugh has name recognition. Even people who don't listen to his show, or listen only rarely, certainly know about him.
He took a mighty swing at a female law school student; and, he thought he was being cute ... when he felt "as a taxpayer" he was entitled to see her porn movies.
Somehow, he hit VIRAL MODE.
And, he did himself no favors.
I was just listening to Randi Rhodes'(sp?) radio show; she's livid, enraged, and going absolutely bonkers over Rush's slut comments. I've heard Randi many times before, but apparently this latest Rush business is the worst experience of her life, by far - worse than actual rape - no, gang rape.
During her nervous breakdown, however, she did mention that "37" advertisers have dropped Rush, including what she considers the female retail gold standard, J.C.Penny (see, you learn something everyday).
Rush used to be fairly good at pitching that Carbonite stuff.
Often Rush did the commercial using related stack of stuff, real life stories.
Not surprisingly, I see on Drudge that the stock took a dive following their Rush pullout.
Maher is afraid he may have to take back the million dollars and can't help Obama. It looks like Obama needs it too. How is that for an ulterior motive on Maher's part?
"He doesn't apologize for criticizing her for wanting reimbursement for birth control or for testifying at that "hearing" when she had no relevant expertise but was merely telling vague anecdotes about unnamed persons."
Amen.
By the way, have we determined Ms. Fluke's sexual orientation?
Notice it's Palin calling out Obama for what Maher said about... Palin.
Has Palin isolated herself?
It is amazing to me that this is still an issue, that people are still talking about this goofy thing.
Both the left and the right need to get over themselves on this one. It's just silly.
Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread? That is at least a couple of orders of magnitude beyond "slut", and Andy R. is a contemptible human being.
Andy is a hateful, anti-religious bigot. And also a douchebag.
Somehow, he hit VIRAL MODE.
And, he did himself no favors.
Its funny how severely you contradict yourself in what appears to be two sentences.
VIRAL MODE represents a generation who hardly heard of Rush, but are intimately familiar with the word slut.. specially while txtng.
Has Palin isolated herself?
Actually, while appearing on FOX earlier, it sounded like she's gearing up for a presidential run - given the weak Republican field - especially evidenced by the split in Ohio.
Hey, Lem, if this story hasn't gone VIRAL, then what story do you think ever did?
You seem to be a slow learner; but Rush didn't do himself any favors.
Nor did he do any favors to any of the republicans currently running for the republican nomination. Because? Because the story turned on what Rush said ... not on the weak field of republican losers.
Ali -- Palin is not a politician. She is a celebrity in politics with a brand and she cares about the Palin brand. She is very good at marketing her brand. She knows that the the Palin brand will suffer when people know for certain that she is not running for president.
Palin is not running for president in 2012. Palin will, in fact, endorse the nominee and give a rather thrilling -- though not prime time -- speech full of red meat for the people who eat it up.
Maher probably turns down lots of stand-up gigs at Dem affairs. With the election season coming up and with so many like-minded fans (Andy R) applauding him, he can afford to piss-off a few of us.
Dr . Weevil, I don't find it odd. That is what I expect from Andy.
Pretty understandable that you'd rather focus on this than on the demise of the larger Republican "brand" under the leadership of a phony who can't even prevent three challengers from tearing him to bits in March.
As for Limblob, he's pretty sorry to lose the money, and not much else. It's not like people matter to that repulsive narcissistic cretin.
"It looks like Obama needs it too."
Oh no. Ask any con, they'll let you know that BHO will have a billion.
BTW cons, how will Romney fair when he's fighting a billion bucks? Is it troubling that he's currently having trouble against a dude who is broke (by comparison)?
Seven Machos said...
-------------
Palin is creating enough mischief in this election. She could say something nice about Romney and 'conservatives' will flock to him. The fact that she is playing coy shows that she is holding a grudge against Romney and his people for what she perceives they did to her.
"should be that he was limited and precise about what he was apologizing for, which is only for aiming the words "slut" and "prostitute" at Fluke."
Limbo also wanted to see Ms. Fluke's sex tape. Hey, he's a pervert who can't get it up!
Praise the lord! :-P
but Rush didn't do himself any favors.
Disagree, at least in principle. If nothing else, Rush's brush with broadcast mortality has emphasized the need for a strong Republican candidate.
As I mentioned above, even Sarah Palin is reconsidering her decision not to run.
Vrrrrrr-oooooommmmm, vrrr-oomm.
Part of the Republican attraction to irrationality and obsequiousness translates into an inability to draw crucial distinctions. If Maher got to call all the shots for the Democrats, the way Limblob does for Republicans, then analogies between the two might be meaningful. But he doesn't.
So it's funny watching all that ginned up rage on behalf of the failed effort to equate the two go nowhere useful.
As I mentioned above, even Sarah Palin is reconsidering her decision not to run.
If you say so.
I think not so.
Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread
Heck, no. Andy's pretty easy to understand - he's just grateful that he's not smart enough to question whatever the cool kids want him to believe.
Seven - Remember, the opposition is now a certified jive turkey. Therefore, even Palin has a better than average chance - especially since she will not mince words.
If Maher got to call all the shots for the Democrats, the way Limblob does for Republicans, then analogies between the two might be meaningful. But he doesn't.
What has Rush Limbaugh done for Romney? (other than indirectly)
how will Romney fair when he's fighting a billion bucks?
Romney will do fabulous. He has, smartly, focused his campaign on the economy. The economy is a crater. All the goofy shit Obama will try to throw at Romney will roll off among independents. Teflon will eventually be mentioned.
In this vein, it's good that Limbaugh did this stupid thing. Now he knows -- and everybody knows -- to focus on the economy. Social issues do not matter this election except to rabid already-decideds, who can't be bought.
The fact that she is playing coy
You don't seem to understand Palin's brand. She understands her brand. She understands that her base is a certain group of social conservative wannabe libertarians. That's how it is.
Palin can't endorse Romney for this reason. She also can't endorse Santorum because even she understands that he is going to lose, either the nomination or the election.
Also, Palin understands that her endorsement will be worth something. No sense shooting her wad now.
So, wait.
The best comment to come out of this episode was provided by George Will.
He pointed out that Republicans are more afraid of offending Rush Limblob than of starting a third war in a decade, this time with Iran.
Think for a minute about what that says about them.
jive turkey
You are an idiot to keep using this obviously racial term.
Carol you ingnorant tuls
Please Reread what I wrote.
Rush has kept saying all along he is there for his audience first and foremost..
He always says his success is not based on who wins elections.
If people are going to vote for Obama because Rush called some woman a slut then we have bigger problems than we think.
My prediction is his audience is only going to grow as a result of this.
Also, Palin understands that her endorsement will be worth something. No sense shooting her wad now.
-----------
She announced she voted for Newt (see Drudge)..
Hey, Ritmo. Tell us about how John Paul Stevens is a conservative and about how all the conservative judges you hate voted for the majority in Kelo. Because, you know, you are against Kelo, so it must be conservatives who wrote it. Now Ginsburg.
Now, insult me.
Now, go to some other blog and say how awesome I am. Again.
What has Rush Limbaugh done for Romney? (other than indirectly)
Ahhh... you misunderstand the way that dysfunctional "relationship", er, works.
It goes the other way around. Romney is a Republican. Ergo, regardless of what Limblob does or doesn't "do" for him, he must minimize any offense on Limblob's behalf. No Republican can cross the dictates and oh so sensitive sensibilities of Mr Limblob.
Why is that? Well, ask your party.
The libs have done Rush a huge favor.
Seven,
Presumably he's only having trouble w/ his current competitors because they're such impressive opposition. If they were gigantic losers, fired (by their own party) pols, and nuts, he (and his massive dough advantage) would blow them out of the water.
Ha ha.
Continuing my previous comment -- if Palin is putting brakes on Santorum by announcing that she voted for Newt, that is fine by me. But what do you do with the Dems playing mischief and voting for Santorum as they have done in OH?
Delegates!! Romney will have plenty and may be enough. Karma Obots.
Carbonite stock has been falling since August 2011 when it was $17 - because it is losing money, not because it dumped Rush. Rush shot off his mouth and hit his foot. In this era of apologies not worth the breath expelled stating them it is no wonder some think a simple I'm sorry is not a problem ender.
Rush mouthing off: no big deal. Carbonite not wanting to be associated with Rush: no big deal.
PM -- But Gingrich is not anywhere near the top two. It is as if some iconic Democrat endorsed Chris Dodd around the Iowa Caucus circa 2008.
Who cares? That endorsement is obviously worthless now. She could continue to own it, but that would be stupid. Palin is not stupid.
Looks like 7 Minnows can't stand to hear the substance of what's really got Althouse's attention. Again.
And again.
And again.
(Also, have I said one thing to him? Of course not. He's as irrelevant as Romney, as are his half-baked "ideas". But that doesn't stop him from blowing a gasket to make sure that no one realizes the obvious truth about his puppy of a candidate and the fat, ugly man that controls him).
PBJ -- Romney is having trouble in states with open primaries where Democrats are actively voting for Santorum. Romney is also having trouble is states full of socially conservative Republicans that Obama has absolutely no chance of winning.
I'll add here one final premise for you: Democrats can't vote for other Republicans in the general election.
Though you have shown yourself to have the occasional glimmer of intelligence here, you are generally an idiot and I have long since given up on you, so I don't expect you to be able to draw the obvious conclusion.
It doesn't really matter. Romney will beat Obama. By then you will have moved onto some other thing to "gloat" about. Because that's what stupid people with no critical skills do.
Enjoy signifying nothing.
Palin is not stupid but it is hard to believe her when she wraps herself in flag. But there are stupid people who believe her shtick and that is her brand like you say.
Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread? That is at least a couple of orders of magnitude beyond "slut", and Andy R. is a contemptible human being.
Frothy is a bigot against the gays and he is being punished for that. I have no problem with punishing people for being bigots. Maybe now frothy and other bigoted people will think twice before they engage in bigotry.
Also calling someone frothy does not entrench a culture of sexism in this country which is used to punish and shame and oppress women.
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
BTW cons, how will Romney fair when he's fighting a billion bucks? Is it troubling that he's currently having trouble against a dude who is broke (by comparison)?
GodZero is so short on cash, he's stiffing everybody else in the party. All his big money people have gone to Milton.
Try another one.
PS Santorum is only in contention in OH because of all the Demo votes he's getting.
As I say, it will be interesting to see how well he did with just Republicans.
You are an idiot to keep using this obviously racial term.
Well, how would you characterize a person who behaves exactly like a jive turkey - which certainly more polite than its equivalent: Bullshitter.
Women are strong!
Except they wilt when they are called names!
Tough and enduring, save for when harsh words fly.
Steadfast and unyielding, until they wilt or shatter from the mean things people say.
Feminists are Greek columns made of styrofoam; a Potemkin village of bicycled fish.
Is Ritmo Urban Dribbler now suggesting that Limbaugh controls Romney? Is that the suggestion?
I guess whatever it takes for you to get up for your sorry job at the convenience store, dude.
Did you tell your friends how awesome I am again?
Andy R. said...
Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread? That is at least a couple of orders of magnitude beyond "slut", and Andy R. is a contemptible human being.
Frothy is a bigot against the gays and he is being punished for that. I have no problem with punishing people for being bigots. Maybe now frothy and other bigoted people will think twice before they engage in bigotry.
I'm sure Santorum bleeds from every orifice at Hatman's word.
But Hatman ought to think about how being such an incredible jerk makes him such an incredible ambassador of the LGBTQYDBNUREBGN community.
Romney is having trouble in states with open primaries where Democrats are actively voting for Santorum.
Did Romney make an ad for Ohio with Santorum's robocall in MI begging for Dems to rescue him? If he didn't, he deserves all the trouble he is having in OH. Media would have played it up if they wanted Romney to win, but they don't.
I'm wondering if the hole in that mask where 7 Minnows' mouth should be was made to accommodate Rush Limblob's dick or Roger Ailes' dick.
What is it with you guys and your compulsive need to fellate repulsively fat, disgusting old men?
For some reason, it doesn't seem to be translating well with the voting public. Are you surprised?
Lionheart says: Rush mouthing off: no big deal. Carbonite not wanting to be associated with Rush: no big deal.
See, that's where I think you're wrong. You obviously don't listen to Rush; he advertised Carbonite in a very personal way -- it wasn't just a pre-recorded commercial. People like my father (dedicated Rush listener) purchased Carbonite solely on the basis of the Rush endorsement, and he is cancelling based on this. I cancelled my upcoming auto-renewal, as well, just because I'm annoyed by the spectacle of it all.
Like Althouse says, it's foolish of Carbonite to do this, because there are likely many more incensed Rush fans cancelling than delighted liberals signing up. The liberal just moves on to hassling the next company on the list.
If Carbonite had signed up X-amount of new users since the brou-ha-ha begin, you can bet your sweet ass we'd know about it -- and that stock wouldn't be falling at such a rate.
Media Matters had a big list so that no sponsor could be missed.
I don't mind the notion of boycotts, or particularly mind the notion of voting with your dollars.
But at some point it does seem a bit excessive. How many layers down are you supposed to go? If you boycott a company that stays with Limbaugh, do you boycott someone *else* who doesn't stop accepting advertising from that same company?
On the one hand, does Maher deserve to have people generally go after HBO? He didn't start this fiasco and while he's certainly earned a great deal of bad feeling, and earned it well, he's got to realize that equal treatment is *not* something he wants to experience.
I think that Rush will be fine. He's had people mad at him for a very long time. He's not going to lose listeners who purchase products.
OTOH, it's trivially easy not to have anything to do with HBO.
O Ritmo Segundo:
You have a problem in calibration, which you ought to address:
Rush DOESN'T, in fact, call *all* the shots (I'm here to witness that). Which means that Maher calls even less of them than you seem to think.
Stop and think about--ruminate over, even--that for just a moment or even two.
***
Can I get a witness? Oh, probably not.
These days.
Whatever.
Okay, let me ask it this way: would Sandra Fluck date Rachel Maddow?
Viral mode = new generation speak.. the new generation that presumably is not his demographic.
I don't know that I can explain it to you any plainer.
BTW I thought only puritans could be outraged at the mere though of someone being called slut.
Everyone controls Romney, not just Limblob. The man simply has no independent will.
Which is why 7 Hemorrhoids loves him so. He's just his type of a tool. Helps him feel better about his own domination/submission issues.
Oops, sorry.
Totally wrong.
MEN ARE PIGS!!1!
Thanks for the assertion without evidence, rc. I'm sure that goes over well with many of the tools here.
But at some point it does seem a bit excessive. How many layers down are you supposed to go?
EXACTLY! YESSS!
[But beware: I just took that highlighted-via-italicization bit out of context, and then reacted, and therein attempted to make a point.
; ) ]
Pogo, are you still lamenting the fact that the 1950s are over? You're about as predictable as Wonder Bread.
What will you do once the decade you want to immortalize no longer has any living souls who remember it? Then America will be really FUCKED, amiright?
The one thing I will give the leftist tools here is that they are eternal optimists. Stupid, and wrong, but eternal optimists just the same -- and there's something to be said for that.
Look at the facts. For years here, we've been hearing our leftists spout that the Republican message doesn't seem to be translating well with the voting public. Yet state houses and governorships are largely controlled by Republicans. Yet the House is controlled by Republicans. Yet the Senate is virtually a tie. Yet five of the last eight presidential races have been won by Republicans. Yet Obama's favorability rating is perpetually under 50 percent.
Leftists: when, do you suppose, will the Republican seem to be translating well with the voting public?
Looking forward to your answers!
I'm sure that goes over well with many of the tools here.
Oh, to the contrary, I think it does not.
As a rule, I'd assume you're a bit foolish if you buy stuff based on the PAID endorsement of a radio performer.
BTW, you poor saps who listen to and "ditto-purchase" Rush's commercials are very different than Altouse. Don't be fooled by her harping about Rush's advertisers--she doesn't hear any of them.
She may note that there are listeners who are susceptible to ditto-purchasing. But, she is better than them. She is above the ditto-purchasing commoners.
Anywho, I need to go and sign up for the Heritage Foundation.....because Rush told me to.
But Hatman ought to think about how being such an incredible jerk makes him such an incredible ambassador of the LGBTQYDBNUREBGN community.
It's 2012 in America... if someone is anti-gay then they are an idiot or a bigot or both. And this idea that people are on the fence about supporting equality but because I made fun of frothy they just can't do it is silly.
Own your bigotry people. Take some responsibility.
Be proud that you are an anti-gay bigot and say it in public and you can say you're doing it because the guy with the hat on the blog said something not nice and you can live that down for the rest of your life.
In Virginia Paul and Romney were the only ones on the ballot. Paul took 40% of the vote.
CNN is projecting Congressman Kucinich will be unseated by Marcy Kaptur.
And maybe America will be Loki enough to live to laugh, wot wit all of this commotion.
I haven't watched cable news in over two years. Brian Williams, still, is as dumb as drawer of hair.
He seems so lost now, as he was Tim Russert's Trophy Wife.
"Maher is terrified. He knows he is next and he knows we are coming for him. Don’t stop. Be Breitbart. Take his job and his career. Put him in the gutter."
I feel sort of strange saying this, it feels like WWBD, which is just... I donno. Anyhow...
What *Breitbart* would probably do is go on Maher's show.
Look at the facts. For years here, we've been hearing our leftists spout that the Republican message doesn't seem to be translating well with the voting public. Yet state houses and governorships are largely controlled by Republicans. Yet the House is controlled by Republicans. Yet the Senate is virtually a tie. Yet five of the last eight presidential races have been won by Republicans. Yet Obama's favorability rating is perpetually under 50 percent.
Leftists: when, do you suppose, will the Republican seem to be translating well with the voting public?
Looking forward to your answers!
Um, when they pass universal health care access on a state-by-state basis, as your gimp Romney did?
Just a guess.
Oh, that wasn't the answer you were looking for! Well, pardon monsieur!
The real answer must have something to do with calling women who want access to oral contraception sluts and hos and other such Limblobian stuff.
It's 2012 in America... if someone is anti-RELIGION then they are an idiot or a bigot or both.
Fixed it for you, bigoted idiot douchebag.
"Own your bigotry people. Take some responsibility."
As soon as you take responsibility for being a "bigot" yourself.
Hatred is hatred is hatred; a destructive force.
I frequently criticize the stupid fag-haters around here, as well as the stupid religious bigots and the stupid cultural bigots.
In other words, I'm glad I comment here, to show people that not all faggots are vacuous, simplistic losers.
But you're still cute, Andy. At least you can milk that for a while longer.
Do you bottom?
Waiting for gimp-master 7 Hemorrhoids to chime in on which transcendent religious truth is the truthiest of them all.
He sounds like the typical, non-believing, shilling for religion Republican. Inauthentic. Almost as phony as Romney but without the claim to an appeal to a religion with a rich, 100-some odd year history.
Love your answer, Ritmo. Tremendously optimistic! I'm sure those Republican state houses with Republican governors will get right on laws forcing people to buy health insurance. Maybe the Republican House can follow suit.
Incidentally, I fully support the Massachusetts health care system. It's stupid, and wrong, but states have plenary power, and can and should implement laws as they see fit.
Now, go look up the word plenary.
Now, go tell your buddies how awesome I am on that little blog. Again.
I have never claimed to be religious.I just hate bigotry and bigots. Like anti-religious bigot -- and douchebag -- Andy. Surely, all people of good will agree with me and my stand against bigotry.
Nice try. Not sure where you were going with that, Dribbler, but I applaud the effort.
Now, dribble along to your little blog friends and tell them how awesome I am, an how astute. Again.
In other words, I'm glad I comment here, to show people that not all faggots are vacuous, simplistic losers.
Because that's not what you believe them to be?
Illogical. Who calls the shots on what you believe, then?
In case you weren't aware, you're calling attention to your insecurity with the idea that others might be able to define you on your own behalf.
I guess if I were a Republican or had to ally myself with them, I'd have that fear as well.
Incidentally, I fully support the Massachusetts health care system. It's stupid, and wrong,...
I appreciate your willingness to clarify your support for stupid and wrong things. It makes your other stupid and wrong political ideas so much more influential.
/asshat.
Oh man, Dribbler, this is going to get ugly for you if Palladian sticks around.
Serious question: is it bigoted to believe that the bible is a fairy tale and that anyone who believes it contains any input from a godlike being is an idiot?
Because I definitely believe that. Is it bigoted to think people are idiots for believing in a fairy tale?
I'm not sure what else I think about religious people that might make me a bigot. It's not like I try to deny or cover up my feelings toward religion.
Dribbler -- People should be able to govern themselves. Even uncultured morons like you who don't understand history or politics.
I defend stupid, vapid little people with meaningless lives, like you. You should thank me. Go over to your little blog friends and thank me. How about that?
But you're still cute, Andy. At least you can milk that for a while longer.
Do you bottom?
I do.
It's bigoted to hate religious people for being religious. It's also bigoted to hate gay people for being gay. It's also bigoted to hate people of different skin colors for having different skin colors.
You are a bigot because you hate religious people for being religious.
And also you are a douchebag.
I have never claimed to be religious.I just hate bigotry and bigots. Like anti-religious bigot -- and douchebag -- Andy. Surely, all people of good will agree with me and my stand against bigotry.
I call bullshit. People like you have no principles. You are just trying to provide sympathy for Romney by claiming him as a victim of religious intolerance.
The one thing that's now clearly obvious about a worm like you, is that EVERYTHING that you do has an ulterior motive. You simply have no principles whatsoever.
Makes you look as inauthentic as Romney, which should provide quite the lesson this election season. Will you then agree to be his gimp, in exchange? But then, how does a man with no principles decide on what's fair?
I can handle Palladian.
He gets intense, but unlike you, he actually has principles and believes what he says.
He's also not as irrational as you.
And then Dribbler not only demonstrated that he is uncultured, and further showed that he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that reasonable people can disagree with him, he went bat-shit insane.
I am sad for you Dribbler. I am worried about you.
But, anyway, I win.
It's bigoted to hate religious people for being religious.
I don't hate them for being religious, I think they're dumb. Is thinking people are dumb bigotry?
I hate the ones who are anti-gay. Which is a lot of religious people. And I hate religions that convince their followers to be anti-gay. Is it bigotry to hate people for being anti-gay?
But, anyway, I win.
How many 7 gram rocks did this one take, Mr Sheen?
You are the asshattiest of the asshats.
I never claimed that reasonable people couldn't disagree with me, but Charlie Sheen's little gimp must have banged way too many 7 gram rocks when he imagined that one.
"Do you bottom?
I do."
Cool. All the best men are at least versatile.
Andy, let me help you with your own words:
I don't hate them for being BLACK, I think they're dumb. Is thinking people are dumb RACIST?
I hate the ones who are ANTI-WHITE. Which is a lot of BLACK people. And I hate BLACK PEOPLE WHO convince their FELLOW BLACKS to be ANTI-WHITE. Is it bigotry to hate people for being ANTI-WHITE?
Would you say that the person who wrote the above statement is a bigot? Because you wrote the above statement.
Douchebag.
Palladian has never experienced the awesome pleasure dome that is cocaine.
Anyway, I don't feel like staying up all night. I realize that certain people here prefer to take their shots against someone when their back is turned. But Palladian's more honorable than certain others around here. If he wants to take issue with my interest in getting a better understanding of what it takes to maintain self-respect amidst a party full of people who degrade you at every turn, that's up to him. I don't mind a rational discussion with him on personal things like that.
But then, he isn't hiding behind a fricking mask.
I don't hate them for being BLACK, I think they're dumb. Is thinking people are dumb RACIST?...
Because you wrote the above statement.
Do you really thinking choosing to believe that the Bible wasn't written only by humans and someone being born black is the same thing? Is there some kind of privileged status for people who choose to believe in fairy tales that we shouldn't say something if we think they are wrong?
If someone believes the world is flat I can call them stupid, but if they think God exists because some old book says so I can't call them stupid?
Your reasoning for calling me a bigot toward religious people is because you just swap in the word black and that new statement is wrong? That's the argument? Really?
Seven,
Here is (by your standard) some more reprehensible bigotry:
"Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy."
Religion is a a very highly protected class under the Constitution in this country, on equal footing with skin color. There are sound reasons for that.
Sexual orientation is manifestly not on the same level of protection under the Constitution. There are also sound reasons for that.
I am quite certain that I utterly destroyed your sorry argument, using your own words, showing that you are an anti-religious bigot on exactly a par with the worst racist in the Ku Klux Klan. Face it, dude. You are a bigot. Wail with it. Get yourself a special hood. Be the Grand Dragon of anti-religious bigotry. The mantle is yours for the taking.
Douchebag.
I am quite certain that I utterly destroyed your sorry argument, using your own words,
Your argument is that responding to people's beliefs is the same as responding to their skin color.
PBJ -- I am honored that you went out and found something written by someone else to tell me that you think is meaningful.
The fact that you present it nakedly, without historical context, or without noting that is author was a nutty and incoherent ultra-rationalist (though a fabulous novelist) is surely a mark of your intelligence.
Ahh... What a humble presentation format for explaining the reasoning behind allowing (promoting?) one form of bigotry, but not others.
I'm sure that if one does enough cocaine, one might believe it to be the mother of all political arguments this election season.
Someone on this thread is actually disingenuous enough to believe that his is precisely the sort of arrogance that Republicans need to win. That's it! They're not being arrogant and condescending enough!
"In case you weren't aware, you're calling attention to your insecurity with the idea that others might be able to define you on your own behalf.
I guess if I were a Republican or had to ally myself with them, I'd have that fear as well."
I have no insecurities. I do care about my fellow faggots though, including Andy R., who I disagree with and find objectionable on many levels, but with whom I would happily share a meal at my house and whom, despite his faults is a handsome young man, which counts for a lot in my view, being a man concerned primarily with beauty and aesthetics.
I care that people understand that we faggots are emphatically not a "demographic" nor are we a cohesive group with easily discernable beliefs and prejudices. We (like all so-called "minorities") are simply one of the many variations of the diffuse group known as humans, with our own minds and hearts, capable of beliefs fair and foul.
I dislike tribalism of any sort. I place my faith in the human individual, not in the falsehood of categorization.
I have no qualms voting with Republicans when I feel it is in the best interests of the United States of America, which even in its currently degraded philosophical state is still the best hope for human liberty and individual freedom ever conceived by the mind of man. This is because, as an opponent of tribalism of any sort, I despise the notion that political parties and political affiliations are anything other than temporary conveniences necessary to achieve the specific goal of securing our best chance of liberty. I rail against anyone (such as Santorum or Gingrich or Obama) who, through their words and actions, seem opposed to that goal.
In other words, my identity is not with a party, but with a philosophical ideal of human liberty. Whichever politician can practically serve that ideal best will gain my support. It's a marriage of convenience.
We've strayed. We've almost forgotten what we once were. Any road, no matter how bumpy and crooked, that seems to lead back to that imperfect but sublime ideal, should be travelled without fear or shame.
Your argument is that responding to people's beliefs is the same as responding to their skin color.
My argument is that a bigot is a bigot. And you are a bigot. Drawing a distinction between hating people for skin color and hating people for their religion is just hilarious. What about hating people because of their nationality? That okay? It's not skin color. How about hating people because of their geographic location. That must be okay. It's not skin color.
Further, the fact that you blithely ignored the utter triviality of sexual orientation in constitutional and historical terms, and the tremendous importance of religion, is merely a feather in my cap. You are too stupid to understand what's important.
But what should anyone expect from a bigot? They aren't smart. If they were, they wouldn't be bigots. You are a bigot. Therefore, you must be stupid.
You have been devastated. Also, you are a douchebag.
with whom I would happily share a meal at my house
What city do you live in?
You have been devastated.
This is the sort of thing someone says who is losing an argument. Show, don't tell.
"Palladian has never experienced the awesome pleasure dome that is cocaine."
Are you kidding? I've travelled every road that had a sign pointing to Heaven.
This is the sort of thing someone says who is losing an argument.
This is the sort of thing that an anti-religious bigot says. Also, douchebags say it all the time.
Further, the fact that you blithely ignored the utter triviality of sexual orientation in constitutional and historical terms, and the tremendous importance of religion, is merely a feather in my cap.
Also, this is silly. The Constitution said black people counted as 3/5's.
Is it bigoted to say that people who believe the earth is flat are idiots? Is it bigoted to say that people who believe in God are idiots?
What's the difference?
What city do you live in?
Brooklyn, New York, baby.
And I'm an awesome cook. Seriously, if you're ever in town, do drop me a line.
"Your argument is that responding to people's beliefs is the same as responding to their skin color."
No, his argument is that the Constitution was initially written to protect religion, so it protected folks of all races, but you are a bigot, like racists, because you are freely speaking against folks w/ religious beliefs.
Duh.
P.S. I am a believer. So, I can make the completely uncontroversial point that bigot Andy will be burning in hell for eternity because he doesn't believe.
That is, if you deign to share a meal with a man who believes in metaphysics as well as science.
I dislike tribalism of any sort. I place my faith in the human individual, not in the falsehood of categorization.
How incredibly odd then, that you consistently place your faith (being a marriage, and all) in that regard in an alliance with factions for whom tribalism is possibly the most important thing.
Maybe you are allowing aesthetic considerations too large a role in guiding your decisions.
Dear pbAndj, do send me a case of Ardbeg.
I've travelled every road that had a sign pointing to Heaven.
I know! Ritmo is busy trying to pick sides, though, and say that the side he disagrees with is evil and bad. Now what is going to do? Which person who stands against bigotry but knows the glorious, dazzling array of sensory profundity produced by cocaine will he choose?
The best part is that Ritmo does a lot of marijuana. That's okay, see. That's a good high, because he does it.
How incredibly odd then, that you consistently place your faith (being a marriage, and all) in that regard in an alliance with factions for whom tribalism is possibly the most important thing.
Tribalism is, sadly, one of humanity's most destructive vestiges of our savage ancestry. I have never found it to be limited to any single ideology.
No, his argument is that the Constitution was initially written to protect religion, so it protected folks of all races, but you are a bigot, like racists, because you are freely speaking against folks w/ religious beliefs.
The Constitution wasn't written to protect religious people from being called idiots. And I really don't think SM's argument is that I'm a bigot because of the First Amendment. At least I hope not, because that is a silly argument.
Also, I don't know what you mean that the Constitution "protected folks of all races". It clearly didn't.
I'm "speaking against folks w/ religious beliefs" because I'm criticizing a specific idea that they believe. I don't understand your definition of bigotry if that's what makes me a bigot.
No, his argument is that the Constitution was initially written to protect religion, so it protected folks of all races
Wow. Where to begin? The Constitution of 1789 manifestly did not protect people of all races. It took a Civil War and at least three Amendments to get to that.
Your better argument would be to point out that the Constitution does not anywhere protect women, yet women receive a high level of constitutional protection (though not as much as people do for race and religion). Yet there are no protections under the Constitution for sexual orientation. That's pretty inexcusable, isn't it?
As I say, that would be your better argument, but you would never be able to make it, given your moronity and all.
I know! Ritmo is busy trying to pick sides, though, and say that the side he disagrees with is evil and bad. Now what is going to do? Which person who stands against bigotry but knows the glorious, dazzling array of sensory profundity produced by cocaine will he choose?
Alas, the profundity of cocaine, I decided, was like Kali, and would consume me. Even though all pleasure, indeed all of life, consumes and destroys, I came to regard Sweet Cousin Cocaine would eat me up faster than others, so I left it.
In its place I still glow with alcohol, good food, big cocks, beauty, paint, Bach and the occasional cigarette.
Ski mask can kill himself in whichever way he sees fit.
However, as a matter of public policy I do see a difference between arguing for repealing the prohibition of non-lethal substances and repealing the prohibition of those which can kill a talented basketball player in his prime.
But others, who confess to arguing for stupid policies, disagree.
It's a matter of priorities. But why talk about priorities with someone who has no principles whatsoever?
"Yet there are no protections under the Constitution for sexual orientation. That's pretty inexcusable, isn't it?"
It wasn't necessary. Specific protections, based on demographic categorizations, were not though necessary by the more brilliant Founders.
Unfortunately, no one has faith in negative rights any longer.
Agreed on cocaine. It's something you can do a few times, and then you must leave it to your memories.
I look at all drugs like an amusement park. Take the funnest ride. It's great, but now imagine yourself riding it day after day after day, and feeling a physical desire to ride it but a mental desire not to ride it. Not good.
Ha!
Just a few days ago I almost bought a bottle for someone. But, I settled on Johnnie Black. I know it's lame and cliche.
I was sure that those folks wouldn't recognize Ardbeg, so that would have failed as a host gift. And, they're almost certainly going to mix it w/ Coke, so the only thing that mattered was the recognition.
It's a matter of priorities. But why talk about priorities with someone who has no principles whatsoever?
Principles are generally just a euphemism for prejudices.
Principles are generally just a euphemism for prejudices.
Including your libertarianism?
Just a few days ago I almost bought a bottle for someone. But, I settled on Johnnie Black. I know it's lame and cliche.
I was sure that those folks wouldn't recognize Ardbeg, so that would have failed as a host gift. And, they're almost certainly going to mix it w/ Coke, so the only thing that mattered was the recognition.
Johnnie Black is a perfectly acceptable and delicious gift, especially for those who would not appreciate a characterful single malt.
Ardbeg and Coca-Cola? That's the stuff of nightmares!
Is tribalism bad, or is it only called tribalism when it is bad?
I agree that it's not limited to any particular ideology. I think it's ubiquitous. I think it's inescapable and usually quite healthy if not also necessary to human social health.
Humans are social. They band together cooperatively. The notion that this is supposed to happen without regard to identifying "tribe" is foolishness.
It's like altruism supposedly putting a higher virtue on helping people one has no attachment to. Why? One could say it's because a truly altruistic person has transcended humanity. But isn't that another way of saying that their humanity is broken?
Not that tribalism can't manifest in damaging, unhealthy ways, and maybe that's when most people call it tribalism, but the instinct (if I dare use that word) is not, in itself, the least unhealthy. It reflects something people need.
Off on a tangent... and off to bed.
(Also, nice to see you Palladian. It seems I miss seeing you as often lately.)
Race really and truly is an artificial social construct that will fade away in time. If we can maintain our Constitution, it would be interesting to see what happens to rights then.
But, we'll all be long, long dead.
"Including your libertarianism?"
Thank you for the small "l".
The wonderful thing about libertarianism (which used to be called "liberalism") is that it was never confused with "principles".
(Also, nice to see you Palladian. It seems I miss seeing you as often lately.)
I always appreciate your comments, Synova. Troublesome cares have interfered with my leisure time of late.
Humans are social.
One of our biggest faults.
So the non-initiation of coercive force or the emphasis on reason as a way to solve human problems can now not be "principles"?
I'm sure you've got a brilliant explanation hiding behind that one but I'll probably have to wait 'til a sunnier time of day to read it.
Have to agree with hat-man.
The Constitution doesn't make it illegal for anyone to be an anti-religious bigot. In fact, it rather protects their bigotry.
What it does do is protect religions and religious faith from infringement.
"Humans are social."
One of our biggest faults.
Seriously?
Evolution, much?
"....given your moronity and all."
Finally!
Usually sussing out such wit is a lot easier.
P.S.
It was my point that the Constitution did nothing to prevent the massively racist atrocities that were common place.
You're often stumped when I ask you to "read between the lines."
P.P.S.
What do you think I was actually saying when I noted that I can comfortably take my protected place in society when I point out that Andy is destined to burn in hell for all of eternity, but he is a bigot (equal to a racist) when he says that my hell and other beliefs are moronity?
I'd love to see an explanation for how economies develop and a species finds ways to spread from its sequestration on one continent to conquering all seven (and many other environments and challenges) without social interaction.
I heartily stand for Andy's right under the First Amendment to be an anti-religious bigot. Just as I heartily stand for the rights of racists and homophobes to express their opinions.
Not sure how that talk got started, other than PBJ's woeful and sad failure to understand the Constitution under which he lives.
PBJ seems to labor under the illusion that the Constitution is composed of a single Amendment from the early 1790s.
Weird.
If social interaction is a drawback maybe we should renounce the evolution of complex human communication patterns, including speech, as well.
Sorry to give Palladian a hard time but that thought just totally deserves to be challenged a bit more.
And then Dribbler elided on over to evolution.
It seems like you really miss it when my conversations don't address you, Ski Mask Guy.
What's it like being that lonely? I mean, I know being the most egotistical guy in the room must be fun while it lasts. But what about once everyone leaves?
Sorry to give Palladian a hard time but that thought just totally deserves to be challenged a bit more.
My dear, that particular sword has two edges. Like cocaine, it can create and destroy with equal efficiency.
I embrace and yet remain thoroughly distrustful of the power of societies. It's because humans still cannot always distinguish between free association and coercion.
As an introvert, a savant, a painfully sensitive person and a homosexual, I have learned to both love socialization and yet be extraordinarily wary of it.
I'm a pretty anti-social introvert when given the choice, but despite that, I find it very easy and natural to fall into supporting my tribe. All I need is a group of people I like a little and with whom I share some interest, and I'm ready to join their army. I don't usually want hang around them, but I still want to defend them. Is this normal?
Rush won't die in the poorhouse, but it's hard to see him coming out ahead in this affair. If Carbonite goes belly up, it will be even worse for him. Future sponsors will see that if he says something controversial, they will be in a no win position. If they stick with him, they will lose customers. If they cut sponsorship, they will also lose customers. The prudent course for future sponsors is not to be future sponsors. There are other ways to get your message out.....I think Rush crossed the line, but that's part of why I listen to him. I like to hear liberals being unfairly and outageously criticized. However, you can only do so many back flips on the high wire before going splat. He went splat.....If the Dems were truly fans of diversity and free speech, they would be resisting efforts to ban him from the airwaves. This will come around and bite them on the ass. I saw John Stewart tonigh. He had Julianne Moore on his show. They were discussing her portrayal of Sarah Palin in the upcoming film. He went through the entire interview without once insulting Sarah Palin. It was painful to see. He started sweating and having uncontrollage tremors. The withdrawal symptoms were just awful to see....But there you have it. Now that the Dems have gotten on Rush's case, they can no longer call Sarah a dumb cunt, at least for the next two weeks.
In other words, my political predilections, such as they are, are an extension of my very personal sense of being-in-the-world. As all honest humans should admit, and which political persons generally thoroughly misunderstand.
What people think of as tribes, and societies, are to me mutable, temporary and conditional overlapping of personal interests. These ad hoc associations are what I consider freedom.
I embrace and yet remain thoroughly distrustful of the power of societies.
As do I. But to a lesser or greater degree, depending on the society or smaller unit within.
It's because humans still cannot always distinguish between free association and coercion.
Do you think this will ever not be the case? You admitted earlier to being drawn to things that can be destructive, at least in excess. And then there is love. Children benefit from their parents' love, but mortality seems to be the inevitable trade-off of sexual reproduction. I don't know if there's a way that this could not be the case.
As an introvert, a savant, a painfully sensitive person and a homosexual, I have learned to both love socialization and yet be extraordinarily wary of it.
That is both sad and enlightening to hear.
I hope one day you will find out what it takes to build or be a part of networks within which there is greater earned (deserved) trust. And without any need to sacrifice individuality, which I equally value.
My God, Dribbler! For once, you have had a brilliant idea. You should definitely go away from here and leave me lonely.
So, go on now. Go out there and socialize and dribble. I will be here, all alone and sad. A sad clown.
A social life based on mingling with carbon based life forms is highly overrated.
Do you think this will ever not be the case?
I retain hope, even in despair.
You admitted earlier to being drawn to things that can be destructive, at least in excess.
I believe that everything under the sun is destructive in excess, except for love.
That is both sad and enlightening to hear.
All truth is both sad and enlightening, in equal measure.
I hope one day you will find out what it takes to build or be a part of networks within which there is greater earned (deserved) trust. And without any need to sacrifice individuality, which I equally value.
I have found this trust, of course, even if in the smallest quantities. It's the only thing that gives me the desire to continue in this breathing world.
I believe that you are an essentially honest person, as I believe of anyone with whom I choose to interact. All the specifics about which we disagree and argue are often a distraction that prevents us from accepting that we're all just trying to survive, in our own way.
So, go on now. Go out there and socialize and dribble. I will be here, all alone and sad. A sad clown.
And yet one who obviously can't feel good about himself without stalking, insulting and hectoring others.
You're a good person, Palladian. Thanks for giving me greater insight into how you look at things. I agree with much of what you say, although the specifics where this is not the case either don't matter or are interesting to look at for the different perspective they provide.
I must go to sleep now. I hope the other guy will be able to tolerate this relinquishment of my being as an object for his personal abuse tonight. I hope to read more of what you have to say sometime soon.
Adieu.
insulting and hectoring others
A few things Dribbler said tonight:
1. "Limblob"
2. "as irrelevant as Romney, as are his half-baked 'ideas'"
3. "Helps him feel better about his own domination/submission issues."
4. "Charlie Sheen's little gimp"
@garage: "Because Limbaugh was railroaded, railroad a lefty back! Nice principles there, again, Insta."
I'm quite through with principles when it comes to crushing the Left. I'm not interested in coexistence or cooperation. I don't want them fouling my beautiful country. Get out. Canada awaits.
Breitbart would have gone on the offensive and stated that sex is not a human right. If sex was a human right rape would not be a crime.
Nobody should apologize and calling a woman a cunt isn't misogyny.
Man up, girls. It's public discourse.
If ProFlowers goes back to Rush, reward them by sending a bouquet to Sandra Fluke, with this message enclosed:
"And then there is the Tenth Commandment. 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.' The Ten Commandments are God's basic rules about how we should live — a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts.
"The first nine Commandments concern theological principles and social law. But then, right at the end, is 'Don't envy your buddy's cow.' How did that make the top ten? What's it doing there? Why would God, with just ten things to tell Moses, choose as one of those things jealousy about the starter mansion with in-ground pool next door?
"Yet think how important the Tenth Commandment is to a community, to a nation, indeed to a presidential election. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't be a jerk and whine about what the people across the street have — go get your own.
"The Tenth Commandment sends a message to all the jerks who want redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, more government programs, more government regulation, more government, less free enterprise, and less freedom. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell."
P. J. O'Rourke, "An Alternative Inaugural Speech," January 18, 2005
Rush won't die in the poorhouse, but it's hard to see him coming out ahead in this affair. If Carbonite goes belly up, it will be even worse for him. Future sponsors will see that if he says something controversial, they will be in a no win position. If they stick with him, they will lose customers. If they cut sponsorship, they will also lose customers. The prudent course for future sponsors is not to be future sponsors. There are other ways to get your message out....
Sure, there are. But, they all have their weaknesses. Name them off. I pretty much ignore everything on the Internet. TV has to be cute, funny, etc., to be effective, and, as a result, is much more expensive. Dead tree media are imploding, etc. Of course, the Carbonites of the world could go with other talk radio hosts, but who is going to be more effective - Rush or Randi Rhodes (however you spell her name)?
Talk radio is pretty conservative, likely for a number of reasons. One is that argument by frothing at the mouth doesn't last very long. You need to add in logical arguments, and if the left had defensible logical arguments, they would be conservatives. In the end, liberalism is a resort to emotionalism, and that fails on radio (but did, along with a number of questionable boxes of ballots, get Al Franken into the Senate).
Carbonite's loss here is a self inflicted loss, likely a result of liberals trying to benefit financially from conservative talk radio. All they had to do was sit tight, maybe talk about reviewing the situation, ask Rush privately to issue an apology, and they would have been just fine. They panicked by listening to the MSM, which much of Rush's audience doesn't, and ended up getting hammered.
I think that in the end, HBO and Maher will ultimately be the ones hurt the most here financially. I used him as an excuse a couple of months ago for not signing up for HBO. Used to be that they were known for their early play of movies, then of their own movies, and now for frontlining hard left comedians like Bill Maher, George Lopez, etc. in prime time. What does HBO really offer these days that would make it worth it for much of the country to pay for it as a premium service?
Seven Machos said...
Andy is a hateful, anti-religious bigot. And also a douchebag.
Hush. Hush, now. Lets not go there. Andy is doing the best that he can.
shiloh said...
Limbo also wanted to see Ms. Fluke's sex tape. Hey, he's a pervert who can't get it up!
And you know this , how? NTTAWWT
Last I looked, "I'm Sorry" was an apology. Did something change?
Daily Kos had a front page article about this. It was about 2000 thousands words deconstructing Rush's apology to prove it was a non-apology.
No. I am not kidding.
This is the left's habitat. Their enemies list is long and strong so they gotta keep the friction on. ;)
So Glenn Reynolds endorses lying. o_O
Limbo also wanted to see Ms. Fluke's sex tape.
Correction: The fat man wanted the videos posted online so everyone can watch them.
But yes, the fat man is a perv.
In two days stock of Carbonite has fallen 12%... Losses outstrip NASDAQ losses by 9 1/2 points..
In two days stock of Carbonite has fallen 12%.
Every time the market (or even a particular stock) falls, the drop is a consequence of something our black Muslim commie president has done.
I suspect the DOW would be at about 50,000 by now if Willard had been elected in 2008.
I ♥ Willard said...
Every time the market (or even a particular stock) falls, the drop is a consequence of something our black Muslim commie president has done.
What does "black Muslim commie" have to do with anything?
You're right to want to talk economics but your bigotry shows, sir (ma'am?)
I called my cable provider and cancelled all HBO channels.
Then I went to HBO's website, clicked 'contact' and sent them and email explaining that I would not support any of their programming until Bill Maher apologizes to Sarah Palin for calling her a c*nt.
We can all play same hand the leftists play.
I ♥ Willard said...
So Glenn Reynolds endorses lying. o_O
I see Willard's screets are getting desperate. This cheers me.
"Is tribalism bad, or is it only called tribalism when it is bad?"
It's tribalism when people you don't like do it.
It is reaching a consensus when people you like do it.
"Future sponsors will see that if he says something controversial, they will be in a no win position. If they stick with him, they will lose customers. If they cut sponsorship, they will also lose customers."
Carbonite was losing customers steadily. The day after or so of dropping Rush, they tanked utterly.
The lesson is that, as a business, you should not let yourself be drawn into becoming the pawn of political movements. They don't care about your employees or your bottom line.
Try calling HBO's customer service rep a cunt, and see how well it goes over.
HBO obviously would have no problem with it.
@Andy R.
So why would you consider it bigotry to criticize the voluntary actions of an individual?
Why do you insist on equating voluntary actions with someone's race?
Andy R. Palin is an idiot? Check your resume against hers and get back with us on who is the lightweight, who the bullshit artist, who the fool. And on the way back hqve a look at your avatar.
Dem partisans might want to consider the optics of their complete overreaction to the criticism of Fluke at this point. Because now people are talking about the actual issues and it isn't that Rush called Fluke a slut.
The day is gone when you can echo-chamber a phony scandal to distract people from addressing uncomfortable questions using Democrat Party operatives posing as reporters to push it with no rebuttal.
It only works for so long and then, when the other side gets heard (and with the internet, we will get heard)the failure of the lefty narrative du jour begins, when the issue of an anti-Constitutional power grab by Obama finally cannot be avoided.
Reasonable people get that with some thought as the lefts lies about the issue are exposed and cannot stand up to the scrutiny.
Witness Obamas 180 degree reversal of his UnConstitutional attempt to bully the Catholic Church. The lefties here on the board won't even address it. Because they have no reasonable answers.
The left screeches that "THE GOP WANTS TO BAN CONTRACEPTIVES AND STEAL YOUR LADY PARTS!11!1!1!"
And the GOP says "No, do what you like, even if its sorta slutty, but pay for it yourselves."
It's not hard to figure out who is being reasonable and who isn't.
So, keep it up lefties. The truth will out and its a long way to Movermber.
Yo Bill - dude - your side, the media matters fascist left, are pushing free speech over a cliff.
What does "black Muslim commie" have to do with anything?
It's a description of our black Muslim commie president. Please feel free to correct any element of the description you believe is inaccurate.
You're right to want to talk economics but your bigotry shows
Oh, Mr. Little, how very little you understand. You can defend our black Muslim commie president if you like, but my objection to him is not based on bigotry any more than your support for him represents anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism bigotry.
Please Mr. Little, stop playing the victim card.
So Glenn Reynolds endorses lying. o_O
No, but by saying so, it is clear that "I ♥ Willard" (whose name itself is clearly a lie) considers lying a fundamental part of his/her political communication.
I see Willard's screets are getting desperate.
No, not at all, Mr. Little. I just happen to be one of those people who believes that lying is wrong. And it's particularly troubling to see a Professor of Law like Glenn Reynolds encouraging people to lie.
I guess your side doesn't feel the same way about lying. Your side believes that lying is acceptable as long as it serves a selfish purpose.
Willard and I don't approve. I'm disappointed in you, Mr. Little. :(
I signed up with Carbonite yesterday to show my suport for Rush. I'm also pulling out my money from a Credit Union that sponser's Ed Schultz.
Nathan Alexander,
You're the fellow who didn't pay attention in school, right?
Obviously Glenn Reynolds DOES endorse lying. How did you manage to misunderstand his message? Maybe it's a consequence of not paying attention in school. :(
I don't think we should get our pants in a twist over a name. It's maybe wrong to call a person a name but on the other hand you have to call them something. Why not a name? Would Anthony Trollope get tired of being called Trollope? Nobody reads his novels any more. He wrote for money rather than love. The whore. At least Fluke is getting attention. Obama called her after she was called a slut and a prostitute (maybe hoping for a date). Trollope would die for that kind of attention.
@I ♥ Willard,
I pay attention here enough to know that you aren't participating in good faith...even your screen name is a bad faith statement.
Your insistence on characterizing subjective disagreement as "lies" confirms your bad faith intent.
I'm sure you are only doing the bidding of your handlers...how much can we really blame someone as brainwashed as you?
But at the very least, there is certainly no need to take your bad-faith, low-integrity nonsense seriously.
Remember to not get too depressed with the upcoming tidal wave of Dem losses this November.
Someone had their Wheaties this morning.
Rush's repeated use of 'slut' can't be accounted for by his age. He's not old enough to be in his dotage...but how about a return to pain killers. That would be enough to loosen inhibitions.
It's "adios muchacho" to Carbonite when my current contract is up. I bought because I heard about it on Rush. I'll leave because there are competitors who stick to providing a service instead of getting embroiled in political wars. So goodby to the jerkoffs at Carbonite.
I pay attention here enough to know...
Dear Nathan Alexander,
I am sure you truly believe this statement, but sadly the facts aren't on your side about this. I'm truly sorry about that. Maybe if you had practiced paying attention in school, you wouldn't be struggling with it now. :(
Your insistence on characterizing subjective disagreement as "lies" confirms your bad faith intent.
This is what I'm talking about. Glenn Reynolds is encouraging people who are canceling their cable to lie about the reasons:
"SO IF YOU WANT TO CANCEL YOUR CABLE/HBO AND GET A ROKU BOX, here’s one for a mere $50.99. For added mischief, when you cancel cable, you can tell the company that it’s because of Bill Maher . . ."
Once again, I realize you don't pay attention to details, but in this instance, Glenn Reynolds is encouraging people to lie. There's no ambiguity here.
Conclusion: Glenn Reynolds is encouraging people to lie. Nathan Alexander ought to pay attention to details and strive to understand them before blabbing.
@I ♥ Willard,
So you are assuming that no conservative has a problem with what Maher said about Palin, then? You don't think conservatives might just have a general problem with Maher's oft-expressed viewpoints?
Because you must make that assumption to conclude that Instapundit is asking people to lie.
You have been a liberal far too long; you don't even know what a lie is, or what truth is...it is clear you only understand "truthiness".
Post a Comment