Althouse: "[I]f you truly live by a higher moral code you realize sometimes you have to intimidate..."

September 5, 2012

"[I]f you truly live by a higher moral code you realize sometimes you have to intimidate..."

A Wisconsin protester explains himself.

(Scroll up to the top of the discussion for more detail, including participation by Meade.)

107 comments:

edutcher said...: Doubtless, the staff at Auschwitz had similar thoughts.; 9/5/12, 6:43 PM
Oso Negro said...: I suppose that means understanding the higher modalities.; 9/5/12, 6:44 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: "[I]f you truly live by a higher moral code you realize sometimes you have to intimidate..."

If he had started with the words "In a world of unreasonable people" I would agree with him 100%.

Fuck those who claim to love peace, but who use that stance to push others around,...; 9/5/12, 6:48 PM
rhhardin said...: I could do moral code at 35wpm as a kid.; 9/5/12, 6:48 PM
Paddy O said...: If you live by a higher moral code and you realize you have to intimidate, then you don't truly live by a higher moral code.

Well, that's not true, is it? I'd say we lived by a higher moral code than the Germans in WWII (to use a clear example).

This knowing when to intimidate because of a higher moral code is a tricky business!; 9/5/12, 6:50 PM
dreams said...: "Bonnie Pollak, a Democrat, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?

“It was a real dilemma,” says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program in social welfare who lives in Manhattan. “I decided to do the right thing.”

Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away"

Via http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/; 9/5/12, 6:51 PM
Paddy O said...: Bonhoeffer, if I'm not mistaken, would have said intimidating for a higher moral code is fine, but the higher moral code includes realizing that by intimidating you are sinning, but a higher moral code leads one to take on the responsibility that incurs guilt for the sake of freeing others.; 9/5/12, 6:52 PM
rhhardin said...: Here's 35wpm (mp3)

I can still copy it.

Once you fall off a horse, you never forget how.; 9/5/12, 6:53 PM
chickelit said...: Meade wrote about Ben Masel: Ben Masel did not stalk, harass, intimidate, and bully people trying to do their jobs.

Maybe the one you knew. But the one I remember was the one who spit on Scoop Jackson. Masel got convicted for that too, I believe.

Me? I put spitting up there with door knob licking.

But people grow up eventually. If they don't, it's sad.; 9/5/12, 6:53 PM
Carnifex said...: I wonder how far this moral intimidation goes. Can I waive a stick around? What about a knife? A machete? A pistol? A rifle? A shot gun? A fully automatic machine gun? A bomb? A thermonuclear device? This is WAAAY to nuanced for me. I'm glad I'vbe got all these liberals to tell me what is moral and what isn't when I'm intimidating someone. You'd think that my Nonno, the one that was in the mafia, woulda' schooled me on it.; 9/5/12, 6:56 PM
wildswan said...: Hoping for better times for this young man.; 9/5/12, 6:56 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy O,

If you live by a higher moral code and you realize you have to intimidate, then you don't truly live by a higher moral code.

Why not? What is it about intimidation that is inherently against good ethics? Would you use intimidation against a child rapist?

And what makes us different than the Germans in WWII? I've watched my share of WWII and Nazi documentaries - not to mention talked to my father about his exploits - and the scariest message from the conflict is that the Germans did and thought what most "normal" people would do, have done, and still do today - even here in the good ol' U.S.A...

If you ask me, your "clear example" is the product of clear bias, but muddy ethical thinking,...; 9/5/12, 6:59 PM
Unknown said...: What's the point of highlighting Meade's classless comments?; 9/5/12, 7:01 PM
Trooper York said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/5/12, 7:02 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Intimidation is a perfectly valid tactic when you want to STOP someone from taking action, provided that action is something that should stop. Intimidating a rapist to not rape someone? Valid. Intimidating someone to not vote the way he would like? Not valid.; 9/5/12, 7:03 PM
damikesc said...: "Bonnie Pollak, a Democrat, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?

“It was a real dilemma,” says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program in social welfare who lives in Manhattan. “I decided to do the right thing.”

Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away"

If that bitch was my wife, I'd divorce her.

If you can't TRUST your spouse completely, you need not be married.

Why not? What is it about intimidation that is inherently against good ethics? Would you use intimidation against a child rapist?

Because, far too often, it is not a positive. It's professors browbeating students for holding the "wrong" opinion. It's about being called a "racist" for saying the President has sucked.

Is intimidation always a bad thing? No. But intimidation by having neanderthals act like goons to protect union idiots --- then, no, it's not a good thing.; 9/5/12, 7:04 PM
Paddy O said...: Crack,

I disagreed with myself, in the first case, so you're right. You should intimidate a child rapist. I put my first reaction down, then disagreed with myself after some more clear thinking.

In regards to the Germans, in many cases we're not that much different, most regular Germans were just normal folks. But, it's pretty clear that the US has the upper moral hand in not killing 6 million men, women and children in concentration camps. That's not to say the US is perfect, but it's clear, rather than muddy, ethical thinking to assert that at the end of the day the US was right in WWII.

As would be intimidating a child rapist.

It's why I'm not a pacifist. I have to think that the Good Samaritan would not have been good if he had shown up early to see the man getting assaulted and stood by doing nothing until the aftermath.

The question is who has the ultimate say on what the higher moral ground is? If it's just who is the strongest, then that's muddy ethics.

That's the question I'm asking. I disagree with the protester but find myself agreeing with the sentiment. It's not impossible ethics, nor need it be muddy, but it is tricky.; 9/5/12, 7:05 PM
Carnifex said...: If you go around trying to intimidate people, eventually you will meet the man that will beat the ever living shit outta' ya'. Just sayin'.; 9/5/12, 7:07 PM
Rusty said...: Is Jeremy dead yet?
I'd like to send something if he has passed.; 9/5/12, 7:10 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy O,

Bonhoeffer, if I'm not mistaken, would have said intimidating for a higher moral code is fine, but the higher moral code includes realizing that by intimidating you are sinning,...

So I'm bad to fight against the concept of "sin"?; 9/5/12, 7:10 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Matthew Sablan,

Intimidating a rapist to not rape someone? Valid. Intimidating someone to not vote the way he would like? Not valid.

He's voting for Hitler.

Valid or not?; 9/5/12, 7:11 PM
Paddy O said...: So, I had a chat with an octogenarian German theologian last year. He was a WWII soldier and mostly a pacifist. Watched his friends die, was conscripted into the army, put in a prisoner of war camp. I asked him what he thought about Britain bombing his town and the whole fight against the Germans. He said the Allies should have invaded earlier. He knew that the Allies had the higher moral cause even though he and his family and his friends suffered because of the war. The Germans of that generation know their guilt.; 9/5/12, 7:12 PM
Revenant said...: When people use the phrase "higher moral code" I always wonder "than what?".; 9/5/12, 7:14 PM
cold pizza said...: Murder is not justified, but killing can be. Just follow the 4 laws of robotics and you'll pretty much be safe. -CP; 9/5/12, 7:15 PM
jr565 said...: I would separate us from the Nazis in that we didn't genocidally murder a people because of our view of them as a mongrel race by using gas chambers.
We certainly weren't perfect though, but when facing a group like the Nazis, why would you expect us to be?
Even if you are on the side of the angels, violence is still violence.; 9/5/12, 7:15 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: For someone who has so little time, that was a very long comment he typed.; 9/5/12, 7:16 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "He's voting for Hitler.

Valid or not?"

-- Even dicks get to vote.; 9/5/12, 7:16 PM
Paddy O said...: So I'm bad to fight against the concept of "sin"?

Nope. There are a whole lot of bad concepts of sin.

You're definitely fighting against a conception of sin. But you have your own concept that you claim is extremely pervasive, even if that's not what you call it. The fight against what you see as sin is at the root of your being.

Prophets call out sin. And you are what you are and must be.; 9/5/12, 7:19 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: damikesc,

Far too often, [intimidation] is not a positive. It's professors browbeating students for holding the "wrong" opinion. It's about being called a "racist" for saying the President has sucked.

So we shouldn't intimidate because some abuse it? And your examples:

If students hold a wrong "opinion" that is something that can be checked against objective facts. Is a "teacher" wrong not to let them get away with that?

And is being called a "racist" for saying the President has sucked really intimidation? How? I would simply say "Am not."

Is intimidation always a bad thing? No. But intimidation by having neanderthals act like goons to protect union idiots --- then, no, it's not a good thing.

Again, you are framing your answer in a manner that has nothing to do with the questions intimidation raise.

Showing your biases as a tactic to disarm only suggests you're looking for a fight.

That's a weird way to get others to back off of you,...; 9/5/12, 7:20 PM
ricpic said...: How can you be against the enlightenment, huh bub?!; 9/5/12, 7:22 PM
Howard said...: I don't understand highlighting the posts by your husband. These make Meade sound like a petty little man. A ineffectual bully. How sad.; 9/5/12, 7:22 PM
Foobarista said...: Nice.

By any means necessary, revolution isn't a tea party, and all that.; 9/5/12, 7:22 PM
Hagar said...: It should again be pointed out that the 6-7 million was just the Jews. The Nazis also killed another 6-7 million non-Jews in those camps.

And the Soviet Communists are estimated to have killed between 15 and 30 million of their own people. Mao's PRC about 70-80 million of their own people.

All in the name of a "higher good."; 9/5/12, 7:23 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: The distinction is that force is necessary when there is no peaceful alternatives.

Many "direct action" types make up reasons why there is no alternative to force. Either the democratic system is a sham, or we're heading for a fascist state, or the system's violence is hidden, or some other torturous route to the justification of violence.

There's two reasons for this, as I see it. Reason one is that the person advocating violence likes violence and wants an excuse to mete it out. The cause doesn't really matter for this person, and very often they'll switch to a cause diametrically opposed to where they started.

Reason two is when the advocate refuses to acknowledge that they belong to a tiny minority and that their ideas are too crazy to ever be accepted. A subset of this is the person who believes most people are sheep and too dumb to understand The Truth.

The Truth, as I see it, is that the US has more elective offices for the size of our population than any state on the planet. We have more democracy than anyone. And yet we still have people who want to use violence because they can't win an argument.

Sorry, you lose, good day, sir.; 9/5/12, 7:26 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: it's pretty clear that the US has the upper moral hand in not killing 6 million men, women and children in concentration camps.

Ahh, but WOULD we? I was just writing today about the complete and total lack of ethics surrounding cults on this blog and in this country - and what were the Nazis but a cult? Did the mass of Germany's citizens not just sit by as the majority of Americans now do? A major story out there, right now, is about Scientology abusing a woman in their private concentration camp for not pleasing Tom Cruise. Heard any outrage? Demands Scientology be dismantled? Balls-to-the-wall Watergate-level media investigations into how they're getting away with it? Moral outrage?

Or what I see - a few celebrity magazine expose's and,…nothing? Face it:

This is a nation of Germans and Nazis now.

The question is who has the ultimate say on what the higher moral ground is? If it's just who is the strongest, then that's muddy ethics.

That's the question I'm asking. I disagree with the protester but find myself agreeing with the sentiment. It's not impossible ethics, nor need it be muddy, but it is tricky.

Wrong again, Grasshopper (smile). It's not tricky. We WANT to strengthen the good - to make it unbeatable. The question is, based on what?

I think I know - and it ain't the Bible,...; 9/5/12, 7:31 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: I am saddened, for we of higher higher moral code are more etherial than that and we look down upon the political chaos and disruption of those who live by higher moral codes with deep pity, but deep pity is kind of heavy for us so it doesn't last.

We think of things instead like hummingbird feeders recycled from interesting vintage glass bottles, and not just any crap either, of size and shapes just so, and certainly not any of those 300 plastic hummingbird feeders for $50.00 presently on Craigslist-Denver, 17 cents a piece! Why, it's an affront to Chordata Aves. No, we of higher higher moral code are considered somewhat detached by the people of high moral code and we are scarcely comprehended at all by those of high moral ground.; 9/5/12, 7:36 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Uh, Crack, there's a bit of a disconnect between believing in a lot of fruity ideas and believing in a lot of fruity ideas while you kill 50 million people.

If nothing else, we haven't gotten around to starting World War III and committing genocide.; 9/5/12, 7:39 PM
Methadras said...: Peace through strength is the only morally high code. Democrats are unavailable for comment.; 9/5/12, 7:40 PM
Steel Turman said...: Thus justifying the actions of every crackpot, despot and tyrant since time began.; 9/5/12, 7:48 PM
James Pawlak said...: During the last 66 of my 74 years many have attempted in intimidate me. My usual response was: An attempt to verbally communicate and make peace; Failing that, to put the other person down to the ground by an all-out attack. I have the scars to prove that I am willing to suffer rather than allow some bully succeed.; 9/5/12, 7:48 PM
William said...: I don't know a single sane human being who doesn't think Hitler was monstrous and evil. It is good to see that we are all agreed that killing innocent children like Anne Frank is wrong. I would bring to your attention, however, that Hitler did not encourage Anne's classmates to beat her to death. During the Cultural Revolution, children were encouraged to beat other children, the children of landlords to death. Does that make Mao worse than Hitler? If not, why not.....I would also point out that Hitler did not encourage the Nazi Youth League to gang rape Anne Frank and then cut off her arms. Charles Taylor did such an atrocity during his years of power. Is Charles Taylor a worse person than Hitler? Do you think life imprisonment would have been a suitable punishment for Hitler? If not why is it a suitable punishment for Taylor....Hitler was an evil white man who killed wantonly to demonstrate the racial superiority of whites. Isn't it nice to think that only white men with beliefs of racial superiority can commit monstrous crimes.; 9/5/12, 7:53 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy-O and others,

I've got to do some thing, away from the blog, for a while. I'll be back.; 9/5/12, 7:55 PM
William said...: Just as a philosophical question, does feigning or exaggerating an illness in order to win an argument count as high, moral plane intimidatio?; 9/5/12, 7:58 PM
YoungHegelian said...: In this as in every moral question, context is everything.

There is a difference between the English words "self-defense" and "intimidation". There's a reason for that. Stopping violence against innocents is self-defense.

However, using physical intimidation against the agents of a duly constituted government or fellow citizens exercising their rights or duties as citizens is physical intimidation pure & simple.

There are times it may have to be done. But as part of that moral witness, there must be the realization that if the government is as evil as to require such an act of violent opposition, that same evil government will act against the moral witness with great violence so as to preserve its monopoly of force.

So, if one performs an act of violence as an act of moral witness, and the State does not respond with overwhelming violence, then one's assumptions about the nature of the State were probably wrong to begin with.; 9/5/12, 7:59 PM
Paddy O said...: The question is, based on what?

I think I know - and it ain't the Bible,..

That's the tricky part. Because you can't just say it and then everyone slaps their head and says, "Oh! Now I understand!" And your ellipses point to the fact you won't even say it. Ellipses are the punctuation marks for the tricky.

Bonhoeffer, of course, would have totally agreed with strengthening the good. That's why he was led Confessing Church in strong opposition to the Nazis, and then was hanged for participating in the plot to assassinate Hitler, after.

There was a force for the good in Germany but a whole lot of the activists, church folk, intellectuals put their faith in the government as good, rather than their faith in the good for the government.; 9/5/12, 7:59 PM
Revenant said...: and what were the Nazis but a cult?

A political party with the support of a plurality of Germans. :); 9/5/12, 8:01 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Hitler got where he was because the Weimar Republic failed. Evil men prosper when liberal democratic governments fail to deal with their problems.

If the Germans had managed to have better leaders after 1918 there would have been no place for Hitler or the Nazis. They'd be a historical footnote. The same would be true of the Communists if the Tsar had had enough sense to avoid war in 1914.

Failure leads to evil.; 9/5/12, 8:03 PM
Petunia said...: Jeremy Ryan's a twit of the first order, but I'm not sure what the point of Meade's posts were after the first two. Just seem unnecessary and antagonistic.; 9/5/12, 8:05 PM
Petunia said...: Although Segway's post was a masterpiece of disingenuous pretension, self-love, and delusion. But if he really IS dying, it's sad.; 9/5/12, 8:06 PM
dvlfish13 said...: "Why not? What is it about intimidation that is inherently against good ethics? Would you use intimidation against a child rapist?"

Your point is clear. But you're talking about a crime that we all agree is a crime. It's on the books.

If, on the other hand, you say you're obeying some "higher moral code" to which I haven't agreed and to which no one, aside from you and your little gang, can be fully privy (which I take to be the meaning of the original quote in Althouse's post) ... well, then, there's really not much to say to one another. One of us buckles, one of us leaves, or we get busy.

I find the historical introduction to Robert's Rules of Order instructive when thinking about this flavor of activist. There is a reason why civilizations build elaborate sets of rules for conducting public discussions. The soul destroying tedium was slightly better than a knife in the belly.; 9/5/12, 8:15 PM
dreams said...: "And the Soviet Communists are estimated to have killed between 15 and 30 million of their own people. Mao's PRC about 70-80 million of their own people."

And the higher good of those two examples along with Hitler's atrocities was socialism, socialism was the higher good all three countries sought to achieve. Hitler was a lefty not right wing as the liberals would like people to believe.; 9/5/12, 8:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Q: What do you call a person who engages in asshole-like behavior solely because he's driven by the righteousness of his cause?

A: An asshole.; 9/5/12, 8:16 PM
furious_a said...: Would you use intimidation against a child rapist?

Define "intimidation" -- tight probation? citizen surveillance? assault? lynching?

There's no mob like an angry mob.

The Khmer Rouge used their "higher moral code" to exterminate ~2M of their countrymen. They felt entirely justified and blameless.; 9/5/12, 8:18 PM
Paco Wové said...: People... with a higher moral code... would not... abuse ellipses... so... egregiously...; 9/5/12, 8:18 PM
Paco Wové said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/5/12, 8:18 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Said protestor just justified the Black Legend version of the Spanish Inquisition.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Cardinal Fang...fetch...the comfy chair!; 9/5/12, 8:29 PM
test said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/5/12, 8:30 PM
Paul said...: Have to intimidate?

'Higher moral code'?

Didn't the Nazis think that way?

Didn't Lenin think that way?

Didn't Mao think that way?

Intimidate? Bunch of thugs is all they are and just a bit more group think and they will feel gulags and 'reeducation' camps are ok.; 9/5/12, 8:37 PM
test said...: Paul Zrimsek said...
Q: What do you call a person who engages in asshole-like behavior solely because he's driven by the righteousness of his cause?

A: Jake Diamond.; 9/5/12, 8:39 PM
sakredkow said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/5/12, 8:50 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Revenant said...
and what were the Nazis but a cult?

[the Nazis were] A political party with the support of a plurality of Germans. :)

Were not - too simple - they were a political messianic cult, putting an emphasis on blood, land, Teutonic "spiritual" beliefs, and murder.; 9/5/12, 9:02 PM
Sam L. said...: Got his directions severely confused.; 9/5/12, 9:04 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: John Lynch,

Hitler got where he was because the Weimar Republic failed.

No, the failure of the Weimar Republic provided the opportunity for Hitler - it, alone, didn't put his ideas in his head.; 9/5/12, 9:05 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy O,

You can't just say it and then everyone slaps their head and says, "Oh! Now I understand!" And your ellipses point to the fact you won't even say it. Ellipses are the punctuation marks for the tricky.

Come on, Paddy-O, don't treat me like that. I'm not playing with you but speaking to you as an equal. No tricks.

Bonhoeffer, of course, would have totally agreed with strengthening the good. That's why he was led Confessing Church in strong opposition to the Nazis, and then was hanged for participating in the plot to assassinate Hitler, after.   There was a force for the good in Germany but a whole lot of the activists, church folk, intellectuals put their faith in the government as good, rather than their faith in the good for the government.

Yes, but they waited until it was too late. The night of broken glass - and mass murder - had begun. Jews were already in the camps. War had already began.

That is not strengthening the good but masochism and suicide.; 9/5/12, 9:12 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Carnifex,

If you go around trying to intimidate people, eventually you will meet the man that will beat the ever living shit outta' ya'. Just sayin'.

Stalin didn't.; 9/5/12, 9:13 PM
Paddy O said...: That was a quick thing, Crack. You left and were back before I could even say have a good time with nonblog life.; 9/5/12, 9:13 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: John Lynch,

Uh, Crack, there's a bit of a disconnect between believing in a lot of fruity ideas and believing in a lot of fruity ideas while you kill 50 million people.

No there isn't - one leads to the other.

If nothing else, we haven't gotten around to starting World War III and committing genocide.

Well that's setting the bar pretty low.; 9/5/12, 9:15 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: dvlfish13,

Your point is clear. But you're talking about a crime that we all agree is a crime. It's on the books.   If, on the other hand, you say you're obeying some "higher moral code" to which I haven't agreed and to which no one, aside from you and your little gang, can be fully privy (which I take to be the meaning of the original quote in Althouse's post) ... well, then, there's really not much to say to one another. One of us buckles, one of us leaves, or we get busy.

That's precisely why I opened my comments the way I did.; 9/5/12, 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I've read a lot of meade. he just seems intelligent, common sense, with a sense of humor. Am I wrong?

A person who thinks of being a bully as being morally superior in some way is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just doesn't know it.

But if someone is dying I will let them keep their illusion.; 9/5/12, 9:20 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy O,

That was a quick thing, Crack. You left and were back before I could even say have a good time with nonblog life.

Important phone call - possibly life-changing.

I'll know in time,...; 9/5/12, 9:20 PM
Once written, twice... said...: Ann I am surprised you linked to that Isthmus discussion. Meade looks like a petty scumbag there. He just looks small and mean making fun of a young person who is dying. Do you find that attractive?; 9/5/12, 9:22 PM
Ross said...: Living the Gospel has brought happiness into my life. I wish more people would do the same.; 9/5/12, 9:27 PM
Paddy O said...: Crack, hopefully in a good way. I'd say I'd pray it works out for the best, but that would just make you mad, so I'll just send good vibes into the universe for you.

Kidding... not about wishing you the best though. When things take off for you again, don't forget about us.; 9/5/12, 9:28 PM
ed said...: Firefox extension: Block Site

This is a great extension that allows you to set up websites that will be permanently blocked by Firefox. You won't even see a hyperlink if it contains a URL that includes that website.

Seriously. TheDailyPage is a waste of time.; 9/5/12, 9:32 PM
Dante said...: Seemed to me Meade was the only one saying anything different on the blog.

It was like "Kumbaya" for Ryan or something. Get them all behaving the same way, so it's easier to put the yoke on them.; 9/5/12, 9:35 PM
Sydney said...: Whoa. I read the Segway Protestor post after watching the final episode of Sherlock. Somehow, it reminded me of the Moriarity character's dialogue.; 9/5/12, 9:40 PM
traditionalguy said...: Explaining that one follows the higher moral code of Lawlessness is a subtle thought. It means a con man at work to me. I saw that as Meade's point, but it went over their pointy little heads.; 9/5/12, 9:47 PM
Paddy O said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/5/12, 9:57 PM
Paddy O said...: This is the thread for commenters who have a higher moral code, so we don't have to associate with the DNC thread folks. I hope I'm not intimidating them by saying that.; 9/5/12, 10:01 PM
KCFleming said...: @Meade: awesome Isthmus posts

@Crack: best of luck; I'll pray for you even as you reject it; 9/5/12, 10:06 PM
gadfly said...: Hmm ... 26 times Segway Jeremy used "I" or "me" and we still have no idea what his malady is.

Perhaps Meade was too kind by not pointing out to the gathered ultra-progressives that Mr. Ryan's problems appear to be sociopathic in nature.

My disclaimer: I am not a psychiatrist nor am I a sociologist; I did not play one on TV or in the movies, nor have I slept in a Holiday Inn Express recently.; 9/5/12, 10:07 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy O,

Crack, hopefully in a good way. I'd say I'd pray it works out for the best, but that would just make you mad, so I'll just send good vibes into the universe for you.

Not true - ask Traditionalguy - if you'd pray for me I'd be touched. I wouldn't think it would work, but I'd appreciate the effort and the sentiment from the bottom of my heart.

Kidding... not about wishing you the best though. When things take off for you again, don't forget about us.

Thanks. In truth, I am so close, but I can't control others or events (and intimidation is uncalled for) unfortunately.

And I never forget my fellow hillbillies - as frustrating as it can be sometimes:

I'm proud to be part of this.; 9/5/12, 10:18 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Pogo,

@Crack: best of luck; I'll pray for you even as you reject it

LOL! Man, you guys have got to stop this,...PRAY!; 9/5/12, 10:21 PM
Rob said...: Wait, wait....I know this one. THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!!!! YES, I WIN.; 9/5/12, 10:23 PM
Paddy O said...: "PRAY!"

Okay! Did and will.; 9/5/12, 10:36 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Paddy O,

Okay! Did and will.

Thank you. If anything comes of it, I'll let you know.

Honest,...; 9/5/12, 10:39 PM
traditionalguy said...: Crack...The God that wrote the Bible revelation for us is patient. He will reveal Himself to you at the right time.

You know you already serve Him as His latest John The Baptist type servant set apart to proclaim repentance from occult false religion.

Grace be upon you, brother Crack.; 9/5/12, 10:42 PM
Eric said...: Although Segway's post was a masterpiece of disingenuous pretension, self-love, and delusion. But if he really IS dying, it's sad.

Everybody is dying. Doesn't give you an excuse to be such a pretentious jerk.; 9/5/12, 10:46 PM
Penny said...: Ha ha

Just LOVE it when the mice come out to play!; 9/5/12, 11:25 PM
Carnifex said...: @Crack

I didn't mention Stalin. I was refering to you specifically! :-)

Besides, you ever see Mrs. Stalin?

KYLIZ bringing a smile to my face with the Python ref. How sad that our future generations will consider Friends, and Will & Grace as the height of our comedic aspirations.; 9/5/12, 11:25 PM
Penny said...: They're cuter than the chipmunks!; 9/5/12, 11:27 PM
Penny said...: AND... no stripes!; 9/5/12, 11:29 PM
Penny said...: To confuse your sense of direction...as a world traveler. :); 9/5/12, 11:30 PM
Penny said...: Not that Meade travels that much.

But he HAS been to Cinderella's balls. So there's that!; 9/5/12, 11:33 PM
Carnifex said...: @Crack

I didn't mention Stalin. I was refering to you specifically! :-)

Besides, you ever see Mrs. Stalin?

KYLIZ bringing a smile to my face with the Python ref. How sad that our future generations will consider Friends, and Will & Grace as the height of our comedic aspirations.; 9/5/12, 11:36 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: traditionalguy,

Crack...The God that wrote the Bible revelation for us is patient. He will reveal Himself to you at the right time.

You know you already serve Him as His latest John The Baptist type servant set apart to proclaim repentance from occult false religion.

Grace be upon you, brother Crack.

And upon you as well, Tg:

If nothing else, I have to admit I sleep better with you on my side,...; 9/6/12, 12:25 AM
LoafingOaf said...: Look, I don't know the back story, but as usual Meade is a troll. And Meade has a long history of being a bully with his camera. Hard to give a fuck about this thread after Bill Clinton just dismantled all the bullshit Meade, Althouse, Instapundit and company have spent 4 years putting on their blogs. I hope you enjoyed the speech, Meade.; 9/6/12, 12:31 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Carnifex,

@Crack

I didn't mention Stalin. I was refering to you specifically! :-)

Sheeeiiit, who do you think you're talking to? I'm pretty-fucking-sure it's y'all naive, closeted, no experience with the truly-frightening hazards of life, motherfuckers who need to hear admonitions on knowing who to test. I've had my ass kicked so many times I don't even sweat it. (The unconscious feel no pain.) I'm positive I wrote your same message yesterday, on Ann's post about getting jealous over money, so you're going to have to go play School M'arm to somebody who needs it, because when it comes to me:

Message 100% received.; 9/6/12, 12:47 AM
Eric said...: Hard to give a fuck about this thread after Bill Clinton just dismantled all the bullshit Meade, Althouse, Instapundit and company have spent 4 years putting on their blogs.

Is that what you think? Really?; 9/6/12, 1:30 AM
Penny said...: Crack does NOT have "PTSD"!

He just has a lot of cortisol.; 9/6/12, 1:47 AM
Penny said...: Love you, Crack.; 9/6/12, 2:03 AM
Largo said...: My prayers are with you also, Crack. May all your life changes be for your good.; 9/6/12, 4:56 AM
Darcy said...: Ultimately, being correct in your judgment is certainly more important than sharing a possibly misguided but loving thought.; 9/6/12, 7:10 AM
kjbe said...: Boy, Meade turns the focus of some unrelated comment thread onto himself. Well played, sir.; 9/6/12, 7:48 AM
Rusty said...: The Crack Emcee said...
Paddy O,

That was a quick thing, Crack. You left and were back before I could even say have a good time with nonblog life.

Important phone call - possibly life-changing.

I'll know in time,...

Hopefully, good life changing.

hang tough.; 9/6/12, 8:18 AM
TMink said...: Higher moral codes focus on self control and subjegation of self to higher moral principles. Bullies need not apply.

Trey; 9/6/12, 8:30 AM
Kirk Parker said...: John L.,

"For someone who has so little time, that was a very long comment he typed. "

Not to mention incoherent.

damikesc,

"I'd divorce her."

Yeah, I don't know how I could survive such a thing; not the throwing away of the ballot so much as the smug monstrosity of "I decided to do the right thing". What that says of how she views her husband speaks worlds...; 9/6/12, 9:12 AM