Meade and I were just having a conversation, not about politics. About baseball, actually. I was expressing an idea I had. (It doesn't matter what my idea was, but in case your curiosity is distracting, my idea was that to enjoy baseball, you need to watch the game in real time, with the slow parts left in, and once you start fast-forwarding to the parts that look exciting, it ruins the experience, and you might as well just read a report of what happened.) Meade keeps scoffing and laughing really annoyingly, until I get the joke that he's doing his Joe Biden imitation.... at which point I give him the finger. Suddenly, I realize that is the normal reaction to Biden's antics. Give him the finger.
There are other reactions when someone acts like that, laughing in your face, rolling their eyes, smirking, every time you're trying to say something. It's incredibly antagonizing! In real life, what do you do? There are different reactions, depending on how much of a friendship you have and how much you know about this person's propensity toward physical violence and whether you have a good escape route.
But sometimes you're in a situation where you must maintain your demeanor, despite the other guy's antagonism. For example, in a job interview or a discussion with your boss or maybe when you were a kid and your father was exerting his authority. The VP debate is also, obviously, one of those situations. Imagine if Ryan had given Biden the finger? Ryan is a young man, he had to have been thinking of the various reactions that you'd use in an ordinary social situation, even as he rejected each one and told himself that he had to keep acting as if Biden were not behaving inappropriately.
And what was going through Biden's head? (♪♫What goes on in Biden's brain?♪♫) Did the old man lose control of his bodily functions? Let's assume he had a strategy and was deliberately annoying, distracting, bullying, and rude. Why would he adopt such a strategy? Has he no self-respect? Maybe he's okay with his longstanding "Old Joe" reputation. He's a clown. A gaffe machine. So what? Everyone already thinks that. Flip it! Weaponize clownery. If it was a plan, it was a plan to provoke Ryan. What if Ryan suddenly gave him the finger? Where's your choir boy now, Ryanistas?
October 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
295 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 295 of 295I think Inga decided to use this new-fangled thing called "Google" before she called Ryan out on anymore lies.
Justin said...
You're everything that's wrong with this blog, which used sometimes have engaging discussions. Now, we have to constantly put up with you, and others like you, frothing at the mouth, just waiting for someone to say something you disagree with so you can be a jerk.
Funny, this describes Inga exactly. Except that she doesn't need to wait for people to say something she can disagree with, she lashes out beforehand. Also true of garage, shiloh, diamond, and alpha.
Ann Althouse said...
Okay. I'll answer the question. The line invites us to picture lipstick on Paul Ryan, and that image is meant to degrade him.
So the first point is, when did Paul Ryan become such a sacred cow that we can’t make fun of him? This is a kid who was voted “biggest 'brown noser” by his own high school class. He has apparently always been an easy target for mockery. His obsession with tax cuts for the richest amongst us is just the natural extension of that brown noser mentality.
Deprecating others is a different matter. That's what Pierce's joke does.
Again most political jokes are deprecating in nature. When did Paul Ryan become off limits? If we were to bar deprecating jokes about politicians, entire industries would fail.
It's all very ugly. And Pierce is so sure his ugliness is for the good cause that he doesn't see that it's leveraged on sexism and homophobia.
I have no idea who Charles P. Pierce is but your link to a video of a transvestite also called Charles Pierce based simply on the shared name did in fact seem a bit homophobic. Pierce's joke on the otherhand seemed well within the normal range of political jokes.
I understand that Ryan is a native son but clearly he has been seriously overhyped. Biden is not a particularly good debater, I thought he lost the debate with Palin. He didn’t lose against Ryan.
Paul Ryan is such a total alpha.
Physically and mentally strong. In control of himself at all times. Unflappable, even when under great stress and in the face of extreme provocation from a lesser man. Devoted to ideals larger than his own self-interest.
Janna is a lucky woman.
I know it takes all types, but it's impossible for me to understand how so many women go ga-ga over weak, whiny, pitiful beta males like Obama. He disgusts me.
People perceive rudeness not only by observing its display, but also by observing its reaction on others. By ignoring Biden's clown act, Ryan somewhat lessened the outrage felt by viewers.
Ryan should have politely noted every single interruption—"We know it's difficult for you to sit still there, Joe, but just give me a few more seconds"—and just as politely should have repeatedly asked him WTF he was laughing about. As the comments about Biden's behavior piled up, even the dimwits among the viewers would have gotten the message: The Vice President of the United States is a buffoon.
Erika said...
Paul Ryan is such a total alpha.
He was voted “biggest 'brown noser” by his own high school class.
That's zeta male territory. He was clearly overcompensating when he falsified his sporting achievements.
"Inga said...
Biden was over the top, but he was reacting to Ryan's lies, like the times Ryan said he wanted bipartisanship,"
You see what she's doing here? She's making the same argument she made before, regarding free speech and Muslims.
In other words, people just can't be expected to control themselves when hearing words they don't like. They literally get a pass for not behaving like adults. It's not their fault when you wave a red flag in front of them. They have, and can only be expected to have, all the control of a bull in a bullring. Nothing more.
So if you follow the logic of her argument the other day, what she's saying is that Paul Ryan should shut up. If he knows that Joe Biden is going to go off because he just can't control himself, it's Paul Ryan's responsibility to not say anything in the first place to annoy him. It's the continuation of the heckler's veto. There is no expectation that Joe Biden should behave better, only blame for the person exercising his free speech rights.
The white knight brigade has arrived and Justin is their sad sack(less) leader. Come to save Inga, RN (ret.).
Groundhog day at Ann's place.
When did progressives learn to type the word "whine" and when will they learn its meaning?
The best baseball is behind us. When the middle of innings were quiet except for the sound of the pitcher warming up, the thump or crack of the ball in the catcher's mitt, the throw to second and then around the bases and then batter up.
Today you cannot hear that for the blaring rap music, the "games" etc. now there is no quiet between batters
Try a college game during the day in the early spring and you will get a feel for how it used to be.
How I would have reacted: I would have lost my shit.
I would have said something like "Why in the fucking fuckety fuck are you laughing and grinning like an idiot, when we're discussing how your administration's policies have resulted in the ruin of lives and families?"
And I would have come across as a self-righteous prick.
Ryan reacted as well as anyone could have, in that situation, against that unhinged opponent, and with that very immoderate moderator.
His performance was remarkable: Quiet dignity and strength in the face of a raving lunatic.
Inga said...
Ryan said the ACA included an Obamacare "board", that would lead to Medicare cuts every year for seniors.
Lie.
No it's not.
Beta Rube said...
Well, creepie Joe certainly locked up the gargoyle vote last night.
I busted out laughing.
Thanks.
"Lie."
"No it's not."
I couldn't help laughing when I read this. The sophistication of the arguments on both sides took my breath away.
In any event, shouting "lie" is not an argument so the response was as much as was warranted.
Beta Rube, any comment on the whole "alpha male" argument swirling around here?
As I wrote about extensively in my first post of the day, Ryan should have nailed Biden when he lied about the intelligence they had about the attack in Libya
And Althouse gets it wrong again!
Does Paul Ryan have the brains, self control and strength of character to step up if something happened to a President Romney?
Ryan passed that threshold.
I agree he could have shown a little extra strength by upbraiding Biden for interrupting and acting like a clown more frequently. But keep in mind that many of Bidens facial expressions were not obvious to Ryan because he was looking at Raddich and the camera...had the two men been facing one another...the occasion would have been clear for a reprimand.
"Joe, get control of yourself. A discussion of a dead Ambassador and other Americans is not the time for you laughing and grinning like an idiot."
As for Biden, even though he has been VP for 4 years, he likely regressed in the eyes of many idependents and moderates as meeting the VP threshold and hurt rather than helped his bosse's prospects.
Yes he cheered up the Lefty Base as a rude attack dog, but someone else that does not live for smashmouth politics 24/7/365 could tune in, watch 10 minutes and turn off the debate because of all the Biden interruptions and repulsiveness.
"I can't believe Obama picked that buffoon to be his VP and I hate to think of that idiot in charge if Obama dies or is disabled somehow."
Jay babbled: "Hey homo."
In my opinion, this is the kind of ugly, abusive comment that drives people away from this forum. It's time for Jay to be banned.
In my opinion, this is the kind of ugly, abusive comment that drives people away from this forum. It's time for Jay to be banned.
I haven't noticed that anybody is being driven away from this forum.
Over 1,000 comments on a thread last night.
But, leave it to a liberal to suggest censoring the opposition. You can count on that.
Betaliberal, Garage, and Inga, maybe you guys should oust Urkel and get crazy Uncle Joe to carry your water to the presidency instead since he gave such an awesome red meat debate that you were looking for. lol.
In my opinion, this is the kind of ugly, abusive comment that drives people away from this forum. It's time for Jay to be banned.
The opinion comes from a "man" who applauded: a candidate cupping his nuts during the national anthem; a candidate giving his opponent the finger during a debate; an incumbent Veep grimacing and making a mockery of serious topics; and "he himself" now sports an avatar mocking a political opponent.
I'll add that Jake Diamond does an outstanding Shiloh impression when pressed, as well.
AlphaLiberal said...
Paul Ryan rejects the Word of Jesus Christ when he espouses the doctrine of greed and selfishness and opposition to altruism that is the doctrine of Ayn Rand.
Those two philosophies are wholly incompatible. Jesus would never support granny-starving
Leave it to a leftard like Alphaliar to espouse the tenants of Christ as a function against Paul Ryan's catholic beliefs as a means to attack him because he is a fan of Ayn Rand. Your hyperbole and demagoguery is a well known documented fact on type of being a bald faced liar. Why you come here to spew them is your own business, but stop expecting other to think what you are saying actually has merit or value. It clearly doesn't you insipid fool. You are the furthest thing from being a christian much less than an American. Your existence is offensive, you unamerican prick.
It's all about Inga again.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!!
roesch/voltaire said...
It a challenge to keep a straight face when the other spins so much "malarkey," would you rather Biden look down or not address the issue as Obama did?
Oh no, of course not. We wouldn't want to give Biden the impression that he was acting like a pre-dementia patient and lashing out in histrionic demagoguery now would we. Clearly we know who the adults were in that room and the denture wearer wasn't it. Even people his age were shaking their heads in shame and disgust and you'll see that in the electoral count come November.
Baron Zemo said...
It's all about Inga again.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!!
Don't say I told you so.
Jake Diamond said...
Jay babbled: "Hey homo."
In my opinion, this is the kind of ugly, abusive comment that drives people away from this forum. It's time for Jay to be banned.
Really, Inga?
I would have bitch-slapped Biden.
Inga said...
No kidding Lynch. But he IS a Republican.
So not only did you make a glaring error, but you lied about it. Not surprising since that's all your ideology is based on, but do carry on.
I do hope that the Catholic bishops realize their pastoral duties and excommunicate the Vice President. His lies about the attacks against religious freedom by Obamacare and his stance on abortion are such that he must be called to account.
Perhaps he can join Rev. Wright's church?
While it may have been satisfying to see Ryan turn to Biden and pointedly ask "What the hell are you laughing at?", it might have caused a moment of introspection for Biden, and caused him to behave himself. As they say, never interrupt your opponent if he is self-destructing.
(BTW: I didn't watch this debate, or the last; I have only seen the clips. I hate watching politicians speak. And in this election since my mind is firmly made up, I see no reason to torture myself.)
The opinion comes from a "man" who applauded: a candidate cupping his nuts during the national anthem; a candidate giving his opponent the finger during a debate; an incumbent Veep grimacing and making a mockery of serious topics;
What the hell are you babbling about, little buddy? I've never shared an opinion on any of those subjects.
The original question was, how would I have reacted? Well, probably worse, because the ability to "win" one of these "debates" is a rarified "skill" I probably lack.
How ought Mr. Ryan have reacted?
Someone else observed it would have been fitting for him to turn to the Vice President and say, "you may find ____ a barrel of laughs, Mr. Vice President--no, please don't interrupt--you may find this amusing, but I suspect most Americans think these are serious matters, and they might expect something more constructive from the Vice President than sighs and guffaws."
A broader question:
Do these debates really serve the public well?
Can you think of a President who did a good job in office, yet would have looked bad in one of these Crossfire encounters? Eisenhower? Truman? Cleveland? Coolidge? Pick your own.
Notice how much time they have to spend on preparing. Does that serve the public well? How?
I think it's the candidates--principally the challenger--who wants them.
How about, instead, journalists who really drill these guys? An extended interview with a reporter who presses them on their reasoning? If we had reporters who really do that, fairly--but we don't.
That would actually be better, because the reporter, having her/his questions ready, would also be able to be ready to call BS on the usual statistics brought up.
Imagine these guys sitting down for four-to-six hours with a really competent reporter. The interviews could be edited down to 2-3 hours--with the raw tape posted online.
I'm pretty conservative, but if I were still a journalist (I worked as one for a few years out of college), I would frame tough questions for any and all. It amazes me how much lazy thinking so many of these folks do.
For one, I'd have drilled Ryan on the inconsistency of his stated pro-life position. All life is sacred, yet he allows abortion for rape and incest? He used to be 100%
And I'd call Biden on the "forcible rape" BS, because I don't think that proves what he thinks it does. Statutory rape is rape; is it "forcible"? One one level, it doesn't matter; but do such distinctions matter in law? I have a feeling they do. Which side is it that advocates hate crime add-ons, even for murder?
Inga:
Yes, Biden and Obama are seeking to force people (not just Catholics) to pay for contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs. I don't care what the VP said. He's either ignorant or lying. I'll go with ignorant.
Employers are required to pay for insurance coverage that includes contraception, sterilization and drugs that can induce abortion. This includes religious organizations that don't benefit from an extremely narrow "exemption," although the latter religious organizations get to wait a year before they lose their religious freedom.
To say, as the Administration and its apologists do, that it isn't the employer, it's the insurance company, is ludicrous. Someone has to pay for it. Where does the insurer get the wherewithal to pay for it?
And it isn't just paying. Do you get the idea that there are people--not you--who (a) think some things are gravely immoral and therefore (b), do not want to be involved with said activities? Period?
So it isn't just paying for them; it's providing them--facilitating them.
Also on the forced-contraception mandate...
A lot of folks don't know--but Biden ought to--that many organizations "self insure." So this business of saying, you won't pay, your insurance company will, is made utterly ridiculous.
Gee, do you think that's something the government ought to know, before it makes policy affecting insurance?
Apparently Mr. Biden doesn't think it's important to know these things.
Biden knows what he is doing. He did the same thing to Sarah Palin. Watch the debate from 2008.
Palin dealt with it better.
To say, as the Administration and its apologists do, that it isn't the employer, it's the insurance company, is ludicrous. Someone has to pay for it. Where does the insurer get the wherewithal to pay for it?
From ALL of its policyholders. It is ludicrous to imply, as you have, that the employer is paying directly for the specific services covered by the insurer.
Jake:
So you claim the employer pays nothing?
Nothing? Nada? Zilch?
So why does the employer even deal with it?
Here's a deal: the employer gets out of it. Employees pay for their health coverage directly. Then they can have their contraceptives on their own dime.
Jake:
What about the policy-holders who don't want to participate in contraception, sterilization and abortion-drugs? What about their conscience?
So you claim the employer pays nothing?
No. I wrote, quite clearly, that the employer does NOT pay directly for the services covered by the insurer.
What about the policy-holders who don't want to participate in contraception, sterilization and abortion-drugs?
No policyholder is required to utilize any of those services.
Just to pay for them.
The liberal way. You have to pay for behavior you abhor.
What about their conscience?
Well, sir, if you are so terribly concerned about issues of conscience, perhaps you can be an advocate on my behalf with the federal government. As a matter of conscience, I don't believe in invading other countries and killing their citizens, yet I have a legal obligation to pay taxes that fund these wars.
Furthermore, you can act as an advocate on my behalf with respect to my state government as I don't believe in the death penalty (as a matter of conscience), yet I have a legal obligation to pay taxes that fund these executions.
Jake:
Is reading English difficult for you?
The issue wasn't forcing people to use contraception, but being forced to pay for them.
You just said all the policyholders pay for them. Not some. All. Your words.
Can you not grasp the notion that (a) some people find some things immoral and therefore (b), don't want either to pay for them, or be involved with them?
You have to pay for behavior you abhor.
It happens all the time. How is it possible that right wingers are just now discovering this simple truth about how government functions?
Jake:
I agree with you about the immorality of the death penalty.
However, the law very pointedly empowers government with police power and thus the power to punish people. That's something unique to government. You can't privatize that. Same with the military.
So it's one thing to say, yes, the government, carrying out its core purposes, does things some taxpayers object to.
It's quite another when government forces private actors to turn around and coerce others to do things they don't wish to. Unnecessarily.
The necessity of government having a monopoly on imposing punishments as well as war-making power is self-evident.
Please explain the necessity of insurance companies being forced to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion. Please show why your chosen analogy of these, to the government's monopoly on war-making and police-power, are apt.
Jake:
How is it you can't comprehend the difference between those things government must do, may do, and must not do?
Is reading English difficult for you?
Hmmm. I suppose I would have expected more courtesy from someone who was JUST criticizing Biden for discourtesy.
The issue wasn't forcing people to use contraception, but being forced to pay for them.
I think we need to be clearer about WHO we are calling the "policyholder," which seems to be the point of confusion.
The employer does not pay directly for the services covered by the insurance policy. Therefore the employer plays NO role in deciding or funding the specific services the employee uses.
Now, you can argue that certain employers may be offended at the mere thought that people are using contraception, and they may be upset that they are indirectly funding contraception via insurance premiums, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to this position. Perhaps if religious institutions had a better track record of practicing what they preach I'd have more sympathy.
Please explain the necessity of insurance companies being forced to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion.
It is not a necessity; rather, it is in the public interest. It is judged, and correctly so I believe, that in this instance public interest outweighs the moral objections of a few.
Please show why your chosen analogy of these, to the government's monopoly on war-making and police-power, are apt.
Ah, you missed the point. The analogy is not with respect to the government's position, but rather with respect to the position of the person or institution with the objection (moral or otherwise) to paying for actions considered abhorrent. Since your argument against government policy in this matter is based on "moral" objection, you shouldn't be so quick to wave away similar objections with respect to other government actions, particularly when they aren't necessary (as in the case of capital punishment).
Jake:
I'm having trouble figuring out why you can't seem to understand straightforward English sentences. If it's not comprehension, it's deliberate evasion.
The employer certainly plays a role. Either you're obtuse or evasive.
If I am going to a restaurant to pick up food for my coworkers, even if I am not buying anything for myself, and even when everyone else pays 100% of the bill, I'm still playing a role.
Now, picking up other peoples' lunches doesn't involve any great moral conundrum. But contraception, sterilization and abortion do. Maybe not for you, but for others.
Sad you don't give a damn about anyone's conscience but your own.
Jake:
You offered the analogy of conscience-objection with forced-participation with provision of sterilization, abortion-drugs and contraception, and conscience-objection with taxes paying for the death penalty and war.
The comparison is not apt.
The problems created for conscientious objectors in the case of the death-penalty and war are exceedingly difficult to avoid--if not impossible. They are comparatively easier to avoid with the forced-participation in provision of abortion drugs, contraception and sterilization.
When Catholic hospitals close in Chicago (which the Archbishop there has said will happen if this order is not overturned), how will that serve the public interest?
"Now, you can argue that certain employers may be offended at the mere thought that people are using contraception, and they may be upset that they are indirectly funding contraception via insurance premiums, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to this position. Perhaps if religious institutions had a better track record of practicing what they preach I'd have more sympathy
And here we see the true heart of a totalitarian.
How is it you can't comprehend the difference between those things government must do, may do, and must not do?
I would have imagined that people in your line of work would have learned to be more tactful. With that in mind, here's a tip for future conversations: don't assume that disagreement is based on the inability of others to comprehend.
I fully comprehend the difference between "must do, may do, and must not do," but I also realize that people will have different functional definitions for these categories.
Your previous arguments addressing these differences fail pretty miserably, in my opinion. For example, you purposely fail to distinguish between wars of aggression and defensive wars, thereby assigning every military activity into the "must do" category of government action. Similarly, you fail to address moral objections to the death penalty by excusing it as a "must do" government police power.
The simple fact is that all taxpayers contribute to government funds without knowing and approving the way in which government will use those funds. Similarly, employers pay for insurance for employees without knowing and approving the way in which employees will use the services available.
If you pay taxes in the United States, you will likely have contributed financially to the killing of innocents in wars or police actions.
Jake:
If you prefer, I will assign your obtuse responses to willful dishonesty. I preferred to be charitable in assigning it to lack of comprehension, but you pointedly object to that.
The key issue of the government having a monopoly on war-making and police powers is that they are monopolies.
So there simply is no way to avoid a conundrum. It is all but inevitable that there will be someone who objects to a war, of any type.
I'd be delighted to avoid such conundrums. If you have a suggestion, please be constructive and offer one. But that's the nature of the unique powers of government. You can't privatize them.
But what you choose to obfuscate is that this is patently not the case with the HHS mandate at issue.
Obviously, the provision of contraception, sterilization and abortion can be "privatized"; there is no comparable necessity that they be "one size fits all."
That someone--perhaps you--finds this a desirable policy is not relevant to the analogy that you, yourself introduced.
By the way, I usually give people the benefit of the doubt; but not when people are clearly being dishonest in their responses.
For example, I never said every military activity of government is a "must do." That's a lie. (Since you insist it's not a failure of comprehension.)
I said that the power to make war is a monopoly of government. If you wonder how I see that fits into the "must do, may do" schema, it's this: that the broad rubric of national defense and policing are "must dos"; no one else can do them.
Jake Diamond said...
I would have imagined that people in your line of work would have learned to be more tactful.
Someone whose only purpose in commenting is to be an asshole is nevertheless lecturing other on tact. Unbelieveable. Maybe he should go back to whining about others needing to be banned.
Jake Diamond reasons: If you pay taxes in the United States, you will likely have contributed financially to the killing of innocents in wars or police actions.
It follows that if you less pay taxes in the United States, you will likely have contributed less financially to the killing of innocents in wars or police actions. Therefore lesser taxes are in fact a positive thing.
When Catholic hospitals close in Chicago (which the Archbishop there has said will happen if this order is not overturned), how will that serve the public interest?
Such an action will be consistent with past actions by the Church--the public interest will be sacrificed so that the Church can grandstand.
The employer certainly plays a role. Either you're obtuse or evasive.
No, that's not it. I'm being very precise about what I say and you're not because you see a disadvantage in clarity.
The employer pays for insurance, not services. In a similar manner, taxpayers contribute to government funds, but the funds they contribute aren't designated for specific government action.
I'm sorry you don't like this answer. Nevertheless, it's correct.
Jake Diamond notes: Such an action will be consistent with past actions by the Church--the public interest will be sacrificed so that the Church can grandstand.
There are many here who openly loathe this man or that but only a few who consistently attack the Catholic Church. They seem to take different guises. This is a convenient if oversimplified mark.
If I am going to a restaurant to pick up food for my coworkers, even if I am not buying anything for myself, and even when everyone else pays 100% of the bill, I'm still playing a role.
I apologize for being so blunt, but this is a truly stupid analogy.
Do you refuse to shop at stores that sell condoms?
Sad you don't give a damn about anyone's conscience but your own.
That's completely unfair. What is fair to conclude, though, is that I don't give a damn about whiny hypocrites.
The problems created for conscientious objectors in the case of the death-penalty and war are exceedingly difficult to avoid--if not impossible.
I see. "Moral objections" are pursued according to practicality in your world. With that in mind, I think you should stop referring to your objections as "moral."
I do not apologize for being blunt: Jake Diamond has convincingly demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of all of the following subjects: experience rating of employers for health-insurance premiums, public goods, private goods, cross-subsidization, grandstanding, whining, and hypocrisy.
If he wrote only about what he knew, I doubt that we'd ever hear from him.
It's as if there are no serious, substantive arguments for any Obama policies. Surely that can't be true.
Can it?
If you prefer, I will assign your obtuse responses to willful dishonesty. I preferred to be charitable in assigning it to lack of comprehension, but you pointedly object to that.
Oh, there's been nothing charitable in your comments from the beginning. In other words, you're being an asshat.
But that's the nature of the unique powers of government. You can't privatize them.
Bullshit. Military services have been privatized. Ever heard of Blackwater? And police powers have been privatized too. Government may be the contractor, but services can and have been privatized.
But once again the main point is not if the government holds these unique powers but how it uses them. The objection you presented initially, before you started squirming, was that you and your institution have an objection to THIS PARTICULAR EXERCISE of government power. There is no history of your institution claiming a broader objection to this type of government action.
Therefore it is quite clear that you are whining because you and the Catholic Church find this particular exercise of government authority distasteful. So you can stop now with the silly, phony general arguments about the proper role of government.
If the Catholic Church addresses its hypocrisy and addresses moral objections without regard to political calculations and convenience, I'll start to take the Church more seriously. As things now stand, you continue to be a joke.
I said that the power to make war is a monopoly of government.
Wow, you are really disconnected from reality.
By the way, I usually give people the benefit of the doubt
I call bullshit.
It follows that if you less pay taxes in the United States, you will likely have contributed less financially to the killing of innocents in wars or police actions. Therefore lesser taxes are in fact a positive thing.
A more effective way to achieve this goal is to stop electing dumbshits who start wars.
There are many here who openly loathe this man or that but only a few who consistently attack the Catholic Church. They seem to take different guises. This is a convenient if oversimplified mark.
This probably means something important in the Althouse Conspiracy Club.
There are many who hate the Catholic church and work for it's destruction.
President Obama is just one of them.
Jake offers: A more effective way to achieve this goal is to stop electing dumbshits who start wars.
I agree in part. It's time to un-elect the dumbshit who rolled into Libya in the first place.
Maybe he should go back to whining about others needing to be banned.
Yeah, good point. Frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing ugly, abusive comments about sexual orientation directed at other Althouse readers. I don't think there's any place for that here, and to the extent that it discourages people from participating here, the abusers should be banned.
Marshal thinks these abusive comments are great.
I agree in part. It's time to un-elect the dumbshit who rolled into Libya in the first place.
Spoken like an idiot who voted for W. Twice.
There are many who hate the Catholic church and work for it's destruction.
Yes, of course, all part of the war on Christianity blah blah blah.
His name is legion.
Jake scolds: Spoken like an idiot who voted for W. Twice.
Actually, just once. But I regret my vote for Gore.
Actually, just once. But I regret my vote for Gore.
I'm impressed. It takes a lot of courage to admit in public that you wish you could go back in time and double down on dumb.
But here's the good news... Wishing you could have voted for W twice when you know what a disaster his presidency was qualifies you for special recognition for your stupidity. Well done!
Hey Zemo, did you pick up your costume when a local Burger King went out of business?
Jake Diamond said...
I'm impressed. It takes a lot of courage to admit in public that you wish you could go back in time and double down on dumb.
Thanks. I actually think it takes more courage to announce that you plan to "double down on dumb" as (I suspect) you plan to do because of slings and arrows and such and a willingness to suspend belief in the 1st Amendment, etc.
I believe we've met before somewhere online and I salute you.
"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." - Proverbs 29:9 (ESV)
Doh! Earth Girl beat me to the punch, and @ 10:15 already. Great minds think alike...
That's what I get for not reading all the comments first.
"They double down on failure." - Tim
I believe it's called Stuck On Stupid.
Did the old man lose control of his bodily functions?
That's a pretty good way to smear someone.
"I could be wrong, but I think Biden would have been more persuasive if he'd lit a couple of farts while Ryan was speaking. The visuals would've been a lot better, for one thing." - Chip S.
Thanks, I laughed my ass off so hard that my eyes were watering and I couldn't read the next comment until I grabbed a napkin to wipe my eyes.
The scary part was that I actually visualized Plugz doing that...
Anyone else think of Chevy
Chase on SNL doing the same thing as Biden when Jane Curtain was talking?
"Don't pretend to know the vibe between husband and wife." - Ann
Exactly, after 3+ decades together, that's just clowning around for us.
When we look back at presidential debates ten years from now isn't Biden's going to go down as one of the most unhinged and disrespectful in history, or at least since they've broadcast the debates? When even Tom Brokaw says you shouldn't be laughing when discussing a nuclear Iran, it points out how much of a jump the shark moment this debate actually was.
Partisans like alpha liberal are of course pleased, but they are adolescents. Adults are shaking their heads at the degree to which Biden beckoned himself.
"For one thing, I was giving 'Biden' the finger." - Ann
OK, that changes the perspective, but your vibe point still stands.
"and ask Biden point black..." - George
Racist. ;)
"Pretty easy to tell who won the debate though..." - Garage
Unka Halfwit fired up the lefty base, and the righties weren't swayed. It's about the 10% who decide elections. A lot of women found him repulsive, and many indies thought he beclowned himself.
Great strategy. And keep running those Big Bird ads.
"pointing out that Ryan sent a letter asking for the stimulus money that he opposed..." - AlphaLiberal
Let's see... the stimulus is rammed through, despite his vote, saddling Wisconsin tax payers with a chunk of the bill. A Wisconsin constituent asks him for a letter of recommendation to appropriate some of these funds that we are forced to pay for.
OMG! What a defeater argument!
You're a fucking idiot if you think that amounts to a hill of beans. How does it feel to be as stupid as Biden?
"Paul Ryan rejects the Words of Jesus Christ when he espouses the doctrine of greed and selfishness and opposition to altruism that is the doctrine of Ayn Rand." - AlphaLiberal
Nice straw man, but I'd be willing to bet two bits to a pinch of coon shit that you've read neither, based on your comment.
But I'm sure you could pony up chapter and verse to back up your premise, the Biblical scholar that you are.
Or will you beclown yourself like Biden? You could always borrow a squirting bow tie and clown shoes from Obama...
Post a Comment