Hillary said:
On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed – and there was certainly evidence to support it – is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that. And there wasn’t any rational argument – because I was in on some of those discussions, on both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and on – on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would – you know, chime in and talk about, “you can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.” But they were. And so, in – in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.
Maddow offers a paraphrase: "It was a defensive action?" Hillary adopts the phrase:
It was a defensive action. The culture rapidly changed so that now what was totally anathema to political forces – they have ceded. They no longer are fighting, except on a local level and a rear-guard action. And with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, it’s settled. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is something that – you know, Bill promised during the ‘92 campaign to let gays serve openly in the military. And it’s what he intended to do... And then... it was the most astonishing overreaction... by the military, by the Congress. I – I remember being – you know, on the edge of one of those conversations, and – and so “don’t ask, don’t tell,” again, became a defensive line. So I’m not in any way excusing them. I’m explaining them... And I think that sometimes, as a leader in a democracy, you are confronted with two bad choices. And it is not an easy position to be in, and you have to try to think, OK, what is the least bad choice and how do I try to cabin this off from having worse consequences?
Well defended.
पोस्ट्स
१२० टिप्पण्या:
So, You're the one who watched Maddow. Those self absorbed, "LOOK @ ME" TV ads of Maddow are clueless. Why the fuck hey aired them during baseball games is mind boggling.
This is exhibit #94 "Why I'm voting for Hillary."
The actual answer is:
Our polls and focus groups gave us different results back then. When the polls and focus groups evolve, we evolve.
So, they lied to advance a political and religious agenda, and you applaud it, professor.
A Law professor.
Unbelievable.
Incoherent doublespeak.
Also ex post facto lies.
Positively Lincolnesque!
No, wait, it was sniveling and cowardly.
Never forget, the Clintons lie. Whenever you here Bill or Hillary say anything -- anything at all -- your first response should be "Hmm. I wonder what they are lying about now?"
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is something that – you know, Bill promised during the ‘92 campaign to let gays serve openly in the military.
She has a different definition of "openly" than I do.
A person would have to be a fool to trust either of the Clintons.
Not a good interviewer. Rather than saying "It was a defensive action?" a better interviewer would say "How would you characterize the action in a short sentence?"
I find Maddow's voice unlistenable. To listen to her with Clinton? Yikes.
Great answer that is clearly a lie. There was not one shred of truth in the historical record to show it was done a defensive action to prevent going further.
Well defended.
If by "well defended", you mean, "satisfactory to people who really, really want to keep believing in Santa Claus; provoked snickers and guffaws from everybody else", then, yeah, it was well defended.
Perfect is the enemy of good. I saw a lot of progressives on Twitter attacking the Clintons for DADT during the interview. But they're forgetting that DADT was a significant improvement over previous policy. Uncompromising zealotry isn't an exclusive feature of the far right.
Tank wins the thread. Althouse loses.
LOL Tank at 8:49, exactly. Or, to twist the quote attributed to Keynes, "When the polls change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Hillary Clinton is now in top form in her quest to win the presidency. For the next year she can stake out the middle without much need to drift leftward. Republicans on the other hand are tripping over themselves to move to the far far right.
Hillary Clinton will be president. It is inevitable now.
Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell was a brilliant and effective compromise at that time.
It solved the most urgent problem, which was the persecution and discharge of discrete homosexuals who were serving normally in the military.
If President Clinton could have done more, he would have done so. Politically, DADT was the maximum possible.
If there is one thing that Ann Althouse loves, it is a winner.
Hillary Clinton is a winner. She is a winner who laughed in the collective faces of loser Republicans on Thursday. And people loved it.
What would have been interesting would be if WJC had said "shut up fags" and done nothing. Where would the gay support have gone? Probably nowhere.
Hillary's words: "What is the least bad choice and how do I cabin it off so it doesn't have worse consequences." If it comes down to a Trump-Clinton election, keep those wise words in mind.
The majority of gay rights supporters understood the need to take the long view and be strategic in getting there politically. We understood that the Clintons would go all the way if they could, but that it was at times better to take "half a win, than no win at all."
Those "half wins" now add up to total victory.
Thank you Obama and Clintons for your political acumen.
And let's hope the Republicans never pull their heads out of their collective asses!
Oh shut up Once. If you ever got fucked in the ass you would swallow drain cleaner.
Further observation--
I have noticed a clear turn in progressive circles over the past month or so. I have been hearing over and over "Clinton might not be progressive enough, but she is a fighter." The feeling I am getting from progressives is that they want to pummel this crop of crazy Rightwing Republicans in 2016. Progressives are getting more and more excited that Clinton can deliver that beating.
I think we are seeing the signs of a developing landslide.
Nichevo is just another stupid hillbilly.
Ann is so far in the tank for gay marriage, and anything else gay, that she can't see out.
The New Deal coalition included Southern segregationists and northern blacks. Hillary's coalition will include Muslim Americans, gays, and Hispanics........No one will ask Ahmad's father or a CAIR representative about their feelings on gay marriage. No one will ask a gay soldier which ethnicity is most hostile to their enlistment.
Yes Michael K, Ann is principled that way when it comes to freedom and equality. Thank you for noticing.
Remember, at the time Patrick Moynihan called this duplistic Clinton triangulation "boob bait for the Bubbas".
Now it's "defensive action". Good to know.
In many ways, Clinton is the heir to the centrist Democratic gestalt that Moynihan worked for years to make respectable. As Governor of Arkansas in 1988, Clinton was actively involved in the passage of Moynihan's Family Support Act, which required more work training for welfare recipients along with stricter child support enforcement. Just before the 1992 election, Moynihan's newsletter to constituents pronounced a blessing: "I have to say, I like the idea of a 46-year-old Governor coming to Washington with a zest for new ideas."
But almost from the beginning, there was trouble, and not just over style. "He's cantankerous, but he couldn't obstruct us even if he wanted to," an anonymous top Administration official was quoted as saying by Time magazine, referring to Moynihan. "We'll roll right over him if we have to." Moynihan has spent a good part of the months since showing who would do the rolling. In public and private, he criticized the President's health bill as often as he supported it. Last fall, he dismissed the Administration's cost estimates for a health care bill as "accurate fantasy." When the White House signaled that it might hold off on welfare reform, Moynihan described Clinton's end-welfare-as-we-know-it campaign promise as crass "boob bait for the Bubbas." He added that there was no health crisis and threatened to hold health care "hostage." Later, when asked on live television whether a special prosecutor should look into the Whitewater affair, Moynihan's "Yep" made him the first senior Democrat to say so.
Bill Clinton promised gays that if he was elected they could serve openly in the military. Under DADT they could serve in the military if they were successfully closeted. That is, Clinton lied -- or to give him the benefit of the doubt he lacked the courage to keep his promise. Eventually when Obama repealed DADT, that was applauded as a great victory for gay rights.
As for DOMA, my recollection is that no serious observer thought an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment could be adopted, but the fight over it would have taken energy away from efforts to adopt programs that were more important to Clinton.
If that's the kind of cynical, self-serving politics you like, Hillary! gives you a chance to have more (Thank you sir can I have another).
Y
I believe marriage is…a sacred bond between a man and a woman….a fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and woman, going back into the midst of history, as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization. And that it’s primary principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults - Senator Hillary Clinton
I guess that was a defensive action too.
She might've given Maddow a good answer to explain it away but that doesn't mean it was the truth. Hillary Clinton will spin anything and everything. Truth means nothing to her.
Godfather, you are an idiot. Clinton could not deliver on gays serving openly in the military because of an obstructionist congress. He then got the best victory possible. That set the stage for future victories. And in twenty short years we now have full victory for equal rights for gays. There is a reason why some of Hillary's strongest support comes from the gay community.
"The actual answer is:
Our polls and focus groups gave us different results back then. When the polls and focus groups evolve, we evolve."
Tank definitely wins the thread, Basil gets the door prize.
"Well defended."
Right, as long as the audience is 99% morons and the other 1% is integrity-challenged.
"Ann is principled that way when it comes to freedom and equality"
If the principle is to accept any lie that serves the cause, sure.
"Well defended": depends on what the meaning of "well" is.
Everything the Clintons touch they debase, including the language of their supporters.
If Hillary's story is true, then gun rights people are right to claim she is for confiscation. Any incremental step she proposes or defensive measure is just a step to a larger goal she won't tell the public about.
"If Hillary's story is true, then gun rights people are right to claim she is for confiscation. Any incremental step she proposes or defensive measure is just a step to a larger goal she won't tell the public about."
Indeed. Next question for Hillary: which of your current positions would you consider a "defensive action," similar DOMA and DADT, on which you plan to evolve when the polls turn?
And I think that sometimes, as a leader in a democracy, you are confronted with two bad choices.
yeah, focus groups and more, may be. But this is a democracy. What she said reminds me of the Indian Ambassador who said in answer to a question about population control for not adopting China's solution (such as one child policy). He simply said we are a democracy.
I think Hillary will give the same answer if she is ever asked to apologize for Bill's "sista soljah' comments, or Bill's approving of the execution of Ricky Ray Rector.
Most Americans understand that in her heart, Hillary supported equal right for gays and lesbians, but to remain politically viable she had to publicly "evolve" on the issue. Most Americans also know that many Republicans now-andmore in the future- willpublicly evolve towards support for equal rights for gays. But they also know that most Republicans' hearts will privately remain hate filled.
Which stance do you prefer? (I know--rhetorical question-you hillbillies prefer hearts that hate.)
Oh Dear Lord. Now you're admiring her as some sort of morally far-sighted political visionary.
There goes the country.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was B Clinton taunting gays to see if they could be more secretive about their sex life than he could be about his own.
I bet every time a gay was dishonorably discharged (and BTW, does any term not sound naughtily euphemistic? "Relieved" of duty doesn't sound much better.) he laughed and gloated at how he was able to keep his own indiscretions from costing him his career.
And then he was impeached.
And then disbarred.
And now well on the way to running the country all over again by proxy of his biggest fan.
This country sucks. I want out.
Can't we just fucking behead them?
"But this is a democracy"
Sorry, no. Not if Tony Kennedy dislikes your demos.
"defensive action" = another way to blame and accuse others
Whats wrong with her defending Marriage as defined? Yes, I know it was nothing but a racist/sexist, homophobic instution. But it also happened to be the one that allows for biological parents to raise their kids.
And all the dems from Clinton to Obama paid it lip service, because, frankly it was the norm.
Leave it the gay activists to suggest that the norm was abnormal or bigoted.
"Don't Ask Don't Tell was B Clinton taunting gays to see if they could be more secretive about their sex life than he could be about his own.
I bet every time a gay was dishonorably discharged (and BTW, does any term not sound naughtily euphemistic? "Relieved" of duty doesn't sound much better.) he laughed and gloated at how he was able to keep his own indiscretions from costing him his career. "
The military has strict rules on people fraternizing in ways unbecoming of soldiers. They will also drum you out if, say you are caught, cheating on your wife. All the were asking was dont' bring that stuff.
To a certain extent, what does gayness have to do with how you function in the military? Gayness is defined as being sexually attracted to members of your sex. Sexual attraction is not part of military cohesion.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Don't Ask Don't Tell was B Clinton taunting gays to see if they could be more secretive about their sex life than he could be about his own.
I bet every time a gay was dishonorably discharged (and BTW, does any term not sound naughtily euphemistic? "Relieved" of duty doesn't sound much better.) he laughed and gloated at how he was able to keep his own indiscretions from costing him his career."
Thank you for that. Hard to put it any better. Both Clintons are such horrible people.
I read all of this twice, Professor Althouse. I couldn't even understand Mrs. Clinton's position, much less think that her position(s) were "well defended."
She's attempting to put one over on people whom she apparently thinks don't remember her clear declarations on the subject. Like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Or here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TyZBeGfeVM
Professor Althouse, your commenters are "blogging" this topic better than you are.
I agree with "well defended." I believe that in a country where the large majority of the people who both make and report the news believe that lying is acceptable (maybe because they believe that everyone does it (I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon!) and so it's both necessary and acceptable) that this is an excellent after the fact explanation. It seems smart and judicious.
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
― Theodore Dalrymple
Marriage is not two guys butt fucking each other.
You can stick that lie up your ass, Althouse. I don't give a fuck how many times you tell the lie. It's still a lie.
Once written, twice: "Most Americans understand that in her heart, Hillary supported equal right for gays and lesbians, but to remain politically viable she had to publicly "evolve" on the issue."
And when any right-winger pointed that out at the time (similar to the conservatives calling out all the obvious realities of Obama-care early on) they were called every name in the book including paranoid and hateful for that simple observation.
But then, after the lefty-evolution, it becomes a: well of course, we all knew that all along! type scenario and anyone who didn't understand that is dumb!
Vaclev Havels words in “The Power of the Powerless" have never rung more true: The government is not stupid: It does not need, or expect, to convince citizens that the lie is right or plausible. “It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it.” Communism poisons the soul by compelling everyone in a society to tell such lies to himself.
Again, as noted before, there is no rule that the American Republic could never be consumed internally by the leftist cancer in it's midst.
So, what are we left with at this point? Quite a lot actually, and quite a lot for an easily envisioned "long period" of time. Scale, momentum and inertia are very real things even in politics.
But in terms of the populace now not just quietly accepting the lies, the left has successfully gotten potentially 50% + 1 of the population to embrace and even celebrate the lies that they tell each other.
That's where the: hey nice crease in your slacks, you're a great guy! and: of course she lied, but with such aplomb! analyses come from.
The fact that Althouse is a law professor only makes me question why she wasn't more openly on the Hillary! bandwagon earlier.
But THIS time, wee mean it.
"Well defended" = "Leading the witness".
Is this what you teach your law students?
Everyone loves how Hillary laughs at the rule of law.
1. They should be allowed in the army. They should not be allowed in any units that depend on small team cohesion. These include Infantry, Mortars etc. Similar to the current rules for women in combat for the same reasons you can't have women in these places that depend on small team cohesion.
2. The army is going to be robotic and mechanized in a matter of years. We aren't going to get to a point where straight men and gay men have both evolved to the point where they can work together in infantry teams and still win. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we could be to that point but there is too much resentment on both sides for the foreseeable future. Robots and drones will dominate the battlefield before we get to that point.
Of course the goal of the left was always to tear the army down and it is hard when one side does not act in good faith.
Hillary is corrupt but she's pro-gay now. Bigots. Pro-gay trumps corruption. Even though she probably doesn't give a rat's ass about gay issues or gay struggles. She will easily pretend to, just like she pretends to care about anything that will help her political fortunes.
but to remain politically viable she had to publicly "evolve"
You're as big a f*cking enabler of Hillary! as Hillary! was of Bill. You embrace being lied to like she embraced being betrayed.
Once written, twice... said...
"Further observation--
...
I think we are seeing the signs of a developing landslide."
You are forgetting that her leading first word associations are Liar, dishonest, or some variant. Everyone thinks Hillary is a liar. Even her supporters.
This is insurmountable. The country hasn't fallen far enough to support someone like Hillary. Also the NRA is almost twice as popular as her and she has proposed gun confiscation. Good luck with that.
I hope she is the candidate. It is a win win situation for the country. If she loses she loses. If she wins it will be proof the Republic has fallen and it is time to refresh the tree.
Chris Hayes at MSNBC - "Why does no one want to talk about how Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya?
Once in a blue moon you find intellectual curiosity at MSNBC.
In the aftermath of HRC's grand performance on Thursday all the people who have wanted to openly support her feel better about coming out (to borrow a phrase) but its not over. All she did was tell her side of the story. But there are other witnesses, other testimony.
Cackle Cackle
Michael K said...
Ann is so far in the tank for gay marriage, and anything else gay, that she can't see out.
It is the sole litmus test she applies to every candidate, every time. It's quite binary.
Oliver North had a good day in front of a Congressional Committee, too. Didn't help his later Senate candidacy much.
I think her answers make perfect sense, to Democrats and to those who will vote Democrat and consider themselves moderate.
It's been known for quite a long time now that Democrats will lie to say what you want to hear and they'll put their finger into the air to feel which way the wind was blowing. The Clintons are famous for this, but Obama should be as well. Instapundit has even developed a meme about Obama and expiration dates for his election promises.
Democrat voters know the politicians are lying. They are lying, not to their fellow Democrats, but to the rubes out there who wouldn't otherwise vote for them. They are lying to the black churches, for example, who are opposed to gay marriage. They are lying to the hispanic catholics that they need to keep on the plantation. They lie about homosexuals, they lie about abortion, they lie about anything that Muslims or Christians would find atrocious, in order to help those people continue to vote for them.
Since Ann doesn't really need that help, she doesn't mind the lying. Ann is already supportive of abortion and gay marriage and pretty much whatever other lies of morality that the Democrats make. So it doesn't bother her to find out that they've been lying.
No surprises here.
Blogger Drago said...
Once written, twice: "Most Americans understand that in her heart, Hillary supported equal right for gays and lesbians, but to remain politically viable she had to publicly "evolve" on the issue."
And when any right-winger pointed that out at the time (similar to the conservatives calling out all the obvious realities of Obama-care early on) they were called every name in the book including paranoid and hateful for that simple observation.
This is why I think conservatives make a huge mistake by not going after minorities more. They should be going into Muslim communities and pointing out how Democrats support homosexuals and abortion. How they will have their tax exempt status taken away. Forced to conduct gay weddings and bake homosexuals cakes and forced not to accept homosexuals, but applaud them and celebrate them. They should be going into black communities and their churches and pointing out how Democrats have screwed them over for years. How they support no restrictions on abortions and love killing black babies in the womb. They should be going into Hispanic communities, like Catholic churches, and pointing out to them how they try and keep them voting Democrat by handing out welfare checks and promising more immigration, all the while supporting gay marriage and abortion and drug legalization and weapon confiscation, etc.
It's a winning issue for Conservatives. We have a lot of common ground with Muslims, Black Christians and Catholic Hispanics. It's time Republican politicians who are socially conservative start winning over these groups.
The professor seems to be in the midst of convincing herself that Hillary! is her gal which isn't surprising as she went through this same melodrama before she voted for Obama.
I still think Rachel is a odd name for a guy...
I'm not that big a fan of Hillary but I must admit, she's an asshole.
So, Maddow is an advocate for constructing congruences and pro-choice/exclusion. While her quasi-religious doctrine may temporarily save her from suffering the worst consequences of cognitive dissonance, there are less men and women who are similarly prepared to adopt her sanctimonious hypocrisy. Well, time will tell if her efforts to manipulate perception will force reality.
" Clinton could not deliver on gays serving openly in the military because of an obstructionist congress. "
Yes and an obstructionist electorate. So, the left is importing a more "malleable" electorate that will vote the way they are paid to.
Oh, I see. So Bill only "pretended" to be against gay marriage in order to save it, or something. Pathetic, even by Clinton excuse standards. Worse, there are idiots out there that will actually believe this. And Althouse for the second time this week gullibly laps it up.
Wow, you hillbillies are a bunch of whiny, unattractive, pathetic LOSERS! No wonder Ann holds you in such low regard that she just baits you on a daily basis for the entertainment value.
It's like the left doesn't ever filter "Is this a stupid thing I'm going to say in defense of a slimy politician? I mean, it sounds stupid. But, is it so stupid people would uncomfortably shuffle away from me because of the rankness of the stupid?"
The fix is in. The left better start getting in line with Clinton and forgetting their past sins. They are the new orthodoxy.
The current Bernie-Hillary divide is the same as it was since 1945. One wing of the Democrats is simply about progress a la FDR (and TR). The other are simply about their own right to rule, a la the Dixiecrats and other douchebags lampooned as "Boss Hogg" in The Dukes of Hazzard and IRL Tammany Hall. They're the ones that conservatives are right to castigate as corrupt. They have no core. They're hangers-on to whatever gets them to do with the government whatever it is that benefits them.
It is dismaying beyond belief. I just watched Blowjob Bill on Colbert's new show getting the most up-to-date round of coronation. (I'm watching Hitchens as a palate cleanser). I seriously think that when the guy looks at Colbert, or anyone he talks to, he's thinking of ways to seduce that person. It doesn't matter who they are or the gender. His mind simply operates on the principle of thinking that, if he can get you to believe something, it might as well be true. It doesn't go any further than getting you into bed with him, even metaphorically.
America's prudeness handicaps us from this realization. This is a country so deprived of sexual honesty and plainness that we channel our need for seduction through a political horndog.
George Carlin had a great HBO special in 2001 about being in the unfamiliar position of rooting more for GWB's government so as to at least avoid getting killed by terrorists. He said this was for a very good reason. He explained there are three brains: The advanced, primate neocortex says, "Give peace a chance." The older mammalian brain says, "Give peace a chance, but first let's kill this motherfucker." 9/11 forced George into the mammalian reaction.
And then, he said, there's the reptilian brain. The reptilian brain says, "Let's just kill the motherfucker, go to the peace rally, and get laid."
And that's where Bill's at.
Oh yeah, there was something else to add.
Too bad we don't still have Hitchens. Not only was he hard-core, radically rational anti-jihadist, he couldn't stand Clinton or hi wife. And he was the most effective voice not on the right (and therefore probably anywhere) against them.
Heavens knows what kind of vital tips the electorate would be getting on dealing with Hillary! now if he were still around.
It would have been great. He knew them better than they knew themselves.
Achilles: "You are forgetting that her leading first word associations are Liar, dishonest, or some variant. Everyone thinks Hillary is a liar. Even her supporters.
This is insurmountable."
I could not disagree more with this assertion.
The very fact that she is a clear liar, unrepentantly so, and gets away with things that end other peoples careers (non-lefties) is the very thing that makes this so enjoyable to the leftists.
The dems have very nearly created Caracas-on-the-Potomac and once they complete that task, every right you believed you had will steadily and easily be wiped away with the Althouses of the world chiming in as to how this really is how it was always meant to be.
For instance, it was always intended that right-wing/conservative groups receive greater scrutiny for tax-exempt status 'cuz "poor administration" simply happens. Always in the same political direction of course because "shut up".
The new normal, just like the old normal, wherever the left is ascendant.
While we're on that, how is the water and toilet paper and fuel situation in Venezuela these days? Just another "peoples paradise".
R&B's: "Too bad we don't still have Hitchens. Not only was he hard-core, radically rational anti-jihadist, he couldn't stand Clinton or hi wife. And he was the most effective voice not on the right (and therefore probably anywhere) against them."
Too true.
Not only that, but he kept those of us on the other side of his on other issues on our toes as well.
Which is healthy.
R&B: "(I'm watching Hitchens as a palate cleanser)."
Another coincidence.
Just yesterday I was reviewing some of the old clips of Hitchens on Mahers show as well as Hitchen's debates with the colossal and moronic Galloway.
No one did it better than Hitchens when it came time to call everyone out on their hypocrisy as well as his own.
I've never understood the objections to Don't ask, don't tell in the military.
Yes, it was not as good (for gays, anyway)as the total legalization that eventually came.
It was certainly a lot better than what was before. It always seemed like a pretty good finesse between prohibition and legalization.
So can someone explain the objections to me from the gay point of view?
John Henry
Ah, even twenty years after the fact, the Clintons can conjure up a new lie about something long established, and the Clinton cheerleaders holler Hooray! And it still doesn't explain why she opposed gay marriage for two decades after her heroic efforts here to stop society from marginilizing gays. Of course, Maddow doesn't want to test Hillary's newest lie, the paint is still wet on it.
Once written, twice...: "Wow, you hillbillies are a bunch of whiny, unattractive, pathetic LOSERS!"
Again, this is just phase 1. Later, after another couple of "evolutions", folks like Once written will be on here saying - of course everything you guys on the right (and as R&B demonstrates, some on the left) were saying was correct. And we called you names for it. Now that we on the left are admitting you on the right were correct at the time, we will now say "duh" and call you stupid for not understanding all along that Hillary had to do the very thing we criticized you over for noticing.
Plus, nice pant suits.
Rinse, repeat.
Hillbillies, it is not a lie, instead it is just situational political position taking. If there were not so many unenlightened hillbillies in this country who get all of there thinking done for them by Rush Slimeball, then this whole charade would not be necessary. But you loser exist (but dwindling in numbers) so there you have it.
MF: "Of course, Maddow doesn't want to test Hillary's newest lie, the paint is still wet on it."
Maddow won't "test" the newest lie because like any run of the mill leftist (with notable exceptions), Maddow has already fully internalized the newest lie as "truth" and has discarded any and all past beliefs that might conceivably come into conflict with this latest rewrite of history.
Think of it as verbal "airbrushing" that the old Kremlinologists used to make note of to determine who was "in" and was "out" in the old Soviet peoples paradise (that Ted Kennedy pledged to work directly with in opposition to Reagan and that George Galloway served so well and that Walter Duranty so happily and readily and perpetually lied for).
I anxiously await Althouses next analysis of Hillary's latest claims which should be chock full of "truth tells" such as Hillary! didn't sweat and is not as icky as republicans. You know, a real "substantive" assessment.
Not to mention the obvious: Hillary has been known to possess female reproductive organs.
Once written, twice...: "Hillbillies, it is not a lie, instead it is just situational political position taking."
I'm afraid your reeducation is not yet complete.
Not to worry, in about 48 hours Once written will forget even this to embrace the soon to be reality of -it was never a situational political position, it was always the TRUTH-.
As surely as night follows day.
Just be careful Once written.
Remember, you never want to be the first one who stops applauding whatever the latest "truth" happens to be pouring forth from that most "authentic" of candidates, Hillary!
It's simply not......wise.
This is why people hate lawyers. It might have been skillfully defended, but most of us would only say it was well defended if what she said was true. If a second baseman got away with blocking a slide with his cleats and the umpire did not see it few of us would say he did his job well.
There is no "baiting" going on here.
On one side, you've got people telling Althouse she's a ruthless, evil, rotten bitch.
On the other side, you've got Althouse responding: "Yeah, so what? Go fuck yourself. Thanks for increasing my hit count."
It's actually a standoff.
Thanks for the further proof that all of you hillbillies are just a bunch of whiny, unattractive, pathetic losers. Now go sleep it off on Ann's porch. I can whip you some more later.
@Once...
You're just a stupid fuck.
Self-declared victories on the web are the indelible mark of the stupid fuck.
Shouting Thomas, I can't hear you. I don't listen to dumb hillbillies.
I think it's too early to lose heart. Remember, for every video clip the Democrats can show of her looking in-charge, composed, etc., the Republicans can show one displaying her cackling, flippant side, like the infamous "We came, we saw, he died", ha, ha, ha, re Gaddafi. The Dems and the MSM really do have their work cut out for them.
"But you loser exist (but dwindling in numbers) so there you have it."
Yes, and when we finally dwindle away, who will earn the money to pay for your food stamps ?
The left is always certain that money grows on trees, or, as David Warren once put it:
There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.
A variant of this is the frequently expressed denial of the law of unintended consequences: the belief that, if the effect you intend is good, the actual effect must be similarly happy.
Very small children, the mad, and certain extinct primitive tribes, have shared in this belief system, but only the fully college-educated liberal has the vocabulary to make it sound plausible.
Yes, it would be a pleasure to watch the left seek for daddy when there is no daddy but I will be gone. At least I hope so.
Michael, get over yourself. It is the more progressive areas of this country that produces most of the innovation and wealth.
Sorry if I'm late to the party, but I see the Professor is once again talking herself into supporting an awful candidate.
Because it worked so well in 2008.
I assure you: I don't particularly like any candidate and am in cruel neutrality mode.
Ann is in her "cruel neutrality let's poke the hillbillies dozing on my porch" mode. Love it!
How does anyone think Rachel Maddow would treat a pro-gay rights Republican on this subject, and on the subject of that politician's carefully-modulated "evolution" on that subject?
Does anyone delude themselves with the idea that Maddow would be open to the notion of political evolution, and accept the entire political expediency meme?
"I assure you"
Well defended, in the Freudian sense.
"Once written twice..." makes a lot of sense if you imagine that he/she is same person behind "Titus." They use similar rhetoric except there is no "funny" side to once bitten which Althouse so admires in Titus.
Wow. I agree with R&B. Broken clock is right twice a day and all that....
The story on DADT is a lot more believable than the story Hillary! gives on DOMA. That story is a complete fabrication. I can't believe anyone would believe that, unless, of course, they were children at the time of its enactment.
Hillary falls and fails repeatedly but we've had our first black president and now the liberal media is going to make her the first woman president too.
http://buzzpo.com/hillary-clinton-falls-flat-on-her-face-while-boarding-private-jet/?utm_content=buffera2579&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican
"It is the more progressive areas of this country that produces most of the innovation and wealth."
Yes, Facebook and Google. Great work !
The left is so clueless that it, and you, do not recognize that the production of all those "modern men" and women are things that entertain and do not feed or clothe anyone.
There are people who do not agree but you never hear them.
Blogger Once written, twice... said...
Michael, get over yourself. It is the more progressive areas of this country that produces most of the innovation and wealth.
I don't think you know what it means to produce wealth.
Hint: Money does not equal wealth.
chickelit said...
"Once written twice..." makes a lot of sense if you imagine that he/she is same person behind "Titus."
10/24/15, 5:02 PM
I don't think so. The way I read it, Titus is who he says he is: A snide gay middle-aged middle-manager for some big company who lives with a sugar-daddy boyfriend in Beacon Hill, Boston. I've known more than a few guys like Titus in Boston- Shoot, I probably know Titus! Once Bitten on the other hand, strikes me as a teen or twentysomething know-nothing democrat party youth. I'm only wondering about the support for Hillary- Most of those types are squeeing about Bernie now.
"Once Bitten on the other hand, strikes me as a teen or twentysomething know-nothing democrat party youth."
I think we've seen him under another moniker. Maybe another ritmo sock puppet ?
Both strike me as know it all 20ish types.
The kind that say the Constitution doesn't matter because it is 100 years old and stuff.
10/24/15, 10:07 AM
As for DOMA, my recollection is that no serious observer thought an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment could be adopted,
I think it was designed to prevent other kinds of legislative action, by claiming that no action by any state to recognize gay marriage (which they pretended came from legislation, not court rulings) could impact other states or the federal government.
With DOMA, it became possible to argue that anything else was unnecessary. Of course, that was a lie. Anyone who knew anything about the way courts work, knew that was a lie. and eventually, it was proven to be a lie.
One thing it would head off was state constitutional amendments. Another thing was more specific federal legislative changes, which might be able to survive a federal same-sex court ruling.
It might also deter federal court rulings, requiring states to recognize other state's gay marriages or the federal government to recognize it, because if that happened it would prove that DOMA was worthless, and activist judges might pay attention.
I think the Gods of the Copybook Headings are coming and all this nonsense just hurries things along.
Fred areas with me.
The United States has become a nation of weak, pampered, easily frightened, helpless milquetoasts who have never caught a fish, fired a gun, chopped a log, hitchhiked across the country, or been in a schoolyard fight. If their cat dies, they call a grief therapist. Everything frightens Americans.
“School District Bans Playing Tag to Ensure the Physical and Emotional Safety of All Students”
Independent? No. America is a nation of employees, afraid of the boss, trapped by the retirement system, worried that if they lose the job they won’t get another one.
I see this in Medical students who no longer think about anything but living as employees of others.
What cannot continue forever, won't.
I agree Ann is in cruel neutrality mode: all in for the democrat. That's what it meant back in 2008 when she announced it *after having already cast a vote for Obama* in the primary.
Once, I think I know what you mean by hillbillies. What you mean is kulaks.
Fred agrees with me..
Autocorrect is communist.
She's a fabulous politician, I can hardly wait.
Bill Clinton, DOMA signing statement:
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
Ann, you're letting yourself be lied to. Again.
Every progressive I have interacted with, online or in person, has said the same thing: they always understood the Democrat politicians who talked about their opposition to same-sex marriage, and the sacredness and holiness of traditional marriage, to be lying, and they approved the lie, because every single one told me it was obvious that they secretly agreed and would make it known when the time was right.
I have long supported same-sex marriage, but not people who lie to me. Because they might not turn out to be secretly on my side after all.
Disappointed, but not surprised, to see Ann accept the lie. There is simply no way to know if Hillary Clinton was lying then or lying now (but since her lips were moving each time I will assume she was lying on all occasions).
"I assure you: I don't particularly like any candidate and am in cruel neutrality mode."
Okay. I feel greatly assured now; very sure you so-called independents will definitely get it cruelly right this time.
Will it be heads or tails this time?
Drago said...
Achilles: "You are forgetting that her leading first word associations are Liar, dishonest, or some variant. Everyone thinks Hillary is a liar. Even her supporters.
This is insurmountable."
"I could not disagree more with this assertion.
The very fact that she is a clear liar, unrepentantly so, and gets away with things that end other peoples careers (non-lefties) is the very thing that makes this so enjoyable to the leftists.
The dems have very nearly created Caracas-on-the-Potomac and once they complete that task, every right you believed you had will steadily and easily be wiped away with the Althouses of the world chiming in as to how this really is how it was always meant to be."
If she is elected it provides clarity.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be replenished.
That's a great answer to give to a friendly journalist. It would be a dangerous answer to give to a real journalist.
No wonder Ann voted for Obama.
Bet she voted for Mondale (VP under Jimmy Jackass Carter) to cause he was "for the poor".
No doubt she'll vote for Hillary.
Some people just ain't ever gonna learn.
No one did it better than Hitchens when it came time to call everyone out on their hypocrisy as well as his own.
He wasn't an idelog like the lefties here. If the philosophy didn't fit his particular code he would abandon it.
Yep...more hard hitting coverage by MSNBC on the really important issues... because, let's face it, no one cares about the record low participation rate in the job market... BORING! By all means let's just live in the 1990's.
Wasn't there a chapter in "Profiles in Courage" where the protagonist decided to play along with and support the bigoted and unconstitutional legislation, campaign on it, and then two decades later when the legislation was unpopular go around saying it was all a ploy to prevent the legislation from getting much worse?
The Clintons have yet to find a sewer too deep for them to sink into.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा