America's leading fake feminist, @HillaryClinton, still silent on Harvey Weinstein. pic.twitter.com/qIandk16pC— Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange) October 7, 2017
I never thought of Julian Assange as "right wing." Not everyone who has a problem with the Democratic Party is right wing, though I'm very familiar with the way Democrats "try to paint" their critics as right wing. (I get called right wing all the time, and I don't think I espouse any right-wing positions.)
Assange has a second tweet with the text "Harvey & Hillary. A love story" and this image (click to enlarge):
Posts
292 comments:
1 – 200 of 292 Newer› Newest»They are so clueless it is almost not fair to mock them.
Conservative isn't necessarily right wing. Not that I'm painting.
A fight over who is more hypocritical. Not a fight anyone can win.
This is the standard "republican pounce" angle the media enlists when one of their own is taking on water. This whole thing reminds me more of John Edwards out of wedlock "love Child". No one in the media even heard of John Edwards after the National Enquirer story took off. At it was certainly cruel to point out all of the feminist rhetoric John blathered on about as it was all a "private matter".
I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week. Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership.
I wonder if this is coming out now because 1. They have something on Trump and are luring folks who support Trump and condemn Weinstein into a trap or 2. The media/democrats want to see if now women will come forward to accuse Trump
From the looks of the picture of Weinstein and Clinton, she's had a little practice giving him massages.
Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan chat...
"Rose? This is Ashley Judd."
"Hi, Ashley. I was expecting your call."
"You were?"
"Oh yeah. It seems we're the only ones brave enough to tell the Truth about Harvey."
"It feels real lonely, Rose."
"It certainly does, Ashley."
"I have to ask you a question..."
"Sure: what is it?"
"Did you have to eat Harvey's asshole? Because I had to eat Harvey's asshole."
"No: no, I didn't, Ashley. Sorry."
"Yeah: we talked about the importance of abortion rights and then he made me eat his asshole."
"Harvey told me about how feminism in Hollywood was important, and then he ejaculated on the coffee table. I expect that from some Right-Wing Wacko, not a man who feels strongly about feminism."
"This is making me feel depressed. Why am I the only one who had to eat Harvey's asshole?"
"Men in power in Hollywood are disgusting."
"Oh yeah. Did Tom Cruise ever talk to you about a role in a movie?"
"No, he didn't. Why?"
"Well, I met with Tom Cruise to talk about a movie and he made me eat his asshole."
"Tom Cruise made you eat his asshole?"
"I ate Tom Cruise's asshole and I didn't even get the part. Then he started talking to me about Scientology -- it was horrible."
"Yeah. All the Scientologists in Hollywood want you to eat their asshole. It's a Thing for them."
"He told me that eating the ass of a Level Seven Operating Thetan would boost my Spiritual Awareness."
"Did it?"
"Nah. It just tasted like ass..."
I am Laslo.
Whenever the Democrats have a real problem - and all the usual evasion aren't working, the media will begin to focus on how Republicans are exploiting the problem.
"Right wing" is liberal-think; it means anyone who disagrees with the left on anything. The SPLC is a great practitioner of this dirty trick.
When I see "right wing," I'll typically substitute "common sense" and then read on and see if my substitution was appropriate. Invariably it is.
Oh, I don't hold the left responsible for Weinstein. But it reinforces my suspicion about how our Hollywood betters got where they are.
I voted for Trump, yet I am a life-long Democrat and still consider myself a liberal. For me (and obviously a lot of other people as well) the election was all about trade and immigration and what they are doing to the living-standards of working-class people. I knew I was taking a chance with Trump, but then I have always been disappointed in politics . . .
" Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership."
I don't believe you are unaware of Miramax movies.
Here's a list, dope.
Now that Now I Know! knows, Now I Know! no longer wants to know.
AA: "(I get called right wing all the time, and I don't think I espouse any right-wing positions.)"
Well,
1. You're for the free exchange of ideas, which necessarily means you are for allowing right-wing positions to be heard and debated.
2. You're definitely not on the Democratic political plantation
Ergo, in the minds of the Left, you are right-wing
You've come a long way, Baby!
Ann never did a post about this Weinstein guy before a few days ago, but now she has done a dozen over the past four days. That tells you are you need to know about just how kooky Ann can be.
"A fight over who is more hypocritical. Not a fight anyone can win."
While true, one of the two major political parties and their many, many liberal associates lead by x^x furlongs going into the home stretch.
Now I Know! said...
"I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week. Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership."
Ahh. You want the Althouse jukebox, where it only plays what you want to hear.
Whatever you do, don't play B-17.
Because It was our song, it was his song, but it's over.
I am Laslo.
You espoused free speech. That might not e quite right wing but it excludes you from the left wing.
I love the looks of the couple in the background of that Clinton-Weinstein photo. Its both "look away!" and "Oh my, how delicious "
And is Weinstein waving off the cameraman or beckoning him to shoot quickly?
Meade, if this Weinstein guy was so important why hadn't Ann done a post about him before now?
At 9:57 AM, Now I Know! said... "Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy"
At 10:07 AM, Now I Know! said... "now she has done a dozen"
By 10:17 AM, Now I Know should finally be happy.
Another take on left wing hypocrisy.
Meade, I was guesstimating, but then I went back and counted. Though, given the trend, I am sure she will be close to two dozen by the end of the week.
I was lectured by an assistant Professor at my congressman office how reason magazine was right wing.
And how Trump was anti-Semitic
And Bannon was a White Supremacist
I felt like Alice, who got the advice to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, from the Mad Hatter.
@Now, I Know,
You must not get out much, if you've never heard of Harvey Weinstein. Betcha heard of the nefarious Koch Brothers, right? Harvey's kinda like them, only for your side, and with shower/massage/restaurant/masturbation fettish.
Have you heard of the 3 monkeys, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, and speak-no-evil?
You might identify with the middle one.
Anyone who doesn't support corrupt leftwing lies and corruption, is "right wing."
Ann you are a 60's leftist who has seen glimpses of the other side and wonder about them. That is a capital crime in the eyes of the neo-Maoist Democrat party. Who willingly sells anything for political power.
I get called right wing all the time, and I don't think I espouse any right-wing positions.
Really?! You were all in for the invasion of Iraq. You fiercely defended practically everything George W. Bush did up to and including justifying (or at least downplaying or disregarding) his authorization of torture. You were solidly against the ACA. You feel the need to defend Trump at every turn. As for your area of expertise, constitutional law, you seem to hew more closely to the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (and no I am not claiming you are a strict originalist, but you certainly appear to find the originalist argument more compelling).
What exactly are these "right-wing" positions you are not espousing?
Like Ann, extremists on all sides of the political spectrum pull these obscure characters out of obscurity and prop them up as if they are central actors in public events. In the end it just makes the obsessive extremists look like the kooks they are.
The sun still rises in Hollywood and Hollywood keeps making terrible movies. Perhaps this can be (in part) blamed on Weinstein.
Has anyone asked Mel Gibson's opinion?
As for Ann being right wing, Cthulhu always swims left. Is Yale more left than Brown? Who can say. Is Yale in 2017 more left than Yale in 1967? Duh. Kind of a reverse version of what Matthew McConaughey says in Dazed and Confused: "That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age."
This is no different really from the MSM (Dem operatives with bylines) putting "Republican", "Conservative ", etc prominently when anything scandalous comes out about someone on the right, and ignoring party affiliation for Dem lawmakers caught doing something untoward. Someone has taken to calling it "Guess the party" - if a scandal erupts about a Republican politician, party affiliation is prominently displayed in the headlines, but if the perp is a Democrat, party affiliation is deeply buried in the article, if mentioned at all. . Weinstein is a pretty well known progressive, with a lot of power in Hollyweird. And is a prominent Dem power bundler. Seen photos with him with Crooked Hillary. So, no, he isn't a nobody, that no one here had heard of.
The left, the Dems here, aren't going to like hearing this, but I think that there is a lot of evidence that there is a significant different standard for prominent Republicans and Democrats, including those in politics. The press defends Democrats, time and time again, but attack Republicans for lesser indiscretions. JFK? LBJ? Bill Clinton's sexual escapades? Teddy Kennedy? Meanwhile the Republican base pretty well pushes out politicians on their side of the isle who do even a small fraction of what a lot of prominent Dems do. Part of this is, of course, tribal - the MSM are mostly very progressive, and therefore defend their tribe, while attacking the other tribe. But beyond that, on the Dem side of the field, there seems to be a lot of elites running things and the masses voting them power in trade for free stuff and the like. The Democratic Party is the political machine party, and part of a political machine is a double standard where the ones at the top get to transgress societal norms due to their winning elections and maintaining power. Rules are for the little people, and they aren't little people any more, so don't have to follow them.
"Meade, if this Weinstein guy was so important why hadn't Ann done a post about him before now?"
Does 8 years ago count as "before now"?
Freder;
You might go back and read about who all supported military force against Iraq. As for ACA again you might review the DEMOCRATIC debates in 2009 and 10 as to what should be in the bill.
Honestly, you just proved her point.
Ann, please regale your right wing fan base with another dozen posts about this Weinstein guy. It makes for a great obsessive freak show.
Now I Know! said...
"Meade, I was guesstimating"
And what's your guesstimate on when the Dow will stop crashing below 20,000?
Let's just put it this way; Harvey Weinstein is not the right wing's problem.
Nor are the Koch brothers the "wight wing's problem". Individuals are just that--we didn't hire them, we don't control them--whether it's the Weinsteins or the Kochs.
OTOH, Weinstein sure did love him some lefty politics and causes.
Why shouldn't Weinstein be a problem for the Democrats? They have been taking his money, and the millions that he has bundled for them, for a long time. They have taken pictures with him, and attended his parties. Up until this, a lot of prominent Dem politicians considered themselves fortunate if considered a friend of his.
Wow Meade, you had to really reach for that one. The Weinstein guy's name is buried in a post from eight years ago.
It's ludicrous to suggest that Weinstein is not a huge player in the Hollywood/Democratic axis. He is notorious for using his power and influence like a Mafia Don to manipulate the Oscars his way, and crushing the careers and films of those who don't kowtow to him. His influence as a Hollywood fundraiser for Dem candidates goes back decades. But most of his questionable dealings have only made news inside Hollywood business circles...until now.
Anyone saying anything from neutral to negative about a Democrat is, by definition, "right-wing".
"Wow Meade, you had to really reach for that one."
If doing a google search qualifies as "really reaching."
I'll let you do your own googling to find the other dozens and dozens.
I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week. Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership
Your ignorance says more about you than Althouse's actions say about her.
Meade, I just wanted to get the 20,000 number seared in all of you Trump loving right winger's minds. When the DOW falls back below that benchmark that the Doofus-in-Chief claims credit for, there will be no escaping the embarrassment and shame your love of him has brought you.
Meanwhile the Republican base pretty well pushes out politicians on their side of the isle who do even a small fraction of what a lot of prominent Dems do.
Yeah, the Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent accusations of harassment (including him propositioning and offering money for sex to a porn star) torpedoed Trump's campaign. He even lost his tv show over it.
This is no different really from the MSM (Dem operatives with bylines) putting "Republican", "Conservative ", etc prominently when anything scandalous comes out about someone on the right, and ignoring party affiliation for Dem lawmakers caught doing something untoward.
Gee that's right. It is absolute hypocrisy that Weinstein's political affiliation hasn't been mentioned.
Of course, this is supposedly all about liberal hypocrisy, not morals. But needling Democratic lawmakers and supporters for failing to condemn a prominent donor ignores an essential fact: Weinstein may have a lot of sway in Hollywood, but he is no Democratic Party power broker, much less an elected official. (Last year’s Republican outcry about Bill Clinton’s complicated past holds a bit more water.)
Moreover, the liberal media the right accuses of conspicuous silence on the issue have been anything but. After all, it was the “failing” New York Times, which Donald Trump Jr. once accused of smearing his father with false accusations, that broke the Weinstein story in the first place.
Isn't the criticism of Democrats that after all the talk and consciousness raising there was no welcoming sanctuary available for women to come forward and be heard within one of their own tribes, Hollywood?
And by oddly addressing only the DNC and NYT separately, Hart ignores the vast intersection of politics and media where the preferred narrative is embedded in entertainment and cultural perceptions are reinforced.
Major media entertainment is the empty barrel that resonates with the "news" that elite media and cultural power centers like Hollywood deem "fit to reverberate" into left wing parables they hope will become the conventional wisdom.
Now I Know is being deliberately and defiantly obtuse. Or maybe he just doesn't go to the movies or read the entertainment pages. Living in Los Angeles, where the Los Angeles Times entertainment reporters (and large entertainment section) spend their lives on their reportorial knees giving journalistic Lewinskys to titans of "the industry", I've definitely heard of the Weinstein brothers and Miramax.. They were alwlays painted in glowing terms.
It's interesting that the outing of that fat pig Harvey may have come as a result of a fight between the two brothers for control of the company. Both brothers bought and paid for the silence of the press so Now I Know may have a legitimate claim when he says he's never heard of Harvey's sexual shenanigans. I'll cut Now I Know some slack there. But now the brothers are fighting--sort of like baby sharks in utero--and it's time to dump the dirty sleaze on Harvey. And there are dump trucks full of dirt headed Harvey's way. He filled them, and now they'll spill.
As for your area of expertise, constitutional law, you seem to hew more closely to the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (and no I am not claiming you are a strict originalist, but you certainly appear to find the originalist argument more compelling).
WTF?
You've got Althouse completely wrong on this one. She supports every Leftwing wacko decision of the last fifty years! She thinks the 14th Amendment should be called the elastic amendment!
Ann, please regale your right wing fan base with another dozen posts about this Weinstein guy. It makes for a great obsessive freak show.
Leftwing wrong doing must never be exposed!!
It's kinda fun to see Leftists squirm about Harvey Weinstein.
All of Hollywood knows Harvey, and most knew his "salty" reputation.
All of the Democrat Party knows Harvey, and many knew his "salty" reputation.
A few Leftwing progs don't know any of this, because they are too busy wearing pussy hats to class.
Anyone not embracing the Prog agenda is 'right wing'.
@ Now I Know said I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week
Must suck to be you having to pull your head out of your ass for an occasional breath of clean air, and finding that this topic is not being ignored.
I was getting kind of bored myself with all of the attention being paid to this topic, but it is Ann's blog. However, seeing the reactions of Now I Know, Chucklehead, and Mark takes my interest in the topic to a higher level.
Weinstein, being a creative type, is entitled to notice that feminism is a crock of shit. Otherwise you'd never get art or poets.
Everybody is entitled to notice, in fact.
Maybe it's a good place to stop the mob actions.
Just go by what's ethical under ancient rules in the war of men and women, and forget the modern legal discoveries.
No fraud, no force.
"When the DOW falls back below that benchmark that the Doofus-in-Chief claims credit for, there will be no escaping the embarrassment and shame your love of him has brought you."
Big if, Now It All.
Yes, you might someday be right.
But, my dear Now Know Once Written Jay Retread, I shall be embarrassed and ashamed (with a golden buy opportunity) and you will still be ugly.
It's kinda fun to see Leftists squirm about Harvey Weinstein.
15 minutes ago, we were dismissing "whataboutist" arguments - now, they're the only thing that matters.
"You were all in for the invasion of Iraq. "
Field Marshall Freder has forgotten that Boxer, Feinstein, Hillary and Schumer all voted for it.
I guess that makes them all "right wing."
Got it.
"I never thought of Julian Assange as "right wing.""
-- That's because he's not. His rise to power was in fighting Bush and getting support from the left in releasing classified and secret information from the U.S. military to undermine our efforts in the Middle East.
rhhardin concludes: No fraud, no force.
Assumes interactions with Weinstein are consensual. Has this ever been tested before? Or are you saying don't test it?
Since it has always been true that Hollywood is a scum bag of hypocrisy and sleaze, no one should be surprised that its players are a bunch of amoral assholes. Next thing you know we'll find out that carnival games are rigged!
"Meade, please follow the blog's rules and cut out the personal attacks."
Okay.
"I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week. Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership."
-- Your ignorance doesn't matter; the guy is famous and was fairly rich and influential. If someone says, "Why, golly gee willickers, I never heard of [X]," that isn't a statement about how unimportant or important X is, it is just a statement that shows the person speaking is ignorant of the topic.
I'd like to think that Assange has no personal political axe to grind.
Now I Know! said...Meade, please follow the blog's rules and cut out the personal attacks.
Most-if not all-of your posts are personal attacks!
"left wing", "right wing"-- does anyone in journalism know etymology?
Left wing used to mean communist. Right wing meant, I dunno, some kind of weirdo who wore a Shriner's Hat and went to church on Sunday and opposed gay marriage, like Obama.
Nowadays, left wing is almost nowhere as an expression, and right wing is everywhere, to describe anyone who isn't already on the left.
"And is Weinstein waving off the cameraman or beckoning him to shoot quickly?"
-- I bet he wasn't ready for this close up.
Michael K,
"Boxer, Feinstein, Hillary and Schumer all voted for it."
To be fair, they didn't actually support the war. They just said they were so that the Republicans couldn't slam them as weak on national security.
To be fair, they didn't actually support the war. They just said they were so that the Republicans couldn't slam them as weak on national security.
So they were either warmongers or totally lacking in integrity. Which was it?
"You were all in for the invasion of Iraq."
-- A position many, many leftists held until they decided they could use it as a wedge issue. Sort of like Vietnam.
"You fiercely defended practically everything George W. Bush did up to and including justifying (or at least downplaying or disregarding) his authorization of torture."
-- I don't remember this. Got a link?
"You were solidly against the ACA."
-- There were a lot of people on the left who felt the ACA didn't go far enough or had issues with how it was implemented; it is why several Blue Dog or further left Congresspeople needed to get legislative bribes to vote for it.
"You feel the need to defend Trump at every turn."
-- There've been several anti-Trump posts, most notably the ones about the grabbing the pussies there-of.
To be fair, I didn't actually support Weinstein dicking bimbos. I just said that because I was afraid I might not get the job.
It always amuses me to see how butthurt sockpuppets become when someone points out their sockpuppetry.
Now I Know! said...
"Like Ann, extremists on all sides of the political spectrum pull these obscure characters out of obscurity and prop them up as if they are central actors in public events."
I believe Althouse' interest in the HW saga is mostly due to the feminism angle; the related themes of "The Subordination Of Women By Men" and "Their Little Enablers, Women".
I am waiting for Madeline Albright to tell us that there is a special place in Hell for women who won't watch Harvey Weinstein take a shower. Albright seems to know a lot about the architecture of Hell, for someone who's never been there.
Assumes interactions with Weinstein are consensual. Has this ever been tested before? Or are you saying don't test it?
I have no idea what happened. But don't use modern human resources rules to judge the matter.
Ethics in the war of men and women existed under the old rules too. Use those rules.
"They just said they were so that the Republicans couldn't slam them as weak on national security."
-- It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch, Johnson!
Am I autistic?
" They just said they were so that the Republicans couldn't slam them as weak on national security."
I dunno. The Democrats took us into Vietnam and LBJ shipped 500,000 young draftees over there.
Once Nixon was president, of course, it was the Republicans' fault and the Democrats were all demonstrating in the streets.
Democrats like wars that are won quickly. There is a psychology that wants good things to happen quickly. If it takes time, they become bored or opposed.
We could have stayed out of WWI. Wilson wanted to "make the world safe for Democracy" and 116,000 American soldiers died.
Korea was a mistake made by Acheson.
Vietnam was winnable until Kennedy and Lodge allowed Diem to be murdered.
According to Caro's LBJ biography, Bobbie Kennedy carried to his grave a sense of guilt that Castro might have had his brother killed to avenge their attempts to get him.
It's just Democrats.
I'm open to reason on the question. Has everyone gone crazy? That was a staple in old-time science fiction.
Althouse has always been an activist against sexual predation - at least when it is male on female.
Instapundit is the only example I know of to crusade against female on male.
It is a thing now to publish when a female teacher abuses male students, though I think the problem goes way beyond that. Even in my small circle of acquaintances I know of two guys who quit their jobs because the boss' wife hit on them, and the only reason I know that is that the subject happened to come up in a friendly conversation. I guess most guys would not quit unless they had to, but quietly play alonng. It is not something you would want to publicize for reaons of either personal embarassment or getting a reputation for being trouble.
Comanche Voter said...
Now I Know is being deliberately and defiantly obtuse. Or maybe he just doesn't go to the movies or read the entertainment pages."
I seldom go to movie theaters these days and have always found award shows and Hollywood gossip boring. And yet I knew who Weinstein was before this scandal broke. If Now I Knows hasn't been paying much attention to the Hollywood-Democrat connection, it's because it sort of ruins the cherished Narrative that all the Bad Greedy Rich people are Republicans.
I am enjoying Now I Knows! hypocritical howls of outrage. "No, no, don't look at the scumbags on our side! Nobody knows who this guy is, anyway! Look only at the Republican ones! How dare you, Althouse! For shame!"
Ann's obviously hitting the mark.
"You were all in for the invasion of Iraq."
Got a link for that? Hint: This blog begins on January 14, 2004. The invasion had already occurred. The Iraq questions were about what to do once the initial part of the war had occurred. My position on that has always been that I am not a military expert, but we need to move forward beginning from the reality of the present, not wishing the past had been different.
"You fiercely defended practically everything George W. Bush did up to and including justifying (or at least downplaying or disregarding) his authorization of torture."
I could find the link that absolutely proves you wrong. Do a search on Abu Ghraib and you will find it.
"You were solidly against the ACA."
I don't remember what all I said about that, but the view that it's a royal clusterfuck is not right wing.
"You feel the need to defend Trump at every turn."
That's just a blatant lie. Look back to how I reacted to the Access Hollywood recording.
"Right Wing Tries to Paint Harvey Weinstein As a Democratic Problem." And it is not?
Field Marshall Freder has gotten a bit hysterical.
I wonder what sets him off ?
Losing ?
That's just a blatant lie. Look back to how I reacted to the Access Hollywood recording.
I took it as proof that women should never be allowed to vote.
By the way, anyone who knows anything about healthcare economics knew Obamacare would not work.
The Democrats could never bring themselves to enforce the mandates on employers because so many of those "gold plated"policies are union negotiated plans. If they wanted to lose the last union supporters, that was the way to do it.
I've taken left positions on key cultural things:
Always supported same-sex marriage, from when I first heard of the idea (in the 1980s). That puts me to the left of Obama and Hillary, etc.
Strong on gay rights going back to when I first heard about gay people (in the 1960s).
Always supported abortion rights.
Relentless feminism, especially holding everyone to account for sexual harassment.
Strong coverage of racial politics throughout the history of this blog.
Strong support for the rights of the accused.
Strong support for freedom of speech thoughout the history of this blog.
The classic debate thing is to take the case, lawyerly, to defend or oppose a short statement, like "strawberry-banana smoothies are awful."
That one I'd hate to oppose.
I'm open to reason on the question. Has everyone gone crazy? That was a staple in old-time science fiction.
Bob, it could be that we all have pods waiting for us. In the really old flick, Invaders from Mars devices were implanted in the backs of the necks. The Left would like nothing better. When media propaganda fails one has to resort to technological solutions to the problem: How can we turn normal, common sense Americans into knee-jerk Progressive robots?
Althouse has always been an activist against sexual predation
So, we don't nestle weightless
In each other's hearts! The soul,
Then, is a raptor - eagle
Or falcon, and if the soul
Is a raptor some other
soul must be prey. Is that it?
Betraying is letting loose.
The tame caged fox is betrayed
To the hounds. Or I betray
My heart to you. Give it up,
That is, into your keeping.
Your treachery and rapture...
- Vicki Hearne in "In the Absence of Horses"
Anyone not embracing the Prog agenda is 'right wing'.
Yes.
By the way, I am baffled and made quite anxious by the health insurance documents and requirements that come to me in the mail, and I have no problem affording it and no serious health problem and comparatively good intelligence and reading comprehension.
I think there is terrible suffering just dealing with the paperwork and trying to follow the instructions and paying a huge chunk of your income to get coverage that amounts to virtually nothing.
Strong support for freedom of speech thoughout the history of this blog.
10/8/17, 11:26 AM
That overrides everything else, Althouse. Deplorable people should not be allowed to express their deplorable opinions and if you think otherwise these days, that makes you a conservative, according to the increasingly deranged left.
When the DOW falls back below that benchmark that the Doofus-in-Chief claims credit for...
The left's obsession with affirmation from financial markets is incredible. They so desperately need the talking point that Trump is terrible and so perplexed and infuriated financial markets aren't giving it to them.
Just to say: yes, the documents and requirements are large, and especially large for those with serious health problems and reading comprehension issues.
The Doofus-in-Chief has made the DOW the quantitative measure of his success. Please do not forget that in the future. You know I won't let you.
The Weinstein story is the story about his enablers.
f you have Original Medicare (Part A and Part B), Medicare Part A only, or a Medicare Advantage plan, you meet the Affordable Care Act requirement to have health insurance.
https://medicare.com/about-medicare/medicare-open-enrollment-and-you/
65 and over avoids the mess entirely.
As usual, the larger story is the DNC hack press, the DNC TV.
Why the Harvey Weinstein Sexual-Harassment Allegations Didn’t Come Out Until Now
"I wonder if this is coming out now because 1. They have something on Trump and are luring folks who support Trump and condemn Weinstein into a trap or 2. The media/democrats want to see if now women will come forward to accuse Trump"
Regarding point 2: As I said in a post late yesterday, I believe the left has decided not to let this good crisis go to waste, by using Weinstein's disgrace as a means to attack Trump. Note how many articles about Weinstein includes a select list of "hideous men" that always ends with "Donald Trump"-- (meanwhile Bill Clinton and other lecherous lefties are notably left off the list.)
It's interesting that this story broke exactly a year after the initial "pussy grabbing" Trump tapes were revealed. The left may have hopes they can still get something out of that, even though it failed the first time around. The leftist media desperately need something to use to pound on Trump and get his approval levels down, since their other bombshells have fizzled out or backfired. (Hmmm... Can a bombshell backfire? Am I mixing metaphors?)
I find it trite when people try to shoehorn Althouse into labels as if that is making a point.
If you want consistently left-wing talk, there are sites.
If you want consistently right-wing talk, there are sites.
If you want talk about diaper fetishes, there are sites.
If no one is talking about what you want to read, then blog. Maybe you have a niche, maybe not.
Reading a unique viewpoint just might not be the thing for you.
For me, sometimes I like Althouse best when I don't necessarily agree with her.
I am Laslo.
Ann Althouse said...
By the way, I am baffled and made quite anxious by the health insurance documents and requirements that come to me in the mail, and I have no problem affording it and no serious health problem and comparatively good intelligence and reading comprehension.
You need my wife.
Ann, you have done a dozen critical posts about this Weinstein guy over the past four days. You have almost never done a post critical of the Doofus-in-Chief over the past two years. What does that say about your word view?
I've taken left positions on key cultural things:
That doesn't protect you from being a right winger. just a cultural conservative.
Half the right is culturally liberal, owing to a vague line between libertarian and conservative.
'You have almost never done a post critical of the Doofus-in-Chief over the past two years."
You are a liar but we already knew that.
I think there is terrible suffering just dealing with the paperwork and trying to follow the instructions and paying a huge chunk of your income to get coverage that amounts to virtually nothing.
My older daughter pays almost $700/month for health 'insurance' with an $8K deductible. She is in good health, no pre-existing conditions. What is the likelihood of most people to meet that kind of deductible? Ridiculous. She's seriously considering going without.
I'm guessing Assange would be more of a Bernie Sanders type. Hillary's butt-hurt fans act as if anyone who is critical of her, or who inflicted damage on her pathetic campaign, has to be a right-winger.
Blogger Now I Know! said...
"Like Ann, extremists on all sides of the political spectrum pull these obscure characters out of obscurity and prop them up as if they are central actors in public events. In the end it just makes the obsessive extremists look like the kooks they are."
Harvey Weinstein is more popular and influential on the left that David Duke or Richard Spencer are on the right. Malia Obama interned with Harvey Weinstein. Hillary obviously loved him. He was a central player in Hollywood and helped blacklist conservatives from the movie industry.
You can find nothing like that with duke or spencer on the right.
Exileonmainstreet--please point to a post by Ann over the past half year that was critical of the Doofus-in-Chief.
"pull these obscure characters out of obscurity"
Yeah, Weinstein is just some little Hollywood nobody.
LOL!!
Now I Know, keep digging! You're halfway to China now!
I don't take the human resources position on sexual harassment to be culturally left.
Its key elements are tone deafness and tyranny.
Left is more free love.
It's left vs radicalized left.
She has written many posts critical of Trump and you know it, fool. I don't feel compelled to do a troll's homework, especially one who is not, as Ann would put it, arguing in good faith.
Known progressive Hollyweird corporate douchebag is outed as a borderline rapist and the leftist idiots here can only complain about "rightwingers" pointing out the hypocrisy of celebutards and loud mouthed "feminists" tolerating this shit from him and keeping quiet about it for years, all the while they had the vapors about Trump for talking about doing far less.
I guess it's easier to snivel about Althouse and prate on about "rightwingers" than to admit that you tolerate sexual predators so long as they vote the right way.
But, then again, lefties have always been full of shit and incredible hypocrites when it comes to politics.
My older daughter pays almost $700/month for health 'insurance' with an $8K deductible. She is in good health, no pre-existing conditions. What is the likelihood of most people to meet that kind of deductible? Ridiculous. She's seriously considering going without.
Huge deductibles are good. What you want is catastropic insurnace, not routine health care.
Unfortunately you could never really buy catastropic health insurance. There were always lifetime limits and non-guaranteed renewals. The insurance company itself wants to limit its liability so it can keep premiums down.
So, if you're philosophical about it, just pay your own health care costs and if you get very very sick, but don't die, which is the catastrophic situation, just go with it and die. That's a rare case. You're more likely to be hit by a rtuck anyway.
I've found that cash gets you in quickly and they don't take your SS number and you get a discount, for ordinary health care.
So, defending Harvey Weinstein's pig like behavior is "Liberal and Leftist" & attacking it is "Right wing".
I like that.
Of course, the Left is upset at people attack Harvey Pervstein.
They didn't like the coverage of Clinton getting Lewinskys in the White House
They Didn't like people talking about Kennedy's drinking problem or his killing a woman.
They didn't want to talk about John Edwards.
The Left has no principles, only a never ending lust for power.
Blogger Now I Know! said...
"Ann, you have done a dozen critical posts about this Weinstein guy over the past four days. You have almost never done a post critical of the Doofus-in-Chief over the past two years. What does that say about your word view?"
This post says nothing about Ann.
It says everything about your reading comprehension and lack of honesty.
By the way, I am baffled and made quite anxious by the health insurance documents and requirements that come to me in the mail, and I have no problem affording it and no serious health problem and comparatively good intelligence and reading comprehension.
This sentence baffles me. Could the Professor diagram it and perhaps explicate the subject, or subjects, further, please?
Not everyone who has a problem with the Democratic Party is right wing...
But they are, by definition, racist.
Political congruence ("=") is another Pro-Choice policy, that notably discriminates between classes in the transgender spectrum. It seems that progressives, liberals, neo-National Socialists, and others left-wing ideologues believe that they can cling to color diversity, sex diversity, and abort lives deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable, too.
I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week. Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership.
You also had never heard of Stephen Paddock before Ann started writing her posts about the guy earlier this week, yet you want her to focus on him instead of Harvey Weinstein.
The logic you think your argument has seems to be missing.
rhhardin contends: I've found that cash gets you in quickly and they don't take your SS number and you get a discount, for ordinary health care.
This is not the case everywhere. Before she was Medicare eligible, my sister paid cash for all medical office visits and was charged MORE. I assume they try to make up the difference that way.
And what's your guesstimate on when the Dow will stop crashing below 20,000?
@ about 16K
I have heard of Weinstein before this. I haven't watched many of his movies because most of them didn't appeal to me and basically, I don't go out to watch movies.
No comments from me on the Weinstein kerfluffle, because 1. I'm not surprised at his actions. 2. The hypocrisy of the left, the media and Hollywood is not a surprise 3. I don't care
Carry on
Dear exiled: I hate to see you demean yourself by responding to trolls. You are so much better than that!
Not everyone who has a problem with the Democratic Party is right wing...
But they are, by definition, racist.
It depends on the context. The left inherited the data and methods from Germany's left-wing National Socialist Party that, among other things, enables optimal manipulation of a population and even individuals.
"This is not the case everywhere."
Agreed.
It seems Now I Know and Feder support sexual predation by Democrats and their allies like President Bill Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy and Rep. Weiner.
And why are the Democrats still in the wilderness? See the above sentence.
New York Magazine says: "Right Wing Tries to Paint Harvey Weinstein As a Democratic Problem."
They don't have a picture of Donald Trump in the same room as David Duke, and yet he's "a problem" for Trump. They have a picture of Hillary rubbing the guy's chest and records of him exclusively handing the Dems stacks of cash, and yet it's people "trying" to put them together who should be suspect.
Riiiiighht.
Wait! The conduct of Harvey Weinstein member of the Hollywood Democrat glitterati, secular progressive Jew, friend and financial supporter of Hillary and outspoken advocate for Democrat causes is not a "Democratic problem?"
Yet, the conduct of David Duke, Richard Spencer, et al, people with no notable connection to the Party, continue to be portrayed as Republican problems.
Democrats, and more recently the GOPe, are all about words. Deeds have no significance. Think: Kennedys, Clintons, Johnson, Reid, Menendez, etc. If we notice Harvey's transgressions, he is an outlier, not a Democrat problem.
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that anne was promoting cocksucking as a way for women to get ahead? (under the caveat that... women like her really like it! And big breasts is what distinguishes a girl from an adult. And women should use their naturals powers of sex appeal to help themselves get ahead -- because in reality, attractive women succeed!
I think you've confused Ann with Laslo.
If not, you should put some links as evidence so the rest of us could decide if your characterizations were accurate.
It would seem the Democratic establishment is running the old playbook:
1. Nothing to see here.
2. Nothing to see here.
3. Old news!
MSM have yet to recognize Senator Bob Menendez as a Democrat problem or demand he resign. Meanwhile Republican congresscritter Tim Murphy resigns over a kerfluffle that's not only not a crime, but would be a Democrat congresscritter resume enhancement.
Weinstein is a prefect vehicle to demonstrate Democrat and liberal hypocrisy.
I had never heard of Weinstein before
He appears to have been involved in something called the motion-picture business, which I gather is similar to playacting.
"Meade, I just wanted to get the 20,000 number seared in all of you Trump loving right winger's minds. When the DOW falls back below that benchmark that the Doofus-in-Chief claims credit for, there will be no escaping the embarrassment and shame your love of him has brought you."
The stock market rises and falls? WTF? Why am I only hearing about this just now?
Speaking purely objectively and with no particular commenter here in mind, you'd have to be a slobbering moron of Inga-esque proportions to think the inevitable market correction is going to bring "embarrassment and shame" to any rational person.
I like how Ann points out she was far to the left of the leaders of the Democratic Party on gay rights.
Obama did not support. Said he was "evolving" his views to keep the black vote in 2012
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act
Hillary Clinton "Marriage is sacred bond between man and woman"
Etc., etc., etc.
And yet she must be judged by 2017 standards and found wanting. Did this keep people from voting for Obama? No. Did it keep people from voting for Hillary? No. Did it lessen the influence of Bill Clinton in the party? No.
Do any of them suffer the same criticism or lack of Democratic Party bona fides today? No.
But somehow it's the central evidence in the closing argument as to why Ann Althouse is deemed to be a right-winger today?
I don't believe freedom of speech is a left-wing value. I think it is fundamentally contradicted by the core left-wing value, which is conformity.
So we can have a time, like in the 60s, where the left advocated freedom of speech. And it was real in some ways but there are I think plenty of clues in retrospect that this was a temporary position. The biggest sense in which it was real was that there were plenty of people that were called left-wing that were pro-free speech, like for instance the hippies. But the huge irony is that it's the left-wing of that time that took over the universities and preceded to embark on slow purge of anyone that wasn't left-wing at the universities.
We've had five decades of something that is the equivalent of McCarthyism, except that it's way worse because it worked, at the universities.
Other clues would be the fundamental conflict between Marxism, post-modernism and free speech. Then some will argue that being left doesn't mean you're Marxist. True, but then why haven't these left but not Marxist fought harder against Marxism. Instead they've let this or equivalently evil ideas dominate.
Or another clue might be Europe. Since when has there been a left-wing party in Europe that was pro-free speech?
I can understand why SNL embargoed this story: there’s nothing inherently funny about a man ejacualating into a potted plant.
extremists on all sides of the political spectrum pull these obscure characters out of obscurity
It's not just this Winestain (sp?) character. I can recall posts she's done on the wife of a former governor of Arkansas, and even Oregon State University's former men's basketball coach's brother-in-law.
Freder Frederson said...
Meanwhile the Republican base pretty well pushes out politicians on their side of the isle who do even a small fraction of what a lot of prominent Dems do.
Yeah, the Access Hollywood tape and the subsequent accusations of harassment (including him propositioning and offering money for sex to a porn star) torpedoed Trump's campaign. He even lost his tv show over it.
Your mistake here is thinking that Trump voters view him as a Republican or Conservative. Especially the more aware ones that know he's switched party registration multiple times in his adult life- which is highly unusual. Most of us know he's Trump, not a Repubican but Trump, and many voted for him, me for example, because he wasn't Hillary. As the saying goes, Syd the Syphilitic Camel would have been a more desirable candidate then her, and have gotten my vote.
One of the reasons I can't be disappointed in Trump's performance in office is that I never had any expectations except that he wouldn't be Hillary. Which he is doing a remarkable job of doing. His court appointments continue to delight and surprise.
So we can have a time, like in the 60s, where the left advocated freedom of speech. And it was real in some ways but there are I think plenty of clues in retrospect that this was a temporary position. The biggest sense in which it was real was that there were plenty of people that were called left-wing that were pro-free speech, like for instance the hippies. But the huge irony is that it's the left-wing of that time that took over the universities and preceded to embark on slow purge of anyone that wasn't left-wing at the universities.
Free speech was useful to the left when they were attacking the establishment.
Free speech is no longer useful to the left since they have become the establishment.
There are no principles on the left, only preferred outcomes to be achieved by any means necessary.
"I've found that cash gets you in quickly and they don't take your SS number and you get a discount, for ordinary health care."
What you need to find are doctors who have quit all insurance and just take cash or credit cards. There are quite a few in most areas there days.
Those who still are on insurance panels or are Medicare providers will pay a severe price for providing services for less to cash customers. With Medicare it is a crime and could result in prison time. With insurance, you will be dropped if it is found out.
You can usually find those cash providers by looking for "Concierge Medicine" or similar terms. There is an association which will probably provide leads.
Here's an article in a medical magazine about it.
More here.
There are no principles on the left, only preferred outcomes to be achieved by any means necessary.
To wit, Ann is being called out as insufficiently pro-gay because she didn't agree that whatever was desired should be obtained no matter the cost.
We have reached the days when "principled Liberal" is equivalent to white supremacist.
"Your mistake here is thinking that Trump voters view him as a Republican or Conservative. Especially the more aware ones that know he's switched party registration multiple times in his adult life- which is highly unusual."
Think of Trump as Ross Perot in 1992. I was ready to vote for him until he had his meltdown that summer about his daughter's wedding.
Trump is Perot without the charm.
You can usually find those cash providers by looking for "Concierge Medicine" or similar terms. There is an association which will probably provide leads.
Michael K, I truly appreciate the insights you're able to provide. I hope you never find it in your interest to stop posting here.
Trump is Perot without the charm.
And the charts! I loved those damn charts!
mockturtle said...
Dear exiled: I hate to see you demean yourself by responding to trolls. You are so much better than that!"
Well, thanks. It certainly is a waste of time, especially since it is absolutely gorgeous outside. I think I'll go take advantage of that and forget about Hollywood pervs and leftist hypocrites for a while.
"That tells you are you need to know about just how kooky Ann can be."
Hey, Now You Don't Know (Inga)'
She's our kooky moderate Democrat, classical liberal.
Those of us who have become fascist, White Supremacist, cisgendered, sexist, pillagers of the Earth deplorables get in touch with our roots by our association with the lovably Kooky Ann and Meade.
“(I get called right wing all the time, and I don't think I espouse any right-wing positions.”
Good grief. You can’t be serious.
To wit, Ann is being called out as insufficiently pro-gay because she didn't agree that whatever was desired should be obtained no matter the cost.
Wait...what?
How could anyone possibly say that Althouse is insufficiently pro-gay?
What cost has she proclaimed herself unwilling to pay?
Think of Trump as Ross Perot in 1992. I was ready to vote for him until he had his meltdown that summer about his daughter's wedding.
Trump is Perot without the charm.
Yep, I was ready to vote for him too and think he could have won.
" I hope you never find it in your interest to stop posting here."
Thanks. I have a couple of weird enemies here. So far, I can ignore them.
there’s nothing inherently funny about a man ejaculating into a potted plant.
Especially if you're not Brendan Sullivan.
Weinstein personally, as one man, may or may not be a Democratic problem.
The fact that his behavior was public knowledge over 3 decades & covered up by the press & the film industry on both coasts is a Democratic problem, as these are heavily Democratic industries.
To use the famous quote from the Watergate era: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up".
Now I Know! wrote: Like Ann, extremists on all sides of the political spectrum pull these obscure characters out of obscurity and prop them up as if they are central actors in public events. In the end it just makes the obsessive extremists look like the kooks they are.
I used to have a jar reserved for NIK's brain. And it was a nice one, too — a four-litre gem of a lidded apothecary full of nice warm formaldehyde for Now I Know's noodle to contentedly float in. Unfortunately, shelf space in my cerebratorium has gotten... shall we say pricey? The four-litre size I deem now to be a bit too generous, all things considered.
Do they still make dixie cups?
"I can understand why SNL embargoed this story: there’s nothing inherently funny about a man ejacualating into a potted plant."
How about a man ejaculating into a sink off the Oval Office or an interns dress?
That could be riotously funny.
It was Perot's pull out after the Dem convention that soured me, because the Democrats' sudden enthusiastic and cynical embrace of the soiled Clinton was deplorable. And exploitable.
It told me that Perot was in it mostly to bash Bush (not that he didn't deserve it).
Good grief. You can’t be serious.
Under the rules that anything less than full support for Hillary, for the "Russia hacked the election" excuse, and for the view that Trump is Hitler, implies one is "right-wing," then perhaps you have a point.
All you people who are all verklepmpt over Althouse bashing the left on a regular basis because it’s coming from a “liberal”, think again. She is no liberal, despite her very few liberal stances. The majority of her postings have been red meat to her fellow rightists, that’s why 95% of her following are rightists and now Trumpists, which is even worse.
Ember this was the publication, which had a story a year ago, but someone called them off.
Weinstein is a story now - that's why he is being blogged. As for where Althouse is on the spectrum, there seem to be several spectrums. Some see Althouse (and Hillary) as of the far right, some see Althouse (and Hillary) as a Madison lefties. Some think Althouse (but not Hillary) is transcending the little-boxes thinking of Trigglypuff commenters and that, as the Trigglypuffs try to understand what thinking is, they strain themselves. They suffer, poor things. In their pain they utter those kinds of uncouth, deeply stupid remarks which are typical Trigglypuff discourse. (see above)
She is no liberal, despite her very few liberal stances.
Bullshit. Althouse's ethos is as Leftwing as anyone's.
Who the hell is Trigglypuff and why should anyone care? How utterly stupid. Why do rightists get bogged down by popular culture? Reality TV mindset abounds, isn’t there enough real things to be concerned with in this world?
"Why do rightists get bogged down by popular culture?"
Inga woke up.
“Bullshit. Althouse's ethos is as Leftwing as anyone's.”
You don’t know any leftists in real life, do you?
"Some see Althouse (and Hillary) as of the far right, some see Althouse (and Hillary) as a Madison lefties"
-- I wish there was more moderation in the parties, as I think if we had some Rockefeller Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, we might not be in this crazy world.
"You feel the need to defend Trump at every turn."
That's just a blatant lie. Look back to how I reacted to the Access Hollywood recording.
I should have qualified this statement to since he was elected. I apologize.I could
I could find the link that absolutely proves you wrong. Do a search on Abu Ghraib and you will find it.
Why don't you provide the link instead of saying "I could find it". Because I can't . Five pages into the Google search "Althouse abu ghraib", I got nothin'. And I searched for posts on this blog with the tag "Abu Ghraib", and there is certainly no strong condemnation of torture there.
"It told me that Perot was in it mostly to bash Bush (not that he didn't deserve it)."
I disagree. I think he was in it, partly to oppose Bush who was a squish, but also to respond to the people who wanted a voice. Perot got paranoid that summer and I decided he was too weird but I think he was serious.
I also think he could have won, then he would have the same problems that Trump has. The Administrative State was less entrenched then and we have lost a lot in the 25 years since.
@Unknown,
Who the hell is Trigglypuff and why should anyone care? How utterly stupid.
Jeebus, Unknown, "Trigglypuff" as popular culture? Is Google broken on your PC? This is Trigglpuff.
She is used on the right as an exemplar of the crazed & totalitarian hysteria that animates the new crew of lefty protestors/rioters.
We on the right feed & water our memes assiduously.
You probably think that "Social Justice Warrior" is a new role play game that's just been released by PlayStation.
" I searched for posts on this blog with the tag "Abu Ghraib", and there is certainly no strong condemnation of torture there."
Field Marshall Freder, Abu Ghraib was not torture and certainly not an example of administration policy.
It was misbehavior by a reserve unit that was poorly trained, a bit like the unit in Vietnam that became so famous over My Lai.
Humiliation by female soldiers of Muslim male fighters and terrorists, maybe. John Kerry told similar lies about Vietnam.
You don’t know any leftists in real life, do you?
I teach. I'm surrounded by them everyday.
"I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week."
Once again, bullshit.
Abe ghraib under sadamm would amputate the hands of prisoners, I wouldn't even compare it to my lai, perhaps conson, that fake soldier bonier help publicize.
Althouse strikes me as being not completely any of the following: left, right, conservative, liberal, but rather a blend of all, depending on the topic being discussed. Non ideologues can have stances on issues that are individually decided. Non ideologues also can have opinions on issues that are nuanced.
You don’t know any leftists in real life, do you?
I live in California. Nuff said.
(I get called right wing all the time, and I don't think I espouse any right-wing positions.)
Tell us about your non-right wing positions. What are they, exactly?
I'm sure a lot of non-right wingers are keen to host commentary forums for a bunch of reality-challenged right-wing peanut gallery clowns.
Of course after the last gents released from french and Belgian favilitirs, you would think Abe ghraib would have list place in the narrative.
Weinsteun, for mostly ill, dogma pulp fiction and Fahrenheit 9/11 for example has been apresencr for 20 yearsm
I think I'll go take advantage of that and forget about Hollywood pervs and leftist hypocrites for a while.
And instead spend more time with yourself: A Wisconsin traditionalist perv and rightwing hypocrite!
"Ann, please regale your right wing fan base with another dozen posts about this Weinstein guy. It makes for a great obsessive freak show."
Says the guy who has left how many comments (?) repeating increasingly ridiculous reasons why we should pretend there's nothing newsworthy or interesting about discovering Hollywood's feigned outrage at Trump's "pussy grabber" comment was actually because they knew all along - from their own experience - that Trump was speaking truth, and talking about...why, them!
"an “adult daycare”, same could be said for the Althouse comments sections. Repetive blogposts about some sexual predator"
I wouldn't bring that up if I were you, Inga. Or blank profile with her repetitive, content free comments.
Free speech is no longer useful to the left since they have become the establishment.
Oh how truth-y it is and divorced from reality one has to be to believe that the agendas of Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson and Rick Perry carry absolutely NO currency in the Washington bubble from which they emanate as they engulf our lives like a barrel of tar-sludge.
Field Marshall Freder, Abu Ghraib was not torture and certainly not an example of administration policy.
You apparently don't remember that several of the pictures from Abu Ghraib were of a detainee who was tortured to death by CIA contractors. Also, the Senate concluded that torture was indeed administration policy.
And Althouse raised Abu Ghraib, not me. She had precious little to say and certainly did not condemn, the "enhanced interrogation" policy of the Bush Administration.
Senator Corker tweeted that the Whitehouse is an “adult daycare”, same could be said for the Althouse comments sections. Repetitive blogposts about some sexual predator trumps Trump’s cryptic “calm before the storm” comment and his tweets of this morning, outright lying about Senator Corker “begging for his endorsement
Not to mention SCOTUS.
Shorter right wing: "We have no power! We have no power! Ok we only have three branches of government most of the states and and the only lobbies that are effective in buying out our agenda but other than that we are oh so powerless!"
Prof. A (@ 11:30 AM): "By the way, I am baffled and made quite anxious by the health insurance documents and requirements that come to me in the mail, and I have no problem affording it and no serious health problem and comparatively good intelligence and reading comprehension.
I think there is terrible suffering just dealing with the paperwork and trying to follow the instructions and paying a huge chunk of your income to get coverage that amounts to virtually nothing."
THIS.
THIS.
THIS.
Anyone not embracing the Prog agenda is 'right wing'.
True, true! Between progressive (positions endorsed by most Americans) and right-wing there is a wide swathe of stagnant, ill-informed wishy-washy milquetoasts making sure that they're ignorance and apathy create willing chambermaids for the agendas of the truly, ruthlessly and hopelessly bought-and-paid-for righties running our country. Perhaps you are one of them!
AA says "I get called right wing all the time, and I don't think I espouse any right-wing positions." Our hostess forgets that merely asking questions and pointing out absurdities makes one right wing. QED.
Yes manadel janabi, the bomb maker, who else was at Abe ghraib for a time Al bagdadi and his deputy future founder of nusra front, now the head of the umbrella group hayat Al tahrir
The Administrative State was less entrenched then -
Ah, the good old days! When every backdoor chemist was his own personal FDA and EPA all in one! How we miss them and long for a Chinese model with melamine in our milk and lead in our children's toys. Please bring us back the days of easy mass poisonings and the Cuyahoga River Fire! Remember, folks, without more danger, mass-casualties, and consumer toxicology we will never be free - to make some owner of the industries doing these things rich. That's the important thing, of course.
How weak a nation we are to not agree to sacrifice ourselves for wealth of another. It's like we're being communists about this. Good thing the capitalist Chinese know better!
Do you think Barack tattooed "HK" on his ass, too? Hillary?
"Our hostess forgets that merely asking questions and pointing out absurdities makes one right wing. QED."
That's pretty funny.
If that is a serious Inga statement ... It's sad to watch a mind going to complete waste.
Freder Frederson:You fiercely defended practically everything George W. Bush did up to and including justifying (or at least downplaying or disregarding) his authorization of torture.
Althouse: I could find the link that absolutely proves you wrong. Do a search on Abu Ghraib and you will find it.
Freder Frederson Why don't you provide the link instead of saying "I could find it". Because I can't . Five pages into the Google search "Althouse abu ghraib", I got nothin'. And I searched for posts on this blog with the tag "Abu Ghraib", and there is certainly no strong condemnation of torture there.
Your having "got nothin'" merely indicates that your search engine capabilities are on the level of an eighth grader's. Are you not aware of Advanced Google Search? When we use Advanced Google Search thusly, Advanced Google Search @ Althouse blog: abu ghraib , we get plenty of results.
Game, set, match to Althouse.
Old Harv really has nothing to do with the Democrats. A buck or two here, a bundle or two there. a fund raiser once in a while.
And who has ever heard of him. What, a half dozen or so Oscars? The cultural and political elite fawning? Feh. Nothing.
Now that David Dukr fellow, HE's the poster boy for Republicans, right?
NowIKnow
I had never heard of Weinstein before Ann started writing her two dozen posts about the guy earlier this week. Ann is going pretty deep here for fodder to gin up her right wing readership.
Apparently NowIKnow doesn't bother to keep up with the news. Google News: harvey weinstein.
I think it is entirely possible Now I Know and others didn't know who Weinstein was. I was only vaguely aware, thinking, "He's the Miramax guy and standard Hollywood leftist." I didn't know a lot of details about him, and if you had asked me out of context, I may not have been able to immediately place him.
But just because I was barely aware of him doesn't mean we shouldn't bother with him.
I mean, Joe the Plumber was literally a no one until the media decided he should be a somebody. So, I find it odd that we now have a somebody that lots of people are telling me was practically a nobody, and to shut up about him.
You apparently don't remember that several of the pictures from Abu Ghraib were of a detainee who was tortured to death by CIA contractors.
I never heard of that and CIA had nothing to do with Abu Ghraib.
If you have evidence, of course, I'd be happy to see it.
But you never do.
The "Torture" accusations concerned water boarding, which US pilots go through as part of SERE training.
When a big-time Democratic Donor is shown to be a Sexual Predator, why yes, I think that is a Democratic Problem.
I had never heard of Weinstein
It's so much easier to claim ignorance than address substance.
Weinstein is the big Hollywood Mogul that all -- all -- Democratic Politicians with National Ambitions kissed up to. Turns out he was a lech on a scale that likely makes Bill Clinton envious.
If Ailes was a problem for the right then Weinstein should be a problem for the left. Oh wait, the Althouse commentariat consensus was that Ailes was not a problem for the right, so I guess Weinstein skates.
She had precious little to say and certainly did not condemn, the "enhanced interrogation" policy of the Bush Administration.
Fuck yeah!
We should have just blown them away with a drone strike instead!
"Do you think Barack tattooed 'HK' on his ass, too? Hillary?"
Hillary would present a wider, bigger canvas to work with. But she may have had it engraved with "SA," after her first big crush, Saul Alinsky.
Hillary's ass makes me think of an old joke.
A college guy had a roommate who had "Eat at Joes" tattooed on his dick.
He started to tell his girlfriend about it, but she knew and said "Who would tattoo Eat at Josephine's cafeteria, Chattanooga Tennessee on his penis ?"
Hillary's ass makes me think..
Not many things do, so that's good that you've found something that does.
Post a Comment