About 90 minutes into Thursday’s forum on LGBTQ issues in Los Angeles, a gay rights leader posed a question to Sen. Elizabeth Warren: How would she respond if a voter approached her and said, “I’m old-fashioned, and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman?”It didn't just get views. It garnered them.
Warren (D-Mass.) responded with a theatrical seriousness. “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that,” she deadpanned, pausing a beat for the audience to catch the joke. Then she added, “And I’m going to say, ‘Then just marry one woman — I’m cool with that.’ ”
She finished with a zinger: “ ‘Assuming you can find one.’ ”
After landing her punchline, Warren turned, took a few steps and smiled broadly as the room exploded in laughter. Her response went viral online, and by Friday afternoon, Warren’s campaign team, which rarely brags about such things, was crowing that the clip had garnered more than 12 million views on Twitter.
So she's kind of a secret asshole? "Assuming you can find one." She had to add that. She could have stopped at the conventional light-hearted way to respond to this problem, which is that if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't get same-sex married. (It's like if you think abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion.) That is, she could have stopped at "Then just marry one woman." Question answered. "I’m cool with that" is a breezy, cheerful touch. And that seems to be our Elizabeth, the nice lady. But another side popped out. She demeaned the imagined man: "Assuming you can find one."
How did that happen? Was it because she was speaking to a specific crowd that could be expected to scarf up a quip like that? They've been down so long it's time for them to have fun kicking around an imaginary man, a faceless, generic entity with traditional morality. That guy! It's fun to give him hell. If she were really nice, she wouldn't have thought of kicking him after denying him his way. He knows — this imaginary man — he knows he lost the same-sex marriage fight years ago. But her instinct was not to offer him a way to get along in a society where the law will not enforce his morality, but to taunt him about whether any woman would ever want him.
She kind of called him an incel.
Posts
200 comments:
But more importantly, what was the joke she paused a beat for us to get? I don’t see a joke in there.
Your last paragraph has summed it up. The audience NEEDS to kick this man Warren’s handlers invented...
The creation of this incident by her people hints at her flaws and vulnerabilities- she isn’t good at thinking on her feet and is prone to gaffes and the reason for that is because she’s dumb. The media and her campaign can do a great job hiding it. Her people will have all the questions beforehand and she will give disturbingly polished answers...
...Unless Hillary shows up. That’s her entitlement...
No, she's not a secret asshole.
And if you don't believe in murder, don't murder. But don't you dare tell other people not to murder!
This will really fire up her base of beta-makes and dyspeptic white grannies.
Kicking around an imaginary man, a faceless, generic entity with traditional morality, is the Democratic brand.
Bias confirmation. Those who long to hear things like what she said, got all goosey when she said it. Those of us who know her for what she is, found her comments to confirm that.
She hit a softball long and far. Some see it as a home run. Others see a foul ball. I see a Phony. No nuance. Nothing unexpected. She's a cliche on two legs.
How come the Fake News won’t write a story about how a mother and CNN abused a 9 year old kid on national TV? A NINE year old child thinks she is a boy. Liz thought it was all great. Perfectly fine.
These people are insane.
Liberals have a MUCH higher tendency to be assholes than conservatives do. Which is another reason to not want them in power.
"Assuming you can find one."
Knowing this was said at the LGBTQ rally, er, Town Hall, my first impression was that she was referring to transgender folks.
Sounds like a set up question via hypothetical. Progressive Tee Ball. Perfect progressive position. 1) Assume less than 10% of America disagrees with you, 2) Insult those who hold the minority position, 3) don't reveal what you would actually do from a policy position.
As to point 3), she didn't go full Beto. Never go full Beto. Beto would legislate his position via the removal of tax exempt status for Christian churches that didn't believe as he believed. No one asked if included AA churches and Mosques.
So, just as with gun control, she believes government is the only one who can be trusted with guns. She doesn't actually state the next logical step in her belief.
The America that the "progressive" wing of the party proposes goes well beyond any of their role model countries. It's like the "best of all countries" position. It combines policies of:
1. Open Borders
2. No abortion restrictions
3. Economic policies that make Argentina look conservative
4. Gun confiscation (I mean mandatory buyback)
5. Racial and LGBT hiring quotas (I mean "diversity)
I certainly hope Warren, Sanders, O'Rourke win the nomination. I think America needs to see starkest contrast possible.
I'm thinking a Democrat election sweep will see me abandon my existing capitalist business and start a business dependent on government contracts, e.g. statue removal services.
Maybe he can find one if he grows a beard.
Can you imagine what it would be liked married to Liz? And how come we never see her hubby? I’ve seen Mayor Pete’s hubby. Kamala’s husband is in Omaha today. Now there’s a lucky guy!
She's a putz. Anyone that doesn't see that isn't looking. She will wear out her welcome in 80% of American homes.
All Trump has to do is to stay positive about America. He's making America great again.
She was just showing us her true character. Someone who will lie to get her way. Someone who will twist the knife once she stabs you in the back. Typical lefty.
Really?! You criticize this mild insult from Elizabeth Warren, yet you can justify almost every outrageous, nasty, racist, xenophobic utterance that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth.
tim maguire said...
But more importantly, what was the joke she paused a beat for us to get? I don’t see a joke in there.
I didn't get it either immediately. After replaying it in my mind, I realized the joke is that a man who disfavors single=sex marriage will have trouble finding a woman to marry him.
Then I fell off my chair laughing. What a great wit.
As I tell my pro-choice friends: If you don't believe in slavery, don't own one.
She had to add the zinger.
To end on “I’m cool with that” is to undermine the Progressive position.
She realized it and immediately corrected.
They are definitely not cool with people rejecting their programming.
When the guests on Bret Baier's show place their bets on "the field" in his stupid "candidate casino" segment on Friday nights, they mean Hillary!.
...and then his wife walked up and said hi.
Obviously, the question was planned and planted.
If I could ask her a question, I would ask whether she intends to charge Police Officer Darren Wilson for murdering Michael Brown. And if not, then why not?
Warren is about as divisive and controversial as the local librarian. It will interesting to see what strategies are used to demonize her. Apparently the first step will rely on the snow-flake sensitivities of men of a certain age.
“Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that,”
That doesn't make any sense because men and women are within the margin of error (Pew) of each other in support of homosexual marriage.
The demographic most opposed to homosexual marriage is old, poor, black religious people.
she deadpanned, pausing a beat for the audience to catch the joke.
Seriously, what joke?
She finished with a zinger: “ ‘Assuming you can find one.’ ”
That would have been funny if she had assumed the questioner was am old poor black religious woman because they have the hardest time getting and staying married, but otherwise it's just stupid.
Interesting that set up her "zinger" by changing the generic voter to a guy. I guess the zinger would have seemed overly cruel if directed at a woman.
"How should we answer this one? Clever, or vicious?"
"Let's do both. Tee hee"
It sounds practiced, not a spontaneous answer. Once again, attacking a (imaginary) voter. So, that is the campaign strategy. Deplorables Part Deux.
Her deplorable moment.
As always, the sneering condescension and self-assumed superiority is what defines the left and their worldview...
Maybe Howard is writing her material. That's one of his lines.
It didn't just get views. It garnered them.
It didn’t just had views. It had garnered them.
This is an important difference between Trump and the Democrats. He punches elite: they punch identity, which is a lot more punching, almost all of it down.
His punching disrupts the tip of the meritocracy is interesting ways. It's also a fair fight.
Theirs leads to death camps. No joke.
Hmmm. Seems to be the reason why some of us religious people will vote for Trump even though he's not a moral man.
I'm going to show the clip to my kids so they can see how much tolerance the "love is love" crowd really is.
It's not just what Warren said, it's how she said it. She has contempt for me and my faith.
They're bragging about the clip being viral. She should worry that it's going viral because my people are watching it and truly seeing.
She kind of called him an incel.
First she made up an imaginary man.
Then she made her imaginary man an incel.
Then the crowd roared its approval.
Then the media did likewise.
Think about that.
Mickey Kaus has a rule: “Always delete the kicker."
The light hearted way to respond ------which is that if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't get same-sex married. (It's like if you think abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion.)
Unfortunately, that is not what "they" really believe or how they act. They: being the Warren progressive/socialist types. They aren't light hearted in the least.
They want you to participate in same sex marriage even if you are religiously opposed. You MUST show your approval and bow down to the movement. You WILL have same sex marriages in your church. You WILL MAKE THE FUCKING CAKE. Or else. lose your business. lose your property.
They not only want you to not show disapproval of abortions. They want you to PAY for the abortions of others. The want your church to approve of baby killing. They want your hospital and Doctors to actually perform abortions, whether you like it or not. You WILL BE MADE TO OBEY.
On a personal level, I could give a flying fig about whether two people of the same sex get married. Do what you want and leave me out of it.
I don't think abortion is a good thing. But again. Do what you want. Just don't make me pay for you to be able to kill your child. Funding abortion through tax dollars is making people who object pay for the killing. And don't try to make me express anything but dismay at your actions.
What I object to is the attitude that everyone MUST believe what "they" say and do what "they" insist that you do.
That is tyranny and, in fact, we do have a solution to that. It will be way more messy than a smashed same sex wedding cake or even a dismembered and aborted child. Keep pushing at us Progtards. You aren't going to like the opposite and unequal reaction.
I often wonder what kind of man would be attracted to a hard core feminist.
I see Lizzie as saying that as a wealthy and powerful woman she can refuse marriage with traditional men. And that’s our problem, not hers. And her coterie now has a monopoly on women’s minds so we lose and she wins.
She is feisty fighter with no grace or sweetness in her. So we can fuck off. She wants to be President of everybody but traditional men, and she plans to beat us.
Beyond the obvious jab - my biggest issues is Why does it Have to be a guy that said that?
“Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that,”
Why - can’t a women hold that view? Or is she saying - Obviously, no women would hold that belief! - We women are so beyond that type of archaic thinking? Seriously - there are just a as many women as men that hold that belief - like it or not.
Or did the “joke” not work as well, if it were a women that asked the question? In other words, she would then have to insinuate that the women could marry a man . . . If she could find one! The joke doesn’t quite play as well with the subject being a women.
I hate this type of crap.
I really enjoy how you find garner everywhere. Makes me smile every time.
And yeah, Elizabeth Warren sounds like an asshole with that last sentence tagged on. That's what people with more intimate familiarity with you can say. It's not what I want in politicians.
"Then just marry one woman — I’m cool with that.
Assuming you can find one."
But I'm not looking for just any woman — I'm looking for a traditional old-fashioned woman. A squaw, you might say.
Know anyone?
Nothing is more sexy in a man to women than groveling to them.
DBQ is right. Libs don’t just disagree with you. They want to destroy you.
It took me long enough but ... I'm becoming radicalized against the left. I mean Conan the Barbarian radicalized, if you get my drift.
"Warren is about as divisive and controversial as the local librarian.”
Ha ha ha ha! I am working on a blog idea, "Who said it, Warren, Mussolini, or Hitler?” It’s coming along. I have to color code them because even I can get confused, I mean garner confusion.
How would she respond if a voter approached her and said, “I’m old-fashioned, and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman?”
Well, in 2013, the CDC did the largest survey of homosexuality in the country, and found the following
Results—Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer.
I know math is hard for liberals (as is logic) but the data suggests there are a lot of "0ld-fashioned" folks in this country, since only 2.5% of the country is gay, while nearly 97% is not.
Don't deny the science!
Keeping in mind that the person who asked the question isn't someone who holds the traditional view of marriage, the whole thing seemed like a set-up, let's give Elizabeth Warren the opportunity to be malicious in that cool, witty kind of way that people who think they're superior to the rest of us often act because they're not smart enough to know that it's better to hide your arrogance from the hoi polloi, especially for a politician who wants to be President. These people learned all the wrong lessons from Hillary Clinton's defeat.
You men - so deplorable.
@ Meade - Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads. I lodge-poled her at Deadwood Creek, and traded her for a Hawken gun. But don't get me wrong; I loves the womens, I surely do. But I swear, a woman's breast is the hardest rock that the Almighty ever made on this earth, and I can find no sign on it.
I am having internet / computer / brain issues this morning. Typed a response - lost it. Typed it again - lost it. Now instead of 7 responses there are 36 and I see that some picked up my concern too. But here we go for the 3rd time.
Beyond the obvious jab - my biggest issue is that it HAD to be a GUY that asks the question. Why? Is she saying then, that obviously no women would ever still hold that belief? We women, are so advanced and clearly no longer feel that way . . . It is only the ignorant males that still hold that belief? I know just as many women as men that still think that marriage is between a man and women - jeez.
Or did the joke not really work, if the question was raised by a women. Then EW would have to throw the zinger at a women. That she should marry a man . . . If she can find one!.
I hate this type of crap.
“The creation of this incident by her people hints at her flaws and vulnerabilities- she isn’t good at thinking on her feet and is prone to gaffes and the reason for that is because she’s dumb. The media and her campaign can do a great job hiding it. Her people will have all the questions beforehand and she will give disturbingly polished answers...”
I know a very successful attorney family. Father is a successful attorney -charming, and lightening fast on his feet. His son does the research, and is indispensable. For example, in one case, after countless hours combing through documents, the son found two almost identical documents. Someone had charged an email. The father turned that into millions. The daughter/sister jo8ned the firm most of a decade ago, and is stepping into her father’s shoes.
Point there is that not being good on your feet doesn’t make you stupid. It just means that your mind maybe slower that others. In our family, we picked the slowest thinking of us to run our family company because he was the most thorough. He is plenty smart. He just would never make it as a trial lawyer. So he never tried. He has never stood up in court, and certainly never sat first chair. And had no interest in it.
I doubt that Warren was really Harvard level, when it came to teaching in their law school. But she isn’t dumb either. Not by far. Probably brighter than Obama, along with such shining lights of academic mediocrity as GW Bush, AlGore, Lurch Kerry, and probably even her nastiness herself, Crooked Hillary, who managed to fail the DC Bar Exam (which is apparently why she moved to Arkansas, where she passed the bar). Warren seems to have different skills. For example, of all of the candidates, she seems, by far, to be the most organized. She seems to have the best state organizations. She has position papers on practically everything imaginable. Etc. this isn’t Trump’s strength. But he is the best at what he does. But most Presidents weren’t like Trump. Probably more like Warren. Of course, her organizational skills may make her more successful than Obama, who seemed to lack in that capacity too.
offer him a way to get along in a society where the law will not enforce his morality
Althouse does the same thing. It's not about morality - almost everybody supports civil unions - but about the word.
Marriage is about the set of suspicions, grudges, postures, needs and desires that men and women work with, not about the same sex version, if there is one.
Using the same word enforces the doctrine that the word covers both, and the old meaning is suppressed.
Oso
Jeremiah Johnson.
Totally off topic - Sorry about thinking I had internet/computer/brain issues and posting the “same” comment 3 times.
Well - I do have brain issues - I now see that you are moderating comments - I totally missed that. It is actually pretty funny - I actually just had my first round of chemo last week so at least I have a “pretty valid” excuse.
My mom holds this opinion on this issue almost word for word and she is a woman Warren's age.
Incels are proof that there's a "War on Men."
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Warren is about as divisive and controversial as the local librarian. It will interesting to see what strategies are used to demonize her. Apparently the first step will rely on the snow-flake sensitivities of men of a certain age.
Yeah, maybe the devious strategy of showing her making contradictory statements (like "I left teaching of my own choice"/"I was fired from my teaching job for being pregnant").
The question was a plant. The answer was prepared.
the data suggests there are a lot of "0ld-fashioned" folks in this country, since only 2.5% of the country is gay, while nearly 97% is not.
Don't ask a college student a question about that. Logic is being beaten out of them at all levels these days. I have read that college students think 25% of the population is gay.
It's worse in Seattle, where Microsoft lives.
Who would want HER?? She's pathological!!!
Is Princess Spreading Bull secret A-hole? Nope. There's nothing secret about it.
She and Hillary are cut from the same bolt of cloth, but had different paths in their quest for power. Warren didn't go to the "right" schools and didn't marry one of the best politicians of the late 20th Century, so she had to claw up more on her own. OTOH Hillary didn't have high cheekbones.
But both have a drive for power.
Lenin always ended with a zinger, "...and then I'll have him shot."
The room would explode with laughter.
Always.
He knows — this imaginary man — he knows he lost the same-sex marriage fight years ago.
Mother Nature doesn't lose fights. She just bides her time.
The kind of endemic sexual dysfunction that Warren luxuriates in is nothing new, it's a well-established symptom of a culture on the verge of extinction. What passes for Boomer civilization — self-centered, self-righteous, greedy, hedonistic — is doomed and will be replaced. By what, I cannot predict, but it looks like its either Muslims or Mennonites.
She doesn't have much of way with a throwaway line. Well, at least she doesn't cackle.....She used to teach at Riverdale. Not one single comedian has drawn the obvious reference to Miss Grundy of Archie Comics fame. Another media cover up......There's no doubt that after her debate with Trump all the commentators will point out how she completely destroyed him with her razor wit and sharp rejoinders. She'll be like Carli Fiorina who, you may recall, also demolished Donald Trump on the debate stage.
“They want you to participate in same sex marriage even if you are religiously opposed. You MUST show your approval and bow down to the movement. You WILL have same sex marriages in your church. You WILL MAKE THE FUCKING CAKE. Or else. lose your business. lose your property.”
This is answered by this:
“Results—Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer.”
The absolute last thing that gays want is affirmative action. For example, it is fairly obvious that a large portion of the younger actors on daytime soap operas are gay. There have always been a lot of gays in show business, though they may now be more open. Maybe even half of those playing millennials. My partner graduated high school early, at a time when college wasn’t, get, an option, so went to floral school. Maybe half the students were male, and only one of them was straight. AA for gays would be a ceiling in many case, not a floor.
Roy Jacobsen said...
maybe the devious strategy of showing her making contradictory statements
In the era of Trump I can't see the sin of making contradictory statements being a deal breaker.
Hear, head Dust Bunny Queen @ 7:47am....I agree 100% with you!
Hear, hear...not hear, head!!haha!
She kind of called him an incel.
Next she'll be calling him a splooge stooge.
“Of course, her organizational skills may make her more successful than Obama, who seemed to lack in that capacity too.”
Sorry. Meant to say:
“Of course, her organizational skills may make her more DANGEROUS than Obama, who seemed to lack in that capacity too.”
This reminds me of campus protests where all the 'woke' women get together and angrily chant about the evil patriarchy, and rape, and abortion rights. They are the ugliest, least attractive women you can find anywhere, usually by design.
Morbidly obese, shaved heads, steel sticking out of their faces, tats, vagabond clothing...
...holding signs that say "Hands off my body!"
The moral arguments of the lefties are less than convincing.
You don't like abortion? Don't have one.
You don't like slavery? Don't own one.
Don't like rape? Don't rape anybody.
Don't like child prostitution? Don't buy a child for sex.
Don't like graft, bribery, theft, perjury, or fraud? Don't do that stuff.
Don't like stoning women to death for adultery?
I'm not even going to answer that last one.
Point there is that not being good on your feet doesn’t make you stupid
Your point is valid Bruce which is why I hinted at that distinction as well. I do disagree with your premise that Warren isn't dumb. It's one thing to lack the ability to think on your feet, and we could debate the correlations of that with intelligence, but if we are allowed an opportunity to listen to Liz answer actual candid, tough questions and watch her try to articulate intelligent positions she's going to be exposed.
There's plenty of evidence of this from old interviews from her time as Senator and debates while she was running in Massachusetts.
Don't ask a college student a question about that. Logic is being beaten out of them at all levels these days. I have read that college students think 25% of the population is gay.
My high school students are astonished to learn that nearly 78% of Americans are White. To be fair, we live in SoCal and 85% of the school is Hispanic.
If trump were to take a week off right when warren wins the nomination and starts campaigning for the general, his lead would be quickly established and permanent
Again, the more exposure she gets, the less popular she becomes. Just like Hilary. Or Harris more recently.
OK, let's play this game:
"I am a business owner and I believe that I should be able to hire and fire individuals based on my judgment of their job performance, without concern for the other, in my view irrelevant, aspects of their 'identity', such as race, gender, sexual orientation."
Senator Warren - How would you respond to this person?
“By what, I cannot predict, but it looks like its either Muslims or Mennonites.”
My vote is for the Mennonites. We have a bunch of Mennonites, some Amish, and a Lutheran sect that believes in having insane numbers of kids (one guy I met this summer had 16 kids, and had to leave Kalispell for here because of the local ordinance that limited houses to no more than two people per bedroom. Whatever they do, they do extremely well. Legacy furniture at bargain prices. Our house is filled with a lot of custom woodwork. Handmade food. Etc. They never gouge, nor do they ever try to cheat you. Imagine a minivan pulls up to the post office or the grocery store, and out pops a woman with 4-5 happy, well behaved, kids, with the males dressed almost like farmers, and all the females in ankle length dresses. It is the happy and well behaved that sticks out in my mind. I am used to kids running around, having fits, etc in public. Woe be the mother with 2-3 boys, who, of course, feed on each other. Hence my vote for the Mennonites (etc). Oh, and you don’t have to worry about them all of a sudden going Jihadi on you either.
“Morbidly obese, shaved heads, steel sticking out of their faces, tats, vagabond clothing...
...holding signs that say "Hands off my body!"”
Wishful thinking?
https://www.theknot.com/content/amphtml/muslim-wedding-ceremony-rituals
__________''_
Seems all private!?
Maybe church need to get out too!?
And government officials!?
So she's kind of a secret asshole? "Assuming you can find one." She had to add that.
It's funny that you see yourself as the defender of involuntarily celibate loser men and their emotional troubles. Did you set out to be that? Like their Joan of Arc or something?
I think that's even funnier than her comment.
And of course, there's something you could do about that too, if you were sincere in your sympathy for them: Go have sex with them.
Make an incel's day, Ann. Your integrity owes us and them nothing less.
Other than that, it's nice to see more sympathy out of you for the incels than the people Trump encourages his supporters to physically assault at his rallies. That's really something.
Patron saint of the incels. It doesn't get any weirder, folks.
So she's kind of a secret asshole?
Not so secret, for those of us who’ve actually been looking?
I've said this before...….
The Left lost the last election, one that almost everyone agrees was almost certainly theirs to be won, because they nominated an old, White, scolding school marm with batshit ideas and a reputation for lying. After three years of denial, they have decided that the answer is to nominate a different old, White, scolding school marm with batshit ideas and a reputation for lying.
The scary thing is trying to anticipate what happens when Warren loses.
People actually agree with this post???
Listen, if you have to identify with folks that want to control others' sex lives, that's fine. But then their own sexual issues become fair game. Actually, everything about someone becomes fair game when he wants to control others.
Does no one draw the connection between Trump's "crowd" having this need to control others sexually and the fact that Trump is felt by most women in America to be a sexual assailant? I guess it's easy to support a rapist when you personally don't feel that sexually autonomy is anything that any human being deserves. That you should have the right to control them sexually in other ways.
Thanks for making this connection clearer to draw.
Jumping the shark a little more floppily every day. Watching Republicans smugly sitting astride over society is like watching the newest cowboy being thrown from the back of a bull at the rodeo. I really can't wait for the revolt to happen. It can't happen soon enough.
And it couldn't happen to a more deserving political party.
It would be nice to have a sane, honest, responsible woman as President, assuming you could find one.
God bless you Linda!
"Really?! You criticize this mild insult from Elizabeth Warren, yet you can justify almost every outrageous, nasty, racist, xenophobic utterance that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth."
You are referring to NOTHING that I actually have said. You're sloppy, an inept reader, or you know you are lying.
When the Spanish conquered Peru, they learned that many of the Inca priestesses were homosexuals dressed as women. They solicited sex from local married men. They were outed to the Spanish by local wives, who greatly resented the priestesses. Assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman, is not a strictly male point of view. It is just as likely to be held by a woman, if not more so.
Game, set, match to Althouse.
So this is how she'll be answering questions from Americans?
Who gets more respect, an incel, or a rapist?
As I said in a comment last night, I think this is a huge blunder. Of course the usual suspects like Freder don’t see why it’s a blunder. It’s a blunder because it shows deliberate contempt. More, she is *proud* of her contempt. “Let them eat cake.”
It was clearly planned. The tell is making the imagined person a man. That serves no purpose in answering the question but is essential in setting up the shot.
I wrote this on another topic, ARM, but I think it answers your question:
Is Elizabeth Warren lying or is this an example of the malleability of human memory? Of course if this is not lying and is instead an example of the ease with which false memories can be acquired, there is still the puzzle of how it is that so often these false memories are self-serving.
Matt Christiansen does a great job of showing the falseness of Elizabeth Warren's account of what happened.
Now somehow I feel like I can't talk about a Democratic politician lying without talking about Trump. One difference is that Trump says so many questionable things that I think most people filter what he says, and use their minds to evaluate it. That doesn't mean that people's judgements are all that great. But Trump is an 'interactive' president.
Now Warren if she became president, she would be a 'true believer' president. And most of the people listening to her will not question what she says. And certainly most of the media won't. Heck, they are likely to amplify what she says and define anyone that questions it as evil.
We have a great deal of freedom, personal psychological freedom, with Trump as President. We will lose that if Warren gets in office.
It's the strangest thing, but somehow even though I feel that Trump tells more porkers than any politician I've ever seen, practically speaking he is also somehow the most honest president I have seen in my lifetime. We know more about what Trump thinks and why he thinks it than almost anyone else on the national scene.
Many other politicians are successfully hiding something big from the electorate about what they think or what they will do if they are given power.
So to boil it down, Elizabeth Warren's falsehoods, her capacity for deceiving us and deceiving herself are more significant because the media, and Hollywood, and the schools are going to cram them down our throats.
So you understand the distinction between listening to someone that you can safely disagree with and even mock, and someone that if you dispute them, you might lose your job?
If she had added, “Because you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny” my husband and I would have laughed. But she didn’t, so we didn’t.
Warren's own husband scoffs at her "have a beer" schtick. I wonder if he is down with mocking straight men with traditional values? Why does she hide him away?
Ann Althouse said...
You are referring to NOTHING that I actually have said.
Sins of omission are still sins.
“Of course, her organizational skills may make her more DANGEROUS than Obama, who seemed to lack in that capacity too.”
Obama was dangerous because he allowed people like Warren to execute their extremist agenda, hence our Title IX witchhunts. Warren is even more dangerous because in addition to allowing every other radical to execute their agenda she will come up with her own. Plus her fraudulent medical bankruptcy study shows she will not allow her agenda to be limited by reality.
mandrewa, lying is lying. The fact that Trump lies all the time does not make it more acceptable. This is an incredibly weak argument.
You have it backwards PPT, the incels are Althouses patrons who pay for $500/night Airbnb in Colorado. No one exposes the vile deplorable underbelly better than Ann.
Warren is about as divisive and controversial as the local librarian. It will interesting to see what strategies are used to demonize her
A couple of decades ago Warren completely changed her advocacy from positions likely to help the poor to anti-business demagogue and propagandist. The essence of left wing privilege is not recognizing demagoguery in support of the far left is divisive or controversial.
You are referring to NOTHING that I actually have said. You're sloppy, an inept reader, or you know you are lying.
Gee, it was just yesterday that you were defending Trump's big "fuck you" to the Kurds by positing the ludicrous notion that he is just trying to lure his opponents into advocating war against Turkey.
Or a while back you claimed that "send them back where they came from" isn't necessarily racist.
There is something very strange about this woman. She has incredibly long arms that she habitually waves around, particularly when she is dancing. And when she does this, she looks like a spider.
Here's a deal. If you provide one link to a post where you unambiguously criticize Trump for a statement or tweet, I will admit that I am sloppy, inept reader and that I am lying.
(It's like if you think abortion is wrong, don't have an abortion.)
Which is like if you think the legalization of abortion is wrong, don't legalize abortion.
Or like what the Democrats said in the 19th century - if you think slavery is wrong, don't own slaves. Or if you think racial discrimination is wrong, don't racially discriminate.
Or like if you think genocide is wrong, don't do genocide.
All of which is unworthy obtuse thinking that because it doesn't personally involve you, never mind about the gross injustice and evil being done to others as individuals or to objective human nature or to society as a whole.
Someone else said this, and it's the best formulation I've seen of the ungracious and often vicious way that progressives treat opponents in the culture war. They've won the major battles, and they're going around now shooting survivors. Only progressives have a hard time seeing it that way, because being the underdog is central to their identity and self-conception. Because they can't appreciate the ways in which they are the power now, they can't show the grace of victory. So you get the risible spectacle of elites like Warren or the ladies of the squad speaking cruelly about or directly at regular Americans. It's a bad look, but it's not going away because the stories progressives tell themselves about themselves.
This happened at an LBGTQ conference: how on earth could these people be anything other than the underdogs, the marginalized, a progressive will ask. And that's why they'll continue to look ugly to people who don't inhabit the progressive narrative.
The contrast with Trump, who is vulgar and aggressive, couldn't be more complete, but that too eludes the progressive. Trump is loud and mean and directs his ire at people who use their perch to attack him or his supporters. He only looks like a bully if you believe his opponents are the underdogs, which is belied by their station in life, their positions and prominence. He doesn't make up a fake incel to insult, he singles out a genuine jackass to jeer at.
Well the imaginary person was a "guy", and likely white, so there is nothing wrong with insulting him.
ARM, I'm making an argument about the consequences of lies and who tells them.
I think I've already stated that pretty well. But did you respond to it?
I mean we have all done what you did. You ignored the main thing I was saying to cast one piece of what I was saying in the weakest possible light that you could find. Do you understand that your response does not really refute what I said?
Mr. Majestyk counters: And if you don't believe in murder, don't murder. But don't you dare tell other people not to murder!
Beat me to it! How can any thinking person believe that a baby growing inside of your body is not a living human being? Unless, of course, she is wearing blinders.
I actually thought Warren's quip was good, though not the ideology behind it.
She finished with a zinger: “ ‘Assuming you can find one.’ ”
This reminds me of an old anti-Tea Party activist in a clip viral on the right for some time. The group was criticizing a black Tea Partier talking about family policy and so said something like 'Do you have any children' and followed up with "that you know of?". She just couldn't let the opportunity to express her hate pass.
I remember that because it so clearly showed the left and the media's bias. Such a racist comment by a Tea Partier would have been on every national news broadcast for a month. In fact thanks to Nancy Pelosi a similar act made news for a month even though it never happened. But because it was made in support of the left's political agenda no one outside the right even commented on it.
The left's institutional control has obvious advantages. But it causes certain problems as well. Their control allows them to radicalize their acolytes unopposed which is useful in creating a voting base impervious to facts and reason. But the resulting hate seething just below the surface is always trying to get out. Among the faithful this is fine. But because they are so often among the faithful they aren't disciplined enough to keep it hidden when among reasonable people. So Warren let it slip out and the positive reinforcement means it will probably happen more.
AA: You are referring to NOTHING that I actually have said. You're sloppy, an inept reader, or you know you are lying.
Just an observation - and understanding all the dynamics here since I moderate comments myself at a certain blog catering to a certain crowd that has a national following - but if such hostile and insulting comments make it through moderation, it kind of calls into question the whole point of putting comments into moderation limbo.
"Warren is about as ... controversial as the local librarian."
Then your local librarian is incredibly stupid about economics. But your local librarian has no chance to be the next POTUS, so I'll cut him/her some slack.
But, yes, this was a 'plant'.
I think Freder at 9:58 resolved the ambiguity. He is deliberately lying.
Binks, what a great question. I wish I had thought of it.
You are referring to NOTHING that I actually have said. You're sloppy, an inept reader, or you know you are lying.
It's possible they're just noting the deafening silence with which you follow every re-posted tweet of Trump's that's published here. At some point, a post of a tweet without any commentary implies agreement, since it's essentially a retweet - just one that's transported from Twitter to Blogger. Have you ever posted a comment of Warren's or any non-Trump politician and left it just at that? At this frequency???
We know what he tweets. How it came to be that simply repeating it is better or even different actually than "reacting" to it is one you'll have to explain.
For many it's not about garnering equality. It's about getting revenge.
Listen, if you have to identify with folks that want to control others' sex lives, that's fine. But then their own sexual issues become fair game. Actually, everything about someone becomes fair game when he wants to control others.
The recent Masterpiece Cake decision shows that the left can also be the ones trying control other people's lives, so your comment circles back to hit your side. Why don't you try resisting the Gaystapo for once?
Unions for all consenting adults, for love, for "benefits", or whatever. One, two, three, and other combinations. With the normalization of transgender/homosexual couplets, and especially selective-child, it is no longer about evolutionary fitness, not even civil rights, and certainly not human rights. Why so Pro-Choice? #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Abortion... No, elective abortion is premeditated homicide, a summary judgment, and cruel unusual punishment past one month, for the sake of social progress, social justice, Democratic leverage, Planned Parenthood et al profits, to ensure women remain taxable and available.
Opposing same-sex marriage isn't the same as wanting to control other people's sex lives. Have sex with anyone you want. You don't need a marriage certificate from the government for that.
Blacks and Hispanics are core D voters and their strong objections to homosexuality are rarely touched upon by the media. Warren is free to shoot off such zingers as often as she wishes. But in the end, those Blacks and Hispanics voters will have the last laugh.
Homosexuals are in the transgender spectrum. Same-sex marriage is exclusive even in the "rainbow" class. Then the politically congruent go full Pro-Choice and rationalize the couplet exemption with the same quasi-religious ("ethics") doctrines they use to rationalize selective-child.
Mark
The comment you are questioning is FROM the moderator.
Blacks and Hispanics are core D voters and their strong objections to homosexuality are rarely touched upon by the media.
Diverse Catholics, Protestants, and others, opposed transgender/homosexual marriage in the majority. A transgender/homosexual judge overrode their vote, then the politically congruent ("=") marched and targeted Mormons to set an example.
How can any thinking person believe that a baby growing inside of your body is not a living human being? Unless, of course, she is wearing blinders.
Rhhardin was almost right. It's not about cuteness. Technicians and abortionists will refer to the child with the technical term of art, "fetus", in order to dissociate themselves from the human life they have been tasked to handle, to regulate, to terminate. Mom and dad will, if the child is deemed worthy of life, refer to their child as "baby".
Oso
Jeremiah Johnson.
Bear Claws Crislap.
It is the sort of joke you tell to the choir, and that is a problem for Warren, and a problem for most of the Democrats who are running right now. It won't be enough to win the nomination if you do so in ways that cost you the general election. Whatever else you think of Obama, he had the ability to not turn off everyone who didn't already like him with every word out of his mouth.
And let me say this about that question and joke- it was obviously planned because Warren was too ready for it, but the person asking the question forgot to identify the "voter" as male forcing Warren to fill in that detail so that the joke would make sense.
Trump apologists try to have it both ways - 'You can't take what he is saying literally' - or some similar BS. Yet Trump is clearly very capable of speaking precisely. In his rallies he hits every mark when it comes to stirring the resentments of the mob, and people broadly acknowledge his skill in doing this.
Either his words have no meaning or he is skilled polemicist. If his words have no meaning one would reasonably expect that Althouse would be at pains to point this out, repeatedly, since she demands precision in everyone else's speech. If he is a skilled polemicist, as Althouse has used little Scotty Adams to argue repeatedly, then his speech should be held to the same standards as everyone else. Assuming one accepts that he is not a mental retard then he looks guilty of a lot of sins, not the least of which is bullying the Ukrainians over a nonsensical conspiracy theory.
I see I wasn't the only one to notice the entire segment was staged in advance.
The often recycled allegation that the issue is people want to control other people's sex lives is mostly false, a straw clown argument. The allegation of transphobia, xenophobia, and especially diversity, are at best projections. It is not fear, horror, or aversion, irrational or otherwise. The established Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent, quasi-religion is a problem. Immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform, especially as a cover-up of abortion fields and collateral damage from social justice adventurism, is a problem. Immigration that exceeds the rate of assimilation and integration before planned parenthood, is a problem. Diversity (i.e. color judgment), including racism, sexism, etc., is a problem.
The recent Masterpiece Cake decision shows that the left can also be the ones trying control other people's lives, so your comment circles back to hit your side. Why don't you try resisting the Gaystapo for once?
The constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, not sex. Talk about circuitous reasoning. No gay person is forcing anything on me. Why don't you try resisting your inner Southern Baptist for a change?
Ken B
It would have been an even better question if instead of “get” I’d said “garner”. I dropped the ball.
n.n. said:
"Homosexuals are in the transgender spectrum. Same-sex marriage is exclusive even in the "rainbow" class. Then the politically congruent go full Pro-Choice and rationalize the couplet exemption with the same quasi-religious ("ethics") doctrines they use to rationalize selective-child."
To which I can only reply: "What chu talk'n bout, Willis?"
"So she's kind of a secret asshole?"
Secret, I don't think that has ever been a secret, but then I can't speak for obtuse liberals.
“The left's institutional control has obvious advantages. But it causes certain problems as well. Their control allows them to radicalize their acolytes unopposed which is useful in creating a voting base impervious to facts and reason. But the resulting hate seething just below the surface is always trying to get out. Among the faithful this is fine. But because they are so often among the faithful they aren't disciplined enough to keep it hidden when among reasonable people. So Warren let it slip out and the positive reinforcement means it will probably happen more.”
I think that we are seeing a lot more of this rage. The Minneapolis mayor indicated that he didn’t like Trump, and screwing with Trump was just fine so his local Anti First Amendment (AntiFA) violent fascist thugs were unleashed. The rest of us mostly cannot comprehend how they can be so unhinged with hate, and why they can so willing and easily throw off societal control. Best thing, I think that Trump could do here, is bring in federal LEOs to start arresting violent AntiFA fascist thugs. This is a really bad look for the Dems here, and only the fact that the MSM keeps it as hidden as they can, do the Dems have a chance at willing.
“I see Lizzie as saying that as a wealthy and powerful woman she can refuse marriage with traditional men. And that’s our problem, not hers. And her coterie now has a monopoly on women’s minds so we lose and she wins.”
Of course, she didn’t go all lesbo or even tranny. Rather she married very traditionally, a long NF time ago, and has stayed married to one man, by all appearances one who a cis herero male who responds to the traditional pronouns. And probably always had.
"So she's kind of a secret asshole?" I wouldn't call her "secret".
There should be no sins of omission. Those who want to require affirmative behavior from others are the sinners, ( what, the IRS?)
I don’t think the traditionally religious are the ones having a hard time getting married. She does seem to be conflating objection to gay marriage with being an incel, which just tells me she’s living in a bubble and doesn’t know any of the people she feels so comfortable talking about. Traditionally religious people are generally voluntarily celibate before marriage; incels don’t seem to care much about traditional morality.
She was talking about Obama,,....
“Listen, if you have to identify with folks that want to control others' sex lives, that's fine. But then their own sexual issues become fair game. Actually, everything about someone becomes fair game when he wants to control others. “
He discussion about Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with controlling anyone’s sex life. It’s about a demand to society to recognize one’s relationship as “marriage”....
Why do you bother moderating when you let Ritmo though. He is an instant thread ruiner and has been for many years.
“Your point is valid Bruce which is why I hinted at that distinction as well. I do disagree with your premise that Warren isn't dumb. It's one thing to lack the ability to think on your feet, and we could debate the correlations of that with intelligence, but if we are allowed an opportunity to listen to Liz answer actual candid, tough questions and watch her try to articulate intelligent positions she's going to be exposed.”
I do not disagree, though the opportunities are likely to be few, which is back to her being disciplined and well prepared. My ex wife has always been overprepared whenever she has had to deal with anything threatening in business. It has been a winning strategy for her, and I think for Warren. I tend to go into things less prepared, because one of the thrills is winging it successfully. Our kid is somewhere in the middle, in a good way, always prepared, but wings it just fine.
Normally, her sort of methodical preparation would work well for a Democrat, since the MSM is going to try to protect her from surprise, as they did with Crooked Hillary, by, for example feeding her campaign debate questions in advance. But the problem here is that she would be running against Trump who is, at times, tactically brilliant. Part of why the impeachment inquest seems to have bogged down is that he got inside their OODA loop. Shifty Schiff publicly, in high dungeon, lied about the contents of that phone call, AFTER Tiny rump had had it released. This is the equivalent of continuing a military maneuver that depends on surprise, after seeing that surprise has been lost. This seems to happen a lot when dealing with Trump. And, I think the most vulnerable are those who trust in preparation and planning the most. The tendency is to stick with the plan, as Schiff did, long after it had been effectively countered. You worked so hard at the plan, that you can’t give it up easily. It is continuing to walk into an ambush after it has been exposed, because the plan was a good one. Military history is filled with this sort of failure. She might be a good candidate against a Grant, and esp maybe against a McClellan. But Trump is more like Sherman, always reacting quickly, and always a couple steps ahead. The inability to pivot immediately, because the plan was a good one, and she worked hard preparing for it, may be her downfall as a candidate.
I agree with Bob Boyd and mockturtle that the question and answer were scripted. They had to be. It gave Warren the opportunity to bitch-slap the traditionalist position with a truly low cunning.
We may get a chance to see Trump bitch-slap Warren around (verbally, of course).
So she's kind of a secret asshole?
Nothing secret about it.
Or a while back you claimed that "send them back where they came from" isn't necessarily racist. - Freder
Here is the exact quote:
“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how…. ….it is done.”
Nothing racist about it, fool. Not one thing.
The kind of endemic sexual dysfunction that Warren luxuriates in is nothing new,
No, it's well documented in Dune as represented by House Harkonnen, personified by Baron Vladimir: "Drug him well. I don't feel like wrestling."
Freder Frederson said...
Really?! You criticize this mild insult from Elizabeth Warren, yet you can justify almost every outrageous, nasty, racist, xenophobic utterance that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth.
10/12/19, 7:27 AM
Donald Trump attacks his political enemies, political operatives, politicians, media lackeys. Which he gets right back and skip who started it.
But he doesn't attack the people. He loves the American voter. Elizabeth Warren hates the American voter and wants him to die. That is, unless he votes for her. And does everything she says. And believes everything she tells him to believe.
I love that you think that's going to work out for you.
Howard said...
You have it backwards PPT, the incels are Althouses patrons who pay for $500/night Airbnb in Colorado. No one exposes the vile deplorable underbelly better than Ann.
10/12/19, 9:51 AM
I don't think you're being very nice to Titus, Unka Howie. Assuming he exists and is real, I don't suppose he's gay because he can't get a woman.
Colbert is probably writing the comedy behind the scenes.
but if such hostile and insulting comments make it through moderation, it kind of calls into question the whole point of putting comments into moderation limbo.
In general, Mark, AA is an all-or-nothing censor/banner. I've called her a whore before now, and not only survived, she offered a semi witty response. You can get away with a lot here. But once you cross a certain line, get some (possibly oblique) warnings, and proceed on, you will never eat lunch in this town again (barring moderation slips).
So Freder Fredersen has just gotten called on Strike One. If he had any balls, he'd call her out to frag him now.
But Freder Fredersen has no balls.
Remember!
Beta O'Rourke wasn't saying that Same Sex Marriage between Transgender Siblings is legal
He was DEMANDING, that ANY Organization that is tax exempt, be REQUIRED to perform the marriage
so, if two people; from out of town: that aren't members of your church, Want you to marry them
YOU HAVE TO
(according to Beta) YOU ARE REQUIRED to perform Religious Ceremonies..
“The constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce, not sex.”
Only interstate commerce.
She could have stopped at the conventional light-hearted way to respond to this problem, which is that if you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't get same-sex married
Tell that to Masterpiece Cakeshop. Or to Arlene's Flowers.
The reason why you never give in to the Left, on anything, is because no matter how reasonable they're pretending they will be, it's a lie
Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Warren is about as divisive and controversial as the local librarian. It will interesting to see what strategies are used to demonize her. Apparently the first step will rely on the snow-flake sensitivities of men of a certain age.
Ah, you mean the one who hosts "Drag Queen Reading Hour" every week, inviting kids in, but not letting any adults in to monitor what's going on?
Yeah, that's about Warren's level
Mr. Majestyk:
To which I can only reply: "What chu talk'n bout, Willis?"
What is your question?
Blogger Chief Executive Lawbreaker - Whiny Weasel Trumpkins said...
People actually agree with this post???
Listen, if you have to identify with folks that want to control others' sex lives
We don't want to control their sex lives
We just don't want to pretend that their sexual choices are valid, or important.
Heterosexual marriage benefits society. THAT is why society benefits heterosexual marriage.
I've yet to see any reasonable evidence that homosexual "marriages" benefit society.
Until it's proved that they do, there is no reason for society to provide benefits to them.
Tolerance is not respect. The Left demanded tolerance for gays. Then, once it got power, showed absolutely NO tolerance for those Christians who disagree with gays.
So, fuck them. It's time to destroy every single "gay rights" law. It's time to give gays the "tolerance" that the Left shows to Masterpiece Cakeshop, etc. et al.
[Trump's] speech should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
It is. As we see left wingers never hold leftist politicians to any standard. So when they criticize any non-leftist politician including Trump for anything the response is mockery. This is the standard you've advanced.
"Well, I'm going to assume it was a woman who said that." Trump said. "And I'm going to say 'Just marry one man. I'm cool with that.'"
"If you can find one."
Gee, it just doesn't have the same ring to it that way, does it?
Who cares what the current definition of marriage is: quick to trip to Vegas and separation two weeks later, fifth time around, commitment to your pet, two guys and three gals, gays, common law husband, threesomes, prenups? Have at it. Does anyone even care what arrangements other people have with their relationships? I don’t.
I would like a word, a new definition, for a man and woman, sexually faithful to each other, committed to each other for life and sacrificial for the children they have. Whatever that word is, I’m part of that group. If some people are excluded, well then get “married” to whatever you want. I don’t care.
He discussion about Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with controlling anyone’s sex life. It’s about a demand to society to recognize one’s relationship as “marriage”....
And you demand that they not recognize it, or at least allow people to break the laws surrounding the Full Faith and Credit clause. So what?
So it's two diametric demands and ours is more popular and protected by the constitution and SCOTUS rulings. Deal with it.
Oh, and ours is less mean to people. Sure, people have a right to think demeaning and cruel thoughts about other people. But that's what you're seeking to defend and make actionable whereas we're just defending things made in/out of love.
It's not hard to see why you're on the losing side.
Only interstate commerce.
All commerce is interstate. See Wickard v. Filburn.
You're welcome.
Not knowing when to quit was the theme of the night.
KAMALA HARRIS: My pronouns are she, her and hers.
CHRIS CUOMO: Mine, too.
HARRIS: Alright.
Sort of like with Julian Castro and abortion funds for transgender women.
Liz has that "school marm" image that she is trying to shake. She doesn't understand that going nasty isn't a good way to ingratiate yourself with the voters in the general election.
However, it does work in the primaries. Party loyalists want somebody who will be an attack dog for the party.
She also had to shake off some comments that she made in her first campaign against an imprisoned murderer getting state funds for his gender transition.
Hey over it flyovers. Bunch of pussies. She lived near me FYI.
“All commerce is interstate. See Wickard v. Filburn. “
The decision was not based on a constitution. And the claim that “all commerce is interstate” doesn’t pass the laughing test. Read the constitution.
I would like a word, a new definition, for a man and woman, sexually faithful to each other, committed to each other for life and sacrificial for the children they have
Exactly. Separation of Chamber, Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, and [Spaghetti] Bowel, etc. and State. Civil unions for all consenting adults #NoJudgment #NoLabels. Marriage to normalize (i.e. promote) behaviors and organizations that have a redeeming value to society, to humanity. Tolerance of everything and everyone else that can be reasonably, consistently tolerated.
This thread ought to prove one think to Althouse: The true believing Bolsheviks will shoot the half-hearted Mensheviks first.
Sure, they'll try to get around to shooting the conservatives eventually. But they won't appreciate attacking well-armed citizens nearly as much as they will elderly, soft academics.
PPPT: "All commerce is interstate. See Wickard v. Filburn."
And with that, the dictionary stopped being useful.
Irony too!
Bruce Hayden has done General Grant a disservice. His Vicksburg campaign showed his brilliance in maneuver. His Northern Virginia campaign faced a different strategic problem. In six weeks of battle Grant kept moving around Lee's right flank until the Army jumped the James River and besieged Petersburg, locking up Lee until Appamatox.
n.n. said:
"Mr. Majestyk:
To which I can only reply: 'What chu talk'n bout, Willis?'
What is your question?"
Just my effort, lame perhaps, to use a catch phrase from the TV show Different Strokes to say in a humorous way that I didn't understand your comment. Actually, I often find it hard to understand your comments. Not trying to be a jerk, just letting you know.
My ultra liberal neighbors recently took down their Julian Castro for President sign and replaced it with a Warren one.
The die is cast.
It has been established that the person who asked the question was a plant. And they lived happily ever after. Amen.
Mr. Majestyk:
Yes, I remember Different Strokes. It is rerunning on Antenna TV. Anyway, I am willing to explain. The crux of my comments is the pursuit of internally, externally, and mutually consistent.
“And you demand that they not recognize it, or at least allow people to break the laws surrounding the Full Faith and Credit clause. So what?
I demand that people, not the courts be allowed to make the decision about homosexual marriage.
And no, no law requires businesses recognize homosexual marriage.
“So it's two diametric demands and ours is more popular and protected by the constitution and SCOTUS rulings. Deal with it. “
Fake news. Constitution does not say a word about homosexual marriage. You need to read it one day. It’s an amazing document.
“Oh, and ours is less mean to people.”
You want to take away people’s freedom of choice. But if course you see yourself as a “good person”, so it’s okay.
‘Sure, people have a right to think demeaning and cruel thoughts about other people.”
You are generous enough to defend freedom of thought... amazing, do freedom of speech now.
“But that's what you're seeking to defend and make actionable whereas we're just defending things made in/out of love.”
So, your views and ideas are good, because you are a man of love. You cannot possibly be wrong.
Self-congratulation as a basis for policy decisions.
Btw, if you are proven wrong, does it also mean that you are evil?
“It's not hard to see why you're on the losing side.”
It’s as if 2016 never happened.
Btw, if you lose in 2929 again, would it prove that you are evil?
You show that you live in an impregnable, indestructible bubble. Your belief in your infallibility, inherent goodness, even saintly status makes you deaf to any arguments against your proposals. You anointed yourself to be the voice of all good, against all evil. How can you possibly acknowledge that you are wrong about anything?
"Kind of a secret asshole"? It's no secret to anyone with eyes and ears. The blind and/or deaf might need to be informed about it via Braille and/or sign language. She's the shushy librarian, the persimmon-visaged schoolmarm who is going to inform you at great length of your shortcomings, and how she has plans for controlling every aspect of your life since you are not smart enough make those decisions on your own without screwing it up.
Dolly Madison has better Zingers-- less empty calories!!
this was on a par with 0'-bama's churlish
"The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back"
Am I seriously having a conversation with someone on a one-man mission to overturn the 1942 SCOTUS precedent forming the cornerstone of US jurisprudence on intra-state commerce regulation?
Well I'll be damned.
Hey, it's not "in a constitution."
Well, by that illogic, neither is Marbury v. Madison. Or the Heller decision. Or judicial review. Overturn them all!
You go, girl.
Trump does this, except he doesn't mock normalcy.
You show that you live in an impregnable, indestructible bubble. Your belief in your infallibility, inherent goodness, even saintly status makes you deaf to any arguments against your proposals. You anointed yourself to be the voice of all good, against all evil. How can you possibly acknowledge that you are wrong about anything?
Well, I guess you could always try to go out and tell everyone how credible you are based on your believe in your own incompetence, inherent evil and love of all things demonic. But people have a way of not going along with folks so enamored by their own darkness.
Other than that, it's fun to watch Mr. Constitution himself sputter about will of the people and old documents while not having a clue about the actual clauses within it or the how the people of enough states have made their will clear enough for the Supreme Court to use that in deciding on what's what.
Putin's Russia calls, HA. He has some gays for you to beat down.
“Bruce Hayden has done General Grant a disservice. His Vicksburg campaign showed his brilliance in maneuver. His Northern Virginia campaign faced a different strategic problem. In six weeks of battle Grant kept moving around Lee's right flank until the Army jumped the James River and besieged Petersburg, locking up Lee until Appamatox.”
Thanks for the correction. My point was that, at times, Grant seemed willing to grind down the Confederates with his advantages in men and materials. At least, as Lincoln pointed out, he fought. Maybe I should have compared Eisenhower and Patton at the Battle of the Bulge.
As Milwaukee guy said...
In six weeks of battle Grant kept moving around Lee's right flank until the Army jumped the James River and besieged Petersburg, locking up Lee until Appamatox.
And WHILE Lee was trapped at Petersburg; bleeding out his army;
The WHOLE Rest of the states in Rebellion were taken; and INCINERATED by Uncle Billie Sherman, and his Army of the Tennessee. The Whole Point of Grant's campaign, was to prevent Lee from reinforcing Joe Johnson.
WHEN did the war end? When Lee evacuated from Petersburg
WHEN did That happen? When the 15th corps made it to Goldsboro North Carolina
{The 15th corps fought from Vicksburg, to Chattanooga, to Dalton, to Atlanta, to Savannah, to Columbia, to Goldsboro; and were about 10 days away from Petersburg when Lee evacuated}
Beta O'Rourke wasn't saying that Same Sex Marriage between Transgender Siblings is legal
He was DEMANDING, that ANY Organization that is tax exempt, be REQUIRED to perform the marriage
Can you provide a link to back up this assertion. I think this is 100% unadulterated bullshit.
It has been 52 years since Loving v. Virginia was decided, show me one successful case (hell, even provide an example that survived a summary judgement) where a private citizen or religious organization was sued for refusing to perform a inter racial marriage. (If you are a justice of the peace or other government official whose responsibilities include registering or performing marriages, that is a different story).
Constitution does not say a word about homosexual marriage.
If I am not mistaken, the Constitution does not say a word about marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) at all. It also doesn't mention God (other than phrasing the year of ratification as "The Year of Our Lord").
So she's kind of a secret asshole?
other than Marianne and Tulsi,
who in that Klown Kar isnt a member of Anus Anonymous?
she's an asshole and should pick Yang as VP
ANUS & ANDY 2020
Just an observation - and understanding all the dynamics here since I moderate comments myself at a certain blog catering to a certain crowd that has a national following - but if such hostile and insulting comments make it through moderation, it kind of calls into question the whole point of putting comments into moderation limbo.
If Ann deleted hostile and insulting comments, this blog would have very few comments. My comment might have been hostile, but it certainly wasn't an insult. I was merely pointing out Ann's hypocrisy. I remember when she used to boast about her "cruel neutrality".
I think Ann is moderating to prevent off topic comments (although if so, why she allows n.n. to turn every thread into a screed about abortion, is beyond me).
Ann gets defensive when her integrity is challenged. She accuses me of lying and being sloppy and inept, but has yet to dig up an example that demonstrates I am incorrect. If you could point out an example of Ann criticizing Trump for anything he has said or tweeted, it would help her out.
fred said...
He was DEMANDING, that ANY Organization that is tax exempt, be REQUIRED to perform the marriage
Can you provide a link to back up this assertion. I think this is 100% unadulterated bullshit.
do you live inside a bubble?
'There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we're going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans,'
O’Rourke’s ‘church tax’ idea plays into conservative paranoia about same-sex marriage
oh wait?
so, you're saying that they don't have to Perform the marriages, AS LONG AS they don't Oppose them, IN ANY WAY?
so, you're saying that refusing to perform a marriage, isn't opposing it?
That takes the cake!
So
Sounds like something Trump would say. The insult that is.
but enough about Grant, let's talk about a REAL Hero! Someone we can ALL be Proud Of!
Jubilation T Cornpone
Amazing that the United States was the richest and most powerful nation in the world all before the Court gave the power to FDR to regulate all commerce. Imagine my surprise to learn that the first 150 years were an aberration. And only the last 77 constitute a useful system.
What's that? Yes, there is demonstrably a different system that properly limited the reach (if not the grasp) of federal power? And that was the system outlined in the governing documents of the country?
I'll be damned. Smaller centralized government remains an option.
Blogger Chief Executive Lawbreaker - Whiny Weasel Trumpkins said...
Am I seriously having a conversation with someone on a one-man mission to overturn the 1942 SCOTUS precedent forming the cornerstone of US jurisprudence on intra-state commerce regulation?
Um, that's "completely overturning US jurisprudence on intra-state commerce regulation and replacing it with obvious, utterly dishonest crap".
And yes, people who actually value the US Constitution want to get rid of Wickard v. Filburn
Look out SCOTUS! There are now two armchair know-it-alls who have completely figured out how to redo the economy and the way it's regulated since 1942 and the 133 times greater it's grown since then. Hell, this is the same crowd that wants to have the same regulation that they had when they gave us the 1929 Depression and Hitler/Stalin war resulting from that, so you know you can trust them to have all the right ideas!
Field Marshall Freder: "If Ann deleted hostile and insulting comments, this blog would have very few comments."
If Ann deleted 100% BS lie-filled comments this blog would have approximately ZERO Freder comments.
Particularly in regards to Federal Case summaries....if you know what I mean...(*cough* Bundy Case *cough*)
Amazing that the three members of SCOTUS who made "The Switch in Time to Save the Nine" had no problems remaking the entire American economy get your full support.
And all they had to do was overturn 150 years of American jurisprudence.
They had to ignore freedom of association and federalism. They had to ignore plain language.
As for me, I prefer greater freedom and less centralized control eroding that freedom. You take the contrary position.
Birkel is free at any time to explain which of his own "freedoms" a 1942 SCOTUS decision has removed from him. What would he be doing with his time and his precious livelihood if it were decided differently? Can he name a single thing he would like to do that he can't because of it?
Or failing that, he could at least tell us what a rich Republican mega-donor like Charles Koch can't do that he'd like to do because of it. Republican voters love to carry the water for those folks.
But no. It's just about whatever meaningless rhetoric he can throw at the wall along with the kitchen sink in case a billionaire might decide to ever push that abstraction as well. The real-life examples don't even matter, here. There doesn't have to be a single one, in fact. That's how removed these people are from reality.
If "interstate commerce" = "commerce" (without limitation), then the word "interstate" is surplussage, extraneous, unnecessary. Interpreting "interstate commerce" in that way thus defies standard rules for constitutional interpretation, not to mention, as others have pointed out, some 150 years of precedent before 1942. Does anyone really think that the Founders meant to give the Federal Governemnt plenary authority to regulate all aspects of the economy? The same people who had just fought a revolution to overthrow a tyranical Parliament and King? The same people who argued amongst themselves whether a Bill of Rights was even necessary given the limited powwers of the government they were creating?
"This is the equivalent of continuing a military maneuver that depends on surprise, after seeing that surprise has been lost"
Like the initial raid at Waco.
I'm with Greg, Birkel, Drago, and many others.
And of course it's a much longer list than just Wickard; Roe v. Wade, Griggs v. Duke Power; Reynolds v. Sims, and above all Gonzalez v. Raich for starters.
Mr. M.,
I have come to the conclusion that n. n. is somebody's entry into the Turing Test contest -- a fascinating attempt, but ultimately unsuccessful. The universal appearance in n.n.'s comments of cliches and stock phrases glued together in not quite meaningful ways is the giveaway.
Post a Comment