"For some reason, I'm dedicating my pre-6-a.m. writing to arguing with chickelit."

I write, just now, deep in the comments thread for "What if the only people who took advantage of an unlimited leave policy were women?"

1. "'2 Thessalonians 3:10-13 is as good a retort as any to the "question" posited by Althouse.'" [Link to St. Paul's epistle added.] "Surely, Paul considered taking care of the household and the children within it as work! You think the reference to 'work' means holding down an income-producing job in the modern sense? That would be a nutty thing to believe."

2. "'Ritmo goes full Titus.'" [Reacting to this.] "No, Titus in his fullness would break free of whatever political obsession had its grip on the thread and give us real relief. You need a wild sense of fun and abandon to begin to replicate Titus."

The liberal's willingness to make a completely un-PC attack on conservatives glares so painfully when the victim of the attack turns out not to be a conservative.

Complaining about the Citizens United case, Ritmo Brasileiro said:

Thoughtful reasoning? What thoughtfully reasoned excerpts from the decision were quoted? And how thoughtfully reasoned do you suspect Steven's ruling was? The guy is ninety, you know and slurs his speech. Yet your conserva-times chose him to do the deed and I saw very little of what he had to say quoted here.

Sofa King said:

Wait a minute. You don't think...you think Stevens was part of the majority! BWaaaahaaa haaa! You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, you pompous windbag! Why don't you come back after at least reading the summary! I wonder if your opinion of Stevens will suddenly, conveniently completely reverse!

Ritmo's response? Something about only "skimming" the case and assuming the conservatives must have "co-opted" the "senile" liberal justice to get their majority. Suddenly, "the specifics of all this" aren't what really matter. You know: When the "specifics" don't feel like good slingable mud, you just don't care about using personal remarks against the justices as a way of saying you didn't like the outcome of a case.

I love the way the liberal's willingness to make a completely un-PC attack on a person, when that person is conservative, glares so painfully when it turns out that the target of the attack isn't actually conservative.