Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think all of the instances are deplorable. We are how many years from the dark ages? Religion does not get a pass here. It's the instrument of manipulation, as culpable as the people who use it for these ends.

Were the dark ages worse than the 20th century?

But, yes, all the instances are deplorable. And, while goat-boy did indeed get what he deserved, think of the poor goat?!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
When you start arguing whether hacking people to death with a machete is less savage than burning them alive, you have already lost your argument.

That would be true, but I didn't think anyone in Khartoum was dead yet as a result of the Big Bad Teddy Bear Naming Incident.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That would be true, but I didn't think anyone in Khartoum was dead yet as a result of the Big Bad Teddy Bear Naming Incident.

Given that you are someone who sets himself up as a big believer in personal rights, I find it very odd that you minimize the chilling effect of things like "the Big Bad Teddy Bear Naming Incident." You do realize that people live under that crazyness, real people?




ETA: I can't remember my password or even the email for my blue_Triangle sock. Because of my negligence the whol board has to suffer

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Egg on the National Review's face, I tell you what. Let's see how exercized the wingnuts get.

Uh, Reynolds, Malkin, Morrisey, LGF, Confederate Yankee and Powerline have already beaten you to the story - and criticized as appropriate.

So not only are you wrong, you're late.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Egg on the National Review's face, I tell you what. Let's see how exercized the wingnuts get.

They won't get very exercized because they aren't liberals, Ty. The Natl Review will write some ludicrous claptrap, filled with evasive wordplay, defending itself. It will then conclude the defense with a pile of vague, snotty shots at the Left.

You realize if the left wing took a page from Natl Review, it would get a lot further, don't you? Natl Review gets respect because they're arrogant assholes who write very funny stuff. I love the magazine just because its funny. I don't agree with half of its politics but have bought it for years just to read those five pages at the beginning where it savages self-righteous liberals.

When DailyKos and MoveOn learn to pick up a poison pen with the same sort of reckless, comedic approach the Review takes in its best moments, the Right will be in trouble. But as long as the Left allows itself to be defined by the shrill and wonky and unapproachable and unfunny, its never going to compete.

The Left needs to stop telling everyone how much it knows and how evil the GOP is and started using satire and comedy. It's much more effective. Why do you think the Right hates Michael Moore so much? It isn't because his movies pull heartstrings or dredge up touchy issues. Everyone knows he's a full of shit advocate. But for about a half hour in Farenheit 9/11 he was a really fucking funny advocate. There were parts of that movie that were damn funny, and they also happened to be the most spot on, and strongest criticisms in it.

Yes, I realize this is an aside, but it popped into my head, so I said it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They won't get very exercized because they aren't liberals, Ty. The Natl Review will write some ludicrous claptrap, filled with evasive wordplay, defending itself. It will then conclude the defense with a pile of vague, snotty shots at the Left.

You realize if the left wing took a page from Natl Review, it would get a lot further, don't you? Natl Review gets respect because they're arrogant assholes who write very funny stuff. I love the magazine just because its funny. I don't agree with half of its politics but have bought it for years just to read those five pages at the beginning where it savages self-righteous liberals.

When DailyKos and MoveOn learn to pick up a poison pen with the same sort of reckless, comedic approach the Review takes in its best moments, the Right will be in trouble. But as long as the Left allows itself to be defined by the shrill and wonky and unapproachable and unfunny, its never going to compete.

The Left needs to stop telling everyone how much it knows and how evil the GOP is and started using satire and comedy. It's much more effective. Why do you think the Right hates Michael Moore so much? It isn't because his movies pull heartstrings or dredge up touchy issues. Everyone knows he's a full of shit advocate. But for about a half hour in Farenheit 9/11 he was a really fucking funny advocate. There were parts of that movie that were damn funny, and they also happened to be the most spot on, and strongest criticisms in it.

Yes, I realize this is an aside, but it popped into my head, so I said it.

We run Al Franken for Senate and get criticized for no sense of humor?

That's almost as funny as runing Al Gore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Uh, Reynolds, Malkin, Morrisey, LGF, Confederate Yankee and Powerline have already beaten you to the story - and criticized as appropriate.

So not only are you wrong, you're late.

"criticized as appropriate" >< "exercised"

But thanks for playing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Given that you are someone who sets himself up as a big believer in personal rights, I find it very odd that you minimize the chilling effect of things like "the Big Bad Teddy Bear Naming Incident." You do realize that people live under that crazyness, real people?

I minimize nothing, my friend. I merely call it like I see it, and to my knowledge, no one has been burned alive yet. (N.B. -- If and when they are, that will be a warming effect, not a chilling effect.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
They won't get very exercized because they aren't liberals, Ty.

Exactly the tone they struck with that Beauchamp affair. Thanks for reminding me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Exactly the tone they struck with that Beauchamp affair. Thanks for reminding me.

If a Republican can't be a HypocRite, who can be?

Aren't we all still waiting for someone to get as incensed about the "secret" ballot in a public election in Virginia as they are about union elections?

Don't hold your breath, Ty. This is what they do.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We run Al Franken for Senate and get criticized for no sense of humor?

That's almost as funny as runing Al Gore.

Not snotty enough. Too much of an everyman. For years, the GOP has milked middle class voters who want to call themselves wealthy by branding itself as the party of the moneyed (the funniest myth, since there are just as many wealthy democrats as republicans). People could feel like they were players if they favored the GOP. It was a cheap way of advertising your "prosprusness," like a BMW or a Rolex or talking about vacations in places in the Caribbean Expedia described as "upper crust."

If Franken put his excellent wit into a Bill Buckleyish delivery he'd do better. He tries to dumb it down to the level of the likes of Limbaugh or O'Reilly. He should be aiming for a higher common denominator.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Exactly the tone they struck with that Beauchamp affair. Thanks for reminding me.

Over time, considering all of their reactions, the compoite response will have been smooth, and obnoxious (the right kind).

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
"criticized as appropriate" >< "exercised"

But thanks for playing.

This is so ludicrous it barely deserves a response. You really are out of your mind.

NRO immediately apologized, said they would look into it.

Malkin, LGF, CQ et. al then immediately and openly criticized NRO for doing enough.

This all within about 3 seconds of the story coming out.

--
How does this remotely compare to the New Republic - which stood by and defended the indefensible Beauchamp crap for nearly 5 months? Again, this several months after Beaucamp retracted. Franklin Foer lied to his readers and the rest of the world over and over again (and will probably be fired before long).

PS - see also the rest of the America-loathing lefty blogosphere, that took up the Rather-like "Fake but Accurate" mantra once the truth (or lack thereof) of those stories was revealed.

PPS - Wow. Lookee here. Currently the lead item on instapundit:

- ED MORRISSEY interviews Kathryn Jean Lopez (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com...ives/016194.php)about the Thomas Smith retraction. Since some lefty bloggers (Hi Ty!) and New Republic apologists (Hi GGG!) are trying to draw equivalence between this story and the Beauchamp affair, let's note two key differences: NRO quickly responded and retracted, instead of circling the wagons and attacking its critics, and the story in question -- though wrong -- didn't constitute a libel of American troops in the field. To some people, at least, that's a significant matter

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If a Republican can't be a HypocRite, who can be?

Aren't we all still waiting for someone to get as incensed about the "secret" ballot in a public election in Virginia as they are about union elections?

Don't hold your breath, Ty. This is what they do.

Do you have to be an elitist liberal asshat to understand what this post means?

Because I clearly don't get it, other than a typical sneering tone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
NRO immediately apologized, said they would look into it.

It turns out they had been warned about him six weeks ago, so the "immediately" thing isn't looking so good.

Malkin, LGF, CQ et. al then immediately and openly criticized NRO for doing enough.

I will leave it to anyone who can stomach Malkin and her peers to decide whether she struck a consistent tone.

This all within about 3 seconds of the story coming out.

Exactly.

How does this remotely compare to the New Republic - which stood by and defended the indefensible Beauchamp crap for nearly 5 months? Again, this several months after Beaucamp retracted. Franklin Foer lied to his readers and the rest of the world over and over again (and will probably be fired before long).

Foer's piece today ("Fog Of War") about what they knew and did stands up pretty well. Have you read it? How did Foer lie?