Clooney Admits He's a Liberal For The Six Billionth Time

Actually, there are parts of this I like.

The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

Hey, I agree with him. The liberals who voted for the Iraq War did so precisely out of the cowardice he names. They never agreed with the war; they just didn't want people to say bad things about them, like "He's against going to war in Iraq."

And Clooney's right-- part of free speech is freedom fior someone else to criticize your speech. Too many liberals seem to want speech without contrary speech-- as if it's chilling their right to dissent for me to exercise my right to dissent.

As he says: You believe in something, admit it, don't hide from it like a pussy. And when the criticism comes, take it like a fucking man, like like a mewling baby.

Of course, it's easier for Clooney to be brave out in Hollywood, which keeps letting him make movies despite never actually making any money. Still, I gotta say, I agree with him.

Liberals, admit you're liberal, cut the shit, and stop the fucking whining.

And oh yeah:

"Fuck you" to the Democrats who claim they were "misled."

Gotta tell ya, the Lanternjawed Lunkhead is making all kinds of sense to me right now.

Posted by: Ace at 03:23 AM



Comments

1 Don't miss out of Greg Gutfeld's mockery of Clooney's post.

As always, the comments are half the fun.

Posted by: jmn at March 14, 2006 03:30 AM (FvqJT)

2 Gotta say, Ace, I agree with you 100% here. Other liberals should act like Clooney. Admit it, take your licks, and stop screaming that the First Amendment is dead every time people criticize you. And Clooney is dead right on the "misled" liberals as well.

Conservative talk radio seems to be criticizing Clooney for these comments, when it should be praising him for them.

Posted by: Oxnardian at March 14, 2006 04:30 AM (TRBZ6)

3 It's odd that liberals claim to feel so repressed. I can't admit to being a conservative in a typical room of people without an uncomfortable silence ensuing. I've had many nominally apolitical conversations where liberals spontaneously started Bush-bashing, and a neighbor had a neighborhood-wide party Saturday night themed around mocking Cheney's hunting accident. I've never encountered conservatives who broadcast their views so flagrantly.

Liberals don't seem terribly repressed to me.

Posted by: geoff at March 14, 2006 04:52 AM (vpYuK)

4 Geoff, liberals are so exquisitely sensitive, they think being disagreed with is an intolerable burden. All points of view are equally valid (well, especially theirs), and it's so judgmental of you to take a contrarian view of anything they say.

Not being allowed to express themselves without contradiction is what they call repression. Another 'benefit' they've gotten from an idealistically monolithic academic system, I guess.

Posted by: S. Weasel at March 14, 2006 05:48 AM (1HKrT)

5 yeh, you got to admire a spoiled, wealthy jerk who has done nothing but stoke his own ego, patting himself on the back for his own "bravery", while slandering those who have risked their lives for this country. What an poseur. When he makes a movie showing the religous bigotry of Moslems and their mass murdering actions, thereby actually risking his life, then I'll be impressed by his "honesty" and "bravery". Until then, he can stick it.

Posted by: pendelton at March 14, 2006 05:57 AM (wIQO1)

6 You're quite right. When we point out that their comments, protests, and political actions are harming US soldiers in Iraq, they whine that we're "questioning their patriotism." When in fact we're questioning their ability and willingness to understand and take responsibility for the damage they're doing.

And as far as Clooney's comment above - we weren't questioning their patriotism because they were against the war. We were questioning it because they were choosing the assessments of foreign intelligence services of countries that had been bought off by Saddam over the domestic assessments.

Posted by: geoff at March 14, 2006 06:04 AM (vpYuK)

7 Gotta disagree here. The Dems who voted for the war were correct, for whatever reason they decided to vote that way. We shouldn't condemn their vote as cowardly. Running away from that decision now in the face of hectoring from Clooney and the Kos-like activists is the cowardly act. Don't ecourage them.

Most of all, you should never let them get away unchallenged in claiming that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. It was the liberals who told us in the wake of 9/11 that it wasn't just about religious fanatics in Afghanistan, but the event had deep "root causes" in Israel and ....IRAQ (and a lot of other connected sh1t). Of couse the Leftists were wrong about whose fault these problems were and never thought to blame Saddam. But on one level, I agreed with them whole heartedly about "root causes" and so did the Bush Administration. Don't let these people re-write history. The most important fact that Americans are in danger of forgetting or losing sight of is the fact that Saddam's Iraq had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11.

Posted by: John in Tokyo at March 14, 2006 06:34 AM (PzGDr)

8 The Dems who voted for the war were correct, for whatever reason they decided to vote that way.

I guess the point is that they were correct, but unprincipled. Poll-driven politics is unsavory way to make these sorts of decisions.

Posted by: geoff at March 14, 2006 06:44 AM (vpYuK)

9 Shut up and act.

Posted by: kevlarchick at March 14, 2006 07:07 AM (bWRxm)

10 Clooney might have something resembling a point, but a broken watch is right twice a day, so BFD. He's still an asshole. Let's set aside the fact that an assertation of no link between al-Qaeda and Saddam is nonsense; Clooney and other liberals knew it? Really? Movie stars are so fucking smart that they knew intelligence that professional spooks didn't. Wow, they really are geniuses out there in LA. Clooney is the most uninformed, insufferable jerk off in Hollywood, and that's a difficult accomplishment.

Posted by: UGAdawg at March 14, 2006 07:22 AM (alGm/)

11 Shut up and act.

I'm not sure he's capable. Of acting that is.

Posted by: BrewFan at March 14, 2006 07:35 AM (0AD+O)

12 seemingly, he is uncapable of either, sadly

Posted by: wiserbud at March 14, 2006 08:17 AM (56ssE)

13 it's so judgmental of you to take a contrarian view of anything they say.

I believe that too many liberals have such a poor self___ of themselves that criticism of their words constitutes criticism of their core beings. When you question what they say, you are questioning who they are.

While I agree with Clooney's comments to an extent, I believe that his biggest problem is that he assumes that every Democrat on the planet thinks the exact same way that he does. While I am sure that there were some Dems who were "scared" to vote against the war, I am sure there were many who felt it was the right thing to do. I agree with John in Tokyo. The Dems who are backpedaling now are the hypocrites. They see their political aspirations taking a beating from the likes of Clooney and Kos and they are running for cover.

Based on Kos' track record with candidates, I would be running away from him, not toward him.

Posted by: Steve L. at March 14, 2006 08:25 AM (hpZf2)

14 "And Clooney's right-- part of free speech is freedom of criticism of your speech. "

Is this a typo? I thought your point was that free speech doesn't bring freedom from criticism.

James

Posted by: James R. Rummel at March 14, 2006 08:41 AM (Fz8wz)

15 a neighbor had a neighborhood-wide party Saturday night themed around mocking Cheney's hunting accident.

What the fuck kind of neigborhood do you live in? That's just weird.

Posted by: Bart at March 14, 2006 09:02 AM (q5DUn)

16 Careful, Ace. From Gutfeld's bio: that post george clooney wrote wasn't so bad - it was the embarrassingly fawning comments that followed. I've never seen so much gratuitous sickening asskissing in my life


Posted by: shawn at March 14, 2006 09:18 AM (qJQ8b)

17 We should be asking ourselves what this is all about.

This Clooney guy has said and one many things that make the news. His antics date back to his silly war on the paparazzi. Why does he do it?

He does it for the publicity, of course. I'm no fan of George Clowney, but I'll admit the man is slick. His outspoken-ness propelled his image and career -- in a good way, not in a Dixie Chix way.
Clooney is a fantastic self-promoter. He uses the media like the star-struck puppets they are.

Like I said, the man deserves credit for playing the media to be his bitches and create his god-like image and persona.
The man has a plan. I'm not quite sure what the plan is, yet. But I'm venturing a guess it has something to do with political aspirations...of the highest sort.

Posted by: Bart at March 14, 2006 09:23 AM (q5DUn)

18 I believe that too many liberals have such a poor self___ of themselves that criticism of their words constitutes criticism of their core beings. When you question what they say, you are questioning who they are.

This explains something I've long wondered about: how can liberals live in the most free society that has ever existed on this planet and yet constantly scream "repression"? That 'V for Vendetta' comic book was the moonbat author's view of England when Margaret Thatcher was PM. I mean, WTF?

I think that, for whatever reason, hearing, just hearing a non-liberal idea or point of view is simply intolerable to them. Therefore the mere presence of such ideas constitutes repression.

An obvious example of this is the homosexual rights movement which started out as 'please leave us alone and don't persecute us or make us out to be criminals' but has now morphed into 'and oh, by the way, any criticism of us, however tepid, is a hate crime.'

This is a cousin of the 'stop questioning my patriotism' canard which is what you hear when you criticize their criticism on the Iraq war.

Lefty moonbats never want to hear a discouraging word. Or they'll sue your ass.

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 14, 2006 09:33 AM (we8HZ)

19 And why dont he also admit to being stupid as well

Posted by: spurwing plover at March 14, 2006 09:34 AM (b1Fi6)

20 Bart's comments highlight why I'm not particularly fond of George Clooney - I remember watching some of the coverage of Princess Diana's death (who could avoid it?) and seeing him hold a press conference to criticize the paparazzi.

He took the death of a public figure and made it about him. I've always found that sort of narcissism distasteful. When a public figure makes a statement like that and uses the phrase 'it's not about me' or 'this is bigger than me' - it usually indicates just the opposite.

Posted by: Slublog at March 14, 2006 09:38 AM (R8+nJ)

21 And why dont he also admit to being stupid as well

Brilliant! Cuts right to the heart of it. Unbelieveably funny and yet, incredibly insightful.

spurwing, you, sir (or madam), are an absolute genius.

Posted by: wiserbud at March 14, 2006 09:47 AM (56ssE)

22 And why dont he also admit to being stupid as well

You first.

Posted by: Alex at March 14, 2006 10:27 AM (bzAGj)

23 That was the best Ploverism I've seen. Clooney really is an airhead. And pompous. A pompous airhead.

But, he's got good hair.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at March 14, 2006 10:59 AM (lyH+2)

24 You first.

Boy, you can fuck with my woman, you can fuck with my hog, but don't fuck with the Spur-child!

Posted by: wiserbud at March 14, 2006 11:04 AM (56ssE)

25 Good one, spur.

And that Gutfeld post was hilarious. Thanks, jmn.

Bart, your theory gives me chills. I'm going to have nightmares about "President Clooney" for months now.

Speaking of nightmares...did I ever tell you guys about this dream I had where Clinton hit on me, and I responded with, "F*** you and the horse you rode in on"? Then I told Kofi Annan to go to hell (because OFF made me so mad). It was a very satisfying dream.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at March 14, 2006 11:15 AM (CJ8Zp)

26 geoff said:
You're quite right. When we point out that their comments, protests, and political actions are harming US soldiers in Iraq, they whine that we're "questioning their patriotism." When in fact we're questioning their ability and willingness to understand and take responsibility for the damage they're doing.

Geoff, it seems that your last sentence, which purports to justify the actions of conservatives, is really just another way of saying "we question your patriotism" Of course liberals understand the "damage" we're doing. That's the friggen point. Liberals see the criticism of thier patriotism, instead of a rebuttal on the merits of the argument, as showing the weakness of the causes of the war. Thus, conservatives are just stoking the fire.

geoff continues "And as far as Clooney's comment above - we weren't questioning their patriotism because they were against the war. We were questioning it because they were choosing the assessments of foreign intelligence services of countries that had been bought off by Saddam over the domestic assessments.

Um, 9/11 commision report is a foreign intelligence service? (no "collaborative relationship" ring a bell?) OK, that came out later. But proved that the dissenters original concerns were correct. Ditto for WMD. Ditto for stabilizing the region. So, your questioning the patriotism of someone who disagrees with the gov't and later turned out to be right is, again, attacking the form of the message, instead of the content of the argument.

Posted by: Larry the Urbanite at March 14, 2006 11:16 AM (Lpswv)

27 Bart and Slublog: GC is a publicity hound? Wow, do you think that might have been why he became a big screen actor (i.e. the non-artistic type)?

http://stevescars.digitaloutsider.org/captain_obvious.jpg

Posted by: Larry the urbanite at March 14, 2006 11:26 AM (Lpswv)

28 Here's another view from the liberal side: When y'all say "Be quiet. Don't criticize the gov't, we are at war! You are helping the terrorists!" Liberals see that as conservatives a) trying to squash dissent and free speech (in the name of a greater good, but that's what the liberals are thinking about thier protests, too) and b) that the conservatives are afraid to debate the actual arguments for/against the war.

All this stuff about liberals not be able to hear dissent is so much horse-pucky. It's the lack of considered deliberation, discussion and access to information that has bothered us all along. It's the secrecy, stupid!

Sorry. Back to your mutual masturbation fest. Everyone got thier picture of George Clooney out?

Posted by: Larry the Urbanite at March 14, 2006 11:40 AM (Lpswv)

29 Funny, I do have my picture of George Clooney out, 'cause I just ate lunch and I was hoping to bring it back up again.

Posted by: Dennis Quaid at March 14, 2006 11:42 AM (CJ8Zp)

30 Ace is right,
Clooney’s point about standing up, admitting who you are, and sticking to it, is a valid one (we should all do that). It’s sad, but moon bats can never speak the truth. Hell, if all the liberal politicians in this country started admitting the truth, as in, “We are Power Mad Socialists who want to take all your money and give it to your lazy neighbor”, conservatives would rule for a thousand years. Like Hal in 2001, this inner conflict may be at the heart of their Paranoid Schizophrenia.

Clooney is a fantastic self-promoter. He uses the media like the star-struck puppets they are.
Well said.

Sorry. Back to your mutual masturbation fest. Everyone got their picture of George Clooney out?
Yep…
I photo shopped furious George yesterday as the “King Kong of self-importance”.
http://aweaselslife.blogspot.com/

A. Weasel

Posted by: A. Weasel at March 14, 2006 11:51 AM (12gN8)

31 a neighbor had a neighborhood-wide party Saturday night themed around mocking Cheney's hunting accident.

I'm still waiting for my neighborhood to have a neighborhood-wide party themed around mocking Clinton's ejaculating accident. Well not mocking it so much as just re-enacting it. Unfortuneately, most of the women in my neighborhood have to much class to shop at GAP.

Posted by: Sticky B at March 14, 2006 11:51 AM (H5z9s)

32 Larry, don't be an ass. If you want to debate the war all over again knock yourself out. You feel you were right about it and you'd love to do your little dance all over again.

Thing is, we're already in it. Debating it over and over helps nobody except those who would put partisanship ahead of success in the Middle East. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, your absolutely worthless dissent at this point only hurts us.

And don't try to rewrite history either. There were many good arguments made against this war but No WMD's was simpy not one any of us heard.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 14, 2006 11:55 AM (uSomN)

33 Sorry. Back to your mutual masturbation fest. Everyone got thier [sic] picture of George Clooney out?

Yep..... Never go anywhere without it!!! He's dreeeeeeamy!!!!

Posted by: M|ke at March 14, 2006 12:04 PM (56ssE)

34 OT - I wonder if all the midwestern people will start claiming that FEMA and Bush were racial for not getting them out of there before the tornados hit.

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 14, 2006 12:11 PM (O+1/6)

35 Oh, what courage. Eheh.

I recall a line from the traitor in "The Guns of Navarone:" It's easy to be brave with your friends around you.

In other words, speaking out when you don't have to deal with reprisals isn't exactly a gutsy move.

Oh sure, Thinking People will make fun of him, Stupid People will praise him, and ultimately it won't make any difference. Clooney doesn't care about anyone or anything occupying the space beyond the perimeter of his massive ego.

Speak, George, speak, boldly to inspire the followers who flock to your insipid cinema, and loudly so we may appreciate the resulting echoes emanating from the vacuous canyon twixt your ears.

Posted by: bbeck at March 14, 2006 12:15 PM (qF8q3)

36 Spongeworthy: You remind me of a woman who thinks it's a good idea to dump $2000 in repairs into a $1000 car, bringing it's new value to ...$1500. How is continuing on a demonstrably poor course of action going to reap "success in the Middle East"? There is an apt business maxim: Cutting your losses. It's good business to admit you were wrong, take your lumps, fold up the tents, and try again on another front.

Oh, and by the way: You did exactly what I accused conservatives of, by saying my dissent hurts the US. Free country, free speech, I'm entitled to voice my opinion how I want. Hypocrite. But thanks for the free example! This is as easy as shooting 78 year old lawyers.

Posted by: Larry the Urbanite at March 14, 2006 12:17 PM (Lpswv)

37 I wonder if all the midwestern people will start claiming that FEMA and Bush were racial for not getting them out of there before the tornados hit.

Nope..... I don't think you are allowed to play the "Race card" with white people, it's a rule, or sompin.

A. Weasel

Posted by: A. Weasel at March 14, 2006 12:20 PM (12gN8)

38 Hey, Matey. Your trackbacks aren't working Consider this a manual trackback. Just click on my name for the whole post...

Clooney's comment that denying you're a liberal is like turning away from saying blacks should be allowed to sit on the front of the bus is BS. RE: Civil Rights Act - In the Senate, roughly 67% of Democrats supported the Act, while 81% of Republicans did. In the House, roughly 62% of Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act, compared to 80% of Republicans. More...


Posted by: PrivatePigg at March 14, 2006 12:21 PM (+0kbO)

39 You did exactly what I accused conservatives of, by saying my dissent hurts the US. Free country, free speech, I'm entitled to voice my opinion how I want. Hypocrite.

So what? Is it your opinion that your dissent has no effect on our enemies? Do you lefties actually think AQ ond others don't know there are millions of moonbats whining and cheapshotting their way into a discussion among adults?

You may claim your dissent actually strengthens the country, which in this instance I dspute, but you cannot claim it does not aid our enemies.

All that aside, no one says you shouldn't be able to run your ignorant mouth. Certainly not me.

The rest of your post is wasted bandwidth--good money after bad is all you need to say. It's a stupid point, particularly when you're talking about wasting the deaths of American soldiers, but it is a point you can make without insulting women.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 14, 2006 12:37 PM (uSomN)

40 Hey, Larry, you're a paranoid moonbat, tell me what you think of this.

Clooney is the real Manchurian Candidate.

Posted by: Bart at March 14, 2006 12:45 PM (Csucg)

41 All that aside, no one says you shouldn't be able to run your ignorant mouth. Certainly not me.

Um, thanks, I think.

Notice you didn't address the meat of the post, that discussions of "cutting our losses" are, in fact reasonable and prudent. (And, don't be so quick to judge, I think things are on the upswing now, and that a civil war could be a good thing, in that it might bring both Sunnis and Shia to the table. All I'm saying is I'd like to see the admin announce it's intentions for the near and far future. Notice I did NOT say timetable for withdrawal)

And, your right, good PC liberal that I am, i should not have insulted all women that way. I should have just used a randomly named idiot...like, oh, i dunno, bbeck or something.

Posted by: Larryt he urbanite at March 14, 2006 12:51 PM (Lpswv)

42 Larry said: You remind me of a woman who thinks it's a good idea to dump $2000 in repairs into a $1000 car, bringing it's [sic] new value to ...$1500. (Emphasis added)

Sexist!

Not to mention that your crude analysis doesn't take into account intangible worth. My precious Red Leader was worth millions of brand new Corvettes to me, you imperialist capitalistic gasbag.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at March 14, 2006 12:52 PM (CJ8Zp)

43 the meat of the post, that discussions of "cutting our losses" are, in fact reasonable and prudent.

Only if you simply don't care about the millions of ives that would undoubtably be lost if the area is not stable before we "cut our losses." But I guess, in your book, as long as it only happens to those dirty little people way over there in Arabistan, you're okay with that.

And if you STILL don't know what the near- and long-term intentions of this admin are, you have really just been actively not paying attention. Does "the transfer of power to the Iraqis and their military when the situation is stabilized" sound at all familiar to you?

Posted by: wiserbud at March 14, 2006 01:00 PM (56ssE)

44 wiserbud:

Liberal softy that I am, I do care about the people in "Arabistan". However, I dispute your contention that "millions" of lives would "undoubtably be lost" if we withdraw sooner rather than later. Thousands, perhaps, but that would be an Iraqi civil war, which we should not take sides in. We need to leave at some point and participating in a civil war will just delay that.

Also, re the intentions of the admin, excuse me if I'd like just a little more detail about exactly how that is to be accomplished. Oh, and what are we doing to prevent (and not become an active participant in) the civil war?

Posted by: Larry the urbanite at March 14, 2006 01:23 PM (Lpswv)

45 Iraq will be fine - even if there is some sectarian violence, Our people on the ground are not just going to sit around with their thumbs up their asses till civil war breaks out.

People (on both sides) always predict doom and gloom, worst case scenarios - and probably always have. Yet, in over two hundred years, economically, militarily, and culturally, America almost always wins. That's why liberals are so frequently wrong, because they always bet against America.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at March 14, 2006 01:38 PM (lyH+2)

46 What is this ignorant tripe about "not taking sides in a civil war"?

Because nobody "took sides" in Bosnia, we got the massacre at Srebrenica.

Because the French "took sides" in Britain's little domestic dispute, we got the United States of America.

Because nobody "took sides" in Cambodia, we got Pol Pot's killing fields.

Meanwhile, you all are saying we should go out of our way to foment civil war in Iran, in lieu of invading ourselves.

Just because a war is internal doesn't make it irrelevant to everyone else, nor does it make such a war off-limits to the rest of us. That argument is semantically void.

Posted by: Mastiff at March 14, 2006 01:42 PM (TUuB+)

47 You said it, Mastiff. Larry means well, but his actual policy recommendations are morally bankrupt. I think his head is all mixed up with thoughts of the inscrutable "other" or something. Yeah, heaven forbid we should take the side of democrats against fascists...

Posted by: sandy burger at March 14, 2006 01:46 PM (rGBYl)

48 It would not just be an Iraqi civil war. It would become even more of a magnet to those that want to see this effort fail miserably, so they can take over the country, much like Afghanistan. So I think your "thousands dead" number is an extremely low estimate.

Think Darfur, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, etc. 10s of millions of people were brutally murdered or mutilated as part of those "civil wars." Why, in your opinion, is the nobel sacrifice of a historically low number of American soldiers in this war not worth it to keep this from happening in Iraq?

I am not saying that we should take sides, but we should certainly do anything we can to keep this from becoming like another of the horrendous tragedies of the kind mentioned above.

And again, just because you have intentionally avoided learning about what is going on there, or more likely, flat out ignored the available information on the situation, does not mean that there is not a plan. The details are out there (despite the best efforts of the MSM) if you are really that interested. But don't be surprised if they don't fit into your already predetermined positions.

Posted by: wiserbud at March 14, 2006 01:46 PM (56ssE)

49 This one realy bothers me too:

Liberal softy that I am, I do care about the people in "Arabistan".

then:

Thousands, perhaps, but that would be an Iraqi civil war

So, your contention is that, as long as it is only those miserable little Iraqis that are killed, you're okay with that? How many thousands of innocent people have to be killed after we leave before you would be demanding that we step in and do something about the genocide?

You are so shallow, it is incredible. You want us to leave as soon as possible, so the country can fall into what you have deemed the "inevitable" civil war, just so you can say that your side was right.

Very nice.

Posted by: wiserbud at March 14, 2006 01:54 PM (56ssE)

50 Larry means well, but his actual policy recommendations are morally bankrupt.


Naw Sandy, I think Larry just wants to be a jerk. At first I thought he genuinly disagreed with us on some points, and could at least meet us half way on others, but I was wrong.


If he was actually an ok guy he would surely have posted something by now that wasnt smarmy and condescending. I haven't seen it yet.

He's a dick.

Posted by: at March 14, 2006 01:57 PM (OEbrS)

51 gotta catch a flight. Later.

Posted by: wiser..OUT! at March 14, 2006 02:01 PM (56ssE)

52 All I can say is: don't piss off Emma Peel, Larry. She'll tool you over.

Posted by: Canelone at March 14, 2006 02:04 PM (1Vbso)

53 Geoff, liberals are so exquisitely sensitive, they think being disagreed with is an intolerable burden. All points of view are equally valid (well, especially theirs), and it's so judgmental of you to take a contrarian view of anything they say.

Not being allowed to express themselves without contradiction is what they call repression.

Perfect description of pro-homos, which used to be a group 99% comprised of liberals, but now more and more conservatives are liberal, so it's a much more hybrid mix.

Another 'benefit' they've gotten from an idealistically monolithic academic system, I guess.

Absolutely. Academia is dominated and monopolized by pro-homos, just like the media and Hollywood.

Pro-homo propaganda rules - in the place of reality.

Posted by: alessandra at March 14, 2006 02:24 PM (n/PLG)

54 alessandra said sumthin' about homos...

lol

Posted by: Otho Laurence at March 14, 2006 02:30 PM (R9O/9)

55 Geoff, it seems that your last sentence, which purports to justify the actions of conservatives, is really just another way of saying "we question your patriotism"Nyoop. As has been pointed out ad nauseum by the military and pundits alike, the insurgents and terrorists have no chance to succeed militarily. Their sole hope is to wear down the American public, forcing a withdrawal. They are playing to you, Larry, and listening to everything you say to get feedback on how effective they are. Based on your comments even in this thread, they have every right to be hopeful.

But even though your words are directly prolonging the conflict and encouraging terrorists to kill US soldiers and Iraqi civilians and security personnel, I'd defend your right to speak them, as long as they reflected any sort of awareness of, and responsibility for, their negative effects. But if that were the case, we wouldn't have you yammering on about "the 16 words," "100,000 civilian deaths," "the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos," "blood for oil," "imperialism," "plastic turkey," "Cindy Sheehan," the "$8.8 billion dollars," and any of a half-dozen leaps to "impeachment" based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Even if you weren't stupid enough to promote any of these yourself (though I believe we can hang more than a couple around your neck), you have done nothing to bring reason back to the discussion. You, like the completely culpable moderate Muslim segment, have let the extremists represent you. Your tacit approval makes you an accessory to the consequences of the extremists' actions and words.

Several libs have openly stated, in the MSM and the blogosphere, that they can't help wanting the US to fail. This was not a surprise to us: our belief is that the rest of you just haven't been honest enough with yourselves to admit it. Liberal blogs and the MSM cheer military recruiting problems, celebrate reports that the military is over-extended, trumpet the latest casualty figures (I missed the part where they take any responsibility for any part of them), and wet their pants over controversies like Plamegate (here I'm thinking specifically of the sinestrosphere's "voice of reason," TPM). The patriotism becomes a little difficult to perceive, here.

More abstractly, I think my very first comment at this site (less than a year ago!) talked about the liberal abuse of the word "patriotism." For conservatives, patriotism means loyalty to an entity external to ourselves and common to us all. For liberals, patriotism means loyalty to a personal conception of how things should be. The liberal tent encompasses as many brands of patriotism as there are liberals. A good strategy if you want to have unquestionable patriotism.

There is an unfortunate asymmetry in the exercise of speech in this case. For the libs, expressing anti-war and anti-adminstration views provides aid and comfort to the enemy, giving them the hope that if they hang on for one more day, and kill one more soldier, they will prevail. For the conservatives, supporting the war and the adminstration disenheartens the terrorists, but seems to make the administration feel like it has a blank check on other issues. While we are at war, however, presenting an implacable front to the enemy is our highest concern. That's our little part of the propaganda war.

So, do I believe you're patriotic? Not at all. Do I think you even know what patriotism is? Not really. Do I think that dissent in wartime is unpatriotic? Not necessarily, but stupid, irresponsible dissent is.

Posted by: geoff at March 14, 2006 02:42 PM (vpYuK)

56 alessandra said sumthin' about homos...lol

Posted by Otho Laurence

pro-homos, to be more precise, which it looks like, includes you.

Posted by: alessandra at March 14, 2006 02:47 PM (n/PLG)

57 I don't know why I bother to argue with y'all. I just got a look at the latest CBS poll (which was pretty evenly sampled this time) and the majority of Americans agree with me on the costs of the war, the progress of the war, whether it's doing any good, when/how we should leave, media bias in war reporting, pretty much everything. Being the liberal elitist that I am, I'm suprised the masses have seen through all the admin propaganda, but as y'all say, they are smarter then we give them credt for.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/031306_poll_iraq.pdf

And, don't bother telling me it's biased, you don't agree, etc. Admin's efforts numbers are down in just about every category, so, even if they are biased, I'll assume they are consistently biased and a downward trend means what y'all think is soon to be obsolete. Buh-bye

Posted by: Larry the Urbanite at March 14, 2006 02:49 PM (Lpswv)

58 Larry, poll numbers aren't an argument. Even when I agree with them. Do you know how many people have seen the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sky?

Yo, alessandra, if I become a prohomo, can I drink maypo in Soho? Ho ho!

Posted by: S. Weasel at March 14, 2006 02:54 PM (rasT+)

59 Give me a break, Larry. I give you credit when you make a valid point, don't I? But now you sound like Mike, pointing at poll numbers.

Posted by: sandy burger at March 14, 2006 02:54 PM (Sw8Cn)

60 Yes, Larry, poll-driven politics suit you. And your party. Lakoff tells us that conservatives have a value system based on moral strength, while liberals base theirs on moral empathy. Explains why conservatives tend to ignore polls (except around election time), and liberal live by them.

Posted by: geoff at March 14, 2006 02:55 PM (vpYuK)

61 alessandra:

I was really digging your style around here and I was even going to start commenting on your blog - but - when I visited it I discovered your appreciation for those adolescent Greg Colbert photographs. Good God! Good Lord! What clichéd, feculant, bourgeois tripe that is! They look like Time magazine advertisements for mutual funds and credit cards. That's some quaint taste in art you've got there Ms. Lady. Ahhh, you and I dear, it's just not to be. And I'm no homo either.

Posted by: Otho Laurence at March 14, 2006 02:56 PM (R9O/9)

62 Interesting point, geoff. I suppose conservatives find polls useful only as predictors of election outcomes. Liberals see them as a measure of the correctness of a principle, since so many of them substitute consensus for any objective measure of the correctness of an idea. It's kind of the old 100 Monkeys thing writ large.

Posted by: S. Weasel at March 14, 2006 02:58 PM (rasT+)

63 Damn Otho, you are one ruthless, insulting bastard today.

Posted by: kevlarchick at March 14, 2006 03:18 PM (1o1Qz)

64 For the life of me I'll never understand why someone thinks a poll should determine action. What difference does it make what a majority of a specific group of people asked at a certain time in a certain way think of an issue or topic? If its the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, no matter what the majority think. Good Lord people the majority of Germany backed Hitler, the majority of people in the colonies wanted peace not a revolutionary war.

Just retarded.

Posted by: Canelone at March 14, 2006 03:22 PM (1Vbso)

65 Hey, George — if you really want to know what oppression and intolerance is, move to Saudi Arabia or China and try to start a Bible study. What a whiny baby!

Posted by: Stingray at March 14, 2006 03:53 PM (Ew1zl)

66 How mush money dose LOONIE CLOONIE make trying to pretend to be someone he is not?

Posted by: spurwing plover at March 14, 2006 03:54 PM (O2c+K)

67 Larry, poll numbers aren't an argument. Even when I agree with them.

One of my all-time favorite quotes:

"Just because someone agrees with you doesn't make you right. It just means there's someone else out there as stupid as you."

Posted by: at March 14, 2006 04:08 PM (hpZf2)

68 Very good point, Canelone. Can imagine what would have happened if they took polls before dropping bombs in any war?

Polls should rarely be used to determine policy. The Brookings Institution says " When analysts, sometimes innocently, use poll numbers as a definitive guide to public opinion even on issues to which most people have given little thought, they are writing fiction more than citing fact."

Just because someone is asked their opinion and gives it, does not mean that they are informed on the subject of the questions. If someone doesn't read the news, chase the facts or do even a hint of research on a subject, why should their opinion count? Just because they have one? Right.

Posted by: Pixelflash at March 14, 2006 04:10 PM (O+1/6)

69 Knock it off with the polls, Larry. That's for me to do.

Posted by: mikeypoo at March 14, 2006 04:11 PM (9J+06)

70 Gotta admit it would be nice having libs fight face to face with us for a change.

But it hasn't happened yet, and Clooney's pulpit-pounding-in-the-heart-of-Hollywood notwithstanding, I kinda doubt it ever will.

Posted by: Scott at March 14, 2006 04:22 PM (f8958)

71 The biggest problem with polls is that not only does it matter how you ask the question, it matters when you call (conservatives tend to not be home during the day) and where you call (there are literally books with numbers laid out by demographics that you can use to target your poll). Most conservatives are annoyed with or too busy to answer pollsters, and further pollsters don't call Cell-Phones and thus miss a huge segment of people who don't even have a land line any more. I call this effect "Poll Holes" and it's becoming more and more blatant a problem every day.

But put all that aside. Polls do not inform or judge the intelligence or capacity for proper response of the people who answer. A perfect example was the Social Security reform program President Bush proposed.

When the New York Times asked its usual suspects whether they supported the "Bush Plan" only 30% did. Then they asked people if they would support a plan that was identical to what Bush proposed - but without the NYT given name attached to it - 60% thought it was a great idea.

The biggest problem I have overall with polls, however, is how they are used. When a news organization has an opinion or idea they want to put on the front page but no news to back it... they do a poll, then report the poll as if it somehow is news.

Back in the good old days, news organizations reported news, they didn't CREATE it. And that's what polls do, they create an event for the news groups to "report" on, and they allow these organizations to put opinion on the front page without identifying it as such.

In short, the only poll that matters is on election day, when people vote. And that never really goes so well for the left these days, does it?

Posted by: Canelone at March 14, 2006 04:26 PM (1Vbso)

72 What clichéd, feculant, bourgeois tripe that is!

what, ace's blog? ;-)

Posted by: alessandra at March 14, 2006 04:30 PM (n/PLG)

73 What clichéd, feculant, bourgeois tripe that is!

Well, not exactly a big fan of Colbert, are you? ;-)

I didn't see it this way. I do agree his style is very stylized, but that's certainly his objective. I liked the peacefulness, this kind of dreamingness, a kind of levitation feeling the photographs contain, plus how the humans integrate with the animals in a highly symbolic, metaphorical way. the sepia choice is lovely too.

What photographer do you like that focuses on nature and relationships between humans and animals that you don't think falls into the clichéd and bourgeois? And how do you define bourgeois regarding Colbert ? (it wasn't clear to me what you meant)

Posted by: alessandra at March 14, 2006 04:31 PM (n/PLG)

74 Ahhh, you and I dear, it's just not to be.

Aww, the beginning of something beautiful ruined by a couple of elephants in sepia tone - LOL

And I'm no homo either.

Hello! PRO-homo as in pro-homosexuality - as in someone who holds a certain sexual/political ideology and worldview. Not to be reduced/equated to being a homosexual.

Although do have to say the most of the (married/straight) fanatical pro-homos that I personally know, either have already clearly demonstrated that they are not all that heterosexual or they really make you suspicious about their closeted bisexuality.

Posted by: alessandra at March 14, 2006 04:40 PM (n/PLG)

75 alessandra:

Actually I don't even like photography as art. I like painting, sculpture, classic fiction/poetry, and particularly Wagner's operas as art, but I don't have any use for photography. Feh.

The bourgeois comment? The pictures strike me as having a clichéd look of middlebrow faux sophistication - the kind of garbage middle class shmucks get impressed over. Like I said, the photos look like they came out of an advertisement in Time or Newsweek.

Posted by: Otho Laurence at March 14, 2006 04:50 PM (R9O/9)

76 I'm "pro-homo". As a single straight guy, I encourage all other men to be gay.

Posted by: sandy burger at March 14, 2006 04:54 PM (Sw8Cn)

77 As a single straight guy, I encourage all other men to be gay.

And where you live it seems to be working.

Posted by: geoff at March 14, 2006 04:57 PM (vpYuK)

78 alessandra:

I would also say that I'm definately not "pro-homo" in any way. If you've read any of my posts from the BBM threads you'd know that. I'm a church going, Saint Augustine reading, very socially conservative Catholic. Possibly with the exception of Bart, I'm the most socially conservative person that comments on this blog.

Posted by: Otho Laurence at March 14, 2006 04:58 PM (R9O/9)

79 I'm "pro-homo".

In that case I think you would find Allah's story, The Littlest Homo, posted on Alarmingnews.com quite heart warming.

Posted by: shawn at March 14, 2006 04:59 PM (qJQ8b)

80 I like painting, sculpture, classic fiction/poetry, and particularly Wagner's operas as art

Possibly with the exception of Bart, I'm the most socially conservative person that comments on this blog.

Otho, if you hadn't spelled "definitely" wrong, I would be all over you like white on rice on a paper plate in the middle of a snowstorm, even though the guy in that picture was really creepy-looking.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at March 14, 2006 05:05 PM (CJ8Zp)

81 I think it's about time sandy burger informs us that not all (only some!) gay men compact the fecal contents of their lower colon with another man's erect penis.

Always such a relief that little tid bit is.

Posted by: Otho Laurence at March 14, 2006 05:07 PM (R9O/9)

82 Hey, did you guys know that-

Oh. Hi, Otho. Never mind.

Posted by: sandy burger at March 14, 2006 05:10 PM (Sw8Cn)

83 Ahh fuck. Well you know I'm a computer programmer and there's no such thing as spelling wrong as long as the program compiles.

Posted by: Otho Laurence at March 14, 2006 05:10 PM (R9O/9)

84 Spelling is very important, Otho...my ex-fiancé couldn't spell worth a damn, and it still irritated me after 4 years of dating. Do you know how hard it is to take a love letter seriously when it informs you that you are "beatiful"?

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at March 14, 2006 05:43 PM (CJ8Zp)

85 LOL

his Valentine card:

To my beatiful durrling:

Rozes are redd...

Posted by: alessandra at March 14, 2006 05:57 PM (n/PLG)

86 Like dig it man, I was sayin you were a beatiful chick, like happenin!

Posted by: Peel's Fiance at March 14, 2006 07:52 PM (1Vbso)

87 Geoff and Canelone,

Excellent posts. No wonder Larry the urban turbanite cut and ran.

Posted by: max at March 14, 2006 08:24 PM (INrY9)

88 As RICARD PRYOR said in the movie STIR CRAZY rights right were bad

Posted by: spurwing plover at March 14, 2006 09:42 PM (Zy1Y5)

89 Possibly with the exception of Bart, I'm the most socially conservative person that comments on this blog.

And damn proud of it, too.

Do you know who spawned me?

Wicked Pinto and Allesandra.

Posted by: Bart at March 15, 2006 03:56 AM (33rKV)

90 Emma Peel, you weren't engaged to Barbara Streisand, were you?

Posted by: Canelone at March 15, 2006 12:17 PM (1Vbso)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0231 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0115 seconds, 99 records returned.
Page size 77 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat